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

[Pamela Brown]

The issue seems to be that there is something some construe as a *spiral nebulae* in some versions of the Altgens 1-6 and yet it is absent in others. Everyone seems to agree that is certainly appropriate to question all the evidence. However, since there is no anomaly visible on the AP/NARA negative prints, one can then construe that it was a flaw of some other versions, either unintentionally, through faulty processing for publication, or with intent.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What an absurd post! The pattern is distinctive and has been reproduced by Jim Lewis in firing through windshields in junk yards in the South. It even makes the sound of a firecracker as the bullet passes through the windshield. The photographs show a defect to the windshield at the right location, as Martin has confirmed. The man had an entry wound to his throat. What appears to have happened is that some of the photographs have been retouched to remove it. That is the more plausible explanation. I think you have blown it, Pamela--big time!

The issue seems to be that there is something some construe as a *spiral nebulae* in some versions of the Altgens 1-6 and yet it is absent in others. Everyone seems to agree that is certainly appropriate to question all the evidence. However, since there is no anomaly visible on the AP/NARA negative prints, one can then construe that it was a flaw of some other versions, either unintentionally, through faulty processing for publication, or with intent.

Edited February 24, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

What an absurd post! The pattern is distinctive and has been reproduced by Jim Lewis in firing through windshields in junk yards in the South. It even makes the sound of a firecracker as the bullet passes through the windshield. The photographs show a defect to the windshield at the right location, as Martin has confirmed. The man had an entry wound to his throat. What appears to have happened is that some of the photographs have been retouched to remove it. That is the more plausible explanation. I think you have blown it, Pamela--big time!

The issue seems to be that there is something some construe as a *spiral nebulae* in some versions of the Altgens 1-6 and yet it is absent in others. Everyone seems to agree that is certainly appropriate to question all the evidence. However, since there is no anomaly visible on the AP/NARA negative prints, one can then construe that it was a flaw of some other versions, either unintentionally, through faulty processing for publication, or with intent.

Here we have another example of the fact that the *spiral nebulae* seen by some in lesser quality versions of the Altgens 1-6 is a tenet of a fanatical religious faith rather than simply a theory that can be evaluated objectively.

This *absurd* response is especially puzzling considering the fact that Weldon himself seems to have no problem with questioning this piece of evidence.

Whatever *tests* anyone may have made to try to duplicate the supposed *spiral nebulae* are a different subject. The question is not in this case even if such an appearance is possible (it is quite unlikely) but whether or not the photo has been altered, either unintentionally or deliberately, is it not?

If we are going to enumerate all the anomalies on the other photo*evidence* we have been allowed to have, surely we it is only logical to do the same with the A1-6?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pamela, Sometimes I think you are on the level, sometimes not. In the post of page 436 of HOAX (by Bernice at my request), you can see the spiral nebula in the Altgens (and in many other copies posted here) and, if you take a good look, in the windshield of the junked station-wagon that Jim Lewis used for target practice. He has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity bullets through windshields from about 200 yards to see if he can hit dummies in the back seat. He not only has no trouble hitting them but has discovered (i) that the bullets make the sound of a firecracker as they pass through the windshields and (ii) that the bullets also make holes that resemble spiral nebulae. Now exactly what part of this do you not understand? Experiments have been conduced (by Jim Lewis) and have established (i) and (ii). So what is your problem? JFK was hit in the throat from in front. Where do you suppose that bullet came from other than by passing through the windshield? He even had two or three small cuts in his face that appear to have been caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through it. This is all objective. None of it is subjective. If you have a rebuttal, let's hear it.

What an absurd post! The pattern is distinctive and has been reproduced by Jim Lewis in firing through windshields in junk yards in the South. It even makes the sound of a firecracker as the bullet passes through the windshield. The photographs show a defect to the windshield at the right location, as Martin has confirmed. The man had an entry wound to his throat. What appears to have happened is that some of the photographs have been retouched to remove it. That is the more plausible explanation. I think you have blown it, Pamela--big time!

