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

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin:

Thank you. That is what I had understood you to state before.

Best,

Doug Weldon

No problem Doug.

Thank you

best

Martin

[Robin Unger]

Martin.

Looking at lady 8 in croft

It appears to me that the lady may be wearing an apron with a pocket in it. ?

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin.

Looking at lady 8 in croft

It appears to me that the lady may be wearing an apron with a pocket in it. ?

Yes Robin, that is correct.

best to you

[Robin Unger]

Martin.

Looking at lady 8 in croft

It appears to me that the lady may be wearing an apron with a pocket in it. ?

One of Martin's studies from my website gallery.

This may have already been posted in reference to lady 8

[Robin Unger]

I am playing catch up, as i have not gone through all the threads. !

I will try to find a clear Zapruder ghost panel frame, showing the Croft crowd.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Post Edited:

Corbis Altgens 6 Large

Edited February 25, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Doug Weldon]

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

Josiah:

Both of us have admitted that we are not photographic experts. Martin, who was contacted by Jerry, has concluded that the two windshields in your article are not the same. He has also concluded , with your acknowledgement that there was a meticulous analysis, that there WAS DAMAGE as noted in Altgens 6 and that the SAME damage is evident in Altgens 7.

Both you and I have extensive experience with witnesses. Would you be able to address my points in more than a superficial way than " 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."

You seem to rely on Robert Frazier in your recent posts. Jerry pointed out on this forum "A trained, professional observer filed a clearly written official report that directly contradicted the FBI findings of that evening as reported by Frazier. Not only is this by far one of the strongest eyewitness statements for a hole, it’s also very strong evidence that Frazier’s account of the inspection that night was less than honest. And frankly, for all the effort you put into your battles with the clownish Fetzer, you didn’t really lay a hand on Lifton.

It was good to obtain and publish some of the FBI notes from that night. But of course it’s possible to write anything at any time and date it 11/22. It’s possible to keep two sets of notes and leave only one in the official files. Frazier’s notes only have value if you think Frazier is playing fair and Taylor gave us reason to think Frazier wasn't. Your only response to Taylor’s report was “Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it.”

Huh? Your best response to David Lifton was that Agent Taylor had a limited vocabulary? The word “defect” was apparently unknown to him so he used “hole” instead. On the theory that “hole” is close enough for an official report to the Chief of the Secret Service on the most important event in his career. And what did you use to support your conclusion? No words or statements of Taylor’s. Instead, you resorted to the ultimate appeal to authority – ignore the plain meaning of Agent Taylor’s words because Pamala doesn’t think that’s what he meant. To be frank, whatever conclusions you reached looking at fuzzy photos, studying possibly falsified notes and parsing words with the skill of the finest Talmudic scholar – Charles Taylor was there that night, he sat in the passenger seat, he was a trained professional and he said that he and the FBI had seen a hole."

I have treated and responded to you respectfully and have actually defended your integrity. I chose to come on this forum because I knew there would be smart, critical people who did not agree with me.. Years ago another researcher was critical of my contact with a witness. To resolve that issue I asked Todd Vaughn to examine things because I knew many of his views were polar opposite of mine but I also believed him to be honest and objective. He was and I believe is. This is not about me. It is about the evidence and I am trying to understand the way that things happened. Barb has agreed to continue to address my questions. I would hope that you could add something of substance. BTW, the agents who ran their hands over the windshield had different observations at different times.

Doug Weldon

[Jerry Logan]

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

Josiah:

Both of us have admitted that we are not photographic experts. Martin, who was contacted by Jerry, has concluded that the two windshields in your article are not the same. He has also concluded , with your acknowledgement that there was a meticulous analysis, that there WAS DAMAGE as noted in Altgens 6 and that the SAME damage is evident in Altgens 7.

Both you and I have extensive experience with witnesses. Would you be able to address my points in more than a superficial way than " 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."

You seem to rely on Robert Frazier in your recent posts. Jerry pointed out on this forum "A trained, professional observer filed a clearly written official report that directly contradicted the FBI findings of that evening as reported by Frazier. Not only is this by far one of the strongest eyewitness statements for a hole, it’s also very strong evidence that Frazier’s account of the inspection that night was less than honest. And frankly, for all the effort you put into your battles with the clownish Fetzer, you didn’t really lay a hand on Lifton.

