Doug Weldon

Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: I am sorry my incomplete post repeated a number of times . I had not hit reply and my reply posted numerous times. You state " Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? What is odd. That was part of his job. He was in charge of the glass lab and his responsibility included glass lamination and making windshields. I'll try again. Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you noted I did not try to suggest where he "should have seen it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in only one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. 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. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman you referred to. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole. It is unambiguous: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Again i have no idea about the dinner converstaion and question its accuracy as Livingstone was actually very specific and said "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative in a further sense: The 'hole' in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." In reply to Whitaker, I do not understand why his account was omitted, as I noticed in prior posts why it is credible. I will do so again. You write "Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources." My response would be "How could he have learned about the hole?" Remember the reason I was referred to Whitaker was because his son had recalled his father talking about something at the dinner table since 1963 about something with the assasination." Whitaker told me that he only discussed it within his family. He was very specific including the meeting the night before when he was calle at dinner for a meeting to determine whether the plant was going to run monday. How could he have known his account would match Taylor's, that he would describe the same defect so man other people he could not have known,described, a hole, or how could he have known that the WH Garage logs would match his account. How unusual is it that the Ford Motor Company was running that day except for two hours? You state there is a record that the vehicle was on record as being at Ford two or three weeks late. Yes Ferguson testified that the vehicle left Washington for the firdt time on December 20 for the first time as he drove it to Dearborn on December 20. We know not only improbable that was as I discussed before because of weather and circumstances, again the vehicle was not designed to be driven that far, what if the car broke down, how did he get gas, how did you eliminate the possibility of people seeing the vehicle, and Hess and Eisenhardt records indicate the vehicle was there on December 13 and every employee I spoke with said the vehicle was there well before December 24, the day Ferguson testified he drove the vehicle was in Cincinnati, again a day of inclement weather. Did you know there was a UPI report on Decmber 18 or 19 stating that he vehicle had been secretly flown to Dearborn? Does it hint to any of you at all that a shell game was being played? Are you sure stock windshields were readily available either stocked at dealerships or glass companies and how were they going to explain the disposal of the original windshield especially if there was a hole in it. Why did they call in Arlington glass. company under the pretext that a windshield was being measured if they could have just obtained a stock windshield from a Ford dealership in Washington D.C.? Why did Ferguson say Arlington Glass Company Company replaced the windshield on the 25th (as repeated by Pamela) when the logs show they were there on the 26th. Why did Bill Ashby of Arlington Glass tell researcher Robert P. Smith he replaced the windshield on the 27th when Ferguson said it was under lock and key, Ferguson said when the windshield was replaced on the 25th, ADDITIONAL CRACKS WERE MADE. HE SAId THE WINDSHIELD WAS PLACED UNDER LOCK AND KEY IN A STOCKROOM ON THE 25TH AND HE DID NOT SEE THE WINDSHIELD AGAIN. Roy Kellerman alleged he examined the windsield on the 27th, allegedly a short time before it was removed. Kellerman noted that he ran his hand over the outside of the windshield and found it to be smooth, the opposite of what the later FBI report would show. Kellerman stated that the damage was on the inside surface of the windshield. When Kellerman testified before the Warren Commission in March 1964, he was asked to run his hand over the INSIDE of the windshield. Incredibly, he then testified to the exact opposite of his original statement, remarking'... it feels rather smooth today." Ferguson's account is also confusing in light of James Rowley's January 6, 1964 memorandum to Rankin. In that memorandum Rowley wrote that Secret Service Agent Morgan Geis of the White Hiuse Garage detail requested permission to clean the blood from the back seat on November 23, 1963. The reason given wasnthat the odor was bothersome to him. According to Rowley, permission was given to Geis, Special Officer (William) Davis, and White House Police officer (Andrew) hutch to remove these bloodstains on late Sunday evening, November 24, 1963 (CD-80). But where was Ferguson at this time? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Chief Rowly fail to mention that Ferguson had done anything to clean the limousine. This is another conflict that bothered the HSCA. Why did the Secret Service order twelve windshields for the Lincoln Limousine from the Ford Motor Company for "Target Practice."if there were stock windshields that was readily available? Even though Whitaker's account was totally consistent with the hole, the Dallas witnesses, Taylor, the White House Garage logs and he had no reason to fabricate his account, yes, I can see why you totally left out any mention of him in your article when the official record was so totally clear. Yes, strange things happen and anything is possible. I guess it is possible and if the right hypothetical questions are asked, as Spector did in questioning Warren Commission witnesses, that there could be a suggested possibility that Kennedy shot himself, how far can all those possibilities be stetched. How likely is it that at least nine witnesses only "thought" they saw a hole and how coincidental is it that all of these people who did not know each other thought they saw the same thing. How likely is it that Whitaker made up something or read something immediately in 1963 and decided to pull a ruse on his family yet would still be afraid to discuss it 30 years later? Yes, it does make sense with that logic that you totally omitted him from your article, that police officers are casual observers, that up is down and that black is white. Doug Weldon

Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. 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. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole

Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. 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. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole

Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. 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. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole

Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. 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. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole

Bernice, Again, they seemed to be very concerned about establishing that there are no perforations. If it wasn't a concern again, like the FBI and Ferguson, why would they make such an issue of something that was not there. Great Post! Doug

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 :-) Barb: Yes, ths is correct. Please note "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." Think what you want to think. Feel free to share a copy with Jerry. Thompson's feigned indignance is absolutely ludicrous. It is laughable. Did I suggest any location to Nick as to where I thought he should have seen the hole? I simply asked him if he could have been mistaken about the location. He could have respionded no, he was not mistaken.I would have done that with anyone whose account I was going to present. Nick clarified his position in his e-mails. Did Nick sound like I was strong-arming him? I would never present a witness in court without asking them logical questions that would come up. Has Thompson ever been in court? We have used investigators many times. If someone came back without asking questions I would send out an FIO (further investigation order) and that investigaor would not be employed long. In virtually every case I have ever been involved with I never had two witnesses describe something the same way. There were witnesses that saw the hole in different locations. I would expect that. However, each of them saw only one hole. Did Nick, in my tape or Pamela's have any question that he saw a hole? I did not ask him the 1-100 question because I already had a copy of Pamela's interview with him. Have you read Elizabeth Loftus on eye-witness testimony. Again, if I askedyou who was at your 30th birthday party and you named someone who was there and two other people said that person was not there would it be improper to ask you if you could have been mistaken about that person being there? I I have practiced law over 31 years. Does Jerry talk to witnesses before going to court? I am starting to understand some people better on this forum. Are you going to respond to points I raised or just focus on diversions. Dismiss Nick if you wish. I am not suggesting anything to you. Let's discuss the article and quit creating diversions.Do you believe it is wrong to mischaracterize witnesses such as referring to trained police officers as "casual observers" or leaving out witnesses altogether as was done with Whitaker? That's what was done in your article and one of my questions is why was that done?Also, as I listened to the tape again it was very obvious that Nick and Greer remained friends and that when Nick was given a station that Greer would stop by to see him as he lived nearby. Why would Nick lie abour Greer telling him that "Nick, you should have been there. Shots were coming from anywhere. One came through the windshield and almost hit me." Nick's e-mails are on this thread. His own words. not mine. Some people need to get real. Doug Weldon One small correction. I stated " In virtually every case I have ever been involved with I never had two witnesses describe something the same way. There were witnesses that saw the hole in different locations. " The word "something" should be "everything."If we didn't have people (investigators)clarify things I could train a monkey to go up to a door with a tape recorder wearing a sign saying "Please push record and tell me your account." Doug

