Doug Weldon

I would have thought you might have consulted experts with regard to the claim that Altgens #6 shows a through-and-through bullet hole. I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield? I'm no photo expert. But I don't think it takes one to look at Altgens #6 and see the socalled "sprial nebula" is something seen through the windshield and not something in the windshield. What's your thought on this? Josiah Thompson 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 would have thought you might have consulted experts with regard to the claim that Altgens #6 shows a through-and-through bullet hole. I would have thought this since all your efforts have focused on the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. Let's say that the trail Martin and others are pursuing turns out to be truly correct. The socalled "spiral nebula" turns out to be some swirls in the fabric of something held by Lady #8. Would that impact your confidence in a through-and-through hole in the windshield? I'm no photo expert. But I don't think it takes one to look at Altgens #6 and see the socalled "sprial nebula" is something seen through the windshield and not something in the windshield. What's your thought on this? Josiah Thompson Josiah: I did consult a number of experts. Two did what they called a "grey-scale analysis" with a computer to determine that it was a through and through hole. To me, it looks like it is IN the windshield. Doug Weldon

Hi Doug, Yes, I am aware of the name of that researcher as well. You can only surmise? Well, no, you could have checked it out.<g> But in this case, the info has been available for some time ... from Vince Palamara and Greer's 1985 obituary, at least. Wife Ethel passed away in 1969; second wife is Mary, who gave the papers to the researcher. How was it Prencipe said he was still in touch with Greer until after, at least, 1969? Greer retired in '66. Was basically off my computer yesterday, that's true for the most part today as well ... I see several posts I need to respond to, especially your 2 large ones ... tomorrow. Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Thanks for the info. I simply did not know about Greer's wives. I looked up Greer on the web and didn't find anything. You did better than I in getting the info. I can't speak for Nick. As you are aware, he said he and Greer were friends. It would not have surprised me if they stayed in touch. This IS speculation. Thanks for the information on the wives. Do you know anything about what is going on with the researcher who has Greer's manuscript? It would be interesting to see what was written. I tried, without success, many times to get him to release it. Doug

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 Josiah: With all due repect I thought I had responded in a previous post that I am not a photographic expert and I am not going to pretend to be one now. When I have questions I consult experts. My analysis of the photograph would be meaningless. I do know that Martin has posted that he believed the damage in Altgen's 6 and 7 are the same and further that the two windshields in your article are not the same. Other, than that I continue to follow the thread. I have not heard any response from you about the information I have presented about the witnesses and the impossibilities in the record, i.e. Ferguson driving through a time warp. Doug Weldon Josiah: Since it appears that you have not responded to any of my my questions but you have left Barb to graciously do so so (I await her further responses) I would like to refer you to my you-tube presentation where I show that there were other versions of Altgen's that appeared to be designed to obscure the spiral nebulae. iSuch evidence of tampering naturally raises my suspicions. I don't have to be a photographic expert to see that. 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 Josiah: With all due repect I thought I had responded in a previous post that I am not a photographic expert and I am not going to pretend to be one now. When I have questions I consult experts. My analysis of the photograph would be meaningless. I do know that Martin has posted that he believed the damage in Altgen's 6 and 7 are the same and further that the two windshields in your article are not the same. Other, than that I continue to follow the thread. I have not heard any response from you about the information I have presented about the witnesses and the impossibilities in the record, i.e. Ferguson driving through a time warp. Doug Weldon

Hi Doug, I thank you for sending me the audio CD of your first interview with Mr. Prencipe. I have listened to it twice. I do believe whenever Mr. Prencipe's story can be told in his own words it is best, as it makes it quite clear what he says happened ... and when ... and where. A little chronology ... March 2000: Pamela McElwain-Brown conducted a phone interview with Prencipe; I do not have the exact date, nor have I heard that interview. April 16, 2000: You interviewed Prencipe by phone, and that is the interview you recently sent me. At the time of your interview, Prencipe spoke well of Pamela and did not seem to have any issues with her regarding her interview with him, anything he had told her, etc. In fact, you referred to Pamela's interview when you were speaking to Prencipe, telling him you had listened it, as I recall. I was surprised that you rather led with what you knew he had told Pamela rather than just asking him to tell you what happened the evening of the assassination. And while the topic of him seeing Greer that evening, having the conversation and then what he says he did at the WH garage later that evening is just a very few minutes of your hour long conversation, he confirmed to you what he had told Pamela about seeing, shaking hands with and speaking to Bill Greer on West Executive Ave the evening of the assassination. Prencipe does refer to it as having happened that evening by saying, "Greer said to me that night." He also repeated that Greer had told that shots had been coming at them from all directions, with a shot even coming through the windshield. Prencipe also confirmed that it was sometime that night .... Nov 22nd ... that he went to the WH garage and looked at the limo windshield. He told you that when he went to the WHG to see the limo, there were "people milling all around" in there "all over the place"; he said, "As far as I am concerned it was a clean hole." [in the windshield] .... he also said "it was quite possible that there was fragmentation." ... and he said "he only got a glance at it" [ said this several times in your conversation] and something about that being because he had to get that tarp he'd pulled up to see the "hole" back down. He also made these comments: "I didn't say it was a bullet hole, I said there was a hole in the windshield," and when you questioned him about that, he said, "It looked like a bullet hole." You did elicit a 100% confidence level statement from him that he had seen a perforating hole. When it came to *where* on the windshield he saw that hole .... and he placed it low on the passenger side, "a couple inches above the frame" [from the bottom of the windshield]... I was frankly amazed that instead of repeating the confidence level exercise without infecting him, you instead informed him that other witnesses had placed the hole they saw elsewhere and asked him if he could possibly be in error about the location. Another exchange was when you asked him the size of the hole. He thought for a few seconds and then said that the hole was about the size of his little finger, "like a pencil." And your response was, not a question, but a statement, "A little bigger than a pencil." And he agreed. I have seen different versions of the garage scene .... nobody there, Greer & Kellerman there, several people there, pulling the tarp up alone vs along with someone else, etc. Which is troubling, but is not the prime problem with his story. I thought something Prencipe said right at the end of your conversation was interesting. He said something about how could anybody think Greer drove the body from Andrews to Bethesda since we know that the body was flown by helicopter to Walter Reed and a motorcade later went from there. This tells me a couple of things .... - perhaps Pamela had already mentioned a time conflict to him involving Greer - he thought it was not a problem because he clearly believed he knew the body had gone by helicopter - he may have made this last minute comment/quasi question to see what you would say about that, but you sort of yeah-yeahed him and said nothing about Greer driving the ambulance from Andrews to Bethesda on national television. I don't know that you were even aware of that at the time. July 2000: Prencipe is not happy with Pamela any longer, expresses frustration to her in emails, on which you were bcc'd ... which were given to Bernice at some point in time and posted here on the Ed Forum in July 2008. Those emails are important ... and give us the exact details of what he first claimed ... and show us that when he realized there was some sort of a timing problem with Greer, the details of his story began to grow a bit vague and change. From: NPRINCE9@juno.com To: pamel Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:18:41 -0400 Subject: Re: QUESTION Message-ID: <20000703.072039.-3702699.0.NPRINCE9@juno.com> Pam I will answer this in several parts First of all --If I had not been on duty--you can bet that I would have been on my way home. I was at the command post all evening and was in contact with my excort men at Andrews AFB--I was aware of every thing that was taking place--from that distance--it was only in ref to what my boys were doing. During the period that I was there--and this was not too long after the plane had brought the family back, I noticed Bill standing in the street--west executive ave--only about 50-60 feet or so from me. I went to him and we shook hands and thats when he made his statement to me. I resumed my activity and I heard the transmissions re the escort of the limo to the garage. Later--and I cant pin it down to any specific minute, I went to the garage--it was not that far away. There were still some people around and I just walked in--nobody stopped me or paid any attention to me--all those guys in the SS and State dept. etc knew me and were used to me being in many places at many times. From the best of my rec. there was someone else interested in seeing that w shield and we saw it together and there WAS a hole in it.................. Nick From: NPRINCE9@juno.com To: pamelam@xxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:06:01 -0400 Subject: Re: reply Message-ID: <20000707.080612.-3697521.1.NPRINCE9@juno.com> Pam I try to be as helpful as I can, but I am a bit upset at some of the choice of words I note from time to time. When you state that you will follow up and see what makes sense, I dont follow this line of thinking. I knew the limo when I saw it, I sure saw it many times and even sat in it. There was someone else in the process of lifing the tarp from its partially lifted position, as I recall. And I did see a bullet hole, so if there was a bullet hole, or damage to another one of the cars, there is a new track to follow. I do not remember what time I got home that night, or the next morning, I have no idea what time it was. My interest in ALL available facts in this are similar to others, I weigh whatever I see, hear or read for my own judgements, something I have been doing for the most part of my 84 years. I was not aware that you were writing a book on this. so I can wait for some the queries I made. Regards NICK Excerpt from an e-mail from Rich DellaRosa, posted on the yahoo discussion group by Fetzer, April 8, 2009: In this matter, I refer to Nick Principe, a DC police captain assigned to the White House since the days of FDR until his retirement. This was a man who had an office on West Executive Dr and who had more or less free access to the White House and the White House garage. It was Nick who drove the lead car in JFK's funeral procession. In my many exchanges I found Nick to be an honest, upstanding guy who wished to tell us what he knew and proceeded to do so. He was brought to our attention by Irv Heineman who was a forum member for years. I exchanged emails with Nick right up until about a week before his death. Nick also assisted Doug Weldon in his research. Nick went to the White House garage when the limo was returned from Dallas. He reported that the car was pretty shot up. He noted a through and through hole in the windshield, the dent in the chrome strip on the dash board, etc. Nick assured me that the windshield had a hole large enough to pass a pencil through it. (I seem to recall that he actually did so, but I no longer have that email due to a disk crash years ago). Nick also indicated that from the beveling in the laminated windshield he knew whatever made the hole was traveling from the outside in. Nick was on friendly terms with many of the SS White House detail. As he viewed the limo, he asked Greer and Kellerman what had happened in Dallas. It was Kellerman who replied "Nick, they were shooting at us from all directions!" And further "That it was like a damned shooting gallery in Dallas." Greer agreed. This last is hearsay from Rich DellaRosa, who says Nick related this info to him, and that they spoke just a week before Prencipe passed away. But the first two, above, were written by Prencipe himself. I think you posted an e or comment from Prencipe where he noted that up to midnight would be that evening to him. Unfortunately, up til midnight does not fit within the time box he himself set out in the first email, above, nor would it resolve the time conflict his story has with Greer. Greer, Kellerman, Jackie and the casket were all on AF-1 which arrived at Andrews at 6pm (going with round numbers here). The C-130 carrying the limo arrived at Andrews at 8pm. By 9pm the limo had already been escorted to the WH garage, had been parked in a bay and covered with a tarp. So Prencipe himself says he saw Greer on West Executive Ave sometime after 6 pm, but before 9pm, more likely before 8 pm as Prencipe said he listened to the transmissions about having the limo escorted back to the WH garage after he spoke to Greer. Greer's whereabouts are known for that entire time period and beyond that night. For much of Prencipe's critical time period, Greer was on national television helping unload the casket from the plane, helping load it into the ambulance, and then driving that ambulance in a well televised procession to Bethesda. Then helping unload the casket at the morgue loading dock at 8pm and being present at the autopsy, not just by his own account but by others as well, all night. He then drove JFK to the WH for the last time in the wee hours, after 0330, on 11-23. Are you familiar with the report/interview introduced during Greer's WC testimony ... an interview of Greer and Kellerman conducted by S & O on 11-22 ... S & O took advantage of having the 2 SS agents from the limo there at Bethesda that night and interviewed them during that time. You had a very congenial conversation with Prencipe. He clearly enjoyed telling war stories from his days on the park police, which is fine. You both seemed to enjoy exchanging ideas on the assassination ... and Prencipe clearly had done some reading on assorted theories. But no matter how sincere someone sounds, alarm bells have to go off when their story just flat out conflicts with known facts. This was the first time you had interviewed Prencipe, yet, at the end of the conversation, you told him you found him credible ... did you not know the evidence about what Greer was doing that night, and without knowing that info, how could you conclude Prencipe's story was credible? Prencipe made Greer a central point in his story. Have I changed my position on Prencipe's credibility? No, I have not. His story, as he himself framed it, is in direct conflict with the documented whereabouts and activities of Greer that night. I don't see any wiggle room for anyone to be able to consider his story, as he himself told it, as that of a credible witness. By the way, did you ever follow up on the death of Greer's wife? Prencipe told you he and Greer would talk, about how Greer's wife had cancer, and how Greer had told him when she had died. You were clearly taken aback by that, noting that Greer had preceded his wife in death. When were you able to confirm Ethel Greer died? Bests regards, sorry it took me so long to respond to the Prencipe question ... Barb :-) ' Barb: I realized I did not answer your last two questions. Yes, i was taken aback at the end of the interview of Nick about Greer's wife. I know the name of the researcher (or former researcher as I have not seen his name in years) who knew Greer and his wife when he died and was given a manuscript written by Greer and paintings done by Greer and I think part of his reasoning for not releasing the manuscript was because of Greer's wife. I also have two telephone interviews of Greer done in 1970 and 1971 by someone. I can only surmise that Greer remarried after his wife died. Doug

