Josiah Thompson

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something

that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's

throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)?

Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

You continue to follow Fetzer’s line that I’m guilty of something dreadful because of something I wrote in Six Seconds over forty years ago. Hypothesis were offered in that book to explain the evidence as we then knew it. One of those hypotheses was that the throat wound was caused by a bone fragment from the head shot. Fetzer has been using this to distract attention from the fact he couldn’t come up with evidence for one of his claims. Hence, earlier in this thread I tried to make the record clear by replying in this way to Fetzer in post #445 in this thread. I wrote:

Same old... same old. I won’t take much time to reply.

You keep trotting out the same old insults: I’m “a disgrace to my Yale Ph.D.” I’m “unreliable... untrustworthy... and an incompetent student of the death of JFK.” And how do we know all this? Because in 1967 I offered an hypothesis that the throat wound was caused by a skull fragment being driven downward and out the front of the neck. What is the truth of the matter? I don’t know. There are enormous difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as an entry wound from the front. Likewise, there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as coming from a fragment of skull being driven down and out the throat just as there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as the exit wound of a bullet that entered Kennedy’s back. Anyone who has studied the case more than superficially knows this... Post a photo of a bullet hole through a windshield that looks like what we have in Altgens #5 and maybe then there will be something to talk about. Otherwise, you’re just, as usual, bloviating.

Apparently, you missed this post.

What I’m trying to get across to you is that in 2010 I don’t know what caused the throat wound. All the various alternatives have great difficulties associated with them. None work very well to explain the evidence we have. If you asked me what caused the throat wound, I’d have to say simply and directly, “I don’t know.” And that opinion, it seems to me, is shared by most people who’ve looked at the question.

What we’ve been trying to do on this thread is much simpler and more direct. We’re not offering various hypotheses about Kennedy’s wounds but we’re dealing with a single piece of evidence. Does the Altgens #6 photo (taken at Z 255) show an undamaged windshield? I think it does and if I’m right then this has consequences for whatever scenarios one later chooses to construct.

Josiah Thompson

I'm just curious. How long has this nebula in that Altgens been an issue. How much stuff needs to go back to basics in the sense of a complex derivative possibly has as paes of its foundation a fundamental flaw. What does it change/mean?

Actually, it changes very little. For some thirty or forty years, it was obvious that the windshield had not been penetrated by a bullet although it had been hit by a bullet fragment from the rear. At some point, David Lifton became interested in the issue because his body alteration theory was sympathetic to any claim of windshield alteration. But David never thought the "spiral nebula" thing had anything to it. Actually, it may have been Fetzer who first gave currency to the notion back in 2000 when he published Doug Weldon's article in one of his books. He published a copy of Altgens #6 and circled the "spiral nebula" region of the windshield as "Circle 1." Fetzer's caption for the photograph ran: "The Altgens photograph. Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield..."

That's typical of Fetzer to illustrate arguments with unqualified captions that turn out to be fictitious. Apparently, Doug Weldon himself is staying far away from the claim since he won't say anything about it.

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

That's great Barb. Fashion interests me. I've never come across the apron style. That and the blouse seems to clinch it.

I also thought along the line of a waitress with perhaps a purse for transactions that seems to me to be located for easy access. It was lunch time and many attended as dressed from work. She's stylishly and seems functionally dressed as well.

Nice going, John and Barb. While Fetzer fulminates, you two move right along texturing the match up between the Croft photo and Altgens #6. I wonder if there is any way to figure out who this woman was.

Josiah Thompson

Jim Lewis has described the damage as having the shape of a spiral nebula. He has repeated his experiments many times. He has been able to hit a dummy in the back seat from 200 yards. And the bullets make the sound of a firecracker when they pass through.....

Set Jim Lewis to one side, if you want. I will see if I can locate him and ask him to confirm what I have reported....

EVEN IF WE SET JIM LEWIS' WORK TO ONE SIDE, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THE DATA....

Josiah,

You think these don't look the same? :>))

Jerry

So let's take a very good look at Altgens #6 and the close-up of the windshield you posted:

For the last week or so, you've been claiming that your informant Lewis shot windshields and produced the effect we see in Altgens #6. And this is the evidence you had for that claim?

If the editor of the National Enquirer claimed to have evidence for a three-headed sheep and finally published a photo from far away of three sheep in a pasture, it would be like what you've done. When you don't have the evidence you just make it up, don't you. For weeks you've been spouting as a fact the claim that Lewis shot windshields and produced what we see in Altgens #6. When it finally comes out that the only photo you've seen of this, shows nothing like what you've claimed, what do you do? When your little subterfuge is exposed all you can add is "set Jim Lewis to the side, if you want" and then go wandering down some other path.

What a joke!

Josiah Thompson

Jerry,

You and Josiah do not seem to pay any attention to anything I or others with whom you disagree post. I wonder why? If you take a look at windshield (D) in post #143, you can will notice the spiral nebula that was created by a shot from about 200 yards with a high-velocity weapon....

Great! So let’s take a look at “windshield (D) in post #143.” Here it is... first as Fetzer published it and second zoomed in on:

What the photo shows is damage to a windshield that looks like all other damage to windshields caused by the penetration of a bullet... that is, a central hole surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. This bears no relation at all to your socalled “spiral nebula.”

This is just laughable. For days you keep talking about a photo that you claim shows the “spiral nebula” and proves that a through-and-through shot would produce what we see in Altgens #6. Then you produce this!

Come on, Professor, you ought to learn from the editor of the National Enquirer who carefully avoided ever saying he had a photo of the three-headed sheep. With each week you become more and more a parody of yourself. Keep it up.

