Jump to content
The Education Forum
Wim Dankbaar

Windshield alone proves conspiracy

Recommended Posts

Bernice said:

Knock off the name calling, and the accusations....wev'e had enough of that kind of nonsense around here of late.....and that is not research.....IMO.

When researchers choose to fly with statements made by a witness without doing the most basic homework and then continue with it in the face of numerous contradictions resulting from research, in this case through NARA and the Henry Ford Museum, it is difficult not to become impatient.

There are many instances where people claimed to see the limo at different places and at different times. However, what actually happened is that they heard of Vaughn Ferguson's experiences either from him or other FMC employees and added themselves into the stories. Mr. Whittaker had no reason to have been with the limo after the assassination, and certainly not at the Rouge Final Assembly Building.

I acknowledged that this essay was not new, and was in fact written and published before TMWKK. My position has indeed become more objective since then, and I will edit the essay to reflect that.

Pamela :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting points Al. I have discussed bullet impacts with glass repair people and some at the FMC and HFM. One of the myths of the windshield of 100X was that it was of 'special' construction, possibly bulletproof. This is, in fact, part of Mr. Whitaker's story. It was not, however. It was a standard 61 LCC windshield that could have been replaced at any Lincoln dealer.

All of those who say they saw a hole in the windshield claim it was smaller than that of typical ammunition, and clean, with no spider-cracking. They seemed to think that was consistent with a bulletproof windshield. However, FMC has photos of the effect of rifle shots on bulletproof glass, and they are, of course, quite different than anything seen on the 100X windshield.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting points Al.  I have discussed bullet impacts with glass repair people and some at the FMC and HFM.  One of the myths of the windshield of 100X was that it was of 'special' construction, possibly bulletproof.  This is, in fact, part of Mr. Whitaker's story.  It was not, however.  It was a standard 61 LCC windshield that could have been replaced at any Lincoln dealer. 

All of those who say they saw a hole in the windshield claim it was smaller than that of typical ammunition, and clean, with no spider-cracking.  They seemed to think that was consistent with a bulletproof windshield.  However, FMC has photos of the effect of rifle shots on bulletproof glass, and they are, of course, quite different than anything seen on the 100X windshield.

Pamela

Pamela, As I earlier posted, the hole may very well appear smaller than the diameter of the projectile as the vinyl internal laminent stretches and closes back in to a degree. The cracking is not as pronounced as one would think on a standard windshield glass unless the glass has been aged by considerable exposure to the eliments, especially intensive sun.

Bulletproof glass would show considerable powdering and radiating fractures on the surface of impact as it is designed to prevent penetration through the layers and absorbs the energy of the impact on the exterior surface.

I have never understood where some believe that 100X had a bulletproof windshield there is no documentation to suggest that and what is seen on it does not support it either. Thanks for the reply.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood where some believe that 100X had a bulletproof windshield there is no documentation to suggest that and what is seen on it does not support it either. Thanks for the reply. (Al Carrier)

I believe Al is correct. According to this news clipping, the limo did not have bulletproof glass. Indeed, the bubbletop itself was not bulletproof.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al said:

Pamela, As I earlier posted, the hole may very well appear smaller than the diameter of the projectile as the vinyl internal laminent stretches and closes back in to a degree. The cracking is not as pronounced as one would think on a standard windshield glass

Perhaps we are not yet on the same page here. The windshield in 100X was of standard windshield glass or two-ply laminated glass, and the hole created in glass of this sort is larger than the projectile. There is also considerable webbing and spider cracking.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James said:

... the limo did not have bulletproof glass. Indeed, the bubbletop itself was not bulletproof.

Correct. Nothing about 100X was bulletproof on 11.22.63. I was discussing a misunderstanding by virtually all of those who claim to have seen a 'hole' in the windshield of 100X after the assassination that they for some reason seemed to believe the windshield was bulletproof. They were mistaken.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an essay I prepared prior to TMWKK segment.  The man is Mr. Whitaker; we still don't know what his job at the Rouge was.  However, this man and others heard stories from and about Vaughn Ferguson's experiences with 100X and interpolated them into their own. 

http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/fetzerweldonmidp.html

Issues with the Fetzer-Weldon "MIDP" Nameless "Witness"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A researcher named Doug Weldon, under the mentoring of Dr. James Fetzer, conducted an interview with a man he describes as a "Ford Man" in 1993. If you read this chapter in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" You will notice that there are virtually no substantiating details in this interview, or in fact anywhere in his discussions about this man. Weldon has chosen to do no additional research since that point to independently validate or discredit this man's statements using either sources available at a local library, on the internet, or the resources of the Ford Motor Company itself. Weldon insisted that you accept all of this man's statements without question. The basis of Weldon's faith that this man is telling the truth appears to be the fact that he supposedly met the man and liked him. This interview was included in "Murder In Dealey Plaza", Part Two, the chapter on the Kennedy Limousine.

Weldon claimed this witness was a "Man from the Ford Motor Company." This is a misrepresentation. This man had no identity. The researcher was to trust that this man had a connection to the Ford Motor Company. We were later told that this lone mystery-witness was actually a union employee of the Ford Rouge complex Assembly Plant B -- a far cry from the Ford Experimental Garage where 100X was built. The reseracher was led to think that this lone mystery-witness worked in a "repair and maintenance" garage somewhere at Ford, that had a "Glass Plant Lab" attached to it. The researcher was encouraged to believe that there was nobody else around when the 8,000 lb. limousine SS-100-X was brought into "B Building" to have its windshield replaced. The resercher was encouraged to trust this man who has no descriptive references for the "lab men" that actually did the replacement, except that they are now deceased. The Nameless "Witness" had no inside information into the condition of 100X on 11/25/63, and he was presented as the the only witness to "see" a through and through bullet hole in the Shaeffer /Altgens 1-6 "spiral nebulae"position. He tried to give the impression that he and he alone had any knowledge of thd inner workings of the Ford Motor Company. Weldon also attempted to impugn the credibility of witnesses who actually saw 100X after the assassination; such people as the FBI's Robert Frazier, and DC Ford's F. Vaughn Ferguson.