FWIW, not if the sniper was crouched or prone What difference would that make if the person was in White's line of sight behind the banister? If prone, the person could be even more likely to be spotted, since his body would be extended westward. Ron: I apologize. I have spent a lot of time in the south knoll area and know that it was a great spot to be concealed but I do not know who Officer White (what is his first name) is and where he exactly was allegedly standing. Doug Weldon

Tosh, I was not referring to railroad workers, who were on the east side of the underpass and certainly could not have seen a south knoll shooter behind the winged east wedge. I was referring to police officer White. I would have to go look to be sure, but I believe from memory that it's a pretty wide underpass and that a person standing where White was on the west side of the underpass over Elm could see someone behind the east winged banister at the south end. FWIW, not if the sniper was crouched or prone and/or if there was someone standing between the sniper and any viewers, i.e., someone dressed as a police officer. Doug Weldob

Hi Doug, I thank you for sending me the audio CD of your first interview with Mr. Prencipe. I have listened to it twice. I do believe whenever Mr. Prencipe's story can be told in his own words it is best, as it makes it quite clear what he says happened ... and when ... and where. A little chronology ... March 2000: Pamela McElwain-Brown conducted a phone interview with Prencipe; I do not have the exact date, nor have I heard that interview. April 16, 2000: You interviewed Prencipe by phone, and that is the interview you recently sent me. At the time of your interview, Prencipe spoke well of Pamela and did not seem to have any issues with her regarding her interview with him, anything he had told her, etc. In fact, you referred to Pamela's interview when you were speaking to Prencipe, telling him you had listened it, as I recall. I was surprised that you rather led with what you knew he had told Pamela rather than just asking him to tell you what happened the evening of the assassination. And while the topic of him seeing Greer that evening, having the conversation and then what he says he did at the WH garage later that evening is just a very few minutes of your hour long conversation, he confirmed to you what he had told Pamela about seeing, shaking hands with and speaking to Bill Greer on West Executive Ave the evening of the assassination. Prencipe does refer to it as having happened that evening by saying, "Greer said to me that night." He also repeated that Greer had told that shots had been coming at them from all directions, with a shot even coming through the windshield. Prencipe also confirmed that it was sometime that night .... Nov 22nd ... that he went to the WH garage and looked at the limo windshield. He told you that when he went to the WHG to see the limo, there were "people milling all around" in there "all over the place"; he said, "As far as I am concerned it was a clean hole." [in the windshield] .... he also said "it was quite possible that there was fragmentation." ... and he said "he only got a glance at it" [ said this several times in your conversation] and something about that being because he had to get that tarp he'd pulled up to see the "hole" back down. He also made these comments: "I didn't say it was a bullet hole, I said there was a hole in the windshield," and when you questioned him about that, he said, "It looked like a bullet hole." You did elicit a 100% confidence level statement from him that he had seen a perforating hole. When it came to *where* on the windshield he saw that hole .... and he placed it low on the passenger side, "a couple inches above the frame" [from the bottom of the windshield]... I was frankly amazed that instead of repeating the confidence level exercise without infecting him, you instead informed him that other witnesses had placed the hole they saw elsewhere and asked him if he could possibly be in error about the location. Another exchange was when you asked him the size of the hole. He thought for a few seconds and then said that the hole was about the size of his little finger, "like a pencil." And your response was, not a question, but a statement, "A little bigger than a pencil." And he agreed. I have seen different versions of the garage scene .... nobody there, Greer & Kellerman there, several people there, pulling the tarp up alone vs along with someone else, etc. Which is troubling, but is not the prime problem with his story. I thought something Prencipe said right at the end of your conversation was interesting. He said something about how could anybody think Greer drove the body from Andrews to Bethesda since we know that the body was flown by helicopter to Walter Reed and a motorcade later went from there. This tells me a couple of things .... - perhaps Pamela had already mentioned a time conflict to him involving Greer - he thought it was not a problem because he clearly believed he knew the body had gone by helicopter - he may have made this last minute comment/quasi question to see what you would say about that, but you sort of yeah-yeahed him and said nothing about Greer driving the ambulance from Andrews to Bethesda on national television. I don't know that you were even aware of that at the time. July 2000: Prencipe is not happy with Pamela any longer, expresses frustration to her in emails, on which you were bcc'd ... which were given to Bernice at some point in time and posted here on the Ed Forum in July 2008. Those emails are important ... and give us the exact details of what he first claimed ... and show us that when he realized there was some sort of a timing problem with Greer, the details of his story began to grow a bit vague and change. From: NPRINCE9@juno.com To: pamel Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:18:41 -0400 Subject: Re: QUESTION Message-ID: <20000703.072039.-3702699.0.NPRINCE9@juno.com> Pam I will answer this in several parts First of all --If I had not been on duty--you can bet that I would have been on my way home. I was at the command post all evening and was in contact with my excort men at Andrews AFB--I was aware of every thing that was taking place--from that distance--it was only in ref to what my boys were doing. During the period that I was there--and this was not too long after the plane had brought the family back, I noticed Bill standing in the street--west executive ave--only about 50-60 feet or so from me. I went to him and we shook hands and thats when he made his statement to me. I resumed my activity and I heard the transmissions re the escort of the limo to the garage. Later--and I cant pin it down to any specific minute, I went to the garage--it was not that far away. There were still some people around and I just walked in--nobody stopped me or paid any attention to me--all those guys in the SS and State dept. etc knew me and were used to me being in many places at many times. From the best of my rec. there was someone else interested in seeing that w shield and we saw it together and there WAS a hole in it.................. Nick From: NPRINCE9@juno.com To: pamelam@xxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:06:01 -0400 Subject: Re: reply Message-ID: <20000707.080612.-3697521.1.NPRINCE9@juno.com> Pam I try to be as helpful as I can, but I am a bit upset at some of the choice of words I note from time to time. When you state that you will follow up and see what makes sense, I dont follow this line of thinking. I knew the limo when I saw it, I sure saw it many times and even sat in it. There was someone else in the process of lifing the tarp from its partially lifted position, as I recall. And I did see a bullet hole, so if there was a bullet hole, or damage to another one of the cars, there is a new track to follow. I do not remember what time I got home that night, or the next morning, I have no idea what time it was. My interest in ALL available facts in this are similar to others, I weigh whatever I see, hear or read for my own judgements, something I have been doing for the most part of my 84 years. I was not aware that you were writing a book on this. so I can wait for some the queries I made. Regards NICK Excerpt from an e-mail from Rich DellaRosa, posted on the yahoo discussion group by Fetzer, April 8, 2009: In this matter, I refer to Nick Principe, a DC police captain assigned to the White House since the days of FDR until his retirement. This was a man who had an office on West Executive Dr and who had more or less free access to the White House and the White House garage. It was Nick who drove the lead car in JFK's funeral procession. In my many exchanges I found Nick to be an honest, upstanding guy who wished to tell us what he knew and proceeded to do so. He was brought to our attention by Irv Heineman who was a forum member for years. I exchanged emails with Nick right up until about a week before his death. Nick also assisted Doug Weldon in his research. Nick went to the White House garage when the limo was returned from Dallas. He reported that the car was pretty shot up. He noted a through and through hole in the windshield, the dent in the chrome strip on the dash board, etc. Nick assured me that the windshield had a hole large enough to pass a pencil through it. (I seem to recall that he actually did so, but I no longer have that email due to a disk crash years ago). Nick also indicated that from the beveling in the laminated windshield he knew whatever made the hole was traveling from the outside in. Nick was on friendly terms with many of the SS White House detail. As he viewed the limo, he asked Greer and Kellerman what had happened in Dallas. It was Kellerman who replied "Nick, they were shooting at us from all directions!" And further "That it was like a damned shooting gallery in Dallas." Greer agreed. This last is hearsay from Rich DellaRosa, who says Nick related this info to him, and that they spoke just a week before Prencipe passed away. But the first two, above, were written by Prencipe himself. I think you posted an e or comment from Prencipe where he noted that up to midnight would be that evening to him. Unfortunately, up til midnight does not fit within the time box he himself set out in the first email, above, nor would it resolve the time conflict his story has with Greer. Greer, Kellerman, Jackie and the casket were all on AF-1 which arrived at Andrews at 6pm (going with round numbers here). The C-130 carrying the limo arrived at Andrews at 8pm. By 9pm the limo had already been escorted to the WH garage, had been parked in a bay and covered with a tarp. So Prencipe himself says he saw Greer on West Executive Ave sometime after 6 pm, but before 9pm, more likely before 8 pm as Prencipe said he listened to the transmissions about having the limo escorted back to the WH garage after he spoke to Greer. Greer's whereabouts are known for that entire time period and beyond that night. For much of Prencipe's critical time period, Greer was on national television helping unload the casket from the plane, helping load it into the ambulance, and then driving that ambulance in a well televised procession to Bethesda. Then helping unload the casket at the morgue loading dock at 8pm and being present at the autopsy, not just by his own account but by others as well, all night. He then drove JFK to the WH for the last time in the wee hours, after 0330, on 11-23. Are you familiar with the report/interview introduced during Greer's WC testimony ... an interview of Greer and Kellerman conducted by S & O on 11-22 ... S & O took advantage of having the 2 SS agents from the limo there at Bethesda that night and interviewed them during that time. You had a very congenial conversation with Prencipe. He clearly enjoyed telling war stories from his days on the park police, which is fine. You both seemed to enjoy exchanging ideas on the assassination ... and Prencipe clearly had done some reading on assorted theories. But no matter how sincere someone sounds, alarm bells have to go off when their story just flat out conflicts with known facts. This was the first time you had interviewed Prencipe, yet, at the end of the conversation, you told him you found him credible ... did you not know the evidence about what Greer was doing that night, and without knowing that info, how could you conclude Prencipe's story was credible? Prencipe made Greer a central point in his story. Have I changed my position on Prencipe's credibility? No, I have not. His story, as he himself framed it, is in direct conflict with the documented whereabouts and activities of Greer that night. I don't see any wiggle room for anyone to be able to consider his story, as he himself told it, as that of a credible witness. By the way, did you ever follow up on the death of Greer's wife? Prencipe told