Doug Weldon Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 'Barb: I realized I did not answer your last two questions. Yes, i was taken aback at the end of the interview of Nick about Greer's wife. I know the name of the researcher (or former researcher as I have not seen his name in years) who knew Greer and his wife when he died and was given a manuscript written by Greer and paintings done by Greer and I think part of his reasoning for not releasing the manuscript was because of Greer's wife. I also have two telephone interviews of Greer done in 1970 and 1971 by someone. I can only surmise that Greer remarried after his wife died. Doug Hi Doug, Yes, I am aware of the name of that researcher as well. You can only surmise? Well, no, you could have checked it out.<g> But in this case, the info has been available for some time ... from Vince Palamara and Greer's 1985 obituary, at least. Wife Ethel passed away in 1969; second wife is Mary, who gave the papers to the researcher. How was it Prencipe said he was still in touch with Greer until after, at least, 1969? Greer retired in '66. Was basically off my computer yesterday, that's true for the most part today as well ... I see several posts I need to respond to, especially your 2 large ones ... tomorrow. Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Thanks for the info. I simply did not know about Greer's wives. I looked up Greer on the web and didn't find anything. You did better than I in getting the info. I can't speak for Nick. As you are aware, he said he and Greer were friends. It would not have surprised me if they stayed in touch. This IS speculation. Thanks for the information on the wives. Do you know anything about what is going on with the researcher who has Greer's manuscript? It would be interesting to see what was written. I tried, without success, many times to get him to release it. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 Josiah: With all due repect I thought I had responded in a previous post that I am not a photographic expert and I am not going to pretend to be one now. When I have questions I consult experts. My analysis of the photograph would be meaningless. I do know that Martin has posted that he believed the damage in Altgen's 6 and 7 are the same and further that the two windshields in your article are not the same. Other, than that I continue to follow the thread. I have not heard any response from you about the information I have presented about the witnesses and the impossibilities in the record, i.e. Ferguson driving through a time warp. Doug Weldon I would have thought you might have consulted experts with regard to the claim that Altgens #6 shows a through-and-through bullet hole. I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield? I'm no photo expert. But I don't think it takes one to look at Altgens #6 and see the socalled "sprial nebula" is something seen through the windshield and not something in the windshield. What's your thought on this? Josiah Thompson Josiah: I did consult a number of experts. Two did what they called a "grey-scale analysis" with a computer to determine that it was a through and through hole. To me, it looks like it is IN the windshield. Doug Weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Josiah: I did consult a number of experts. Two did what they called a "grey-scale analysis" with a computer to determine that it was a through and through hole. To me, it looks like it is IN the windshield. Doug Weldon I'm scratching my head to figure out how a "grey-scale analysis" could show that the socalled "spiral nebula" contained a through-and-through bullet hole. In addition, everything depends on how close to Altgens' original negative was the copy studied by your experts. It seems to me that such an analysis might show whether the grey-scale tonalities matched forms seen through the windshield. But showing there was a bullet hole in the windshield? How? Could you give us a little more information? Unnamed experts with unseen reports don't carry a lot of probative weight. I understand I asked for what you had done. But it might be useful to begin discussing what sort of photographic measurements might disclose whether the "spiral nebula" was seen through the windshield or a feature of the windshield. How about it it? Duncan? Craig? Josiah Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted February 24, 2010 Author Share Posted February 24, 2010 Josiah: With all due repect I thought I had responded in a previous post that I am not a photographic expert and I am not going to pretend to be one now. When I have questions I consult experts. My analysis of the photograph would be meaningless. I do know that Martin has posted that he believed the damage in Altgen's 6 and 7 are the same and further that the two windshields in your article are not the same. Other, than that I continue to follow the thread. I have not heard any response from you about the information I have presented about the witnesses and the impossibilities in the record, i.e. Ferguson driving through a time warp. Doug Weldon I would have thought you might have consulted experts with regard to the claim that Altgens #6 shows a through-and-through bullet hole. I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield? I'm no photo expert. But I don't think it takes one to look at Altgens #6 and see the socalled "sprial nebula" is something seen through the