Reading this chapter demands objectivity Go ahead and ask "Does this make sense or not?"

Dr. Fetzer has chosen to include this questionable if not fraudulent account in his latest compendium "MIDP". Dr. Fetzer has chosen do do so knowing the story is most probably entirely false. When presented with exhaustive research done at considerable expense through the Henry Ford Museum, refuting this man's story, Dr. Fetzer took it upon himself to try to discredit the messenger, researcher and author Pamela McElwain-Brown.

The "B Building" this man mentioned is, in fact, part of the 1,100 acre Ford River Rouge Complex.t is the final assembly building for this complex, where, during the early sixties, the Ford Falcon was assembled. From early 1964 on, the Ford Mustang has been assembled there. The building was designed as an assembly building. It has since been repeatedly updated as an assembly building, to give it state-of-the art equipment.

The Rouge also supplies parts to many Ford assembly plants, because it contains a steel mill (Rouge Steel, now spun off) and a Glass Plant (that makes windshields and automotive glass) and a Stamping Plant (that makes doors, roofs, trunks, etc, all metal vehicle parts made from rolled steel). It also contains a Power Plant (that is now being rebuilt after a tragic explosion in 1998) that supplies steam and electricity to the Rouge Complex; it could power a city the size of Boston. The Rouge, at it's height in WWII, employed as many as 130,000 people; in 1963 it employed over 10,000 people. The Rouge is a security complex, so everyone entering and leaving it needed identification. Tours through the Rouge will be available starting in the Spring of 2004 for anyone interested in attempting to recreate the events this Nameless "Witness" mentions.

According to the Henry Ford Museum, B Building had NO facilities for automobile repair. It was designed and run as an assembly building only. According to them, The Rouge Complex B building would NOT have been a place that 100X would have been taken, were it to have come to Ford. The appropriate place would have been the Experimental Garage at the Proving Grounds, about a mile away. This was where 100X actually was taken whenever it was at Ford. There were facilities there for repairs and maintenance, as well as any other specialized function that might be needed. This facility would also be relatively isolated in terms of the number of people around, and far more private, had any covert activity needed to take place.

All of the issues with the Nameless "Witness" have been presented to Weldon on one or more occasions. This interview is at the core of Weldon's theory regarding 100X. All attempts to discuss issues regarding it have been greeted only with arrogant hostility, in which Dr. Fetzer (Weldon has apparently left the research community) challenged not only Mrs. McElwain-Brown's information, but information from the Henry Ford Museum and from the Ford Archives, yet without providing any documented information to the contrary. Why?

Is this shoddy research, or something even worse? Is this really just a hoax? Is the only bintent to stir things up? Weldon and Fetzer had seven years to objectively verify information in this interview, and never bothered to do so. They have not even bothered to communicate to the research community that the B Building was in the Rouge Complex; that information, as has the rest of the substantiating information, came from Pamela McElwain-Brown. Weldon has also given copies of this interview to several "trusted researchers",among them Jack White, who have also had access to it for years. None of them have ever come forward and asked any questions regarding it either. Why not? Yet on the JFKResearch Board (which some call the disinfo board) Jack White repeatedly defended even the most ridiculous of this man's statments, such as referencing 100X as a "convertible". Are these issues the sort of thing that can only come from a specialist in the area of the Presidential Limousine, or are many of them simple common sense?

What is going on here? Are Fetzer and Weldon attempting to direct our attention away from something? Are we being distracted to think the Ford Motor Company is responsible for what happened to 100X after the assassination, leaving the Secret Service blameless? Are Fetzer and Weldon sincerely working to move the research effort forward or simply create disinformation that will generate conflict in the conspiracy camp? You will have to decide for yourself.

**************************************

Hey Pamela :

Knock off the name calling, and the accusations....wev'e had enough of that kind of nonsense around here of late.....and that is not research.....IMO.

That's my two cents..... ;)

You two cents? It's exactly what your comment worths. I don't see any wrong in what Pamela has written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denis said:

You two cents? It's exactly what your comment worths. I don't see any wrong in what Pamela has written.

Thanks Denis. I wrote that essay in the heat of the fray, and I do acknowledge that my rhetoric reflects that. Since TMWKK came out, and yet another witness has emerged who said he saw the limo at the Experimental Garage (where it more logically would have been) and other information has emerged, such as the fact that this man, whom we'll call 'Charlie' said he had pieces of the bloody back seat leather, while in fact it was Vaughn Ferguson who actually did have pieces of the bloody back seat, it is becoming increasingly evident that Mr. Ferguson, who spent time at Dearborn, loved to play golf, and was quite a talker, shared his experiences with many FMC people, some of which whom then incorporated them as their own.

