Doug Weldon

Jerry and Barb: I forgot to make one other point in regards to F. Vaughn Ferguson when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." Don't you find it unusual that he did something that the FBI did in their report, that is describe the negative, specifically noting something that was NOT there. Note he said "disclosed no perforation." Why would he do that? Don't you think he would have just said I saw the windshield and it had substantial cracking... Why did he go out of his way to say there was no hole if that wasn't an issue. Again, as I have noted before one can describe the negative ad infinitum (ad nauseum) i.e, there were no holes, grass stains, dog prints Jerry: I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing. My very best, Doug Doug, Please accept my apology for asking you to go over old ground. I'm sure you'll recognize that, in part, I'm making a record so those following the thread will understand. CE 350 - why do you doubt it? Do you think it has been altered? Do you think it's a photo of a windshield, just not the right windshield? What about the photo specifically calls it into question? And when do you believe the photo was taken? You're OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct? And they were taken late morning of the 23rd? Vaughn Ferguson - what advantage was gained by claiming that he drove the car to Ohio? In what way was the cover-up advanced by driving rather than flying the car? Best regards, Jerry Jerry: I would like your response and Barb's response to what I have written. I know both of you have followed the thread. Both of you have had an opportunity to examine my Minnesota presentation and I know Barb has listened to my first conversation with Nick Prencipe. My postings have been a response to the article the two of you and Thompson wrote dismissing the credibility of witnesses and whether there was a hole in the windshield. Have I misstated or misrepresented anything in your views? If so, I would like to know in order to respond or to correct anything I have offered. Has your position changed at all about anything? I have asked many questions for which there has yet to be any response. Do you still consider trained police officers who witnessed the hole in the windshield to be "casual observers?" Have either of you changed your opinions about the credibility of Nick Prencipe? If not, what questions do you still have. I have many communications from the late Nick Prencipe and it is likely I can respond to most questions in his own words. Do you still maintain that Charles Taylor's affidavit stating that there was no hole in the windshield trumps what he wrote on the eve of the assassination and his statement confirming such in 1975 before signing the affidavit. Do you see similarity between the change in his position and Dudman's. Why did you omit and not address George Whitaker's critical account of seeing the limo in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25, 1963 and his contention that he stated with 100% certainty that there was a hole in the windshield entering from the front and that they created a new windshield for the limo and destroyed the one with a hole in it? What do you believe would be the motive for all of these witnesses, most of who did not know any of the others, for fabricating the exact same account that they were certain they saw a hole in the windshield? Was it just coincidental that they all described the exact defect, a hole in the windshield? What would have been their motive for giving their accounts? Would it have caused them to feel like they were more important or give themselves some added status? Was the reason for their fears was that they did not want to get caught in a lie or was it something else? I have tried for a long time to get a response from you and Barb on these questions and if and how your perceptions are any different from when you wrote the article ad that my position on these issues. Has your position changed from when you wrote "Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community." We can disagree and still be friends. I have come to like and respect you and Barb but I need to know the parameters of where we agree and disagree to better focus on the issues. I can assure you this is not about me or any ego I might have but it is about the evidence and I take it very seriously. I would like to define those areas and I need you and Barb to respond and as a beginning to respond to everything above. Now to briefly answer your current. questions. It seems silly but, of course, I believe CE 350 is a windshield. Why do I doubt it that it was the Dallas windshield? First, of all, it does not have clear evidence of a hole and it and from what each of the witnesses said it was very obvious that the hole was easily discernable. Also, I believe there is compelling evidence that the windshield was changed a number of times. See "Best Evidence' or my chapter in MIDP. Also see James Hosty's book and his observation of the windshield. I don't believe that the Secret Service ordered twelve duplicate windshields for "Target Practice." Do you? I have no idea of when CE 350 was taken, again, because I believe the evidence shows there were multiple switches as clearly you now have some question about because of your response to Hinrich's study. Please note there are many things I have little or no expertise about and I do not proclam such. as an example, I know little about photography but like you did with Martin Hinrich when I have questions I consult experts. The same is true for ballistics and numerous other areas. When there appears to be a conflict between photos and witnesses observations I try to resolve that by further questioning the witnesses, determining whether there is corroboration for what they saw, and/or having other evidence examined. You are an attorney. Words are very important. You ask, "OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct?" I did