Doug Weldon

Unfortunately, John printed only 2000 copies of his book. If it can be found, it is now VERY costly. One cannot understand the assassination without knowing that there WERE TWO LEE HARVEY OSWALDS...both operating under secret cover of an intelligence agency. Through massive and meticulous documentation of the parallel lives of these two men, John provides the key to knowing how and why the assassination occurred. Jack Jack: Harvey and Lee is obtainable through Andy at the Last Hurrah Book 570-321-1150 at what I think is a very reasonable price. Best, Doug Weldon

Unfortunately, John printed only 2000 copies of his book. If it can be found, it is now VERY costly. One cannot understand the assassination without knowing that there WERE TWO LEE HARVEY OSWALDS...both operating under secret cover of an intelligence agency. Through massive and meticulous documentation of the parallel lives of these two men, John provides the key to knowing how and why the assassination occurred. Jack

I am now revising my thinking about the issue with Weldon's process based on your input; thanks. As I have been trained as an historian, studying history in both the US and the UK, with a father who immersed himself in history and took us to visit battefields instead of amusement parks, I do feel that I have some needed credentials for dealing with the complexities of the JFK assassination. However, I did interview Prencipe (even prior to Weldon) and I did not ask most of the questions you have brought up. I wish I had asked him more detailed questions about the windshield, in particular. I was concerned about coaching him and did not want to taint his testimony by bringing up things I knew were red flags, such as the fact that the location of the 'hole' he thought he saw did not jibe with the reports of any of the other witnesses, he claimed he walked right into the WHG without talking to anyone when the limo and QMII were supposed to be under tight surveillance (not to mention the SS started scouring the car the minute it was brought in), his timeline for viewing the car tended more toward early evening, when the limo did not actually return to the WHG until 9 p.m., not to mention the issues of talking with Greer. I have also since realized that I gave Prencipe too much credit -- whereas he did have credentials to place him on duty with the USPP that day (I verified that with the head of USPP), he had no credentials connecting him to the WHG, much less the limo. However, as you will see from the emails posted on this forum (without my permission) I did ask him questions about seeing Greer as my chapter "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave, 2002) was going to print. I explained to him that I could not justify what he had said based on the information we have available, and that I would have to say so. That resulted in a negative reaction from him, and at that point we stopped communicating. Some time ago I took offense when it seemed that Doug Weldon was getting witnesses to change their testimony about what they believed they saw at PH and in the WHG. I had no idea how much worse it would be to realize that there were people trying to shut down research on these witnesses and dismiss or discredit them. Yet that has happened. So I find myself much more appreciative of Doug's efforts in this regard, even though we do not see things the same way -- for at least we both realize the importance of these witness statements and will refuse to allow them to go into a black hole. Pamela McElwain-Brown (january this forum) Doug > I am sure that Pam will convince those who are of the same theory, > to begin with. > I note that she takes things out of contex in that she keeps saying that > I talked to Greer early in the evening. > I never said that and incidentally, the evening runs to midnight. I dont > really know exactly what time it was. If I looked at my watch that > night, I knew the time, but that was a long time ago. > I will also say, I have been in theW.H. many times and in the SS and WH > garages many times and NEVER was I EVER asked to log in. She just cant > believe that I guess. > She seems to get more and more frustrated with time. > Bill Greer, as I remember reading, did change his story, and eventually > came up with all the shots coming from the rear--probably to keek in line > with the Warren commission procedure. Who knows what went thru his head > then--and later. I wont change my story, some of the facts are dimmed a > bit, but basic facts are still the same. I will keep you advised of > anything new I turn up. > Have a great holiday. > > Regards Nick Good Luck. May we come to know the truth. Doug Weldon