As a result, my attitude toward Mr. Whitaker and his statements is a bit more mellow now than it was before, and, time permitting, I do plan to update the essay to reflect this.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an essay I prepared prior to TMWKK segment.  The man is Mr. Whitaker; we still don't know what his job at the Rouge was.  However, this man and others heard stories from and about Vaughn Ferguson's experiences with 100X and interpolated them into their own. 

http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/fetzerweldonmidp.html

Issues with the Fetzer-Weldon "MIDP" Nameless "Witness"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A researcher named Doug Weldon, under the mentoring of Dr. James Fetzer, conducted an interview with a man he describes as a "Ford Man" in 1993. If you read this chapter in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" You will notice that there are virtually no substantiating details in this interview, or in fact anywhere in his discussions about this man. Weldon has chosen to do no additional research since that point to independently validate or discredit this man's statements using either sources available at a local library, on the internet, or the resources of the Ford Motor Company itself. Weldon insisted that you accept all of this man's statements without question. The basis of Weldon's faith that this man is telling the truth appears to be the fact that he supposedly met the man and liked him. This interview was included in "Murder In Dealey Plaza", Part Two, the chapter on the Kennedy Limousine.

Weldon claimed this witness was a "Man from the Ford Motor Company." This is a misrepresentation. This man had no identity. The researcher was to trust that this man had a connection to the Ford Motor Company. We were later told that this lone mystery-witness was actually a union employee of the Ford Rouge complex Assembly Plant B -- a far cry from the Ford Experimental Garage where 100X was built. The reseracher was led to think that this lone mystery-witness worked in a "repair and maintenance" garage somewhere at Ford, that had a "Glass Plant Lab" attached to it. The researcher was encouraged to believe that there was nobody else around when the 8,000 lb. limousine SS-100-X was brought into "B Building" to have its windshield replaced. The resercher was encouraged to trust this man who has no descriptive references for the "lab men" that actually did the replacement, except that they are now deceased. The Nameless "Witness" had no inside information into the condition of 100X on 11/25/63, and he was presented as the the only witness to "see" a through and through bullet hole in the Shaeffer /Altgens 1-6 "spiral nebulae"position. He tried to give the impression that he and he alone had any knowledge of thd inner workings of the Ford Motor Company. Weldon also attempted to impugn the credibility of witnesses who actually saw 100X after the assassination; such people as the FBI's Robert Frazier, and DC Ford's F. Vaughn Ferguson.

Reading this chapter demands objectivity Go ahead and ask "Does this make sense or not?"

Dr. Fetzer has chosen to include this questionable if not fraudulent account in his latest compendium "MIDP". Dr. Fetzer has chosen do do so knowing the story is most probably entirely false. When presented with exhaustive research done at considerable expense through the Henry Ford Museum, refuting this man's story, Dr. Fetzer took it upon himself to try to discredit the messenger, researcher and author Pamela McElwain-Brown.

The "B Building" this man mentioned is, in fact, part of the 1,100 acre Ford River Rouge Complex.t is the final assembly building for this complex, where, during the early sixties, the Ford Falcon was assembled. From early 1964 on, the Ford Mustang has been assembled there. The building was designed as an assembly building. It has since been repeatedly updated as an assembly building, to give it state-of-the art equipment.

The Rouge also supplies parts to many Ford assembly plants, because it contains a steel mill (Rouge Steel, now spun off) and a Glass Plant (that makes windshields and automotive glass) and a Stamping Plant (that makes doors, roofs, trunks, etc, all metal vehicle parts made from rolled steel). It also contains a Power Plant (that is now being rebuilt after a tragic explosion in 1998) that supplies steam and electricity to the Rouge Complex; it could power a city the size of Boston. The Rouge, at it's height in WWII, employed as many as 130,000 people; in 1963 it employed over 10,000 people. The Rouge is a security complex, so everyone entering and leaving it needed identification. Tours through the Rouge will be available starting in the Spring of 2004 for anyone interested in attempting to recreate the events this Nameless "Witness" mentions.

According to the Henry Ford Museum, B Building had NO facilities for automobile repair. It was designed and run as an assembly building only. According to them, The Rouge Complex B building would NOT have been a place that 100X would have been taken, were it to have come to Ford. The appropriate place would have been the Experimental Garage at the Proving Grounds, about a mile away. This was where 100X actually was taken whenever it was at Ford. There were facilities there for repairs and maintenance, as well as any other specialized function that might be needed. This facility would also be relatively isolated in terms of the number of people around, and far more private, had any covert activity needed to take place.

All of the issues with the Nameless "Witness" have been presented to Weldon on one or more occasions. This interview is at the core of Weldon's theory regarding 100X. All attempts to discuss issues regarding it have been greeted only with arrogant hostility, in which Dr. Fetzer (Weldon has apparently left the research community) challenged not only Mrs. McElwain-Brown's information, but information from the Henry Ford Museum and from the Ford Archives, yet without providing any documented information to the contrary. Why?

Is this shoddy research, or something even worse? Is this really just a hoax? Is the only bintent to stir things up? Weldon and Fetzer had seven years to objectively verify information in this interview, and never bothered to do so. They have not even bothered to communicate to the research community that the B Building was in the Rouge Complex; that information, as has the rest of the substantiating information, came from Pamela McElwain-Brown. Weldon has also given copies of this interview to several "trusted researchers",among them Jack White, who have also had access to it for years. None of them have ever come forward and asked any questions regarding it either. Why not? Yet on the JFKResearch Board (which some call the disinfo board) Jack White repeatedly defended even the most ridiculous of this man's statments, such as referencing 100X as a "convertible". Are these issues the sort of thing that can only come from a specialist in the area of the Presidential Limousine, or are many of them simple common sense?

What is going on here? Are Fetzer and Weldon attempting to direct our attention away from something? Are we being distracted to think the Ford Motor Company is responsible for what happened to 100X after the assassination, leaving the Secret Service blameless? Are Fetzer and Weldon sincerely working to move the research effort forward or simply create disinformation that will generate conflict in the conspiracy camp? You will have to decide for yourself.