The issue seems to be that there is something some construe as a *spiral nebulae* in some versions of the Altgens 1-6 and yet it is absent in others. Everyone seems to agree that is certainly appropriate to question all the evidence. However, since there is no anomaly visible on the AP/NARA negative prints, one can then construe that it was a flaw of some other versions, either unintentionally, through faulty processing for publication, or with intent.

Here we have another example of the fact that the *spiral nebulae* seen by some in lesser quality versions of the Altgens 1-6 is a tenet of a fanatical religious faith rather than simply a theory that can be evaluated objectively.

This *absurd* response is especially puzzling considering the fact that Weldon himself seems to have no problem with questioning this piece of evidence.

Whatever *tests* anyone may have made to try to duplicate the supposed *spiral nebulae* are a different subject. The question is not in this case even if such an appearance is possible (it is quite unlikely) but whether or not the photo has been altered, either unintentionally or deliberately, is it not?

If we are going to enumerate all the anomalies on the other photo*evidence* we have been allowed to have, surely we it is only logical to do the same with the A1-6?

Edited February 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Pamela, Sometimes I think you are on the level, sometimes not. In the post of page 436 of HOAX (by Bernice at my request), you can see the spiral nebula in the Altgens (and in many other copies posted here) and, if you take a good look, in the windshield of the junked station-wagon that Jim Lewis used for target practice. He has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity bullets through windshields from about 200 yards to see if he can hit dummies in the back seat. He not only has no trouble hitting them but has discovered (i) that the bullets make the sound of a firecracker as they pass through the windshields and (ii) that the bullets also make holes that resemble spiral nebulae. Now exactly what part of this do you not understand? Experiments have been conduced (by Jim Lewis) and have established (i) and (ii). So what is your problem? JFK was hit in the throat from in front. Where do you suppose that bullet came from other than by passing through the windshield? He even had two or three small cuts in his face that appear to have been caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through it. This is all objective. None of it is subjective. If you have a rebuttal, let's hear it.

Pamela MacElwaine-Brown has just skewered you. So what do you do. You don’t reply to the really solid argument she makes against you. Rather, you pop up like Bozo the Clown with a dim-witted smile on your face and prattle on with a series of irrelevancies.

What possible importance can your reproduction of Altgens #6 in your book have to the issue at hand? Did you never hear of how the printing process itself changes photographs? The photo you used for your book... what generation copy of Altgens #6 was it? I know of at least one occasion where you cranked up the contrast in Altgens #6 to make your “nebula” look better. Did you do that to the copy you published?

Pamela is absolutely correct when she points out the only question is whether the photo in question comes directly from the original Altgens AP negative. Hers came from that negative with the authority of NARA behind it. Take a look at the photo below. It also came from the Altgens AP negative. What a surprise. Both Pamela’s photo and mine have the same provenance and show exactly the same thing. Take a look:

What do they show?

They show that Anthony Marsh was right on target when he pointed out five years ago... or was it ten years ago... that your “nebula” is not a feature of the windshield but rather “it is the woman in the background, something she was wearing or carrying, possibly a dress or purse. You can even see the folds and shadows from the folds.” Martin has taken Marsh’s observation farther by showing that “the folds and shadows from the folds” are in the dress or apron of Lady #8. Your response to this is to direct folks to an illustration in one of your books where the provenance of the photo and its digital manipulation is unknown. How lame is that? Then your duty film expert, Jack White, offers the wingnut suggestion that what we are really seeing is a child standing by Lady #8. This wins the prize for silliness since the Couch photo taken seconds before shows clearly the only way a child got there was by parachuting in.

You have the gall to continue spouting cliches... and wrong cliches... when serious research is moving forward. Your reply to Pamela MacElwaine-Brown is a parody of itself. Don’t you ever tire of aimless bloviation?