you he and Greer would talk, about how Greer's wife had cancer, and how Greer had told him when she had died. You were clearly taken aback by that, noting that Greer had preceded his wife in death. When were you able to confirm Ethel Greer died? Bests regards, sorry it took me so long to respond to the Prencipe question ... Barb :-) Barb: As I e-mailed you I somehow missed this posting and I apologize. You wrote a very thought out response and I would not have ignored it. For those following the posts my writings (typing errors and all) are sometimes passionate, )as I knew many of these witnesses and I deeply care about this) but they should not be construed as hostile towars anyone.. As I stated before I respect you for engaging in this exchange and again I would be willing to address any others supporting your article. The first point I would like to make is that I had read postings by the late Nick Prencipe, had a copy of Pamela's interview with him, and so was not unaware of things he had said before I spoke with him for the first time.. I tried to be very careful and while I asked him if he may have been mistaken about something I told him not to answer differently if that was what his answer was. In a quick response, where I suggested the hole was bigger than a pencil, it was simply because most men's little finger is bigger than a pencil. When I later saw a picture of Nick it was very obvious that his little finger would have been noticeably larger than a pencil. I told you that I was not going to try to enhance anyone's account and I will not do so here. What is not unusual to me and I am sure to Jerry is that small details may become hazy such as time and circumstance (see Elizabeth Lofton on eyewitness testimony) but significant details will become embedded in one's mind, i.e., the hole in the windshield of the vehicle . Even the location may become fuzzy if not written down and of course the longer one has to view something the better the memory is. That is why I find it so corroborative that the two people who had the opportunity to view the hole for the longest period of time, Taylor and Whitaker, independently described the hole in the same location. Let me utilize an example. Can you tell me what time you celebrated your 30th birthday, where you were if you were at a restaurant, etc., and who was there? If a plane crashed on your birthday it may help you to remember where you were at but would you still remember the times, except maybe afternoon, evening, etc., or would it even help you to remember everyone who was there? Your 30th is also a milestone. Tell me about your 28th birthday. As I mentioned at the onset and my later post I try to corroborate people's accounts and what other people thought of them and their character, their reputation for being truthful,etc.. F irst, of all, it is verifiable that Nick was who he said he was and that he was on duty that day. I was able to speak with someone who knew Nick well back then. His name was Dick Giordono. He is mentioned in Manchester's "The Death of a President." Tragically Dick was in Dallas on Air Force One when JFK was killed and was in Los Angeles with RFK when he was killed. He remembered Nick talking about something and the limousine and that many of them knew Greer well. Evaluate it however you desire. Next, I will let Nick speak for himself: The limo was covered, but the front part over the hood and fenders was > not completely covering--and this is to the best of my reccollection. I > cant answer the question as to the plexiglass . I have no idea whether > Bill talked with anyone else and whether they would still be alive. > As far as what I have read that he testified to before the WC--It > surprises me !!! > I dont know if Greer had anything with him, was holding anything, or how > he got to the WH. All I know is that he WAS there and that I DID talk > with him. > Let me make this observation, you are relying on reports that leave a lot > of unanswered questions and we dont really know if they are true, > considering all the contoversy that continues to be posted. > I am in contact with some of my old men and I am still looking for facts > that may be of importance and not hearsay. I could care less about > whatthe SS documents say about where Greer was at any given time, I saw > him as I have related and I talked with him as I have related . > > Nick > >> Doug >> I am sure that (name delleted by me)will convince those who are of the same theory, >> to begin with. >> I note that she takes things out of contex in that she keeps saying that >> I talked to Greer early in the evening. >> I never said that and incidentally, the evening runs to midnight. I dont >> really know exactly what time it was. If I looked at my watch that >> night, I knew the time, but that was a long time ago. >> I will also say, I have been in theW.H. many times and in the SS and WH >> garages many times and NEVER was I EVER asked to log in. She just cant >> believe that I guess. >> She seems to get more and more frustrated with time. >> Bill Greer, as I remember reading, did change his story, and eventually >> came up with all the shots coming from the rear--probably to keek in line >> with the Warren commission procedure. Who knows what went thru his head >> then--and later. I wont change my story, some of the facts are dimmed a >> bit, but basic facts are still the same. I will keep you advised of >> anything new I turn up. >> Have a great holiday. >> >> Regards Nick ... (first paragraph omitted because it refers to a researcher) >> With regards to the time element that apparently concerns you--you can be >> assured of one thing and I would testify before God as to its veracity. >> I DID SEE GREER AT THE WHITE HOUSE--WEST EXECUTIVE AVE. AND I DID HAVE >> CONVERSATION WITH HIM AS I HAVE STATED. >> As far as what is called evening --late evening or whatever--We put in a >> long day and night also and I was not checking my watch, nor did I have >> any reason to document my movements. >> I have been in both the secret service garage and the white house garage >> many times. I have never signed in or out in either place , any number of >> my men and have visited there many times and did not sign in either. >> The visit that evening was based on what Bill had described and all the >> little details you seem sure of are correct or incorrect--who knows--and >> who said what--based on what. I WAS THERE. >> So I wont push it any further, other than to verify what I have stated >> before >> Good luck to you >> >> Nick > Doug >> That was an interesting letter you forwarded to me >> I need to respond to one little portion of it--and only to clarify a past >> statement that apparently has been either mis-interpreted, or re-stated. >> I am quite aware that Bill Greer was at Bethesda that night. But there >> came a time when he arrived on west executive ave. between the Executive >> office and the west wing of the W.H. >> This is where I was, most of the evening, it was a temporary command >> poat. >> I went to greet Bill and this is when he stated that they sure had >> "missed You Guys" today. >> When I conversed with him a bit more, he related that "bullets were >> coming from everywhere--one came thru the winshield and almost got me". >> >> Based on this and my Police curiosity, I went to the W>H> garage, where I >> verified what he had related. >> THIS IS GOSPEL-----I STAND BEHIND IT PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> Nick >Doug > Who, in your opinion, is this "Trojan Horse" For the record, I said > from that first night that there was a hole in the winshield. I have > repeated it any number of times amongst my fellow officers, during > discussion and never made any bones about it or hear anybody rebut it. > It just happened that during a conversation with Irv, who I have kbown > for years, I mentioned it and thats how I got involved in this. NOTHING > HAS REALLY CHANGED. > > > Nick >> Doug >> Thanks--getting along pretty good >> Pics you asked for are in the mail >> Monk had posted that I was with Bill Greer at the white house garage when >> I saw the hole >> That was incorrect and I am sure that you have it on our interview: >> When I saw Bill Greer--for the first time after he came back from Dallas, >> he was standing on West executive ave. between the White house and the >> Ex. Office bldg. >> I was there most of the evening keeping up with and getting things done >> when necessary--we had a constant communication with the detail at AAFB >> I went to him and we shook hands, at which time he stated that "we sure >> missed you guys today" also that bullets were coming from everywhere and >> that one had come thru the front windshield. >> Based on this, when I got a break later, I jumped on my motor and went to >> the SS garage >> There were a number of persons around and activity--I simply walked in >> and up to the limo that was backed into its stall--the cover was >> partially drawn back and I pulled it back to a point where I saw the T >> and T hole. I dont think I even put the cover back--maybe--but the hole >> I DID SEE >> >> Nick > Over the years--many--I have met people from all walks of life and I >> am a pretty good listener and observer. >> When some have a particular interest or goal in mind--many things that >> are pertinent--but present an opposite version or opinion--there is >> always an inclination to avoid what is evident, or to attempt todiscredit >> it. >> I have always spoken exactly what I feel and to whomever I am addressing >> and I will never change. I have ralked with Presidents and in one case, >> gave one a scorching he did not expect--and apologized for it--this is >> the truth. >> >From day one, I have talked with fellow officers and other people, about >> talking with Greer the night of the event. >> I have not changed anything I ever stated, and nver will, even under >> oath. That is my position. >> As far as remembering who was where and what time it was and other >> confirmations, its been a long time and I never put too much emphasis on >> them, but the facts stated remain AS IS AND WERE. >> >> Thanks, good luck Nick > > > > > I cannot speak for Rich's posting but I have everything concerning Nick documented. There is much more. I am surprised that you are concerned that someone might reflect and modify some minor details after 37 years but then on the other hand you can accept Taylor totally changing his mind after giving an account TWICE or that everything Dudman wrote or said can be changed by a conversation at a dinner table where we don't know exactly what the conversation was? You heard Nick. He had a powerful no-nonsense personality that I think shows in these e-mails. Nobody was going to tell him anything.. Also, again, what motivation would he have to fabricate his story? What did he get out of it? I don't recall reading anything about him in Time, Newsweek, or the Wall Street Journal. Do you think it won him acclaim on a small forum? It, as I mentioned before, caused him to get his character questioned as has been raised here. He also spentt a llong, distinquished career as a police officer and has been photographed with Presidents. Also, his account happens to fit perfectly with the facts and circumstances and if a bullet came through the windshield and almost hit Greer, and again assuming the sniper was trying to hit Kennedy the hole would have been in the same location described by Taylor and Whitaker. (in the area of the spiral nebulae) Coincidence? Also Greer told a different story before the WC and was photographed laughing as he came out of his testimony. He later told his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. You, of course, have your personal right to weigh the credibility of any witness as you desire. I do believe, imo, that an objective person would find him credible, but go ahead and eliminate him. How do you eliminate all the others? I thank you and I am sure Nick would have thanked you for listening to him. I did everything I could do to verify his account and credibility. I, too, asked him the hard questions. I am satisfied. Doug Weldon Barb: Please allow me to indulge in a postscript. If you cannot tell me everyone who was there when you celebrated your 28th and 30th birthday and what gifts you received, but as you thought about it and changed some of these minor details as you later reflected would it be fair for me to state that it is not credible to believe that you even celebrated your birthday? However, if there was a major occurance, as a parallel to talking with Greer and seeing a hole in the windshield, i.e., you received something special like a diiamond ring with great sentimental value would it be fair for one to conclude that you did not receive iit and that you have no credibility? Furthermore, my educated guess is that your 28th and 30th birthdays were not 37 years ago. Best, Doug Weldon