Josiah Thompson

Since you still appear to be unable to read anything I have written, here are three key points for your consideration:

Post a photo of a bullet hole through a windshield that looks like what we have in Altgens #5 and maybe then there will be something to talk about. Otherwise, you’re just, as usual, bloviatinng.

Josiah Thompson

So. Are you going to just continue bloviating? Cool.

Josiah Thompson

I think that's a very astute and important observation, Robin and co. It explains a number of things and gives a good timestamp benchmark. (still working on the synching of the photos and films, one can step from there to other events and look at numerous things, but a work in progress that I see a long way off from being completed)

Yes. I think the work that you, Robin, Duncan and Jerry are carrying out with the Dealey Plaza photos shows how good analysis can grow incrementally and produce significant results. For example, if we can definitively show that the socalled "spiral nebula" is a pocket or purse or something on Lady #8's front at hip level we can get rid of distractions like the purported bullet hole in the windshield. This, in turn, suggests JFK was hit in the head from the rear. If that hit did not occur at Z 312/313 it had to happen at some later time... for example, like Z 327/328. Such a conclusion would be another example of visual evidence from the Zapruder film matching up with audio evidence from the acoustics. It seems to me that this is how responsible research can find the right path to advance along.

Once one throws out the "National Enquirer" style of research via sensationalistic pronouncement, one finds that everything is just as it was. The films and photos from Dealey Plaza form a self-authenticating body of evidence that takes precedence over eyewitness testimony (inherently unreliable under the circumstances) and physical evidence (perhaps planted, perhaps altered). This is really the way things have always been anyway.

Josiah Thompson

Photos do NOT take precedence over eyewitness testimony. Every photo must

be authenticated by the person who took the photo, who must testify that the

photo image is a true record of what the witness saw and photographed.

This is exactly what Abraham Zapruder did at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans. Yet you insist on not believing him.

The real test of the authenticity of a film or photo from Dealey Plaza is its ability or inability to fit into the seamless tapestry of other films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza. If it's authentic, it will fit into this tapestry. If not, it will stand out like a sore thumb. For fifteen years, you've been pointing to what you believed were sore thumbs. They all turned out to be just mistakes in photo interpretation.

So right now we're left with this body of films and photos from Dealey Plaza that all match. You and Fetzer keep making National Enquirer-like claims and, like other National Enquirer-like claims (I'm thinking hear of the three-headed-sheep), they all go up in smoke once looked at.

Care to give us a new one to look at?

Josiah Thompson

I think that's a very astute and important observation, Robin and co. It explains a number of things and gives a good timestamp benchmark. (still working on the synching of the photos and films, one can step from there to other events and look at numerous things, but a work in progress that I see a long way off from being completed)

Yes. I think the work that you, Robin, Duncan and Jerry are carrying out with the Dealey Plaza photos shows how good analysis can grow incrementally and produce significant results. For example, if we can definitively show that the socalled "spiral nebula" is a pocket or purse or something on Lady #8's front at hip level we can get rid of distractions like the purported bullet hole in the windshield. This, in turn, suggests JFK was hit in the head from the rear. If that hit did not occur at Z 312/313 it had to happen at some later time... for example, like Z 327/328. Such a conclusion would be another example of visual evidence from the Zapruder film matching up with audio evidence from the acoustics. It seems to me that this is how responsible research can find the right path to advance along.

Once one throws out the "National Enquirer" style of research via sensationalistic pronouncement, one finds that everything is just as it was. The films and photos from Dealey Plaza form a self-authenticating body of evidence that takes precedence over eyewitness testimony (inherently unreliable under the circumstances) and physical evidence (perhaps planted, perhaps altered). This is really the way things have always been anyway.

Josiah Thompson

Meanwhile, back to the ridiculous charade being conducted by Josiah Thompson....

Same old... same old. I won’t take much time to reply.

You keep trotting out the same old insults: I’m “a disgrace to my Yale Ph.D.” I’m “unreliable... untrustworthy... and an incompetent student of the death of JFK.” And how do we know all this? Because in 1967 I offered an hypothesis that the throat wound was caused by a skull fragment being driven downward and out the front of the neck. What is the truth of the matter? I don’t know. There are enormous difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as an entry wound from the front. Likewise, there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as coming from a fragment of skull being driven down and out the throat just as there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as the exit wound of a bullet that entered Kennedy’s back. Anyone who has studied the case more than superficially knows this.

You have said that someone in Texas named Lewis shot windshields and obtained a bullet hole through a windshield that looks just like the “spiral nebula.” Cool. Show it to us instead of bloviating. If you produced what you are talking about we could then compare it with the socalled “spiral nebula” and make up our own minds. Asking us to trust you just doesn’t cut the mustard.

And what is this about Altgens #5 being altered? Pamela and I produced photos made many decades apart from the same original Altgens #5 negative. They show the same thing with respect to the socalled “spiral nebula.” Sure, if you screw around with Altgens #5 (for example as you did for one of your papers) you can crank the contrast sufficiently to make the nebula look ambiguous. Or you can use printed copies and get the same effect. But this proves nothing since only the original negative counts. Do you really want to argue that that negative has been altered? Or do you just want to say that and have people believe you?

Post a photo of a bullet hole through a windshield that looks like what we have in Altgens #5 and maybe then there will be something to talk about. Otherwise, you’re just, as usual, bloviatinng.

Josiah Thompson

Chris...way too small to be Greer. Interesting, however.

But the important thing is your enlargement seems to put to rest the shape of the JFK head

in relation to the spiral nebula.

