Windshield alone proves conspiracy

[Wim Dankbaar]

There were two points of damage on the windshield of the limousine:

1) A crack or bullet hole in the glass at the right side of the mirror (looking from the outside from the hood of the car)

2) A nick in the chrome on the top lining of the windshield (looking from the inside of the car)

This evidence is all in the Warren Report itself.

It is bordering to impossible that both these damage points have been caused by one and the same bullet, but even if we assume it was, which of the three Oswald bullets could have inflicted the damage to the windshield?

1) CE 399, the so called magic bullet that was found almost intact on a stretcher in Parlkland Hospital, alledgedly fallen out of Connally's thigh?

2) The bullet that missed the limousine and struck a curb, the debris of which slightly injured the cheeck of James Tague?

3) Or the fatal bullet that hit Kennedy in the back of the head, "exiting" through JFK's right temple?

It is crystal clear that none of these bullets had a path that could cause the two damage points on the windshiled. Hence there were more than three bullets, hence there was more than one shooter, hence there was a conspiracy.

And by the way, Gary, you're welcome to give me a counter on that if you can.

Wim

[Wim Dankbaar]

Ah, another easy one. The head shot fragmented, so one piece nicked the windshield and the nose dented the stainless steel strip above the mirror (it wasn't chrome, BTW). Two large fragments of that shot, including the nose, were found by the right front seat.

Gary Mack

Gary,

Apart from the impossibility of that trajectory to end up at the top of the windshield,

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/warrenco...iondrawings.gif

Since when do non-fragmentable bullets, as the ones from Oswalds rifle, fragmentate? Especially since CE 399 that supposedly went through two bodies and a bone shattered wrist, did not fragmentate at all?

Gary, if you were born a little earlier, you could have replaced Arlen Specter.

By the way, there were not two but three damage points on the windshiled, did you know that? There were also cracks on the left side. Is the excuse for those the handling of the car?

Wim

Edited December 23, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar

[Greg Wagner]

Wasn't there a piece in one of the later The Men Who Killed Kennedy shows about the windshield? If I recall correctly, there was a female witness who viewed the limo at Parkland and a letter from a since dead Ford retiree that worked in the Rogue, Michigan plant's glass shop. Both stated that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that the hole was smooth on the outside and fragmented around the edges on the inside- thus indicating that the bullet that passed through the windshield was fired from in front of the limo. The piece went on to talk about how the windshield was replaced at the rouge Ford plant.

Did anyone see this show? How about the reliability of those witnesses? We seem to have several well informed individuals in this forum; just wondering about opinions on that. When I saw the episode, it certainly seemed plausible.

Obviously, a shot coming through the windshield from the front would prove conspiracy.

[Ron Ecker]

It is apparent from the WC testimony of SS agent Roy Kellerman that the damaged windshield was switched, not once but at least twice, between the shooting and the time that a windshield was brought into the WC hearing for Kellerman to examine.

It should be noted, to begin with, that Kellerman believed there was a conspiracy, as is evident from his testimony that there had to be more than three shots. (And Senator Cooper obviously couldn’t believe what he heard.) I think that this would eliminate Kellerman as a conspirator.

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--

Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.

Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.

Arlen Specter then gets Kellerman to admit that he didn’t actually remember hearing more than three shots.

On to the windshield:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir. (“That day” refers to Nov. 27, in the White House garage, the first time Kellerman noted the damage.)

Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?

Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car.

Several witnesses saw a through hole in the windshield. This is discussed in detail by Weldon in "Murder in Dealey Plaza." The windshield with no hole that Kellerman saw in the White House garage and described to the WC was therefore not the original windshield, but a replacement windshield that had been damaged by hitting it with something on the inside, making no hole and leaving the outside smooth.

After the windshield is admitted into evidence:

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman. I would like for you at this time to actually touch the outside (of the windshield) and tell me, first of all, if it is the same or if it differs in any way from the sense of feel which you noted when you touched it on or about November 27?

Mr. KELLERMAN. As I touch the outside on the impact, it would be the same as I noticed on the 27th of November.

Mr. SPECTER. What do you notice, if anything?

Mr. KELLERMAN. It is a smooth surface without any--

Mr. SPECTER. Without any--finish your answer.

