Jump to content
The Education Forum
Doug Weldon

A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

Recommended Posts

Hello Doug,

You were right to bring this forward. It's an important topic and a verifiable , correct answer would resolve a lot of questions about the assassination and investigation. I hope we're not keeping you from finishing your book! It's good to review the known materials but I'd really like to see all the new information you've developed.

Before we get started, I'd like your comments on some photos. As you know, these have been represented as taken by the FBI on the early morning of the 23rd and the Secret Service later in the day on the 23rd. I'd like to know when you think they were taken and if or how they've been materially altered.

Also, it would be helpful if you could tell me if you believe Charles Taylor saw the original, real Dallas motorcade windshield. And finally, how you think Vaughn Ferguson fits into the story.

As always, when we get into this area, Tony Marsh needs to be mentioned for his work at the Archives in bringing these images to our attention and making his copies available for our use.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing.

My very best,

Doug

Doug,

Please accept my apology for asking you to go over old ground. I'm sure you'll recognize that, in part, I'm making a record so those following the thread will understand.

CE 350 - why do you doubt it? Do you think it has been altered? Do you think it's a photo of a windshield, just not the right windshield? What about the photo specifically calls it into question? And when do you believe the photo was taken?

You're OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct? And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?

Vaughn Ferguson - what advantage was gained by claiming that he drove the car to Ohio? In what way was the cover-up advanced by driving rather than flying the car?

Best regards,

Jerry

Jerry:

I would like your response and Barb's response to what I have written. I know both of you have followed the thread. Both of you have had an opportunity to examine my Minnesota presentation and I know Barb has listened to my first conversation with Nick Prencipe. My postings have been a response to the article the two of you and Thompson wrote dismissing the credibility of witnesses and whether there was a hole in the windshield. Have I misstated or misrepresented anything in your views? If so, I would like to know in order to respond or to correct anything I have offered. Has your position changed at all about anything? I have asked many questions for which there has yet to be any response. Do you still consider trained police officers who witnessed the hole in the windshield to be "casual observers?" Have either of you changed your opinions about the credibility of Nick Prencipe? If not, what questions do you still have. I have many communications from the late Nick Prencipe and it is likely I can respond to most questions in his own words. Do you still maintain that Charles Taylor's affidavit stating that there was no hole in the windshield trumps what he wrote on the eve of the assassination and his statement confirming such in 1975 before signing the affidavit. Do you see similarity between the change in his position and Dudman's. Why did you omit and not address George Whitaker's critical account of seeing the limo in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25, 1963 and his contention that he stated with 100% certainty that there was a hole in the windshield entering from the front and that they created a new windshield for the limo and destroyed the one with a hole in it? What do you believe would be the motive for all of these witnesses, most of who did not know any of the others, for fabricating the exact same account that they were certain they saw a hole in the windshield? Was it just coincidental that they all described the exact defect, a hole in the windshield? What would have been their motive for giving their accounts? Would it have caused them to feel like they were more important or give themselves some added status? Was the reason for their fears was that they did not want to get caught in a lie or was it something else? I have tried for a long time to get a response from you and Barb on these questions and if and how your perceptions are any different from when you wrote the article ad that my position on these issues. Has your position changed from when you wrote "Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community."

We can disagree and still be friends. I have come to like and respect you and Barb but I need to know the parameters of where we agree and disagree to better focus on the issues. I can assure you this is not about me or any ego I might have but it is about the evidence and I take it very seriously. I would like to define those areas and I need you and Barb to respond and as a beginning to respond to everything above.