Jack

Jack,

Chris used a high contrast image for his purposes which causes some non-edge detail to drop out.

Unless the President was a conehead your outline makes no sense.

Note the more detailed image and Martin's colorization.

FWIW the "spiral nebula" looks a lot more like part of the background materials above and beside it in Chris's version but I'm not putting too much stock in that because of the higher contrast.

Jerry

Agreed Jerry. It seems abundantly clear when looking at good prints of this photo that the "spiral nebula" form is something on Lady #8 seen through the windshield. Is there any way to refine what one's eyes tells one immediately by getting down to the grain (or pixel) level in the black and white photo? If JFK's shoulder cuts off the bottom of the "nebula," that in itself is a proof of what our eyes tell us. Is there any way to show this in a photo-technical way?

Josiah Thompson

What happened to Greer's white shirt in Altgen's?

According to the WC reenactment, shouldn't it be there?

Z shows a hard (right hand) motion with the steering wheel and a rising/bracing of Greer from his seat. ( Movie Frames 225-255)

chris

Chris,

I don't think the colorization got as far as Greer but it looks to me like the white shirt would fall just behind the flag if we assume it's Greer's right (his right) shoulder partly blocking the view to Mrs. Kennedy.

I'm not sure about the rising/bracing v. that's the angle where his shoulder blends into the windshield sun strip. He's definitely moving because he eventually winds up looking over his right shoulder and you're very sharp to have noticed the right hand /steering wheel move.

Best regards to you,

Jerry

I agree. It looks to me like the flag gets in the way of Greer.

Do you folks have any opinion as to whether the mirror is cutting off part of that has been called the "spiral nebula" patch? That's the way it looks to me but sometimes one's eyes deceive.

Josiah Thompson

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

Meanwhile, back at the evidence...

I thought this thread was proving fairly productive in drilling into the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the limousine’s windshield. It was revealing to actually listen to Doug Weldon’s phone interview of Nick Principe. Of even more importance was the discovery made by Martin Hinrichs concerning what has been called the “spiral nebula.”

From the very beginning, I’ve been scratching my head as to why anyone would claim that this is a bullet hole through the windshield. Over the last thirty years in the course of various criminal investigations, I’ve actually seen a number of bullet holes through windshields. No matter what the caliber or other factors involved they have a common appearance... a hole in the middle surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. Sometimes there will be cracks leading outward from the hole but not always. The only common feature that I’ve seen is the hole and the surrounding halo of shattered glass.

I hoped to find an illustration on the Internet. I typed “hole in windshield” into Google. I came up with several sites that discussed the problems with claiming a hole existed in the windshield of the Presidential limousine. I found one address [http://www.banpei.net/blog/dots-honda-civic-mk4-bullet-holes] that contained photos of bullet holes in the windshield of a Honda Civic. These photos illustrated exactly the common feature of hole plus halo of shattered glass that I had observed in all the windshield bullet holes I had seen. Here are the photos:

Holding these photos in mind, now take a look at the socalled “spiral nebula.” Here it is below in a copy made from the original Altgens negative:

If you look closely at what has been called the “spiral nubula” you can see that one part of it is cut off by interference of the mirror in the sight line while other parts are cut off by Kennedy’s shoulder and head. This could only happen if the form is really something behind the mirror and behind Kennedy... not the windshield that is in front of both. As you can see by inspection, the socalled “spiral nebula” doesn’t look at all like a bullet hole. Rather it appears to be clothes on a spectator in the background seen through the windshield. Hinrichs’ clever contribution was to compare the Altgens photo with the Croft photo. By doing so, he showed that both the alignment and the color of the socalled “spiral nebula” matched an apron or something held at thigh level by Lady #8. His illustration of this is below:

I asked Doug Weldon to comment on this discovery but he declined. Professor Fetzer has been claiming that someone in Texas named “Lewis” has been shooting bullets through windshields. Fetzer claims the resulting damage looks like the spiral nebula. I asked Professor Fetzer to provide a photo of Lewis’s results but he has not complied.

It would be useful if we could move this discussion about the socalled “sprial nebula” a bit further on. Anyone care to join in?

Josiah Thompson

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

Does this mean that you are going to walk away and never deal with the most important discovery brought up in this thread... namely, that Martin Hinrichs has identified the person and the part of that person's clothing that you and Fetzer have claimed for a long time is the "spiral nebula?" Are you really going to do that? Are you really going to just not deal with something that has been brought to your attention innumerable times? Funny, I thought real historians loved to grapple with evidentiary difficulties like this. I thought that dealing with such points was what writing history was all about. On the other hand, if you're committed to just building a case, the simplest thing is just to walk away. Evidentiary difficulties don't help in the building of cases.

Josiah Thompson

My answers in CAPS:

Josiah said:

"Do you think Livingston just made this up?"

This is a remarkable comment from someone who discounts the word of all the witnesses who reported seeing a hole in the windshield.

Josiah said:

"I would say that eyewitnesses often don't get details right."

But you believe that Livingston, Frazier and any witness who supports your own preconceived bias did "get the details right," correct?

OKAY, LET'S GO TO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT IN FRONT OF US. LET'S SAY YOU ARE FRIENDLY WITH A DOCTOR WHO, IN TURN, IS FRIENDLY WITH A JOURNALIST. THE JOURNALIST PUBLISHES A PIECE IN THE NEW REPUBLIC SAYING HE WAS STANDING AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL AND SAW A HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. YOU TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR FRIEND WHO TELLS YOU THAT HE'S BEEN FRIENDS WITH THE JOURNALIST SINCE THEY BOTH WENT TO STANFORD TOGETHER. HE TELLS YOU OF A DINNER WITH BOTH FAMILIES WHERE THE JOURNALIST SAID HE COULDN'T TELL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A THROUGH-AND-THROUGH BULLET HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. THE DINNER HAPPENED WITHIN A WEEK OF THE SHOOTING AND SUBSTANTIALLY BEFORE THE NEW REPUBLIC PIECE. WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE? YOUR DOCTOR FRIEND OR THE NEW REPUBLIC PIECE?