**************************************

Hey Pamela :

Knock off the name calling, and the accusations....wev'e had enough of that kind of nonsense around here of late.....and that is not research.....IMO.

That's my two cents..... :)

You two cents? It's exactly what your comment worths. I don't see any wrong in what Pamela has written.

*******************************

And you are entitled to your opinion, Denis, and so am I....

If you are not aware please read Andy's post below, made after all the past problems on the Forum, and in particular his very last line..

which reads...

"ancient squabbles brought in from elsewhere are not"..Thanks B.

Andy Walker Dec 29 2004, 08:13 AM Post #8

Administrator

Group: Admin

Posts: 786

Joined: 15-December 03

From: Gravesend, Kent

Member No.: 1

As a "non combatant" as it were in this area of the forum I would like to post my support for John's actions.

After repeated requests to have all his posts and seminars removed and yet rather eccentrically continuing to post rather incoherently across the whole forum, deleting Tim Carroll was an entirely appropriate action.

Wim appears to be the short of character who enjoys the game "Let's you and he fight" and as John points out has struggled to comply with the forum guidelines from the start.

Hopefully these events will serve as reminder to all that there are guidelines here.

Free academic debate engaged in maturely and intelligently is wholeheartedly welcomed, aggressive and ancient squabbles brought in from elsewhere are not.

--------------------

Andy Walker http://www.learningonline.me.uk http://www.historygcse.org Dartford Technology College Andy Walker's Biography

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not deny your right to express your opinion, Bernice. But thanks for pointing out to Andy's message. I did not see it... Yet, I don't see anything wrong with Pamela said? Can you tell me?

Denis

And you are entitled to your opinion, Denis, and so am I....

If you are not aware please read Andy's post below, made after all the past problems on the Forum, and in particular his very last line..

which reads...

"ancient squabbles brought in from elsewhere are not"..Thanks B.

Andy Walker Dec 29 2004, 08:13 AM Post #8

Administrator

Group: Admin

Posts: 786

Joined: 15-December 03

From: Gravesend, Kent

Member No.: 1

As a "non combatant" as it were in this area of the forum I would like to post my support for John's actions.

After repeated requests to have all his posts and seminars removed and yet rather eccentrically continuing to post rather incoherently across the whole forum, deleting Tim Carroll was an entirely appropriate action.

Wim appears to be the short of character who enjoys the game "Let's you and he fight" and as John points out has struggled to comply with the forum guidelines from the start.

Hopefully these events will serve as reminder to all that there are guidelines here.

Free academic debate engaged in maturely and intelligently is wholeheartedly welcomed, aggressive and ancient squabbles brought in from elsewhere are not.

--------------------

Andy Walker http://www.learningonline.me.uk http://www.historygcse.org Dartford Technology College Andy Walker's Biography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an essay I prepared prior to TMWKK segment.  The man is Mr. Whitaker; we still don't know what his job at the Rouge was.  However, this man and others heard stories from and about Vaughn Ferguson's experiences with 100X and interpolated them into their own. 

http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/fetzerweldonmidp.html

Issues with the Fetzer-Weldon "MIDP" Nameless "Witness"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A researcher named Doug Weldon, under the mentoring of Dr. James Fetzer, conducted an interview with a man he describes as a "Ford Man" in 1993. If you read this chapter in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" You will notice that there are virtually no substantiating details in this interview, or in fact anywhere in his discussions about this man. Weldon has chosen to do no additional research since that point to independently validate or discredit this man's statements using either sources available at a local library, on the internet, or the resources of the Ford Motor Company itself. Weldon insisted that you accept all of this man's statements without question. The basis of Weldon's faith that this man is telling the truth appears to be the fact that he supposedly met the man and liked him. This interview was included in "Murder In Dealey Plaza", Part Two, the chapter on the Kennedy Limousine.

Weldon claimed this witness was a "Man from the Ford Motor Company." This is a misrepresentation. This man had no identity. The researcher was to trust that this man had a connection to the Ford Motor Company. We were later told that this lone mystery-witness was actually a union employee of the Ford Rouge complex Assembly Plant B -- a far cry from the Ford Experimental Garage where 100X was built. The reseracher was led to think that this lone mystery-witness worked in a "repair and maintenance" garage somewhere at Ford, that had a "Glass Plant Lab" attached to it. The researcher was encouraged to believe that there was nobody else around when the 8,000 lb. limousine SS-100-X was brought into "B Building" to have its windshield replaced. The resercher was encouraged to trust this man who has no descriptive references for the "lab men" that actually did the replacement, except that they are now deceased. The Nameless "Witness" had no inside information into the condition of 100X on 11/25/63, and he was presented as the the only witness to "see" a through and through bullet hole in the Shaeffer /Altgens 1-6 "spiral nebulae"position. He tried to give the impression that he and he alone had any knowledge of thd inner workings of the Ford Motor Company. Weldon also attempted to impugn the credibility of witnesses who actually saw 100X after the assassination; such people as the FBI's Robert Frazier, and DC Ford's F. Vaughn Ferguson.

Reading this chapter demands objectivity Go ahead and ask "Does this make sense or not?"

Dr. Fetzer has chosen to include this questionable if not fraudulent account in his latest compendium "MIDP". Dr. Fetzer has chosen do do so knowing the story is most probably entirely false. When presented with exhaustive research done at considerable expense through the Henry Ford Museum, refuting this man's story, Dr. Fetzer took it upon himself to try to discredit the messenger, researcher and author Pamela McElwain-Brown.