Now to briefly answer your current. questions. It seems silly but, of course, I believe CE 350 is a windshield. Why do I doubt it that it was the Dallas windshield? First, of all, it does not have clear evidence of a hole and it and from what each of the witnesses said it was very obvious that the hole was easily discernable. Also, I believe there is compelling evidence that the windshield was changed a number of times. See "Best Evidence' or my chapter in MIDP. Also see James Hosty's book and his observation of the windshield. I don't believe that the Secret Service ordered twelve duplicate windshields for "Target Practice." Do you? I have no idea of when CE 350 was taken, again, because I believe the evidence shows there were multiple switches as clearly you now have some question about because of your response to Hinrich's study. Please note there are many things I have little or no expertise about and I do not proclam such. as an example, I know little about photography but like you did with Martin Hinrich when I have questions I consult experts. The same is true for ballistics and numerous other areas. When there appears to be a conflict between photos and witnesses observations I try to resolve that by further questioning the witnesses, determining whether there is corroboration for what they saw, and/or having other evidence examined.

You are an attorney. Words are very important. You ask, "OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct?" I did not say there were "focus" problems. I said the photos are so dark or overexposed they are virtually worthless as far as evidentiary value in determining whether there was a hole in the windshield. I cannot explain the apparent lighting differences between the FBI photos and the Secret Service photos.

You further ask about the Secret Service photos "And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?" To be consistent with what I stated about the FBI photos I am not aware of any authentication of anyone under oath as to who took the pictures and when they were taken either. I am simply stating they do not appear to offer any evidentiary value as to the windshield.

There are so many problems with F. Vaughn Ferguson, a Ford Motor Company employee, and I discuss in MIDP it in much more detail, Let's take two other points as simple examples. Ferguson stated in his December 18,1963 memorandum that Arlington Glass replaced the windshield on November 25, 1963. The WH Garage logs are very clear this was allegedly done on November 26, 1963. No one logged in to have contact with the limousine on November 25, 1963. Why would Ferguson do this? I believe a reasonable supposition is that if George Whitaker is truthful, and I believe he is, then the limousine was at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25 which would have taken the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company working together to engage in a cover-up. Remember the Secret Service was leasing the Kennedy limo from Ford in 1963 for $500 per year. The Ferguson memo could provide a cover for the limo not being in Dearborn on November 25 and absent the presence of the WH Garage logs it could have worked. as another example Ferguson wrote that he observed the windshield on November 23, 1963 and that "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." I extend an open invitation to anyone to produce a diagram, a report, or a picture showing a crack or other damage "Directly" beneath the mirror. I believe a shell game was being played and evidence was generated to confuse and obstruct the record. Do you believe Ferguson drove the limo 520 miles on December 20, 1963 from Washington to Dearborn in very inclement weather. Do you believe he had to stop for gas or that the vehicle was capable of getting mileage that to this date would not be obtainable for a car that size? Do you think people might have noticed him? What would he have done if the car broke down or had a flat tire? Why do the official records of Hess and Eisenhardt show that the car arrived there on December 13, 1963. Did Ferguon drive through a time warp? Did you know that two of the four discrepancies noted by the HSCA in trying to develop a chronology of what happened to the limousine involved Ferguson's "testimony", a testimony that cannot be found unless perhaps it is buried somewhere and labeled "Top Secret?"

Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward.

My very best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Doug,

You were right to bring this forward. It's an important topic and a verifiable , correct answer would resolve a lot of questions about the assassination and investigation. I hope we're not keeping you from finishing your book! It's good to review the known materials but I'd really like to see all the new information you've developed.

Before we get started, I'd like your comments on some photos. As you know, these have been represented as taken by the FBI on the early morning of the 23rd and the Secret Service later in the day on the 23rd. I'd like to know when you think they were taken and if or how they've been materially altered.

Also, it would be helpful if you could tell me if you believe Charles Taylor saw the original, real Dallas motorcade windshield. And finally, how you think Vaughn Ferguson fits into the story.