windshield and not something in the windshield. What's your thought on this? Josiah Thompson Josiah: I am being cooperative in answering your questions and I hope in turn you will offer your contributions to the many questions I Have raised in my posts. I am not your enemy. You asked, " I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield?" I have alwas promised myself that if I .was convinced that I was wrong on something that I would admit it. Your questions are fair and though I have seen efforts to mask Altgen's as I showed in my Minnesots presentation, if the spiral nebulae was" proven" not to be a hole after all the evidence is presented, it woulld impact my confidence that it was a through and through hole that probably caused the throat wound. I am not afraid to ever admit if I am proven wrong on something and I purposely engaged who I thought were smart people in you, Jerry, and Barb. I want to understand the strongest arguments in opposition that can be raised. I would acknowledge that but I would need to hear the counterpoints. I have no question that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield unless it could be proven that the witnesses knew each other and corroborated with each other to create a deception for some unfathomable reason, I am not suggesting Altgen's was altered but can show as I did on you-tube that altered Altgen photos appeared in the press that day and each coincidentally masked the hole show in Altgen's. I do know there was a provable elaborate scheme to alter the evidence on the windshield and one has to ask why. For many reasons Whitaker's account is reliable and fits with the known evidence. Without question there was an attempt made to conceal what happened to the windshield as I have outlined and was able to verify with many of the key players involved. I do know there were witnesses who independently corroborated each other about the same defect, a hole, and could not have possibley have known about the observations of others. Coincidence? I went to Willard Hess, was given his contemporaneous notes that conflict with the "official story" .Hess believed somrthing was wrong. My question in return is if you are presented reasonable proofs that contradict your position will you admit it? Doug weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) Josiah: With all due repect I thought I had responded in a previous post that I am not a photographic expert and I am not going to pretend to be one now. When I have questions I consult experts. My analysis of the photograph would be meaningless. I do know that Martin has posted that he believed the damage in Altgen's 6 and 7 are the same and further that the two windshields in your article are not the same. Other, than that I continue to follow the thread. I have not heard any response from you about the information I have presented about the witnesses and the impossibilities in the record, i.e. Ferguson driving through a time warp. Doug Weldon I would have thought you might have consulted experts with regard to the claim that Altgens #6 shows a through-and-through bullet hole. I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield? I'm no photo expert. But I don't think it takes one to look at Altgens #6 and see the socalled "sprial nebula" is something seen through the windshield and not something in the windshield. What's your thought on this? Josiah Thompson Josiah: I am being cooperative in answering your questions and I hope in turn you will offer your contributions to the many questions I Have raised in my posts. I am not your enemy. You asked, " I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield?" I have alwas promised myself that if I .was convinced that I was wrong on something that I would admit it. Your questions are fair and though I have seen efforts to mask Altgen's as I showed in my Minnesots presentation, if the spiral nebulae was" proven" not to be a hole after all the evidence is presented, it woulld impact my confidence that it was a through and through hole that probably caused the throat wound. I am not afraid to ever admit if I am proven wrong on something and I purposely engaged who I thought were smart people in you, Jerry, and Barb. I want to understand the strongest arguments in opposition that can be raised. I would acknowledge that but I would need to hear the counterpoints. I have no question that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield unless it could be proven that the witnesses knew each other and corroborated with each other to create a deception for some unfathomable reason, I am not suggesting Altgen's was altered but can show as I did on you-tube that altered Altgen photos appeared in the press that day and each coincidentally masked the hole show in Altgen's. I do know there was a provable elaborate scheme to alter the evidence on the windshield and one has to ask why. For many reasons Whitaker's account is reliable and fits with the known evidence. Without question there was an attempt made to conceal what happened to the windshield as I have outlined and was able to verify with many of the key players involved. I do know there were witnesses who independently corroborated each other about the same defect, a hole, and could not have possibley have known about the observations of others. Coincidence? I went to Willard Hess, was given his contemporaneous notes that conflict with the "official story" .Hess believed