Mr. KELLERMAN. On the inside.

Mr. SPECTER. No; before. It is a smooth surface without any what?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Without any crack lines.

Mr. SPECTER. On the outside?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That can be felt.

Mr. SPECTER. On the outside?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; on the outside of the windshield.

But now Specter makes a mistake similar to the one the prosecution made in the O.J. trial by having O.J. try on the glove (it didn’t fit!):

Mr. SPECTER. Feel the inside and tell us, first of all, whether it is the same or different from the way you touched it on November 27?

Mr. KELLERMAN. On November 27, when I felt the inside of this impact area, I was convinced that I could - that I felt an opening in one of these lines, which was indicative to me that the blow was struck from the inside of the car on this windshield.

Mr. SPECTER. Does it feel the same to you today as it did on or about November 27?

Mr. KELLERMAN. As a matter of fact, it feels rather smooth today.

Mr. SPECTER. It feels somewhat differently today than it felt before?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; it does.

Kellerman had to know at that moment that the windshield had been switched. And this was the second switch (at least) that had been made. (Having gotten rid of the hole with the first switch, why was a second switch made, to have both sides of the windshield smooth? I don’t have a clue.)

Ron

[Greg Wagner]

Wasn't there a piece in one of the later The Men Who Killed Kennedy shows about the windshield? If I recall correctly, there was a female witness who viewed the limo at Parkland and a letter from a since dead Ford retiree that worked in the Rogue, Michigan plant's glass shop. Both stated that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that the hole was smooth on the outside and fragmented around the edges on the inside- thus indicating that the bullet that passed through the windshield was fired from in front of the limo. The piece went on to talk about how the windshield was replaced at the rouge Ford plant.

Did anyone see this show? How about the reliability of those witnesses? We seem to have several well informed individuals in this forum; just wondering about opinions on that. When I saw the episode, it certainly seemed plausible.

Obviously, a shot coming through the windshield from the front would prove conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry... I think that should read Rouge, Michigan (it's the name of a city in MI, as opposed to Michigan being a rogue state

[Tim Carroll]

There were two points of damage on the windshield of the limousine:

1)  A crack or bullet hole in the glass at the right side of the mirror (looking from the outside from the hood of the car)

2)  A nick in the chrome on the top lining of the windshield (looking from the inside of the car)

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously, Al will not tolerate an anti-Castro, Mafia or corrupt police viewpoint. For that position to be condoned, even supported, renders this forum useless.

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

I think his Al's position may be accepted or rejected by anyone as he/she wishes. The trouble I see is that if you you do not agree with Al, you are "part of the problem" or an "idiot". In other words Al seems to think his position is gospel.  But there are enough ballistics experts who do not see eye to eye with him on everything. 

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al apparently believes the concealment of the windshield to be sloppy but innocent police work, and that anyone who believes there are dirty cops is to be labeled "rediculous." He also doesn't follow the rule of logic, given his Catch-22 argument that no one who confesses, such as Tosh, could be genuine, and given the projection of his own performance in Latin America for which he certainly would never confess. He doesn't think anyone else should be allowed to comment, but when I posted new information about the massacre of dozens of police at Caro Quintero's ranch near Vera Cruz and asked for him to comment, he would not. So the Catch-22: as we search for the truth, he shuts down historians who didn't engage in murderous acts themselves in Latin America or have records of ongoing police abuse in America. Anyone who was there and admits it, must not have actually been there.

On Lancer, Al gave an ultimatum for certain people to be kicked off the forum, including the one he referred to on this forum as a "Nazi" (attacks don't get more personal than that; and he has made that statement on this forum). When not a single person spoke in support of him, he was silenced. That's history. Now, as Wim cited, people who don't kneel down before Al's murderous expertise are labeled "fantasy chasers," which is not considered personal attack here. He uses profanity and that's acceptable language here.

I don't sit back for police abuse and brutality, on the streets or on-line. That's not anti-establishment; that's pro-freedom.

Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

The trouble I see is that if you you do not agree with Al, you are "part of the problem" or an "idiot". In other words Al seems to think his position is gospel. But there are enough ballistics experts who do not see eye to eye with him on everything.

