Doug Weldon
-
Posts
326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Doug Weldon
-
-
Barb:
Thank you. It is spelled Prencipe.
Thank you for the correction, that is completely my bad. I went with the spelling used on the yahoo group discussions and in some email I received from someone who knew him. His "PRINCE9" e address seemed in keeping with that. Robert Livingston, by the way has no e on the end of it. People often confuse his name with the spelling of JFK author Harry Livingstone.
By the way, I have done some serious deletion of old exchanges here ... partly for the sake of brevity, partly because I was getting error messages saying there were too many quoted blocks of text. Everything that we have posted is available further up in the thread for reference if need be. ;-)
I, in all my many contacts with Nick, never heard that"By the way, Rich DellaRosa related a different telling of Principe's claim, one Principe told him directly ... in that version, Principe claimed that he saw the limo in the garage with both Greer and Kellerman and credits Kellerman with the comment about shots coming at them from all directions."
Do you have any e-mails or anything from Nick saying Greer or Kellerman were with him in the garage. I have a tremendous amount of material from Nick and I promise you that I never heard such claims. I did not know that Nick and Rich had ever met each other.
I have no email written by Nick that says this. This was in an email from Rich during a big thread on this on a yahoo group. Rich is not a member of the group so was sending things via email to several of us. It was posted and discussed during the discussion, so I can send it to you, if you would like. Rich says Nick related this info to him at a later time ... after Pamela's interview with him. As the emails you included below show, Nick was quite frustrated with Pamela. I expect that is because she knew his time frame setting was not plausible, what she said to him about that, I have no way of knowing. But Nick was clearly upset by it. What I note in the later e-mails about that, and in what Rich related, is that Nick's time frame became vague and broader. Yet, in his own telling, as in the email previously posted, he set the time frame by his comments of when his meeting with Greer on the WH grounds occurred in relation to when the plane returned from Dallas and preparations for the limo being escorted to the WH garage were underway. That is a quite specific, and known, time frame. I don't know that Rich and Nick ever met in person, I know they had gotten very close according to Rich, and that Rich told me they had spoken very shortly (within days, as I recall) before Mr. Prencipe passed away.
I am attaching two e-mails from Nick. In the second e-mail I am eliminating the first sentence only because it is critical of another researcher and I don't think it's constructive in this discussion. You are correct that I know very little about you and Jerry and my rhetoric was very strong but the article upset me as I knew these people and I evaluate evidence very carefully and there is much I do not use even though it would be supportive of some of my conclusions. I do not have problems with the responses from you and Jerry. I thought my questions and observations have been cleare. Why were trained police officers considered "casual observers?"Even trained observers have to have the opportunity to observe something close enough and completely enough to reach a conclusion. From the statements we have from each, they did not have that opportunity, and the most specific thing one relates is hearsay from what the other told him. None of these people known to have seen and comment on the windshield had an opportunity to closely observe what they called a hole, or, as Dudman put it, test its patency to see if it went all the way through. That there was a ding of some sort in the windshield is known. That people standing around in close enough proximity to see that ding, at a time the vehicle was known to have been involved in a shooting, when bloodied victims of that shooting had been taken inside the hospital, is it really so odd that they might assume that a bullet made that ding and may have gone all the way through the glass? I don't think so.
Were you aware that Dudman was subjected to similar treatment as Taylor and would never speak about the assassination again and ended his close friendship with Livingstone?I am aware he has refused to talk about the assassination for decades. You have mentioned before that he underwent some "treatment." Dudman never said the hole he saw went completely through the glass. In his original article, he said he wanted to pass a pencil through it to test that, and was not allowed to do so. That tells me he couldn't tell by what he was observing. If he could see a hole went all the way through, there would be no reason to test its "patency," would there? And Livingston wrote about his conversation with Dudman saying that Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a complete perforation or not. So, I fail to see how Dudman was ever elevated to the status of a witness who provided proof that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Can you explain your thinking on that? And what about this experience you say Dudman had? Did he tell you he had been pressured to change his story (not that his story had a complete perforation in it in the first place)?
Did you know that it took more than "moments" to cordon off the limousine and that the people who were already inside the cordon were not removed? I have not heard from Jerry yet about if the limo was so tightly cordoned then who is that odd lady standing directly in front of the limo? Did any of you ever speak with any of these witnesses? Why did you leave George Whitaker out as one of the witnesses? Did Glanges sound credible on TMWKK? Did you know that Nigel Turner filmed that interview with her years before? What do you think the motivation for these people to lie was? How did all these people who did not know each other come up with the same lie? Why were these people afraid and people like Whitaker never mention such outside his own family since November 25,1963? Your speculation on the latter questions are fine. Have I misrepresented anything in MIDP or TMWKK?Whoa, what happened to Prencipe?<g> Jerry has been discussing the limo being cordoned off with you, and he is your best contact on that. Regardless of when or how completely it was cordoned off ... none of the witnesses proffered as proof of a through-and-throuh hole say they were able to make that determination, in fact, the say they could not ... could not get close enough to see, weren't able to "test" it to see if it went all the way through, etc. Seems a bit of a moot point to me. We did not speak with any of these witnesses. You and Pamela are the only two researcher I know of who have specifically focused your research on the limo overall. We are not limo specialists. 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. I do not know that you have misrepresented anything. I do not accuse any of these witnesses of lying. Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, 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. None of them were able to get a good enough, long enough, close enough look or be able to test what they thought to know for sure. It is unfortunate that no one who spoke to Glanges before she died asked her for the names of others she could recall being out there in the area that day. As a medical student there she may have been able name several people. How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo.
Do you acknowledge that Greer changed his story many times and obviously lied to the WC about there being no people on the overpass? Does thataffect his credibility in your mind?I am not familiar with whatever all changes Greer made over the years. To the WC he testified about the overpass:
Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember.
Why do you think he would bother to lie about something like this .... there are photos, witnesses ON the overpass who gave statements, etc?
My 1999 presentation will soon be posted on you-tube. I have changed my thoughts on some minor items and of course have learned a great deal more in the past ten years but it only adds and does not detract from the evidence and my conclusions. I will be glad to mail you a cd of my first interview with Nick so you can evaluate him for yourself. I would hope Jerry would let me know where he posted the study by Martin Hinrich on this forum and Lancer. I do want to find truth and I have no problem with people who seek the same andare willing to address the evidence objectively. If I believe I am ever wrong on something I will be the first to admit it. I judge people by how I perceive them. You and Jerry have been very decent in your responses to me. I believe this exchange can be constructive for all of us.(BTW "Monk" is not "Rich")
My best,
Doug
I certainly plan to watch your presentation. And thank you so very much for the offer of the CD with your interview of Nick, I will gladly accept and look forward to seeing it. We have been fortunate to live in a bit of a golden age for research, with the ARRB and with the internet at our fingertips, we are very fortunate. Yes, I know Monk and Rich are separate people, but thanks for clarifying, because some may not.
I agree, these exchanges can be very constructive. We need more reasoned exchange on the evidence in this arena ... it's how we can all learn. Considering things from someone else's perspective is a good thing. The more facts we can establish, the more old canards and myths we can do away with, the more progress we can make. Jim Fetzer said something in a post last April that I agree with! He wrote,
It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be
true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has
been verified. (Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)
Thanks again for the CD, I will email you my address.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb, (Jerry and Tink):
Thanks again for the reply. I believe the exhange is constructive and I have appreciated the demeanor expressed by you and Jerry. Sincere disagreement can be expressed without personal attacks. I would define a " fact" as testimony or evidence which a finder of fact, here being as the people who are reading this exchange, determine to be true. I do have to take exception to a couple of your replies. First, Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered or exited the windshield.
Second, this is an extremely serious issue. You stated "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 you are summarizing what the exchange was on the group and since I did not read the exchange I have no problem with that. However, please understand that Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they said I can neither support or defend anything they presented. None of you spoke to any of the witnesses and are not aware of all of the things they said. I did not read your article as being a summary but I read it as being a profound statement that there was no hole in the windshield.
I do not know what Rich said Nick stated but unless there is some audio or written proof I cannot accept that Nick said that as it runs contrary to all the e-mail and audios I have of Nick. I let the deceased Nick Prencipe speak for himself on my Black Op interview.I will gladly send you my first interview with Nick. I neither enhance or minimize his account but tried to thoroughly question him for clarification. My research is comprehensive on the assassination as I studied it from 1978-1993 when I received some information on the limo. I have done such things as sat down with John Carl Day and spoke with him for five hours at his house. It bothers me that you would note that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet posted such definitive conclusions. It bothers me that you characterized two trained police officers as casual observers and that three police officers, including Nick described the hole as a "bullet hole" that Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with guns described it as a "bullet holes", that Taylor described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed and that George Whitaker, who in 1963 had thirty years of experience of working with glass had had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass described it as a "bullet hole." Am I missing something or can you explain the ambiguity to me? I still have not heard an explanation why you omitted George Whitaker, who becomes a witness in a third geographical location , Dallas, Washington D.C. and Dearborn. What is unclear about Dalllas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, a man of provable integrity, stating he put a pencil in the hole? Did you or do you know the background of these people.
I am sincerely dumfounded by the contenton that witness "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield but yet there are at least eight people who clearly witnessed the hole in the windshield, and at least one other identifiable witness (Greer) if Prencipe was credible? There is not one person you can identify at Parkland who stated there was no hole. I simply wish I could use that logic and say I bet I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence there is is when Ellis loudly stated there was a hole and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said:That's not a hole, it's a fragment" and Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."
You state "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were the TWO police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who reported they saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would make one conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who saw the hole while the Secret Service were pushing them away? As for Glanges she did say there was someone with her but that he was in fear of his job when she spoke to me. Is that reasonable? I think so based upon the fears, perceived or legitimate, that so many witnesses expressed to me. Wouldn't it have been easier to have said she was by herself and thus noone could contradict her? Again, what happened to Tink's "investigation" of Glanges.
You state "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, 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? They all 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. Again. if anyone has such power to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is knowledge far beyond anything I have ever known.
I appreciate the information you brought forth about Taylor. I did not say Dudman had undergone "treatment" but said he was treated in a similar fashion as Taylor. Both clearly wrote that they saw a hole. Both appeared to be encouraged to change their observations. Taylor was interviewed and stated that he was "certain" he saw a hole and then signed an affidavit (which we do not know if he wrote or was written for him) and changed his mind. Dudman was flown to Washington D.C. from St. Louis and shown a windshield that had no hole. If you were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful. Dudman wrote an article renouncing his prior position and would never speak about the assasination again and broke his deep friendship with Livinston (I did know the spelling, I type terribly, and in fact, even talked with Livingston, and have also talked with Livingstone).
Jerry gave an explanation of why he statement of Taylor was kept hidden but does not explain why Taylor's statement verifying that he had clearly seen a hole in the windshield was labeled "Top Secret" but the affidavit atating there was no hole was not.
Finally, I have sincere concerns why the study of Martin Hinrichs that contradicted your statements about the comparison of the windshields in your article, which though I do not believe either windshield was on the limo in Dallas, but was used by the three of you as a strong part of your article, was not published by any of you here or on Lancer. It was Jerry, not Jim, Lifton,Whitr,etc., who chose Martin to do the study. Jerry also did so by noting in effect to Martin that he knew that the two windshields matched but he needed some corroboration. In defense, Jerry stated that many here and on Lancer are also members of Duncan's forum so it wasn't necessary. I am not and my guess is that many here and Lancer are not.
I honestly do want to and am waiting to hear your response to ALL of the questions I have raised here and in prior posts. There is no shame in admitting that one may have been wrong in anlyzing the evidence. I believe there has to be stronger arguments than I 'think" they were all mistaken or I am sure witnesses could be found who saw the windshield and did not see a hole, when no such witness exists. In my honest opinion, such arguments are trying to defend the indefensible. I do appreciaate this exchange. It is intelligent and I do not believe you are alone in your beliefs. I would not have known about the Taylor info had you not postedit and I am always willing to reexamine the evidence. I look forward to responses from any of you in the near future to all of these points. Thank you.
Best,
Doug Weldon
Barb:
I received your message. I will try to get the cd out to you in the next couple of days. I am hopeful our postings can be helptul to everyone. I must admit that I had some harsh feelings about you and Jerry when you both posted:
The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.
It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of
their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays
too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our
article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being
very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be
Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!
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 and your efforts should be recognized and applauded
I sometimes come on strong becuase I have strong feelings about the people and evidence involved in this matter. I will ask hard questions but welcome the same in return. Please tell me if I cross a line because I do not intend to do so. I do not proclaim myself as an expert "on" anything except "on", not "in" my own opinion. When I began this venture in 1978 I only wanted to discover a truth for myself. That has been my gameplan. It has not been for my own notierity or to see how many people I could convince.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
I have done such things as sat down with John Carl Day and spoke with him for five hours at his house.
Doug Weldon
Doug, did you tape this discussion? Do you have notes? I'm interested in anything Day had to say. If you have anything which would be of help, it would be greatly appreciated.
Pat
Pat,
Yes, I did do some recording. I talked with him in 1996 or 1998. I believe it was more likely 1996. I did so on microcassette and also did some videotaping on 8mm. Fortunately I still have a microcassette recorder and until two days ago I thought I no longer had an 8mm video camera but discovered I do. Hopefully. it stills work. I would be happy to assist you once I complete some of my current projects.The tapes are buried amongst a tremendous amount of material I have. I enjoyed talking with him. I had a police officer friend of mine with me and I believe that was probably why he was so gracious. I remember little things such as asking him why would Oswald have had only four bullets on the sixth floor and got an interesting response that it was all Oswald could probably afford. I remember also talking with him about what happened to the shells they collected and why the DPD kept one. I was very interested at the time in the hulls found on the floor. He was interesting but clearly was uncomfortable with some of the things we talked about. I have talked with many Dallas police officers and even with Rusty Livingston with some taped phone interviews. One of the most rewarding aspects of what at times I think of as a thankless endeavor was to get tto know so many of these people simply as people. Whatever the results of my labors I cherish so many of the friendly talks I had with these people. I was saddened to hear of Day's passing.
Best,
Doug
-
Barb:
Thank you. It is spelled Prencipe.
Thank you for the correction, that is completely my bad. I went with the spelling used on the yahoo group discussions and in some email I received from someone who knew him. His "PRINCE9" e address seemed in keeping with that. Robert Livingston, by the way has no e on the end of it. People often confuse his name with the spelling of JFK author Harry Livingstone.
By the way, I have done some serious deletion of old exchanges here ... partly for the sake of brevity, partly because I was getting error messages saying there were too many quoted blocks of text. Everything that we have posted is available further up in the thread for reference if need be. ;-)
I, in all my many contacts with Nick, never heard that"By the way, Rich DellaRosa related a different telling of Principe's claim, one Principe told him directly ... in that version, Principe claimed that he saw the limo in the garage with both Greer and Kellerman and credits Kellerman with the comment about shots coming at them from all directions."
Do you have any e-mails or anything from Nick saying Greer or Kellerman were with him in the garage. I have a tremendous amount of material from Nick and I promise you that I never heard such claims. I did not know that Nick and Rich had ever met each other.
I have no email written by Nick that says this. This was in an email from Rich during a big thread on this on a yahoo group. Rich is not a member of the group so was sending things via email to several of us. It was posted and discussed during the discussion, so I can send it to you, if you would like. Rich says Nick related this info to him at a later time ... after Pamela's interview with him. As the emails you included below show, Nick was quite frustrated with Pamela. I expect that is because she knew his time frame setting was not plausible, what she said to him about that, I have no way of knowing. But Nick was clearly upset by it. What I note in the later e-mails about that, and in what Rich related, is that Nick's time frame became vague and broader. Yet, in his own telling, as in the email previously posted, he set the time frame by his comments of when his meeting with Greer on the WH grounds occurred in relation to when the plane returned from Dallas and preparations for the limo being escorted to the WH garage were underway. That is a quite specific, and known, time frame. I don't know that Rich and Nick ever met in person, I know they had gotten very close according to Rich, and that Rich told me they had spoken very shortly (within days, as I recall) before Mr. Prencipe passed away.
I am attaching two e-mails from Nick. In the second e-mail I am eliminating the first sentence only because it is critical of another researcher and I don't think it's constructive in this discussion. You are correct that I know very little about you and Jerry and my rhetoric was very strong but the article upset me as I knew these people and I evaluate evidence very carefully and there is much I do not use even though it would be supportive of some of my conclusions. I do not have problems with the responses from you and Jerry. I thought my questions and observations have been cleare. Why were trained police officers considered "casual observers?"Even trained observers have to have the opportunity to observe something close enough and completely enough to reach a conclusion. From the statements we have from each, they did not have that opportunity, and the most specific thing one relates is hearsay from what the other told him. None of these people known to have seen and comment on the windshield had an opportunity to closely observe what they called a hole, or, as Dudman put it, test its patency to see if it went all the way through. That there was a ding of some sort in the windshield is known. That people standing around in close enough proximity to see that ding, at a time the vehicle was known to have been involved in a shooting, when bloodied victims of that shooting had been taken inside the hospital, is it really so odd that they might assume that a bullet made that ding and may have gone all the way through the glass? I don't think so.
Were you aware that Dudman was subjected to similar treatment as Taylor and would never speak about the assassination again and ended his close friendship with Livingstone?I am aware he has refused to talk about the assassination for decades. You have mentioned before that he underwent some "treatment." Dudman never said the hole he saw went completely through the glass. In his original article, he said he wanted to pass a pencil through it to test that, and was not allowed to do so. That tells me he couldn't tell by what he was observing. If he could see a hole went all the way through, there would be no reason to test its "patency," would there? And Livingston wrote about his conversation with Dudman saying that Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a complete perforation or not. So, I fail to see how Dudman was ever elevated to the status of a witness who provided proof that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Can you explain your thinking on that? And what about this experience you say Dudman had? Did he tell you he had been pressured to change his story (not that his story had a complete perforation in it in the first place)?
Did you know that it took more than "moments" to cordon off the limousine and that the people who were already inside the cordon were not removed? I have not heard from Jerry yet about if the limo was so tightly cordoned then who is that odd lady standing directly in front of the limo? Did any of you ever speak with any of these witnesses? Why did you leave George Whitaker out as one of the witnesses? Did Glanges sound credible on TMWKK? Did you know that Nigel Turner filmed that interview with her years before? What do you think the motivation for these people to lie was? How did all these people who did not know each other come up with the same lie? Why were these people afraid and people like Whitaker never mention such outside his own family since November 25,1963? Your speculation on the latter questions are fine. Have I misrepresented anything in MIDP or TMWKK?Whoa, what happened to Prencipe?<g> Jerry has been discussing the limo being cordoned off with you, and he is your best contact on that. Regardless of when or how completely it was cordoned off ... none of the witnesses proffered as proof of a through-and-throuh hole say they were able to make that determination, in fact, the say they could not ... could not get close enough to see, weren't able to "test" it to see if it went all the way through, etc. Seems a bit of a moot point to me. We did not speak with any of these witnesses. You and Pamela are the only two researcher I know of who have specifically focused your research on the limo overall. We are not limo specialists. 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. I do not know that you have misrepresented anything. I do not accuse any of these witnesses of lying. Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, 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. None of them were able to get a good enough, long enough, close enough look or be able to test what they thought to know for sure. It is unfortunate that no one who spoke to Glanges before she died asked her for the names of others she could recall being out there in the area that day. As a medical student there she may have been able name several people. How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo.
Do you acknowledge that Greer changed his story many times and obviously lied to the WC about there being no people on the overpass? Does thataffect his credibility in your mind?I am not familiar with whatever all changes Greer made over the years. To the WC he testified about the overpass:
Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember.
Why do you think he would bother to lie about something like this .... there are photos, witnesses ON the overpass who gave statements, etc?
My 1999 presentation will soon be posted on you-tube. I have changed my thoughts on some minor items and of course have learned a great deal more in the past ten years but it only adds and does not detract from the evidence and my conclusions. I will be glad to mail you a cd of my first interview with Nick so you can evaluate him for yourself. I would hope Jerry would let me know where he posted the study by Martin Hinrich on this forum and Lancer. I do want to find truth and I have no problem with people who seek the same andare willing to address the evidence objectively. If I believe I am ever wrong on something I will be the first to admit it. I judge people by how I perceive them. You and Jerry have been very decent in your responses to me. I believe this exchange can be constructive for all of us.(BTW "Monk" is not "Rich")
My best,
Doug
I certainly plan to watch your presentation. And thank you so very much for the offer of the CD with your interview of Nick, I will gladly accept and look forward to seeing it. We have been fortunate to live in a bit of a golden age for research, with the ARRB and with the internet at our fingertips, we are very fortunate. Yes, I know Monk and Rich are separate people, but thanks for clarifying, because some may not.
I agree, these exchanges can be very constructive. We need more reasoned exchange on the evidence in this arena ... it's how we can all learn. Considering things from someone else's perspective is a good thing. The more facts we can establish, the more old canards and myths we can do away with, the more progress we can make. Jim Fetzer said something in a post last April that I agree with! He wrote,
It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be
true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has
been verified. (Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)
Thanks again for the CD, I will email you my address.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb, (Jerry and Tink):
Thanks again for the reply. I believe the exhange is constructive and I have appreciated the demeanor expressed by you and Jerry. Sincere disagreement can be expressed without personal attacks. I would define a " fact" as testimony or evidence which a finder of fact, here being as the people who are reading this exchange, determine to be true. I do have to take exception to a couple of your replies. First, Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered or exited the windshield.
Second, this is an extremely serious issue. You stated "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 you are summarizing what the exchange was on the group and since I did not read the exchange I have no problem with that. However, please understand that Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they said I can neither support or defend anything they presented. None of you spoke to any of the witnesses and are not aware of all of the things they said. I did not read your article as being a summary but I read it as being a profound statement that there was no hole in the windshield.
I do not know what Rich said Nick stated but unless there is some audio or written proof I cannot accept that Nick said that as it runs contrary to all the e-mail and audios I have of Nick. I let the deceased Nick Prencipe speak for himself on my Black Op interview.I will gladly send you my first interview with Nick. I neither enhance or minimize his account but tried to thoroughly question him for clarification. My research is comprehensive on the assassination as I studied it from 1978-1993 when I received some information on the limo. I have done such things as sat down with John Carl Day and spoke with him for five hours at his house. It bothers me that you would note that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet posted such definitive conclusions. It bothers me that you characterized two trained police officers as casual observers and that three police officers, including Nick described the hole as a "bullet hole" that Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with guns described it as a "bullet holes", that Taylor described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed and that George Whitaker, who in 1963 had thirty years of experience of working with glass had had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass described it as a "bullet hole." Am I missing something or can you explain the ambiguity to me? I still have not heard an explanation why you omitted George Whitaker, who becomes a witness in a third geographical location , Dallas, Washington D.C. and Dearborn. What is unclear about Dalllas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, a man of provable integrity, stating he put a pencil in the hole? Did you or do you know the background of these people.
I am sincerely dumfounded by the contenton that witness "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield but yet there are at least eight people who clearly witnessed the hole in the windshield, and at least one other identifiable witness (Greer) if Prencipe was credible? There is not one person you can identify at Parkland who stated there was no hole. I simply wish I could use that logic and say I bet I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence there is is when Ellis loudly stated there was a hole and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said:That's not a hole, it's a fragment" and Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."
You state "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were the TWO police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who reported they saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would make one conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who saw the hole while the Secret Service were pushing them away? As for Glanges she did say there was someone with her but that he was in fear of his job when she spoke to me. Is that reasonable? I think so based upon the fears, perceived or legitimate, that so many witnesses expressed to me. Wouldn't it have been easier to have said she was by herself and thus noone could contradict her? Again, what happened to Tink's "investigation" of Glanges.
You state "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, 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? They all 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. Again. if anyone has such power to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is knowledge far beyond anything I have ever known.
I appreciate the information you brought forth about Taylor. I did not say Dudman had undergone "treatment" but said he was treated in a similar fashion as Taylor. Both clearly wrote that they saw a hole. Both appeared to be encouraged to change their observations. Taylor was interviewed and stated that he was "certain" he saw a hole and then signed an affidavit (which we do not know if he wrote or was written for him) and changed his mind. Dudman was flown to Washington D.C. from St. Louis and shown a windshield that had no hole. If you were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful. Dudman wrote an article renouncing his prior position and would never speak about the assasination again and broke his deep friendship with Livinston (I did know the spelling, I type terribly, and in fact, even talked with Livingston, and have also talked with Livingstone).
Jerry gave an explanation of why he statement of Taylor was kept hidden but does not explain why Taylor's statement verifying that he had clearly seen a hole in the windshield was labeled "Top Secret" but the affidavit atating there was no hole was not.
Finally, I have sincere concerns why the study of Martin Hinrichs that contradicted your statements about the comparison of the windshields in your article, which though I do not believe either windshield was on the limo in Dallas, but was used by the three of you as a strong part of your article, was not published by any of you here or on Lancer. It was Jerry, not Jim, Lifton,Whitr,etc., who chose Martin to do the study. Jerry also did so by noting in effect to Martin that he knew that the two windshields matched but he needed some corroboration. In defense, Jerry stated that many here and on Lancer are also members of Duncan's forum so it wasn't necessary. I am not and my guess is that many here and Lancer are not.
I honestly do want to and am waiting to hear your response to ALL of the questions I have raised here and in prior posts. There is no shame in admitting that one may have been wrong in anlyzing the evidence. I believe there has to be stronger arguments than I 'think" they were all mistaken or I am sure witnesses could be found who saw the windshield and did not see a hole, when no such witness exists. In my honest opinion, such arguments are trying to defend the indefensible. I do appreciaate this exchange. It is intelligent and I do not believe you are alone in your beliefs. I would not have known about the Taylor info had you not postedit and I am always willing to reexamine the evidence. I look forward to responses from any of you in the near future to all of these points. Thank you.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
Thanks for being so patient. I was surfing the break point of rhetorical excess on another thread. Everything was balanced and A-ok until some real life events overtook my exciting cyber/life. Also, thanks for the restraint and tone of your reply. I think we're both capable of full court legalese nit-picking and I appreciate your heartfelt/non-lawyer approach. The truth is the truth, not my truth or your truth. I don't know how old you are but the President's assassination was a defining event for me and I'd really, really like some type of answer that quiets my mind before it's time for the final check out. I sense that you're on the same path whatever personal reasons are pushing you down the same road. So thanks for your attitude and thanks for your work.
I've tried to answer some of your concerns in highlight below. It's the first time I've tried it this way so we'll see how it goes. I have trouble following the flow of information because of the formatting here so I'm experimenting with different ways of structuring my replies. Let me know if it doesn't work for you since communication is a two way street.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation.
This is a good point and brings up a very foundational question for me. I've had a lot of experience with stressful events (accidents, structural failures) that involved lots of people and lots of witnesses to the events. In more than thirty years, I've never had everyone tell the same story about a complex event. Instead, there's usually a distribution of descriptions - lots of the differences clump around simple things like location, but even when you factor those clumps out there's still an unresolvable difference in descriptions of the very same event. There's lot of frustration in the research community because we've got four or five or whatever number of witnesses to something and the folks on one side or the other will say - good grief, that's what all the witnesses say, what's your problem? But the problem is that in a sufficiently complex event we can find five or six or whatever witnesses that will sincerely testify to anything. So one set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and another set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and where are we, really?
Concrete application - say 100-150 people saw the limousine close-up after the assassination. Everybody is upset, everybody is in the context of a shooting and there's blood and brain material on the windhield as well a damaged focal point. Honestly, I'd be shocked if I couldn't find ten or twenty people who saw a bullet hole, no matter what was actually on the windshield. And these people won't be lying. They are going to be very convincing because they're telling us what they sincerely believe they saw. If you gave them a polygraph they would not come close to failing. But no one has done the opposite study and it's probably too late now. Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield.
So I know it drives some people crazy and they want to know how I could be so blind to sincere and honest eyewitnesses, but my experience has been that in a complex event I can find sincere and convincing witnesses to almost any controversial issue. In my heart I fully recognize the honesty and conviction of the people you've had the honor to interview, but the cold lawyer in me whispers doubt in my ear. That's what I mean when I say I'm looking for something to quiet my mind and I still haven't located it.
In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable?
Yes, she does -but see above. Also, I found the whole TMWKK Glanges segment a little manipulative. Not her, but the context into which the producers placed her. The opening at the skeet range was a little over the top. Presumably it was meant to visually tell the story that this isn't some fru, fru - it's a serious woman who knows her weapons. But, I don't think firing a shotgun makes you an expert on on bullet holes and unless Dr. Glanges has a history I don't know about, knowing a lot about using even rifles wouldn't mean you knew what bullet holes in windshields looked like. I came from a hunting family and I'm no stranger to rifles and hand guns but I really didn't see a lot of windshield holes. So I found that visual segment sort of misleading but not Dr. Glanges herself, not at all.
You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real.
Right, unless we can talk to that person we'll never know why. I can speculate and you can too - we just don't know. But, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Glanges story was clearly told in a high profile book seven years before you interviewed her. She wasn't murdered or unemployed. So it seems like it was possible to tell your truth about what you saw and still do all right. I know that people were afraid to come forward, but were there concrete threats from actual people or just a sense that it was a dangerous topic because of its nature and because of the "mystery deaths"?
Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not.
Yes, I agree with you about people who are lying and know they're lying. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think she's lying and she certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who would lie. But she is human and our memories do change over time , usually in a way that enhances our dramatic role in the past. So our first recorded account of what she saw comes nineteen years after the event. And, in fact, the story does change over the seven subsequent years. In Crenshaw's book she's standing near the limousine with her friend. She spots the hole and comments on it and the Secret Service hops in the car and drives away. By the time you speak with her she's actually touching the automobile and her hand is almost injured by the violence of the event. Maybe she told Crenshaw the same thing and it just didn't make it into the book but that's the kind of detail Dr. Crenshaw seemed to thrive on. In any case, as I've said, I don't doubt the basics of her story. I believe she was there and I believe she saw what she believed to be a bullet hole. But there's a big difference in the reliability of her evaluation depending on where she's actually located when she sees these things. And, as I indicated in my last post, I just don't think the dramatic details that put her so close to the limousine are credible.
Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo
OK, I'm going to get a little lawyerish here but just for a moment. You've just given a a set of very good reasons why people might not all place a single defect in the same location on the windshield. But why don't those same reasons apply to the hole itself? If the angle of the windshield makes it difficult to accurately locate the defect, why doesn't that make it difficult to accurately assess if it's actually a hole? You mention Taylor and cite the reliability of his location observation. Yet, Taylor thought the "hole" was something through which a pin could pass, not a substantial hole. If the defect was so substantial, why did people want to pass an object through the hole to test their observations? What was it about the "hole" that made them think there might be some question about a pencil or pen making it through? If people can have trouble with their memories and the windshield shape and slant make it difficult why is it so hard to accept that there was a defect that looked a lot like some type of hole and they were simply mistaken, just like they were mistaken about its location?
As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
Certainly not. But the question here isn't was there a defect? (Was there a body?) The question is did the defect actually penetrate the windshield (north-south, red brown). It's the detail that's the issue. OK, lawyer -off.
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
It would have been great if you'd been able to do that. I've got quite a collection of Parkland photos and I've located an early photo of Dr. Glanges so I'd be happy to share those with you. I think I can see her but who knows. You've actually seen her so that might be a big help. Was the other student with her female? Because there are two white coated young women who are there for some time. The odd looking lady is there as the top is going up - she looks like she might be part of housekeeping but that's a guess. The odd lady is there before the cordon fully forms and before the limousine speeds away so it's earlier than when Glanges says she was at the front of the limousine. Karl is a very interesting guy but the limousine doesn't move unless they parked it on the curb a second time. Besides, Glanges is very clear that she's seeing the limousine while she's outside the emergency department and when the limousine left it drove out of sight. She would have still seen the limousine if it was just moved to the top/wash location.
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena?
No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.
Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
I should let Martin speak for himself if he cares to; I think he believes there was a conspiracy, but can find no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. At least for some of us, that places him in the conspiracy camp. My experience with Martin is that he regularly thumps me at every opportunity so I was sure he'd test the hypothesis! The photo analysts are litigation guys - they charge a $100 for their calls to tell you your materials aren't ready yet. It comes with the territory. For what it's worth, the charge would be for creating the proof, not for their opinion. They thought (if I had correctly sorted out the shadows and cracks), that it all fit together but that would be all you have- their statements. What cost money was creating the cad files and transformations that anyone could see and say-- that's a match. Otherwise it's just more of the same old, same old. "Yeah, that's how it looks to you, but not me." Bernice posted it here for sure. Bernice is amazing. I suspect she may actually have a copy of everything. On Lancer I'm not sure - I'll try to find that but their search function is a challenge for me. Your suggestion of making sure Martin's thread was posted with the study is a good one but I didn't think of it. Martin's work was mentioned only in the course of discussion, not as a specific addition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time following the various boards but there's a very large cross-over between Duncan's, Lancer and the Ed Forum. I assumed that anyone who cared would know about it. I don't think anyone would believe Duncan's forum is a good place to hide information from other researchers.
*Update - I finally cracked the Lancer search engine (yes, I know) and we didn't mention Martin's thread. There was a lot with Robin Unger's archive which is hosted on Duncan's site but no Martin.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
Barb knows more about that, so you'd get a better answer from her.
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction?
I think if you read what I wrote to Pamela more closely you'll see that I was attempting to represent what a dedicated alterationist like David Lifton would say to her, and that her her answers weren't satisfactory from that perspective. I don't have any reason to doubt Frazier's photograph and Taylor did subsequently view the photo and validate it. There's no doubt that Taylor said there was a hole. Before the opportunity for Treasury Department pressure, he said he thought it was a pin hole which is consistent with the appearance of Frazier's photo. Also, if you believe that the Secret Service was switching windows multiple times and the FBI examiner was fixed, I find it hard to see how Taylor escaped the the web of deception and that no one would check the after action reports from the uninvolved agents to make sure they didn't reveal something that shouldn't be known. Instead, an official report shoots up to the SS Chief and then to the WC that directly refers to the hole everyone has spent so much time and effort to hide.
You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
That would be great! I'll send that information to you. Also we can discuss the Parkland photos if you're interested.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Jerry:
I sincerely thank you for your reasonable replies. I want to clear up one misconception. I did not interview Glanges in person but did so over the phone. From what I have been able to determine the other witness with Glanges was a man and I believe I know who it was. Even though people may have told their story before it was clear to me that people like Ellis, Dudman, and Whitaker were genuinely worried about their welfare. I don't know what your experience is but I have been to many murder scenes and have prosecuted and defended a murder case.I don't accept all evidence and was very diligent in allowing the evidence to lead me. From my experience with Nigel Turner he probably filmed Glanges for many hours and then edited it to make his point. He filmed me for several days at a time I was quite ill. That is probably why the Glanges segment with her shooting skeet may appear contrived but whatever issues I have with Nigel do not include a dishonest presentation of the person. Crenshaw and Glanges were friends but I also found Crenshaw to be honest. A week after the assassination there was I believe a Life article (I have it) talking about Kennedy's T-shirt and Crenshaw verified that he had one. Where is it? Greer testified there was no T-shirt (It was interesting they were pursuing this) but one of his stories was there was NO damage to the windshied. As a lawyer I am sure you also know that the Kennedy assassination fell within the timeframe of Miranda v Arizona and we well today might have been reading people their "Oswald" rights.
I believe there is point after point I could impeach any credibility Frazier has and it is interesting that Taylor could verify Frazier's photograph when many said he was not there during the FBI examination. From Lifton and my own examination of the evidence I believe I can prove there were multiple windshields. You are correct that in a moment of crisis people will have different observations of the same event but to expect people to describe the same thing, a hole, I do not find that reasonable. Indeed, even if not under emotional distress, many will describe the event a little diffferently, but again, to see a hole I don't think so. Ellis told me he placed a pencil in it. Was Taylor hysterical as he sat in the passenger seat as the limo was driven from Andrews to the WH Garage . I would be incredulous it he was on things. I am obviously not nor would I pretend to be an expert on everything. I cannot analyze the Zapruder film, understand complicated medical evidence, ballistics, etc. but I do rely on impartial experts I trust. What about the police officers? I have interviewed a number of officers in the motorcade that day. What did shock me is that none of them said the assassination was the most significant event in their career. They believed they did their job well that day. I don't know how you can speculate that all of these people "thought" they saw a hole. It is certainly something I cannot do. Why did you leave out the Whitaker story? Don't you find it amazing that he described the exact same thing, a hole, ias the witnesses in Dallas and Taylor in Washington. He knew none of these people and never studied the assassination. He talked about this within his family since November 1963. Does it bother you that the plight of the limousine has been demonstrably proven false and that even HSCA found conflicts?
I thought Matrin did a good, honest analysis. Thank you Jerry. We both appear to seek truth, not as you and I perceive it, but truth as it is. I am not exaggerating when I state I have heard thousands of witnesses in criminal cases in my career and believe I have a good "feel" for weighing veracity. I believe these witnesses I have presented. Apparently, you choose not to do so. I am not talking what witnesses in general might do but I am talking about these specific witnesses. I believe an objective person would also believe them. Jerry, we can agree to disagree and there are no hard feelings. I welcome intelligent criticism as it makes me reexamine what I have done to ensure to myself that I have not been blinded by any personal bias. I would be a pleasure to send you something if you give me your address. I hope you might view my you-tube presentation. As I mentioned I have changed my thoughts on some small things but in the past ten years I have learned much more and it has only solidified my conclusions.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Jerry:
You noted: Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield
Can you name even one such person that was not FBI or Secret Service who has done so? Since I believe that the FBI and especially the Secret Service
were complicit in the assassination their observations are meaningless. I think the Taylor memo slid through by mistake in the vast amount of paperwork generated at that time. That is why I believe the WC ignored it rather than call attention to it. It is also why I believe the memo you posted in 1975 where Taylor confirmed he saw a "pin hole" (I believe he likely said "pen") was classified as "Top Secret." Otherwise why was it necessary to classify it as such?
Best,
Doug Weldon
No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.
Jerry:
You do know that Greer is on record as stating there was no damage to the windshield!
Doug Weldon
-
I was and am not a member of Duncan's forum and did not follow any of the forums for a long time but some information and your article was forwarded to me as was Martin's analysis. If you say you posted it here I will accept your word but I do think you should also post it on the lancer forum.
Best,
Doug Weldon
It was Bernice Moore who kindly posted the link over here, Doug.
At that time i wasn't a member of this forum here.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...14532&st=75
Posting#77
I will state something about my study soon but i wait for something which will have to be arrived here at my home the next days.
Meanwhile i thank you both Doug and Jerry for your very kind words.
Take care
Sincerely
Martin
Martin:
I know that Bernice posted your analysis here. I believe Jerry should have posted your analysis here and on Lancer. There is no question that a shell game was being played with the windshields and I do not believe the first windshield you compared was the windshield from the limo in Dallas. I have your e-mail address and I look forward to contacting you in the near future.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
Thanks for being so patient. I was surfing the break point of rhetorical excess on another thread. Everything was balanced and A-ok until some real life events overtook my exciting cyber/life. Also, thanks for the restraint and tone of your reply. I think we're both capable of full court legalese nit-picking and I appreciate your heartfelt/non-lawyer approach. The truth is the truth, not my truth or your truth. I don't know how old you are but the President's assassination was a defining event for me and I'd really, really like some type of answer that quiets my mind before it's time for the final check out. I sense that you're on the same path whatever personal reasons are pushing you down the same road. So thanks for your attitude and thanks for your work.
I've tried to answer some of your concerns in highlight below. It's the first time I've tried it this way so we'll see how it goes. I have trouble following the flow of information because of the formatting here so I'm experimenting with different ways of structuring my replies. Let me know if it doesn't work for you since communication is a two way street.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation.
This is a good point and brings up a very foundational question for me. I've had a lot of experience with stressful events (accidents, structural failures) that involved lots of people and lots of witnesses to the events. In more than thirty years, I've never had everyone tell the same story about a complex event. Instead, there's usually a distribution of descriptions - lots of the differences clump around simple things like location, but even when you factor those clumps out there's still an unresolvable difference in descriptions of the very same event. There's lot of frustration in the research community because we've got four or five or whatever number of witnesses to something and the folks on one side or the other will say - good grief, that's what all the witnesses say, what's your problem? But the problem is that in a sufficiently complex event we can find five or six or whatever witnesses that will sincerely testify to anything. So one set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and another set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and where are we, really?
Concrete application - say 100-150 people saw the limousine close-up after the assassination. Everybody is upset, everybody is in the context of a shooting and there's blood and brain material on the windhield as well a damaged focal point. Honestly, I'd be shocked if I couldn't find ten or twenty people who saw a bullet hole, no matter what was actually on the windshield. And these people won't be lying. They are going to be very convincing because they're telling us what they sincerely believe they saw. If you gave them a polygraph they would not come close to failing. But no one has done the opposite study and it's probably too late now. Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield.
So I know it drives some people crazy and they want to know how I could be so blind to sincere and honest eyewitnesses, but my experience has been that in a complex event I can find sincere and convincing witnesses to almost any controversial issue. In my heart I fully recognize the honesty and conviction of the people you've had the honor to interview, but the cold lawyer in me whispers doubt in my ear. That's what I mean when I say I'm looking for something to quiet my mind and I still haven't located it.
In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable?
Yes, she does -but see above. Also, I found the whole TMWKK Glanges segment a little manipulative. Not her, but the context into which the producers placed her. The opening at the skeet range was a little over the top. Presumably it was meant to visually tell the story that this isn't some fru, fru - it's a serious woman who knows her weapons. But, I don't think firing a shotgun makes you an expert on on bullet holes and unless Dr. Glanges has a history I don't know about, knowing a lot about using even rifles wouldn't mean you knew what bullet holes in windshields looked like. I came from a hunting family and I'm no stranger to rifles and hand guns but I really didn't see a lot of windshield holes. So I found that visual segment sort of misleading but not Dr. Glanges herself, not at all.
You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real.
Right, unless we can talk to that person we'll never know why. I can speculate and you can too - we just don't know. But, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Glanges story was clearly told in a high profile book seven years before you interviewed her. She wasn't murdered or unemployed. So it seems like it was possible to tell your truth about what you saw and still do all right. I know that people were afraid to come forward, but were there concrete threats from actual people or just a sense that it was a dangerous topic because of its nature and because of the "mystery deaths"?
Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not.
Yes, I agree with you about people who are lying and know they're lying. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think she's lying and she certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who would lie. But she is human and our memories do change over time , usually in a way that enhances our dramatic role in the past. So our first recorded account of what she saw comes nineteen years after the event. And, in fact, the story does change over the seven subsequent years. In Crenshaw's book she's standing near the limousine with her friend. She spots the hole and comments on it and the Secret Service hops in the car and drives away. By the time you speak with her she's actually touching the automobile and her hand is almost injured by the violence of the event. Maybe she told Crenshaw the same thing and it just didn't make it into the book but that's the kind of detail Dr. Crenshaw seemed to thrive on. In any case, as I've said, I don't doubt the basics of her story. I believe she was there and I believe she saw what she believed to be a bullet hole. But there's a big difference in the reliability of her evaluation depending on where she's actually located when she sees these things. And, as I indicated in my last post, I just don't think the dramatic details that put her so close to the limousine are credible.
Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo
OK, I'm going to get a little lawyerish here but just for a moment. You've just given a a set of very good reasons why people might not all place a single defect in the same location on the windshield. But why don't those same reasons apply to the hole itself? If the angle of the windshield makes it difficult to accurately locate the defect, why doesn't that make it difficult to accurately assess if it's actually a hole? You mention Taylor and cite the reliability of his location observation. Yet, Taylor thought the "hole" was something through which a pin could pass, not a substantial hole. If the defect was so substantial, why did people want to pass an object through the hole to test their observations? What was it about the "hole" that made them think there might be some question about a pencil or pen making it through? If people can have trouble with their memories and the windshield shape and slant make it difficult why is it so hard to accept that there was a defect that looked a lot like some type of hole and they were simply mistaken, just like they were mistaken about its location?
As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
Certainly not. But the question here isn't was there a defect? (Was there a body?) The question is did the defect actually penetrate the windshield (north-south, red brown). It's the detail that's the issue. OK, lawyer -off.
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
It would have been great if you'd been able to do that. I've got quite a collection of Parkland photos and I've located an early photo of Dr. Glanges so I'd be happy to share those with you. I think I can see her but who knows. You've actually seen her so that might be a big help. Was the other student with her female? Because there are two white coated young women who are there for some time. The odd looking lady is there as the top is going up - she looks like she might be part of housekeeping but that's a guess. The odd lady is there before the cordon fully forms and before the limousine speeds away so it's earlier than when Glanges says she was at the front of the limousine. Karl is a very interesting guy but the limousine doesn't move unless they parked it on the curb a second time. Besides, Glanges is very clear that she's seeing the limousine while she's outside the emergency department and when the limousine left it drove out of sight. She would have still seen the limousine if it was just moved to the top/wash location.
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena?
No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.
Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
I should let Martin speak for himself if he cares to; I think he believes there was a conspiracy, but can find no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. At least for some of us, that places him in the conspiracy camp. My experience with Martin is that he regularly thumps me at every opportunity so I was sure he'd test the hypothesis! The photo analysts are litigation guys - they charge a $100 for their calls to tell you your materials aren't ready yet. It comes with the territory. For what it's worth, the charge would be for creating the proof, not for their opinion. They thought (if I had correctly sorted out the shadows and cracks), that it all fit together but that would be all you have- their statements. What cost money was creating the cad files and transformations that anyone could see and say-- that's a match. Otherwise it's just more of the same old, same old. "Yeah, that's how it looks to you, but not me." Bernice posted it here for sure. Bernice is amazing. I suspect she may actually have a copy of everything. On Lancer I'm not sure - I'll try to find that but their search function is a challenge for me. Your suggestion of making sure Martin's thread was posted with the study is a good one but I didn't think of it. Martin's work was mentioned only in the course of discussion, not as a specific addition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time following the various boards but there's a very large cross-over between Duncan's, Lancer and the Ed Forum. I assumed that anyone who cared would know about it. I don't think anyone would believe Duncan's forum is a good place to hide information from other researchers.
*Update - I finally cracked the Lancer search engine (yes, I know) and we didn't mention Martin's thread. There was a lot with Robin Unger's archive which is hosted on Duncan's site but no Martin.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
Barb knows more about that, so you'd get a better answer from her.
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction?
I think if you read what I wrote to Pamela more closely you'll see that I was attempting to represent what a dedicated alterationist like David Lifton would say to her, and that her her answers weren't satisfactory from that perspective. I don't have any reason to doubt Frazier's photograph and Taylor did subsequently view the photo and validate it. There's no doubt that Taylor said there was a hole. Before the opportunity for Treasury Department pressure, he said he thought it was a pin hole which is consistent with the appearance of Frazier's photo. Also, if you believe that the Secret Service was switching windows multiple times and the FBI examiner was fixed, I find it hard to see how Taylor escaped the the web of deception and that no one would check the after action reports from the uninvolved agents to make sure they didn't reveal something that shouldn't be known. Instead, an official report shoots up to the SS Chief and then to the WC that directly refers to the hole everyone has spent so much time and effort to hide.
You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
That would be great! I'll send that information to you. Also we can discuss the Parkland photos if you're interested.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Jerry:
I sincerely thank you for your reasonable replies. I want to clear up one misconception. I did not interview Glanges in person but did so over the phone. From what I have been able to determine the other witness with Glanges was a man and I believe I know who it was. Even though people may have told their story before it was clear to me that people like Ellis, Dudman, and Whitaker were genuinely worried about their welfare. I don't know what your experience is but I have been to many murder scenes and have prosecuted and defended a murder case.I don't accept all evidence and was very diligent in allowing the evidence to lead me. From my experience with Nigel Turner he probably filmed Glanges for many hours and then edited it to make his point. He filmed me for several days at a time I was quite ill. That is probably why the Glanges segment with her shooting skeet may appear contrived but whatever issues I have with Nigel do not include a dishonest presentation of the person. Crenshaw and Glanges were friends but I also found Crenshaw to be honest. A week after the assassination there was I believe a Life article (I have it) talking about Kennedy's T-shirt and Crenshaw verified that he had one. Where is it? Greer testified there was no T-shirt (It was interesting they were pursuing this) but one of his stories was there was NO damage to the windshied. As a lawyer I am sure you also know that the Kennedy assassination fell within the timeframe of Miranda v Arizona and we well today might have been reading people their "Oswald" rights.
I believe there is point after point I could impeach any credibility Frazier has and it is interesting that Taylor could verify Frazier's photograph when many said he was not there during the FBI examination. From Lifton and my own examination of the evidence I believe I can prove there were multiple windshields. You are correct that in a moment of crisis people will have different observations of the same event but to expect people to describe the same thing, a hole, I do not find that reasonable. Indeed, even if not under emotional distress, many will describe the event a little diffferently, but again, to see a hole I don't think so. Ellis told me he placed a pencil in it. Was Taylor hysterical as he sat in the passenger seat as the limo was driven from Andrews to the WH Garage . I would be incredulous it he was on things. I am obviously not nor would I pretend to be an expert on everything. I cannot analyze the Zapruder film, understand complicated medical evidence, ballistics, etc. but I do rely on impartial experts I trust. What about the police officers? I have interviewed a number of officers in the motorcade that day. What did shock me is that none of them said the assassination was the most significant event in their career. They believed they did their job well that day. I don't know how you can speculate that all of these people "thought" they saw a hole. It is certainly something I cannot do. Why did you leave out the Whitaker story? Don't you find it amazing that he described the exact same thing, a hole, ias the witnesses in Dallas and Taylor in Washington. He knew none of these people and never studied the assassination. He talked about this within his family since November 1963. Does it bother you that the plight of the limousine has been demonstrably proven false and that even HSCA found conflicts?
I thought Matrin did a good, honest analysis. Thank you Jerry. We both appear to seek truth, not as you and I perceive it, but truth as it is. I am not exaggerating when I state I have heard thousands of witnesses in criminal cases in my career and believe I have a good "feel" for weighing veracity. I believe these witnesses I have presented. Apparently, you choose not to do so. I am not talking what witnesses in general might do but I am talking about these specific witnesses. I believe an objective person would also believe them. Jerry, we can agree to disagree and there are no hard feelings. I welcome intelligent criticism as it makes me reexamine what I have done to ensure to myself that I have not been blinded by any personal bias. I would be a pleasure to send you something if you give me your address. I hope you might view my you-tube presentation. As I mentioned I have changed my thoughts on some small things but in the past ten years I have learned much more and it has only solidified my conclusions.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Jerry:
You noted: Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield
Can you name even one such person that was not FBI or Secret Service who has done so? Since I believe that the FBI and especially the Secret Service
were complicit in the assassination their observations are meaningless. I think the Taylor memo slid through by mistake in the vast amount of paperwork generated at that time. That is why I believe the WC ignored it rather than call attention to it. It is also why I believe the memo you posted in 1975 where Taylor confirmed he saw a "pin hole" (I believe he likely said "pen") was classified as "Top Secret." Otherwise why was it necessary to classify it as such?
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
Thanks for being so patient. I was surfing the break point of rhetorical excess on another thread. Everything was balanced and A-ok until some real life events overtook my exciting cyber/life. Also, thanks for the restraint and tone of your reply. I think we're both capable of full court legalese nit-picking and I appreciate your heartfelt/non-lawyer approach. The truth is the truth, not my truth or your truth. I don't know how old you are but the President's assassination was a defining event for me and I'd really, really like some type of answer that quiets my mind before it's time for the final check out. I sense that you're on the same path whatever personal reasons are pushing you down the same road. So thanks for your attitude and thanks for your work.
I've tried to answer some of your concerns in highlight below. It's the first time I've tried it this way so we'll see how it goes. I have trouble following the flow of information because of the formatting here so I'm experimenting with different ways of structuring my replies. Let me know if it doesn't work for you since communication is a two way street.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation.
This is a good point and brings up a very foundational question for me. I've had a lot of experience with stressful events (accidents, structural failures) that involved lots of people and lots of witnesses to the events. In more than thirty years, I've never had everyone tell the same story about a complex event. Instead, there's usually a distribution of descriptions - lots of the differences clump around simple things like location, but even when you factor those clumps out there's still an unresolvable difference in descriptions of the very same event. There's lot of frustration in the research community because we've got four or five or whatever number of witnesses to something and the folks on one side or the other will say - good grief, that's what all the witnesses say, what's your problem? But the problem is that in a sufficiently complex event we can find five or six or whatever witnesses that will sincerely testify to anything. So one set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and another set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and where are we, really?
Concrete application - say 100-150 people saw the limousine close-up after the assassination. Everybody is upset, everybody is in the context of a shooting and there's blood and brain material on the windhield as well a damaged focal point. Honestly, I'd be shocked if I couldn't find ten or twenty people who saw a bullet hole, no matter what was actually on the windshield. And these people won't be lying. They are going to be very convincing because they're telling us what they sincerely believe they saw. If you gave them a polygraph they would not come close to failing. But no one has done the opposite study and it's probably too late now. Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield.
So I know it drives some people crazy and they want to know how I could be so blind to sincere and honest eyewitnesses, but my experience has been that in a complex event I can find sincere and convincing witnesses to almost any controversial issue. In my heart I fully recognize the honesty and conviction of the people you've had the honor to interview, but the cold lawyer in me whispers doubt in my ear. That's what I mean when I say I'm looking for something to quiet my mind and I still haven't located it.
In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable?
Yes, she does -but see above. Also, I found the whole TMWKK Glanges segment a little manipulative. Not her, but the context into which the producers placed her. The opening at the skeet range was a little over the top. Presumably it was meant to visually tell the story that this isn't some fru, fru - it's a serious woman who knows her weapons. But, I don't think firing a shotgun makes you an expert on on bullet holes and unless Dr. Glanges has a history I don't know about, knowing a lot about using even rifles wouldn't mean you knew what bullet holes in windshields looked like. I came from a hunting family and I'm no stranger to rifles and hand guns but I really didn't see a lot of windshield holes. So I found that visual segment sort of misleading but not Dr. Glanges herself, not at all.
You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real.
Right, unless we can talk to that person we'll never know why. I can speculate and you can too - we just don't know. But, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Glanges story was clearly told in a high profile book seven years before you interviewed her. She wasn't murdered or unemployed. So it seems like it was possible to tell your truth about what you saw and still do all right. I know that people were afraid to come forward, but were there concrete threats from actual people or just a sense that it was a dangerous topic because of its nature and because of the "mystery deaths"?
Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not.
Yes, I agree with you about people who are lying and know they're lying. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think she's lying and she certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who would lie. But she is human and our memories do change over time , usually in a way that enhances our dramatic role in the past. So our first recorded account of what she saw comes nineteen years after the event. And, in fact, the story does change over the seven subsequent years. In Crenshaw's book she's standing near the limousine with her friend. She spots the hole and comments on it and the Secret Service hops in the car and drives away. By the time you speak with her she's actually touching the automobile and her hand is almost injured by the violence of the event. Maybe she told Crenshaw the same thing and it just didn't make it into the book but that's the kind of detail Dr. Crenshaw seemed to thrive on. In any case, as I've said, I don't doubt the basics of her story. I believe she was there and I believe she saw what she believed to be a bullet hole. But there's a big difference in the reliability of her evaluation depending on where she's actually located when she sees these things. And, as I indicated in my last post, I just don't think the dramatic details that put her so close to the limousine are credible.
Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo
OK, I'm going to get a little lawyerish here but just for a moment. You've just given a a set of very good reasons why people might not all place a single defect in the same location on the windshield. But why don't those same reasons apply to the hole itself? If the angle of the windshield makes it difficult to accurately locate the defect, why doesn't that make it difficult to accurately assess if it's actually a hole? You mention Taylor and cite the reliability of his location observation. Yet, Taylor thought the "hole" was something through which a pin could pass, not a substantial hole. If the defect was so substantial, why did people want to pass an object through the hole to test their observations? What was it about the "hole" that made them think there might be some question about a pencil or pen making it through? If people can have trouble with their memories and the windshield shape and slant make it difficult why is it so hard to accept that there was a defect that looked a lot like some type of hole and they were simply mistaken, just like they were mistaken about its location?
As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
Certainly not. But the question here isn't was there a defect? (Was there a body?) The question is did the defect actually penetrate the windshield (north-south, red brown). It's the detail that's the issue. OK, lawyer -off.
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
It would have been great if you'd been able to do that. I've got quite a collection of Parkland photos and I've located an early photo of Dr. Glanges so I'd be happy to share those with you. I think I can see her but who knows. You've actually seen her so that might be a big help. Was the other student with her female? Because there are two white coated young women who are there for some time. The odd looking lady is there as the top is going up - she looks like she might be part of housekeeping but that's a guess. The odd lady is there before the cordon fully forms and before the limousine speeds away so it's earlier than when Glanges says she was at the front of the limousine. Karl is a very interesting guy but the limousine doesn't move unless they parked it on the curb a second time. Besides, Glanges is very clear that she's seeing the limousine while she's outside the emergency department and when the limousine left it drove out of sight. She would have still seen the limousine if it was just moved to the top/wash location.
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena?
No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.
Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
I should let Martin speak for himself if he cares to; I think he believes there was a conspiracy, but can find no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. At least for some of us, that places him in the conspiracy camp. My experience with Martin is that he regularly thumps me at every opportunity so I was sure he'd test the hypothesis! The photo analysts are litigation guys - they charge a $100 for their calls to tell you your materials aren't ready yet. It comes with the territory. For what it's worth, the charge would be for creating the proof, not for their opinion. They thought (if I had correctly sorted out the shadows and cracks), that it all fit together but that would be all you have- their statements. What cost money was creating the cad files and transformations that anyone could see and say-- that's a match. Otherwise it's just more of the same old, same old. "Yeah, that's how it looks to you, but not me." Bernice posted it here for sure. Bernice is amazing. I suspect she may actually have a copy of everything. On Lancer I'm not sure - I'll try to find that but their search function is a challenge for me. Your suggestion of making sure Martin's thread was posted with the study is a good one but I didn't think of it. Martin's work was mentioned only in the course of discussion, not as a specific addition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time following the various boards but there's a very large cross-over between Duncan's, Lancer and the Ed Forum. I assumed that anyone who cared would know about it. I don't think anyone would believe Duncan's forum is a good place to hide information from other researchers.
*Update - I finally cracked the Lancer search engine (yes, I know) and we didn't mention Martin's thread. There was a lot with Robin Unger's archive which is hosted on Duncan's site but no Martin.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
Barb knows more about that, so you'd get a better answer from her.
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction?
I think if you read what I wrote to Pamela more closely you'll see that I was attempting to represent what a dedicated alterationist like David Lifton would say to her, and that her her answers weren't satisfactory from that perspective. I don't have any reason to doubt Frazier's photograph and Taylor did subsequently view the photo and validate it. There's no doubt that Taylor said there was a hole. Before the opportunity for Treasury Department pressure, he said he thought it was a pin hole which is consistent with the appearance of Frazier's photo. Also, if you believe that the Secret Service was switching windows multiple times and the FBI examiner was fixed, I find it hard to see how Taylor escaped the the web of deception and that no one would check the after action reports from the uninvolved agents to make sure they didn't reveal something that shouldn't be known. Instead, an official report shoots up to the SS Chief and then to the WC that directly refers to the hole everyone has spent so much time and effort to hide.
You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
That would be great! I'll send that information to you. Also we can discuss the Parkland photos if you're interested.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Jerry:
I sincerely thank you for your reasonable replies. I want to clear up one misconception. I did not interview Glanges in person but did so over the phone. From what I have been able to determine the other witness with Glanges was a man and I believe I know who it was. Even though people may have told their story before it was clear to me that people like Ellis, Dudman, and Whitaker were genuinely worried about their welfare. I don't know what your experience is but I have been to many murder scenes and have prosecuted and defended a murder case.I don't accept all evidence and was very diligent in allowing the evidence to lead me. From my experience with Nigel Turner he probably filmed Glanges for many hours and then edited it to make his point. He filmed me for several days at a time I was quite ill. That is probably why the Glanges segment with her shooting skeet may appear contrived but whatever issues I have with Nigel do not include a dishonest presentation of the person. Crenshaw and Glanges were friends but I also found Crenshaw to be honest. A week after the assassination there was I believe a Life article (I have it) talking about Kennedy's T-shirt and Crenshaw verified that he had one. Where is it? Greer testified there was no T-shirt (It was interesting they were pursuing this) but one of his stories was there was NO damage to the windshied. As a lawyer I am sure you also know that the Kennedy assassination fell within the timeframe of Miranda v Arizona and we well today might have been reading people their "Oswald" rights.
I believe there is point after point I could impeach any credibility Frazier has and it is interesting that Taylor could verify Frazier's photograph when many said he was not there during the FBI examination. From Lifton and my own examination of the evidence I believe I can prove there were multiple windshields. You are correct that in a moment of crisis people will have different observations of the same event but to expect people to describe the same thing, a hole, I do not find that reasonable. Indeed, even if not under emotional distress, many will describe the event a little diffferently, but again, to see a hole I don't think so. Ellis told me he placed a pencil in it. Was Taylor hysterical as he sat in the passenger seat as the limo was driven from Andrews to the WH Garage . I would be incredulous it he was on things. I am obviously not nor would I pretend to be an expert on everything. I cannot analyze the Zapruder film, understand complicated medical evidence, ballistics, etc. but I do rely on impartial experts I trust. What about the police officers? I have interviewed a number of officers in the motorcade that day. What did shock me is that none of them said the assassination was the most significant event in their career. They believed they did their job well that day. I don't know how you can speculate that all of these people "thought" they saw a hole. It is certainly something I cannot do. Why did you leave out the Whitaker story? Don't you find it amazing that he described the exact same thing, a hole, ias the witnesses in Dallas and Taylor in Washington. He knew none of these people and never studied the assassination. He talked about this within his family since November 1963. Does it bother you that the plight of the limousine has been demonstrably proven false and that even HSCA found conflicts?
I thought Matrin did a good, honest analysis. Thank you Jerry. We both appear to seek truth, not as you and I perceive it, but truth as it is. I am not exaggerating when I state I have heard thousands of witnesses in criminal cases in my career and believe I have a good "feel" for weighing veracity. I believe these witnesses I have presented. Apparently, you choose not to do so. I am not talking what witnesses in general might do but I am talking about these specific witnesses. I believe an objective person would also believe them. Jerry, we can agree to disagree and there are no hard feelings. I welcome intelligent criticism as it makes me reexamine what I have done to ensure to myself that I have not been blinded by any personal bias. I would be a pleasure to send you something if you give me your address. I hope you might view my you-tube presentation. As I mentioned I have changed my thoughts on some small things but in the past ten years I have learned much more and it has only solidified my conclusions.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Again, please excuse my typing skills in my prior post. I wanted to mention that Glanges never saw any of the films taken of her by Nigel Turner. At the time Nigel filmed her he did not know what to think of it as he was unaware that anyone else had seen a hole. I am guessing he filmed her probably about 1993. I have no idea what was left out. I was very disturbed that it was suggested that there was something sinister about her and That Thompson was going to investigate her. That impression was never corrected. What did Thompson discover? She was a dedicated, no-nonsense person. She described for me that it was a time when women were not allowed to become surgeons. She was a groundbreaker. I spoke with her and taped the conversation for about an hour. I had hoped to meet her in person but then she unexpectedly died four weeks later. In retrospect, I am unable to explain how some of these things fell into my lap under such fluke circumstnces. I am sometimes given credit for things I had no control over. Had I waited to speak with Glanges a conversation would never have occurred. Had I not had Lifton's book at a time I went to the opthamologist I would never have known about Whitaker. Fate is strange sometimes. I was and am not a member of Duncan's forum and did not follow any of the forums for a long time but some information and your article was forwarded to me as was Martin's analysis. If you say you posted it here I will accept your word but I do think you should also post it on the lancer forum.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Yet another great addition from Rich to his Youtube page
I as well viewed all of Dougs presentation and was super impressed
Good job and great research Doug
If any member has not went to Richs Youtube page and viewed all of the videos he has posted you should do so right away
Dean
Dean...please make some comments about important things you learned
by watching Doug's presentation. I want to keep bumping it to page one
until I can get Bernice or someone to post some images for me. Others
should watch also, and comment...especially Pamela, who is very critical
of Doug.
Jack
No problem Jack
Most of Dougs presentation matched his chapter in MIDP, however I did gather more insight on Vaughn Ferguson and his strange actions, I consider ferguson to be a part of the conspiracy for sure
Dougs presentation nailed that home, the conflicting dates on the re-upolstry and cleaning, the in and out logs, and on and on
One thing that is very clear to me about the reason that Pamela is critical of Doug is that Doug is a threat to her self proclaimed title of "Limo Expert"
In my mind the "Limo Expert" is Doug Weldon, I think that Pamela much like Vince Palamaras self proclaimed title of "Sercret Service Expert" would be crushed if her title was ever taken from her by another researcher
Dean
Perhaps you missed my latest post on this subject. I consider Doug and me to be on the same team, moving in the same direction. At least both of us realize the significance of the PH and WHG witnesses who believed they saw a t&t hole in the windshield. I don't think we have all the answsers; Doug may think he does. That's ok with me. My issue is with those who are trying to shut down research on these witnesses and dismiss what they have to say.
Pamela:
I sincerely appreciate your posting. I don't have all the answers nor am I certain that all of them will ever be found. I simply hope, as I did with the vase example on this forum, to be able to put enough pieces together to get a picture of whatreally happened. These witnesses were good, decent people. Thank you.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
Thanks for being so patient. I was surfing the break point of rhetorical excess on another thread. Everything was balanced and A-ok until some real life events overtook my exciting cyber/life. Also, thanks for the restraint and tone of your reply. I think we're both capable of full court legalese nit-picking and I appreciate your heartfelt/non-lawyer approach. The truth is the truth, not my truth or your truth. I don't know how old you are but the President's assassination was a defining event for me and I'd really, really like some type of answer that quiets my mind before it's time for the final check out. I sense that you're on the same path whatever personal reasons are pushing you down the same road. So thanks for your attitude and thanks for your work.
I've tried to answer some of your concerns in highlight below. It's the first time I've tried it this way so we'll see how it goes. I have trouble following the flow of information because of the formatting here so I'm experimenting with different ways of structuring my replies. Let me know if it doesn't work for you since communication is a two way street.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation.
This is a good point and brings up a very foundational question for me. I've had a lot of experience with stressful events (accidents, structural failures) that involved lots of people and lots of witnesses to the events. In more than thirty years, I've never had everyone tell the same story about a complex event. Instead, there's usually a distribution of descriptions - lots of the differences clump around simple things like location, but even when you factor those clumps out there's still an unresolvable difference in descriptions of the very same event. There's lot of frustration in the research community because we've got four or five or whatever number of witnesses to something and the folks on one side or the other will say - good grief, that's what all the witnesses say, what's your problem? But the problem is that in a sufficiently complex event we can find five or six or whatever witnesses that will sincerely testify to anything. So one set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and another set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and where are we, really?
Concrete application - say 100-150 people saw the limousine close-up after the assassination. Everybody is upset, everybody is in the context of a shooting and there's blood and brain material on the windhield as well a damaged focal point. Honestly, I'd be shocked if I couldn't find ten or twenty people who saw a bullet hole, no matter what was actually on the windshield. And these people won't be lying. They are going to be very convincing because they're telling us what they sincerely believe they saw. If you gave them a polygraph they would not come close to failing. But no one has done the opposite study and it's probably too late now. Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield.
So I know it drives some people crazy and they want to know how I could be so blind to sincere and honest eyewitnesses, but my experience has been that in a complex event I can find sincere and convincing witnesses to almost any controversial issue. In my heart I fully recognize the honesty and conviction of the people you've had the honor to interview, but the cold lawyer in me whispers doubt in my ear. That's what I mean when I say I'm looking for something to quiet my mind and I still haven't located it.
In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable?
Yes, she does -but see above. Also, I found the whole TMWKK Glanges segment a little manipulative. Not her, but the context into which the producers placed her. The opening at the skeet range was a little over the top. Presumably it was meant to visually tell the story that this isn't some fru, fru - it's a serious woman who knows her weapons. But, I don't think firing a shotgun makes you an expert on on bullet holes and unless Dr. Glanges has a history I don't know about, knowing a lot about using even rifles wouldn't mean you knew what bullet holes in windshields looked like. I came from a hunting family and I'm no stranger to rifles and hand guns but I really didn't see a lot of windshield holes. So I found that visual segment sort of misleading but not Dr. Glanges herself, not at all.
You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real.
Right, unless we can talk to that person we'll never know why. I can speculate and you can too - we just don't know. But, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Glanges story was clearly told in a high profile book seven years before you interviewed her. She wasn't murdered or unemployed. So it seems like it was possible to tell your truth about what you saw and still do all right. I know that people were afraid to come forward, but were there concrete threats from actual people or just a sense that it was a dangerous topic because of its nature and because of the "mystery deaths"?
Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not.
Yes, I agree with you about people who are lying and know they're lying. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think she's lying and she certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who would lie. But she is human and our memories do change over time , usually in a way that enhances our dramatic role in the past. So our first recorded account of what she saw comes nineteen years after the event. And, in fact, the story does change over the seven subsequent years. In Crenshaw's book she's standing near the limousine with her friend. She spots the hole and comments on it and the Secret Service hops in the car and drives away. By the time you speak with her she's actually touching the automobile and her hand is almost injured by the violence of the event. Maybe she told Crenshaw the same thing and it just didn't make it into the book but that's the kind of detail Dr. Crenshaw seemed to thrive on. In any case, as I've said, I don't doubt the basics of her story. I believe she was there and I believe she saw what she believed to be a bullet hole. But there's a big difference in the reliability of her evaluation depending on where she's actually located when she sees these things. And, as I indicated in my last post, I just don't think the dramatic details that put her so close to the limousine are credible.
Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo
OK, I'm going to get a little lawyerish here but just for a moment. You've just given a a set of very good reasons why people might not all place a single defect in the same location on the windshield. But why don't those same reasons apply to the hole itself? If the angle of the windshield makes it difficult to accurately locate the defect, why doesn't that make it difficult to accurately assess if it's actually a hole? You mention Taylor and cite the reliability of his location observation. Yet, Taylor thought the "hole" was something through which a pin could pass, not a substantial hole. If the defect was so substantial, why did people want to pass an object through the hole to test their observations? What was it about the "hole" that made them think there might be some question about a pencil or pen making it through? If people can have trouble with their memories and the windshield shape and slant make it difficult why is it so hard to accept that there was a defect that looked a lot like some type of hole and they were simply mistaken, just like they were mistaken about its location?
As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
Certainly not. But the question here isn't was there a defect? (Was there a body?) The question is did the defect actually penetrate the windshield (north-south, red brown). It's the detail that's the issue. OK, lawyer -off.
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
It would have been great if you'd been able to do that. I've got quite a collection of Parkland photos and I've located an early photo of Dr. Glanges so I'd be happy to share those with you. I think I can see her but who knows. You've actually seen her so that might be a big help. Was the other student with her female? Because there are two white coated young women who are there for some time. The odd looking lady is there as the top is going up - she looks like she might be part of housekeeping but that's a guess. The odd lady is there before the cordon fully forms and before the limousine speeds away so it's earlier than when Glanges says she was at the front of the limousine. Karl is a very interesting guy but the limousine doesn't move unless they parked it on the curb a second time. Besides, Glanges is very clear that she's seeing the limousine while she's outside the emergency department and when the limousine left it drove out of sight. She would have still seen the limousine if it was just moved to the top/wash location.
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena?
No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.
Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
I should let Martin speak for himself if he cares to; I think he believes there was a conspiracy, but can find no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. At least for some of us, that places him in the conspiracy camp. My experience with Martin is that he regularly thumps me at every opportunity so I was sure he'd test the hypothesis! The photo analysts are litigation guys - they charge a $100 for their calls to tell you your materials aren't ready yet. It comes with the territory. For what it's worth, the charge would be for creating the proof, not for their opinion. They thought (if I had correctly sorted out the shadows and cracks), that it all fit together but that would be all you have- their statements. What cost money was creating the cad files and transformations that anyone could see and say-- that's a match. Otherwise it's just more of the same old, same old. "Yeah, that's how it looks to you, but not me." Bernice posted it here for sure. Bernice is amazing. I suspect she may actually have a copy of everything. On Lancer I'm not sure - I'll try to find that but their search function is a challenge for me. Your suggestion of making sure Martin's thread was posted with the study is a good one but I didn't think of it. Martin's work was mentioned only in the course of discussion, not as a specific addition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time following the various boards but there's a very large cross-over between Duncan's, Lancer and the Ed Forum. I assumed that anyone who cared would know about it. I don't think anyone would believe Duncan's forum is a good place to hide information from other researchers.
*Update - I finally cracked the Lancer search engine (yes, I know) and we didn't mention Martin's thread. There was a lot with Robin Unger's archive which is hosted on Duncan's site but no Martin.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
Barb knows more about that, so you'd get a better answer from her.
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction?
I think if you read what I wrote to Pamela more closely you'll see that I was attempting to represent what a dedicated alterationist like David Lifton would say to her, and that her her answers weren't satisfactory from that perspective. I don't have any reason to doubt Frazier's photograph and Taylor did subsequently view the photo and validate it. There's no doubt that Taylor said there was a hole. Before the opportunity for Treasury Department pressure, he said he thought it was a pin hole which is consistent with the appearance of Frazier's photo. Also, if you believe that the Secret Service was switching windows multiple times and the FBI examiner was fixed, I find it hard to see how Taylor escaped the the web of deception and that no one would check the after action reports from the uninvolved agents to make sure they didn't reveal something that shouldn't be known. Instead, an official report shoots up to the SS Chief and then to the WC that directly refers to the hole everyone has spent so much time and effort to hide.
You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
That would be great! I'll send that information to you. Also we can discuss the Parkland photos if you're interested.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Jerry:
I sincerely thank you for your reasonable replies. I want to clear up one misconception. I did not interview Glanges in person but did so over the phone. From what I have been able to determine the other witness with Glanges was a man and I believe I know who it was. Even though people may have told their story before it was clear to me that people like Ellis, Dudman, and Whitaker were genuinely worried about their welfare. I don't know what your experience is but I have been to many murder scenes and have prosecuted and defended a murder case.I don't accept all evidence and was very diligent in allowing the evidence to lead me. From my experience with Nigel Turner he probably filmed Glanges for many hours and then edited it to make his point. He filmed me for several days at a time I was quite ill. That is probably why the Glanges segment with her shooting skeet may appear contrived but whatever issues I have with Nigel do not include a dishonest presentation of the person. Crenshaw and Glanges were friends but I also found Crenshaw to be honest. A week after the assassination there was I believe a Life article (I have it) talking about Kennedy's T-shirt and Crenshaw verified that he had one. Where is it? Greer testified there was no T-shirt (It was interesting they were pursuing this) but one of his stories was there was NO damage to the windshied. As a lawyer I am sure you also know that the Kennedy assassination fell within the timeframe of Miranda v Arizona and we well today might have been reading people their "Oswald" rights.
I believe there is point after point I could impeach any credibility Frazier has and it is interesting that Taylor could verify Frazier's photograph when many said he was not there during the FBI examination. From Lifton and my own examination of the evidence I believe I can prove there were multiple windshields. You are correct that in a moment of crisis people will have different observations of the same event but to expect people to describe the same thing, a hole, I do not find that reasonable. Indeed, even if not under emotional distress, many will describe the event a little diffferently, but again, to see a hole I don't think so. Ellis told me he placed a pencil in it. Was Taylor hysterical as he sat in the passenger seat as the limo was driven from Andrews to the WH Garage . I would be incredulous it he was on things. I am obviously not nor would I pretend to be an expert on everything. I cannot analyze the Zapruder film, understand complicated medical evidence, ballistics, etc. but I do rely on impartial experts I trust. What about the police officers? I have interviewed a number of officers in the motorcade that day. What did shock me is that none of them said the assassination was the most significant event in their career. They believed they did their job well that day. I don't know how you can speculate that all of these people "thought" they saw a hole. It is certainly something I cannot do. Why did you leave out the Whitaker story? Don't you find it amazing that he described the exact same thing, a hole, ias the witnesses in Dallas and Taylor in Washington. He knew none of these people and never studied the assassination. He talked about this within his family since November 1963. Does it bother you that the plight of the limousine has been demonstrably proven false and that even HSCA found conflicts?
I thought Matrin did a good, honest analysis. Thank you Jerry. We both appear to seek truth, not as you and I perceive it, but truth as it is. I am not exaggerating when I state I have heard thousands of witnesses in criminal cases in my career and believe I have a good "feel" for weighing veracity. I believe these witnesses I have presented. Apparently, you choose not to do so. I am not talking what witnesses in general might do but I am talking about these specific witnesses. I believe an objective person would also believe them. Jerry, we can agree to disagree and there are no hard feelings. I welcome intelligent criticism as it makes me reexamine what I have done to ensure to myself that I have not been blinded by any personal bias. I would be a pleasure to send you something if you give me your address. I hope you might view my you-tube presentation. As I mentioned I have changed my thoughts on some small things but in the past ten years I have learned much more and it has only solidified my conclusions.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Rich has prepared and uploaded Doug Weldon's 1999 presentation
dealing with the windshield replacement of the limo, the through
and through bullet hole, etc.
Here are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czQKoxjcvgc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKR5dDPTcY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3c7PTrIdug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_ov0UiXTgY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3AnSvpCrg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyI8x1x6kvY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99lrRWwgj4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEsKavDElz0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUM6U1M1iNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LV25AE4qeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpwIxFJ7fsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2GVzzmntkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPtqKnya1cQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRafWa5w8c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm2mji6HO64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhTxz4G0lyk
ENJOY!
I just finished watching all of Doug's Minneapolis presentation, and I urge everyone to do so, especially Pamela.
It will answer many questions.
I shot a few screen shots of some of his presentation. I will try to post them, but have been told that
my available attachment space has been used up. I may get Bernice to post them for me.
Some of the things I shot....
...a large crowd at Parkland standing in front of the limo, about six feet from the windshield.
...several cars coming west on Elm showing the view from the south knoll location.
If you are interested in the windshield hole, please look at all segments. If you are mainly
interested in photos, the last five segments have most of them. If you want to hear the
man at Ford who saw the bullet hole in the windshield, it is in a middle segment.
Doug's work is extremely important.
Thanks, Doug!
Jack
Jack:
I did not know that each person was allocated attachment space. If it is possible you are welcome to take my allocated atttachment space and may forward this to anyone that can help you to do this.
Best,
Doug Weldon
Thanks, Doug...but I have no idea how to go about that. Simkin and others control the rules
and do not appear to be interested in "favoring" one member over another by awarding
extra attachment space. Apparently 87.89MB is the limit, and I have reached it.
Some here had said that "civilians" had no opportunity to view the windshield hole at
Parkland. You show several AP photos showing dozens of persons standing about 6 feet
from the windshield. I wanted to post these and other images.
Jack
Jim:
I did not know that the people around the limo at Parkland was an issue on this forum. Hopefully, someone like Berenice can post them for you. If I knew how to do it I would.
Doug Weldon
-
Rich has prepared and uploaded Doug Weldon's 1999 presentation
dealing with the windshield replacement of the limo, the through
and through bullet hole, etc.
Here are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czQKoxjcvgc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKR5dDPTcY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3c7PTrIdug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_ov0UiXTgY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3AnSvpCrg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyI8x1x6kvY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99lrRWwgj4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEsKavDElz0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUM6U1M1iNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LV25AE4qeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpwIxFJ7fsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2GVzzmntkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPtqKnya1cQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRafWa5w8c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm2mji6HO64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhTxz4G0lyk
ENJOY!
I just finished watching all of Doug's Minneapolis presentation, and I urge everyone to do so, especially Pamela.
It will answer many questions.
I shot a few screen shots of some of his presentation. I will try to post them, but have been told that
my available attachment space has been used up. I may get Bernice to post them for me.
Some of the things I shot....
...a large crowd at Parkland standing in front of the limo, about six feet from the windshield.
...several cars coming west on Elm showing the view from the south knoll location.
If you are interested in the windshield hole, please look at all segments. If you are mainly
interested in photos, the last five segments have most of them. If you want to hear the
man at Ford who saw the bullet hole in the windshield, it is in a middle segment.
Doug's work is extremely important.
Thanks, Doug!
Jack
Jack:
I did not know that each person was allocated attachment space. If it is possible you are welcome to take my allocated atttachment space and may forward this to anyone that can help you to do this.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?
Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.
Again, the best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.
My best,
Doug
Doug,
No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.
You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!
First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html
Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.
However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.
Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle..."
The short version is this:
1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did
2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it
3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away
4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them
5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand
Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.
Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.
There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.
Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!
(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
My best,
Doug Weldon
As everyone can see I am a terrible typist. Also, in the next to last paragraph Iwant to clarify that I meant can anyone account for every minute of Greer's time at Bethesda that evening.
Doug Weldon
Hi Doug,
Greer never left the autopsy room that night according to his WC testimony and mention by others as well. He is included as being present for the autopsy by Sibert & O'Neil. Kellerman too, who also testified to them both being present there all night and included that info in his original report as well. They were present when the morticians prepared the body, and then Greer drove JFK back to the White House for the last time in the wee hours of 11/23 ... leaving Bethesda just minutes before 4am and arriving at the White House at about 4:25am ... times are from memory. The driving distance from Bethesda to the White House and also to the White House Garage is just under 9 miles (a few tenths farther to the WH than to the WHG) ... don't have the numbers in front of me, I have driven the route and looked it up at the time our article was being written.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb:
Thank you for the reply. I have the distance from the WH to Bethesda as approximately eight miles but I will not quibble. Also please understand that Washington D.C. was a much different place in 1963 and it was much easier to navigate and then the routes were even more direct. I lived in Alexandria, VA in 1963. What time did the ambulance arrive at Bethesda and when did it leave? Are you suggesting Greer could not have gotten away and been gone for 30-60 minutes. Are you suggesting people were watching him the whole time? Did you know Nick and Greer were good friends? Did you know that Greer also testified that nobody was on the overpass on Elm Street? Did you know that Greer told many stories? Did you ever listen to the telephone interviews with Greer in 1970 and 1971? Did you know that Greer wrote a manuscript and that it is in the possession of a JFK researcher?
There is evidence that Greer also believed that John F. Kennedy had been a victim of a conspiracy. The daughter of Roy Kellerman, the Secret Agent in Kennedy's car, told Harold Weisberg in the 1970's that "I hope the day will come when these men (Kellerman and Greer) will be able to say what they've told their families".
William Greer died on 23rd February, 1985. His son, Richard Greer, was interviewed in 1991. When asked, "What did your father think of JFK," Richard did not respond the first time. When asked a second time, he responded: "Well, we're Methodists... and JFK was Catholic..."
Truly I thank you for your reply and I hope one of the authors of your artcile will reply to my other questions.
Best,
Doug Weldon
Hi Doug,
I have posted a reply to you on Principe. How interesting that you lived in Alexandria in '63 ... I don't know if you are old enough to have any memories of that weekend, or perhaps saw the funeral procession. Close to history, none the less.
I am aware that Greer made comments about conspiracy, and I am aware he wrote something that was left in the hands of someone he trusted when he passed. From what I have read, it is 14 pages and all the person has said is that there are no big revelations within it. The route to Bethesda then and now, I believe, remains up Wisconsin Ave. No, I never heard any of Greer's phone interviews from the 70s. If they are available somewhere online, I would like to hear them. Could Greer have sneaked away to meet with Principe between 6pm and 8 - 8:30pm? No, I don't think he could have. At 8pm he was helping unload the casket into the morgue, he was then noted by S&O as being present at the autopsy, and he was involved in the partial vs full autopsy discussion sometime after that. From 6 to 7 he was on national television as he drove the ambulance to Bethesda, then still driving the ambulance, letting Jackie out at the entrance to the hospital and a well known delay until driving the ambulance to the back loading dock at 8pm. Please see my response to you re Principe, the timing is in there.. I know Nick Principe's claim about being friends with Greer and his access around the WH and the WHG claims .... I have never seen any of it verified. Love the Methodists vs Catholics line .... those were the days!
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb:
It appears we are both posting at the same time. I have another long post. I was 10 years old and remember everything remarkably well and will be recalling some of my impressions from then in my book. I remember watching everything on television and my father had contacts and brought flowers home fron Kennedy's grave. My mother, like many did at that time, was making a scrapbook. I do not know whatever became of it. I am not pinning the Prencipe-Greer encouter to 8 - 8:30 and he addresses this in the e-mail I posted. Otherwise I would agree with you. I had many contacts with the person who has the Greer manuscript and I was never told it was 14 pages. If it was so innocuous why has he never posted it? I urged him to do so but he never would. I cannot get the picture out of my mind of Greer laughing as he came out from giving his testimony. Nick shared many things about Greer with me so I believe they were friends. I corroborated that Nick told his account about the hole in the windshield in the 1960's and also asked those people about Nick and whether they thought he was a truthful person, etc. I tried to do this with everyone I presented as a witness. That is why it bothered me when Josiah, in a later post, said he was going to investigate Glanges as if there were something sinister about her. Well, what was found out about her? I had several contacts with her sister after Glanges's death and her sister, who was in Germany at that time, also has a very unusual story.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.
Jim
An exchange here between Mr. Fetzer and myself, unrelated to the discussion with Doug Weldon below, deleted for the sake of length/space.-BJ
Jim:Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle.
If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front."
The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Welcome to the forum, Doug. As James Fetzer already noted to you, you do need to make whatever case you want here on the forum. Jerry, Josiah and I invited critique from all when we originally posted the article, and, of course, are certainly interested still in any errors or misrepresentations anyone thinks were made and any other comments one might have. Jim apparently invited you to the forum to do just that. I'm sure you understand that waxing accusatory generalities do not make a base for any discussion or response; nor does any overall audio interview on another site. I am sure that if you choose to present any problems, errors, misrepresentations, etc you say are in the article here with specificity and complete cites in context, of course, one or more of us will be happy to respond. And other members of the forum will probably join the discussion as well. That's one reason having everything spelled out on the forum table is important.Bests to you,
this woman named Barb ;-)
Barb:Thank you. I simply do not have the time to transcribe a two hour talk for the forum. I am not making a personal attack against you and the other authors of the article but only the content. I do not know you or Jerry and I have only met Josiah Thompson once. SSID is an important book and I am stating so in my book. I appreciated the new knowledge about Charles Taylor but in my analysis, it reinforced the position I present as Richard Dudman underwent a similar experience. Jim did not invite me to the forum as my first contact with him in a number of years was this past week. Jim and I don't agree on everything and I thought David Lifton's post about Josiah Thompson not being an "agent" was very appropriate. I hope you see specificity in my prior comments and concerns such as not posting here or on Lancer the careful analysis by Martin Heinrich concluding that the two windshields used in the article were not a match. I do not believe that the first picture shows the windshield that was in the limousine in Dallas. Critical witnesses such as George Whitaker were omitted. Names were misspelled. Information was utilized from a site that is filled with inaccuracies. I have sometimes noticed that people who have claimed expertise on certain facets of the assassination often know very little. Documents are conflicting and there has to be a reasonable analysis of those documents. As for an example of something I consider sloppy or even a fabrication in your article is the statement, "Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: " What is your source of information for this. This is entirely contrary to the photographic evidence at Parkland and the observation of witnesses. A cordon was eventualy established but the people who were inside that cordon, including officers, hospital personnel, and other civilians were not removed and placed outside of it. Were any witnesses interviewed. These were decent, ordinary citizens. People like Whitaker,Glanges, Ellis, and Prencipe were very principled people. They know what they saw. I understand eye-witness testimony and am well aware of observations made about it by the foremost expert in the world, Elizabeth Loftus of Harvard. I have heard thousands of witness testify in my career. When I wanted to find out more about the limousine after the assassination I went to the home of Willard Hess, whose company made the limousine for Kennedy and refurbished it for Johnson. I often spoke with him and exchanged correspondence. I talked with a number of his workers who were involved. i wanted to understand them. Every witness I talked with I would ask other witnesses about them,i.e., were they honest, did they have a tendency to exaggerate, etc. Certain witnesses I would not use. In my interview I indicateIi could not use Madeline Brown without further corroboration to state what I believe is true, that Lyndon Johnson was aware of what is going on. What is the explanation for characterizing two trained police officers (and Elis had a career in Military Intelligence) as "casual" observers. I let the evidence lead me, not vice versa.
My best,
Doig
My heavens, Doug, neither I nor anyone else ever expected you to transcribe and post your complete Black Op interview. Since you expressed taking issue with our article, we were just expecting some specific examples we could address rather than vague generalities about sloppy research, fabrication, use of unchecked information from other sites and principled witnesses. etc. Like Jerry, I am glad you meant no personal attack nor offense; also like Jerry, I do think your rhetoric was quite strong, given as you note, that you do not even know us. I don't know you either, so I would never presume to know the depth of your knowledge, any areas of expertise, your abilities with documents and witnesses, etc. I am happy to see that with the dust settled on all of that, you and Jerry have had some good exchanges, and I see he has addressed a few of the issues you had concerns about in our article.
I would like to address the issue of Nick Principe. You note above he was a person of principle, and in a post to Jerry yesterday, you questioned what sort of " "irational [sic] logic" went into our dismissing him as a witness. I am surprised, given your witness expertise and investigative skills, that you remained unaware of the problem with Principe's claim due to the whereabouts of Greer during the time period related by Principe. Either not knowing the evidence, or never fact checking Principe's account, or both.
I responded to that "irational [sic] logic" post with the information about Greer's whereabouts that night. Yes, his whereabouts and involvement that night are known, not just from Greer himself, but by mention of him in the accounts of others, including Sibert & O'Neil. I have spoken to both Sibert and O'Neil. O'Neil mentioned Greer in relation to discussions in the morgue about a full vs partial autopsy as well as Greer and Kellerman's presence throughout the autopsy. I was talking to O'Neil about something autopsy related and that was just part of the info he related to me.
By his own telling, Principe places a time constraint on his claimed meeting with Greer near the White House grounds. You are familiar with an email Principe sent to Pamela McElwain-Brown after she had interviewed him by phone some years ago, as you were bcc'd on that letter ... which you later forwarded to Bernice Moore who posted it here on the forum in July of '08. I reposted that letter on the moderated group last year and you and Bernice then verified it as being authentic. Here is that letter:
QUOTE
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
END QUOTE
There can be no quibble about exactly what Principe claimed happened ... or where ... or when. His
account puts his meeting with Greer sometime between 6pm (when the plane carrying the family, and Greer too) arrived back from Dallas, and 8pm when the plane carrying the limo arrived at Andrews and preparations ... and transmissions ... were underway for returning the limo to the WH garage.
We know from other documents that by 9pm, the limo was in the garage, parked in a bay, and covered up.
Even without accounting for Greer's whereabouts all night .... which has been done ... his whereabouts from the time the plane carrying JFK's body landed at Andrews, proceeded to Bethesda, the body was offloaded into the morgue and the autopsy was getting underway, are clearly known.
That is Principe's timeframe by his own telling. And during that time, Greer was on national television for much of the time, offloading the casket into the ambulance after arriving on the plane at 6pm, driving that ambulance to Bethesda, entering the grounds there at 7pm. Then, helping to offload the casket at the back dock and escorting it into the morgue at 8pm and being present and accounted for by Sibert & O'Neil as being present at the autopsy.
Did Nick Principe ever see the limo/windshield? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one can say for sure. But his own story, in his own words, is impossible to reconcile in any way with known facts and he therefore fails as a reliable witness.
The evidence led us to this inescapable conclusion. Nothing "vice versa."
By the way, Rich DellaRosa related a different telling of Principe's claim, one Principe told him directly ... in that version, Principe claimed that he saw the limo in the garage with both Greer and Kellerman and credits Kellerman with the comment about shots coming at them from all directions. That does nothing to bolster confidence in any witness, regardless of what a fine person they may be.
I didn't know Nick Principe, but I know many on the DellaRosa forum knew him, some had become close friends with him, and he was well thought of there. I felt badly about this because Rich DellaRosa, for one, was so close to Principe and was clearly upset by the news of Greer's whereabouts. But, like you, truth is my only quest, and following the evidence, as we all must, in this particular situation, led to the conclusion that Nick Principe cannot be used as a witness to a hole in the windshield ... not the way Mr. Principe himself framed it.
Encouraging to see good give and take exchanges on issues. Thanks for the oppurtunity to explain our information and conclusion re Mr. Principe's claim.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb:
Thank you. It is spelled Prencipe. I, in all my many contacts with Nick, never heard that "
By the way, Rich DellaRosa related a different telling of Principe's claim, one Principe told him directly ... in that version, Principe claimed that he saw the limo in the garage with both Greer and Kellerman and credits Kellerman with the comment about shots coming at them from all directions."
Do you have any e-mails or anything from Nick saying Greer or Kellerman were with him in the garage. I have a tremendous amount of material from Nick and I promise you that I never heard such claims. I did not know that Nick and Rich had ever met each other. I am attaching two e-mails from Nick. In the second e-mail I am eliminating the first sentence only because it is critical of another researcher and I don't think it's constructive in this discussion. You are correct that I know very little about you and Jerry and my rhetoric was very strong but the article upset me as I knew these people and I evaluate evidence very carefully and there is much I do not use even though it would be supportive of some of my conclusions. I do not have problems with the responses from you and Jerry. I thought my questions and observations have been cleare. Why were trained police officers considered "casual observers?" Were you aware that Dudman was subjected to similar treatment as Taylor and would never speak about the assassination again and ended his close friendship with Livingstone? Did you know that it took more than "moments" to cordon off the limousine and that the people who were already inside the cordon were not removed? I have not heard from Jerry yet about if the limo was so tightly cordoned then who is that odd lady standing directly in front of the limo? Did any of you ever speak with any of these witnesses? Why did you leave George Whitaker out as one of the witnesses? Did Glanges sound credible on TMWKK? Did you know that Nigel Turner filmed that interview with her years before? What do you think the motivation for these people to lie was? How did all these people who did not know each other come up with the same lie? Why were these people afraid and people like Whitaker never mention such outside his own family since November 25,1963? Your speculation on the latter questions are fine. Have I misrepresented anything in MIDP or TMWKK? Do you acknowledge that Greer changed his story many times and obviously lied to the WC about there being no people on the overpass? Does thataffect his credibility in your mind? My 1999 presentation will soon be posted on you-tube. I have changed my thoughts on some minor items and of course have learned a great deal more in the past ten years but it only adds and does not detract from the evidence and my conclusions. I will be glad to mail you a cd of my first interview with Nick so you can evaluate him for yourself. I would hope Jerry would let me know where he posted the study by Martin Hinrich on this forum and Lancer. I do want to find truth and I have no problem with people who seek the same andare willing to address the evidence objectively. If I believe I am ever wrong on something I will be the first to admit it. I judge people by how I perceive them. You and Jerry have been very decent in your responses to me. I believe this exchange can be constructive for all of us.
(BTW "Monk" is not "Rich")
My best,
Doug
nprince9@juno.com wrote:
> 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
nprince9@juno.com wrote:
> Doug
> .... 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
-
Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?
Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.
Again, the best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.
My best,
Doug
Doug,
No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.
You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!
First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html
Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.
However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.
Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle..."
The short version is this:
1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did
2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it
3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away
4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them
5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand
Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.
Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.
There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.
Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!
(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
My best,
Doug Weldon
As everyone can see I am a terrible typist. Also, in the next to last paragraph Iwant to clarify that I meant can anyone account for every minute of Greer's time at Bethesda that evening.
Doug Weldon
Hi Doug,
Greer never left the autopsy room that night according to his WC testimony and mention by others as well. He is included as being present for the autopsy by Sibert & O'Neil. Kellerman too, who also testified to them both being present there all night and included that info in his original report as well. They were present when the morticians prepared the body, and then Greer drove JFK back to the White House for the last time in the wee hours of 11/23 ... leaving Bethesda just minutes before 4am and arriving at the White House at about 4:25am ... times are from memory. The driving distance from Bethesda to the White House and also to the White House Garage is just under 9 miles (a few tenths farther to the WH than to the WHG) ... don't have the numbers in front of me, I have driven the route and looked it up at the time our article was being written.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb:
Thank you for the reply. I have the distance from the WH to Bethesda as approximately eight miles but I will not quibble. Also please understand that Washington D.C. was a much different place in 1963 and it was much easier to navigate and then the routes were even more direct. I lived in Alexandria, VA in 1963. What time did the ambulance arrive at Bethesda and when did it leave? Are you suggesting Greer could not have gotten away and been gone for 30-60 minutes. Are you suggesting people were watching him the whole time? Did you know Nick and Greer were good friends? Did you know that Greer also testified that nobody was on the overpass on Elm Street? Did you know that Greer told many stories? Did you ever listen to the telephone interviews with Greer in 1970 and 1971? Did you know that Greer wrote a manuscript and that it is in the possession of a JFK researcher?
There is evidence that Greer also believed that John F. Kennedy had been a victim of a conspiracy. The daughter of Roy Kellerman, the Secret Agent in Kennedy's car, told Harold Weisberg in the 1970's that "I hope the day will come when these men (Kellerman and Greer) will be able to say what they've told their families".
William Greer died on 23rd February, 1985. His son, Richard Greer, was interviewed in 1991. When asked, "What did your father think of JFK," Richard did not respond the first time. When asked a second time, he responded: "Well, we're Methodists... and JFK was Catholic..."
Truly I thank you for your reply and I hope one of the authors of your artcile will reply to my other questions.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?
Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.
Again, the best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.
My best,
Doug
Doug,
No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.
You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!
First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html
Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.
However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.
Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle..."
The short version is this:
1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did
2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it
3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away
4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them
5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand
Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.
Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.
There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.
Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!
(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
My best,
Doug Weldon
As everyone can see I am a terrible typist. Also, in the next to last paragraph Iwant to clarify that I meant can anyone account for every minute of Greer's time at Bethesda that evening.
Doug Weldon
-
Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?
Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.
Again, the best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.
My best,
Doug
Doug,
No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.
You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!
First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html
Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.
However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.
Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle..."
The short version is this:
1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did
2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it
3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away
4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them
5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand
Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.
Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.
There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.
Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!
(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.
Best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?
I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "
I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?
I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.
Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?
I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?
Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.
Again, the best to you,
Jerry
Jerry:
Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.
My best,
Doug
-
Doug,
You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.
Jim
I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.Hi Jim,
I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.
Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.
“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."
This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.
You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!
You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.
You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.
This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.
And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?
It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.
Barb :-)
Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to
Jim:
Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle.
If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front."
The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum.
My best,
Doug Weldon
Welcome to the forum, Doug. As James Fetzer already noted to you, you do need to make whatever case you want here on the forum. Jerry, Josiah and I invited critique from all when we originally posted the article, and, of course, are certainly interested still in any errors or misrepresentations anyone thinks were made and any other comments one might have. Jim apparently invited you to the forum to do just that. I'm sure you understand that waxing accusatory generalities do not make a base for any discussion or response; nor does any overall audio interview on another site. I am sure that if you choose to present any problems, errors, misrepresentations, etc you say are in the article here with specificity and complete cites in context, of course, one or more of us will be happy to respond. And other members of the forum will probably join the discussion as well. That's one reason having everything spelled out on the forum table is important.
Bests to you,
this woman named Barb ;-)
Barb:
Thank you. I simply do not have the time to transcribe a two hour talk for the forum. I am not making a personal attack against you and the other authors of the article but only the content. I do not know you or Jerry and I have only met Josiah Thompson once. SSID is an important book and I am stating so in my book. I appreciated the new knowledge about Charles Taylor but in my analysis, it reinforced the position I present as Richard Dudman underwent a similar experience. Jim did not invite me to the forum as my first contact with him in a number of years was this past week. Jim and I don't agree on everything and I thought David Lifton's post about Josiah Thompson not being an "agent" was very appropriate. I hope you see specificity in my prior comments and concerns such as not posting here or on Lancer the careful analysis by Martin Heinrich concluding that the two windshields used in the article were not a match. I do not believe that the first picture shows the windshield that was in the limousine in Dallas. Critical witnesses such as George Whitaker were omitted. Names were misspelled. Information was utilized from a site that is filled with inaccuracies. I have sometimes noticed that people who have claimed expertise on certain facets of the assassination often know very little. Documents are conflicting and there has to be a reasonable analysis of those documents. As for an example of something I consider sloppy or even a fabrication in your article is the statement, "Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: " What is your source of information for this. This is entirely contrary to the photographic evidence at Parkland and the observation of witnesses. A cordon was eventualy established but the people who were inside that cordon, including officers, hospital personnel, and other civilians were not removed and placed outside of it. Were any witnesses interviewed. These were decent, ordinary citizens. People like Whitaker,Glanges, Ellis, and Prencipe were very principled people. They know what they saw. I understand eye-witness testimony and am well aware of observations made about it by the foremost expert in the world, Elizabeth Loftus of Harvard. I have heard thousands of witness testify in my career. When I wanted to find out more about the limousine after the assassination I went to the home of Willard Hess, whose company made the limousine for Kennedy and refurbished it for Johnson. I often spoke with him and exchanged correspondence. I talked with a number of his workers who were involved. i wanted to understand them. Every witness I talked with I would ask other witnesses about them,i.e., were they honest, did they have a tendency to exaggerate, etc. Certain witnesses I would not use. In my interview I indicateIi could not use Madeline Brown without further corroboration to state what I believe is true, that Lyndon Johnson was aware of what is going on. What is the explanation for characterizing two trained police officers (and Elis had a career in Military Intelligence) as "casual" observers. I let the evidence lead me, not vice versa.
My best,
Doig
-
Doug,
You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.
Jim
I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.Hi Jim,
I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.
Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.
“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."
This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.
You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!
You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.
You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.
This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.
And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?
It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.
Barb :-)
Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to
Jim:
Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle.
If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front."
The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum.
My best,
Doug Weldon
My apologies. I wished to add another example. They note two Dallas police officers whose livelihood and even their lives depended on their observation skills. Both saw a distinct hole in the windshield and one noted that he placed a pencil in the hole. These police officers are characterized by the authors as "casual observers." If they were not serious it would appear as if they were writng an article for "National Lampoon."
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.
Jim
I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.Hi Jim,
I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.
Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.
“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."
This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.
You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!
You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.
You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.
This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.
And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?
It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.
Barb :-)
Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to
Jim:
Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle.
If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front."
The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.
Jim
I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.Hi Jim,
I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.
Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.
“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."
This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.
You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!
You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.
You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.
This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.
And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?
It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.
Barb :-)
Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to
Jim:
Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information fro
-
I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.
Hi Jim,
I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.
Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.
“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."
This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.
You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!
You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.
You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.
This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.
And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?
It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.
Barb :-)
Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to
-
I have studied the assassination since 1978. Education: B.A. Political Science, Sociology, Education Olivet College 1975. J.D. Thomas M. Cooley Law School 1978, M.A. Educational Leadership Western Michigan University 1984. I have practiced law for 31 years including serving as an assistant prosecuting attorney. I was a high school teacher and coach. For twelve years I was an adjunct professor at Western Michigan University in the undergraduate department of criminal justice and the graduate department of educational leadership teaching school law. I presented at the Lancer Conference in 1998 and at the University of Minnesota Duluth in 1999. I have a chapter in "Murder In Dealey Plaza" and appeared in "The Smoking Guns Segment" of The Men Who Killed Kennedy airing in 2003. I am currently wring a book on the Kennedy Assassination.
SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Josiah:
Thank you for your response. I thank you for clarifying the Glanges situation. I do believe it left a bad impression. I believe it would be constructive to indicate what you discovered about her. I give more credibility to Ellis, Glanges, and Whitaker than Dudman and Taylor because they were available to be questioned and their accounts tested. Ellis had a very distinquished career, including military intelligence. I do believe police officers are better trained observers than a newspaper reporter and I know nothing about Taylor's career beyond his documents. I know what was done to Dudman and how it affected him as I have noted. Also I believe Dudman's only question was the direction of the hole, not its existence. However, they all corroborated each other. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time, Taylor and Whitaker, both unequivocally described the hole in the exact same location. Yes, there were some differences among some of the witnesses but as you know in your career as a private investigator, that is always expected. You also are aware of how recanted accounts are treated in the legal system. Again, I don't want to be repetive but how does Taylor state with certainty in 1975 that there was a hole and this is labeled "Top Secret" and then his name soon after appears on an affidavit that is not classified as such. I don't want to repeat everything as I have made my points. I want people to understand that I approached this issue with some skepticism as my career has mainly consisted of a prosecution perspective and being on the "good" side of the criminal justice system.
I am one, whether I agree or disagree, who has highly respected your work and the contributions you have made to the understanding of what transpired in Dallas. I am not saying this in a patronizing way, but I am sincere. i even mailed your book to you years ago and you were kind enough to sign it for me. However, that appreciation would not prevent me from arguing points vigorously with you. I have found in my thirty one years of study and investigation that the only person who is going to agree with every position one has is oneself. It is a very lonely venture. I absolutely believe that I could have taken the witnesses and evidence and convinced any impartial jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield. These people who shared their accounts with me, at times under the stress of great fear, wanted me to find answers for them. I could not keep a promise to many of them to do so within their lifetimes, but it is my major motivation to complete this. I appreciate your reply.
My best,
Doug Weldon