Hi Doug, I thank you for sending me the audio CD of your first interview with Mr. Prencipe. I have listened to it twice. I do believe whenever Mr. Prencipe's story can be told in his own words it is best, as it makes it quite clear what he says happened ... and when ... and where. A little chronology ... March 2000: Pamela McElwain-Brown conducted a phone interview with Prencipe; I do not have the exact date, nor have I heard that interview. April 16, 2000: You interviewed Prencipe by phone, and that is the interview you recently sent me. At the time of your interview, Prencipe spoke well of Pamela and did not seem to have any issues with her regarding her interview with him, anything he had told her, etc. In fact, you referred to Pamela's interview when you were speaking to Prencipe, telling him you had listened it, as I recall. I was surprised that you rather led with what you knew he had told Pamela rather than just asking him to tell you what happened the evening of the assassination. And while the topic of him seeing Greer that evening, having the conversation and then what he says he did at the WH garage later that evening is just a very few minutes of your hour long conversation, he confirmed to you what he had told Pamela about seeing, shaking hands with and speaking to Bill Greer on West Executive Ave the evening of the assassination. Prencipe does refer to it as having happened that evening by saying, "Greer said to me that night." He also repeated that Greer had told that shots had been coming at them from all directions, with a shot even coming through the windshield. Prencipe also confirmed that it was sometime that night .... Nov 22nd ... that he went to the WH garage and looked at the limo windshield. He told you that when he went to the WHG to see the limo, there were "people milling all around" in there "all over the place"; he said, "As far as I am concerned it was a clean hole." [in the windshield] .... he also said "it was quite possible that there was fragmentation." ... and he said "he only got a glance at it" [ said this several times in your conversation] and something about that being because he had to get that tarp he'd pulled up to see the "hole" back down. He also made these comments: "I didn't say it was a bullet hole, I said there was a hole in the windshield," and when you questioned him about that, he said, "It looked like a bullet hole." You did elicit a 100% confidence level statement from him that he had seen a perforating hole. When it came to *where* on the windshield he saw that hole .... and he placed it low on the passenger side, "a couple inches above the frame" [from the bottom of the windshield]... I was frankly amazed that instead of repeating the confidence level exercise without infecting him, you instead informed him that other witnesses had placed the hole they saw elsewhere and asked him if he could possibly be in error about the location. Another exchange was when you asked him the size of the hole. He thought for a few seconds and then said that the hole was about the size of his little finger, "like a pencil." And your response was, not a question, but a statement, "A little bigger than a pencil." And he agreed. I have seen different versions of the garage scene .... nobody there, Greer & Kellerman there, several people there, pulling the tarp up alone vs along with someone else, etc. Which is troubling, but is not the prime problem with his story. I thought something Prencipe said right at the end of your conversation was interesting. He said something about how could anybody think Greer drove the body from Andrews to Bethesda since we know that the body was flown by helicopter to Walter Reed and a motorcade later went from there. This tells me a couple of things .... - perhaps Pamela had already mentioned a time conflict to him involving Greer - he thought it was not a problem because he clearly believed he knew the body had gone by helicopter - he may have made this last minute comment/quasi question to see what you would say about that, but you sort of yeah-yeahed him and said nothing about Greer driving the ambulance from Andrews to Bethesda on national television. I don't know that you were even aware of that at the time. July 2000: Prencipe is not happy with Pamela any longer, expresses frustration to her in emails, on which you were bcc'd ... which were given to Bernice at some point in time and posted here on the Ed Forum in July 2008. Those emails are important ... and give us the exact details of what he first claimed ... and show us that when he realized there was some sort of a timing problem with Greer, the details of his story began to grow a bit vague and change. From: NPRINCE9@juno.com To: pamel Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:18:41 -0400 Subject: Re: QUESTION Message-ID: <20000703.072039.-3702699.0.NPRINCE9@juno.com> Pam I will answer this in several parts First of all --If I had not been on duty--you can bet that I would have been on my way home. I was at the command post all evening and was in contact with my excort men at Andrews AFB--I was aware of every thing that was taking place--from that distance--it was only in ref to what my boys were doing. During the period that I was there--and this was not too long after the plane had brought the family back, I noticed Bill standing in the street--west executive ave--only about 50-60 feet or so from me. I went to him and we shook hands and thats when he made his statement to me. I resumed my activity and I heard the transmissions re the escort of the limo to the garage. Later--and I cant pin it down to any specific minute, I went to the garage--it was not that far away. There were still some people around and I just walked in--nobody stopped me or paid any attention to me--all those guys in the SS and State dept. etc knew me and were used to me being in many places at many times. From the best of my rec. there was someone else interested in seeing that w shield and we saw it together and there WAS a hole in it.................. Nick From: NPRINCE9@juno.com To: pamelam@xxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:06:01 -0400 Subject: Re: reply Message-ID: <20000707.080612.-3697521.1.NPRINCE9@juno.com> Pam I try to be as helpful as I can, but I am a bit upset at some of the choice of words I note from time to time. When you state that you will follow up and see what makes sense, I dont follow this line of thinking. I knew the limo when I saw it, I sure saw it many times and even sat in it. There was someone else in the process of lifing the tarp from its partially lifted position, as I recall. And I did see a bullet hole, so if there was a bullet hole, or damage to another one of the cars, there is a new track to follow. I do not remember what time I got home that night, or the next morning, I have no idea what time it was. My interest in ALL available facts in this are similar to others, I weigh whatever I see, hear or read for my own judgements, something I have been doing for the most part of my 84 years. I was not aware that you were writing a book on this. so I can wait for some the queries I made. Regards NICK Excerpt from an e-mail from Rich DellaRosa, posted on the yahoo discussion group by Fetzer, April 8, 2009: In this matter, I refer to Nick Principe, a DC police captain assigned to the White House since the days of FDR until his retirement. This was a man who had an office on West Executive Dr and who had more or less free access to the White House and the White House garage. It was Nick who drove the lead car in JFK's funeral procession. In my many exchanges I found Nick to be an honest, upstanding guy who wished to tell us what he knew and proceeded to do so. He was brought to our attention by Irv Heineman who was a forum member for years. I exchanged emails with Nick right up until about a week before his death. Nick also assisted Doug Weldon in his research. Nick went to the White House garage when the limo was returned from Dallas. He reported that the car was pretty shot up. He noted a through and through hole in the windshield, the dent in the chrome strip on the dash board, etc. Nick assured me that the windshield had a hole large enough to pass a pencil through it. (I seem to recall that he actually did so, but I no longer have that email due to a disk crash years ago). Nick also indicated that from the beveling in the laminated windshield he knew whatever made the hole was traveling from the outside in. Nick was on friendly terms with many of the SS White House detail. As he viewed the limo, he asked Greer and Kellerman what had happened in Dallas. It was Kellerman who replied "Nick, they were shooting at us from all directions!" And further "That it was like a damned shooting gallery in Dallas." Greer agreed. This last is hearsay from Rich DellaRosa, who says Nick related this info to him, and that they spoke just a week before Prencipe passed away. But the first two, above, were written by Prencipe himself. I think you posted an e or comment from Prencipe where he noted that up to midnight would be that evening to him. Unfortunately, up til midnight does not fit within the time box he himself set out in the first email, above, nor would it resolve the time conflict his story has with Greer. Greer, Kellerman, Jackie and the casket were all on AF-1 which arrived at Andrews at 6pm (going with round numbers here). The C-130 carrying the limo arrived at Andrews at 8pm. By 9pm the limo had already been escorted to the WH garage, had been parked in a bay and covered with a tarp. So Prencipe himself says he saw Greer on West Executive Ave sometime after 6 pm, but before 9pm, more likely before 8 pm as Prencipe said he listened to the transmissions about having the limo escorted back to the WH garage after he spoke to Greer. Greer's whereabouts are known for that entire time period and beyond that night. For much of Prencipe's critical time period, Greer was on national television helping unload the casket from the plane, helping load it into the ambulance, and then driving that ambulance in a well televised procession to Bethesda. Then helping unload the casket at the morgue loading dock at 8pm and being present at the autopsy, not just by his own account but by others as well, all night. He then drove JFK to the WH for the last time in the wee hours, after 0330, on 11-23. Are you familiar with the report/interview introduced during Greer's WC testimony ... an interview of Greer and Kellerman conducted by S & O on 11-22 ... S & O took advantage of having the 2 SS agents from the limo there at Bethesda that night and interviewed them during that time. You had a very congenial conversation with Prencipe. He clearly enjoyed telling war stories from his days on the park police, which is fine. You both seemed to enjoy exchanging ideas on the assassination ... and Prencipe clearly had done some reading on assorted theories. But no matter how sincere someone sounds, alarm bells have to go off when their story just flat out conflicts with known facts. This was the first time you had interviewed Prencipe, yet, at the end of the conversation, you told him you found him credible ... did you not know the evidence about what Greer was doing that night, and without knowing that info, how could you conclude Prencipe's story was credible? Prencipe made Greer a central point in his story. Have I changed my position on Prencipe's credibility? No, I have not. His story, as he himself framed it, is in direct conflict with the documented whereabouts and activities of Greer that night. I don't see any wiggle room for anyone to be able to consider his story, as he himself told it, as that of a credible witness. By the way, did you ever follow up on the death of Greer's wife? Prencipe told you he and Greer would talk, about how Greer's wife had cancer, and how Greer had told him when she had died. You were clearly taken aback by that, noting that Greer had preceded his wife in death. When were you able to confirm Ethel Greer died? Bests regards, sorry it took me so long to respond to the Prencipe question ... Barb :-) Barb: As I e-mailed you I somehow missed this posting and I apologize. You wrote a very thought out response and I would not have ignored it. For those following the posts my writings (typing errors and all) are sometimes passionate, )as I knew many of these witnesses and I deeply care about this) but they should not be construed as hostile towars anyone.. As I stated before I respect you for engaging in this exchange and again I would be willing to address any others supporting your article. The first point I would like to make is that I had read postings by the late Nick Prencipe, had a copy of Pamela's interview with him, and so was not unaware of things he had said before I spoke with him for the first time.. I tried to be very careful and while I asked him if he may have been mistaken about something I told him not to answer differently if that was what his answer was. In a quick response, where I suggested the hole was bigger than a pencil, it was simply because most men's little finger is bigger than a pencil. When I later saw a picture of Nick it was very obvious that his little finger would have been noticeably larger than a pencil. I told you that I was not going to try to enhance anyone's account and I will not do so here. What is not unusual to me and I am sure to Jerry is that small details may become hazy such as time and circumstance (see Elizabeth Lofton on eyewitness testimony) but significant details will become embedded in one's mind, i.e., the hole in the windshield of the vehicle . Even the location may become fuzzy if not written down and of course the longer one has to view something the better the memory is. That is why I find it so corroborative that the two people who had the opportunity to view the hole for the longest period of time, Taylor and Whitaker, independently described the hole in the same location. Let me utilize an example. Can you tell me what time you celebrated your 30th birthday, where you were if you were at a restaurant, etc., and who was there? If a plane crashed on your birthday it may help you to remember where you were at but would you still remember the times, except maybe afternoon, evening, etc., or would it even help you to remember everyone who was there? Your 30th is also a milestone. Tell me about your 28th birthday. As I mentioned at the onset and my later post I try to corroborate people's accounts and what other people thought of them and their character, their reputation for being truthful,etc.. F irst, of all, it is verifiable that Nick was who he said he was and that he was on duty that day. I was able to speak with someone who knew Nick well back then. His name was Dick Giordono. He is mentioned in Manchester's "The Death of a President." Tragically Dick was in Dallas on Air Force One when JFK was killed and was in Los Angeles with RFK when he was killed. He remembered Nick talking about something and the limousine and that many of them knew Greer well. Evaluate it however you desire. Next, I will let Nick speak for himself: The limo was covered, but the front part over the hood and fenders was > not completely covering--and this is to the best of my reccollection. I > cant answer the question as to the plexiglass . I have no idea whether > Bill talked with anyone else and whether they would still be alive. > As far as what I have read that he testified to before the WC--It > surprises me !!! > I dont know if Greer had anything with him, was holding anything, or how > he got to the WH. All I know is that he WAS there and that I DID talk > with him. > Let me make this observation, you are relying on reports that leave a lot > of unanswered questions and we dont really know if they are true, > considering all the contoversy that continues to be posted. > I am in contact with some of my old men and I am still looking for facts > that may be of importance and not hearsay. I could care less about > whatthe SS documents say about where Greer was at any given time, I saw > him as I have related and I talked with him as I have related . > > Nick > >> Doug >> I am sure that (name delleted by me)will convince those who are of the same theory, >> to begin with. >> I note that she takes things out of contex in that she keeps saying that >> I talked to Greer early in the evening. >> I never said that and incidentally, the evening runs to midnight. I dont >> really know exactly what time it was. If I looked at my watch that >> night, I knew the time, but that was a long time ago. >> I will also say, I have been in theW.H. many times and in the SS and WH >> garages many times and NEVER was I EVER asked to log in. She just cant >> believe that I guess. >> She seems to get more and more frustrated with time. >> Bill Greer, as I remember reading, did change his story, and eventually >> came up with all the shots coming from the rear--probably to keek in line >> with the Warren commission procedure. Who knows what went thru his head >> then--and later. I wont change my story, some of the facts are dimmed a >> bit, but basic facts are still the same. I will keep you advised of >> anything new I turn up. >> Have a great holiday. >> >> Regards Nick ... (first paragraph omitted because it refers to a researcher) >> With regards to the time element that apparently concerns you--you can be >> assured of one thing and I would testify before God as to its veracity. >> I DID SEE GREER AT THE WHITE HOUSE--WEST EXECUTIVE AVE. AND I DID HAVE >> CONVERSATION WITH HIM AS I HAVE STATED. >> As far as what is called evening --late evening or whatever--We put in a >> long day and night also and I was not checking my watch, nor did I have >> any reason to document my movements. >> I have been in both the secret service garage and the white house garage >> many times. I have never signed in or out in either place , any number of >> my men and have visited there many times and did not sign in either. >> The visit that evening was based on what Bill had described and all the >> little details you seem sure of are correct or incorrect--who knows--and >> who said what--based on what. I WAS THERE. >> So I wont push it any further, other than to verify what I have stated >> before >> Good luck to you >> >> Nick > Doug >> That was an interesting letter you forwarded to me >> I need to respond to one little portion of it--and only to clarify a past >> statement that apparently has been either mis-interpreted, or re-stated. >> I am quite aware that Bill Greer was at Bethesda that night. But there >> came a time when he arrived on west executive ave. between the Executive >> office and the west wing of the W.H. >> This is where I was, most of the evening, it was a temporary command >> poat. >> I went to greet Bill and this is when he stated that they sure had >> "missed You Guys" today. >> When I conversed with him a bit more, he related that "bullets were >> coming from everywhere--one came thru the winshield and almost got me". >> >> Based on this and my Police curiosity, I went to the W>H> garage, where I >> verified what he had related. >> THIS IS GOSPEL-----I STAND BEHIND IT PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> Nick >Doug > Who, in your opinion, is this "Trojan Horse" For the record, I said > from that first night that there was a hole in the winshield. I have > repeated it any number of times amongst my fellow officers, during > discussion and never made any bones about it or hear anybody rebut it. > It just happened that during a conversation with Irv, who I have kbown > for years, I mentioned it and thats how I got involved in this. NOTHING > HAS REALLY CHANGED. > > > Nick >> Doug >> Thanks--getting along pretty good >> Pics you asked for are in the mail >> Monk had posted that I was with Bill Greer at the white house garage when >> I saw the hole >> That was incorrect and I am sure that you have it on our interview: >> When I saw Bill Greer--for the first time after he came back from Dallas, >> he was standing on West executive ave. between the White house and the >> Ex. Office bldg. >> I was there most of the evening keeping up with and getting things done >> when necessary--we had a constant communication with the detail at AAFB >> I went to him and we shook hands, at which time he stated that "we sure >> missed you guys today" also that bullets were coming from everywhere and >> that one had come thru the front windshield. >> Based on this, when I got a break later, I jumped on my motor and went to >> the SS garage >> There were a number of persons around and activity--I simply walked in >> and up to the limo that was backed into its stall--the cover was >> partially drawn back and I pulled it back to a point where I saw the T >> and T hole. I dont think I even put the cover back--maybe--but the hole >> I DID SEE >> >> Nick > Over the years--many--I have met people from all walks of life and I >> am a pretty good listener and observer. >> When some have a particular interest or goal in mind--many things that >> are pertinent--but present an opposite version or opinion--there is >> always an inclination to avoid what is evident, or to attempt todiscredit >> it. >> I have always spoken exactly what I feel and to whomever I am addressing >> and I will never change. I have ralked with Presidents and in one case, >> gave one a scorching he did not expect--and apologized for it--this is >> the truth. >> >From day one, I have talked with fellow officers and other people, about >> talking with Greer the night of the event. >> I have not changed anything I ever stated, and nver will, even under >> oath. That is my position. >> As far as remembering who was where and what time it was and other >> confirmations, its been a long time and I never put too much emphasis on >> them, but the facts stated remain AS IS AND WERE. >> >> Thanks, good luck Nick > > > > > I cannot speak for Rich's posting but I have everything concerning Nick documented. There is much more. I am surprised that you are concerned that someone might reflect and modify some minor details after 37 years but then on the other hand you can accept Taylor totally changing his mind after giving an account TWICE or that everything Dudman wrote or said can be changed by a conversation at a dinner table where we don't know exactly what the conversation was? You heard Nick. He had a powerful no-nonsense personality that I think shows in these e-mails. Nobody was going to tell him anything.. Also, again, what motivation would he have to fabricate his story? What did he get out of it? I don't recall reading anything about him in Time, Newsweek, or the Wall Street Journal. Do you think it won him acclaim on a small forum? It, as I mentioned before, caused him to get his character questioned as has been raised here. He also spentt a llong, distinquished career as a police officer and has been photographed with Presidents. Also, his account happens to fit perfectly with the facts and circumstances and if a bullet came through the windshield and almost hit Greer, and again assuming the sniper was trying to hit Kennedy the hole would have been in the same location described by Taylor and Whitaker. (in the area of the spiral nebulae) Coincidence? Also Greer told a different story before the WC and was photographed laughing as he came out of his testimony. He later told his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. You, of course, have your personal right to weigh the credibility of any witness as you desire. I do believe, imo, that an objective person would find him credible, but go ahead and eliminate him. How do you eliminate all the others? I thank you and I am sure Nick would have thanked you for listening to him. I did everything I could do to verify his account and credibility. I, too, asked him the hard questions. I am satisfied. Doug Weldon