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 :-) Barb: Yes, ths is correct. Please note "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." Think what you want to think. Feel free to share a copy with Jerry. Thompson's feigned indignance is absolutely ludicrous. It is laughable. Did I suggest any location to Nick as to where I thought he should have seen the hole? I simply asked him if he could have been mistaken about the location. He could have respionded no, he was not mistaken.I would have done that with anyone whose account I was going to present. Nick clarified his position in his e-mails. Did Nick sound like I was strong-arming him? I would never present a witness in court without asking them logical questions that would come up. Has Thompson ever been in court? We have used investigators many times. If someone came back without asking questions I would send out an FIO (further investigation order) and that investigaor would not be employed long. In virtually every case I have ever been involved with I never had two witnesses describe something the same way. There were witnesses that saw the hole in different locations. I would expect that. However, each of them saw only one hole. Did Nick, in my tape or Pamela's have any question that he saw a hole? I did not ask him the 1-100 question because I already had a copy of Pamela's interview with him. Have you read Elizabeth Loftus on eye-witness testimony. Again, if I askedyou who was at your 30th birthday party and you named someone who was there and two other people said that person was not there would it be improper to ask you if you could have been mistaken about that person being there? I I have practiced law over 31 years. Does Jerry talk to witnesses before going to court? I am starting to understand some people better on this forum. Are you going to respond to points I raised or just focus on diversions. Dismiss Nick if you wish. I am not suggesting anything to you. Let's discuss the article and quit creating diversions.Do you believe it is wrong to mischaracterize witnesses such as referring to trained police officers as "casual observers" or leaving out witnesses altogether as was done with Whitaker? That's what was done in your article and one of my questions is why was that done?Also, as I listened to the tape again it was very obvious that Nick and Greer remained friends and that when Nick was given a station that Greer would stop by to see him as he lived nearby. Why would Nick lie abour Greer telling him that "Nick, you should have been there. Shots were coming from anywhere. One came through the windshield and almost hit me." Nick's e-mails are on this thread. His own words. not mine. Some people need to get real. Doug Weldon

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

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 To be *fair* ... I told Pamela that in the interview I heard Prencipe told you it was low on the passenger side just like he told her. It is my opinion that telling him others put the hole elsewhere and then asking him if he could be mistaken was poor procedure. Others, including Jerry, may or may not agree. No cheap shot involved .... given what you dish out, one wouldn't expect one opinion of mine to elicit such a squeal. As for Jerry and a copy of your interview tape .... consider it done. :-) Barb :-) Barb: Okay. Can we move forward and address the questions I have raised about your article?? Doug

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: 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 Doug, So you honestly think that A6 looks just like A7 and CE350? If we did photo lineup and asked who wasn't a member of the gang which of these would the average person say didn't belong? After Martin's analysis, would you please point out the pencil, pen sized hole in A6 and A7. I hope you're not relying on Martin just because I asked his opinion. I asked for three opinions and he was in the minority. Martin is a smart guy with a good eye but I wouldn't want my entire book to rest on what he's actually demonstrated so far. Jerry Jerry: As I've noted before I do not believe that CE 350 is the windshield that was in the limo in Dallas. Also, as I told Josiah I had consulted other experts in photography before and I didn't wait all of these years to hope that I could jump on this forum and hope somewhat like Martin would come forward. If there are two other opinions about the windshield comparison I would respond as Josiah would and ask you to post them and give Martin the opportunity to defend his position. I thought you had stated before that you did not believe there could be a valid comparison of the windshiels now. Best, Doug

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: 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