not say there were "focus" problems. I said the photos are so dark or overexposed they are virtually worthless as far as evidentiary value in determining whether there was a hole in the windshield. I cannot explain the apparent lighting differences between the FBI photos and the Secret Service photos. You further ask about the Secret Service photos "And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?" To be consistent with what I stated about the FBI photos I am not aware of any authentication of anyone under oath as to who took the pictures and when they were taken either. I am simply stating they do not appear to offer any evidentiary value as to the windshield. There are so many problems with F. Vaughn Ferguson, a Ford Motor Company employee, and I discuss in MIDP it in much more detail, Let's take two other points as simple examples. Ferguson stated in his December 18,1963 memorandum that Arlington Glass replaced the windshield on November 25, 1963. The WH Garage logs are very clear this was allegedly done on November 26, 1963. No one logged in to have contact with the limousine on November 25, 1963. Why would Ferguson do this? I believe a reasonable supposition is that if George Whitaker is truthful, and I believe he is, then the limousine was at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25 which would have taken the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company working together to engage in a cover-up. Remember the Secret Service was leasing the Kennedy limo from Ford in 1963 for $500 per year. The Ferguson memo could provide a cover for the limo not being in Dearborn on November 25 and absent the presence of the WH Garage logs it could have worked. as another example Ferguson wrote that he observed the windshield on November 23, 1963 and that "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." I extend an open invitation to anyone to produce a diagram, a report, or a picture showing a crack or other damage "Directly" beneath the mirror. I believe a shell game was being played and evidence was generated to confuse and obstruct the record. Do you believe Ferguson drove the limo 520 miles on December 20, 1963 from Washington to Dearborn in very inclement weather. Do you believe he had to stop for gas or that the vehicle was capable of getting mileage that to this date would not be obtainable for a car that size? Do you think people might have noticed him? What would he have done if the car broke down or had a flat tire? Why do the official records of Hess and Eisenhardt show that the car arrived there on December 13, 1963. Did Ferguon drive through a time warp? Did you know that two of the four discrepancies noted by the HSCA in trying to develop a chronology of what happened to the limousine involved Ferguson's "testimony", a testimony that cannot be found unless perhaps it is buried somewhere and labeled "Top Secret?" Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward. My very best, Doug Weldon 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: I forgot to make one other point in regards to F. Vaughn Ferguson when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." Don't you find it unusual that he did something that the FBI did in their report, that is describe the negative, specifically noting something that was NOT there. Note he said "disclosed no perforation." Why would he do that? Don't you think he would have just said I saw the windshield and it had substantial cracking... Why did he go out of his way to say there was no hole if that wasn't an issue. Again, as I have noted before one can describe the negative ad infinitum (ad nauseum) i.e, there were no holes, grass stains, dog prints Jerry: I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing. My very best, Doug Doug, Please accept my apology for asking you to go over old ground. I'm sure you'll recognize that, in part, I'm making a record so those following the thread will understand. CE 350 - why do you doubt it? Do you think it has been altered? Do you think it's a photo of a windshield, just not the right windshield? What about the photo specifically calls it into question? And when do you believe the photo was taken? You're OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct? And they were taken late morning of the 23rd? Vaughn Ferguson - what advantage was gained by claiming that he drove the car to Ohio? In what way was the cover-up advanced by driving rather than flying the car? Best regards, Jerry Jerry: I would like your response and Barb's response to what I have written. I know both of you have followed the thread. Both of you have had an opportunity to examine my Minnesota presentation and I know Barb has listened to my first conversation with Nick Prencipe. My postings have been a response to the article the two of you and Thompson wrote dismissing the credibility of witnesses and whether there was a hole in the windshield. Have I misstated or misrepresented anything in your views? If so, I would like to know in order to respond or to correct anything I have offered. Has your position changed at all about anything? I have asked many questions for which there has yet to be any response. Do you still consider trained police officers who witnessed the hole in the windshield to be "casual observers?" Have either of you changed your opinions about the credibility of Nick Prencipe? If not, what questions do you still have. I have many communications from the late Nick Prencipe and it is likely I can respond to most questions in his own words. Do you still maintain that Charles Taylor's affidavit stating that there was no hole in the windshield trumps what he wrote on the eve of the assassination and his statement confirming such in 1975 before signing the affidavit. Do you see similarity between the change in his position and Dudman's. Why did you omit and not address George Whitaker's critical account of seeing the limo in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25, 