Josiah Thompson

[William Kelly]

DOUG I HAVE FINALLY FOUND THE HSCA LIMO CHRONOLOGY....SHEESH. HERE YOU GO... ..B

THE PHOTO IS MARKED HSCA 1 W/H GARAGE..THAT IS WHAT I HAVE...

Thanks for that Chronology B.

That says a lot.

An unnamed Dallas policeman accompanied the limo from Parkland to Love Field.

The examination of the limo by FBI agents at 1 am in the morning included Orrin H. Bartlett.

How come nobody wants to talk about him?

Didn't he find the bullet fragments that contained DNA material?

Didn't he serve as "liason" between the FBI and the Secret Service?

Wasn't there some problems getting those two agencies to cooperate, to the point where one agent physcially assaulted and broke the jaw of another agent at Parkland?

How come such an important guy like Orrin H. Bartlett was never called to testify?

Wasn't Orrin H. Bartlett one of the two agents, along with Secret Service agent John W. Rice, who was at the New Orleans SS office that Sunday afternoon when Adele Edisen informed them about Dr./Col. Jose Rivera, and his foreknowledge of the assassination and Oswald's role?

How come there are no reports from Bartlett about any of these incidents?

BK

[Don Jeffries]

Again, would everyone PLEASE delete the text of prior posts, unless you're responding to a particular point? It's easy.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad! I guess you really are cognitively impaired! 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 that 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.

That, however, would have resulted in an irregularly shaped blow-out with ragged edges, not the clean, smooth puncture wound described by Malcolm Perry and drawn by Charles Crenshaw for publication in my first book on the death of JFK.

You are not even competent as a PI! How is a mistaken argument by Pamela going to save your face? I even included the Parkland press conference transcript in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) as well as Crenshaw's diagrams of the throat both before and after the tracheostomy incision. You simply ignore the body of evidence on this issue. Tom Wicker reported it in his article in The New York Times! Go back to that book 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 passing through the windshield?

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 suppress 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. Give it up, Josiah. Your mendacity is showing. You are the greatest travesty to research on JFK in its history.

Pamela, Sometimes I think you are on the level, sometimes not. In the post of page 436 of HOAX (by Bernice at my request), you can see the spiral nebula in the Altgens (and in many other copies posted here) and, if you take a good look, in the windshield of the junked station-wagon that Jim Lewis used for target practice. He has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity bullets through windshields from about 200 yards to see if he can hit dummies in the back seat. He not only has no trouble hitting them but has discovered (i) that the bullets make the sound of a firecracker as they pass through the windshields and (ii) that the bullets also make holes that resemble spiral nebulae. Now exactly what part of this do you not understand? Experiments have been conduced (by Jim Lewis) and have established (i) and (ii). So what is your problem? JFK was hit in the throat from in front. Where do you suppose that bullet came from other than by passing through the windshield? He even had two or three small cuts in his face that appear to have been caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through it. This is all objective. None of it is subjective. If you have a rebuttal, let's hear it.

Pamela MacElwaine-Brown has just skewered you. So what do you do. You don’t reply to the really solid argument she makes against you. Rather, you pop up like Bozo the Clown with a dim-witted smile on your face and prattle on with a series of irrelevancies.

What possible importance can your reproduction of Altgens #6 in your book have to the issue at hand? Did you never hear of how the printing process itself changes photographs? The photo you used for your book... what generation copy of Altgens #6 was it? I know of at least one occasion where you cranked up the contrast in Altgens #6 to make your “nebula” look better. Did you do that to the copy you published?

Pamela is absolutely correct when she points out the only question is whether the photo in question comes directly from the original Altgens AP negative. Hers came from that negative with the authority of NARA behind it. Take a look at the photo below. It also came from the Altgens AP negative. What a surprise. Both Pamela’s photo and mine have the same provenance and show exactly the same thing. Take a look:

What do they show?