****************************************************************************** Let's just pull out this one thread about Dudman and see where it goes. You say that "Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole." With respect to Dudman, you say "his account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account any more than they did Taylor's." When I challenge your claim that Dudman was scared by the government into changing his story, you reply: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence." Now let's look at the critical passage from Robert Livingston: "In the supporting documents, there is a single page from the 21 December 1963 issue of The New Republic. It is entitled "Commentary of an Eyewitness." It was written by Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Dick Dudman is a classmate of mine from Stanford. He telephoned me about this from Dallas shortly after the assassination; and our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination. Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole's presumed patency by probing it with a pen or pencil." The whole point of this revelation coming from Livingston is that Dudman never knew whether he was looking at damage to the windshield or a hole through it. Dudman never changed his mind. He was looking at a limousine with damage to the windshield. He called his friend Livingston from Dallas and the two families met and discussed the windshield within a week of the assassination. Dudman just couldn't tell what it was he saw. No government leaning on him to change his story. No heavy conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just the actuality of what Dudman saw or didn't see... a hole or no hole, he couldn't tell. Yet you characterized Dudman as having seen a hole and then changing "his account.. only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account." Finally, there is your lame excuse for writing what you did: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence." This is a simple unambiguous example of you massaging the facts to build your case. Josiah Thompson Josiah: Why don't you quote the article from Dudman " 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 enoughto see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Is this ambiguous? Did Dudman, who wrote for a living, not understand what the word "hole" meant?. Was the word "damage" not in his vocabulary? It appears to me the only question he had was whether the hole pierced the windshield from the outside or inside or maybe that's just lawyer talk. Jerry raised the issue and asked me how I would address the statement of Officer Martin stating there was no damage to the windshield. I have not yet seen the statement but I am curious as to how you would respond to that st atement. I also quoted Livingston as saying "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative ia a further sense: The 'hole' was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." How does the historian reconcile that? Wait, how blinded am I by "lawyer think." Your friend for today, the same one who has accused you of being a government agent, is now recognized by you as being a true historian and we are fortunate that she interviewed Nick first. We can ignore my interview as she already obtained all of those answers. Let's just use that interview as Nick must have obviously said he could have been mistaken. I suppose the government just flew Dudman to Washington D.C. from St. Louis so that he could enjoy a plane ride and they could wine and dine him and oh, by the way, show him the windshield. Everyone who saw the hole and/or damge to the windshield was affected by hysteria and by the greatest coincidence ever known to mankind mistook what they saw for a hole. That hysteria spreak from Dallas to Washington to Dearborn. They all decsribed it as a hole for what better observation could there be than a hole to win the respect of their families, their friends, and the country as they loudly proclaimed their observation to others, not knowing that others were doing the same, thus stealing their thunder. We are back to the vase logic where a vase is dropped and broken and you pick up one piece after another and proclaim look, this is not a vase. Josiah, we are just going in a circle. Let's not waste each other's time. I am not going to be persuaded by your "vase" logic nor does it appear that anything will convince you. Let's allow others to decide. This has been a long thread.Anyone can review this entire thread. Anyone can view me on you-tube, MIDP, "The Smoking Guns' and hopefully will read my book. Good luck. Best, Doug

Doug, First, I want to acknowledge your willingness to share the entire interview with us. I take that as a sign of your basic candor and honesty. I think, however, that the totality of the interview does grave, grave damage to your theory of the crime. On the one hand, Nick has a less than convincing view of the "hole". By his account it's a brief peek, under pressure in poor lighting and he's predisposed to see a hole because Greer! has told him there's a hole and that's what he's looking for when he takes his peek. So the "hole in the windshield" gets a minor boost from yes, "a casual observer." On the other hand, Nick torpedo's your theory of the crime at the waterline if his story is accurate. On your theory, Greer is an integral part of a Secret Service plan to participate in the assassination of the President. Greer slows the limousine so the job can be finished. Greer is part of the Secret Service team that realizes there's a problem with a hole in the windshield at Parkland hospital. On Nick's clear account, Bill Greer is supposed to have returned to Washington DC where he promptly reports to a uniformed police officer charged with protecting the President that bullets were flying from all directions and that one of them came through the windshield and almost hit Greer. So a key participant in your theory promptly reports all the incriminating details to his friend the police officer and even tells the officer where to find the bullet hole. That's a real conspiracy of silence. Moreover, Nick has known Greer for many years. Nick reports that Greer was very, very upset the night of the assassination and when you hint that Greer might have been involved in some way Nick responds with No, he was a good guy. It seems to me that if you're going to accept Nick's account of the "hole" then you're also committed to accepting his account of the rest of the evening where a genuinely upset Bill Greer reports everything he's supposed to be hiding if your theory were true. On balance, I'd say the interview does you more harm than good. Jerry Jerry, Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely Best, Doug Doug and all, Regarding the "photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony", have you considered the possibility that Greer is not laughing but is perhaps doing something else, like squinting his eyes and face in reaction to coming out into the sunlight? That's what it has ALAWAY looked like to me. Todd Todd: I can see that possibility now that you have brought it up. I can also understand that there may have been some "gallows humor." Sometimes that would be the only way to cope with things. Greer remains an enigma to me. i do look at him differently now because of Nick and Milner. I don't know if you have received my e-mails. I would like to get that Martin report. Doug