Bernice; So that people are not confused where Ferguson stated he drove the limo to Dearborn, Michigan on December 20, 1963 and then on to Cincinnati on December 24, 1963 is in the HSCA Chronology of the Limo. Do you have that? There are many points here. Note: " Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating a couple of inches from the center of the windshield at a point directly beneath the mirror." Nobody has described damage there. Also note that the windshield was allegedly placed under lock and key on November 25, 1963. This part of the memo is to state the limo and windshield was in Washington that day, when Whitaker says that is in Dearborn, The Wh Garage logs show no contact with the limo by anyone on the 25th,. Arlington Glass is in the WH Garage logs as replacing the windshield on the 26th. However, there are even problems in that, some of which I have not yet discussed. For some other problems with this memo please refer to my discussion in Murder in Dealey Plaza. Hess and Eisenhardt show no records of carpeting being shipped to Washington. Best, Doug

Doug, the *windshield* itself raised the issue of the possibility of a through and through hole possibly being there. The windshield was damaged in a shooting ... it had a stellate cracking pattern. It would have been ridiculous, not to mention incompetent, to *not* look for, and report, whether or not there was a perforation there. On Taylor, I don't really have anything to add aside from what we included in our article. What happened and why was covered thoroughly there, imo. The rest in this post seems to be mostly a jumble of speculation mixed with a few claims and hints of more info to come - but quite short on actual information or even explanation - all on thigs that go beyond the scope of our article. As you quoted us in your initial post in this thread: Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum. You follow that quote with this comment: "If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem." Great! Because the article was what we said it was in our intro ... nothing more, nothing less. We didn't go to Dearborn or Ohio ... that whole weird little world didn't come up in the discussions that led to our article at all, from what I recall. Am I interested? Sure ... I'd like to understand the theory and what supports it. But without knowing that, I can't really comment on it much. It all seems to come down to this Whitaker vs everyone and everything else. At this point, I have more questions than answers on what you have asked about here, Doug. Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it. BTW, it does seem a tad odd to me that they would drive the limo to Michigan rather than have it flown there ... but weirder things happen all the time. Was any reason given for the drive vs fly? Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article. Best, Barb :-) Barb: Thanks. Hopefully I can answer some questions and if I omit anything please let me know. 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. Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. Certain people were highly critical (perhaps justifiably so ) when I presented his story, publicallly at the Lancer conference in 1998 and refused to name him. I had made a promise to him not to reveal his information until after his death. I was only able to interbview him in 1993 because of a fluke conversation with his son (a physician and an attorney). He saw me with a book about the assassination and told me as he was growing up his father, since 1963, was always telling the family about something he was involved with concerning the assassination. He said he would try to arrange to have his father talk to me when he was in town. This was the spring of 1993. I finally met his father at a picnic in August 1993 at his son's house. Everyone ate and I could sense his father, George Whitaker, did not want to talk to me. We sat down at a small table after his son assured him it was okay. Whitaker was extremely disturbed when I placed a microcassette recorder on the table. He told me his account and became more comfortable as I and his son questioned him. His wife became very concerned and can be heard in the background urging him to go and finally becoming almost hysterical saying "We have to go. We have family you know." Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. Your question about the Ford Motor Company being closed on Monday the 25th was an excellent question. It was a national day of mourning. The Ford Motor Company had perhaps the closest link to any business in the country in regards to the assassination by virtue of owning the limousine. In his taped account Whitaker told me that he received a call while eating dinner on Sunday, the 24th, and was called to a meeting about whether the plant was going to be operational the next day. One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it. At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses I decided to determine whether there was literature, documents, or witnesses that addressed the issue. In short, I examined everything. I came up with Taylor's report, Dudman's article, witness accounts, radio programs in which witnesses had talked. I obtained and reviewed tapes from researchers in the 1960's to determine whether the issue had been raised before. It had. David Lifton had very interesting information about the windshield in "Best Evidence." It became clear from the official documents that something very strange had gone on and that the official record was inconsistent and did not make sense. I spent time at the National Archives. I spent a couple of days in 1996 with Harold Weisberg who I had sent a copy of the Whitaker tape. Knowing how dismissive he was of other researchers I was very surprised when he believed that Whitaker's account was credible. I wrote and phoned witnesses. I went and talked with them. Because of my background police officers and other people who would often be hesitant to talk were open to me and i would use the names of those who talked with me to open the door to get other people to talk with me. I was doing this for over five years. I weighed the credibility of everyone just as I would do in court. I went to Dallas and I have to credit Gary Mack with showing me the tape of James Chaney saying the second shot hit Kennedy in the face. i even went so far as talking to people like Irene Chaney, James Chaney's widow, to find out more about him and his reactions when he got home that day. I promised myself I would not have predetermined conclusions and would allow the evidence to lead me, not the reverse. I wrote and spoke with Dudman and was shocked to see how he reacted and tried to find out why. This was a man who was in fear. I discovered that any witness did not know more than one other witness.Independent corroboration is very powerful in determining facts in the law. I contacted Willard Hess of Hess and Eisenhardt whose company built the Kennedy limo and refurbished the vehicle for Johnson. I talked with him many times, corresponded with him and went to Cincinnati to spend a day with him. If anything, I wanted to believe the government. I worked for government. I had been an assistant prosecutor. I had friends who were or had been FBI, Secret Service, and DEA agents. The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. I went to Dallas to see if there was a location that would have matched the damage he saw and described by Taylor and Whitaker. There was, in the area of the south knoll. I filmed what it would have looked like to a sniper with a telescopic lens. I consulted photographic experts. I consulted ballistic experts such as the late John Ritchson to determine the possibilities of a shot being effective through the windshield and causing the damage described. What would have been the effect of a silencer or the distance. I contacted and studied the work of other researchers. Could there have been members of the Secret Service compromised and actually have been complicit in the assassination? I examined the work of Vince Palamara. Why would the Secret Service have anything against Kennedy? These are important questions. The three of you who wrote the article are good people. However, your article was meant to put a period on the issue of a shot being fired through the windshield. A shot being fired through the windshield turns everything we know about the assassination upside down. It proves conspiracy. It proves a deliberate criminal coverup at the highest levels of our government with all the ramifications that would even include the highest office in our country. It demonstrates a conspiratorial connection between the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company. Conspiracy is not a theory. Conspiracy is a crime. I wanted to mention one thing about Ferguson. When I said Hess laughed about Ferguson's account and then said he was a "company man" I interpreted that to mean that he would do whatever he was told to do. I do believe his memorandum of December 18, 1963 was released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown probably because its release would create further confusion and reveal proven inaccuracies about things he wrote about. Where is his "testimony" that the HSCA document Chronology of he Limousine refers to? Ferguson's account is proveable beyond any reasonable doubt to be a combination of fact and fabrication in order to confuse the official record. I do not have all of the answers to everything. The government removed evidence and planted evidence in this instance as it did in so many aspects of the assassination. You are correct that I speculate about some things. When I speculate I acknowledge it. However, other observations I make are educated reasonings that flow from the evidence that exists. If I dropped a vase on the floor and it shattered I could pick up a piece and say to you, "Look, this is not a vase." I could do that with each piece and maybe there would have been pieces lost when the vase was dropped. However, if I pick up each piece and put them all together, even if there were pieces missing, I could then say to you this is a vase. I state with the same certainty based upon the evidence, the testimony, the documents (whether they exist to support or sidetrack), the study of Dealey Plaza, that it is certain that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield with the "likely" result that it caused an entrance wound to Kennedy's throat and that it was fired from the area of the south knoll part of the underpass. Your article should not have been conclusive. It should not have omitted so much, including totally failing to mention Whitaker. You are bright people but you tried to bring closure to the issue when you did not have enough evidence to do so. There was character assassination of Nick Prencipe, a fine and honorable police officer who spent his entire career as a member of the United States Park Police. You have heard a tape of him. What did he have to gain or did any of the witnesses have to gain by telling their accounts of witnessing a hole in the windshield? Money? Fame? Popularity? Often they experienced real fear. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, a career police officer, a veteran, and who also worked after his police career in military intelligence, he told me "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." These people were not fictional names in a novel. They were real people. They did not ask or desire to be cast in a role in history, especially an event such as this. Each one I talked with probably would have chosen not to be there or to see what they saw. What did they get for it? Harassment? Ridicule? Having their character impugned? I want to understand your viewponts and do want to go over each question I raised or to understand if your reasoning has changed? I think this exchange will help many of the dedicated people on this forum to better understand the evidnce and make their own judgments. I also hope to learn from you. To anyone reading your article it stands as the testament of the three of you. I did not want to reach the conclusions I did. It shocks me. It haunts me. However, the evidence can lead me to no other conclusion. Again, I know there are people who have questioned me and there must be people on this forum who agree with you. I would like them to come forward and support you. As long as they agree to be responsive I will participate with them. William Kelly has gone on record as stating he did not believe Whitaker. I will answer any questions. Gary Mack? The three of you who wrote the article are intelligent people and I need to understand your thoughts in order that I may be complete in addressing any questions that may exist. I then want to get back to writing my book. I hope that I have addressed your questions. I highly respect you for engaging in this exchange. One does not have to agree with me to be my friend. However, this is not an academic exercise. This was a real murder of a president whose death changed the whole scope of our history. I, like the witnesses, would rather have not been so deeply involved in this. There have been few rewards, with the exception of getting to know so many fine people, including witnesses and researchers. I have paid a very high price in many aspects of my life because of my involvement. None of us are going to see the million dollars bestowed upon Bugliousi. It is thankless. However, we must care about the truth. It is like the rhetorical question I pose in MIDP, "Why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow." We have to care about the world in which we exist and for those who will come after us. That is all I seek. I hope to continue this exchange and I do sincerely thank you Barb. Take care, Doug

Yes, I am aware of no activity on the 25th .... it was funeral day and declared a National Day of Mourning. The conflict is between the limo being stripped down to bare metal in Dearborn, MI on the 25th (Ford was operating that day?) and Arlington Glass and Ferguson being at the WHG and replacing the windshield in that limo on the 26th. I do see that as a conflict. I am aware of rumors of a bullet hole in the car. I know Frazier etal searched for bullet holes when they examined the car, and, as I recall, Canning wanted the trunk and behind the seat area searched for possible bullet holes. Do you believe there was some urgency to squirrel the limo away to Dearborn secretly to search for some bullet hole ... by Ford factory workers rather than by the FBI or SS in the WHG??? By the way, I forgot to ask you in my response about not being surprised to see "no perforaation" reported on the windshield. Do you still find that as some odd, perhaps even sinister, notation? Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Yes, I find "no perforation" to be highly unusual. I have never seen anything like it. Unless someone raised the issue of a hole being there, which they knew was happening at Parkland, it is beyond belief that they would do that. Charles Taylor Jr. was obviously not part of the "reindeer games" that night and somehow with all the rush in the coverup his report slipped through. Both the FBI and Ferguson, a layman did the same thing. If Ferguson was just going off the FBI report why did he not use the same terminology " Hole" and why did he describe the location of the damage in a different place? Yes, it is highly surprising but the Ford Motor Company was operating On November 25, 1963 when virtually the whole country and the other automobile companies were closed. They were closed for two hours in the afternoon which would have been a great opportunity to truck the limo out of there. I have NO doubt that the limo was there. Please understand that I am only speculating why the vehicle was stripped to bare metal. The response from Whitaker was "That's what they did." I definitely think the limo was in Dearborn to change the windshield. Don't forget that Ferguson tried to claim that Arlington glass was there on the 25th. Absent the garage logs there woud have been no documentation to contradict Ferguson's false account. Do you believe Ferguson drove 520 miles on Dec. 20, 1963 in a vehicle that got maybe 6-7 mpg in the most recognized vehicle in the world when Hess and Eisenhardt said the vehicle was in Cinncinati on December 13. When other questions are answered I am going to tell you some things that are phony about Arlington Glass on November 26 that I have never discussed. I have only speculated about Ford searching and repairing a hole in the floor pan to explain why the limo may have been "stripped" but I do know that the FBI was in a panic about a magazine publishing something about it. After all the information you have examined have you started to see something amiss? When more questions are answered I will come back to Arlington Glass. Certainly, there must be people on this forum who supported your article. I welcome any supporters of the article's position to contribute to this thread and will answer any questions as long as they agree to respond to any statements and questions I raise. I understand you are going to take this in small chunks but I continue to hope you will address all of the questions I raised in the long post of this thread. Let's get to truth. Best, Doug

Hi Doug, The whole Ferguson/Whitaker thing sounds bizarre. Ferguson clearly had the date of the windshield replacement by Arlington Glass wrong. But what of the dates being in conflict as regard Whitaker who said the limo was stripped down to bare metal in Dearborn on the 25th? How can that be credible? By "Vaughan's assertion" I reckon you mean Todd and not Ferguson.<g> I don't have enough information to be able to say much about that, other than that if, as Todd said, and there is certainly no reason to doubt Todd, that Martin claimed zero damage at all to the windshield, then Martin clearly was in error as we know there was damage. As I recall, you and Todd were going to get together so he could give you a copy of the document. Can one of you post a complete cite, in context, of what Martin was asked and his response in that Garrison interview? Thanks, Barb :-) Barb: Thanks. To address the latter first, Yes, I was referring to Todd . I have not yet seen the interview but will be glad to share info when I do if Todd does not post it. I am not certain what you are suggesting how Whitaker could not be credible? If the vehicle was flown at night to Dearborn on the eve of the 24th you are aware that there is NO ONE being reported to have had contact with the limousine o nthe evening of the 24th and the 25th in Washington D.C. What dates are in conflict in regards to Whitaker?? I dpologize but I don't understand what you mean by that? There is no conflict. A good question might be WHY did they strip the vehicle down to metal? There is a possibility. Were you aware that there were rumors that there was a possibility of a bullet hole in the floorpan of the vehicle? It greatly concerned the FBI and they even issued a memo that they were concerned that U.S.News and World Reports (I believe) was going to publish a story. EVERYTHING fits with Whitaker's account! For more info I might refer people to Doug Hornes observations in Volume 5 p.1549. How and why did Ferguson get the date wrong (other than to mask the record)? It was an easy date to relate to. It was the day of Kennedy's funeral. Please respond as I am puzzled about what you mean theat dates were in conflict with Whitaker and we can then proceed in small chunks as you desired with the questions raised in my long posting. Again I truly appreciate your willingness to address these issues in a constructive forum in defending the criticisms I have of yours, Jerry's and Thompsons article concluding there was no hole in the windshield and whoaccepted the premises of your article may have their own questions and be willing to raise them here. I hope we can continue to move forward. My best, Doug Weldon