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

Martin you and Doug and OTHERS keep on keeping on... I know how one can get pulled of track and forced to loose focus on facts and drift into speculations.... what is this thread really about... pro or con? was there a hole?... did a shot miss? What does it all really mean? Was there two shooters, or more, in the Plaza that day? Was there a conspiracy that day? Did JFK change shorts before he left for the plaza? This is an important thread I believe, but I also believe it -- in time will go into oblivion. And that could be by design. 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 Doug, I have to admit I'm completely stunned by this post. Josiah is actively engaging you on the Altgens photos. Barb has just finished several long posts on the Principe issue. You and I have been actively exchanging information on Taylor. I'm trying to get Martin to show at least a little of his work. I'm sorry if we're slow or need to take things in small bits but if we wanted the issue to simply languish and fade away then we probably wouldn't have posted a giant article on the Education Forum and Lancer. I know Tink, Barb and I are supposed to be crafty and subtle but that's a hell of a way to let something quietly sink into obscurity. Jerry Jerry: I have nothing but positive to say about you and Barb publically and privately. I have no problem with Martin supporting his work and I am not critical of your post. It is frustrating that Thompson "missed" several posts of Martin stating his conclusion and was supportive of his analysis but now questions his conclusion. I understand how posts can be missed as I missed a very good post by Barb. I have not expected you to respond recently but before I came on this forum I know there were a number of people critical of me. None of these people have responded. So far, on the windshield hole I have seen it described as fabric, a dress, a purse, a pocket, and even that there was nothing there in the original negative. Are these people going to change their mind even if I posted a picture of Greer sticking his finger through the hole and Kinney pointing at it? I understand that this is critical but there has been no one addressing my points or questions in four days. I do not mind if there is a parallel discussion but my intent was to enter the forum for a short period of time, explain my position and criticisms of your article and engage in dialog with those critical of me. Yes, you, Barb, and I have addressed some things off line and I respect both of you. However, I do not enjoy forums, though this has been very beneficial to me. People like Martin have impressed me and I have learned from a number of people. I hope you and Barb will be my friends after this is over. I have been involved with this for over 31 years. I want to be out of it. I understand why people like Gary Shaw just put it behind them. I am only in this because of the people I made promises to. I sincerely apologize if you interpreted my post as an attack on you or Barb. It was not my intent. I purposely have come to this forum so people can hit me with their best shot and form their own judgments of me. I have seen the posts where people have casually dismissed what I have done. This is their chance to confront me. If and when I finish my book there are going to be things I have not yet discussed that I think will bring the evidence together or raise legitimate questions to anyone with an open mind. As I noted before I have been privileged to touch history in such a unique way and in the pursuit of truth gotten to know such incredible people. However, the price of admission has been very high in many aspects of my life as things were sacrificed in order to pursue this. I don't care if people criticize me or my evidence but please do not question my motives. I understand that people can examine the evidence and reach different conclusions. As long as someone is sincere in trying to find truth I will never have a problem with them. If one seeks to obstruct truth from emerging I will have no use for that person. The Posners and Bugliousi's of the world will have to live with themselves. If anyone wants to go through my points and/or answer my questions I am happy to move forward. As Martin said: "I'am going to predict another thing: Let's say my upcoming work will convince everybody that the Location of the POI is in both Altgens6+7 in the same place..... you and other will say thats no proof...just a coincidence. Thats just a pocket in the background. Isn't it? Welcome in the mad world of the JFK assassiantion forums." It is that I don't have time for. My best, Doug

Martin you and Doug and OTHERS keep on keeping on... I know how one can get pulled of track and forced to loose focus on facts and drift into speculations.... what is this thread really about... pro or con? was there a hole?... did a shot miss? What does it all really mean? Was there two shooters, or more, in the Plaza that day? Was there a conspiracy that day? Did JFK change shorts before he left for the plaza? This is an important thread I believe, but I also believe it -- in time will go into oblivion. And that could be by design. 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

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: See also post #11. I hope we can continue a parallel track and have one of the authors from your article go through the questions I raised. Did you note that Jerry is questioning whether a proper comparison can be made between the two windshields in your article. Doug

Jack: Could you post the entire Croft color slide? Thank you, Doug

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 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

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 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. Yes, I do believe that Frazier and the FBI team lied in their report and that Frazier's credibility would have been easily impeachable under proper cross examination. When Harold Weisberg tried to subpoena Frazier for a hearing the FBI simply retired him and hid him so he could not be served. I know that you have talked to many witnesses in your career as both Jerry and I have. When there is such a vast amount of independent corroboration for the same defect, a hole, I have to take those claims seriously. I did not read just paper reports but actually confronted those witnesses. As you know, I asked other people who knew those witnesses, whenever I could, what their reputation was for truth or veracity. Did they ever exaggerate anything? What did they have to gain from telling their accounts? When did they start telling their accounts? I examined the record. I obtained access to records and information that was not in the public realm, i.e. Willard Hess. I looked at records that could noticeably be proven false such as Ferguson and discovered that it even caused confusion with the HSCA. I examined weather records for dates that events were claimed to have happened. I looked at evidence that strongly suggested that the windshield was being switched. I examined if there was corroborative evidence that would support a witness' claims. I take Whitaker as an example when he described the limo being in Dearborn on November 25, 1963 and the windshield with a hole in it being replaced and destroyed. How could he know that his observation of a hole would be the exact defect that other people, whom he could not have had any knowledge of, also described? How could he have known that the date he described his account would have been the one day that the WH Garage logs demonstrated that no one had contact with the limousine? As you and Jery know one cannot choose their witnesses, but it happens here there were exceptional witnesses, police officers, a physician, a manager at Ford whose company owned the limousine. Yes, if he worked at Chevrolet and the limo showed up there, it might raise one's eyebrows. I did not take accounts and walk away. I did everything possible to determine if they fit with what others noted and the record. They did. One can also weigh noticeably false and inconsistent accounts and ask why?. The record is replete with information that is inconsistent. I am not going to chastise you because we disagree. You are obviously very bright. Your experience with the issues in the assasination is remarkable. I can accept your position and only hope that both of us may keep our eyes open to the evidence. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position. Best, Doug Weldon