Nope. You got it just reversed. I criticize Doug Weldon because he questions Principe as if he were an assistant district attorney harvesting a story from a witness and not a historian trying to find out what Principe observed. Josiah Thompson Josiah: Actually, as I have reflected on it you are probably correct about this point. I was not simply trying to collect historical accounts. I was trying to resolve the issue of the hole in the windshield and trying to find answers to the convoluted evidence that surrounded what happened to the windshield, the limo,the records and make some sense out of the different accounts. I tried to be careful not to lead, suggest answers to anyone, or misrepresent their responses. It was more investigative then collecting a bunch of accounts. I tried to corroborate what was said and I really tried to know who the witnesses were and what others thought of them, whether they conveyed their accounts before, were consistent, were clear on the substance of their accounts, and possessed the uncertainty of what would be expected. If there were earlier accounts recorded I would give more weight to that. If that is repugnant to you, so be it. I do not apologize for trying to find answers or the manner in which I examined the evidence. I found my legal background to be advantageous. Doug Weldon

Doug, First, I want to acknowledge your willingness to share the entire interview with us. I take that as a sign of your basic candor and honesty. I think, however, that the totality of the interview does grave, grave damage to your theory of the crime. On the one hand, Nick has a less than convincing view of the "hole". By his account it's a brief peek, under pressure in poor lighting and he's predisposed to see a hole because Greer! has told him there's a hole and that's what he's looking for when he takes his peek. So the "hole in the windshield" gets a minor boost from yes, "a casual observer." On the other hand, Nick torpedo's your theory of the crime at the waterline if his story is accurate. On your theory, Greer is an integral part of a Secret Service plan to participate in the assassination of the President. Greer slows the limousine so the job can be finished. Greer is part of the Secret Service team that realizes there's a problem with a hole in the windshield at Parkland hospital. On Nick's clear account, Bill Greer is supposed to have returned to Washington DC where he promptly reports to a uniformed police officer charged with protecting the President that bullets were flying from all directions and that one of them came through the windshield and almost hit Greer. So a key participant in your theory promptly reports all the incriminating details to his friend the police officer and even tells the officer where to find the bullet hole. That's a real conspiracy of silence. Moreover, Nick has known Greer for many years. Nick reports that Greer was very, very upset the night of the assassination and when you hint that Greer might have been involved in some way Nick responds with No, he was a good guy. It seems to me that if you're going to accept Nick's account of the "hole" then you're also committed to accepting his account of the rest of the evening where a genuinely upset Bill Greer reports everything he's supposed to be hiding if your theory were true. On balance, I'd say the interview does you more harm than good. Jerry Jerry, Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely Best, Doug Doug, Thanks for the additional information. It would be helpful if you could tell us how your view of the Secret Service role has changed since your presentation and MIDP. Who do you think were the bad guys? Regards, Jerry Jerry: It is 3:40 a.m. here. I will expand on that later if you wish but I do believe that some members of the secret service were compromised. They are the ones Vince has mentioned. The reason I was asking Nick about opinions of sex and drug use is because I do not dismiss Seymour Hersh's "The Dark Side of Camelot" and the video (I will have to look up the name, I think it was Dangerous something. Itbelieve that some of them resented Kennedy and his actions and the role they played in it. Also they were very conservative also. I don't know if you knew that after the book was published and the film made all secret service agents were ordered not to talk about the assassination. I have a friend who was secret service under Ford. It is a good question and if you wish I can be a little more specific later. Best, Doug

Josiah: I will apologize for the tone I used as I do not believe it is benefiting either of us and certainly not me. I hope I made things clear about Taylor and the windshields. I had no intent to misrepresent Jerry and I thought it was clear when I talked about the windshields in 1963 and 1975. This was my first conversation with Nick and I later commmunicated extensively with him. Later I obtained Giordono's name as did Pamela. I spoke twice with him. He had talked with Nick and knew him well in 1963. Corroboration was very important to me. I did communicate with Glanges sister and she actually has her own interesting story as she was in Germany at the time. Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence. I have respected you and because of that I moved this thread from one that I thought was demeaning to you. Form whatever opinion you want of me. You noted "The number of people who have cooked up stories about this case for personal aggrandizement are legion." I have always been careful about people who enjoyed their celebrity and I have tried not to utilize their information even where it may have bolstered the evidence I had. Many of these people were deathly afraid of what they knew and had no desire to talk about it. I guess one thing that being an attorney has helped with is that I can walk away from something without animosity . Criticize what you want and how you want. I am not going to be baited into further confrontation. Others will judge. May we find the truth. Doug Weldon