Bernice: I agree about Tosh I just do not want to lose focus on the thread I have going. That is why I opened a new thread to begin with. Plumlee is extremely important! I hope he will watch the you-tube presentation and see what a sniper would have viewed from the south side of the underpass with my video. I do want to get the questions I addressed in my long posting and I believe the dialog and responses will be important. Take care, Doug

Michael: See Doug Horne Volume 5 p.1439 the section entitled "The Bullet Hole in the Windshield is Proof of A Shot Fired From The Front" Doug Weldon

Is this the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll you're referring to, Tosh? YES... However, in order not to high jack this thread and offend some... I will not respond further. I see things different than some in reference to the windshield and the crack/hole: In my view I look at things a little different than some, because I was there. Information only becomes intelligence, after its been deciphered: All information is important regardless of the source or how it is obtained.... sorry my information does not fit in this exchange on this thread. However, I believe it is important to the total picture and leads to the motive behind the shooting and those involved. I am not here to 'tickle ears' or play word games. Thanks for posting the picture. Although, its out of place at this location I am sure some will see it as a step in the right direction as to a possible hole in the windshield. FWIW. Mr. Plumlee: I do want to get to the south knoll issue. Please watch my you-tube video from Minnesota in 1999. I knew Tom Wilson was working on the Cancellaire photo when he died. I know far more than you imagine. I think if we can get there again we can tie many things together and this issue won't just die as it appears to have happened before. If you want to start a parallel thread I would be glad to contribute. I need to establish the best evidence that there was a shot through the windshield before I can even address where the shot originated. I would be glad to find out more if you can send me a message through the forum. My best, Doug Weldon

David: Again, this is so odd. I actually spoke with workers in Ohio who replaced the leather and Whitaker was clear that the vehicle was stripped to metal on November 25, 1963. It is literallly like a shell game. Doug Not to take away from anyone... BUT what about the "alleged" south knoll shooter? The Windshield hole or crack is a very interesting topic... so is the background leading up to the "alleged hole in the windshield. Sometime ago I posted an overhead picture of Delay Plaza and drew a "line of shot" from the south side of the underpass and parking lot. Perhaps someone would care to locate that picture and post it and compare it to the hole or crack in the windshield. Remember the road curves and dips as it goes under the underpass. Shoots came from our left . I know some do not want to hear this... BUT... I post this for no other reason that to make some aware of this little known background.... I am sure this will kill this thread.... no Pun, intended. OLD POSTINGS: Mar 28 2007, 06:58 AM Post #46 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 5179 Joined: 9-December 04 From: Europe Member No.: 2082 QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 10:51 PM) I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings. Charles Charles and all, I have been exploring things behind the scenes [not posting them as I do them on the Forum]. I have, as I said, some images by Tom and have located four other much larger clusters of them. If this were to really be moved forward it would need a core group with a lead person; a well organized plan of how to collect, preserve, validate the methodology of and present to the public (and in what forum?!); some money with which to do this; a permanent archive for these items that will be publicly accessable yet highly secure against tampering or theft, etc. Anyone with ideas toward these ends is certainly welcome to post those ideas or contact me by email. When things cystalize a bit more behind the scenes I'll post a bit more. Tom was highly secretive during his lifetime, but he made copies and placed them in secure places. I'd also like to make here a list with URLs, if available, of all presentations Tom did, as well as all recolections people have of meeting and talking with him about his technique, etc. One interesting fact I came accross in what I've been working on is that Tom gave a very large amount of his conclusions and enhancements to the FBI! It would be most interesting to file a FOIA on those. All of that material exists in copies elsewhere, but to see if the FBI claims to have them, has done anything with them, passed them on to any other agencies, tested his enhancement process, etc. Anyone out there who can work with me on that for a fast-track FOIA contact me by email. Tom was quite naive [iMHO] to the end of his life that goodness still could be found within the varous agencies of the USG and his presentation and 'donation' of these materials to the FBI he thought was sufficient to prove to them, and thus the Nation, that there had been a massive conspiracy and coverup [perish the thought!] and he was very disappointed that the FBI, as well as no other Government agencies, never got back to him over the materials he tendered. I'd almost bet that those materials were looked at carefully for the purposes of denying and refuting them and would like to try to find those analyses, if they exist. Tom died not long after his donation of these materials to the USG. Peter This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Mar 28 2007, 07:12 AM William Plumlee Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM Post #47 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 893 Joined: 11-October 04 From: d Member No.: 1680 QUOTE (Jack White @ Mar 8 2007, 03:14 PM) QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Mar 8 2007, 09:37 PM) It is late here and I'm tired....and will try to put down a few thoughts briefly and come back to put down more in a day or so. I'm probably one of the or the only researcher here to have had some of my work and photos 'enhanced' by Tom Wilson. I'm looking at them here on my desk. I've never put them on the internet...and likely not about to. I know some about Tom's computer program and there is much I don't. He was too secretive. There are those who could help, but I can't [yet] pry information out of them. I'll not mention who they are here and now. He was approved by the courts as an expert witness in forensics, using his techniques on forensic materials. Cyril is too busy with his own problems to help much on that now. What to say...I had him use his program on the ultra-high-quality Cancellare photo I got via the back door. He never explained totally how his system worked and thus what one gets [or sees] is, yes, hard to verify. Basicly, he had his system look for spectral patterns characterisic of specific materials: glass, metal, wood, cloth, etc. He claimed he could even 'see'/distinguish variants of these. OK, I can 'see' these in his enhancements...but without the independant test on a non-controversial item who is to say if the new image is an artifact or a real 'enhancement' of what was there. My problem and I'm trying to 'lean' on those who could answer....thus far with no success. My gut feeling is his technique worked, but not to the level he claimed in all cases. I have some very interesing 'images' here I can overlay on the original Cancellare and thus orient what is where...but ....too tired to go into it all now...tomorrow....more.... Peter I am familiar with Tom's work for Peter, because it was I who persuaded Tom to take a look. However, he was very secretive with both Peter and me about what he found. He would only tell me that he found TWO MEN in the tree shadows. I never saw his work on this, and frankly was doubtful, since darkroom enhancement of the area showed nothing. He would not show Peter what he found either, and soon his relations with Peter soured, because I feel he thought Peter was being too "pushy" and impatient for progress...plus he was busy building his lawsuit against the govt. Jack What does the south knoll photo really mean? Two people in the shadows of a tree? It means nothing unless you take into account the story behind the photo and how it came into being and the background of the people in question.. (1) the location of these two people were first told to the FBI in Buna Vista Colorado in April and May of 1964. The FBI was not at all interested in the story and said there was nobody there because they had pictures of the aera and it did not show anyone at that location. They also said their investigation proved I was at another location in Florida at the time of the assassination. I was not. ( THE Cancellara Photo had not surfaced at this early date, 1964) It was also stated by the FBI that if I (Plumlee) did not quit talking about Dallas and my wild stories concerning the assassination I would never get out of jail ( I was in lock up from about two weeks after the JFK until sometime shortly after the WC completed its findings. I was never interviewed by the WC) Some years later (1980) Barnard Finsterwald Jr and Gary Shaw had a copy of the Cancellara photo which appeared in Gary Shaws early or first book (can't recall name about 1976 ??) I was shown that picture for the first time and I pointed out to them where Sergio and I were standing at the time of the shots. (near and within the shadows of the fork tree. I drew them a map of our route out of Delay Plaza. Shortly after that my house in Grant Colorado was burned down and I was beat up at a Evergreen Colorado Bar and had ten stitches in right forehead and eye. A few months later, I was shot at in my truck and ran off the road. There were passengers in the truck at the time who have given statements to law enforcement) Some years later (1990 ??) Jim Maras and Peter Lambkin and I started research on this subject and others concerning JFK and OPS. It that point all hell broke loose and the FBI hounded me for years and IRS took all my holdings and bank accounts for back taxes) We, the three of us continued to work on trying to prove I and Sergio were there that day and at that location on the south knoll when the shots were fired Around that time Jim Maras introduced me to Jack White and the photo came up and I was under the impression that Jack White was going to look into the picture. I was told he had done that and he failed to see anything there. Soon thereafter Peter Lambkin retained Tom Wilson to take a look at the picture. Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up. Now that is a very rough background as to the events which leads to this south knoll investigation and the photo.. (For the sake of time, I have been about as short as I Can make this) The reason this is important to the investigation, is because it proves two people were there and when you take into account the background of these two people then it should be looked into. I have always felt that photo is an important link and should be looked into, perhaps more so than the north knoll.. How and why the software works and who did what back when is really not the issue. Again. What does it prove if two people are proved to be at that location at the time of the shots?. Add that to the "Tall Tales" of the Plumlee story and what have you? Include the new release documents and all the new evidence and take a hard look at what Plumlee has said before the new releases were released.. If two people are prove to be there, then why were they there? To kill the President? Well could they have been at that location for other reasons? I have been called "one of the assassins". Why? Could my story be true if it is proved I was at that location... Why one of the assassins? Why not one who tried to stop it? Preponderance of the evidence over the years and the new declassified documents, I feel should be looked into in order to get the trail to point to the real assassination. That is the issue I feel. Seems each time we start to go into a matter we get drawn away from the subject and our egos get in the way. I say I saw JFK get assassinated. I saw we were sent in to stop it or as I have said long ago "ABORT IT" I do not expect anyone to even read this long post about an old mans forty year plus story.. The JFK matter has been shut down and contaminated by dis information. This story also will die on the vine because this story goes beyond reason and it also conflicts with others theories and their life work has been dedicated to their theories and there is not room for a true tall tale... it goes against the norm and all the experts. If the real story did get out or released then all that has been written would have to be sent to the deep six... and the experts would not be of much help in any new investigations... we would have to breed another group of new experts and investigators, because all the old experts would have discredited themselves by their own works. Peter Lemkin Feb 15 2008, 08:27 AM Post #48 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 5179 Joined: 9-December 04 From: Europe Member No.: 2082 QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM) Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up. Tosh, Who is Carl? Also, I know you were 'spooked' that the FBI had various materials and that they approached you at that point. I know think I understand, in part, what that might have been about. Before Tom Wilson died he had arranged to meet with some fairly high-level FBI agent at their Dallas offices. There he gave a presentation several times repeated of his technique and what he had uncovered about the assassination, using it. He then turned some of these materials over to the FBI - from which they went into a black hole. You are apparently the only person to have seen part of them when those FBI men came to you and asked for you to verify parts of what Wilson had told them. Wilson, in his naivete, had assumed the FBI would take his years of hard work and 'solve' or make major progress on Dallas. As we all know they have done nothing before, during or since. They closed the case on or about 11/14/1963. William Plumlee Feb 16 2008, 01:07 AM Post #49 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 893 Joined: 11-October 04 From: d Member No.: 1680 QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 01:51 PM) I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings. Charles Charles. Its been almost a year of this thread and as yet nothing has been done in reference to any of the photos of the south knoll and others. The only thing which has been accomplished is the threads go nowhere and the subject matter goes into the black hole. What is most important? How the work was done or what the work of Wilson's pointed out. As to the south knoll photo and if shown that two people were there in the shadow of the forked tree, then what does that mean? What questions will this raise if it is prove that there were two persons at that location? We will never get to that point. Its been over a year of back and forth as to the photo work and how it was or was not done. Seems we miss the real point of why these two people, if real, were there on the south knoll. Why were they there and too, why were they not interviewed. The story behind the photo is a interesting story when you mention that the FBI knew about these two people many years ago. Why were they not questioned even after one of these persons stated they were there? I too, brought this thread forward, but it too will die on the vine and the subject matter will not be addressed. What would these two people in the photo, if real, have to say on the subject of what they saw and why they were there? To me that is the real issues. I understand the work has to be validated. However, we speculate on everything else that comes down the pike in reference to the assassination of JFK.... but this matter seems to be "Taboo" for whatever reasons. For the benefit of doubt lets say there were two people there... what would that really mean? Would what these two persons have to say really mean anything? Did they hear any shots? From where? How many? What were they going to do? Were they there to kill the President? OR were they there for other reasons? We drift off into speculations on many matters as to JFK. But as to the two people on the south knoll we stay away from that subject and if we push we are attacked and called liars. But the FBI does come to one of them asking many questions about the south knoll and they take things out of your burned house. Why? More south Knoll which went nowhere and the thread went dead much like thr hole in the windshield some years ago: QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Oct 22 2006, 05:25 PM) NEW TOPIC: being the other thread was diverted and a little off track: Now I am going to "step out of line" again and ask a few questions that some do not want asked. I will not go into Central America. After all this is a JFK investigative forum. Right? Have you noticed how everyone stays away from that "south knoll shooter", or that south knoll picture. Also who brought the "south knoll shooter", and the picture into this investigation? "... a shot came from behind and to the left of us...". (previous quote) "... we checked the south parking lot but did not notice anything". (previous quote) "... the shots ECHOED through out the plaza"... ". (previous quote) "... some years ago I set off a firecracker at the south end of the triple underpass and watched people look toward the north side of the Plaza and at the north end of the underpass. I think that was because of the echo effect from the tube like tunnels of the underpass...". (previous quote) ".... the Limo was directly in-line with the south shooter and the Presidents head was turned toward the south, Jackie (south knoll south end of underpass) ". Note: Each time this south knoll information comes up; the thread is turned back to the "Badgeman" and other north side of Plaza matters and those theories and doctored photos. Why is it so important not to really look into that area of the south side? Each time that area is brought up it is past by or diverted into something else not related. It was the same in 1964, and again in 1974, and again in 1978, 81, 91, and now 2006. It was the same with the FBI, Secret Service, Congressional and Senate investigators of many years ago. It seems to be very important to focus on the North side and by pass the South. Why? Is it perhaps that is the area that best confirms the fake story played by the government of where the shooters or assassins really were? Also note. I have put out a lot of information these past few years and months; most of it backed up with documentation and preponderance of evidence. None of that information is addressed directly. Each time it is moved away from and something else is put in place to investigate. What really happens is I get investigated and threated by federal sources, including IRS. I find this strange if we say we are truly looking at all available information in reference to who shot Kennedy. If we say we want the truth-- then should we not really look into this south area with a fine tooth comb? Tosh, I have believed in the South Knoll shooter for quite some time, and felt somewhat exonerated when I first saw Sherry G's analysis. And you're right, in that when the topic comes up, it invariably leads back to the North Knoll. Frankly, there are as many potentials in the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll parking lot as there are of the North Knoll area photos. For anyone who has been or will be in Dealey Plaza, or has seen some recent photos taken from the south end of the railroad overpass facing the TSBD, you'll see something you generally don't see from other angles. Stand in Elm St near the head shot X facing west and look straight ahead. You'll be facing the west end of the South Knoll, and not down Elm towards the Stemmons entrance. I would suggest the forum's resident photo experts take a look at the background of Cancellare with the same zeal as they have of Moorman, Betzner, Willis, the Z film, etc. I have some photos, but unfortunately can't post here due to limited attachment space. RJS This post has been edited by Richard J. Smith: Oct 23 2006, 01:29 PM Mr. Plumlee: You are correct. This is killing the thread and I am not sure why you are doing this. I believe in a south knoll shooter and have written and spoken extensively about it. However, though I am deeply interested in this and would comment I am requesting that you begin another thread with this tpic. Thank you. Doug Weldon Sir; This is all connected to your windshield thing which connects to the south knoll... sorry you can't see this. I will back off and let you solve this can of worms, being as you seem to know my motives... sorry I offended you Adios, Plumlee Mr. Plumlee: I thank you and I don't mind getting to the south knoll but I do not want to get off track. I have sourced you in my talks and was going to talk about you extensively in 1999 or 2u00 but Bob Vernon threatened to sue me if I used any of the information he shared with me about you. Your account of smelling smoke in that area is very valuable. I know where the windshield shot originated. It could have only come from the south knoll. I simply do not want to confuse the issues on the same thread. My best, Doug Weldon