As always, when we get into this area, Tony Marsh needs to be mentioned for his work at the Archives in bringing these images to our attention and making his copies available for our use.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry and Barb:

I forgot to make one other point in regards to F. Vaughn Ferguson when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." Don't you find it unusual that he did something that the FBI did in their report, that is describe the negative, specifically noting something that was NOT there. Note he said "disclosed no perforation." Why would he do that? Don't you think he would have just said I saw the windshield and it had substantial cracking... Why did he go out of his way to say there was no hole if that wasn't an issue. Again, as I have noted before one can describe the negative ad infinitum (ad nauseum) i.e, there were no holes, grass stains, dog prints

Jerry:

I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing.

My very best,

Doug

Doug,

Please accept my apology for asking you to go over old ground. I'm sure you'll recognize that, in part, I'm making a record so those following the thread will understand.

CE 350 - why do you doubt it? Do you think it has been altered? Do you think it's a photo of a windshield, just not the right windshield? What about the photo specifically calls it into question? And when do you believe the photo was taken?

You're OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct? And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?

Vaughn Ferguson - what advantage was gained by claiming that he drove the car to Ohio? In what way was the cover-up advanced by driving rather than flying the car?

Best regards,

Jerry

Jerry:

I would like your response and Barb's response to what I have written. I know both of you have followed the thread. Both of you have had an opportunity to examine my Minnesota presentation and I know Barb has listened to my first conversation with Nick Prencipe. My postings have been a response to the article the two of you and Thompson wrote dismissing the credibility of witnesses and whether there was a hole in the windshield. Have I misstated or misrepresented anything in your views? If so, I would like to know in order to respond or to correct anything I have offered. Has your position changed at all about anything? I have asked many questions for which there has yet to be any response. Do you still consider trained police officers who witnessed the hole in the windshield to be "casual observers?" Have either of you changed your opinions about the credibility of Nick Prencipe? If not, what questions do you still have. I have many communications from the late Nick Prencipe and it is likely I can respond to most questions in his own words. Do you still maintain that Charles Taylor's affidavit stating that there was no hole in the windshield trumps what he wrote on the eve of the assassination and his statement confirming such in 1975 before signing the affidavit. Do you see similarity between the change in his position and Dudman's. Why did you omit and not address George Whitaker's critical account of seeing the limo in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25, 1963 and his contention that he stated with 100% certainty that there was a hole in the windshield entering from the front and that they created a new windshield for the limo and destroyed the one with a hole in it? What do you believe would be the motive for all of these witnesses, most of who did not know any of the others, for fabricating the exact same account that they were certain they saw a hole in the windshield? Was it just coincidental that they all described the exact defect, a hole in the windshield? What would have been their motive for giving their accounts? Would it have caused them to feel like they were more important or give themselves some added status? Was the reason for their fears was that they did not want to get caught in a lie or was it something else? I have tried for a long time to get a response from you and Barb on these questions and if and how your perceptions are any different from when you wrote the article ad that my position on these issues. Has your position changed from when you wrote "Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community."

We can disagree and still be friends. I have come to like and respect you and Barb but I need to know the parameters of where we agree and disagree to better focus on the issues. I can assure you this is not about me or any ego I might have but it is about the evidence and I take it very seriously. I would like to define those areas and I need you and Barb to respond and as a beginning to respond to everything above.

Now to briefly answer your current. questions. It seems silly but, of course, I believe CE 350 is a windshield. Why do I doubt it that it was the Dallas windshield? First, of all, it does not have clear evidence of a hole and it and from what each of the witnesses said it was very obvious that the hole was easily discernable. Also, I believe there is compelling evidence that the windshield was changed a number of times. See "Best Evidence' or my chapter in MIDP. Also see James Hosty's book and his observation of the windshield. I don't believe that the Secret Service ordered twelve duplicate windshields for "Target Practice." Do you? I have no idea of when CE 350 was taken, again, because I believe the evidence shows there were multiple switches as clearly you now have some question about because of your response to Hinrich's study. Please note there are many things I have little or no expertise about and I do not proclam such. as an example, I know little about photography but like you did with Martin Hinrich when I have questions I consult experts. The same is true for ballistics and numerous other areas. When there appears to be a conflict between photos and witnesses observations I try to resolve that by further questioning the witnesses, determining whether there is corroboration for what they saw, and/or having other evidence examined.