Doug, First, I want to acknowledge your willingness to share the entire interview with us. I take that as a sign of your basic candor and honesty. I think, however, that the totality of the interview does grave, grave damage to your theory of the crime. On the one hand, Nick has a less than convincing view of the "hole". By his account it's a brief peek, under pressure in poor lighting and he's predisposed to see a hole because Greer! has told him there's a hole and that's what he's looking for when he takes his peek. So the "hole in the windshield" gets a minor boost from yes, "a casual observer." On the other hand, Nick torpedo's your theory of the crime at the waterline if his story is accurate. On your theory, Greer is an integral part of a Secret Service plan to participate in the assassination of the President. Greer slows the limousine so the job can be finished. Greer is part of the Secret Service team that realizes there's a problem with a hole in the windshield at Parkland hospital. On Nick's clear account, Bill Greer is supposed to have returned to Washington DC where he promptly reports to a uniformed police officer charged with protecting the President that bullets were flying from all directions and that one of them came through the windshield and almost hit Greer. So a key participant in your theory promptly reports all the incriminating details to his friend the police officer and even tells the officer where to find the bullet hole. That's a real conspiracy of silence. Moreover, Nick has known Greer for many years. Nick reports that Greer was very, very upset the night of the assassination and when you hint that Greer might have been involved in some way Nick responds with No, he was a good guy. It seems to me that if you're going to accept Nick's account of the "hole" then you're also committed to accepting his account of the rest of the evening where a genuinely upset Bill Greer reports everything he's supposed to be hiding if your theory were true. On balance, I'd say the interview does you more harm than good. Jerry Jerry, Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely Best, Doug

Doug, This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7. I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply. Jerry Jerry: I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion. Best, Doug Jerry: I am confused. How could Taylor have been shown the windshields in Altgen's? Taylor was shown a windshield, not a photo. I thought I was very clear. Doug Doug, Actually, Taylor was shown photos as well as the windshield at the NARA (but I don't think Altgens). Whatever Taylor looked at, Josiah was discussing the Altgens photos and my comment was not directed to, nor about, the Altgens photos. I take it that you didn't mean to imply that my comments applied to Altgens and I'm fine with that now that we all understand each other. Jerry Jerry, You are absolutely correct. Even where we disagree, you have been straightforward on evrything. I regret that the total exchange deterioriated so much. My best, Doug

John: Thanks.Your phoot looks okay. I am sure you are probably right but to me in post 223 it looks like one big black splotch. Am I missing something? It is probably why why I am not an expert in photography and I appreciate your patience. Best, Doug No worries Doug. All I did was take the same photo you refer to and increase the gamma and saw what I then outlined. There's a lot of stuff in the darkness, it's just hidden by the contrasts. A simple utility like Image Analyzer (free from Meesoft) can adjust values, in this case: menu, operations, color correction, color mapper, exposure and slide the gamma up. Thanks so much. Doug

Doug, This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7. I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply. Jerry Jerry: I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion. Best, Doug Jerry: I am confused. How could Taylor have been shown the windshields in Altgen's? Taylor was shown a windshield, not a photo. I thought I was very clear. Doug

Doug, This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7. I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply. Jerry Jerry: I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion. Best, Doug