David: Again, this is so odd. I actually spoke with workers in Ohio who replaced the leather and Whitaker was clear that the vehicle was stripped to metal on November 25, 1963. It is literallly like a shell game. Doug Not to take away from anyone... BUT what about the "alleged" south knoll shooter? The Windshield hole or crack is a very interesting topic... so is the background leading up to the "alleged hole in the windshield. Sometime ago I posted an overhead picture of Delay Plaza and drew a "line of shot" from the south side of the underpass and parking lot. Perhaps someone would care to locate that picture and post it and compare it to the hole or crack in the windshield. Remember the road curves and dips as it goes under the underpass. Shoots came from our left . I know some do not want to hear this... BUT... I post this for no other reason that to make some aware of this little known background.... I am sure this will kill this thread.... no Pun, intended. OLD POSTINGS: Mar 28 2007, 06:58 AM Post #46 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 5179 Joined: 9-December 04 From: Europe Member No.: 2082 QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 10:51 PM) I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings. Charles Charles and all, I have been exploring things behind the scenes [not posting them as I do them on the Forum]. I have, as I said, some images by Tom and have located four other much larger clusters of them. If this were to really be moved forward it would need a core group with a lead person; a well organized plan of how to collect, preserve, validate the methodology of and present to the public (and in what forum?!); some money with which to do this; a permanent archive for these items that will be publicly accessable yet highly secure against tampering or theft, etc. Anyone with ideas toward these ends is certainly welcome to post those ideas or contact me by email. When things cystalize a bit more behind the scenes I'll post a bit more. Tom was highly secretive during his lifetime, but he made copies and placed them in secure places. I'd also like to make here a list with URLs, if available, of all presentations Tom did, as well as all recolections people have of meeting and talking with him about his technique, etc. One interesting fact I came accross in what I've been working on is that Tom gave a very large amount of his conclusions and enhancements to the FBI! It would be most interesting to file a FOIA on those. All of that material exists in copies elsewhere, but to see if the FBI claims to have them, has done anything with them, passed them on to any other agencies, tested his enhancement process, etc. Anyone out there who can work with me on that for a fast-track FOIA contact me by email. Tom was quite naive [iMHO] to the end of his life that goodness still could be found within the varous agencies of the USG and his presentation and 'donation' of these materials to the FBI he thought was sufficient to prove to them, and thus the Nation, that there had been a massive conspiracy and coverup [perish the thought!] and he was very disappointed that the FBI, as well as no other Government agencies, never got back to him over the materials he tendered. I'd almost bet that those materials were looked at carefully for the purposes of denying and refuting them and would like to try to find those analyses, if they exist. Tom died not long after his donation of these materials to the USG. Peter This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Mar 28 2007, 07:12 AM William Plumlee Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM Post #47 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 893 Joined: 11-October 04 From: d Member No.: 1680 QUOTE (Jack White @ Mar 8 2007, 03:14 PM) QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Mar 8 2007, 09:37 PM) It is late here and I'm tired....and will try to put down a few thoughts briefly and come back to put down more in a day or so. I'm probably one of the or the only researcher here to have had some of my work and photos 'enhanced' by Tom Wilson. I'm looking at them here on my desk. I've never put them on the internet...and likely not about to. I know some about Tom's computer program and there is much I don't. He was too secretive. There are those who could help, but I can't [yet] pry information out of them. I'll not mention who they are here and now. He was approved by the courts as an expert witness in forensics, using his techniques on forensic materials. Cyril is too busy with his own problems to help much on that now. What to say...I had him use his program on the ultra-high-quality Cancellare photo I got via the back door. He never explained totally how his system worked and thus what one gets [or sees] is, yes, hard to verify. Basicly, he had his system look for spectral patterns characterisic of specific materials: glass, metal, wood, cloth, etc. He claimed he could even 'see'/distinguish variants of these. OK, I can 'see' these in his enhancements...but without the independant test on a non-controversial item who is to say if the new image is an artifact or a real 'enhancement' of what was there. My problem and I'm trying to 'lean' on those who could answer....thus far with no success. My gut feeling is his technique worked, but not to the level he claimed in all cases. I have some very interesing 'images' here I can overlay on the original Cancellare and thus orient what is where...but ....too tired to go into it all now...tomorrow....more.... Peter I am familiar with Tom's work for Peter, because it was I who persuaded Tom to take a look. However, he was very secretive with both Peter and me about what he found. He would only tell me that he found TWO MEN in the tree shadows. I never saw his work on this, and frankly was doubtful, since darkroom enhancement of the area showed nothing. He would not show Peter what he found either, and soon his relations with Peter soured, because I feel he thought Peter was being too "pushy" and impatient for progress...plus he was busy building his lawsuit against the govt. Jack What does the south knoll photo really mean? Two people in the shadows of a tree? It means nothing unless you take into account the story behind the photo and how it came into being and the background of the people in question.. (1) the location of these two people were first told to the FBI in Buna Vista Colorado in April and May of 1964. The FBI was not at all interested in the story and said there was nobody there because they had pictures of the aera and it did not show anyone at that location. They also said their investigation proved I was at another location in Florida at the time of the assassination. I was not. ( THE Cancellara Photo had not surfaced at this early date, 1964) It was also stated by the FBI that if I (Plumlee) did not quit talking about Dallas and my wild stories concerning the assassination I would never get out of jail ( I was in lock up from about two weeks after the JFK until sometime shortly after the WC completed its findings. I was never interviewed by the WC) Some years later (1980) Barnard Finsterwald Jr and Gary Shaw had a copy of the Cancellara photo which appeared in Gary Shaws early or first book (can't recall name about 1976 ??) I was shown that picture for the first time and I pointed out to them where Sergio and I were standing at the time of the shots. (near and within the shadows of the fork tree. I drew them a map of our route out of Delay Plaza. Shortly after that my house in Grant Colorado was burned down and I was beat up at a Evergreen Colorado Bar and had ten stitches in right forehead and eye. A few months later, I was shot at in my truck and ran off the road. There were passengers in the truck at the time who have given statements to law enforcement) Some years later (1990 ??) Jim Maras and Peter Lambkin and I started research on this subject and others concerning JFK and OPS. It that point all hell broke loose and the FBI hounded me for years and IRS took all my holdings and bank accounts for back taxes) We, the three of us continued to work on trying to prove I and Sergio were there that day and at that location on the south knoll when the shots were fired Around that time Jim Maras introduced me to Jack White and the photo came up and I was under the impression that Jack White was going to look into the picture. I was told he had done that and he failed to see anything there. Soon thereafter Peter Lambkin retained Tom Wilson to take a look at the picture. Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up. Now that is a very rough background as to the events which leads to this south knoll investigation and the photo.. (For the sake of time, I have been about as short as I Can make this) The reason this is important to the investigation, is because it proves two people were there and when you take into account the background of these two people then it should be looked into. I have always felt that photo is an important link and should be looked into, perhaps more so than the north knoll.. How and why the software works and who did what back when is really not the issue. Again. What does it prove if two people are proved to be at that location at the time of the shots?. Add that to the "Tall Tales" of the Plumlee story and what have you? Include the new release documents and all the new evidence and take a hard look at what Plumlee has said before the new releases were released.. If two people are prove to be there, then why were they there? To kill the President? Well could they have been at that location for other reasons? I have been called "one of the assassins". Why? Could my story be true if it is proved I was at that location... Why one of the assassins? Why not one who tried to stop it? Preponderance of the evidence over the years and the new declassified documents, I feel should be looked into in order to get the trail to point to the real assassination. That is the issue I feel. Seems each time we start to go into a matter we get drawn away from the subject and our egos get in the way. I say I saw JFK get assassinated. I saw we were sent in to stop it or as I have said long ago "ABORT IT" I do not expect anyone to even read this long post about an old mans forty year plus story.. The JFK matter has been shut down and contaminated by dis information. This story also will die on the vine because this story goes beyond reason and it also conflicts with others theories and their life work has been dedicated to their theories and there is not room for a true tall tale... it goes against the norm and all the experts. If the real story did get out or released then all that has been written would have to be sent to the deep six... and the experts would not be of much help in any new investigations... we would have to breed another group of new experts and investigators, because all the old experts would have discredited themselves by their own works. Peter Lemkin Feb 15 2008, 08:27 AM Post #48 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 5179 Joined: 9-December 04 From: Europe Member No.: 2082 QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM) Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up. Tosh, Who is Carl? Also, I know you were 'spooked' that the FBI had various materials and that they approached you at that point. I know think I understand, in part, what that might have been about. Before Tom Wilson died he had arranged to meet with some fairly high-level FBI agent at their Dallas offices. There he gave a presentation several times repeated of his technique and what he had uncovered about the assassination, using it. He then turned some of these materials over to the FBI - from which they went into a black hole. You are apparently the only person to have seen part of them when those FBI men came to you and asked for you to verify parts of what Wilson had told them. Wilson, in his naivete, had assumed the FBI would take his years of hard work and 'solve' or make major progress on Dallas. As we all know they have done nothing before, during or since. They closed the case on or about 11/14/1963. William Plumlee Feb 16 2008, 01:07 AM Post #49 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 893 Joined: 11-October 04 From: d Member No.: 1680 QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 01:51 PM) I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings. Charles Charles. Its been almost a year of this thread and as yet nothing has been done in reference to any of the photos of the south knoll and others. The only thing which has been accomplished is the threads go nowhere and the subject matter goes into the black hole. What is most important? How the work was done or what the work of Wilson's pointed out. As to the south knoll photo and if shown that two people were there in the shadow of the forked tree, then what does that mean? What questions will this raise if it is prove that there were two persons at that location? We will never get to that point. Its been over a year of back and forth as to the photo work and how it was or was not done. Seems we miss the real point of why these two people, if real, were there on the south knoll. Why were they there and too, why were they not interviewed. The story behind the photo is a interesting story when you mention that the FBI knew about these two people many years ago. Why were they not questioned even after one of these persons stated they were there? I too, brought this thread forward, but it too will die on the vine and the subject matter will not be addressed. What would these two people in the photo, if real, have to say on the subject of what they saw and why they were there? To me that is the real issues. I understand the work has to be validated. However, we speculate on everything else that comes down the pike in reference to the assassination of JFK.... but this matter seems to be "Taboo" for whatever reasons. For the benefit of doubt lets say there were two people there... what would that really mean? Would what these two persons have to say really mean anything? Did they hear any shots? From where? How many? What were they going to do? Were they there to kill the President? OR were they there for other reasons? We drift off into speculations on many matters as to JFK. But as to the two people on the south knoll we stay away from that subject and if we push we are attacked and called liars. But the FBI does come to one of them asking many questions about the south knoll and they take things out of your burned house. Why? More south Knoll which went nowhere and the thread went dead much like thr hole in the windshield some years ago: QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Oct 22 2006, 05:25 PM) NEW TOPIC: being the other thread was diverted and a little off track: Now I am going to "step out of line" again and ask a few questions that some do not want asked. I will not go into Central America. After all this is a JFK investigative forum. Right? Have you noticed how everyone stays away from that "south knoll shooter", or that south knoll picture. Also who brought the "south knoll shooter", and the picture into this investigation? "... a shot came from behind and to the left of us...". (previous quote) "... we checked the south parking lot but did not notice anything". (previous quote) "... the shots ECHOED through out the plaza"... ". (previous quote) "... some years ago I set off a firecracker at the south end of the triple underpass and watched people look toward the north side of the Plaza and at the north end of the underpass. I think that was because of the echo effect from the tube like tunnels of the underpass...". (previous quote) ".... the Limo was directly in-line with the south shooter and the Presidents head was turned toward the south, Jackie (south knoll south end of underpass) ". Note: Each time this south knoll information comes up; the thread is turned back to the "Badgeman" and other north side of Plaza matters and those theories and doctored photos. Why is it so important not to really look into that area of the south side? Each time that area is brought up it is past by or diverted into something else not related. It was the same in 1964, and again in 1974, and again in 1978, 81, 91, and now 2006. It was the same with the FBI, Secret Service, Congressional and Senate investigators of many years ago. It seems to be very important to focus on the North side and by pass the South. Why? Is it perhaps that is the area that best confirms the fake story played by the government of where the shooters or assassins really were? Also note. I have put out a lot of information these past few years and months; most of it backed up with documentation and preponderance of evidence. None of that information is addressed directly. Each time it is moved away from and something else is put in place to investigate. What really happens is I get investigated and threated by federal sources, including IRS. I find this strange if we say we are truly looking at all available information in reference to who shot Kennedy. If we say we want the truth-- then should we not really look into this south area with a fine tooth comb? Tosh, I have believed in the South Knoll shooter for quite some time, and felt somewhat exonerated when I first saw Sherry G's analysis. And you're right, in that when the topic comes up, it invariably leads back to the North Knoll. Frankly, there are as many potentials in the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll parking lot as there are of the North Knoll area photos. For anyone who has been or will be in Dealey Plaza, or has seen some recent photos taken from the south end of the railroad overpass facing the TSBD, you'll see something you generally don't see from other angles. Stand in Elm St near the head shot X facing west and look straight ahead. You'll be facing the west end of the South Knoll, and not down Elm towards the Stemmons entrance. I would suggest the forum's resident photo experts take a look at the background of Cancellare with the same zeal as they have of Moorman, Betzner, Willis, the Z film, etc. I have some photos, but unfortunately can't post here due to limited attachment space. RJS This post has been edited by Richard J. Smith: Oct 23 2006, 01:29 PM Mr. Plumlee: You are correct. This is killing the thread and I am not sure why you are doing this. I believe in a south knoll shooter and have written and spoken extensively about it. However, though I am deeply interested in this and would comment I am requesting that you begin another thread with this tpic. Thank you. Doug Weldon