You are an attorney. Words are very important. You ask, "OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct?" I did not say there were "focus" problems. I said the photos are so dark or overexposed they are virtually worthless as far as evidentiary value in determining whether there was a hole in the windshield. I cannot explain the apparent lighting differences between the FBI photos and the Secret Service photos.

You further ask about the Secret Service photos "And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?" To be consistent with what I stated about the FBI photos I am not aware of any authentication of anyone under oath as to who took the pictures and when they were taken either. I am simply stating they do not appear to offer any evidentiary value as to the windshield.

There are so many problems with F. Vaughn Ferguson, a Ford Motor Company employee, and I discuss in MIDP it in much more detail, Let's take two other points as simple examples. Ferguson stated in his December 18,1963 memorandum that Arlington Glass replaced the windshield on November 25, 1963. The WH Garage logs are very clear this was allegedly done on November 26, 1963. No one logged in to have contact with the limousine on November 25, 1963. Why would Ferguson do this? I believe a reasonable supposition is that if George Whitaker is truthful, and I believe he is, then the limousine was at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25 which would have taken the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company working together to engage in a cover-up. Remember the Secret Service was leasing the Kennedy limo from Ford in 1963 for $500 per year. The Ferguson memo could provide a cover for the limo not being in Dearborn on November 25 and absent the presence of the WH Garage logs it could have worked. as another example Ferguson wrote that he observed the windshield on November 23, 1963 and that "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." I extend an open invitation to anyone to produce a diagram, a report, or a picture showing a crack or other damage "Directly" beneath the mirror. I believe a shell game was being played and evidence was generated to confuse and obstruct the record. Do you believe Ferguson drove the limo 520 miles on December 20, 1963 from Washington to Dearborn in very inclement weather. Do you believe he had to stop for gas or that the vehicle was capable of getting mileage that to this date would not be obtainable for a car that size? Do you think people might have noticed him? What would he have done if the car broke down or had a flat tire? Why do the official records of Hess and Eisenhardt show that the car arrived there on December 13, 1963. Did Ferguon drive through a time warp? Did you know that two of the four discrepancies noted by the HSCA in trying to develop a chronology of what happened to the limousine involved Ferguson's "testimony", a testimony that cannot be found unless perhaps it is buried somewhere and labeled "Top Secret?"

Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward.

My very best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Doug,

You were right to bring this forward. It's an important topic and a verifiable , correct answer would resolve a lot of questions about the assassination and investigation. I hope we're not keeping you from finishing your book! It's good to review the known materials but I'd really like to see all the new information you've developed.

Before we get started, I'd like your comments on some photos. As you know, these have been represented as taken by the FBI on the early morning of the 23rd and the Secret Service later in the day on the 23rd. I'd like to know when you think they were taken and if or how they've been materially altered.

Also, it would be helpful if you could tell me if you believe Charles Taylor saw the original, real Dallas motorcade windshield. And finally, how you think Vaughn Ferguson fits into the story.

As always, when we get into this area, Tony Marsh needs to be mentioned for his work at the Archives in bringing these images to our attention and making his copies available for our use.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry and Barb:

I forgot to make one other point in regards to F. Vaughn Ferguson when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." Don't you find it unusual that he did something that the FBI did in their report, that is describe the negative, specifically noting something that was NOT there. Note he said "disclosed no perforation." Why would he do that? Don't you think he would have just said I saw the windshield and it had substantial cracking... Why did he go out of his way to say there was no hole if that wasn't an issue. Again, as I have noted before one can describe the negative ad infinitum (ad nauseum) i.e, there were no holes, grass stains, dog prints

Jerry:

I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing.

My very best,

Doug

Doug,

Please accept my apology for asking you to go over old ground. I'm sure you'll recognize that, in part, I'm making a record so those following the thread will understand.