1963 and his contention that he stated with 100% certainty that there was a hole in the windshield entering from the front and that they created a new windshield for the limo and destroyed the one with a hole in it? What do you believe would be the motive for all of these witnesses, most of who did not know any of the others, for fabricating the exact same account that they were certain they saw a hole in the windshield? Was it just coincidental that they all described the exact defect, a hole in the windshield? What would have been their motive for giving their accounts? Would it have caused them to feel like they were more important or give themselves some added status? Was the reason for their fears was that they did not want to get caught in a lie or was it something else? I have tried for a long time to get a response from you and Barb on these questions and if and how your perceptions are any different from when you wrote the article ad that my position on these issues. Has your position changed from when you wrote "Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community." We can disagree and still be friends. I have come to like and respect you and Barb but I need to know the parameters of where we agree and disagree to better focus on the issues. I can assure you this is not about me or any ego I might have but it is about the evidence and I take it very seriously. I would like to define those areas and I need you and Barb to respond and as a beginning to respond to everything above. Now to briefly answer your current. questions. It seems silly but, of course, I believe CE 350 is a windshield. Why do I doubt it that it was the Dallas windshield? First, of all, it does not have clear evidence of a hole and it and from what each of the witnesses said it was very obvious that the hole was easily discernable. Also, I believe there is compelling evidence that the windshield was changed a number of times. See "Best Evidence' or my chapter in MIDP. Also see James Hosty's book and his observation of the windshield. I don't believe that the Secret Service ordered twelve duplicate windshields for "Target Practice." Do you? I have no idea of when CE 350 was taken, again, because I believe the evidence shows there were multiple switches as clearly you now have some question about because of your response to Hinrich's study. Please note there are many things I have little or no expertise about and I do not proclam such. as an example, I know little about photography but like you did with Martin Hinrich when I have questions I consult experts. The same is true for ballistics and numerous other areas. When there appears to be a conflict between photos and witnesses observations I try to resolve that by further questioning the witnesses, determining whether there is corroboration for what they saw, and/or having other evidence examined. You are an attorney. Words are very important. You ask, "OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct?" I did not say there were "focus" problems. I said the photos are so dark or overexposed they are virtually worthless as far as evidentiary value in determining whether there was a hole in the windshield. I cannot explain the apparent lighting differences between the FBI photos and the Secret Service photos. You further ask about the Secret Service photos "And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?" To be consistent with what I stated about the FBI photos I am not aware of any authentication of anyone under oath as to who took the pictures and when they were taken either. I am simply stating they do not appear to offer any evidentiary value as to the windshield. There are so many problems with F. Vaughn Ferguson, a Ford Motor Company employee, and I discuss in MIDP it in much more detail, Let's take two other points as simple examples. Ferguson stated in his December 18,1963 memorandum that Arlington Glass replaced the windshield on November 25, 1963. The WH Garage logs are very clear this was allegedly done on November 26, 1963. No one logged in to have contact with the limousine on November 25, 1963. Why would Ferguson do this? I believe a reasonable supposition is that if George Whitaker is truthful, and I believe he is, then the limousine was at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25 which would have taken the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company working together to engage in a cover-up. Remember the Secret Service was leasing the Kennedy limo from Ford in 1963 for $500 per year. The Ferguson memo could provide a cover for the limo not being in Dearborn on November 25 and absent the presence of the WH Garage logs it could have worked. as another example Ferguson wrote that he observed the windshield on November 23, 1963 and that "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." I extend an open invitation to anyone to produce a diagram, a report, or a picture showing a crack or other damage "Directly" beneath the mirror. I believe a shell game was being played and evidence was generated to confuse and obstruct the record. Do you believe Ferguson drove the limo 520 miles on December 20, 1963 from Washington to Dearborn in very inclement weather. Do you believe he had to stop for gas or that the vehicle was capable of getting mileage that to this date would not be obtainable for a car that size? Do you think people might have noticed him? What would he have done if the car broke down or had a flat tire? Why do the official records of Hess and Eisenhardt show that the car arrived there on December 13, 1963. Did Ferguon drive through a time warp? Did you know that two of the four discrepancies noted by the HSCA in trying to develop a chronology of what happened to the limousine involved Ferguson's "testimony", a testimony that cannot be found unless perhaps it is buried somewhere and labeled "Top Secret?" Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward. My very best, Doug Weldon

