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

[Robin Unger]

Croft bystanders seen in Zapruder

Starting at the light pole with the woman in RED

unfortunately our view of woman(8) is mostly blocked by Man(5)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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

Jerry and Doug,

What great exchanges ... LOL ... and you got it all resolved with points covered so nicely. Love it.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Bernice Moore]

thanks robin that's great..take care b.

[Bernice Moore]

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

many many thanks you fellas some are so very helpful repeatedly, it is so very much appreciated as this certainly adds to the research of all...hear hear for you fellas...best b..

the signatures are very obviously different extremely so...these are both from the government w/c SS files.government .INVESTIGATIONS .now why would that be no surprise to me, i have no idea.. hopefully this can be further looked into and researched..something is seriously in error..and with the government files EEK!!!!!..b

Edited February 25, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Thomas Graves]

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

___________________________________________________

Looks to me like the two printed names (for Taylor and Cottrell) were printed by the same person.

--Thomas

___________________________________________________

Edited February 26, 2010 by Thomas Graves

[Pamela Brown]

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?

Jim,

Trying to determine if I am *on the level*? Is that your way of saying anyone who doesn't see a *spiral nebulae* in the Altgens 1-6 is not 'on-the-level'? Is this tenet so important to your faith in conspiracy that it *must* be believed whether the argument for it is persuasive or not?

Why not address my assertion that the AP/NARA negative prints show no *spiral nebulae* and that those that do are later generation copies? This anomaly could have been the result of a re-printing flaw or some other benign act, or something more deliberate.

My position is consistent in that I believe all the so-called *evidence* that we are allowed to have needs to be questioned. You wouldn't want me to cherry-pick, would you?

Edited February 25, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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?

Why do you keep pasting in this paragraph about the press conference and Crenshaw ... over and over ... as if either has anything to do with what the AP/NARA copies of Altgens show? The press conference transcript had been out for years. And since I know you would never "ignore the body of evidence" ... you must be aware that Crenshaw accompanied McClelland to TR1 and that Perry had already made the trach incision just before they arrived. How do you suppose Crenshaw was able to draw a diagram of the throat wound before that incision was made? You are convinced JFK was shot in the throat from the front ... and apparently also convinced that could only happen if a shot came through the windshield into his throat. You are aware he was in an open convertible and looking to his right at the time, aren't you? <g>

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Thanks for the info. I simply did not know about Greer's wives. I looked up Greer on the web and didn't find anything. You did better than I in getting the info. I can't speak for Nick. As you are aware, he said he and Greer were friends. It would not have surprised me if they stayed in touch. This IS speculation. Thanks for the information on the wives. Do you know anything about what is going on with the researcher who has Greer's manuscript? It would be interesting to see what was written. I tried, without success, many times to get him to release it.

Hi Doug,

Sorry, I don't know anything about that researcher. Vince Palamara would be the most likely to know about the manuscript as well as other details about Greer. I know he has interviewed Greer's son ... in the 90s, at least, as I recall.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Josiah Thompson]

I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I would agree that you have been responsive to many questions and the dialogue between you and Jerry and Barb has been both civil and productive. I would like to respond to your invitation to give you my own view of these things.

I will start with an unlikely source... William Law’s In the Eye of History and specifically the remembrances of FBI Agents Sibert and O’Neill. What I want to mention is not anything Sibert and O’Neill told William Law about the autopsy that they observed, but rather an odd fact that they related. Either Sibert or O’Neill or both (I haven’t checked the text) recalled that both Greer and Kellerman had blood and brain debris on the backs of their jackets when they were at Bethesda Hospital during the autopsy. An odd fact mentioned almost in passing but it confirms the much more exact findings of Robert Frazier and his FBI Lab Team in their examination of the limousine early on the morning of November 23rd. They found blood and brain debris on the interior of the windshield and as far forward on the engine hood as the hood ornament. You can see the blood spatter on the windshield in this photo taken by Frazier’s Team early on the morning of November 23rd:

Bullet fragments were found in the front seat area. A hit on the interior of the windshield yielded a lead smear. A second hit was most likely incurred by the chrome strip. All of this forensic evidence suggests that the damage to the windshield and the chrome strip plus dispersion of blood and brain debris came from the impact of a rear-striking bullet on Kennedy’s head. This could not have occurred prior to Z 313. (Right now, I think there is significant evidence that this happened at about Z 227/228.) Starting with the recollections of Sibert and O’Neill concerning Greer and Kellerman, it is difficult to believe that all of this was faked up by conspirators in the government.

So now let’s take this evidence and compare it with what Dealey Plaza photos tell us.

Altgens #6 shows an undamaged windshield. The “spiral nebula” put forward by Fetzer and company is a pattern of swirls in the skirt or apron of Lady #8. This photo was taken at Z 255, long before JFK was hit in the head. The next Altgens photo, Altgens #7, was taken after Kennedy was hit in the head. It shows damage to the windshield at the location later described by Frazier’s examination and of the general character of the damage described and photographed by Frazier.