I asked this question before, but I'd sincerely like to know which assassination witnesses you think ARE credible. As you more than anyone else here must know, many of these witnesses were crucial to the early critics demolishing the official version of events. If they are all discredited, and the neo-con tendency to accept the "official" evidence at face value becomes the predominant view in the CT community, what are we left with?

If we maintain that no evidence was altered, and discredit all witnesses who reported something contrary to the official story, as well as accept that such things as the single bullet theory, bunched up coat theory and jet muscle reaction theory are possible, then how do we make the case for conspiracy?

THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHICH "SIDE" THE WITNESS IS ON. THE EARLY SHOWINGS OF WARREN REPORT VULNERABILITY DEPENDED PROBABLY MORE ON FILM EVIDENCE (THE ZAPRUDER FILM IN PARTICULAR) AND THE ANALYSIS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE GOVERNMENT. CF. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLES BY VINCE SALANDRIA IN LIBERATION AND THE MINORITY OF ONE.

I can't believe how consistently Josiah has ignored the Jim Lewis experiments of firing high-velocity bullets through

windshields and finding that they not only create the impression of a small spiral nebula but also make the sound of a

firecracker!

Put up a photo of the socalled "spiral nebula" that came directly from the Altgens #6 negative (Robin Unger has posted an enlargement in this thread) and right beside it post a photo of the "small spiral nebula" that you claim someone named Jim Lewis produced. If you can do this, then maybe it would be worth inquiring about. If you can't, we will know that you are just "fetzering" once again!

Josiah Thompson

My replies in bold-face:

Josiah:

Why don't you quote the article from Dudman " A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enoughto see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Is this ambiguous? Did Dudman, who wrote for a living, not understand what the word "hole" meant?. Was the word "damage" not in his vocabulary? It appears to me the only question he had was whether the hole pierced the windshield from the outside or inside or maybe that's just lawyer talk. [Yes. It is just lawyer-talk. Livingston says that he and Dudman had been friends since Stanford and that he spoke to Dudman within a week of the assassaination. Dudman told him he could not tell if there was a hole that penetrated the windshield. Do you think Livingston just made this up? Why would Dudman tell Livingston this if it wasn't the truth as he remembered it?] Jerry raised the issue and asked me how I would address the statement of Officer Martin stating there was no damage to the windshield. I have not yet seen the statement but I am curious as to how you would respond to that st atement. [The response is obvious. Officer Martin did not see the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7.] I also quoted Livingston as saying "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative ia a further sense: The 'hole' was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." How does the historian reconcile that? [i would say that eyewitnesses often don't get details right. For example, Principe told you the damage was on the passenger side low down when it was actually on the driver's side above the rear view mirror. Same thing here. Dudman got the location of real damage... not a through-and-through hole but real damage... wrong.]

Wait, how blinded am I by "lawyer think." Your friend for today, the same one who has accused you of being a government agent, is now recognized by you as being a true historian and we are fortunate that she interviewed Nick first. [You bet we are!] We can ignore my interview as she already obtained all of those answers. Let's just use that interview as Nick must have obviously said he could have been mistaken. I suppose the government just flew Dudman to Washington D.C. from St. Louis so that he could enjoy a plane ride and they could wine and dine him and oh, by the way, show him the windshield. [Huh!?] Everyone who saw the hole and/or damge to the windshield was affected by hysteria and by the greatest coincidence ever known to mankind mistook what they saw for a hole. [No. They saw damage to the windshield and made the mistake of thinking there was a through-and-through hole there.] That hysteria spreak from Dallas to Washington to Dearborn. They all decsribed it as a hole for what better observation could there be than a hole to win the respect of their families, their friends, and the country as they loudly proclaimed their observation to others, not knowing that others were doing the same, thus stealing their thunder. We are back to the vase logic where a vase is dropped and broken and you pick up one piece after another and proclaim look, this is not a vase.

Josiah, we are just going in a circle. Let's not waste each other's time. I am not going to be persuaded by your "vase" logic nor does it appear that anything will convince you. Let's allow others to decide. This has been a long thread.Anyone can review this entire thread. Anyone can view me on you-tube, MIDP, "The Smoking Guns' and hopefully will read my book. Good luck.

[i'm inclined to agree with you. But oblige all of us who have come this far with you with one reply. Will you? I've asked you several times before to comment and all I got was butkus as you steadfastly evaded the point. Because of the sharp eye of Martin Hinrichs we now recognize that the figures seen through the windshield in Altgens #6 are also pictured in the Croft photo. Through the windshield we can see both Lady #8 and Lady #9. A beige apron or bag held by Lady #8 shows up in the exact position where you folks claim to see the "spiral nebula." The colors seen in Altgens #6 match up perfectly with the colors seen in Croft on Lady #8 and Lady #9. Both position and coloration match between Altgens #6 and Croft. Hence, why shouldn't we conclude that the "spiral nebula" is the beige apron or bag carried by Lady #8 that is seen though the windshield? This is one of the neatest little pieces of photographic research that I've seen in a long time yet you pay it honor by deliberately and consistently ignoring it. So why don't close this thread by telling us what you make of it?]