They show that Anthony Marsh was right on target when he pointed out five years ago... or was it ten years ago... that your “nebula” is not a feature of the windshield but rather “it is the woman in the background, something she was wearing or carrying, possibly a dress or purse. You can even see the folds and shadows from the folds.” Martin has taken Marsh’s observation farther by showing that “the folds and shadows from the folds” are in the dress or apron of Lady #8. Your response to this is to direct folks to an illustration in one of your books where the provenance of the photo and its digital manipulation is unknown. How lame is that? Then your duty film expert, Jack White, offers the wingnut suggestion that what we are really seeing is a child standing by Lady #8. This wins the prize for silliness since the Couch photo taken seconds before shows clearly the only way a child got there was by parachuting in.

You have the gall to continue spouting cliches... and wrong cliches... when serious research is moving forward. Your reply to Pamela MacElwaine-Brown is a parody of itself. Don’t you ever tire of aimless bloviation?

Josiah Thompson

Edited February 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[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

I just discovered something very interesting. I want to credit and thank Jerry Logan. Jerry, Barb and others may agree or disagree with me but I must point out that many of us really try to be cooperative in assisting each other even though we may "battle" online. There are also many people who are very helpful to everyone. Jerry was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the Charles Taylor affidavit which was prepared for him to sign to recant his obseveration in his report of November 27, 1963 that he saw a hole in the windshield and his December 10, 1975 statement when he confirmed he saw a hole. Note the affidavit was NOT written by him (Taylor) but was prepared for him to sign. There is a great deal made of the fact that he did not have enough time to look at the windshield closely but even the affidavit indicates that he was in the passenger seat of the limo for an HOUR as it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the Garage. What was he doing, staring at his feet? The MOST interesting aspect was that he DID NOT SIGN his name. It was hand printed out by someone. In 1963 his signature was very clear. Did he forget how to sign his name? Was he trying to tell us something? I am not a handwriting expert but it would be interesting to compare the two writings as there seems to be something suspicious. Why would he do this? What is of further interest is that the notary public does not sign her name but it is also hand printed out. Has anyone ever heard of a notary printing their name. I don't know how to place the two comparisons here as I demonstrate my poor typing and computer skills every day. Perhaps Bernice or someone could do so.

Doug Weldon

[Jerry Logan]

I just discovered something very interesting. I want to credit and thank Jerry Logan. Jerry, Barb and others may agree or disagree with me but I must point out that many of us really try to be cooperative in assisting each other even though we may "battle" online. There are also many people who are very helpful to everyone. Jerry was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the Charles Taylor affidavit which was prepared for him to sign to recant his obseveration in his report of November 27, 1963 that he saw a hole in the windshield and his December 10, 1975 statement when he confirmed he saw a hole. Note the affidavit was NOT written by him (Taylor) but was prepared for him to sign. There is a great deal made of the fact that he did not have enough time to look at the windshield closely but even the affidavit indicates that he was in the passenger seat of the limo for an HOUR as it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the Garage. What was he doing, staring at his feet? The MOST interesting aspect was that he DID NOT SIGN his name. It was hand printed out by someone. In 1963 his signature was very clear. Did he forget how to sign his name? Was he trying to tell us something? I am not a handwriting expert but it would be interesting to compare the two writings as there seems to be something suspicious. Why would he do this? What is of further interest is that the notary public does not sign her name but it is also hand printed out. Has anyone ever heard of a notary printing their name. I don't know how to place the two comparisons here as I demonstrate my poor typing and computer skills every day. Perhaps Bernice or someone could do so.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Sorry for the confusion. As I noted, I sent you the staff copy of the affidavit. The main copy went to the central Church Committee files where David Lifton located a signed copy properly notarized.

