Jump to content
The Education Forum
Doug Weldon

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

Recommended Posts

Doug,

It`s the throat shot from in front that I`m having the most trouble with.In your opinion,did this shot occur from 10,11,12 or 1 or 2 O`clock from the front of JFK?Also,was this shooter elevated at all?

Michael:

Again, it would have been from the area of the south side of the underpass. It would have been elevated. If you watch my video from 1999 on you tube I actually show video and what it would have loked like from a sniper's view in that area.

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

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,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

Let me clarify, Martin says he saw no hole, no crack, nothing, i.e. that the windshield was not damaged. FWIW.

Todd:

Thank you. I was not aware of that. Actually, I forgot that William Greer at one time also said there was no damage to the windshield. Did Martin view the windshield at Parkland Hospital? Do you have a transcript of that interview or can you direct me where to find it? It is odd since no one, not ven the FBI, denied that the windshield was damaged. Though you and I vastly disagree obout the assassination I have always appreciated your input. I don't know if I ever properly thanked you when years ago you objectively reviewed my Willard Hess video interview for me. I have searched for years to find your book listing the motorcade participants. I hope all is well. Do you still live in Michigan?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

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,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

Let me clarify, Martin says he saw no hole, no crack, nothing, i.e. that the windshield was not damaged. FWIW.

Todd:

Thank you. I was not aware of that. Actually, I forgot that William Greer at one time also said there was no damage to the windshield. Did Martin view the windshield at Parkland Hospital? Do you have a transcript of that interview or can you direct me where to find it? It is odd since no one, not ven the FBI, denied that the windshield was damaged. Though you and I vastly disagree obout the assassination I have always appreciated your input. I don't know if I ever properly thanked you when years ago you objectively reviewed my Willard Hess video interview for me. I have searched for years to find your book listing the motorcade participants. I hope all is well. Do you still live in Michigan?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Yes, Martin viewed the windshield at Parkland. I have a report of the interview - I could make you a copy. Thanks for your kind words, and yes, you thanked me. Yes, I'm still in Michigan, in fact, I'm in Portage now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

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,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

Let me clarify, Martin says he saw no hole, no crack, nothing, i.e. that the windshield was not damaged. FWIW.

Todd:

Thank you. I was not aware of that. Actually, I forgot that William Greer at one time also said there was no damage to the windshield. Did Martin view the windshield at Parkland Hospital? Do you have a transcript of that interview or can you direct me where to find it? It is odd since no one, not ven the FBI, denied that the windshield was damaged. Though you and I vastly disagree obout the assassination I have always appreciated your input. I don't know if I ever properly thanked you when years ago you objectively reviewed my Willard Hess video interview for me. I have searched for years to find your book listing the motorcade participants. I hope all is well. Do you still live in Michigan?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Yes, Martin viewed the windshield at Parkland. I have a report of the interview - I could make you a copy. Thanks for your kind words, and yes, you thanked me. Yes, I'm still in Michigan, in fact, I'm in Portage now.

Todd:

I would welcome a copy. I could always stop by or you could stop by my house or could mail me a copy. You have to be within 5 miles from me. I am in the phone book.

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Doug,

The reason I asked about the elevation is because of the trajectory it would have taken.With Elm Street being on a decline,and the shooter elevated....seems like the shot would have hit JFK lower on the body if it came through the windshield that`s all.

Edited by Michael Crane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Doug,

The reason I asked about the elevation is because of the trajectory it would have taken.With Elm Street being on a decline,and the shooter elevated....seems like the shot would have hit JFK lower on the body if it came through the windshield that`s all.

Michael:

If you watch the video you will see that the shot was perfect. It was not a steep trajectory.

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

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,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

Let me clarify, Martin says he saw no hole, no crack, nothing, i.e. that the windshield was not damaged. FWIW.