Josiah Thompson

Best,

Doug

MY COMMENTS ARE IN bold-face:

Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole.. [A week after the shooting, Dudman told Livingston he could not see that the hole was through-and- through and not just damage on one side.].His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, [Please provide citation to prove this extremely unlikely claim.] no more than they did Taylor's.....

You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table. [A beautiful example of the psychological mechanism of projection! Nice way to end. Project onto your interlocutor what you yourself are doing!]

Doug Weldon

Josiah:

I will apologize for the tone I used as I do not believe it is benefiting either of us and certainly not me... Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence.

Doug Weldon

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

Let's just pull out this one thread about Dudman and see where it goes.

You say that "Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole." With respect to Dudman, you say "his account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account any more than they did Taylor's." When I challenge your claim that Dudman was scared by the government into changing his story, you reply: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

Now let's look at the critical passage from Robert Livingston:

"In the supporting documents, there is a single page from the 21 December 1963 issue of The New Republic. It is entitled "Commentary of an Eyewitness." It was written by Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Dick Dudman is a classmate of mine from Stanford. He telephoned me about this from Dallas shortly after the assassination; and our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination. Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole's presumed patency by probing it with a pen or pencil."

The whole point of this revelation coming from Livingston is that Dudman never knew whether he was looking at damage to the windshield or a hole through it. Dudman never changed his mind. He was looking at a limousine with damage to the windshield. He called his friend Livingston from Dallas and the two families met and discussed the windshield within a week of the assassination. Dudman just couldn't tell what it was he saw. No government leaning on him to change his story. No heavy conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just the actuality of what Dudman saw or didn't see... a hole or no hole, he couldn't tell.

Yet you characterized Dudman as having seen a hole and then changing "his account.. only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account." Finally, there is your lame excuse for writing what you did: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

This is a simple unambiguous example of you massaging the facts to build your case.

Josiah Thompson

A historian does not just "collect historical accounts." A historian tries to find out the truth about an event or historical series of events. A lawyer tries to build a case. You did the latter.

Good point, Josiah. The process of the historian is not at all similar to that of a prosecutor. An historian will document evidence and witness statements and then weigh and evaluate them based on a number of diferent factors. At some point an historian will probably choose a working hypothesis which they may use to tie different things together. They will continue to research while keeping an open mind to the possibility that their hypothesis is mistaken, incomplete, or in some way flawed and will need tweaking. If and when they believe they have enough information they may then attempt to persuade others that their hypothesis is, in fact, valid.

A prosecutor has a target, the accused, and there are no holds barred in weighing and evaluating information toward demonstrating guilt. They have their hypothesis right at the start -- the accused is guilty and that is that. Then they work to persuade the jury that their position has merit and that of the opposition does not. Very black and white, and very manipulative. It is this mindset which imo causes Weldon problems, as he has not as yet been able to step aside from his working hypothesis to objectively weigh and evaluate all the different factors that do not work with it. Instead, he seems to keep on trying to tweak what he has to try to force a 'fit'.

I agree and disagree, Pamela.

Unless I've been mislead, I believe Doug Weldon was a prosecutor for only a short period of time although he's been a lawyer for most of his life. I don't think it is necessarily the mindset of the prosecutor that causes him problems but rather the mindset of the lawyer.

You vividly described what an historian does. A lawyer is trained from law school on to build cases. I think that is the fundamental problem here for Doug Weldon. His whole interview of Principe goes forward as part of a case-building project. Since he needs Principe's report of seeing a bullet hole, he questions Principe on a very short leash, asking him to confirm what Principe already told you. The historian would have opened up Principe's story... would have asked him how far away from the windshield was he when he saw what he took to be a bullet hole. A historian would have drilled in deeper when Principe said he "got only a glance at it... very quick." A historian would have asked Principe whether the hole he saw could possibly have been not through-and-through. A historian would have asked Principe to explain how he could have met with Greer when it was clear Greer was at Bethesda. Weldon did not do this because to do so might undermine the case he was trying to build. He can claim to be an historian and not a lawyer but his actual actions give it away.

Under a wider horizon, think of the damage lawyers building their cases have done to research in the Kennedy assassination. For my money, we need a lot less advocacy as practiced by Weldon and other lawyers and a lot more genuine research as practiced by you and others. On the bright side, Jerry Logan has shown clearly that even being trained as a lawyer doesn't condemn you to advocacy and its mistakes.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Actually, as I have reflected on it you are probably correct about this point. I was not simply trying to collect historical accounts. I was trying to resolve the issue of the hole in the windshield and trying to find answers to the convoluted evidence that surrounded what happened to the windshield, the limo,the records and make some sense out of the different accounts. I tried to be careful not to lead, suggest answers to anyone, or misrepresent their responses. It was more investigative then collecting a bunch of accounts. I tried to corroborate what was said and I really tried to know who the witnesses were and what others thought of them, whether they conveyed their accounts before, were consistent, were clear on the substance of their accounts, and possessed the uncertainty of what would be expected. If there were earlier accounts recorded I would give more weight to that. If that is repugnant to you, so be it. I do not apologize for trying to find answers or the manner in which I examined the evidence. I found my legal background to be advantageous.

Doug Weldon

A historian does not just "collect historical accounts." A historian tries to find out the truth about an event or historical series of events. A lawyer tries to build a case. You did the latter.

Let's take what you said you did and then look at what you actually did.

You say: "I tried to be careful not to lead, suggest answers to anyone, or misrepresent their responses." I guess this means you didn't "lead" Principe by only letting him respond affirmatively to being told what he earlier said to Pamela. The fact that you never asked him what he meant when he said, "I got a glance at it. Very quick.." I guess should be taken as your search for the truth.