Jerry

[Bernice Moore]

[

I just discovered something very interesting. I want to credit and thank Jerry Logan. Jerry, Barb and others may agree or disagree with me but I must point out that many of us really try to be cooperative in assisting each other even though we may "battle" online. There are also many people who are very helpful to everyone. Jerry was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the Charles Taylor affidavit which was prepared for him to sign to recant his obseveration in his report of November 27, 1963 that he saw a hole in the windshield and his December 10, 1975 statement when he confirmed he saw a hole. Note the affidavit was NOT written by him (Taylor) but was prepared for him to sign. There is a great deal made of the fact that he did not have enough time to look at the windshield closely but even the affidavit indicates that he was in the passenger seat of the limo for an HOUR as it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the Garage. What was he doing, staring at his feet? The MOST interesting aspect was that he DID NOT SIGN his name. It was hand printed out by someone. In 1963 his signature was very clear. Did he forget how to sign his name? Was he trying to tell us something? I am not a handwriting expert but it would be interesting to compare the two writings as there seems to be something suspicious. Why would he do this? What is of further interest is that the notary public does not sign her name but it is also hand printed out. Has anyone ever heard of a notary printing their name. I don't know how to place the two comparisons here as I demonstrate my poor typing and computer skills every day. Perhaps Bernice or someone could do so.

Doug Weldon

i cannot cut the signature from the pdf jerry sent, thank you..for sending... to then put side by side for a comparison the pdf will not allow me to...so i will post both of the docs, martin chris robin any fella around that can do so for the comparisons it would be greatly appreciated..but note one appears to be printed the other an adult signature...thanks b the pdf has been reloaded it stopped opening for some reason...

Edited February 25, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Doug Weldon]

I just discovered something very interesting. I want to credit and thank Jerry Logan. Jerry, Barb and others may agree or disagree with me but I must point out that many of us really try to be cooperative in assisting each other even though we may "battle" online. There are also many people who are very helpful to everyone. Jerry was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the Charles Taylor affidavit which was prepared for him to sign to recant his obseveration in his report of November 27, 1963 that he saw a hole in the windshield and his December 10, 1975 statement when he confirmed he saw a hole. Note the affidavit was NOT written by him (Taylor) but was prepared for him to sign. There is a great deal made of the fact that he did not have enough time to look at the windshield closely but even the affidavit indicates that he was in the passenger seat of the limo for an HOUR as it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the Garage. What was he doing, staring at his feet? The MOST interesting aspect was that he DID NOT SIGN his name. It was hand printed out by someone. In 1963 his signature was very clear. Did he forget how to sign his name? Was he trying to tell us something? I am not a handwriting expert but it would be interesting to compare the two writings as there seems to be something suspicious. Why would he do this? What is of further interest is that the notary public does not sign her name but it is also hand printed out. Has anyone ever heard of a notary printing their name. I don't know how to place the two comparisons here as I demonstrate my poor typing and computer skills every day. Perhaps Bernice or someone could do so.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Sorry for the confusion. As I noted, I sent you the staff copy of the affidavit. The main copy went to the central Church Committee files where David Lifton located a signed copy properly notarized.

Jerry

Jerry:

Thanks. You did, in fact, note that it was a staff copy. My error. Does David have a copy of the signed copy? I would continue to note my other observations, i.e. one hour in the vehicle and that the affidavit was prepared for him.

Best,

Doug

[Jerry Logan]

I just discovered something very interesting. I want to credit and thank Jerry Logan. Jerry, Barb and others may agree or disagree with me but I must point out that many of us really try to be cooperative in assisting each other even though we may "battle" online. There are also many people who are very helpful to everyone. Jerry was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the Charles Taylor affidavit which was prepared for him to sign to recant his obseveration in his report of November 27, 1963 that he saw a hole in the windshield and his December 10, 1975 statement when he confirmed he saw a hole. Note the affidavit was NOT written by him (Taylor) but was prepared for him to sign. There is a great deal made of the fact that he did not have enough time to look at the windshield closely but even the affidavit indicates that he was in the passenger seat of the limo for an HOUR as it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the Garage. What was he doing, staring at his feet? The MOST interesting aspect was that he DID NOT SIGN his name. It was hand printed out by someone. In 1963 his signature was very clear. Did he forget how to sign his name? Was he trying to tell us something? I am not a handwriting expert but it would be interesting to compare the two writings as there seems to be something suspicious. Why would he do this? What is of further interest is that the notary public does not sign her name but it is also hand printed out. Has anyone ever heard of a notary printing their name. I don't know how to place the two comparisons here as I demonstrate my poor typing and computer skills every day. Perhaps Bernice or someone could do so.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Sorry for the confusion. As I noted, I sent you the staff copy of the affidavit. The main copy went to the central Church Committee files where David Lifton located a signed copy properly notarized.

