Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Weldon

Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Weldon

  1. 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 co
  2. 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 co
  3. 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 co
  4. 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 co
  5. 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 co
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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, Jerr
  10. 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! Wh
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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! Wh
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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 Altg
  18. 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 tex
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. [ 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-thro
  22. 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 surf
  23. 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 surf
  24. 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 ar
×
×
  • Create New...