All of this evidence is mutually confirmatory. It makes sense when put together into a single coherent whole. There was damage to the windshield but that damage did not involve a through-and-through hole. Various observers looked at the damage and made the same mistake Secret Service Agent Taylor made in thinking there was a through-and-through hole where there was none. Our interpretation of this evidence does not require us to make any unusual assumptions about agents, photos or the common pitfalls of eyewitness reports. It all comes together into a simple whole.

On the other hand, for your thesis to be correct, you really do need there to be a bullet hole in the windshield at the time of the first Altgens photo. Unless you can produce better evidence than that produced by Pamela McElwaine-Brown and me from the original Altgens negative you are going to have to admit that the Fetzer “nebula” is simply a product of bad copies reproduced clumsily. For your thesis to be correct, you are going to have to believe that Robert Frazier and his FBI Lab Team simply lied in their report and that Frazier lied under oath when he testified about this. There is really no reason to believe that Frazier would do anything like this, and, if he had, there would have been numerous other witnesses available to step forward and rat him out.

With the best will in the world, the most I can say for your thesis is that it is wedded to an unrealistic claim that lacks any real evidentiary base.

I hope this will help you understand why we disagree.

Josiah Thompson

[John Dolva]

Am I right in assuming the windshield was laminated?

[Jerry Logan]

Am I right in assuming the windshield was laminated?

Yes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Given the totality of the evidence--including the entry wound to the throat, the small wounds to the face caused by shards of glass, Malcolm Perry's descriptions of the entry wound at the Parkland press conference, the spiral nebulae pattern made by firing high-velocity bullets through the windshields of vehicles and hitting dummies in the back seat, the sound of a firecracker made when that happens, that Martin has confirmed the image is in the windshield and not in the background, the trajectory alignment, the witnesses who saw a hole at the hospital, the articles some of them wrote about it, the reports from Ford, on and on, all of which are highly probable if a bullet had traversed the windshield en route to the throat--the likelihood that there was such a spiral nebula as the result of firing a high-velocity bullet through the windshield is extremely high. Certainly, given the motivation to conceal evidence of conspiracy in this case, it is overwhelmingly more likely that some of these photos were altered to conceal the spiral nebula than it is that the spiral nebula did not exist, as is confirmed by other photographs. It is a common technique to attempt to place greater weight upon photographs in this case than upon witness testimony and other forms of evidence. That, however, is a blunder, since photographs and films require witness authentication to be admissible in courts of law and, as we all know from the study of this case, manipulating X-rays, autopsy photographs, and other photos and films turns out to have been the principal mode of creating a false impression of the evidence in this case, including the backyard photographs. So it is unsurprising in the extreme that the "official photographs" would not show the spiral nebula. What is important is that its existence is confirmed by the convergence of so many other forms of evidence, both physical, medical and even acoustical. No other hypothesis appears to be capable of explaining all of the evidence.

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?

Jim,

Trying to determine if I am *on the level*? Is that your way of saying anyone who doesn't see a *spiral nebulae* in the Altgens 1-6 is not 'on-the-level'? Is this tenet so important to your faith in conspiracy that it *must* be believed whether the argument for it is persuasive or not?

Why not address my assertion that the AP/NARA negative prints show no *spiral nebulae* and that those that do are later generation copies? This anomaly could have been the result of a re-printing flaw or some other benign act, or something more deliberate.

My position is consistent in that I believe all the so-called *evidence* that we are allowed to have needs to be questioned. You wouldn't want me to cherry-pick, would you?

Edited February 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it.

Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article.

Barb:

This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article.

It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem.

I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above.

As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon.

Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not.

Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote:

A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.

If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science:

Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole’s presumed patency by probing it with a pen or a pencil.

"Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not.

Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was:

Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it.

That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why.

Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it.

Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage?

At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses .....

The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ......

People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory.

Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources.

I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited February 25, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Doug Weldon]

I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I would agree that you have been responsive to many questions and the dialogue between you and Jerry and Barb has been both civil and productive. I would like to respond to your invitation to give you my own view of these things.