Jerry: I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing. My very best, Doug Doug, Please accept my apology for asking you to go over old ground. I'm sure you'll recognize that, in part, I'm making a record so those following the thread will understand. CE 350 - why do you doubt it? Do you think it has been altered? Do you think it's a photo of a windshield, just not the right windshield? What about the photo specifically calls it into question? And when do you believe the photo was taken? You're OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct? And they were taken late morning of the 23rd? Vaughn Ferguson - what advantage was gained by claiming that he drove the car to Ohio? In what way was the cover-up advanced by driving rather than flying the car? Best regards, Jerry Jerry: I would like your response and Barb's response to what I have written. I know both of you have followed the thread. Both of you have had an opportunity to examine my Minnesota presentation and I know Barb has listened to my first conversation with Nick Prencipe. My postings have been a response to the article the two of you and Thompson wrote dismissing the credibility of witnesses and whether there was a hole in the windshield. Have I misstated or misrepresented anything in your views? If so, I would like to know in order to respond or to correct anything I have offered. Has your position changed at all about anything? I have asked many questions for which there has yet to be any response. Do you still consider trained police officers who witnessed the hole in the windshield to be "casual observers?" Have either of you changed your opinions about the credibility of Nick Prencipe? If not, what questions do you still have. I have many communications from the late Nick Prencipe and it is likely I can respond to most questions in his own words. Do you still maintain that Charles Taylor's affidavit stating that there was no hole in the windshield trumps what he wrote on the eve of the assassination and his statement confirming such in 1975 before signing the affidavit. Do you see similarity between the change in his position and Dudman's. Why did you omit and not address George Whitaker's critical account of seeing the limo in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25, 1963 and his contention that he stated with 100% certainty that there was a hole in the windshield entering from the front and that they created a new windshield for the limo and destroyed the one with a hole in it? What do you believe would be the motive for all of these witnesses, most of who did not know any of the others, for fabricating the exact same account that they were certain they saw a hole in the windshield? Was it just coincidental that they all described the exact defect, a hole in the windshield? What would have been their motive for giving their accounts? Would it have caused them to feel like they were more important or give themselves some added status? Was the reason for their fears was that they did not want to get caught in a lie or was it something else? I have tried for a long time to get a response from you and Barb on these questions and if and how your perceptions are any different from when you wrote the article ad that my position on these issues. Has your position changed from when you wrote "Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community." We can disagree and still be friends. I have come to like and respect you and Barb but I need to know the parameters of where we agree and disagree to better focus on the issues. I can assure you this is not about me or any ego I might have but it is about the evidence and I take it very seriously. I would like to define those areas and I need you and Barb to respond and as a beginning to respond to everything above. Now to briefly answer your current. questions. It seems silly but, of course, I believe CE 350 is a windshield. Why do I doubt it that it was the Dallas windshield? First, of all, it does not have clear evidence of a hole and it and from what each of the witnesses said it was very obvious that the hole was easily discernable. Also, I believe there is compelling evidence that the windshield was changed a number of times. See "Best Evidence' or my chapter in MIDP. Also see James Hosty's book and his observation of the windshield. I don't believe that the Secret Service ordered twelve duplicate windshields for "Target Practice." Do you? I have no idea of when CE 350 was taken, again, because I believe the evidence shows there were multiple switches as clearly you now have some question about because of your response to Hinrich's study. Please note there are many things I have little or no expertise about and I do not proclam such. as an example, I know little about photography but like you did with Martin Hinrich when I have questions I consult experts. The same is true for ballistics and numerous other areas. When there appears to be a conflict between photos and witnesses observations I try to resolve that by further questioning the witnesses, determining whether there is corroboration for what they saw, and/or having other evidence examined. You are an attorney. Words are very important. You ask, "OK with what I've represented as the Secret Service photos, but you don't think they're very useful because of exposure and focus problems, is that correct?" I did not say there were "focus" problems. I said the photos are so dark or overexposed they are virtually worthless as far as evidentiary value in determining whether there was a hole in the windshield. I cannot explain the apparent lighting differences between the FBI photos and the Secret Service photos. You further ask about the Secret Service photos "And they were taken late morning of the 23rd?" To be consistent with what I stated about the FBI photos I am not aware of any authentication of anyone under oath as to who took the pictures and when they were taken either. I am simply stating they do not appear to offer any evidentiary value as to the windshield. There are so many problems with F. Vaughn Ferguson, a Ford Motor Company employee, and I discuss in MIDP it in much more detail, Let's take two other points as simple examples. Ferguson stated in his December 18,1963 memorandum that Arlington Glass replaced the windshield on November 25, 1963. The WH Garage logs are very clear this was allegedly done on November 26, 1963. No one logged in to have contact with the limousine on November 25, 1963. Why would Ferguson do this? I believe a reasonable supposition is that if George Whitaker is truthful, and I believe he is, then the limousine was at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan on November 25 which would have taken the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company working together to engage in a cover-up. Remember the Secret Service was leasing the Kennedy limo from Ford in 1963 for $500 per year. The Ferguson memo could provide a cover for the limo not being in Dearborn on November 25 and absent the presence of the WH Garage logs it could have worked. as another example Ferguson wrote that he observed the windshield on November 23, 1963 and that "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) between the mirror." I extend an open invitation to anyone to produce a diagram, a report, or a picture showing a crack or other damage "Directly" beneath the mirror. I believe a shell game was being played and evidence was generated to confuse and obstruct the record. Do you believe Ferguson drove the limo 520 miles on December 20, 1963 from Washington to Dearborn in very inclement weather. Do you believe he had to stop for gas or that the vehicle was capable of getting mileage that to this date would not be obtainable for a car that size? Do you think people might have noticed him? What would he have done if the car broke down or had a flat tire? Why do the official records of Hess and Eisenhardt show that the car arrived there on December 13, 1963. Did Ferguon drive through a time warp? Did you know that two of the four discrepancies noted by the HSCA in trying to develop a chronology of what happened to the limousine involved Ferguson's "testimony", a testimony that cannot be found unless perhaps it is buried somewhere and labeled "Top Secret?" Finally, I do have things to reveal that I have not done so before but I need to know what playing field we are on. I need to have you AND Barb address my criticism of your article as noted at the inception of this thread, what your position is now, and to respond to the questions in this posting. Both you and Barb indicated that you would be responsive. I sincerely find you and Barb to be sincere, likeable, and intelligent. However, in order to move things forward and for this to be constructive I need to hear from both of you. I am open. If I am wrong on something I will admit it. I can learn from you also. Let's move this forward. My very best, Doug Weldon