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al apparently believes the concealment of the windshield to be sloppy but innocent police work, and that anyone who believes there are dirty cops is to be labeled "rediculous."

I am troubled by some of you people having an 'all or nothing' mentality. While Al and I believe the windshield was damaged during the assassination - we differ as to when the windshield was actually struck by a projectile. Because of that difference I do not take it to extremes and say the things you researchers are saying about him. In other words his opinion about the handling of the limo and it's windshield doesn't mean that he doesn't think there aren't dirty cops in the world and that's just how it was implied above. Try and deal with this issue by presenting fact against fact and leave some of the emotions out of the mix and the forum will be better for it.

[Antti Hynonen]

Wim Dankbaar Posted Dec 23 2004, 06:32 PM

There were two points of damage on the windshield of the limousine:

1) A crack or bullet hole in the glass at the right side of the mirror (looking from the outside from the hood of the car)

2) A nick in the chrome on the top lining of the windshield (looking from the inside of the car)

This evidence is all in the Warren Report itself.

It is bordering to impossible that both these damage points have been caused by one and the same bullet, but even if we assume it was, which of the three Oswald bullets could have inflicted the damage to the windshield?

1) CE 399, the so called magic bullet that was found almost intact on a stretcher in Parlkland Hospital, alledgedly fallen out of Connally's thigh?

2) The bullet that missed the limousine and struck a curb, the debris of which slightly injured the cheeck of James Tague?

3) Or the fatal bullet that hit Kennedy in the back of the head, "exiting" through JFK's right temple?

It is crystal clear that none of these bullets had a path that could cause the two damage points on the windshiled. Hence there were more than three bullets, hence there was more than one shooter, hence there was a conspiracy.

And by the way, Gary, you're welcome to give me a counter on that if you can.

Wim

Wim, do not forget the "Magic Bullet", it conveniently explains all bullet damages and wounds, which can't be explained otherwise... yes there were only three bullets fired in Dealy P. that day.

Didn't you know that 6.5 mm. full metal jacket Carcano bullets will conveniently fragment, not fragment, disappear and disintegrate when needed for the forensic and ballistic experts... Oh, and upon impact Carcano bullets will also conveniently divert from their original path whilst fragmenting, as needed of course.

[Bill Miller]

These docs were posted at Wim's request.

[Shanet Clark]

Great stuff.

The evidentiary text and drawings are vastly different from the photo above.

The photo was intended to dissuade belief in a forward shooter, but the diagrams give the game away.

[Pamela Brown]

This is an article available at www.jfk100x.com (exceeded bandwidth and offline until 1.1.05) and at

http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/hole1.html

Evangelea Glanges was one of the bullet hole witnesses.

The Presidential Limousine Windshield Bullet Hole and The "Hole is a Hole" Theory

We are told by a handful of researchers that a number of different witnesses viewed a 'hole' in the windshield of the Presidential Limousine Secret Service-100-X after the assassination and that although at least three of them specify different locations, they are all talking about the same spot. A hole in any location equals a hole in the same location -- this is the "Hole is a Hole" theory.

We are told that the location of where these witnesses say they saw the 'hole' on the windshield is insignificant -- that what is important, is that they saw a 'hole'! Anyone who questions the fact that different locations were voluntarily specified is greeted with condescending references to such things as the sun rising and setting or the world being flat. That, we are told, is supposed to be that. This is a simple issue -- an 'open and shut' case -- a 'case closed'. In addition, one researcher has even managed to convince two of these witnesses to change the location of the 'hole' they believe they saw.

What are the possible implications of this speculative concept that on some levels comes across as little more than irresponsible disinformation? What happens if we accept this 'logic'? And what happens if we set it aside and start from scratch? Will one approach prove more valuable than the other?

First, perhaps we should ask ourselves what we expect from someone who is comfortable contributing a speculation as eccentric as this to the community and then demanding that the community accept it. Do we expect logic? Do we prefer suspension of disbelief if it means a good story? Do we expect valid documentation, or will strategically chosen pieces of information do? Do we expect to be given all relevant information, or just the highlights?