Doug, Sorry for the confusion. As I noted, I sent you the staff copy of the affidavit. The main copy went to the central Church Committee files where David Lifton located a signed copy properly notarized. Jerry Jerry: Thanks. You did, in fact, note that it was a staff copy. My error. Does David have a copy of the signed copy? I would continue to note my other observations, i.e. one hour in the vehicle and that the affidavit was prepared for him. Best, Doug Doug, You're very gracious but it was my error. It has been a while since the great affidavit hunt and I should have made it clear what "staff copy" meant. I'd almost tracked down Lois Cottrell's notary register for 1976 before David located the main document. As you know, I admire David's scholarship so it was fun to shake the trees with him. I believe that he has the NARA copy of the the "official" affidavit but not, I think, in electronic form. Obviously you should contact him since I'm reporting from memory and I was only in the passenger seat for an hour in the dark :>) Best to you, Jerry Jerry: Thanks. If you prepare an affidavit for me admitting my error I will be glad to sign it. Best, Doug

Doug, Sorry for the confusion. As I noted, I sent you the staff copy of the affidavit. The main copy went to the central Church Committee files where David Lifton located a signed copy properly notarized. Jerry Jerry: Thanks. You did, in fact, note that it was a staff copy. My error. Does David have a copy of the signed copy? I would continue to note my other observations, i.e. one hour in the vehicle and that the affidavit was prepared for him. Best, Doug