Jerry: I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing. My very best, Doug Jerry: To clairify what I meant by the authenticity of the FBI photos I do not believe that the date and time they were taken can be determined. Obviously, they are legitimate photos and I have no reason to suspect they are "doctored." What I don't know is whether they were taken after the windshield was replaced. My understanding is that they were literally found in a box and I am not aware that anyone, including Robert Frazier (though he would be hard to believe anyway. Harold Weisberg believed that he lied in much of his testimony and even tried to subpoenae him for a hearing but Frazier was kept hidden by the FBI) , were shown each photo under oath and to say who took the photos and when they were taken. Doug

Jerry: I apoligize for a quick response. I am suspicious of the FBI bulky photos as I do not believe they can be properly authenticated. I believe Robert Frazier's credibility is too easily impeachable. The White House Garage photos are legitimate but are so dark or overexposed whether by circumstance or design they don't really answer many questions. Personally, I don't believe CE 350 is the windshield that was in Dallas. Yes, I believe Taylor unquestionably saw the real windshield and witnessed it for a long time as he sat in the passengers seat from Adrews AFB to the WH Garage. The FBI unquestionably also saw the Dallas windshield. I discuss Ferguson in Murder In Dealey Plaza and also my Black Op interview. If you can't access it I would be glad to send you a copy. Briefly, there is absolutely no question that the Ferguson account is a deliberate deception and that there was a suspicious relationship between the Ford Motor Company and Secret Service. The HSCA prepared a limo chronology and noted conflicts but also referred to Ferguson's "testimony" which I have been unable to find. I also examined the weather records for the date he claimed to have driven the bloody rear wheel drive Kennedy limo from D.C. to Dearborn 520 miles and then to Cinncinnati. I have talked to Willard Hess who built the limo, who knew Ferguson, and have copies of his handwritten notes and who provided his records to the HSCA of when the limo arrived at his company. I also have taped interviews with a number of his employees. The Ferguson account is a fabrication. Imagine Ferguson stopping at gas statons or driving on the highways in the most recognizable vehicle in the world. Imagine a woman riding with her husband passing the vehicle or being passed by the vehicle and saying "Look honey, there's the car Kennedy was killed in." Hess laughed at Ferguson's account. The vehicle was not driven from the Ford Motor Company as asserted by Ferguson but was flown to Dayton's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and then brought to Hess-Eisnhardt in Cinncinati. The limo was designed for trips less than 60 miles. I will be happy to elaborate but hope you can listen to Black Op and read my chapter in MIDP. I hope all is well and sincerely always appreciate you and Barb respondsing. My very best, Doug

Yes, Martin viewed the windshield at Parkland. I have a report of the interview - I could make you a copy. Thanks for your kind words, and yes, you thanked me. Yes, I'm still in Michigan, in fact, I'm in Portage now. Todd: I would welcome a copy. I could always stop by or you could stop by my house or could mail me a copy. You have to be within 5 miles from me. I am in the phone book. Best, Doug Sure, we can work something out. Let's take this to email. Send me an email at twvaughan2005@yahoo.com. Todd: I tried to send you an e=mail but it would not send out. It said "invalid domain." Doug

Michael: If you watch the video you will see that the shot was perfect. It was not a steep trajectory. Best, Doug