CE 350 - why do you doubt it? Do you think it has been altered? Do you think it's a photo of a windshield, just not the right windshield? What about the photo specifically calls it into question? And when do you believe the photo was taken?

You're OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct? And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?

Vaughn Ferguson - what advantage was gained by claiming that he drove the car to Ohio? In what way was the cover-up advanced by driving rather than flying the car?

Best regards,

Jerry

Jerry:

I would like your response and Barb's response to what I have written. I know both of you have followed the thread. Both of you have had an opportunity to examine my Minnesota presentation and I know Barb has listened to my first conversation with Nick Prencipe. My postings have been a response to the article the two of you and Thompson wrote dismissing the credibility of witnesses and whether there was a hole in the windshield. Have I misstated or misrepresented anything in your views? If so, I would like to know in order to respond or to correct anything I have offered. Has your position changed at all about anything? I have asked many questions for which there has yet to be any response. Do you still consider trained police officers who witnessed the hole in the windshield to be "casual observers?" Have either of you changed your opinions about the credibility of Nick Prencipe? If not, what questions do you still have. I have many communications from the late Nick Prencipe and it is likely I can respond to most questions in his own words. Do you still maintain that Charles Taylor's affidavit stating that there was no hole in the windshield trumps what he wrote on the eve of the assassination and his statement confirming such in 1975 before signing the affidavit. Do you see similarity between the change in his position and Dudman's. Why did you omit and not address George Whitaker's critical account of seeing the limo in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25, 1963 and his contention that he stated with 100% certainty that there was a hole in the windshield entering from the front and that they created a new windshield for the limo and destroyed the one with a hole in it? What do you believe would be the motive for all of these witnesses, most of who did not know any of the others, for fabricating the exact same account that they were certain they saw a hole in the windshield? Was it just coincidental that they all described the exact defect, a hole in the windshield? What would have been their motive for giving their accounts? Would it have caused them to feel like they were more important or give themselves some added status? Was the reason for their fears was that they did not want to get caught in a lie or was it something else? I have tried for a long time to get a response from you and Barb on these questions and if and how your perceptions are any different from when you wrote the article ad that my position on these issues. Has your position changed from when you wrote "Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community."

We can disagree and still be friends. I have come to like and respect you and Barb but I need to know the parameters of where we agree and disagree to better focus on the issues. I can assure you this is not about me or any ego I might have but it is about the evidence and I take it very seriously. I would like to define those areas and I need you and Barb to respond and as a beginning to respond to everything above.

Now to briefly answer your current. questions. It seems silly but, of course, I believe CE 350 is a windshield. Why do I doubt it that it was the Dallas windshield? First, of all, it does not have clear evidence of a hole and it and from what each of the witnesses said it was very obvious that the hole was easily discernable. Also, I believe there is compelling evidence that the windshield was changed a number of times. See "Best Evidence' or my chapter in MIDP. Also see James Hosty's book and his observation of the windshield. I don't believe that the Secret Service ordered twelve duplicate windshields for "Target Practice." Do you? I have no idea of when CE 350 was taken, again, because I believe the evidence shows there were multiple switches as clearly you now have some question about because of your response to Hinrich's study. Please note there are many things I have little or no expertise about and I do not proclam such. as an example, I know little about photography but like you did with Martin Hinrich when I have questions I consult experts. The same is true for ballistics and numerous other areas. When there appears to be a conflict between photos and witnesses observations I try to resolve that by further questioning the witnesses, determining whether there is corroboration for what they saw, and/or having other evidence examined.

You are an attorney. Words are very important. You ask, "OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct?" I did not say there were "focus" problems. I said the photos are so dark or overexposed they are virtually worthless as far as evidentiary value in determining whether there was a hole in the windshield. I cannot explain the apparent lighting differences between the FBI photos and the Secret Service photos.