The "B Building" this man mentioned is, in fact, part of the 1,100 acre Ford River Rouge Complex.t is the final assembly building for this complex, where, during the early sixties, the Ford Falcon was assembled. From early 1964 on, the Ford Mustang has been assembled there. The building was designed as an assembly building. It has since been repeatedly updated as an assembly building, to give it state-of-the art equipment.

The Rouge also supplies parts to many Ford assembly plants, because it contains a steel mill (Rouge Steel, now spun off) and a Glass Plant (that makes windshields and automotive glass) and a Stamping Plant (that makes doors, roofs, trunks, etc, all metal vehicle parts made from rolled steel). It also contains a Power Plant (that is now being rebuilt after a tragic explosion in 1998) that supplies steam and electricity to the Rouge Complex; it could power a city the size of Boston. The Rouge, at it's height in WWII, employed as many as 130,000 people; in 1963 it employed over 10,000 people. The Rouge is a security complex, so everyone entering and leaving it needed identification. Tours through the Rouge will be available starting in the Spring of 2004 for anyone interested in attempting to recreate the events this Nameless "Witness" mentions.

According to the Henry Ford Museum, B Building had NO facilities for automobile repair. It was designed and run as an assembly building only. According to them, The Rouge Complex B building would NOT have been a place that 100X would have been taken, were it to have come to Ford. The appropriate place would have been the Experimental Garage at the Proving Grounds, about a mile away. This was where 100X actually was taken whenever it was at Ford. There were facilities there for repairs and maintenance, as well as any other specialized function that might be needed. This facility would also be relatively isolated in terms of the number of people around, and far more private, had any covert activity needed to take place.

All of the issues with the Nameless "Witness" have been presented to Weldon on one or more occasions. This interview is at the core of Weldon's theory regarding 100X. All attempts to discuss issues regarding it have been greeted only with arrogant hostility, in which Dr. Fetzer (Weldon has apparently left the research community) challenged not only Mrs. McElwain-Brown's information, but information from the Henry Ford Museum and from the Ford Archives, yet without providing any documented information to the contrary. Why?

Is this shoddy research, or something even worse? Is this really just a hoax? Is the only bintent to stir things up? Weldon and Fetzer had seven years to objectively verify information in this interview, and never bothered to do so. They have not even bothered to communicate to the research community that the B Building was in the Rouge Complex; that information, as has the rest of the substantiating information, came from Pamela McElwain-Brown. Weldon has also given copies of this interview to several "trusted researchers",among them Jack White, who have also had access to it for years. None of them have ever come forward and asked any questions regarding it either. Why not? Yet on the JFKResearch Board (which some call the disinfo board) Jack White repeatedly defended even the most ridiculous of this man's statments, such as referencing 100X as a "convertible". Are these issues the sort of thing that can only come from a specialist in the area of the Presidential Limousine, or are many of them simple common sense?

What is going on here? Are Fetzer and Weldon attempting to direct our attention away from something? Are we being distracted to think the Ford Motor Company is responsible for what happened to 100X after the assassination, leaving the Secret Service blameless? Are Fetzer and Weldon sincerely working to move the research effort forward or simply create disinformation that will generate conflict in the conspiracy camp? You will have to decide for yourself.

**************************************

Hey Pamela :

Knock off the name calling, and the accusations....wev'e had enough of that kind of nonsense around here of late.....and that is not research.....IMO.

That's my two cents..... :)

You two cents? It's exactly what your comment worths. I don't see any wrong in what Pamela has written.

*******************************

And you are entitled to your opinion, Denis, and so am I....

If you are not aware please read Andy's post below, made after all the past problems on the Forum, and in particular his very last line..

which reads...

"ancient squabbles brought in from elsewhere are not"..Thanks B.

Andy Walker Dec 29 2004, 08:13 AM Post #8

Administrator

Group: Admin

Posts: 786

Joined: 15-December 03

From: Gravesend, Kent

Member No.: 1

As a "non combatant" as it were in this area of the forum I would like to post my support for John's actions.

After repeated requests to have all his posts and seminars removed and yet rather eccentrically continuing to post rather incoherently across the whole forum, deleting Tim Carroll was an entirely appropriate action.

Wim appears to be the short of character who enjoys the game "Let's you and he fight" and as John points out has struggled to comply with the forum guidelines from the start.

Hopefully these events will serve as reminder to all that there are guidelines here.

Free academic debate engaged in maturely and intelligently is wholeheartedly welcomed, aggressive and ancient squabbles brought in from elsewhere are not.

--------------------

Andy Walker http://www.learningonline.me.uk http://www.historygcse.org Dartford Technology College Andy Walker's Biography

*****************************************

I have been ccd this communication between Dr. J.Fetzer and Doug Weldon, Doug is not a member of this Forum......and has asked me to pass along this

information..as Dr.Fetzer is not available..

Jim:

You requested that I repond to some issues raised on the Simkin forum. Though there are many I will address a few:

1. It is written that "A researcher named Doug Weldon, under the mentoring of Dr. James Fetzer, conducted an interview with a a man he describes as a "Ford Man" in 1993.

Response: I am not certain what is meant by the statement that I conducted an interview under your "mentoring." The interview was conducted several years before I met you. Though I have always had the highest respect for you I have never considered you to be my "mentor." We now know that the identity of the "Ford Man" has beeen revealed world-wide as "George Whitaker."

2. "However, this man and others heard stories about Vaughn Ferguson's experiences with 100x and interpolated them into their own."