When you say you never "suggest answers to anyone," it's just laughable. Shall I quote what you do when Principe gives you the wrong answer as to the location of the hole/damage to the windshield?

Or let's take up your claim that you "tried to corroborate what was said." As part of that effort of corroboration did you ever tumble to the fact that William Greer could not possibly have met with Principe at the time and the place Principe asserted? Did you ever pay any attention to the national TV coverage and reports from other witnesses that place Greer either on the way to Bethesda or at Bethesda that night during the time in question. If you did do that job of corroboration, why didn't you tell anyone what you came up with? Why did the rest of us have to learn it from Barb Junkarrinen and not you?

You can say anything you want about your motivation and your commitment to objectivity and truth. The transcript of your interview discloses that you're just another attorney building a case... in this instance, the case that will establish the grounding of your book.

Josiah Thompson

Why is Doug being badgered about the way he questioned Prencipe? Josiah, you are evaluating him like the rules of a courtroom apply, and you are the presiding judge. I've never seen this principle applied to any other interrogation of a witness in this case. I guess that's the thanks Doug gets for providing a tape of the interview.

Nope. You got it just reversed. I criticize Doug Weldon because he questions Principe as if he were an assistant district attorney harvesting a story from a witness and not a historian trying to find out what Principe observed.

Josiah Thompson

quote:

I put before you the fact that Hinrichs had shown that Lady #8 in the Couch photo has an apron on.

Hi Joshia.

I assume you are reffering to the color "Croft Photo", as apposed to Couch.

Right on target, Robin. It was "Croft Photo" not Couch. Thanks so much.

Josiah Thompson

//Josiah:

MY COMMENTS ARE IN bold-face:

Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole. Dudman told Livingston "The hole in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." [A week after the shooting, Dudman told Livingston he could not see that the hole was through-and- through and not just damage on one side.].His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, [Please provide citation to prove this extremely unlikely claim.] no more than they did Taylor's. One month before an affidavit was prepared for him Taylor confirmed that he saw a hole. [And two months and threemonths. Why because he thought he saw a hole. Then when he was shown the windshield from the limousine he recognized that what he thought was a hole was only damage to one side... as he explicitly points out.] He was then shown a windshield that was not in the limo in Dallas. [This is your own little theory. Prove it. You can have your own theories but not your own facts.] What caused the Church staff to be concerned that he could not have seen the windshield enough to have seen a hole? Was his report ambiguous? Was he not riding in the limo for an hour on the way to the WH Garage? [Huh! The damage was above the mirror on the driver's side. Greer drove the limousine to the hospital and later claimed he did not notice the windshield was damaged. It was night as Taylor sat in the passenger seat and rode to the WH garage.] Did Geiglein question his report? [Why should he?] Tell me in California how would a court treat someone changing their account after confirming it twice in twelve years? Would they throw out the case? [Who knows? You certainly don't.] Why did they have to prepare an affidavit for him? [Why not?] Did he not know how to write out his account? [so what?] FYI, the agreement was that both Pamela and I would do taped interviews with Nick and exchange tapes and provide a copy to Nick and one of his friends named Irv. Nick was confirming that I was taping the conversation as we agreed. [Why didn't you tell him? Why did he have to ask you?] Are you trying to create something sinister and make me concerned and panic by pointing out it is a felony in California to tape a conversation without permission? [i mentioned I didn't know what state you called from. It simply goes to show your sloppiness.] Who are you trying to intimidate or kid? (Huh! Silly question. I told you your failure to tell him you were taping him certainly did not increase his confidence in you. Did it?] I don't think this innuendo impresses anyone. [it wasn't an innuendo, it was a fact. Your witness had to ask you if you were taping him. Once again it shows your general sloppiness.] Nick was not on the witness stand. I wanted to find out what people thought about Kennedy and the short line of questioning about his sexual "peccadilloes" was to determine if it was something that really bothered people in law enforcement, i.e., the Secret Service. I wanted to know what he thought of Kennedy. [This is really lame. You kept probing about what he knew of Kennedy's sexual peccadillos because you wanted to know if it bothered people in government! This sure is a great time to find out this important fact.]

As you heard it was my first time speaking with Nick and it was a very congenial conversation. We talked for an hour. Nothing was suggested to him about where the hole should have been or how he should have answered any question. [On the contrary, again and again you tell him what he told Pamela and then ask if that is correct. This is leading your witness, counselor. More than leading, it is coaching your witness. Ask any lawyer (for example, Jerry) who has listened to your interview and see what they think. They will tell you that your interview sucks.] Nick said he talked to many people about it and as I posted before I talked with Dick Giordono, whom Nick had talked with.. [When did Nick talk with Dick Giordano and what did Giordano say? In your interview you never ask the critical question as to whom he told about seeing a hole in the windshield in the 1960s. It's just not there.] We can play would of/could of/should of games in perpetuity. Why do you cast suspicion about his Black Panther story? [because I don't know whether it is true or not. And I take it you don't either. That's why you should have asked him about it.] Are you suggesting he was lying? Because you never heard of it, what the hell difference does that make? if you would have pursued a line of questioning on that what would that have to do with meeting Greer and seeing the limo in The WH Garage. [i've told you clearly why you should have done that. Don't you read before you start spouting off? It would help you evaluate whether the witness on the phone with you had an overactive imagination.] I really don't care what you would have asked him. [Fine. You see yourself as a master of the historian's (not the lawyer's) interview technique?] I can take your Marilyn Sitzman interview and tell you many questions I would have asked differently. [Maybe. But you won't find me restricting her to a set script. Why? Because unlike you, I didn't have any.] It was proven that Nick was who he said he was and was employed on November 22, 1963. Why would he or anyone else lie? What is their motive? You can never answer that as there is no answer. [Of course I can answer that. The number of people who have cooked up stories about this case for personal aggrandizement are legion.]Nick said he would have testified under oath if you read his e-mails. It is easy to do character assassination of the deceased. Tell me which of these witnesses did any of the three of you interview. All were accessible. You play a game where you suggest I manipulated Ellis to change his story? [i never said anything about Ellis. You have me mixed up with one of my distinguished colleagues.] Ellis never changed. Read my chapter instead of saying that you don't have the book after you make the accusation that I got Ellis to change his account. It is much easier to imply something sinister rather than check something out. You stated you knew nothing about Glanges. It is obvious. It is obvious you had no idea who Whitaker was. Glanges sister is still alive. Why don't you track her down? [Why don't you/]