You further ask about the Secret Service photos "And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?" To be consistent with what I stated about the FBI photos I am not aware of any authentication of anyone under oath as to who took the pictures and when they were taken either. I am simply stating they do not appear to offer any evidentiary value as to the windshield.

There are so many problems with F. Vaughn Ferguson, a Ford Motor Company employee, and I discuss in MIDP it in much more detail, Let's take two other points as simple examples. Ferguson stated in his December 18,1963 memorandum that Arlington Glass replaced the windshield on November 25, 1963. The WH Garage logs are very clear this was allegedly done on November 26, 1963. No one logged in to have contact with the limousine on November 25, 1963. Why would Ferguson do this? I believe a reasonable supposition is that if George Whitaker is truthful, and I believe he is, then the limousine was at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25 which would have taken the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company working together to engage in a cover-up. Remember the Secret Service was leasing the Kennedy limo from Ford in 1963 for $500 per year. The Ferguson memo could provide a cover for the limo not being in Dearborn on November 25 and absent the presence of the WH Garage logs it could have worked. as another example Ferguson wrote that he observed the windshield on November 23, 1963 and that "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." I extend an open invitation to anyone to produce a diagram, a report, or a picture showing a crack or other damage "Directly" beneath the mirror. I believe a shell game was being played and evidence was generated to confuse and obstruct the record. Do you believe Ferguson drove the limo 520 miles on December 20, 1963 from Washington to Dearborn in very inclement weather. Do you believe he had to stop for gas or that the vehicle was capable of getting mileage that to this date would not be obtainable for a car that size? Do you think people might have noticed him? What would he have done if the car broke down or had a flat tire? Why do the official records of Hess and Eisenhardt show that the car arrived there on December 13, 1963. Did Ferguon drive through a time warp? Did you know that two of the four discrepancies noted by the HSCA in trying to develop a chronology of what happened to the limousine involved Ferguson's "testimony", a testimony that cannot be found unless perhaps it is buried somewhere and labeled "Top Secret?"

Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward.

My very best,

Doug Weldon

Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Jerry and Barb:

As I have thought about it there is one type of incidence that I have seen police reports desribe the negative. That would be in traffic accidents when it might be written that there were no skid marks. I have NEVER seen such in this context.

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Devil's Advocate: The "white caulk" could be reflected overhead light, as seen on the mirror edge and windshield wiper cantilever.

I admit that the uniformity is disconcerting.

David,

Satan has personally authorized me to accept your findings and congratulate you on your observation skills. The "caulk" is the reflection of light from the chrome trim surrounding the windshield.

It's uniform because the the chrome trim is uniform.

ssimages.jpg

Jerry

Perhaps Logan can point out the white reflection all around the edges of the windshield in Altgens.

If he can, I will "congratulate him on his observation skills".

post-667-1266446882_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" .....Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward."

My very best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

No problem responding at all. However, I tend to think in smaller chunks so I'm going to have to take things one or two lumps at at time. Also, as you know, Barb, Josiah and I studied different areas of the issue so even though I've reviewed everything I'm going to leave some topics to their comments.

So, to kick it off! I believe Charles Taylor saw the Dallas windshield. Which would mean that up until 12:00 pm of the 22nd the Dallas windshield was still in the limousine. I believe that his original report establishes that, at the least, he was not part of a conspiracy at the Secret Service to conceal the condition of the windshield. I believe that his affidavit with the Church Committee was accurate and honest. Therefore I believe that, like other witnesses, he mistook the windshield defect for a hole. He originally believed there was a pin hole in that location but subsequent re-examination convinced him that there was no penetration. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was pressured to change his statements, in fact, the record suggests just the opposite.

So, do you disagree? :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" .....Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward."

My very best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

No problem responding at all. However, I tend to think in smaller chunks so I'm going to have to take things one or two lumps at at time. Also, as you know, Barb, Josiah and I studied different areas of the issue so even though I've reviewed everything I'm going to leave some topics to their comments.