Response: This is very interesting. For anyone interested I discuss the Ferguson memorandum in detail in MIDP. I believe that the Ferguson memo was written as an effort to provide a cover story to what really happened to the limo after the assassination. I do so most of all because Ferguson's account does not correlate with any account ever published. I did find one person who knew Feguson well. That was Willard Hess, the owner of Hess and Eisenhardt, who built and rebuilt the limousine. Hess smiled and referred to him as "Fergie." All I will state about that now is that Ferguson was an individual that would cooperate with the deception Furthermore, this is quite an off the wall statement, without any factual basis. The first question I would have is who are these "others." I conducted the Whitaker interview in 1993, years before the Ferguson memo was "discovered." I cannot think of any link between Whitaker and Ferguson and their accounts have nothing to do with each other. Why would Whitaker even want to insert himself into Ferguson's account anyway? Whitaker told his family the story immediately in November of 1963. He never shared the story with anyone outside the family until I spoke with him in August of 1993. He was very frightened by what he knew and I promised not to reveal the story during his lifetime. Therefore, not only did he not seek attention, he did everything he could do to avoid it. There was never any publicity or monetary compensation. For those interested, I would again allude to my chapter in MIDP. I would like to see any iota of proof that Whitaker or any "others." heard about Ferguson's experiences. Unsubstantiated supposition is meaningless. It was alleged and insinuated for a couple of years that the "Ford man" was not bonafide and the essay on a website still ignores the fact that he has been identified as George Whitaker and any researcher is welcome to verify his employment with the Ford Motor Company.

3. It is stated that the "B' Building had NO facilities for automobile repair. "The Rouge Complex B buikding would NOT have been a place that the 100x would have been taken, were it to come to Ford. The appropriate place would have been the Experimental Garage at the Proving Grounds..."

Response: The first statement is in error. In 1963 and before there was a small repair garage in the B building. Sometimes executives would take their vehicles there on weekends and they would be worked on even by off-duty union workers. In addition the B Building was in very close proximity to the glass facility that Whitaker described. I do not believe that there was a designated building that it was required for a vehicle to be brought to to cover up the assassination of the president. The limo may well have been in the Experimental Garage at a later time or could have been there also on 11/25/1963 but Whitaker's account stated it was in the B building. Mr. Whitaker worked for Ford for many years. If he wanted to fabricate anything or place himself in the story he would have been aware of the experimental garage and used that as part of his "story." He was unequivocal that it was the B building.

4. The essay later states that "...this lone mystery witness was actually a union employee..."

Response: It is disturbing to see George Whitaker continue to be referred to as a mystery witness. In addition, he was not a union employee nor has it ever been stated that he was such. This is a misrepresentation . He was a managerial employee that was not subject to any of the confines of being a union employee. (period) Again, I encourage anyone with any question about this statement read MIDP.

5. The essay also asks: Are we being distracted to think the Ford Motor Company is responsible for what happened to 100x after the assassination leaving the Secret Service blameless.

Response: Jim, I am incredulous in reading the statement. My chapter in MIDP is one of the most powerful indictments of the Secret Service's role in the assassination ever published. The information shows how the coverup could be facilitated because of the close relationship between the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company at that time. Anyone can read the chapter and reach their own conclusions.

At one time the author of the essay argued over and over that the account at the Ford Company was impossible because November 25 was a day of mourning and noone would have been at the Ford plant. It is true that many businesses throughout the land were closed all day on November 25, 1963. The Ford Motor Company, for whatever reason, was not. Ford, the head of the company at that time, did despise Kennedy. Interestingly, the hours of the Ford Motor Company, on that day provided a perfect opportunity to provide for the account of Mr. Whitaker.

6. The writer of the essay states in the forum "I was discussing a misunderstanding by virtually all of those who claim to have seen a hole" in the windshield of 100x after the assassination that they for some reason seemed to believe the windshield was bulletproof."

Response: This is the most bizarre statement of all. I am not aware of anyone, and certainly not the people that I described seeing a hole in the windshield who thought the windshield was bulletproof. Noone that I interviewed ever claimed that the windshield was bulletproof. In fact, it would have been a contradiction. How could anyone see a through and through hole if the windshield was "bullet-proof?" The windshield was laminated, which was uncommon in 1963. I do acknowledge that there are questions that I have also that may never be answered. Why did those covering up the hole go through the process that was done with the windshield according to Whitaker. I do know that the Lincoln Continental was a fairly new vehicle and rather expensive for the time. There were not many thousands of them sold. I am doubtful that windshields were as easily replaceable as they are now. I am sure that they did not have the glass repair facilities that are so common everywhere now. I am also doubtful that Ford sales facilities would have stocked replacement windshields because it was a new car and windshield breakage was rather uncommon. Even today sales facilities do not commonly have spare windshields in storage. There has also been some criticism that the bullet hole was so "clean" without anyone accounting for fragmentation. Please understand that I am merely the historian of these accounts, not the creator. I did take a different approach however. I did not take the official records as "gospel." I have talked with as many people as I could that had information. I was fortunate in that I reached many of them before their passing. The people I spoke with, including Dr. Evalea Glanges (within weeks of her passing), Sgt. Stavis Ellis, Whitaker, and Officer Nick Prencipe all described the hole as clean and appeared about the diameter of a pencil. Everyone of these people, including the police officers, described this "clean: hole" as a bullet hole. Furthermore, the written account of Secret Service agent Charles Taylor, Jr., also appears to corroborate these observations. I would also note that the HSCA struggled with what happened to the limousine after the assasination and found discrepemcies in Ferguson's account.

I encourage everyone to read my chapter in MIDP. I have accumulated much new information since the publication of MIDP and I am hopeful that it may all be organized to show that our nation has lived a lie about what happened on November 22, 1963. At this point, I believe it is a debt I owe to all thise wonderful people I got to know (and the many that passed on) who I owe such gratitude that they were willing to share their trust in me in telling their accounts and each of them also wanting to know what exactly happened with that windshield and limousine after November 22, 1963.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response: [...] . Though I have always had the highest respect for you I have never considered you to be my "mentor."