It was good to obtain and publish some of the FBI notes from that night. But of course it’s possible to write anything at any time and date it 11/22. It’s possible to keep two sets of notes and leave only one in the official files. Frazier’s notes only have value if you think Frazier is playing fair and Taylor gave us reason to think Frazier wasn't. Your only response to Taylor’s report was “Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it.”

Huh? Your best response to David Lifton was that Agent Taylor had a limited vocabulary? The word “defect” was apparently unknown to him so he used “hole” instead. On the theory that “hole” is close enough for an official report to the Chief of the Secret Service on the most important event in his career. And what did you use to support your conclusion? No words or statements of Taylor’s. Instead, you resorted to the ultimate appeal to authority – ignore the plain meaning of Agent Taylor’s words because Pamala doesn’t think that’s what he meant. To be frank, whatever conclusions you reached looking at fuzzy photos, studying possibly falsified notes and parsing words with the skill of the finest Talmudic scholar – Charles Taylor was there that night, he sat in the passenger seat, he was a trained professional and he said that he and the FBI had seen a hole."

I have treated and responded to you respectfully and have actually defended your integrity. I chose to come on this forum because I knew there would be smart, critical people who did not agree with me.. Years ago another researcher was critical of my contact with a witness. To resolve that issue I asked Todd Vaughn to examine things because I knew many of his views were polar opposite of mine but I also believed him to be honest and objective. He was and I believe is. This is not about me. It is about the evidence and I am trying to understand the way that things happened. Barb has agreed to continue to address my questions. I would hope that you could add something of substance. BTW, the agents who ran their hands over the windshield had different observations at different times.

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

Since you've quoted me so extensively I have to leap in here. You'd almost think I was David Lifton!

Two quick points. First, what you've failed to note is that my words were a response to a specific claim of Pamela's - that she had already solved everything and that our article presented no new evidence or nothing of interest. She had claimed, without evidence, that Taylor had meant "defect" when he said "hole".Therefore the statement you've quoted above is meant to be a summary of the state of affairs after Pamela's work and before ours. The subsequent information from Charles Taylor changed that state of affairs and confirmed Frazier's work - thereby eliminating the doubt that remained after Pamela's efforts. I just want it to be clear that, although I can give a good summary of David Lifton's analysis, I don't believe David's analysis is correct and I think the new Taylor materials sharply refuted that analysis.

Second, you've mentioned Martin's work frequently. I'm sure you remember that Martin's conclusions are disputed in some important respects. At least two experts I have deep respect for believe he is dead wrong. Moreover, his analysis is predicated on photos we know to be variable in appearance and I'm pretty sure his analysis of the cracks would only call into question the HSCA photos even if he were correct about what he thinks he sees. As I've written more than once, the cracks in the windshield won't be resolved until we've had a chance to visit the Archives and make sure we're all looking at the right photos.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Hi Martin

Thanks for the reply. I'm wondering if I am looking at the right thing that we are calling the spiral nebula ? What I thought was it (and could be confused for a pocket on the dress of a spectator behind) is definitely on the white dress of lady 9.

I can't see anything of Lady 8 that could be far enough to the right (as we look) that could be part of the alleged hole in the windshield...

Maybe I am looking at the wrong thing though !

David

David, Lady 8 is under inspection because she is the one directly behind JFK's head.

Lady 8 is wearing something unusual. A pocket below here dress.

This is the shape according to Jerry what we see in Altgens.

The shape of this bright part is almost square we have to keep in mind.

I'am sure to read it also from Anthony Marsh but can't it find here now just in hurry. I will update my post as long as i find it.

Can you see it now?

Martin

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 :-)

This is all nonsense. The spiral nebula is NOT part of some spectator in the background.

Indeed, what I see is that it is superimposed on the head of a small Negro boy spectator.

I do not see it as a part of any dress. It distinctly is a part of the windshield.

Jack

LOL! What you think is the "head of a small Negro boy spectator" is the dark apron (or whatever it is) of the black female spectator.

Given your "analysis" of late of the spectators on Houston street, I'm somewhat surprised you don't think the sprial nebula is a bowling ball with wings.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Second, you've mentioned Martin's work frequently. I'm sure you remember that Martin's conclusions are disputed in some important respects. At least two experts I have deep respect for believe he is dead wrong.

Best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry

May i ask you to give me the email contacts of this two persons?

Thank you forward.