So, to kick it off! I believe Charles Taylor saw the Dallas windshield. Which would mean that up until 12:00 pm of the 22nd the Dallas windshield was still in the limousine. I believe that his original report establishes that, at the least, he was not part of a conspiracy at the Secret Service to conceal the condition of the windshield. I believe that his affidavit with the Church Committee was accurate and honest. Therefore I believe that, like other witnesses, he mistook the windshield defect for a hole. He originally believed there was a pin hole in that location but subsequent re-examination convinced him that there was no penetration. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was pressured to change his statements, in fact, the record suggests just the opposite.

So, do you disagree? :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

.

post-667-1266450107_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Devil's Advocate: The "white caulk" could be reflected overhead light, as seen on the mirror edge and windshield wiper cantilever.

I admit that the uniformity is disconcerting.

David,

Satan has personally authorized me to accept your findings and congratulate you on your observation skills. The "caulk" is the reflection of light from the chrome trim surrounding the windshield.

It's uniform because the the chrome trim is uniform.

Jerry

Perhaps Logan can point out the white reflection all around the edges of the windshield in Altgens.

If he can, I will "congratulate him on his observation skills".

Now Jack, you crafty fox you. You know there won't be a white reflection in Altgens because the lighting is completely different.

But let's use a better image of the windshield when we're comparing things, OK?

So your view is that the black gasket is gone in CE350 and white caulking has taken its place, correct?

LimoWind.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" .....Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward."

My very best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

No problem responding at all. However, I tend to think in smaller chunks so I'm going to have to take things one or two lumps at at time. Also, as you know, Barb, Josiah and I studied different areas of the issue so even though I've reviewed everything I'm going to leave some topics to their comments.

So, to kick it off! I believe Charles Taylor saw the Dallas windshield. Which would mean that up until 12:00 pm of the 22nd the Dallas windshield was still in the limousine. I believe that his original report establishes that, at the least, he was not part of a conspiracy at the Secret Service to conceal the condition of the windshield. I believe that his affidavit with the Church Committee was accurate and honest. Therefore I believe that, like other witnesses, he mistook the windshield defect for a hole. He originally believed there was a pin hole in that location but subsequent re-examination convinced him that there was no penetration. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was pressured to change his statements, in fact, the record suggests just the opposite.

So, do you disagree? :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

JW.gif

Thanks for your best effort Jack. I'm sure Doug will have something more interesting to say. In fact I know he will.

Edited by Jerry Logan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" .....Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward."

My very best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

No problem responding at all. However, I tend to think in smaller chunks so I'm going to have to take things one or two lumps at at time. Also, as you know, Barb, Josiah and I studied different areas of the issue so even though I've reviewed everything I'm going to leave some topics to their comments.

So, to kick it off! I believe Charles Taylor saw the Dallas windshield. Which would mean that up until 12:00 pm of the 22nd the Dallas windshield was still in the limousine. I believe that his original report establishes that, at the least, he was not part of a conspiracy at the Secret Service to conceal the condition of the windshield. I believe that his affidavit with the Church Committee was accurate and honest. Therefore I believe that, like other witnesses, he mistook the windshield defect for a hole. He originally believed there was a pin hole in that location but subsequent re-examination convinced him that there was no penetration. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was pressured to change his statements, in fact, the record suggests just the opposite.