Doug, " There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE." FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview. Todd Let me clarify, Martin says he saw no hole, no crack, nothing, i.e. that the windshield was not damaged. FWIW. Todd: Thank you. I was not aware of that. Actually, I forgot that William Greer at one time also said there was no damage to the windshield. Did Martin view the windshield at Parkland Hospital? Do you have a transcript of that interview or can you direct me where to find it? It is odd since no one, not ven the FBI, denied that the windshield was damaged. Though you and I vastly disagree obout the assassination I have always appreciated your input. I don't know if I ever properly thanked you when years ago you objectively reviewed my Willard Hess video interview for me. I have searched for years to find your book listing the motorcade participants. I hope all is well. Do you still live in Michigan? My best, Doug Weldon Yes, Martin viewed the windshield at Parkland. I have a report of the interview - I could make you a copy. Thanks for your kind words, and yes, you thanked me. Yes, I'm still in Michigan, in fact, I'm in Portage now. Todd: I would welcome a copy. I could always stop by or you could stop by my house or could mail me a copy. You have to be within 5 miles from me. I am in the phone book. Best, Doug

Doug, " There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE." FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview. Todd Let me clarify, Martin says he saw no hole, no crack, nothing, i.e. that the windshield was not damaged. FWIW. Todd: Thank you. I was not aware of that. Actually, I forgot that William Greer at one time also said there was no damage to the windshield. Did Martin view the windshield at Parkland Hospital? Do you have a transcript of that interview or can you direct me where to find it? It is odd since no one, not ven the FBI, denied that the windshield was damaged. Though you and I vastly disagree obout the assassination I have always appreciated your input. I don't know if I ever properly thanked you when years ago you objectively reviewed my Willard Hess video interview for me. I have searched for years to find your book listing the motorcade participants. I hope all is well. Do you still live in Michigan? My best, Doug Weldon

Michael: Again, it would have been from the area of the south side of the underpass. It would have been elevated. If you watch my video from 1999 on you tube I actually show video and what it would have loked like from a sniper's view in that area. Best, Doug

I need to correct something: " Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan." The word "hole" should be substituted for "crack." My error. Best, Doug Weldon

Jack: I do not disagree with you but I believe there was an entrance wound to Kennedy's throat LIKELY caused by the shot through the windshield. Mantik speculates that a glass fragment caused by the bullet from the windshield may have caused that entrance wound. It is a reasonable hypothethiis. Best, Doug Hi Doug Quick question. Where would the bullet have ended up theoretically if it did miss according to Mantik's hypo? Would it have wound up entering some structure within the limousine or missed all occupants and limo altogether and flew off behind the motorcade? Cheers Lee Lee: Thank you. Mantik would have to answer that. I believe there are many potential possibilites including that a bullet did enter the throat and exited the back. Robert Groden had told me that he always believed that the back wound was an exit wound. However, I do not have a definitive answer and have always stated that I believed that I could prove that a bullet was fired through the front of the windshield with the "likely" result that it caused the wound to the throat. It is interesting to note Nick Prencipe's account of Wiliam Greer's statement to Nick that night, "Nick ,you should have been there. Shots were coming from everywhere and one came through the windshield and almost hit me." With making one assumption, that is that the person was trying to hit Kennedy, and if Greer was correct, the hole would have been in the vicinity of Altgen's 6 and would have had to have been fired from the vicinity of the south side of the overpass. Josiah, yes, I believe that Frazier and the FBI did describe the area correctly, but unlike Taylor of the Secret Service, not only omitted the mention of the hole but took the most unusual step of describing the negative and mentioning that there was no hole. In thirty one years of viewing police reports I have never seen one mention something that was not there. As can be seen in my youtube presentation from 1999 the negative could have been described ad infinitum, i.e., there were no crayon marks, grass stains, etc. found. Best, Doug Weldon

Jack: I do not disagree with you but I believe there was an entrance wound to Kennedy's throat LIKELY caused by the shot through the windshield. Mantik speculates that a glass fragment caused by the bullet from the windshield may have caused that entrance wound. It is a reasonable hypothethiis. Best, Doug

I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment. There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future. Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "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." If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said. I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield. You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?" I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole." One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her? Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?" I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret." Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful? There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare." Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal: The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63." There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan. I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings. I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth. Best, Doug Weldon

Looks like a camera. That is what I mentioned before that he looks like he is handing to someone through the pergola. Doug Weldon It could be I wonder if Mr Hester was filming from his position then handed his camera through the pergola window to someone? Interesting thought

Looking at the fire plug through the pergola opening, I suddenly realized this: ZAPRUDER IS FILMING THIS SCENE FROM ATOP THE PEDESTAL. There goes the story about Zapruder vertigo and Sitzman helping steady him on the pedestal! Comments? Jack Thanks Jack yes the height looks right, i assume the camera was on full Zoom ? Every report I have read says FULL ZOOM. To me, he has to be on the pedestal to see the distant fireplug. So he was already on the pedestal long before Sitzman joined him! Or else somebody else was up there filming. Jack Jack: Years ago some people asked me after seeing the film on television what Hester was doing running to the pergola leaving his wife. As I mentioned, it was so odd. I e-mailed Gary Mack about it and did not get a satisfsactory answer. I was very curious about them. Is there any possibility that someone behind the pergola was handing him a film? Best, Doug Weldon