Todd:

Thank you. I was not aware of that. Actually, I forgot that William Greer at one time also said there was no damage to the windshield. Did Martin view the windshield at Parkland Hospital? Do you have a transcript of that interview or can you direct me where to find it? It is odd since no one, not ven the FBI, denied that the windshield was damaged. Though you and I vastly disagree obout the assassination I have always appreciated your input. I don't know if I ever properly thanked you when years ago you objectively reviewed my Willard Hess video interview for me. I have searched for years to find your book listing the motorcade participants. I hope all is well. Do you still live in Michigan?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Yes, Martin viewed the windshield at Parkland. I have a report of the interview - I could make you a copy. Thanks for your kind words, and yes, you thanked me. Yes, I'm still in Michigan, in fact, I'm in Portage now.

Todd:

I would welcome a copy. I could always stop by or you could stop by my house or could mail me a copy. You have to be within 5 miles from me. I am in the phone book.

Best,

Doug

Sure, we can work something out. Let's take this to email. Send me an email at twvaughan2005@yahoo.com.

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Martin viewed the windshield at Parkland. I have a report of the interview - I could make you a copy. Thanks for your kind words, and yes, you thanked me. Yes, I'm still in Michigan, in fact, I'm in Portage now.

Todd:

I would welcome a copy. I could always stop by or you could stop by my house or could mail me a copy. You have to be within 5 miles from me. I am in the phone book.

Best,

Doug

Sure, we can work something out. Let's take this to email. Send me an email at twvaughan2005@yahoo.com.

Todd:

I tried to send you an e=mail but it would not send out. It said "invalid domain."

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Doug,

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

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

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

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

Best to you,

Jerry

CE350.png

CE350close-up.png

Marsh03fbiblky1.png

ssimages.jpg

Edited by Jerry Logan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a low mass highspeed strike from the rear of the screen, and tangential to the screens orientation. Other objects indicate where the sun is and a crack in glass reflects internally depending on where the light comes from. I think what this particular picture shows is a strike that is only sufficient to gouge out a part of the inner window and the shine and darkness are depending on the planes or in the case of the gouge a mix of planes that tends to sparkle. Also the screen appears bowed out from the inside. Not enough to crack the outer of the screen but sufficient to have enough stress introduced to cause the spreading of the cracks as one witness (SS?) on the way to lovefield describes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Doug,

The reason I asked about the elevation is because of the trajectory it would have taken.With Elm Street being on a decline,and the shooter elevated....seems like the shot would have hit JFK lower on the body if it came through the windshield that`s all.

[Edited for clarity]

Taking in what Jack says in #29, perhaps this South Knoll shot became a throat shot and not a head shot because the view-to-a-kill of the head may have been diminishing as the limo dropped in elevation. As the limo descended toward the underpass, less and less of the head from the top down may have been available through the windshield.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug,

It`s the throat shot from in front that I`m having the most trouble with.In your opinion,did this shot occur from 10,11,12 or 1 or 2 O`clock from the front of JFK?Also,was this shooter elevated at all?

Michael:

Again, it would have been from the area of the south side of the underpass. It would have been elevated. If you watch my video from 1999 on you tube I actually show video and what it would have loked like from a sniper's view in that area.

Best,

Doug

Actually the use of the word ELEVATED is misleading. The area of the south knoll, railroad overpass, both pergolas and Houston Street

are all at the same ground level as the rest of the area. It is Dealey Plaza which is DEPRESSED which changes the level. At the time

of the throat shot, Elm Street is almost at the same level as the area of a south knoll gunman. The way to think of it is that EVERYTHING

IS LEVEL EXCEPT THE THREE STREETS AND ADJACENT AREAS WHICH SLOPE TO THE WEST ABOUT 3.5 DEGREES to the underpass. So

use of ELEVATED conveys a misconception.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One rough indicator is the top of the rail bridge, not the rail, as well as the top of zapruders pedestal as matching that of houston, in that area is this funnel like depression, as Jack describes, that has a flattish bottom that slopes down, so I suppose in a sense they are on a flat area with other parts above that perspective. I suppose how much is the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...