We need also take into account the fact that the idea of a windshield through-and-through bullet hole, whether myth or fact, has been a part of the mystery of Secret Service-100-X since the assassination. We need to determine to what extent a need for this to be true -- no matter how it may stretch our credibility -- is more important than anything else, because to some immature researchers, this proves a conspiracy. Are they willing to suspend reason in order to prove this? Are they willing to irresponsibly distort information in order to 'prove' this? Are they willing to pull pieces of information out of context and wave them around, insisting that this 'proves' their theory? Is the appropriate question 'just how far are they willing to go' to 'prove' their theory? Or is there some geniune truth-seeking going on? Keep this question in mind as we focus in on the question of the windshield bullet hole and the 'hole is a hole' theory.

Who didn't see a 'hole' and should have?

Parkland Hospital

William Greer - Drove 100X in Dallas motorcade to Parkland Hospital (only)(According to Nick Prencipe, Greer told him that evening that bullets were flying at them from all directions; one came through the windshield. This is in conflict with any documented statements Greer made; described more fully in Nick Prencipe section).

Roy Kellerman - Sat next to Greer in front passenger seat 100X to Parkland Hospital (only)

Love Field to the White House Garage

Sam Kinney - Drove 679-X, Queen Mary II, follow-up car, in Dallas motorcade to Parkland Hospital; covered 100X at Parkland, probably responsible for pail of water being used on the car. Drove 100X from Parkland to Love Field, and from Andrews AFB to the White House Garage. Sam Kinney was also interviewed extensively by Vince Palamara, who adamantly believes in the 'hole is a hole' theory; and yet Vince has not attributed any statement to that effect by Kinney. Wouldn't we expect that the man who put the roof onto 100X at Parkland Hospital would have seen a t&t bullet hole if there was one? And wouldn't a professional such as Palamara been able to get him to admit that?

White House Garage

Robert Frazier and his FBI team of Orrin Bartlett, Courtland Cunningham, Charles Killiam and Walter Thomas. Robert Frazier has stated in his interview with me of November, 1999 when I asked him about Taylor's statement that "Yes, it may have appeared to be a hole but the inner layer of the glass was not broken."

Air Force Hercules Transport Plane C130 used to transport 100X and 679X from Love Field to Andrews Air Force Base.

Researcher Doug DeSalle reports a member of the crew (who remains nameless but whom DeSalle has verified to be on the manifest for the Dallas trip) saw 100X while car was in the C130 on return trip to DC. Said he saw the acknowledged defect, but no through-and-through 'hole'.

Who saw a 'hole' and Where?

Parkland Hospital

Stavis Ellis/Freeman - Two DPD motorcycle policemen. Ellis is on record (_No More Silence_) as saying he saw a hole low on the windshield; both have told interviewers they put a 'pencil' through the hole; also are on record saying they 'could have' put a pencil through the hole.

Evangelea Glanges - Nursing student at Parkland Hospital; did not volunteer a location for the 'hole', and was not asked by interviewers Weldon or Palamara; maintains that she leaned on 100X, noticed the hole, commented on it and at that point an Secret Service agent drove the car away. Also documented in "Conspiracy of Silence".

Richard Dudman - Highly respected reporter for St. Louis Post-Dispatch. On record in "Assassination Science" as claiming their was a 'hole' in the windshield in a newspaper article; location of hole is referenced by colleague Livingston as being 'high' on the windshield. This has not been corroborated by Dudman who, to date, refuses to talk about the assassination.