Thanks for posting this. Doug Weldon

Since apologizing for being so hard on you in “coaching” Principe in his interview with you, I was given the audio tape of the interview. It is quite appalling not because you are not "careful in your interviews" and not because you "misrepresent anything." The problem with your interview of Principe is that it is designed to build a case and not elicit the truth. There is a difference between doing interviews in an adversary proceeding and doing interviews as an historian. I let you off the hook on Principe because I recognized that everyone in the adversary game is playing the same game and trying to get what one wants from a witness. In certain cases, I’ve done sort of the same thing that you did with Principe. But I wasn’t investigating a case of national importance as an historian. The rules are different. An historian is supposed to be trying to get at the truth. You weren't. You were seeking to harvest a particular part of Principe's story. Here's why I say that. When you start your interview of Principe you don’t tell him you are taping the phone call. He has to ask if you are taping and you admit that you are. In California, it is a felony to tape a phone call without the other party’s consent. Other states have other rules and I don’t know where you called him from. At the very least, this doesn't lead to Principe having a lot of confidence in you or your scruples. You spend untold minutes probing what Principe knew of JFK’s sexual peccadillos. Why on earth would you spend even a moment on this? Principe tells you that he was the victim of a Black Panther Party assassination attempt and that he ended up retiring from the force because of it. Any experienced investigator hearing this from a witness ought to inquire further. I never heard of any Black Panther Party attack on a capitol policemen ever. There may very well have been such an attack and you should have let Principe tell you about it. This is a thread from a witness that you want to unwind to determine whether you are dealing with a someone with an overactive imagination. He does tell you of the photos he has with varous notables, an admission that makes one wonder a bit about his present story. When you get to the heart of the interview concerning his observations in the White House garage you keep offering him what he said to Pamela and only let him agree with what you tell him. This is the kind of treatment that is all too usual in the world of the adversary system but has no place in a genuine truth-seeking project. What appals me most is that you never do the most obvious thing, elicit from him what he did that day before visiting the White House garage. It would have been the easiest thing to say to him: "I bet you'll never forget the day of the Kennedy assassination. No one ever does. What were you doing when you heard of the shooting?" From there you could elicit a kind of chronicle of Principe's movements that day and night. Where was he assigned? When did he get off duty? How did he end up talking with Greer? Where and when did this happen? Why did he go to the White House garage that night at all? Then you could move on to his critical observation. "You say you saw the bullet hole from the front of the car? How close did you get to it? Was there an overhead light on it? Why did you say it was through-and-through and not just damage?" Given the restraints you put on Principe in simply confirming what he told Pamela, Principe never gets a chance to tell his story apart from your choreographing it. What he does say is not reassuring. With regard to the damage in the windshield, Principe says, “I glanced at it and it was quick..” Much later in the interview, Principe confirms that the light was bad in the garage. His description of the bullet hole is generic and uninformative. When you ask him how certain he is of seeing it... where on the scale of 1 to 100 his confidence lies... Principe doesn’t answer directly and highlights what Greer told him about a shot through the windshield. Then Principe gives you the wrong answer with respect to the location of the windshield damage. Your voice changes noticeably and you tell him other witnesses didn’t place it where he placed it. Docilely, he responds to your coaching and says he might be wrong about its location. Most importantly, you are dealing with a witness who has appeared thirty-five years after the event and you never ask him the obvious question, “About this bullet hole, back then in 1963 or thereabouts did you ever tell anyone about it? Like other officers or your friends and family?” Since you never asked the question, we’ll never know the answer. I could go on and on. But the central point is clear. The interview you did is the kind of interview one might expect from an inexperienced Assistant District Attorney with few scruples who had been told by his boss to interview this witness and make sure the witness held to his story. It is the farthest thing from the kind of fact-finding interview one would expect from a trained historian pursuing historical truth. All the important questions that would help us evaluate the credibility of Principe’s story are never asked. You tell Principe that you will be sending him your videotape later because you did not want to influence his story. Yet the interview from beginning to end is structured to preserve a particular part of his story... he saw a bullet-hole in the White House garage. You interviewed him to harvest this tale unchallenged by any serious questions. Both Richard Dudman and Secret Service Agent Taylor looked at the damage to the windshield and thought it contained a through-and-through bullet hole. Only later did we learn that Dudman did not observe a through-and-through hole and Taylor recanted after looking at the windshield in the Archives. The limousine in the White House garage contained a windshield with some damage in it. If Principe saw that windshield he could have made the same mistake as Dudman and Taylor made. The purpose of a genuine interview of Principe would have been to tease out whether he saw a hole or just damage. Your interview failed to do that. It failed because throughout the interview you functioned as a lawyer with a case to make rather that as an historian with a truth to find. Josiah Thompson Josiah: Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole. Dudman told Livingston "The hole in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, no more than they did Taylor's. One month before an affidavit was prepared for him Taylor confirmed that he saw a hole. He was then shown a windshield that was not in the limo in Dallas. What caused the Church staff to be concerned that he could not have seen the windshield enough to have seen a hole? Was his report ambiguous? Was he not riding in the limo for an hour on the way to the WH Garage? Did Geiglein question his report? Tell me in California how would a court treat someone changing their account after confirming it twice in twelve years? Would they throw out the case? Why did they have to prepare an affidavit for him? Did he not know how to write out his account? FYI, the agreement was that both Pamela and I would do taped interviews with Nick and exchange tapes and provide a copy to Nick and one of his friends named Irv. Nick was confirming that I was taping the conversation as we agreed. Are you trying to create something sinister and make me concerned and panic by pointing out it is a felony in California to tape a conversation without permission? Who are you trying to intimidate or kid? I don't think this innuendo impresses anyone. Nick was not on the witness stand. I wanted to find out what people thought about Kennedy and the short line of questioning about his sexual "peccadilloes" was to determine if it was something that really bothered people in law enforcement, i.e., the Secret Service. I wanted to know what he thought of Kennedy. As you heard it was my first time speaking with Nick and it was a very congenial conversation. We talked for an hour. Nothing was suggested to him about where the hole should have been or how he should have answered any question. Nick said he talked to many people about it and as I posted before I talked with Dick Giordono, whom Nick had talked with.. We can play would of/could of/should of games in perpetuity. Why do you cast suspicion about his Black Panther story? Are you suggesting he was lying? Because you never heard of it, what the hell difference does that make? if you would have pursued a line of questioning on that what would that have to do with meeting Greer and seeing the limo in The WH Garage. I really don't care what you would have asked him. I can take your Marilyn Sitzman interview and tell you many questions I would have asked differently. It was proven that Nick was who he said he was and was employed on November 22, 1963. Why would he or anyone else lie? What is their motive? You can never answer that as there is no answer. Nick said he would have testified under oath if you read his e-mails. It is easy to do character assassination of the deceased. Tell me which of these witnesses did any of the three of you interview. All were accessible. You play a game where you suggest I manipulated Ellis to change his story? Ellis never changed. Read my chapter instead of saying that you don't have the book after you make the accusation that I got Ellis to change his account. It is much easier to imply something sinister rather than check something out. You stated you knew nothing about Glanges. It is obvious. It is obvious you had no idea who Whitaker was. Glanges sister is still alive. Why don't you track her down? I can play your game and suggest this is the kind of work a third rate private investigator would do in preparing an article. It is only now that one of you is trying to read more about the witnesses. BTW Ellis and Freeman were together at Parkland. Tell me how you know Taylor and/or Dudman were honest in recanting their accounts and not frightened as Dudman obviously was. Tell me what you know about Taylor. It is obvious that you were not aware of the conflicts in the evidence. Is this how YOU find truth, by confronting evidence with speculation and creating suspicion with innuendo. The prosecutor argument is silly. I am not going to apologize for my career in the criminal justice system. I had no agenda. A prosecutor would try to prove the government right. Bugliousi and Posner made classic prosecutorial briefs. It appears that you do have an agenda to bury the facts, cast anyone or witness who disagrees with you as mistaken, a xxxx, or untrustworthy. It is classic The question I have to ask is why are you doing this? This is all a distraction. You are playing the game of an inexperienced defense attorney - create enough smoke and mirrors and go off on diversions and people will become confused about the truth. If you are going to rely on the official reports and they all conflict how are you going to choose which ones to believe? If the two windshields from 1963 and 1975 do not match, as many have shown, and I quote Jerry's opinion that they cannot be compared now, how are you going to explain it? If Taylor was shown a bogus windshield what would that mean to you? Jerry has been very straightforward and helpful. I appreciate that. I need to move forward on this. I was hoping we could have a civil, informed discussion but you are even cherry-picking Martin's analysis. You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table. Hello Doug, Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #? (Jerry) PRENCIPE, NICK L., 84, of Cape Coral, formerly of Spring Hill, died Friday (June 15, 2001) at Hernando Pasco Hospice, Spring Hill. Born in University Park, Md., he moved to Cape Coral in 1974, recently coming to Spring Hill to be near family. He was a retired captain in the U.S. Park Police in Washington, D.C. He provided security for five presidents, 1941-1972. His memberships included being past president of U.S. Antique Auto Association, past president of the Italian American Club, Cape Coral, and the Lions and Moose clubs. Survivors include his wife of 60 years, Janet; two sisters, Annette Brady, Gettysburg, Pa., and Evelyn Umholtz, Spring Hill; nieces and nephews. Lee Memorial Park Funeral Home, Lehigh Acres. Doug Weldon

John: Thanks.Your phoot looks okay. I am sure you are probably right but to me in post 223 it looks like one big black splotch. Am I missing something? It is probably why why I am not an expert in photography and I appreciate your patience. Best, Doug

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do. I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable. This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented. Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work? Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield? Josiah: I thank you for your apology. It was a diversion and as you can. see some people are going to leap on anything to support you, as irrational as it may be.. I am very careful in my interviews and I never misrepresent anything. I believe in what Jim, Jack, and Martin are stating. I always, however, speak for myself and there are things that I don't agree upon with Jack or Jim, i.e. I think the cases for Madeline Brown or Judtyh Baker are still lacking in proof. For Altgen's, as Martin said in a recent post on another thread: Josiah, as i said numberous times before on the other thread, it was work in progress to color Altgens6. My tranied eye found no solution at this particular place in Altgens. Jerry was drawing my attention to the whole "hole in the windshield" debate on Duncan's forum. I checked then if the spiral nebula in Altgens7 might be actually in the same place of Altgens6. And yes, it was the case. And i will prove that. thank you Martin We all have to develop thick skin and criticism does not bother me. It is great what Jim Lewis has done with his experiements but I also had done an experiment and if you review my Minnesota presentation or my chapter in MIDP, p. 148 I had noted this before Jim Lewis that a bullet hitting a windshield would sound like a firecracker as so many witnesses described and Lewis has confirmed it and added to it by showing that a target could be hit. I am interested in the totality of the evidence and I remain convinced that none of you understood that in your article. If we had photograpic evidence that there might be a hole in Altgen's but no other corroborative evidence or if we still had the original windshield a debate would be specious. My questions were not answered nor was the twisted evidence addressed by anyone of you. We can go round and round but I need to write my book in an organized way and not in bits and pieces on this forum. It is obvious to me that none of you knew much of anything about the witnesses or the evidence. If othere have questions that is fine and I will lurk here but I don't feel it is fruitful to be like a dog chasing its tail. My best to you, Doug Not being a photograpic expert Could someone please explain what the big black patch behind and above Kennedy's head is in front of the woman in the Croft slide. i don't have the computer knowledge to post it here. Doug Weldon

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do. I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable. This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented. Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work? Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield? Josiah: I thank you for your apology. It was a diversion and as you can. see some people are going to leap on anything to support you, as irrational as it may be.. I am very careful in my interviews and I never misrepresent anything. I believe in what Jim, Jack, and Martin are stating. I always, however, speak for myself and there are things that I don't agree upon with Jack or Jim, i.e. I think the cases for Madeline Brown or Judtyh Baker are still lacking in proof. For Altgen's, as Martin said in a recent post on another thread: Josiah, as i said numberous times before on the other thread, it was work in progress to color Altgens6. My tranied eye found no solution at this particular place in Altgens. Jerry was drawing my attention to the whole "hole in the windshield" debate on Duncan's forum. I checked then if the spiral nebula in Altgens7 might be actually in the same place of Altgens6. And yes, it was the case. And i will prove that. thank you Martin We all have to develop thick skin and criticism does not bother me. It is great what Jim Lewis has done with his experiements but I also had done an experiment and if you review my Minnesota presentation or my chapter in MIDP, p. 148 I had noted this before Jim Lewis that a bullet hitting a windshield would sound like a firecracker as so many witnesses described and Lewis has confirmed it and added to it by showing that a target could be hit. I am interested in the totality of the evidence and I remain convinced that none of you understood that in your article. If we had photograpic evidence that there might be a hole in Altgen's but no other corroborative evidence or if we still had the original windshield a debate would be specious. My questions were not answered nor was the twisted evidence addressed by anyone of you. We can go round and round but I need to write my book in an organized way and not in bits and pieces on this forum. It is obvious to me that none of you knew much of anything about the witnesses or the evidence. If othere have questions that is fine and I will lurk here but I don't feel it is fruitful to be like a dog chasing its tail. My best to you, Doug