somrthing was wrong. My question in return is if you are presented reasonable proofs that contradict your position will you admit it? Doug weldon Doug...NO, the gang will never admit error, not even the polite but now absent Mr. Logan. I can verify this by more than 10 years experience reading their assorted fumferring*. You are reasonable. You offer proof. The gang is unreasonable. The NEVER offer proof. Jack * a wonderful Yiddish word used by Jerry Seinfeld...which means EVADING or BABBLING MEANINGLESSLY. Edited February 24, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 dr.jim i found page 436 from hoax that jack had posted previously...b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Josiah: I am being cooperative in answering your questions and I hope in turn you will offer your contributions to the many questions I Have raised in my posts. I am not your enemy. You asked, " I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield?" I have alwas promised myself that if I .was convinced that I was wrong on something that I would admit it. Your questions are fair and though I have seen efforts to mask Altgen's as I showed in my Minnesots presentation, if the spiral nebulae was" proven" not to be a hole after all the evidence is presented, it woulld impact my confidence that it was a through and through hole that probably caused the throat wound. I am not afraid to ever admit if I am proven wrong on something and I purposely engaged who I thought were smart people in you, Jerry, and Barb. I want to understand the strongest arguments in opposition that can be raised. I would acknowledge that but I would need to hear the counterpoints. I have no question that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield unless it could be proven that the witnesses knew each other and corroborated with each other to create a deception for some unfathomable reason, I am not suggesting Altgen's was altered but can show as I did on you-tube that altered Altgen photos appeared in the press that day and each coincidentally masked the hole show in Altgen's. I do know there was a provable elaborate scheme to alter the evidence on the windshield and one has to ask why. For many reasons Whitaker's account is reliable and fits with the known evidence. Without question there was an attempt made to conceal what happened to the windshield as I have outlined and was able to verify with many of the key players involved. I do know there were witnesses who independently corroborated each other about the same defect, a hole, and could not have possibley have known about the observations of others. Coincidence? I went to Willard Hess, was given his contemporaneous notes that conflict with the "official story" .Hess believed somrthing was wrong. My question in return is if you are presented reasonable proofs that contradict your position will you admit it? Doug weldon Actually, the logic is a bit more restrictive than you give it credit for here. If Altgens #6 shows what it appears to show... no damage to the windshield at Z255... then a series of photos, witness reports and lab studies all hang together. Since Altgens #7 shows windshield damage where it was later observed and photographed by Frazier, one would presume that the damage to the windshield occurred about the time of the head shot. This timing matches nicely what was actually observed by Frazier... non penetrating damage to the interior of the windshield with a lead smear on the interior surface. This too was what Frazier photographed . The damage he photographed and described in his notes matches the damage we see in Altgens #7. This is a logical net that hangs together and is confirmed by the reports of other agents who ran their hands over the exterior surface of the windshield at the point of damage and found no penetration. Hence, if the "spiral nebula" claim of penetration fails, it does not just rule out the notion of a penetrating shot into the throat from the front, it strengthens the view that no penetration of the windshield occurred. I find photographic evidence from Dealey Plaza matched by crime scene investigation by Frazier and others to trump later claims of multiple windshields. I am reminded by what happened with respect to the "unbrella man." No one could imagine a non-sininster reason for someone to open an umbrella at just the point where shots begin to rain into the limousine. Yet when I heard of Witt's explanation, I said to myself, "Yep, that's the way things are here in the human world. No one could have thought of such a non-sinister explanation before Witt offered it. It's immediately believable." And so with other kinds of witness reports. I can't think of a non-sinister explanation for much of the screwing around with windshields but that does not mean there isn't one. Nor does that mean that things really happened the way you think they happened. Hence, I'm much more impressed by the probative power of photos and reports from Dealey Plaza and the White House garage. Josiah Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Thanks, Bernice. The Ferguson memo, I notice, is dated 18 December 1963, allegedly reporting on his observations of 23 November 1963. This sounds very suspicious, especially since the original was still on the limousine when it was taken to Ford for reconstruction, which, of course, included replacing the windshield. By the 18th, it would have become apparent that