White House Garage

Nick Prencipe - This US Park Policeman's statements are puzzling, to say the least, and carry some serious conflicts that have not yet been resolved. Nick insists that he spoke with Greer during the early evening of 11/22/63, and that the conversation took place outside the White House. To all reports, Greer stayed with the body of JFK during the evening and was nowhere near the White House. Thus, Nick's subsequent story is open to question. Nick claims that based on his conversation with Greer, who said that bullets were coming at them from all directions and one of them came through the windshield (something Greer is not on record as saying to anyone else), Nick then went to the 'Secret Service' garage to look at 100X. When I interviewed Nick, he seemed to think this garage was closed down right after the assassination. He claimed that he walked right into the garage and there was no security around 100X. He cannot state at what time this took place. He then lifted the tarp on the car, which was sitting in the middle of the garage, and noted a small, through-and-through bullet hole in the lower passenger-side of the windshield. I asked him more than once if he saw any defect in the area near the rear-view mirror, and he stated that he had not. (A later interview with another researcher triggered his 'not being sure' where the hole was he saw, though he was 100% positive he had seen a hole. This is a good example of the 'hole-is-a-hole' theory.') However, Nick called the White House Garage the "Secret Service" Garage. So did Robert Frazier, whom we know led the team that examined 100X between 1-4:30 a.m. 11/23/63, so this fact adds to Nick's credibility. He spoke of 'lifting a tarp'. The FBI bulky photos show a tarp beside 100X, so this is another point of credibility. He also spoke of being in communication with other DC Park Police as they escorted 100X and 679X from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House Garage. The Taylor/Geiglein report substantiates that it was the DC Park Police who escorted the car; another point of credibility. Nick states that the car was in the center of the garage, and not in its bay; this adds some potential definition as to what time at night he was there -- supposedly, 100X was examined at 9 p.m. by the Secret Service, and at 10pm. a fragment of skull was supposedly retrieved from the floor near the jumpseat by Admiral Burkley, CPO Martinelli and Mills of Burkley's office. That means 100X was probably out of its bay during those examinations. By 1 a.m., when the FBI exam began, 100X was back in its bay, covered with the tarp, roof up, and was driven out into the garage by SA and FBI liaison Orrin Bartlett for the exam. Nick does not recall seeing anyone around the car, nor did he recognize anyone who was present; apparently he just walked right in. While these things are not likely, considering the car was supposedly under guard and all those without White House Garage credentials (such as the FBI) had to log in; however, although security was instituted at 9 p.m., the first entries into the logs were not until 1 a.m., so it could have been that the logs had not been started yet.

In actuality, 100X was the center of activity once it was driven to the White House garage at 9pm 11/22/63. Two Secret Service men and a White House policeman were assigned to guard the car; logs were set up to record those without White House garage credentials coming to see the car (the first entries were the FBI team at 1 a.m.). In addition, the Secret Service was determined to scour the car, finding all evidence themselves. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the car was unattended at any time during the evening. In addition, Nick cannot recall the names or faces of anyone who was there that night, nor give any description of them. This calls the accuracy of the timeline of his stated experience into question. Nick's statement does, perhaps, present an insight into a theme common to all the windshield bullet-hole witnesses -- each of them said they observed a small, clean hole, that you could put a pencil through. Ellis and Freeman were motorcycle officers, as was Nick; they had undoubtedly seen bullet-holes through windshields on many occasions. The fact that this hole was smaller than the size of a normal bullet (consistent perhaps with a bb or pellet gun ammunition) and had no white frothing around it, and no spider cracking emanating from it was not a concern to any of them. There may be an explanation -- Nick alluded, in his interview with me, to the fact that he thought the windshield was made of bulletproof glass. If that were the conception of each of these witnesses, they might not know what to expect, and perhaps the inconsistency of this hole with those made from bullets impacting two-ply safety glass would be understandable. However, the windshield of 100X was a standard Lincoln windshield, available at any Lincoln dealership or windshield replacement service. These witnesses didn't know that.

Charles Taylor - Taylor's report is frequently taken out of context, and usually only part of his statement is repeated, which was that he saw a 'hole' in the windshield. Taylor was in 100X when it was driven from AAFB to the White House Garage; he was also present during the FBI exam of the limo and the statement in his report that he observed "a small hole from which bullet fragments were removed" referred to the acknowledged defect, from which the metal scrapings were made during the exam that became CE 877. We can judge for ourselves from the photo CE 350, also taken that night, what constituted the 'hole' Taylor was referring to -- it is the round defect with (by this time) small spider cracks emanating from it. Another interesting point is that although Taylor was also present in 100X when it was driven from Andrews AFB to the White House Garage that night; he makes no mention specifically of anything that he observed during that ride. Did the Taylor statement slip through the cracks of Secret Service documentation, or was the knowledge of a 'hole' not necessarily a t&t hole something of insignificance to the Secret Service?