[ 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 I just discovered something very interesting. I want to credit and thank Jerry Logan. Jerry, Barb and others may agree or disagree with me but I must point out that many of us really try to be cooperative in assisting each other even though we may "battle" online. There are also many people who are very helpful to everyone. Jerry was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the Charles Taylor affidavit which was prepared for him to sign to recant his obseveration in his report of November 27, 1963 that he saw a hole in the windshield and his December 10, 1975 statement when he confirmed he saw a hole. Note the affidavit was NOT written by him (Taylor) but was prepared for him to sign. There is a great deal made of the fact that he did not have enough time to look at the windshield closely but even the affidavit indicates that he was in the passenger seat of the limo for an HOUR as it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the Garage. What was he doing, staring at his feet? The MOST interesting aspect was that he DID NOT SIGN his name. It was hand printed out by someone. In 1963 his signature was very clear. Did he forget how to sign his name? Was he trying to tell us something? I am not a handwriting expert but it would be interesting to compare the two writings as there seems to be something suspicious. Why would he do this? What is of further interest is that the notary public does not sign her name but it is also hand printed out. Has anyone ever heard of a notary printing their name. I don't know how to place the two comparisons here as I demonstrate my poor typing and computer skills every day. Perhaps Bernice or someone could do so. 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: Both of us have admitted that we are not photographic experts. Martin, who was contacted by Jerry, has concluded that the two windshields in your article are not the same. He has also concluded , with your acknowledgement that there was a meticulous analysis, that there WAS DAMAGE as noted in Altgens 6 and that the SAME damage is evident in Altgens 7. Both you and I have extensive experience with witnesses. Would you be able to address my points in more than a superficial way than " 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." You seem to rely on Robert Frazier in your recent posts. Jerry pointed out on this forum "A trained, professional observer filed a clearly written official report that directly contradicted the FBI findings of that evening as reported by Frazier. Not only is this by far one of the strongest eyewitness statements for a hole, it’s also very strong evidence that Frazier’s account of the inspection that night was less than honest. And frankly, for all the effort you put into your battles with the clownish Fetzer, you didn’t really lay a hand on Lifton. It was good to obtain and publish some of the FBI notes from that night. But of course it’s possible to write anything at any time and date it 11/22. It’s possible to keep two sets of notes and leave only one in the official files. Frazier’s notes only have value if you think Frazier is playing fair and Taylor gave us reason to think Frazier wasn't. Your only response to Taylor’s report was “Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it.” Huh? Your best response to David Lifton was that Agent Taylor had a limited vocabulary? The word “defect” was apparently unknown to him so he used “hole” instead. On the theory that “hole” is close enough for an official report to the Chief of the Secret Service on the most important event in his career. And what did you use to support your conclusion? No words or statements of Taylor’s. Instead, you resorted to the ultimate appeal to authority – ignore the plain meaning of Agent Taylor’s words because Pamala doesn’t think that’s what he meant. To be frank, whatever conclusions you reached looking at fuzzy photos, studying possibly falsified notes and parsing words with the skill of the finest Talmudic scholar – Charles Taylor was there that night, he sat in the passenger seat, he was a trained professional and he said that he and the FBI had seen a hole." I have treated and responded to you respectfully and have actually defended your integrity. I chose to come on this forum because I knew there would be smart, critical people who did not agree with me.. Years ago another researcher was critical of my contact with a witness. To resolve that issue I asked Todd Vaughn to examine things because I knew many of his views were polar opposite of mine but I also believed him to be honest and objective. He was and I believe is. This is not about me. It is about the evidence and I am trying to understand the way that things happened. Barb has agreed to continue to address my questions. I would hope that you could add something of substance. BTW, the agents who ran their hands over the windshield had different observations at different times. Doug Weldon Hi Doug, Since you've quoted me so extensively I have to leap in here. You'd almost think I was David Lifton! Two quick points. First, what you've failed to note is that my words were a response to a specific claim of Pamela's - that she had already solved everything and that our article presented no new evidence or nothing of interest. She had claimed, without evidence, that Taylor had meant "defect" when he said "hole".Therefore the statement you've quoted above is meant to be a summary of the state of affairs after Pamela's work and before ours. The subsequent information from Charles Taylor changed that state of affairs and confirmed Frazier's work - thereby eliminating the doubt that remained after Pamela's efforts. I just want it to be clear that, although I can give a good summary of David Lifton's analysis, I don't believe David's analysis is correct and I think the new Taylor materials sharply refuted that analysis. Second, you've mentioned Martin's work frequently. I'm sure you remember that Martin's conclusions are disputed in some important respects. At least two experts I have deep respect for believe he is dead wrong. Moreover, his analysis is predicated on photos we know to be variable in appearance and I'm pretty sure his analysis of the cracks would only call into question the HSCA photos even if he were correct about what he thinks he sees. As I've written more than once, the cracks in the windshield won't be resolved until we've had a chance to visit the Archives and make sure we're all looking at the right photos. Best to you, Jerry Jerry: Fair enough. I did not realize that you were summarizing Lifton's analysis. I do not want to misrepresent anything. I have already outlined my suspicions about Taylor's affidavit. To review again see the report that was labeled "Top Secret" when it stated: The staff interviewed Secret Service Agent Taylor on December 10, 1975. On that occasion Taylor was positive that there had been a hole through the windshield. He stated that a pin could definitely be inserted through this hole from one side of the windshield to the other. However, the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to examine what he believed to be a hole. With Committee staff present, Taylor recently examined the windshield at the Archives. He stated that the windshield was as he had seen it in 1963; i.e. contrary to his report, there was no internal defect and not a penetration. The staff subsequently prepared an affidavit and forwarded it to the Secret Service for Mr. Taylor’s review and signature. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16573650/TaylorAff) the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to examine what he believed to be a hole. Note a few things. Taylor was "positive" he had seen a hole in his statement on December 10, 1975.. The word "pin" does not make sense. The word "pen" does. What kind of nonsense is it that "the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to examine what he believed to be a hole." Taylor had more time than perhaps anyone to examine the windshield. He rode in the passenger seat as the vehicle was driven from Andres Air Force Base to the Garage and viewed it there and wrote a report. Notice that staff was with him at the Archives. No pressure there? It is obvious that he was shown a windshield that even you admit is in question. Where are the crosscracks from the windshield allegedly being pushed out? Further note that Taylor did NOT even write an affidavit! It was prepared for him and it was given to him for his signature. I would relish the opportunity to depose Mr. Taylor. You write about Martin that " I'm pretty sure his analysis of the cracks would only call into question the HSCA photos even if he were correct about what he thinks he sees." Don't you think it is extremely significant if the HSCA photos would be called into question?! If they are not photos of the limo windshield then what are they, where did they come from, and why were they being used to represent the Dallas windshield? Where did Hunt get the photos if not at the Archives. The Archives, for some reason, is not going to allow anyone to view the windshield that is there though I believe I believe I know several reasons. I have not seen any other expert analysis of the two windshield photographs. In this instance Josiah has lauded Martin's analysis of Altgen's 6. However, he misunderstood what Martin was saying. Martin painstakingly concludde that there was damage in Altgen's 6 and the damage was the same as Altgen's 7. Take care. Sincerely, Doug