Jerry

Jerry:

Thanks. You did, in fact, note that it was a staff copy. My error. Does David have a copy of the signed copy? I would continue to note my other observations, i.e. one hour in the vehicle and that the affidavit was prepared for him.

Best,

Doug

Doug,

You're very gracious but it was my error. It has been a while since the great affidavit hunt and I should have made it clear what "staff copy" meant. I'd almost tracked down Lois Cottrell's notary register for 1976 before David located the main document. As you know, I admire David's scholarship so it was fun to shake the trees with him. I believe that he has the NARA copy of the the "official" affidavit but not, I think, in electronic form. Obviously you should contact him since I'm reporting from memory and I was only in the passenger seat for an hour in the dark :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

[Doug Weldon]

I just discovered something very interesting. I want to credit and thank Jerry Logan. Jerry, Barb and others may agree or disagree with me but I must point out that many of us really try to be cooperative in assisting each other even though we may "battle" online. There are also many people who are very helpful to everyone. Jerry was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the Charles Taylor affidavit which was prepared for him to sign to recant his obseveration in his report of November 27, 1963 that he saw a hole in the windshield and his December 10, 1975 statement when he confirmed he saw a hole. Note the affidavit was NOT written by him (Taylor) but was prepared for him to sign. There is a great deal made of the fact that he did not have enough time to look at the windshield closely but even the affidavit indicates that he was in the passenger seat of the limo for an HOUR as it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the Garage. What was he doing, staring at his feet? The MOST interesting aspect was that he DID NOT SIGN his name. It was hand printed out by someone. In 1963 his signature was very clear. Did he forget how to sign his name? Was he trying to tell us something? I am not a handwriting expert but it would be interesting to compare the two writings as there seems to be something suspicious. Why would he do this? What is of further interest is that the notary public does not sign her name but it is also hand printed out. Has anyone ever heard of a notary printing their name. I don't know how to place the two comparisons here as I demonstrate my poor typing and computer skills every day. Perhaps Bernice or someone could do so.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Sorry for the confusion. As I noted, I sent you the staff copy of the affidavit. The main copy went to the central Church Committee files where David Lifton located a signed copy properly notarized.

Jerry

Jerry:

Thanks. You did, in fact, note that it was a staff copy. My error. Does David have a copy of the signed copy? I would continue to note my other observations, i.e. one hour in the vehicle and that the affidavit was prepared for him.

Best,

Doug

Doug,

You're very gracious but it was my error. It has been a while since the great affidavit hunt and I should have made it clear what "staff copy" meant. I'd almost tracked down Lois Cottrell's notary register for 1976 before David located the main document. As you know, I admire David's scholarship so it was fun to shake the trees with him. I believe that he has the NARA copy of the the "official" affidavit but not, I think, in electronic form. Obviously you should contact him since I'm reporting from memory and I was only in the passenger seat for an hour in the dark :>)

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

Thanks. If you prepare an affidavit for me admitting my error I will be glad to sign it.

Best,

Doug

[Martin Hinrichs]

i cannot cut the signature from the pdf jerry sent, thank you..for sending... to then put side by side for a comparison the pdf will not allow me to...so i will post both of the docs, martin chris robin any fella around that can do so for the comparisons it would be greatly appreciated..but note one appears to be printed the other an adult signature...thanks b

Here you go Bernice:

This signatures obviously are not from the same person.

Why not do the copies from the original signed document. Thats the usual process.

OR if the the signed document is not a hand....let it blank.

To let is sign from another person is document falsification and can be prosecuted.

I'am puzzled that this has happend in this delicate case.

Martin