I will start with an unlikely source... William Law’s In the Eye of History and specifically the remembrances of FBI Agents Sibert and O’Neill. What I want to mention is not anything Sibert and O’Neill told William Law about the autopsy that they observed, but rather an odd fact that they related. Either Sibert or O’Neill or both (I haven’t checked the text) recalled that both Greer and Kellerman had blood and brain debris on the backs of their jackets when they were at Bethesda Hospital during the autopsy. An odd fact mentioned almost in passing but it confirms the much more exact findings of Robert Frazier and his FBI Lab Team in their examination of the limousine early on the morning of November 23rd. They found blood and brain debris on the interior of the windshield and as far forward on the engine hood as the hood ornament. You can see the blood spatter on the windshield in this photo taken by Frazier’s Team early on the morning of November 23rd:

Bullet fragments were found in the front seat area. A hit on the interior of the windshield yielded a lead smear. A second hit was most likely incurred by the chrome strip. All of this forensic evidence suggests that the damage to the windshield and the chrome strip plus dispersion of blood and brain debris came from the impact of a rear-striking bullet on Kennedy’s head. This could not have occurred prior to Z 313. (Right now, I think there is significant evidence that this happened at about Z 227/228.) Starting with the recollections of Sibert and O’Neill concerning Greer and Kellerman, it is difficult to believe that all of this was faked up by conspirators in the government.

So now let’s take this evidence and compare it with what Dealey Plaza photos tell us.

Altgens #6 shows an undamaged windshield. The “spiral nebula” put forward by Fetzer and company is a pattern of swirls in the skirt or apron of Lady #8. This photo was taken at Z 255, long before JFK was hit in the head. The next Altgens photo, Altgens #7, was taken after Kennedy was hit in the head. It shows damage to the windshield at the location later described by Frazier’s examination and of the general character of the damage described and photographed by Frazier.

All of this evidence is mutually confirmatory. It makes sense when put together into a single coherent whole. There was damage to the windshield but that damage did not involve a through-and-through hole. Various observers looked at the damage and made the same mistake Secret Service Agent Taylor made in thinking there was a through-and-through hole where there was none. Our interpretation of this evidence does not require us to make any unusual assumptions about agents, photos or the common pitfalls of eyewitness reports. It all comes together into a simple whole.

On the other hand, for your thesis to be correct, you really do need there to be a bullet hole in the windshield at the time of the first Altgens photo. Unless you can produce better evidence than that produced by Pamela McElwaine-Brown and me from the original Altgens negative you are going to have to admit that the Fetzer “nebula” is simply a product of bad copies reproduced clumsily. For your thesis to be correct, you are going to have to believe that Robert Frazier and his FBI Lab Team simply lied in their report and that Frazier lied under oath when he testified about this. There is really no reason to believe that Frazier would do anything like this, and, if he had, there would have been numerous other witnesses available to step forward and rat him out.

With the best will in the world, the most I can say for your thesis is that it is wedded to an unrealistic claim that lacks any real evidentiary base.

I hope this will help you understand why we disagree.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Thanks for clarifying your position and I understand it. To me, the spiral nebula is very clear in your print. The one impartial photographic expert on this forum , Martin, has concluded that there was the same damage in Altgen's 6 and Altgen's 7. Yes, I do believe that Frazier and the FBI team lied in their report and that Frazier's credibility would have been easily impeachable under proper cross examination. When Harold Weisberg tried to subpoena Frazier for a hearing the FBI simply retired him and hid him so he could not be served. I know that you have talked to many witnesses in your career as both Jerry and I have. When there is such a vast amount of independent corroboration for the same defect, a hole, I have to take those claims seriously. I did not read just paper reports but actually confronted those witnesses. As you know, I asked other people who knew those witnesses, whenever I could, what their reputation was for truth or veracity. Did they ever exaggerate anything? What did they have to gain from telling their accounts? When did they start telling their accounts? I examined the record. I obtained access to records and information that was not in the public realm, i.e. Willard Hess. I looked at records that could noticeably be proven false such as Ferguson and discovered that it even caused confusion with the HSCA. I examined weather records for dates that events were claimed to have happened. I looked at evidence that strongly suggested that the windshield was being switched. I examined if there was corroborative evidence that would support a witness' claims. I take Whitaker as an example when he described the limo being in Dearborn on November 25, 1963 and the windshield with a hole in it being replaced and destroyed. How could he know that his observation of a hole would be the exact defect that other people, whom he could not have had any knowledge of, also described? How could he have known that the date he described his account would have been the one day that the WH Garage logs demonstrated that no one had contact with the limousine? As you and Jery know one cannot choose their witnesses, but it happens here there were exceptional witnesses, police officers, a physician, a manager at Ford whose company owned the limousine. Yes, if he worked at Chevrolet and the limo showed up there, it might raise one's eyebrows. I did not take accounts and walk away. I did everything possible to determine if they fit with what others noted and the record. They did. One can also weigh noticeably false and inconsistent accounts and ask why?. The record is replete with information that is inconsistent. I am not going to chastise you because we disagree. You are obviously very bright. Your experience with the issues in the assasination is remarkable. I can accept your position and only hope that both of us may keep our eyes open to the evidence. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

The theory of a pattern of a lady seen through the windshield forming the spiral nebula

is UNPROVEN NONSENSE meant to obfuscate. Stating this unproven opinion is a fact is

misinformation.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Jack White