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: Both of us have admitted that we are not photographic experts. Martin, who was contacted by Jerry, has concluded that the two windshields in your article are not the same. He has also concluded , with your acknowledgement that there was a meticulous analysis, that there WAS DAMAGE as noted in Altgens 6 and that the SAME damage is evident in Altgens 7. Both you and I have extensive experience with witnesses. Would you be able to address my points in more than a superficial way than " 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." You seem to rely on Robert Frazier in your recent posts. Jerry pointed out on this forum "A trained, professional observer filed a clearly written official report that directly contradicted the FBI findings of that evening as reported by Frazier. Not only is this by far one of the strongest eyewitness statements for a hole, it’s also very strong evidence that Frazier’s account of the inspection that night was less than honest. And frankly, for all the effort you put into your battles with the clownish Fetzer, you didn’t really lay a hand on Lifton. It was good to obtain and publish some of the FBI notes from that night. But of course it’s possible to write anything at any time and date it 11/22. It’s possible to keep two sets of notes and leave only one in the official files. Frazier’s notes only have value if you think Frazier is playing fair and Taylor gave us reason to think Frazier wasn't. Your only response to Taylor’s report was “Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it.” Huh? Your best response to David Lifton was that Agent Taylor had a limited vocabulary? The word “defect” was apparently unknown to him so he used “hole” instead. On the theory that “hole” is close enough for an official report to the Chief of the Secret Service on the most important event in his career. And what did you use to support your conclusion? No words or statements of Taylor’s. Instead, you resorted to the ultimate appeal to authority – ignore the plain meaning of Agent Taylor’s words because Pamala doesn’t think that’s what he meant. To be frank, whatever conclusions you reached looking at fuzzy photos, studying possibly falsified notes and parsing words with the skill of the finest Talmudic scholar – Charles Taylor was there that night, he sat in the passenger seat, he was a trained professional and he said that he and the FBI had seen a hole." I have treated and responded to you respectfully and have actually defended your integrity. I chose to come on this forum because I knew there would be smart, critical people who did not agree with me.. Years ago another researcher was critical of my contact with a witness. To resolve that issue I asked Todd Vaughn to examine things because I knew many of his views were polar opposite of mine but I also believed him to be honest and objective. He was and I believe is. This is not about me. It is about the evidence and I am trying to understand the way that things happened. Barb has agreed to continue to address my questions. I would hope that you could add something of substance. BTW, the agents who ran their hands over the windshield had different observations at different times. Doug Weldon

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 Tink, you misunderstood me. Let me repeat from an ealier post: I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no solution for this crucial part. What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror. Important is: a.) the correct angle of the windshield b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield. Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6. Please test it by your own if possible with photographs. It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood. Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6. We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center. How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way? A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft. You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved. And the discussion of it has not ended. In Posting #114 i made it also clear. Anthony Marsh+Jerry Logan and me are in disagreement. I do believe we see the the same damage in ALtgens6 and 7. I don't know if it's a hole. But for sure a damage. I hope this is now clear! Martin: Thank you. That is what I had understood you to state before. Best, Doug Weldon