The Lone-Mystery Witness -- The nameless 'Man from the Rouge'

This witness claims that 100X appeared at the Final Assembly ( Building at the Rouge River Complex of the Ford Motor Company on 11/25/63 for a windshield replacement. There is no explanation given by this man or anyone else as to why this event would occur -- nearly 1,000 miles from the White House Garage -- or why this event would occur outside of the critical timeline for 100X, which was between 12:30 11/22/63 and 4:30 pm 11/23/63, by which time the car had already been examined by the Secret Service and FBI, diagrammed, photographed and cleaned out, since the smell was becoming offensive. The location for doing any repair work to 100X is suspect also; 100X was built at the Ford Experimental Garage, about a mile away from the Rouge. Is this researcher attempting to distract our attention from the actions of the Secret Service and put emphasis on suposed wrongdoing of the Ford Motor Company? With the sketchy details we are given, which we are also told should be sufficient, it is difficult to tell, don't you think? Could this be a hoax? You decide.

The Altgens 1-6 and 1-7

The famous Altgens 1-6, taken at Z255, shows a suspicious area to the right of the rear-view mirror. To some, it looks like part of the clothes of the woman standing directly behind 100X when this shot was taken; but to others, this is the smoking gun of the assassination -- the ubiquitous 'spiral nebulae'. This 'spiral nebulae' which, even on good copies of the Altgens 1-6, shows few if any of the characteristics of a bullet going through safety glass (center hole slightly larger than the bullet, white frothing, spider cracks emanating from the hole to perhaps even the edges of the windshield) has been the basis for a number of highly speculative theories about the windshield through-and-through bullet hole. However, those who yell that the Altgens 1-6 'spiral nebulae' alone tells the truth, forget a very obvious contrasting photo -- the less famous Altgens 1-7, taken as 100X is nearly to the triple underpass; Jackie is on the trunk of the car and Clint Hill is just climbing onto the car. A closeup of the windshield in this photo, however, clearly shows that there definitely is a defect near the rear-view mirror, but only a small circle of white shows, indicating that there was no perforation. Thus, the Altgens 1-7 contradicts the Altgens 1-6 and supports the thesis that the 'spiral nebulae' area of the Altgens 1-6 windshield does NOT represent a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. One pro-spiral-nebulae researcher is now maintaining that the 1-7 does show a hole, it just is not clear; or words to that effect. That sort of specious logic can be countered by saying, for example, that the 1-6 shows the windshield hit at the moment of impact, and that it doesn't show a t&t hole either. Nevertheless, the mystery of what is represented in the Altgens 1-6 is one of the enduring questions of the assassination, and you will just have to decide for yourself.

The Adamant "Hole is a Hole" Theorists

For some researchers, there "must" be a hole in the windshield. They will seem to go to any extreme to attempt to prove it. They will say that a 'hole' observed anywhere on the windshield can only mean the one 'hole' to which they refer. They take documents out of context, such as the Taylor/Geiglein report, and ignore everything that does not fit their agenda, such as the FBI bulky photos, the Secret Service/PRS photos, none of which show a t&t 'hole, even one FBI bulky photo taken straight on. (All of these photos are available at www.jfk100x.com). They don't care whether it makes sense or not -- they have the 'Hole is a hole" fever. The witnesses are equally certain -- even those such as Dr Glanges who never volunteered exactly where on the windshield the 'hole' was that she saw, and her researchers never bothered to ask her. Dudman, Ellis and Nick Prencipe (who has, since talking to a pro-spiral nebulae researcher now decided he can't recall the location of the 'hole' but is 100% sure there was one) have gone on record stating where the 'hole' was they believed they saw, and each location is different. But they will agree that "Yes, I saw a hole!".

A pro-spiral-nebulae researcher has repeatedly come up with a list of supposedly-exclusive alternatives -- namely, that either these people were lying or that there was only one hole, or logic to that effect. However, are there not other possibilities, the first being that we do not yet have all the answers? Can't we find these witnesses credible without rushing to a 'hole is a hole' conclusion? Are we unable to live with conflicting statements? Could one or all of these people have been mistaken? Was there debris on the windshield that reflected light? Were there additional pockmarked defects on the windshield that reflected light? Might they have seen either instead or in addition a 'hole' on the bullet-proof windshield of the Queen Mary II? Or are these even valid questions; should we just shut down and join the 'hole-is-a-hole' mementum?