Ps. I say they are dead wrong

Sincerely

Martin

[Jack White]

Lady 8 does not have a black apron. As is customary around here, a day may start

very cool, and get warmer. For the cool morning the lady wore a black sweater.

As it got warmer, she removed her sweater and tied it around her waist, by tying

the sleeves together.

That is as good a theory as your theory of a black apron with a white pocket.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Lady 8 does not have a black apron. As is customary around here, a day may start

very cool, and get warmer. For the cool morning the lady wore a black sweater.

As it got warmer, she removed her sweater and tied it around her waist, by tying

the sleeves together.

That is as good a theory as your theory of a black apron with a white pocket.

Hmmmm.

OK, what you think is the "head of a small Negro boy spectator" is the dark sweater of the black female spectator.

Given your "analysis" of late of the spectators on Houston street, I'm somewhat surprised you don't think the sprial nebula is a bowling ball with wings.

[Doug Weldon]

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

Josiah:

Both of us have admitted that we are not photographic experts. Martin, who was contacted by Jerry, has concluded that the two windshields in your article are not the same. He has also concluded , with your acknowledgement that there was a meticulous analysis, that there WAS DAMAGE as noted in Altgens 6 and that the SAME damage is evident in Altgens 7.

Both you and I have extensive experience with witnesses. Would you be able to address my points in more than a superficial way than " 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."

You seem to rely on Robert Frazier in your recent posts. Jerry pointed out on this forum "A trained, professional observer filed a clearly written official report that directly contradicted the FBI findings of that evening as reported by Frazier. Not only is this by far one of the strongest eyewitness statements for a hole, it’s also very strong evidence that Frazier’s account of the inspection that night was less than honest. And frankly, for all the effort you put into your battles with the clownish Fetzer, you didn’t really lay a hand on Lifton.

It was good to obtain and publish some of the FBI notes from that night. But of course it’s possible to write anything at any time and date it 11/22. It’s possible to keep two sets of notes and leave only one in the official files. Frazier’s notes only have value if you think Frazier is playing fair and Taylor gave us reason to think Frazier wasn't. Your only response to Taylor’s report was “Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it.”

Huh? Your best response to David Lifton was that Agent Taylor had a limited vocabulary? The word “defect” was apparently unknown to him so he used “hole” instead. On the theory that “hole” is close enough for an official report to the Chief of the Secret Service on the most important event in his career. And what did you use to support your conclusion? No words or statements of Taylor’s. Instead, you resorted to the ultimate appeal to authority – ignore the plain meaning of Agent Taylor’s words because Pamala doesn’t think that’s what he meant. To be frank, whatever conclusions you reached looking at fuzzy photos, studying possibly falsified notes and parsing words with the skill of the finest Talmudic scholar – Charles Taylor was there that night, he sat in the passenger seat, he was a trained professional and he said that he and the FBI had seen a hole."

I have treated and responded to you respectfully and have actually defended your integrity. I chose to come on this forum because I knew there would be smart, critical people who did not agree with me.. Years ago another researcher was critical of my contact with a witness. To resolve that issue I asked Todd Vaughn to examine things because I knew many of his views were polar opposite of mine but I also believed him to be honest and objective. He was and I believe is. This is not about me. It is about the evidence and I am trying to understand the way that things happened. Barb has agreed to continue to address my questions. I would hope that you could add something of substance. BTW, the agents who ran their hands over the windshield had different observations at different times.

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

Since you've quoted me so extensively I have to leap in here. You'd almost think I was David Lifton!

Two quick points. First, what you've failed to note is that my words were a response to a specific claim of Pamela's - that she had already solved everything and that our article presented no new evidence or nothing of interest. She had claimed, without evidence, that Taylor had meant "defect" when he said "hole".Therefore the statement you've quoted above is meant to be a summary of the state of affairs after Pamela's work and before ours. The subsequent information from Charles Taylor changed that state of affairs and confirmed Frazier's work - thereby eliminating the doubt that remained after Pamela's efforts. I just want it to be clear that, although I can give a good summary of David Lifton's analysis, I don't believe David's analysis is correct and I think the new Taylor materials sharply refuted that analysis.