there was a problem with the hole, which, after all, had been photographed. Ferguson's report appears to be tailor- made (custom fit) to suggest windshield © was on the limo on the 23rd. Doug verified the existence of a through-and- through hole with the official responsible for its replacement. I have noticed that, over the years or the course of debate, the dark hole at the center has become more and more obscure in some of these photographs. What is fascinating is Jim Lewis has been traveling through the South and firing high velocity rounds though the windshields of junked cars to see if can hit a dummy in the back seat from about 200 yards. He has not only had no trouble hitting the dummy but has found that the bullet passing through the windshield makes the sound of a firecracker. I suppose we all know that many of the witnesses reported that the "first shot" sounded different than the rest and "like a firecracker". Furthermore, as it passes through the windshield, it creates a small, white spiral nebula that looks like the one in the Altgens photograph. What is the chance of JFK being hit in the throat, a small, white spiral nebula appearing in the windshield, and the sound of what witnesses took to be a firecracker if it was not the case that the bullet created those effects en route to his throat? The probability of precisely those effects, given a shot from the south end of the Triple Underpass, is extremely high--about one, actually!--while the probability of those effects, given no shot from the south end of the Triple Underpass, is rather low--about zero, actually! So perhaps they offered no instruction in reasoning at Yale, but if Tink has a more plausible explanation for the data, I think this is the time for him to produce it. This charade has been carried on long enough. dr.jim i found page 436 from hoax that jack had posted previously...b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) Furthermore, as it passes through the windshield, it creates a small, white spiral nebula that looks like the one in the Altgens photograph. You say this is the case, now prove it. Show us a photo of a medium or high-velocity bullet fired through a windshield that looks anything remotely like what you see in Altgens #6. Otherwise, like before, you're just making things up. Obviously, you'd like to talk about something else and not the very real progress Martin and others have made in figuring this out. It now seems to be the case that the purse/pocket (or whatever) carried by Lady #8 is in a proper position to produce the "spiral nebula" image that you've referred to. It would seem that anyone claiming the "spiral nebula" is something else is going to have to show that this is not the case. Be our guest! Josiah Thompson Edited February 24, 2010 by Josiah Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) DOUG I HAVE FINALLY FOUND THE HSCA LIMO CHRONOLOGY....SHEESH. HERE YOU GO... ..B THE PHOTO IS MARKED HSCA 1 W/H GARAGE..THAT IS WHAT I HAVE... Edited February 24, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 This has been an interesting discussion but.... I would like to politely request, once again, that posters delete the text of previous messages when replying, unless they are responding to a specific point or points in a previous post. Most here are still guilty of doing this, and it just makes for tedious reading. If you can help here, I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be very grateful. As for the substance of the debate, once again we are faced with deciding upon the credibility of disparate eyewitnesses vs. that of "official" witnesses (FBI, Secret Service, etc.), as well as the all too familiar arguments over film interpretation. As is the case with film alteration in general, I don't feel the case for conspiracy hinges on there being a hole in the windshield. However, that doesn't mean that we should discard the testimony of all those witnesses, unconnected to each other, who reported seeing a hole. As I noted during an earlier debate on the article by Josiah and Barb, I wasn't overly impressed with their arguments. But that's natural, since I long ago came to distrust "official" sources like Frazier and the Secret Service. I think that's what most significant arguments between researchers boil down to nowadays; do you trust official sources or not? I do not, and I believe that only a few decades ago the vast majority of critics didn't, either. Some are skeptical of "eyewitness" testimony, while others (like myself) are skeptical of pronouncements by officials from the FBI, Dallas Police, Secret Service, etc. Josiah, I was amazed to read your statement about Steven Witt. Did you honestly find his story instantly believable? You weren't suspicious about the timing of his coming out, or his lack of knowledge about what was going on that day in Dallas? Is it plausible that someone would choose a motorcade in Dallas to lodge an esoteric protest against President Kennedy's father's support of Neville Chamberlain prior to WWII? Isn't the purpose behind a protest the advertisement of a complaint or concern? How could anyone know what this guy was protesting? When Witt's testimony before the HSCA was first analyzed in the pages of The Continuing Inquiry, I think there was a unanimous consensus among critics that his story was blatantly ridiculous. What has happened in the intervening years to make it less ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) Hi Martin,The clapping lady in the white blouse, blue skirt ... by the almost square bright spot you are talking about, are you referring to the white purse she has hanging down in front of her skirt on her right, just below her elbow, at about hip level covering up her tummy on that side? Bests, Barb :-) Barb, i've tinted the POI in green. The pocket or white purse. best Martin Edited February 24, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Can you see it too Josiah? Todd, thank you for your sharp eye and your compliment. Thank god there are people out there whom realize it. Martin Maybe this will help, Martin. It's an enlargement from the original Altgens #6 negative that was done in 1967. It's about as clear as anything I've seen and matches what Pamela got from an Archives copy. The light area containing the socalled "spiral nebula" has a dark area very near it. This would be what you would get with the dark green surrounding the light area that Barb thought might be a "purse" being held by Lady #8. The white area surronded by green would show up in Altgens from a very different angle... nearly in profile. This looks better and better, Martin. You may have the answer. Doug Weldon started this thread but has uttered not a peep when asked if he believes Altgens #6 shows a bullet hole in the windshield. What do you think, Doug? Has Martin worked us to the answer concerning the true nature of the socalled "spiral nebula?" Josiah Thompson Tink, you misunderstood me. Let me repeat from an ealier post: I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no solution for this crucial part. What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror. Important is: a.) the correct angle of the windshield b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield. Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6. Please test it by your own if possible with photographs. It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood. Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6. We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center. How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way? A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft. You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved. And the discussion of it has not ended. In Posting #114 i made it also clear. Anthony Marsh+Jerry Logan and me are in disagreement. I do believe we see the the same damage in ALtgens6 and 7. I don't know if it's a hole. But for sure a damage. I hope this is now clear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted February 24, 2010 Author Share Posted February 24, 2010 Can you see it too Josiah? Todd, thank you for your sharp eye and your compliment. Thank god there are people out there whom realize it. Martin Maybe this will help, Martin. It's an enlargement from the original Altgens #6 negative that was done in 1967. It's about as clear as anything I've seen and matches what Pamela got from an Archives copy. The light area containing the socalled "spiral nebula" has a dark area very near it. This would be what you would get with the dark green surrounding the light area that Barb thought might be a "purse" being held by Lady #8. The white area surronded by green would show up in Altgens from a very different angle... nearly in profile. This looks better and better, Martin. You may have the answer. Doug Weldon started this thread but has uttered not a peep when asked if he believes Altgens #6 shows a bullet hole in the windshield. What do you think, Doug? Has Martin worked us to the answer concerning the true nature of the socalled "spiral nebula?" Josiah Thompson Tink, you misunderstood me. Let me repeat from an ealier post: I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no solution for this crucial part. What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror. Important is: a.) the correct angle of the windshield b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield. Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6. Please test it by your own if possible with photographs. It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood. Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6. We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center. How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way? A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft. You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved. And the discussion of it has not ended. In Posting #114 i made it also clear. Anthony Marsh+Jerry Logan and me are in disagreement. I do believe we see the the same damage in ALtgens6 and 7. I don't know if it's a hole. But for sure a damage. I hope this is now clear! Martin: Thank you. That is what I had understood you to state before. Best, Doug Weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 As far as I recall, Anthony Marsh pointed out that the socalled "spiral nebula" was a swirl in the fabric of a woman's dress. I don't recall him saying anything about a "pocket."Josiah Thompson Ok, here you go: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...5d2e193200932e9 Anthony Marsh: It is the woman in the background, something she was wearing or carrying, possibly a dress or purse. You can even see the folds and shadows from the folds. Photographic evidence is not his strength it appeared to be. /o\ Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now