My position is that Doug Weldon would not have been able to get his foot in the door to give an unvetted presentation about a nameless and job-descriptionless witness at Lancer's NID without the mentoring of Jim Fetzer. After that, he also presented at Fetzer's conference in Minneapolis, and was included in MIDP. All of this happened because of Fetzer. This is what I mean by mentoring.

The Ferguson memo surfaced just as Weldon was getting ready to present at NID. He has done everything possible to attempt to discredit it and to cast aspersion on Vaughn Ferguson, who was the one person known and documented to have been with 100X before the assassination and also from the night of the assassination on, including the day Weldon insists the car was at the Rouge. Weldon's statements are ridiculous in that Ferguson was preparing the car for possible use at the funeral per the orders of LBJ.

Weldon's witness had no reason to be anywhere near the limo. He has yet to reveal his job title. This is probably being concealed because then everyone would realize he interpolated Ferguson's experiences as his own.

3. It is stated that the "B' Building had NO facilities for automobile repair. "The Rouge Complex B buikding would NOT have been a place that the 100x would have been taken, were it to come to Ford. The appropriate place would have been the Experimental Garage at the Proving Grounds..."

Response: The first statement is in error. In 1963 and before there was a small repair garage in the B building.

Per the Henry Ford Museum this is absolutely ridiculous and silly. The limousine was never taken to the Rouge for ANY reason.

He was a managerial employee that was not subject to any of the confines of being a union employee. (period)

Per the HFM and the Rouge, there were no managerial employees at the Rouge. They were all union employees. Why is Weldon still concealing the man's job title?

The rest of Weldon's comments are again a lot of backpeddling from someone who chose to run with an unvetted story.

However, now we have yet another witness who has made yet additional claims about a sighting of the limo at the Experimental Garage, plus claiming to have pieces of bloody leather from the back seat to sell. As we know that these were actually the property of Vaughn Ferguson, two of which were put up for auction last summer, it is a bit simpler to understand how significant Mr Ferguson's role in history was. Indeed, it has been chronicled in my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave/Macmillan) 2002, ed. Brottman, and also in the new hour-long SPEED channel documentary "Presidential Limousine", part of the "Behind the Headlights" series which aired in November and December 2004.

Pamela :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al said:

Pamela, As I earlier posted, the hole may very well appear smaller than the diameter of the projectile as the vinyl internal laminent stretches and closes back in to a degree. The cracking is not as pronounced as one would think on a standard windshield glass

Perhaps we are not yet on the same page here.  The windshield in 100X was of standard windshield glass or two-ply laminated glass, and the hole created in glass of this sort is larger than the projectile.  There is also considerable webbing and spider cracking. 

Pamela

Pamela, the one thing we appear to be agreeing on here is that 100X did NOT have a bullet proof glass windshield.

I began studying bullet penetrations on vehicle windshields in 1997 for Law Enforcement. The motivation behind this was that we began seeing an unusually high rate of police shootings in and around vehicles at this time, according to the FBI's LEOKA records. I have a background in weapons and ballistics and from 1995 until the spring of 2004, ran a police training facility equipped with multiple ranges and instructed various levels of firearms training to multiple LE agencies. I took advantage of the range and began studying the various effects of bullet penetration through car windshields. I also attended and took part in ballistic conferences held by three of the major ammunition manufacturers, who utilized glass and windshield glass penetration as part of their testing for the various products on the market.

I fired everything from a variety of rifle projectiles starting with FMJ and down, to various handgun bullets down to the 9mm SXT. I also performed these tests from various angles and at windshields positioned in various angles to mirror the variety of windshield settings on vehicles. I tested the velocities of the projectiles beyond penetration, the penetration deflections and what the effects of the penetration had the composition of the bullets. While it is common knowlege that heavy clothing layers effect velocity of the bullet considerably, it is the windshield penetrations that disrupt the composition of the bullet the most. In most cases, the jacketing is either fully or partially stripped from the core. I also found that trajectory after penetration would be altered by 4.5-6" when impacting a target six feet beyond the penetration. What happens is the compression of the outer layer of glass into the interior laminent will cause a rollover of energy from the point of the bullet that impact first. In other words, if fired directly on, the lower portion of the nose of the bullet will impact first and cause the bullets trajectory to turn downward.

The hole that is left behind in the windshield after a bullet penetration will show the angle of trajectory of the bullet on impact. The shape of the powdering of the external layer of glass will show this. Also, the internal layer of vinyl laminent will stretch and snap back to a degree in many cases and show a hole smaller in diameter than the projectile. If the interior of the limo would have been properly preserved for evidence collection, we would have had evidence of their was windshield penetration from the front, as their would have been traces of laminent particles in the path of the bullet and on the victim, as well as a wider spray of fine shards of glass. With the questionable procedures of processing of the clothing of both the Governor and the President, and with the washing out of the interior of the limo at Parkland, the trace evidence went out the window.

As far as the webbing and cracking of the windshield glass on bullet impact, their are variables involved here. One would be the diameter v. the velocity v. the angle of impact. Another would be the age and the exposure to the elements of the windshield glass. The cracking and webbing is not as dramatic in most cases as most think, and it is not as visible from the inner side as the outer impact side.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Pamela Brown's ongoing assault upon Doug Weldon's research is deplorable. She has used many techniques of loaded language, special pleading, and other fallacies in an evident effort to create the impression that there is something wrong--even sinister--about Weldon's research on the Lincoln limousine. Since he has already responded to most of her allegations, I would like to add a few additional remarks about this affair.