David: Again, this is so odd. I actually spoke with workers in Ohio who replaced the leather and Whitaker was clear that the vehicle was stripped to metal on November 25, 1963. It is literallly like a shell game. Doug

Hi Doug, I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted. Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings? Best, Doug I don't know why Ferguson made any notes on the windshield at all, you have researched the Ford Motor Co end of things, not I. What did Ford have to say about Ferguson's memo? How about Ferguson? Did Ferguson merely summarize what he learned the FBI had found in their exam? Sounds likely. Ford may have been interested in how their windshield performed. Frazier and the FBI exam was who/what my comments went to, but the same would be true of anyone doing an exam of the windshield. Perhaps it is my decades long background and work experience involving examinations in the medical world that makes this seem like such a no brainer to me. I guess I come at it from a clinical perspective. Sometimes what is not found is very important information and noteworthy. As was the case here. Had Frazier merely noted the smear and the cracks I can just hear the speculation and innuendo about why he didn't rule out a perforation when he was, afterall, examining the windshield for damage it sustained in a shooting. Not to mention, if he had not ruled out a perforation in his exam, it wouldn't have been known whether or not some fragment could have/did escape the car. Such an exam should tell the complete story of what the windshield experienced. He found that the inside surface had been hit by a projectile resulting in a smear and a stellate cracking pattern. You seriously don't think that looking for and reporting whether or not there was a perforation would be the normal course? Interesting what happens when two people come at it from different perspectives. :-) Bests, Barb :-) Barb: We are all "victims" of our experiences and I understand how ourr backgrounds might cause us to have different perspectives on things. Ferguson is an interesting character. His December 18, 1963 memo was supposedly released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown. She can discuss those circumstances better than I. What is so odd is that he distoted so many known facts. It appears he actually examined the vehicle. He was actually in charge of the Ford vehicles at the White House garage. He clearly described the damage to the windshield in the wrong place. He said Arlington Glass came in on November 25 when the logs show it was November 26 (there will be something new on that I will share in the future) Later he describes himself driving to Dearborn and Cinncinnati under impossible circumstances and dates that do not match records in Cinncinnati. As you are aware, because of Whitaker, I believe the Ford Motor Company was complicit with the Secret Service in destroying evidence and participating in a cover-up. To my knowledge Ford has never said anything about the Ferguson memo. I tried to find people who knew Ferguson. I found one person who knew him well, Willard Hess, whose company built the limo. He referred to him as "Fergie" and laughed when I told him Ferguson's account. His company's records were given to the HSCA which noted the discrepencies with erguson about the record. There are many problems with his memo even as far as his addressing his cleaning of the vehicle. I believe his memo was designed to cloud the record. Why it was being held and not meant for release I cannot explain. Hess' comment to me was that Ferguson was very much a "Company man." What do you think of of Vaughn's assertion that Officer B.J. Martin saw the limo at Parkland and stated there was NO damage to the windshield. Best, Doug Doug, Are you aware that Ferguson kept portions of the backseat leather and was involved in selling portions? Here is the text from a recent description on Ebay offering for sale a 3x3 inch piece of the backseat leather for $50,000.00 QUOTE ON A chilling relic from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. A section of the seat upon which he and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy sat when Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger on his Mannlicher Carcano, tragically ending the young president's life. Light blue leather seat section which composed the main portion of the bench seat and clearly shows rust-colored staining consistent with long-dried blood. Bears a 0.5'' scratched circle, possibly made when the seat was examined by the FBI following the shooting. Measures approximately 3'' x 3''. Accompanied by a letter of provenance on White House letterhead, 1p. quarto, dated 22 November 1982 (twenty years after the assassination), written by White House Technical Service Rep. F. Vaughn Ferguson. Ferguson, whose involvement with the limousine before and after the shooting is well-documented, writes in part: ''...The leather…is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was assassinated in on November 22, 1963...Four days after the assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat…The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President John F. Kennedy…'' Ferguson then describes the extensive modifications that were made to the vehicle so that it could be used by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and mentions that he drove the vehicle from Cincinnati to Washington in complete secrecy to avoid the press. He concludes: ''...My career at the White House spanned a twenty year period...It was so sad...'' Included is a color photograph of Ferguson signing the letter of provenance and a photo of the bloodied rear seat of the vehicle. Also included is a copy of a 1982 newspaper article featuring Ferguson and his involvement with the ill-fated limousine. In the article Ferguson states: ''[after the return of the car to Washington]...FBI agents had ripped the leather seats. They told me they had to do it to find the bullet particles from the shooting...Ferguson said he took a little of the memorabilia with him...'I still have some of the leather from the seats' he said...'' A heart-rending relic from a day that shook the world. QUOTE OFF Todd Todd: I was aware of that. Apparently someone else from Ford has pieces of leather from the vehicle. I have to search my records but I believe it was an unidentified calller to the Jim Bohanen radio show who claimed his uncle or someone he knew who worked for the Ford Motor Company and had some of the leather but was very afraid about anyone knowing he had it. What is interesting about this to me was that the leather was replaced at Hess and Eisenhardt in Cinncinnati, not at the Ford Motor Company so how did Ferguson and this alleged person get the leather. George Whitaker's account was that he saw the limo on November 25, 1963 at Ford in Dearborn and that the limo had been completely stripped down to bare metal. I hope you got my e-mail. Best, Doug

Hi Doug, I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted. Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings? Best, Doug I don't know why Ferguson made any notes on the windshield at all, you have researched the Ford Motor Co end of things, not I. What did Ford have to say about Ferguson's memo? How about Ferguson? Did Ferguson merely summarize what he learned the FBI had found in their exam? Sounds likely. Ford may have been interested in how their windshield performed. Frazier and the FBI exam was who/what my comments went to, but the same would be true of anyone doing an exam of the windshield. Perhaps it is my decades long background and work experience involving examinations in the medical world that makes this seem like such a no brainer to me. I guess I come at it from a clinical perspective. Sometimes what is not found is very important information and noteworthy. As was the case here. Had Frazier merely noted the smear and the cracks I can just hear the speculation and innuendo about why he didn't rule out a perforation when he was, afterall, examining the windshield for damage it sustained in a shooting. Not to mention, if he had not ruled out a perforation in his exam, it wouldn't have been known whether or not some fragment could have/did escape the car. Such an exam should tell the complete story of what the windshield experienced. He found that the inside surface had been hit by a projectile resulting in a smear and a stellate cracking pattern. You seriously don't think that looking for and reporting whether or not there was a perforation would be the normal course? Interesting what happens when two people come at it from different perspectives. :-) Bests, Barb :-) Barb: We are all "victims" of our experiences and I understand how ourr backgrounds might cause us to have different perspectives on things. Ferguson is an interesting character. His December 18, 1963 memo was supposedly released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown. She can discuss those circumstances better than I. What is so odd is that he distoted so many known facts. It appears he actually examined the vehicle. He was actually in charge of the Ford vehicles at the White House garage. He clearly described the damage to the windshield in the wrong place. He said Arlington Glass came in on November 25 when the logs show it was November 26 (there will be something new on that I will share in the future) Later he describes himself driving to Dearborn and Cinncinnati under impossible circumstances and dates that do not match records in Cinncinnati. As you are aware, because of Whitaker, I believe the Ford Motor Company was complicit with the Secret Service in destroying evidence and participating in a cover-up. To my knowledge Ford has never said anything about the Ferguson memo. I tried to find people who knew Ferguson. I found one person who knew him well, Willard Hess, whose company built the limo. He referred to him as "Fergie" and laughed when I told him Ferguson's account. His company's records were given to the HSCA which noted the discrepencies with erguson about the record. There are many problems with his memo even as far as his addressing his cleaning of the vehicle. I believe his memo was designed to cloud the record. Why it was being held and not meant for release I cannot explain. Hess' comment to me was that Ferguson was very much a "Company man." What do you think of of Vaughn's assertion that Officer B.J. Martin saw the limo at Parkland and stated there was NO damage to the windshield. Best, Doug

Hi Doug, I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted. Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings? Best, Doug

Doug, No problem responding at all. However, I tend to think in smaller chunks so I'm going to have to take things one or two lumps at at time. Also, as you know, Barb, Josiah and I studied different areas of the issue so even though I've reviewed everything I'm going to leave some topics to their comments. So, to kick it off! I believe Charles Taylor saw the Dallas windshield. Which would mean that up until 12:00 pm of the 22nd the Dallas windshield was still in the limousine. I believe that his original report establishes that, at the least, he was not part of a conspiracy at the Secret Service to conceal the condition of the windshield. I believe that his affidavit with the Church Committee was accurate and honest. Therefore I believe that, like other witnesses, he mistook the windshield defect for a hole. He originally believed there was a pin hole in that location but subsequent re-examination convinced him that there was no penetration. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was pressured to change his statements, in fact, the record suggests just the opposite. So, do you disagree? :>) Best to you, Jerry Jerry: Did you mean 12:00 a.m.? I did not know that your article was a compilation. Was the article written to support a predetermined conclusion? Yes, I disagree. Taylor did not get a casual glance at the windshield. He sat in the passengers seat of the limo for a long time as the limo was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House Garage and further viewed the windshield there. His original report from the evening of the assasination described a "small hole" not a pin hole or anything else.(It was cosigned by Harry Geiglein so apparently he had no problems with the report) When he was interviewed in 1975 he did not write or sign a report stating he saw a pin sized hole. I believe he likely said a "pen" size hole. He was still certain he had seen a hole. I agree he was not part of the conspiracy. What would cause you to conclude the affidavit was accurate and honest? He obviously was shown the windshield for his affidavit that was in your article. You, at the least, have agreed that there are problems comparing the windshield photo from 1963 with the photo of the windshield he would have been shown. i am somewhat incredulous that you believe nine witnesses were misstaken from Parkland Hospital to two people in Washington D.C. to one person in Dearborn, Michigan. Did Stavis Ellis place a pencil into an imaginary hole? You, of everyone on this forum, knows how the law treats recanted testimony. It is difficult. You don't see any parallels between him and Dudman? I am not aware of any interviews with Taylor so in that respect you are correct that there is no concrete evidence that he was pressured to sign the afffidavit. However, don't you find it odd that just before that he was certain he had seen a hole. Martin Hinrichs made a very substantial point. In the second photo shown in your article where are the cross cracks or damge from the windshiel being kicked out? How does the record affirmatively indicate the opposite, that he was not pressured. Okay. Best, Doug

Jerry and Barb: I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing. Best, Doug Weldon Jerry and Barb: As I have thought about it there is one type of incidence that I have seen police reports desribe the negative. That would be in traffic accidents when it might be written that there were no skid marks. I have NEVER seen such in this context. Doug Weldon