So, do you disagree? :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

Did you mean 12:00 a.m.? I did not know that your article was a compilation. Was the article written to support a predetermined conclusion? Yes, I disagree. Taylor did not get a casual glance at the windshield. He sat in the passengers seat of the limo for a long time as the limo was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House Garage and further viewed the windshield there. His original report from the evening of the assasination described a "small hole" not a pin hole or anything else.(It was cosigned by Harry Geiglein so apparently he had no problems with the report) When he was interviewed in 1975 he did not write or sign a report stating he saw a pin sized hole. I believe he likely said a "pen" size hole. He was still certain he had seen a hole. I agree he was not part of the conspiracy. What would cause you to conclude the affidavit was accurate and honest? He obviously was shown the windshield for his affidavit that was in your article. You, at the least, have agreed that there are problems comparing the windshield photo from 1963 with the photo of the windshield he would have been shown. i am somewhat incredulous that you believe nine witnesses were misstaken from Parkland Hospital to two people in Washington D.C. to one person in Dearborn, Michigan. Did Stavis Ellis place a pencil into an imaginary hole? You, of everyone on this forum, knows how the law treats recanted testimony. It is difficult. You don't see any parallels between him and Dudman? I am not aware of any interviews with Taylor so in that respect you are correct that there is no concrete evidence that he was pressured to sign the afffidavit. However, don't you find it odd that just before that he was certain he had seen a hole. Martin Hinrichs made a very substantial point. In the second photo shown in your article where are the cross cracks or damge from the windshiel being kicked out? How does the record affirmatively indicate the opposite, that he was not pressured. Okay.

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Devil's Advocate: The "white caulk" could be reflected overhead light, as seen on the mirror edge and windshield wiper cantilever.

I admit that the uniformity is disconcerting.

David,

Satan has personally authorized me to accept your findings and congratulate you on your observation skills. The "caulk" is the reflection of light from the chrome trim surrounding the windshield.

It's uniform because the the chrome trim is uniform.

Jerry

Perhaps Logan can point out the white reflection all around the edges of the windshield in Altgens.

If he can, I will "congratulate him on his observation skills".

Now Jack, you crafty fox you. You know there won't be a white reflection in Altgens because the lighting is completely different.

But let's use a better image of the windshield when we're comparing things, OK?

So your view is that the black gasket is gone in CE350 and white caulking has taken its place, correct?

LimoWind.png

Thanks very much for the very clear photo of the BLACK GASKET around the windshield.

Yes, the windshield was removed in the WH garage as I recall. Caulk is applied and the

new windshield put in; then caulk is applied and the black gasket put on as the final seal.

At least that is the way I saw it done once years ago.

Now don't you wonder why they felt it was necessary to remove the windshield in the first

place? It was a crime scene, after all, and the FBI should have studied it, instead of destroying

the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings?

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings?

Best,

Doug

I don't know why Ferguson made any notes on the windshield at all, you have researched the Ford Motor Co end of things, not I. What did Ford have to say about Ferguson's memo? How about Ferguson? Did Ferguson merely summarize what he learned the FBI had found in their exam? Sounds likely. Ford may have been interested in how their windshield performed. Frazier and the FBI exam was who/what my comments went to, but the same would be true of anyone doing an exam of the windshield. Perhaps it is my decades long background and work experience involving examinations in the medical world that makes this seem like such a no brainer to me. I guess I come at it from a clinical perspective. Sometimes what is not found is very important information and noteworthy. As was the case here. Had Frazier merely noted the smear and the cracks I can just hear the speculation and innuendo about why he didn't rule out a perforation when he was, afterall, examining the windshield for damage it sustained in a shooting. Not to mention, if he had not ruled out a perforation in his exam, it wouldn't have been known whether or not some fragment could have/did escape the car. Such an exam should tell the complete story of what the windshield experienced. He found that the inside surface had been hit by a projectile resulting in a smear and a stellate cracking pattern. You seriously don't think that looking for and reporting whether or not there was a perforation would be the normal course?

Interesting what happens when two people come at it from different perspectives. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now don't you wonder why they felt it was necessary to remove the windshield in the first

place? It was a crime scene, after all, and the FBI should have studied it, instead of destroying

the evidence.

The FBI examined the windshield in situ during their exam of the limo overall in the wee hours of 11/23. The windshield was not replaced until the 26th ... the assassination windshield being retained as evidence. The chrome trim around the windshield is not the only trim reflecting light and looking white in the photo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×