I can play your game and suggest this is the kind of work a third rate private investigator would do in preparing an article.

[i just pointed out what you did and didn't do in an interview that shows little expertise and a huge intent to harvest a story. If that shows you, I'm "a third rate private investigator" then so be it.] It is only now that one of you is trying to read more about the witnesses. BTW Ellis and Freeman were together at Parkland. Tell me how you know Taylor and/or Dudman were honest in recanting their accounts and not frightened as Dudman obviously was. [Once again. You don't get your own facts. Citation please.] Tell me what you know about Taylor. It is obvious that you were not aware of the conflicts in the evidence. Is this how YOU find truth, by confronting evidence with speculation and creating suspicion with innuendo. The prosecutor argument is silly. I am not going to apologize for my career in the criminal justice system. [No one is asking you to. I pointed out the opposite... that you couldn't stop being a lawyer even when you were supposed to be a historian.] I had no agenda. A prosecutor would try to prove the government right. [Why? Actually this sentence is so silly it can't be defended.] Bugliousi and Posner made classic prosecutorial briefs. [And you? Weren't you like them just trying to build your case by harvesting a story? Because you did that you left all the interesting questions unasked. Unasked questions don't get answers.] It appears that you do have an agenda to bury the facts, cast anyone or witness who disagrees with you as mistaken, a xxxx, or untrustworthy. It is classic. [bloviation a la your pal, Fetzer.] The question I have to ask is why are you doing this? This is all a distraction. You are playing the game of an inexperienced defense attorney - create enough smoke and mirrors and go off on diversions and people will become confused about the truth. [More bloviation a la Fetzer.] If you are going to rely on the official reports and they all conflict how are you going to choose which ones to believe? If the two windshields from 1963 and 1975 do not match, as many have shown, and I quote Jerry's opinion that they cannot be compared now, how are you going to explain it? If Taylor was shown a bogus windshield what would that mean to you? Jerry has been very straightforward and helpful. I appreciate that. [see above where Jerry corrects you.] I need to move forward on this. I was hoping we could have a civil, informed discussion but you are even cherry-picking Martin's analysis. [No, I'm not. What I cited was what Martin had proven not just an unstuffed opinion. You keep citing his opinions that have no backing.]

You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table. [A beautiful example of the psychological mechanism of projection! Nice way to end. Project onto your interlocutor what you yourself are doing!]

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

[see Jerry correction of you about this.]

PRENCIPE, NICK L., 84, of Cape Coral, formerly of Spring Hill, died Friday (June 15, 2001) at Hernando Pasco Hospice, Spring Hill. Born in University Park, Md., he moved to Cape Coral in 1974, recently coming to Spring Hill to be near family. He was a retired captain in the U.S. Park Police in Washington, D.C. He provided security for five presidents, 1941-1972. His memberships included being past president of U.S. Antique Auto Association, past president of the Italian American Club, Cape Coral, and the Lions and Moose clubs. Survivors include his wife of 60 years, Janet; two sisters, Annette Brady, Gettysburg, Pa., and Evelyn Umholtz, Spring Hill; nieces and nephews. Lee Memorial Park Funeral Home, Lehigh Acres.

Doug Weldon

I am interested in the totality of the evidence and I remain convinced that none of you understood that in your article. If we had photograpic evidence that there might be a hole in Altgen's but no other corroborative evidence or if we still had the original windshield a debate would be specious. My questions were not answered nor was the twisted evidence addressed by anyone of you.... It is obvious to me that none of you knew much of anything about the witnesses or the evidence....

My best to you,

Doug

You say we don't know "much of anything about the witnesses or the evidence." You say you are "interested in the totality of the evidence." That's all find and good. As for witnesses, I spent an hour listening to your tendentious and controlling interview of Principe. As for evidence... when we confront you with a particular evidentiary problem you simply hightail it in the opposite direction covering your exit with a lot of noble sentiments.

Earlier, I put before you the unvarnished fact that Martin Hinrichs had advanced our knowledge of the "spiral nebula" by showing the positions and clothing of spectators seen through the windshield in Altgens #6. I put before you the fact that Hinrichs had shown that Lady #8 in the Couch photo has an apron on (or is carrying a bag) that lines up perfectly with the "spiral nebula." More than this, if you compare the color of the "spiral nebula" with the color of Lady #9's dress as seen through the windshield in Altgens #6, the color difference matches the difference in color between the two in Couch's photo. Hence, in terms of position and color the apron or bag of Lady #8 would appear to be without question your socalled "spiral nebula." This is real evidentiary analysis that doesn't come from me. Nor do you have to be a photo expert to understand its import. Yet when it is put before you, you just prattle on about "firecrackers" and other irrelevancies.

Has Hinrich answered the question as to the nature of the "spiral nebula? If he hasn't, why hasn't he? Furthermore, why do you or anyone else think the "spiral nebula" is a penetrating bullet hit when it looks nothing like it? Do you really think that "spiral nebula" in Altgens #6 appears at the same location in the windshield as the damage Altgens #7? Take a look once again at Altgens #6 and Altgens #7 as posted by Robin Ungar on this thread. Where do you stand on this critical evidentiary point? If you can't answer a direct and simple question like this, then all your complaints about us not dealing with the evidence are laughable.

Josiah Thompson

I am very careful in my interviews and I never misrepresent anything.

Since apologizing for being so hard on you in “coaching” Principe in his interview with you, I was given the audio tape of the interview. It is quite appalling not because you are not "careful in your interviews" and not because you "misrepresent anything." The problem with your interview of Principe is that it is designed to build a case and not elicit the truth.

There is a difference between doing interviews in an adversary proceeding and doing interviews as an historian. I let you off the hook on Principe because I recognized that everyone in the adversary game is playing the same game and trying to get what one wants from a witness. In certain cases, I’ve done sort of the same thing that you did with Principe. But I wasn’t investigating a case of national importance as an historian. The rules are different. An historian is supposed to be trying to get at the truth. You weren't. You were seeking to harvest a particular part of Principe's story. Here's why I say that.

When you start your interview of Principe you don’t tell him you are taping the phone call. He has to ask if you are taping and you admit that you are. In California, it is a felony to tape a phone call without the other party’s consent. Other states have other rules and I don’t know where you called him from. At the very least, this doesn't lead to Principe having a lot of confidence in you or your scruples.

You spend untold minutes probing what Principe knew of JFK’s sexual peccadillos. Why on earth would you spend even a moment on this?

Principe tells you that he was the victim of a Black Panther Party assassination attempt and that he ended up retiring from the force because of it. Any experienced investigator hearing this from a witness ought to inquire further. I never heard of any Black Panther Party attack on a capitol policemen ever. There may very well have been such an attack and you should have let Principe tell you about it. This is a thread from a witness that you want to unwind to determine whether you are dealing with a someone with an overactive imagination. He does tell you of the photos he has with varous notables, an admission that makes one wonder a bit about his present story.

When you get to the heart of the interview concerning his observations in the White House garage you keep offering him what he said to Pamela and only let him agree with what you tell him. This is the kind of treatment that is all too usual in the world of the adversary system but has no place in a genuine truth-seeking project. What appals me most is that you never do the most obvious thing, elicit from him what he did that day before visiting the White House garage. It would have been the easiest thing to say to him: "I bet you'll never forget the day of the Kennedy assassination. No one ever does. What were you doing when you heard of the shooting?" From there you could elicit a kind of chronicle of Principe's movements that day and night. Where was he assigned? When did he get off duty? How did he end up talking with Greer? Where and when did this happen? Why did he go to the White House garage that night at all? Then you could move on to his critical observation. "You say you saw the bullet hole from the front of the car? How close did you get to it? Was there an overhead light on it? Why did you say it was through-and-through and not just damage?"

Given the restraints you put on Principe in simply confirming what he told Pamela, Principe never gets a chance to tell his story apart from your choreographing it. What he does say is not reassuring. With regard to the damage in the windshield, Principe says, “I glanced at it and it was quick..” Much later in the interview, Principe confirms that the light was bad in the garage. His description of the bullet hole is generic and uninformative. When you ask him how certain he is of seeing it... where on the scale of 1 to 100 his confidence lies... Principe doesn’t answer directly and highlights what Greer told him about a shot through the windshield. Then Principe gives you the wrong answer with respect to the location of the windshield damage. Your voice changes noticeably and you tell him other witnesses didn’t place it where he placed it. Docilely, he responds to your coaching and says he might be wrong about its location.

Most importantly, you are dealing with a witness who has appeared thirty-five years after the event and you never ask him the obvious question, “About this bullet hole, back then in 1963 or thereabouts did you ever tell anyone about it? Like other officers or your friends and family?” Since you never asked the question, we’ll never know the answer.

I could go on and on. But the central point is clear. The interview you did is the kind of interview one might expect from an inexperienced Assistant District Attorney with few scruples who had been told by his boss to interview this witness and make sure the witness held to his story. It is the farthest thing from the kind of fact-finding interview one would expect from a trained historian pursuing historical truth. All the important questions that would help us evaluate the credibility of Principe’s story are never asked.

You tell Principe that you will be sending him your videotape later because you did not want to influence his story. Yet the interview from beginning to end is structured to preserve a particular part of his story... he saw a bullet-hole in the White House garage. You interviewed him to harvest this tale unchallenged by any serious questions. Both Richard Dudman and Secret Service Agent Taylor looked at the damage to the windshield and thought it contained a through-and-through bullet hole. Only later did we learn that Dudman did not observe a through-and-through hole and Taylor recanted after looking at the windshield in the Archives. The limousine in the White House garage contained a windshield with some damage in it. If Principe saw that windshield he could have made the same mistake as Dudman and Taylor made. The purpose of a genuine interview of Principe would have been to tease out whether he saw a hole or just damage. Your interview failed to do that. It failed because throughout the interview you functioned as a lawyer with a case to make rather that as an historian with a truth to find.

Josiah Thompson

Window crack comparison, bottom image reversed.

Thanks a bunch, Robin. It shows that the Frazier photo taken in the wee morning hours of November 23rd shows damage resembling in both location and character the damage shown in Altgens #7.

Josiah Thompson