Doug Weldon is an experienced attorney for the County of Kalamazoo Circuit Court and an Adjunct Professor for Western Michigan University's Department of Criminal Justice and its Graduate Department of Educational Leadership. He holds a J.D. from Thomas M. Cooley Law School, a Master's in Educational Leadership from Western Michigan University, and a B.A. in the fields of political science and sociology from Olivet College.

I am McKnight University Professor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. I received my A.B. in philosophy magna cum laude from Princeton and my Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Indiana. A former commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, I have published over 20 books and 100 articles in the philosophy of science and on the theortical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.

I chaired or co-chaired conferences on the death of JFK in Minneapolis (1999), Dallas (2000), Dallas (2001), and Duluth (2003). I have edited three books on the death of JFK, including ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). The first two are in their 7th printing and HOAX is now in its 2nd. I have extensive experience as an editor of professional books and journals on technical subjects.

Anyone who reads even the first paragraph of Brown's diatribe ought to ask themselves the following question: What is the probability that a professional scholar and an experienced attorney would conspire together to dupe the public with regard to important information about the existence of a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield? And what could they possibly expect to gain from doing so? Because this is the insinuation that Brown would have you believe.

The existence of the bullet hole was familiar long before Doug Weldon undertook his research. It is discussed, for example, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), pp. 141-144. which includes photos of the windshield in Dealey Plaza and of a second windshield later produced by the Secret Service on p. 143. On p. 167, it reproduces a column published in THE NEW REPUBLIC (21 December 1963) by Richard Dudman, who both observed the hole and discussed it in print.

It also includes a report from Robert B. Livingston, M.D., who was the Scientific Director of the National Institute for Mental Health and of the National Instutute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness in both the Eisenhower and the Kennedy administrations. He not only comments on Dudman's column but reports that the Secret Service had obtained a dozen windshields from The Ford Motor Company, which could have been used as substitutes (pp. 165-166).

These reports and this evidence, in my judgment, established the existence of the through-and-through hole in the limousine windshield before Doug Weldon and I had even met. He was conducting his own research into the matter, which he reported during the conference I organized in Minneapolis in 1999. I was very impressed by the thorough and painstaking fashion in which he pursued this issue and invited him to contribute to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).

I consider his study, "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963", pp. 129-157, to be the best work ever done on this subject. I was very familiar with his research before I accepted his article for publication and was convinced it was serious and sound. I supplemented it with photos of the limo in Dealey Plaza (p. 149), the substitute windshield (p. 157), and a photograph of yet another substitute windshield (p. 158).

I also included a copy of The Ford Museum's own summary of work done on the limousine in rebuilding it subsequent to the assassination, including the following statement: "Modified by the addition of armor plate, bullet proof glass and bullet resistant transpartent top after the Kennedy assassination in Nov. 1963." There should be no question as to whether or not the limousine in Dallas was equipped with bullet proof glass. It was not.

There should be a question, however, of why someone who presents herself as an expert on this subject should not know better at this point in time. Indeed, since this document was included in MURDER as an appendix to the article by Weldon that has drawn her scathing criticism, most students of this case are going to find it rather odd that should should have overlooked such definitive evidence. It suggests a mind that is closed to important, relevant evidence.

In the 2nd printing to HOAX, I have included a new page devoted to the windshield issue, which separate Windshield A (the windshield on the limo during the shooting in Dealey Plaza), Windshield B (described in the memorandum by F. Vaughn Ferguson), and Windshield C (the windshield later produced by the Secret Service). It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Secret Service was playing a shell game.

Notice, in particular, that after the original (Windshield A) was removed at Ford, it was replaced by a new windshield not identical with A, B, or C. It may or may not have been subjected to controlled damage by the Secret Service to create effects of the kind seen in Windshield C. But it was itself a new and undamaged windshield not identical with either A or B or C.

Many students are aware that many bystanders reported that the first shot sounded different than the others. Jim Lewis has been firing high-powered rifles through the windshields of abandoned vehicles and has discovered that they not only create a thorough-and-through hole like that seen in Windshield A but that the strikes make

a sound like that of a firecracker. (The photographs may now be found on p. 436.)

Additional corroboration of a through-and-through hole in the windshield was included in "The Smoking Guns", the first of the three new segments of "The Men who Killed Kennedy", broadcast on The History Channel. Although these segments are (to the best of my knowledge) no longer available to the public, ostensibly because of the allegations that LBJ was involved in the death of JFK, my suspicion is that the reasons for withdrawing them had at least as much to do with the windshield discussion.

I should add that this is not the first time I have been made aware of Brown's efforts to discredit Weldon's work. I am very confident that his research is not only of the highest standard but would qualify as legally admissible evidence in a court of law. I have reviewed her writings on several occasions, however, and regret that I cannot say the same of them. (Weldon and others have already commented on aspects of her work that I shall not repeat here.)

The evidence for a through-and-through hole in the windshield is considerable and compelling. The Ferguson memorandum appears to me to be a deception. Notice the description it provides does not even correspond to the appearance of Windshield C! It is my opinion that anyone familiar with this evidence who does not conclude that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield thereby discredits themselves as responsible students of the case and should not be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo, Jim...on your thorough and comprehensive refutation of Pamela's

outdated charges. And thanks for the mention of the new windshield material

in the latest HOAX printing. I will check it out, since I was not aware of the

addition.

Jack :)

PS...I just checked HOAX and could not find the additional material.

Did you mean MIDP?

Edited by Jack White

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...