Where does this fervor come from? With the exception of the Lone-mystery 'Man from the Rouge', each of these individuals was a part of perhaps the single most devastating event in recent American history. Each of them was affected by it in a personal way, much more so than the rest of the country who could only watch in horror and distress as events unfolded on TV. Each of these witnesses had reason to be near the car -- Ellis and Freeman were DPD motorcycle officers, Dudman a respected journalist, Glanges a nursing student at Parkland, Prencipe a DC Park Police in contact with the squadren of police accompanying 100X from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage. They were a part of this traumatizing event, and they were a part of the buzz. Someone started this idea. Which one said it first? Was this idea implanted by a Secret Service man, for example, attempting to draw attention away from the Queen Mary II, the car that was sequestered with 100X and never photographed, the car that followed it in the motorcade? Or was it started by an onlooker, or one of these witnesses? There is no record of that. But by the time 100X had been returned to Andrews AFB, all of the accompanying policmen were, according to Prencipe, talking about the state of the car, and talking about the windshield. Could they actually see the damage, in the dark cool evening, as the car, covered in debris (according to Frazier) was driven from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage? Did they even need to see the damage?

Or were they reflecting, as have many of us since, that it is impossible that such an earth-shattering event could take place in a car that managed to survive with hardly a scratch? Could anger at that indignity be at the root of the "Hole is a hole" fervor? If that were so, the next logical jump would be to acknowledge that no lone-gun assassin, shooting with an out-dated and unbalanced carbine could possibly have done this crime at all -- much less alone? No damage to the car? Those passengers were surrounded by the car; they should have been protected by the car. An assassination without bullets and bullet-holes in 100X was unthinkable. It was unreasonable, wasn't it?

This information is all that is available at the moment. It will change, and more will be forthcoming. Although it may be possible to try and tie up the loose ends of this information, for the sake of expedience, perhaps it might also be a valid alternative to keep an open mind and acknowledge the credibility of these people as well. That is up to you.

@In Broad Daylight Research January, 2001

[Pamela Brown]

You are apparently unaware of the research I have done on this subject. There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the windshield was switched now that the Ferguson Memo is available to the community. It is available at www.jfk100x.com after 1.1.05 (exceeded bandwidth) and at http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/jfk.html

That is not to say that the windshield 'couldn't have been switched; just that the windshield in the limo during the FBI exam on 11.23.63 is most likely the one in place during the assassination and the one removed on 11.26.63.

Pamela

[Pamela Brown]

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.

[Al Carrier]

What we should consider here is that we are dealing with windshield penetration, which is totally different from standard or framed safety glass penetration. The tempering is different and the composition of the makeup is different. Windshields are comprised of two sheets of tempered glass that are bonded by an interior vinyl laminent layer.

I did hands-on studies with this intially that had nothing to do with the JFK Assassination, but were done for LE Safety issues in testing various bullets (the effects the penetration had on their composition and trajectory). I have since worked angles on this in respect to the JFK Assassination.

When a bullet impacts the windshield, it compresses the outer layer of glass into the interor vinyl laminent and produces a powdering effect on the exterior surface where the bullet impacted. Depending on the age and exposure to elements that the windshield has been put through will vary the outer cracking on the exterior and even interior portion. The vinyl will stretch and snap back to a degree and often show a smaller hole than the diameter of the bullet. What is seen on the outside of the glass is often totally different than what is seen on the inside. The angle one looks at the hole will also effect what they see. This is why we are hearing some many variations as to what was seen on the windshield of the Kennedy limo, and what is seen in photographic evidence.

I have attached a photo (tried to anyway) on an older vehicle that I fired numerous shots into the windshield of. I used two different caliber projectiles and fired from various horizontal and vertical angles. Note in the photo that one can determine the direction and elevation of the incoming impact.

I am unable to add an attachment here. If anyone is interested in seeing what I referred to in the attachment, e-mail me at polinst@mchsi.com. and I will forward it to you.

Al

Edited December 30, 2004 by Al Carrier

[Bernice Moore]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

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.....