The Hesters (circle)appear in Willis5...she seems to be holding a sign, he is sitting on a park bench and maybe he is looking at a newspaper. Jack Jack: I have always been curious about the Hesters since he runs to the pergola after the shots and appears to be handing something to someone. I have never gotten a satisfactory explanation. My best, Doug Weldon I think that he just gets up and looks through a pergola opening. I will try to isolate it in Wiegman. Jack Here is Hester standing, enhanced greatly from very dark Wiegman. Jack Jack: I have just always thought it was odd that he would leave his wife and run to the pergola. I just remember that he appeared to have something in his hand. I had hoped that he would have been questioned as to why he ran to the pergola. Many thanks. Best, Doug Weldon Best, Doug Weldon

Your problem here, Pat, is that you know, I know, and every one reading this knows, that you've never conducted any properly systematic survey of the eyewitnesses' responses to the Z fake - which renders your insistence that "zero" believe the film to be fake, well, at most generous, a nonsense. You don't know, and we know you don't. What we do know, and can prove, is that the WC: a) failed to call witnesses it considered inconvenient; sought to browbeat into submission those it considered malleable; and c) revealed to the attentive - or should that just be "honest"? - reader the existence of two versions of the Z fake: Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2: And you ask us to discount eyewitness testimony which contradict the Z fakes and their supporting filmlets? Now why would you want to do that? There are dozens of witnesses of the assassination still alive. If you or anyone else seriously thinks the limo stopped, and that this proves the Z-film is fake, you are gonna need to track these witnesses down, and show them the film, and get them to state, in writing, that they believe the film to be fake. Otherwise, no non-believer will take your claims seriously. Greetings Pat: This is an interesting issue that I am trying to follow and listen to evryone objectively In 1998-2000 I was speaking with Dallas Officer James Courson. I don't believe he is listed as one of the 59 witnesses who claimed to have seen the limo stopped. It was a taped phone conversation. He had been on his motorcycle on Houston Street during the assassination. Without being prompted by me he volunteered or implied that he had seen the Zapruder film and was puzzled because, as he had stated, he could have sworn that the limo had come to a stop. I am not offering an opinion but merely reporting what he conveyed to me. My best, Doug Weldon

The Hesters (circle)appear in Willis5...she seems to be holding a sign, he is sitting on a park bench and maybe he is looking at a newspaper. Jack Jack: I have always been curious about the Hesters since he runs to the pergola after the shots and appears to be handing something to someone. I have never gotten a satisfactory explanation. My best, Doug Weldon

Thank you very much Doug. I've watched the entire Youtube Video presentation posted here by Jack White, uploaded by Rich DellaRosa the very same day as it was up. To make it simple, i was very impressed by your presentation. It's certainly easier for me to understand english in written form but most of what you told did i understand. It was 1999 as far as i know when you were made that speech. Long time has passed by. A minor glitch attracted my attention during that presentation. You said a shot from the south side atop of the Triple underpass (close to Commerce street) was 225 yards away from the moving target. Well, it depends were you believe that shot have to occur (maybe 217?) but the distance is closer. Let's say a shot trough the windshield was fired at Z#217 then the distance from the triple underpass to Kennedy was approx. 125 yards. So to say...easier. But i don't know if this particular interpretation is meanwhile updated. Again this is just a minor thing. I made a while ago a 3D examination of a possible throat shot location on Duncan's forum. There is an alternative to that Windshield through and through shot. From behind the picket fence at the grassy knoll was at Z#200 - Z#222 a clean and unobscured trajectory to Kennedy's throat. No Stemmon's freeway sign, no crowds in the way. Clean view. From what direction the throat shot happend is unfortunately unkown to me. But we have two alternatives. By the way, the so called spiral nebula in Altgens7 is exactly in the same place as in Altgens6. That makes me wonder. But it have to be further examined. I've started already. I have my doubts that Tony Marsh is correct here. Anyway......one thing is for certain, we both standing of the same side of the fence! My best to you Martin Martin: You are, of course, correct about the distance. A sniper could actually start to "sight in" from a 1000 yards. In consideration of where the shot was fired from, I considered both the photographic evidence and the eyewitness testimony. I have always stated that there was a shot through the front of the windshield with the "likelihood" that it caused the entrance wound in Kennedy's throat. I am making one assumption, that the shooter was trying to hit Kennedy. David Mantik believes that chards of glass from the windshield hit Kennedy. There is evidence of such but I do not know if it was glass, glass and a bullet or fragments, or just a bullet. As noted by Fetzer in post 317 Jim Lewis proved that a shot could strike a target through the front of the windshield. He also verified what I wrote in "Murder In Dealey Plaza," that a high velocity bullet hitting the windshield would sound like a firecracker, a sound that many witnesses thought that they heard. If the shooter was trying to hit Kennedy and if the bullet was where the spiral nebulae is, then the shot would either have to come from the south side of the overpass or from someone standing in front of the vehicle on Elm Street. This was further reinforced after my presention in Minnesota and chapter in Murder in Dealey Plaza. If one believes Nick Prencipe( and I do), Nick stated that his friend, William Greer told him words to the effect "Nick, you should have been there. Shots were coming from everywhere. One came through the windshield and almost hit me." For a shot to be aimed at Kennedy and almost hit Greer, the source of the shot again had to be from the south side of the overpass or someone standing with a rifle on Elm Street. I was very impressed with your analysis and I look forward to your updated findings. There is no question that a shell game was being played with the windshield and there were attempts to confuse what was being done with the limousine. Thanks so much. Conspiracy is a crime, not a theory. My best, Doug Weldon