Second, you've mentioned Martin's work frequently. I'm sure you remember that Martin's conclusions are disputed in some important respects. At least two experts I have deep respect for believe he is dead wrong. Moreover, his analysis is predicated on photos we know to be variable in appearance and I'm pretty sure his analysis of the cracks would only call into question the HSCA photos even if he were correct about what he thinks he sees. As I've written more than once, the cracks in the windshield won't be resolved until we've had a chance to visit the Archives and make sure we're all looking at the right photos.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

Fair enough. I did not realize that you were summarizing Lifton's analysis. I do not want to misrepresent anything. I have already outlined my suspicions about Taylor's affidavit. To review again see the report that was labeled "Top Secret" when it stated:

The staff interviewed Secret Service Agent Taylor on December 10, 1975. On that occasion Taylor was positive that there had been a hole through the windshield. He stated that a pin could definitely be inserted through this hole from one side of the windshield to the other. However, the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to examine what he believed to be a hole. With Committee staff present, Taylor recently examined the windshield at the Archives. He stated that the windshield was as he had seen it in 1963; i.e. contrary to his report, there was no internal defect and not a penetration. The staff subsequently prepared an affidavit and forwarded it to the Secret Service for Mr. Taylor’s review and signature. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16573650/TaylorAff)

the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to examine what he believed to be a hole.

Note a few things. Taylor was "positive" he had seen a hole in his statement on December 10, 1975.. The word "pin" does not make sense. The word "pen" does. What kind of nonsense is it that "the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to examine what he believed to be a hole." Taylor had more time than perhaps anyone to examine the windshield. He rode in the passenger seat as the vehicle was driven from Andres Air Force Base to the Garage and viewed it there and wrote a report. Notice that staff was with him at the Archives. No pressure there? It is obvious that he was shown a windshield that even you admit is in question. Where are the crosscracks from the windshield allegedly being pushed out?

Further note that Taylor did NOT even write an affidavit! It was prepared for him and it was given to him for his signature. I would relish the opportunity to depose Mr. Taylor.

You write about Martin that " I'm pretty sure his analysis of the cracks would only call into question the HSCA photos even if he were correct about what he thinks he sees." Don't you think it is extremely significant if the HSCA photos would be called into question?! If they are not photos of the limo windshield then what are they, where did they come from, and why were they being used to represent the Dallas windshield? Where did Hunt get the photos if not at the Archives. The Archives, for some reason, is not going to allow anyone to view the windshield that is there though I believe I believe I know several reasons.

I have not seen any other expert analysis of the two windshield photographs. In this instance Josiah has lauded Martin's analysis of Altgen's 6. However, he misunderstood what Martin was saying. Martin painstakingly concludde that there was damage in Altgen's 6 and the damage was the same as Altgen's 7. Take care.

Sincerely,

Doug

[Jack White]

When I was in Washington in 1978 at the HSCA staff building, one morning a wooden

crate was brought in and leaned against a wall. We all gathered 'round to look. You

could see that it contained a glass windshield, but all we could see was the glass edge

of the top. There was lots of talk about it, but at that time I did not realize how important

the windshield issue was, or I might have paid more attention to what was said.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad! Are you cognitively impaired? The page Bernice posted above shows such a spiral nebula in windshield (D), if you check it. Jim Lewis has done this many times and it both creates a spiral nebula but also the sound of a firecracker! True to form, you ignore any evidence that conflicts with your preferred version, which has displayed the regular pattern of tending to support the official account. I am waiting for you to announce to the world that "(You) were wrong! Lee Oswald WAS the lone assassin!" in time for the 50th observance. You are the greatest travesty to research on JFK in its entire history.

You also ignore the throat wound, which was caused by a shot from in front. I published the Parkland press conference transcript in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) along with Charles Crenshaw's diagrams of the throat before and after the tracheostomy incision. You want to ignore the body of evidence on this issue. Tom Wicker even reported it in his article in The New York Times! Go back to that book, Tink, and review page 15, page 414, and especially pages 419-427. Since he was shot in the throat from in front, how else could he have been hit than by a bullet through the windshield?

And now you misunderstand Martin's brilliant work. He has confirmed there was damage to the windshield and that it is in the same location in the Altens photographs. I know you have advanced the bizarre hypothesis that the wound to the throat was caused by a fragment of bone from the shot to the head from behind. But those who knew this wound "up close and personal", who were physicians experienced with gunshot victims and who actually observed the wound, concluded that it was a wound of entry and came from in front. Their only advantage over you, I suppose, is that they were actually there.

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 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer