Josiah Thompson

There is no WELDON CAMP, as they keep saying. There is only the TRUTH CAMP and the UNTRUTH CAMP.

Weldon happens to be in the truth camp, with many others of us. I have been in the spiral nebula camp

for more than 20 years. Then Doug came along and gave some meaning to the spiral nebula. I do not

understand the motivation to destroy Doug by the "gang".

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do.

I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable.

This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented.

Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work?

Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield?

W: Now, Nick, now I am going to tell you as a basis, and Pamela is aware of this also, that I know of at least a couple and mentioned their names, and I’ve talked to Stavis Ellis extensively, and I know I have talked to at least three or four people that saw a bullet hole through the windshield. Now a couple of them describe it in a little bit different location.

P: Okay.

W: Is there any possibility that just time could have effected how certain you are where that bullet hole was in that windshield?

P: No question about it.

W: Okay, so it’s possible that you could be in error about that location?

P: Yes, there is definitely.

W: Okay, okay, good, that’s fair enough. Now what’s very interesting, did you know that Greer was telling people towards the end of his life that there was no damage to that windshield at all?

P: No, I never heard that …

Doug,

I took some time and re-read the critical portion of the transcript that we've been arguing about. I have to tell you that I think I was wrong in criticizing you so vehemently about this. I don't think you did anything that awful. It might have been better had you simply asked the witness if he was sure about the location he observed. But what you did was certainly not that egregious. I've done things like that innumerable times in interviewing witnesses. I think I mistakenly made a mountain out of a mole hill. I would like to apologize to the people like, Tosh Plumlee, who were rightfully unhappy about me junking up a thread that was getting some place. I'm sorry. I hope you will forgive my lapse.

Getting back to the core of the thread. What evidence do you believe actually exists that Altgens #6 shows a bullet hole in the windshield? It would seem to me that everything changes if the socalled "spiral nebula" is really just something in the background and not a defect in the windshield. Hence, I think this would be a really good place to resume a genuine discussion of the evidence uncluttered by extraneous points.

So what do you think?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint.

Ha, Ha... that's very funny. Now to the point at issue.

Apparently, in interviewing Principe you indicated to Principe what other witnesses said concerning the location of damage to the windshield. Do you still want to claim that such a gambit is not "coaching" a witness and that you were only clarifying what Principe had remembered? Sorry, this doesn't even remotely pass the smell test.

By telling a witness what an other witness said, you contaminate that witnesses recollections. This is a no-no in any law or prosecutor's office in the nation. Do you really want to contend that such coaching is just fine and that it was something as a prosecutor you urged your investigators to do? If so, I'd like to hear it rather than a jocular response that simply ignores the seriousness of what you did.

Josiah Thompson

I have some question:

Barb Junkkarinen, Josiah Thompson and Jerry Logan, can you tell me please who initiated this thread?

As far as i know Jerry and Barb are both new members. It would be interesting to know how the connection appeared and

how the tasks of this article were presented.

My guess is: Jerry was responsible for the pictures, Barb for the wording and Josiah for the idea.

Please correct me.

Please another question: Who contacted John Hunt?

I'am just curious and would be grateful to get an answer.

I hope it's not Top Secret.

Thank you forward.

Martin

Sure Martin. I will be pleased to tell you what I know.

This whole question of a bullet hole in the windshield came up on another forum. We got the usual bombast from Fetzer and irrelevancies from Jack White. Then David Lifton became involved since one of his three postulates... body alteration, Zapruder film alteration and windshield alteration... was being challenged. Jerry Logan told us he had new information about SS Agent Taylor that Lifton apparently was not aware of. Since the other forum had zilch viewership we decided to post our study of this on the Ed Forum. We had trouble getting it posted with all the photos and that's why we asked for help and Andy Walker obliged. That's what I remember. No, Jerry was not responsible for the pictures nor was Barb responsible for the wording. I contributed some photos and wrote a fair amount of it as did Jerry and Barb. It was, as we described it, a truly joint project.

How about answering one for me?

I've never been able to see even the remotest similarity between the appearance of the "spiral nebula" in Altgens #6 and the damage to the windshield in Altgens #7. You said somewhere that they appeared to be the same. Could you tell my why you say this? I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just asking. I'd be grateful for anything you can tell me.

Thanks.

Josiah Thompson

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

Thanks for using the right word, Pamela. Of course, it's improper to "coach" a witness. Prosecutors do this all the time and get away with it. They use the excuse Weldon used... they were simply trying to "clarify" a witness's report. "Clarify" my fanny. There is never any excuse for telling one percipient witness what another percipient witness said. If a defense investigator tried it, he/she would be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.

The problem apparent here is endemic in this case. If you get folks who are zealously pursuing a particular theory, when they start interviewing witnesses all sorts "coaching" begins to happen. The result is that witnesses who may have had something of probative significance to add end up being contaminated and therefore worthless.

What happened with respect to Stavis Ellis?

Josiah Thompson

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Pamela,

In Weldon's initial interview with Prencipe, Prencipe told him the hole he saw was low on the passenger side, just a couple inches above the bottom. I have the audio of that interview. Rather than ask Prencipe how confident he was of that location, like Weldon had done about whether or not there was a through and through hole just a couple of minutes before, asking Prencipe to rate his confidence on a scale of 1 to 100, Weldon actually told Prencipe that others had placed the hole elsewhere and then asked him if he might be in error. I was amazed and found that very poor procedure! What else would he expect Prencipe to say having been given that information other than that, yeah, sure, it's been a long time, I could be mistaken about the location.

Can you recall, or do you have any correspondence, that indicates just when Prencipe started saying he couldn't recall the location where he saw the hole ... or started saying it was in the "correct" spot?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

To be fair, if you are critical of that portion of the tape why don't you transcribe everything that was said at that point? Please feel free to send the tape to Jerry and ask him if it was improper? As I said, go ahead and dismiss Prencipe. I am surprised. This is kind of a cheap shot.

Doug

Here's the transcript of that section you asked for, Doug. I've already told you my problem with it. At the beginning of the interview, you told Prencipe that you knew Pamela had interviewed him and told him you had a copy of that interview. That's fine. So, you knew what all he was going to say. When you asked him about how certain he was he saw a through and through hole in the windshield, you gave him a scale of 1 to 100 and asked him how certain he was. Why didn't you do that when he told you the location of the hole? Instead you informed him that others placed it elsewhere, then asked him if he could be in error. Had you given him your 1 to 100 scale after he described the location he recalled .... just as you had done a few minutes earlier as regards seeing a hole ... would he have said 100%? He might have. You cut that possibility off at the pass, imo.

Anyway, here it is...

Start at 32:41

Weldon (W): Now you had told Pamela and I guess without without leading you, Nick I am going to ask you again, where do you recall on the windshield that that hole was?

Prencipe (P): Well, it wasn’t in the center, it was more to the, it was more to the left, in other words, left center, left of center, that is facing the car.

W: Okay, so a little bit more – if we use the rearview mirror …

P: Yeah, okay, that’s a good location

W: … as a reference …

P: But not that high, of course.

W: … as a reference point, …

P: Right

W: …would it be to the passenger side or to the driver’s side?

P: To the passenger side.

W: Okay, and if we use it there not that high, how low was that hole that you recall?

P: Well, to the best of my recollection, it was a couple inches above the rim of the frame.

W: The bottom? Okay. Now, now this is very interesting. Now let me just ask you for a practical standpoint, if the bullet entered there, and Greer is in the driver’s seat, how could a bullet entering there almost hit Greer?

P: [laughs] Well, that’s what he said. I didn’t say this was actual or factual, this is what he said.

W: Could, could time –

P: You know, you know one other thing, Bill was really shook up that night …

W: Sure.

P: … he was really shook up and he had a good reason to – now as I understand it, and at the time I didn’t say anything, I wasn’t there, all I’m saying is it’s quite possible he heard other shots and that there were other bullets whizzing around him – what he was saying anyway.

W: Now, Nick, now I am going to tell you as a basis, and Pamela is aware of this also, that I know of at least a couple and mentioned their names, and I’ve talked to Stavis Ellis extensively, and I know I have talked to at least three or four people that saw a bullet hole through the windshield. Now a couple of them describe it in a little bit different location.

P: Okay.

W: Is there any possibility that just time could have effected how certain you are where that bullet hole was in that windshield?

P: No question about it.

W: Okay, so it’s possible that you could be in error about that location?

P: Yes, there is definitely.

W: Okay, okay, good, that’s fair enough. Now what’s very interesting, did you know that Greer was telling people towards the end of his life that there was no damage to that windshield at all?

P: No, I never heard that …

[conversation continued with that and other subjects for about 10 minutes, then Doug did the typical disclaimer thing … we don’t know each other, have never talked, I’ve never given you any information, etc … and brought up not trying to have tainted Prencipe in any way by sending him any info on his research before the interview, and brought up as an example, when he asked Prencipe about the location of the hole in the windshield, saying this at 45:43:]

W: For example, as I asked you about the certainty, could you have been wrong about the location of the hole in the windshield. I did not want to influence you either way. I just want to accept whatever response you would offer.

My problem with it is simply that you did not ask him the certainty question, instead you informed him he was wrong according to other witnesses ... then asked him if it was possible he was in error. That's influence and tainting, imo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I've done interviews with witnesses in criminal and civil cases for the last thirty-five years. This is just outrageous. It goes beyond the bounds of what any reasonable interviewer should do. If I did this in a criminal case to get a witness to say he was unsure about what he had told me earlier... and the attorney found out about it... he would have laughed at me uproariously. Why? Because the mistake is so obvious and accomplishes nothing. By doing this, the interviewer betrays his bias and accomplishes exactly nothing. In short, it's a really stupid thing to do.

Josiah Thompson

Robin:

I appreciate that. I am not making judgments about anyone. I am familiar with your photographs. My point to Josiah is that many of the names on this forum are not familiar to me so I have no idea what their position is. You are correct. The more time I am spending on this forum the more I am understanding people better.There are a number of people on this forum I do know. Truth is what matters to me. All I have seen is that even among those who do not believe there is a hole in Altgens-6 they have no idea what it is. There were many people supportive of the article by Thompson, Jerry, and Barb. I started this thread to address the entire article. The article made many conclusions about issues that have nothing to do with Altgens-6. I am afraid that solely trying to focus this discussion on Altgens now diverts attention from the other issues, which is the bulk of the article and genesis of this thread. I simply want to move these issues forward and not allow a diversion or anything else to detract from my points. I am simply saying to anyone that if the article is defensible then let's address it. If Josiah is, as he wrote, not a photographic expert, as I am certainly am not, then let's have the photographic experts address that issue and let's address the issues that all three signed thier name to and others supported. That is not being done. I have confidence that Martin will defend his position well but you are correct, he needs some time. I am hopeful we cannot hide behind personalities or indignation, but let's move this forward.

Best,

Doug Weldon

The claim that Altgens #6 contains an indication of a through-and-through bullet hole at what has come to be called the location of the "spiral nebula" has been circulating for at least a decade. Pamela McElwaine-Brown has repeatedly made the excellent point that claimants for this view often use degraded images of Altgens #6 taken from books or magazines. Simple inspection of an image used by Martin shows it derived from a printed source. This, in itself, is enough to disqualify any research done on that basis.

Martin's most controversial claim that the damage in Altgens #6 and #7 is identical does not depend upon any 3D studies he is planning to make in the future.

Hence the question still sits on the table. Why shouldn't we understand the "spiral nebula" to be a view through the windshield of the apron, dress or purse of Lady #8? The discussion has progressed nicely to this point. Here, substantial discussion was replaced by reference to unsubstantial claims. Would anyone like to continue the discussion by saying why the conclusion above should not be adopted?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah / Doug

Clarification.

In Altgens 6 the anomaly appears on the "right side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "upward"

In Altgens 7 the anomaly appears on the "left side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "downward"

This is why i reversed Altgens 7

To make the anomaly appear on the same side of the image for comparison purposes, and to have the mirror angle match.

I could have just as easily reversed altgens 6 it would have given the same effect.

I have been a fence sitter for the last 10-years as most on this forum and others would know.

I get just as many LN as Conspiracy visitores to my image galleries, and that is just fine by me, the images are free to take and be used for either "LN" OR "CONSPIRACY" posts on the various forums.

So as you see Doug there are many impartial researchers, apart from Martin.

Had you spent more time on this forum you would realise that. !

As i have stated many times before on this forum " I HAVE NO AXES TO GRIND " let the chips fall where they may.

MY IMAGE GALLERIES

Thanks for the explanation, Robin. I understand why you reversed the image.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Which expert do you want me to pay attention to, the purse, the pocket, the apron, the fabric , the dress, or that there is nothing there? I am not a photo expert but I am confident that Martin is very knowledgeable or I don't believe Jerry would have consulted him about comparing the windshields in your article. You were stating your praises until he disagreed with you.

Doug Weldon

It's not the messenger but the message... not the expert but the evidence the expert adduces. Hinrich was very alert to compare the Couch photo with Altgens #6. By doing so, he could place the purse or dress or apron worn by Lady #8 where it would be seen through the windshield as the "spiral nebula." This was a nifty piece of research which, in my mind, settled the question as to what we are looking at in Altgens #6.

His later claims have no stuffing to them. I paid scant attention to them the first time around because I thought, being German, he was having difficulty expressing his opinions. Then, when I went back to them and thoughtfully considered what he was saying, it became clear it was all Schwarmerei.!

In your replies to me, you appear to have an unerring eye for striking at the capillary. What on earth is the significance of the fact that I failed to pay much attention to Hinrich's somewhat tortured prose?

First, you failed to reply for days when asked if you believed there was damage to the windshield in Altgens #6. Then you replied by saying you never pretended to be a photo expert and that anonymous experts you had consulted told you that "grey-scale analysis" indicated the "nebula" was a bullet hole. When Henrich's analysis of the "nebula" proved convincing you cited the fact that he "concluded that there was the same damage in Altgens 6 as in Altgens 7." When this conclusion was shown to be without any stuffing and loopy anyway, you ask why I would criticize someone whom earlier I praised.

I take this to be the kind of argument one puts up when one has nothing to say substantially about the point under debate. Does Altgens #6 show an undamaged windshield? If you have something substantial to say, then, by all means, let us know what it is. Otherwise, we might come to think that your replies are ... how to put it?.... lawyerly?

Josiah Thompson

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

When you put up an expert before a jury and he crashes and burns, you’ve got a real problem. Right Doug? Well, you offered up Martin Hinrichs as “the only impartial photo expert on this forum” and look what happened.

First off, if you look carefully at the visual of Altgens #6 that Martin put up, you can see that it came from a printed source... a book or a magazine. Obviously, such a source won’t cut it for detailed analysis because of the digital manipulation involved in the printing process itself. For the kind of analysis Martin is indicating he might do in the future, he will have to use a photo or scan deriving from the original AP negative. I’m sure Pamela McElwaine-Brown would oblige him if he asked. Or he could ask me and I would gladly oblige. Garbage in, garbage out... as we all understand.

He claims that the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7 occurs at the identical place where the “spiral nebula” appears in Altgens #6. He says this and indicates how he might start to show this but he hasn’t done any part of what is necessary to show this. That is why he cannot provide Jerry Logan with the actual numbers required for a 3D reconstruction.

He also says that “I do believe we see the same damage in Altgens 6 and 7.” [emphasis in original] By this, he must mean that the damage to the windshield apparent in Altgens #7 is identical to the purported “damage” of the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. Here he gives no back up or argument whatsoever. Apparently, he is saying, “Well, that’s the way it looks to me! Trust me!”

Alas, that is not the way it looks to anyone else. Here are two photos recently put up on this thread by Robin Ungar. Outlined in red are the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6 and the damage to the windshield apparent in Altgens #7. (Note that for reasons unknown Ungar reversed the enlargement form Altgens #7.)

I have no idea whether Martin Hinrichs is an expert in 3D technology. He may well be. If so, I look forward to seeing his analysis of Altgens #6. I think his comparing the Couch photo with Altgens #6 was a nifty piece of research that disclosed the true nature of the socalled “spiral nebula”.... it’s the apron or purse of Lady #8 standing along the curb of Elm Street. However, his claim that the “spiral nebula” is identical to the damage shown in Altgens #7 is just loopy.

You offered as an important consideration, Doug, that “the one impartial photo expert on the forum concluded that there was the same damage in Altgens #6 and Altgens #7.” So we took a look at your expert and the absence of any reasons or evidence given for his “conclusion.”

You put an expert like that on the stand and you must know what will happen to him. If you want credibility, Doug, in the future, I’d be more careful about what experts you commend to us.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

As a start see post #98 and #150. Please remember I am new to this forum and I have no idea who Craig Lamson is. I became aware of Martin because Jerry requested that he analyze the two windshields in your article. He concluded that the two windshields were NOT the same. I do see Lamson has posted that he believes the artifact is part of a purse. It appears that there are no easy answers here. I do not wish to divert or complicate the discussion but I was given this information:

"In talking to Burl Osborne, President of the Dallas Morning News He told me that the Altgens photos were taken from him by someone not employed at the newspaper to be developed and then given to the AP. Osborne tried to get to the bottom of this but was unable. A honest man."

Doug Weldon

Thanks, Doug, for steering me to those two posts. I read them without any idea how Martin reached the conclusion he did. I just read them again and I'll bet you that, when this claim is run to ground, it will turn out to be wrong on both points made by Martin.

He claims that the spiral thing-a-ma-jig in Altgens #6 (if part of the windshield) would be at the exact same point where damage is shown in Altgens #7 (and, by implication, in Frazier's photo). I don't think this is true. He also claims that the "damage" apparent in the spiral-thing-a-ma-jig is the same damage apparent in Altgens #7. Here he gives no reasons at all for his opinion but simply states the opinion which, by inspection, is clearly wrong. But this will be a lot of fun getting to the bottom of. We'll have some fun discussing it.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Thanks for clarifying your position and I understand it. To me, the spiral nebula is very clear in your print. The one impartial photographic expert on this forum , Martin, has concluded that there was the same damage in Altgen's 6 and Altgen's 7.

Fine. So let's take up this single point and run it to ground.

First off, I have no idea whether Martin is a bonafide "photographic expert" and even less idea whether he is "impartial." The person you slight, Craig Lamson, has said several times he couldn't care less whether Oswald did it alone or not. That surely constitutes some degree of impartiality. However, there is a simple way to discern whether someone is a genuine "photographic expert" or not. Let's ask him for his argument. You and Fetzer both have said that that "Martin has concluded that there was the same damage in Altgens #6 and Altgens #7." Somehow this one got by me. I noted that Martin had connected the Couch photo with Altgens #6 and by doing so had shown that the socalled "spiral nebula" was likely part of the dress or apron or purse of Lady #8. I thought that was a nifty piece of research. So why don't you tell me where I can learn not just Martin's "conclusion" about the "same damage" in Altgens #6 and #7 but how he got to this conclusion? Or Martin... why don't you appear and help us out with your argument here?

Josiah Thompson

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

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

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this will help you understand why we disagree.

Josiah Thompson

Pamela, Sometimes I think you are on the level, sometimes not. In the post of page 436 of HOAX (by Bernice at my request), you can see the spiral nebula in the Altgens (and in many other copies posted here) and, if you take a good look, in the windshield of the junked station-wagon that Jim Lewis used for target practice. He has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity bullets through windshields from about 200 yards to see if he can hit dummies in the back seat. He not only has no trouble hitting them but has discovered (i) that the bullets make the sound of a firecracker as they pass through the windshields and (ii) that the bullets also make holes that resemble spiral nebulae. Now exactly what part of this do you not understand? Experiments have been conduced (by Jim Lewis) and have established (i) and (ii). So what is your problem? JFK was hit in the throat from in front. Where do you suppose that bullet came from other than by passing through the windshield? He even had two or three small cuts in his face that appear to have been caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through it. This is all objective. None of it is subjective. If you have a rebuttal, let's hear it.

Pamela MacElwaine-Brown has just skewered you. So what do you do. You don’t reply to the really solid argument she makes against you. Rather, you pop up like Bozo the Clown with a dim-witted smile on your face and prattle on with a series of irrelevancies.

What possible importance can your reproduction of Altgens #6 in your book have to the issue at hand? Did you never hear of how the printing process itself changes photographs? The photo you used for your book... what generation copy of Altgens #6 was it? I know of at least one occasion where you cranked up the contrast in Altgens #6 to make your “nebula” look better. Did you do that to the copy you published?

Pamela is absolutely correct when she points out the only question is whether the photo in question comes directly from the original Altgens AP negative. Hers came from that negative with the authority of NARA behind it. Take a look at the photo below. It also came from the Altgens AP negative. What a surprise. Both Pamela’s photo and mine have the same provenance and show exactly the same thing. Take a look:

What do they show?

They show that Anthony Marsh was right on target when he pointed out five years ago... or was it ten years ago... that your “nebula” is not a feature of the windshield but rather “it is the woman in the background, something she was wearing or carrying, possibly a dress or purse. You can even see the folds and shadows from the folds.” Martin has taken Marsh’s observation farther by showing that “the folds and shadows from the folds” are in the dress or apron of Lady #8. Your response to this is to direct folks to an illustration in one of your books where the provenance of the photo and its digital manipulation is unknown. How lame is that? Then your duty film expert, Jack White, offers the wingnut suggestion that what we are really seeing is a child standing by Lady #8. This wins the prize for silliness since the Couch photo taken seconds before shows clearly the only way a child got there was by parachuting in.

You have the gall to continue spouting cliches... and wrong cliches... when serious research is moving forward. Your reply to Pamela MacElwaine-Brown is a parody of itself. Don’t you ever tire of aimless bloviation?

Josiah Thompson

Furthermore, as it passes through the windshield, it creates a small, white spiral nebula that looks like the one in the Altgens photograph.

You say this is the case, now prove it. Show us a photo of a medium or high-velocity bullet fired through a windshield that looks anything remotely like what you see in Altgens #6.

Otherwise, like before, you're just making things up.

Obviously, you'd like to talk about something else and not the very real progress Martin and others have made in figuring this out. It now seems to be the case that the purse/pocket (or whatever) carried by Lady #8 is in a proper position to produce the "spiral nebula" image that you've referred to. It would seem that anyone claiming the "spiral nebula" is something else is going to have to show that this is not the case. Be our guest!

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

I am being cooperative in answering your questions and I hope in turn you will offer your contributions to the many questions I Have raised in my posts. I am not your enemy. You asked, " I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield?"

I have alwas promised myself that if I .was convinced that I was wrong on something that I would admit it. Your questions are fair and though I have seen efforts to mask Altgen's as I showed in my Minnesots presentation, if the spiral nebulae was" proven" not to be a hole after all the evidence is presented, it woulld impact my confidence that it was a through and through hole that probably caused the throat wound. I am not afraid to ever admit if I am proven wrong on something and I purposely engaged who I thought were smart people in you, Jerry, and Barb. I want to understand the strongest arguments in opposition that can be raised. I would acknowledge that but I would need to hear the counterpoints. I have no question that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield unless it could be proven that the witnesses knew each other and corroborated with each other to create a deception for some unfathomable reason, I am not suggesting Altgen's was altered but can show as I did on you-tube that altered Altgen photos appeared in the press that day and each coincidentally masked the hole show in Altgen's. I do know there was a provable elaborate scheme to alter the evidence on the windshield and one has to ask why. For many reasons Whitaker's account is reliable and fits with the known evidence. Without question there was an attempt made to conceal what happened to the windshield as I have outlined and was able to verify with many of the key players involved. I do know there were witnesses who independently corroborated each other about the same defect, a hole, and could not have possibley have known about the observations of others. Coincidence? I went to Willard Hess, was given his contemporaneous notes that conflict with the "official story" .Hess believed somrthing was wrong. My question in return is if you are presented reasonable proofs that contradict your position will you admit it?

Doug weldon

Actually, the logic is a bit more restrictive than you give it credit for here. If Altgens #6 shows what it appears to show... no damage to the windshield at Z255... then a series of photos, witness reports and lab studies all hang together. Since Altgens #7 shows windshield damage where it was later observed and photographed by Frazier, one would presume that the damage to the windshield occurred about the time of the head shot. This timing matches nicely what was actually observed by Frazier... non penetrating damage to the interior of the windshield with a lead smear on the interior surface. This too was what Frazier photographed . The damage he photographed and described in his notes matches the damage we see in Altgens #7. This is a logical net that hangs together and is confirmed by the reports of other agents who ran their hands over the exterior surface of the windshield at the point of damage and found no penetration.

Hence, if the "spiral nebula" claim of penetration fails, it does not just rule out the notion of a penetrating shot into the throat from the front, it strengthens the view that no penetration of the windshield occurred.

I find photographic evidence from Dealey Plaza matched by crime scene investigation by Frazier and others to trump later claims of multiple windshields. I am reminded by what happened with respect to the "unbrella man." No one could imagine a non-sininster reason for someone to open an umbrella at just the point where shots begin to rain into the limousine. Yet when I heard of Witt's explanation, I said to myself, "Yep, that's the way things are here in the human world. No one could have thought of such a non-sinister explanation before Witt offered it. It's immediately believable." And so with other kinds of witness reports. I can't think of a non-sinister explanation for much of the screwing around with windshields but that does not mean there isn't one. Nor does that mean that things really happened the way you think they happened. Hence, I'm much more impressed by the probative power of photos and reports from Dealey Plaza and the White House garage.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

I did consult a number of experts. Two did what they called a "grey-scale analysis" with a computer to determine that it was a through and through hole. To me, it looks like it is IN the windshield.

Doug Weldon

I'm scratching my head to figure out how a "grey-scale analysis" could show that the socalled "spiral nebula" contained a through-and-through bullet hole. In addition, everything depends on how close to Altgens' original negative was the copy studied by your experts. It seems to me that such an analysis might show whether the grey-scale tonalities matched forms seen through the windshield. But showing there was a bullet hole in the windshield? How? Could you give us a little more information?

Unnamed experts with unseen reports don't carry a lot of probative weight. I understand I asked for what you had done. But it might be useful to begin discussing what sort of photographic measurements might disclose whether the "spiral nebula" was seen through the windshield or a feature of the windshield.

How about it it? Duncan? Craig?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

With all due repect I thought I had responded in a previous post that I am not a photographic expert and I am not going to pretend to be one now. When I have questions I consult experts. My analysis of the photograph would be meaningless. I do know that Martin has posted that he believed the damage in Altgen's 6 and 7 are the same and further that the two windshields in your article are not the same. Other, than that I continue to follow the thread. I have not heard any response from you about the information I have presented about the witnesses and the impossibilities in the record, i.e. Ferguson driving through a time warp.

Doug Weldon

I would have thought you might have consulted experts with regard to the claim that Altgens #6 shows a through-and-through bullet hole. I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield?

I'm no photo expert. But I don't think it takes one to look at Altgens #6 and see the socalled "sprial nebula" is something seen through the windshield and not something in the windshield. What's your thought on this?

Josiah Thompson

Concerning the Spiral Nebula...Here is a quick image (I am not on my regular computer

because my wife is having a bridge party in the house and I am in exile out back) that

shows the nebula hole superimposed, in my opinion, on top of the head of a small black

boy by the curb.

Oh, darn...this older computer out back uses Explorer 6, and does not seem to support

attaching images. (or I can't remember how) .I will post the image later...after the party

in the house is over. Ladies are playing bridge in the room where my computer is. Later.

Jack

I am back from exile. Here is how I see the hole in the windshield in Altgens.

Jack

Take a look at the Croft photo posted above in this thread. It shows the various spectators along the curb and Lady #8 and Lady #9. This photo was taken only a few seconds before Altgens #6. There's no child there in the Croft photo. Did he just drop in? Or was the Croft photo altered to conceal his presence there?

Josiah Thompson

Can you see it too Josiah?

Todd, thank you for your sharp eye and your compliment.

Thank god there are people out there whom realize it.

Martin

Maybe this will help, Martin. It's an enlargement from the original Altgens #6 negative that was done in 1967. It's about as clear as anything I've seen and matches what Pamela got from an Archives copy.

The light area containing the socalled "spiral nebula" has a dark area very near it. This would be what you would get with the dark green surrounding the light area that Barb thought might be a "purse" being held by Lady #8. The white area surronded by green would show up in Altgens from a very different angle... nearly in profile. This looks better and better, Martin. You may have the answer.

Doug Weldon started this thread but has uttered not a peep when asked if he believes Altgens #6 shows a bullet hole in the windshield. What do you think, Doug? Has Martin worked us to the answer concerning the true nature of the socalled "spiral nebula?"

Josiah Thompson

Can you see it too Josiah?

Todd, thank you for your sharp eye and your compliment.

Thank god there are people out there whom realize it.

Martin

I think we're getting real close to something here, Martin. You guys are really making great progress. I wonder what Duncan might say about this.

Josiah Thompson

Tink, the report in CD 385 is the same report as in the WC's volumes. I suspect what happened is that while researching your book you put your speculation that Mudd was talking about the Dal-Tex into the text of the FBI's report, and that later, when presenting this in your book as a verbatim quote from the report, you'd forgot you'd done so. Still another possibility is that you had a copy of the report in which the words Dal-Tex actually appeared, and that this report was later changed, a la the report written by Vincent Drain on the paper bag. If you still have your source materials, it might be worth a look...

In any event, your speculation was most probably incorrect. The last part of the FBI's report on Mudd reads:

"He stated that immediately after the shots were fired, some of the spectators along the side of the street dropped to the ground, and he did so himself, inasmuch as the shots alarmed him and he did not know what had happened or where the shots had come from. He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noticed several broken windows on about the fourth floor, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building. He said the building appeared to be abandoned. Subsequent to the shooting, he did not notice anyone enter or leave the building. Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the building. Mr. Mudd stated that he remained in the vicinity for possibly three or four minutes, after which he walked back toward the main part of town, where he had parked his car. He did not remain to talk to police or Secret Service men because he did not feel he had seen anything that would be of assistance to them. Mr. Mudd said that he was not with anyone else at the time this occurred. He said he later made another trip to Dallas, accompanied by his wife, and he showed her the place where the assassination occurred, and he observed the Texas School Book Depository building and he is confident this is the same building he was standing near at the time of the assassination. Mr. Mudd said he could furnish no further information regarding this matter."

The clear implication from this is that Mudd felt the building from which the shots were fired was the TSBD. But maybe the FBI was playing games...

You may be right, Pat. I take it that you looked at CD 385, p. 18 and verified that it is just another copy of the 302 filed by the Shrevesport agent.

I have no relevant research materials on this after all these years. I still have in the back of my head that Mudd's description of the broken windows clearly did not fit the TSBD and did fit the Dal-Tex building. Maybe Duncan or Robin might have photos to show this one way or another.

Looks to me like you've at least verified that F. Lee Mudd died in 1974. Nice going.

Josiah Thompson

This is an interesting point you raise, Pat. Look, if I made a mistake I'm perfectly willing to admit it after all these years. However, I'm not sure I made a mistake.

In the back of my mind still sits the notion that some windows (perhaps even on the fourth floor) of the Dal-Tex Building were broken while none in the TSBD were broken. Surely this is something that could be definitively answered through photos. Secondly, I note that I gave two page references to Mudd in Six Seconds: 24H538 and Archives, CD 385, p. 18. The later reference document (CD 385, p.18) is not reproduced in Six Seconds although other documents from CD 385 are. It would appear that CD 385 contains FBI 302s from the Dallas area. Since 24H538 is a 302 authored by an agent from the Shreveport, Louisiana field office, the CD 385 document may consist of an earlier interview of Mudd in Dallas. If anone can find that document, it might shed further light on the question.

If windows in the Dal-Tex building were broken and none in the TSBD were broken, then it would be fair to presume that Mudd was referring to the Dal-Tex building. Even in that case, however, I should have put "Dal-Tex" in brackets to signify that it was not present in the text of the 302. If this is not the case and if CD 385, page 18 does not specify the Dal-Tex building, then my blunder is obvious and significant. I'd like to know the answer.

I took a shot at F. Lee Mudd in both Shreveport and Keithville, Louisiana and came up blank.

I'm inclined to think that your notion that Mudd may very well be the guy in the red shirt near Hudson is pretty good.

Josiah Thompson

Hi Martin

Not quite sure what to make of this yet but just to check if I am looking at the right thing the lady in question would be Lady 9 rather than Lady 8 wouldn't it ?

Thanks

David

I have the same problem identifying the swirl with the proper spectator in the background. Like you, I can't tell if it is Lady 8 or Lady 9. As far as I recall, Anthony Marsh pointed out that the socalled "spiral nebula" was a swirl in the fabric of a woman's dress. I don't recall him saying anything about a "pocket."

I just took a magnifying glass to the best copy I have of Altgens #6. It looks to me like the "spiral nebula" is some fabric in the dress of Lady #9 that is tbetween the camera and something Lady #8 is holding. I wonder if any other photos would provide views of Lady #8 and #9?

Josiah Thompson