Thanks for the response Jerry. I see you seeking in the dust as me as well. We shall ask John Hunt to join here too and yes...it would be very nice if would share the additional, more detailed scans from the 1978 HSCA windshield cracks. I think we can find a solution to find out if these windshield cracks are the same. Thats not impossible. And i believe you agree with me on that because you consider to spend a couple of bucks to analyze it from your two trusted professionals. The good think is they are trying to work it out in CAD. Thats my homeland since 1992. So, i can cross check, contact this persons if you don't mind. A comprehensive and conclusive analysis might deserve a seperate Topic i think. And it will need a very careful examination to come to a common accepted denominator for all parties. But i think we can achieve it. A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal: The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63. (Look at the attachement) I miss that in the HSCA 1978 photo. I know you know it Jerry. You should consider to save your money because of the known facts. The only question which remains unanswered to me is: why is this photo existant in the archives and related to the 1978 HSCA files? For what purpose? Did they used a template to re-create a similar windshield crack? In the end it's pretty clear to me. We are dealing with two different windshields. I was never in Washington and i hope to be there at some point. I think in spring i will do a journey over the ocean. But Dallas is the major task on my list. But who knows, the archives might be worth to visit. My best to you Martin Martin: Excellent poet and I look forward to contacting you soon. Undoubtedly, I believe you are correct. I do not know if you are aware but there is evidence that the secret service ordered 12 windshields that would fit the kennedy limo after the assassination. Their alleged reason was that they were for "target practice." It would have given them more than enough windshields to try to recreate similar windshield cracks, minus the hole. My best, Doug Weldon

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study? I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups? What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof . Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA: Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell). Who made it and for what purpose? Thank you forward. As i said, every help is much appreciated. Martin Jerry: I want to understand your point. Are you stating that John Hunt's analysis in your article and that a comparison of the windshield photos is now unreliable? Though I don't believe the first photo is of the Dallas windshield, if these windshields are not the same it would represent conclusive evidence that a shell game was being played. I hope you or Barb will get an opportunity to reply to my previous post. p.21. My best, Doug Weldon Hello Doug, Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #? Why do you think the FBI photo is not of the Dallas windshield. Because it doesn't have a hole in it? Best to you, Jerry Jerry: It is posts #305 , 308 and 314. Things move so fast here it is often difficult to keep up and it sounds like you have been busy. My problem with the FBI photo is that it cannot be authenticated. I hope you get a chance to view my you-tube presentation. It demonstrates the efforts to mask the Altgen's windshield in the area of the spiral nebulae. My best, Doug Weldon

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study? I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups? What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof . Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA: Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell). Who made it and for what purpose? Thank you forward. As i said, every help is much appreciated. Martin Jerry: I want to understand your point. Are you stating that John Hunt's analysis in your article and that a comparison of the windshield photos is now unreliable? Though I don't believe the first photo is of the Dallas windshield, if these windshields are not the same it would represent conclusive evidence that a shell game was being played. I hope you or Barb will get an opportunity to reply to my previous post. p.21. My best, Doug Weldon

Jack: I thank you but I believe I have been firm and unequivocal but open to the views of others. I think I have made it clear that nothing has altered my view yet. The evidence speaks for itself. Civility is not an expression of weakness. I have been before hundreds of juries. I give respect where I believe it is due and I honestly have deep respect for people like Josiah. BTW Jack, it sounds like you would have been a good attorney. Best, Doug