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE..... Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-) Bests, Barb :-) Barb: I am asking why the three of you treated Ellis the way you did in your article? What information did you have in dismissing him as a "casual observer"? You wrote the article, not me. That is the question that is among many that it appears to me is constantly being avoided. My questions about your article are spelled out in several posts. After all this time why don't one of you simply answer the questions in the first post. I do not understand why they are so hard to answer or why it appears tou are refusing to answer them. I did not publish the article on this and other forums. The three of you did. Josiah says all of you contributed to the writing. Why can't you respond as you promised to do? Why does Josiah not defend anything he wrote about the evidence and witnesses (except the Altgen's photo)It is one diversion after another. If you canno t defend your article simply say so and we can stop wasting everyone's time. My guess is that you wrote the article without knowing much about any of the witnesses. Prove me wrong. Josiah admitted he knew nothing about Glanges. Once again, why did you leave out Whitaker? Geesh! Doug No disrespect, intended, Doug, but do you even bother to read what I write? Or Jerry or Tink either? I have answered your question on the scope of our article and on Whitaker not be included several times now. Tink replied to you on that one as well. But you don't like the answer, I guess, so you keep repeating it like nothing has been addressed. I have addressed Dudman. We are in the middle of Prencipe. I thought I'd start Ellis by asking you what he told you. I don't see the need to "defend" our article against anything ... you have offered nothing but waxing generalities and speculative airy questions. Our article tells you why we did not find the witnesses you are so fond of as reliable to having seen a through and through perforation. Nonetheless, I agreed to respond and explain with some specificity, explaining the reasoning. I feel like I am wasting my time. If you are going to keep asking the questions like nothing has been already addressed, then you are wasting all of our time. You tell me what you want to do. Shall I continue responding and addressing the other witnesses and issues you raised, or like the ones already addressed, will you keep posting that nothing is being addressed and making speculative swipes about us? Ellis has a major credibility problem ... more than we knew, because of what you claim he told you about putting a pencil through the hole he says he saw. But trying to get anything specific out of you is proving impossible. You claim you were able to corroborate everything Whitaker told you ... but when asked, 3 times now, I think, what those things are, you come back with another rant on all you have done and how no one is addressing your issues ... then criticize us for not addressing Whitaker... and you don't answer the question. You keep making claims about Dudman ... what he went through, that there was fear there, that he had no doubt he saw a hole. But you offer no support. What Dudman wrote does not say that, and what his friend Livingston wrote flat out says Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a perforating hole or not. Glanges showed up at a time she was working with Crenshaw and he was writing his book. Not impressive. She's dead, we couldn't interview her. But, didn't you? Where are some specifics? Why didn't you show her some of the pics taken at Parkland and see if she could identify herself or others? Her story about the secret service taking off in the car and nearly pulling her arm off (whatever) makes no sense. You say you are open to give and take, to people disagreeing with you, etc, but that is not proving to be the case, imo. Again, you distract from what it is you keep saying you want. I've begun to think that you just may not really want to hear it at all. You've got too much riding on your take on these witnesses ... which unfortunately means ignoring things that directly impact their credibility. Make up your mind as to what you want. If you want me to continue going through these witnesses and clearly defining my thinking ... I will. If not ... I am not going to waste my time. Lurkers I hear from from time to time are watching and eager to see the details on the witnesses as well as what all you have to support your many contentions. I'd like to see it through. The choice is yours. Barb: I have quoted Livingston as saying something far different about Dudman and even where he saw the hole. Dudman's language is unambiguous. I spoke to Dudman. I spoke to Livingston.The best explanation about why you did not include Whitaker is that he could have gotten the information from anywhere or to ask why was the vehicle flown to Ford. Why is it that I think none of you had any idea who he was? I sense that everything you know about Whitaker was obtained from me after the article was written. None of you apparently knew about him to even dismiss his account. None of you knew anything about Glanges, whether she was a medical or nursing student. Do you know when her account was filmed by Nigel Turner? Did you know about the convoluted evidence with Ferguson's account, Willard Hess, the problems that the HSCA was having with the limo evidence. Respectfully, I believe it is only me that is providing information and now you want to know everything about Ellis even though I have already said a lot about him. You have only seen a fraction about Prencipe yet the best response is that his account cannot be true because every moment of Gree'rs evening was accounted for or that Nick may not have been sure exactly what time he saw him. Yet, when Taylor signs a prepared affidavit. everything he wrote and said before is dismissed. I outlined in great detail what corroborates Whitaker, the hole, the WH Garage logs and I have a fairly detailed account in MIDP. I explained the huge mess of the varying accounts in the official record. See post 293. Go back to my example of a vase. I came to this forum because I criticized your article. I ask simple questions. Why is Ellis a "casual observer?" You do not know everything he said about a pencil and whatever he said has nothing to do with him being a casual observer. I simply want to know why you weighed the evidence the way that you did. One of the main thrusts of your article was the windshield comparison. Now, even as Jerry posted: Hello Doug, Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #? I've responded extensively and asked many questions. I do not want this discussion to deteriorate. I am concerned. It simply appears to me that 95% of the information (except for the photographic) is coming from me. If lurkers have questions of either of us they can ask. It was forwarded to me that if I confronted the three of you I was basically going to get an "education." and "be put in my place.' I have learned some things, some of them very important. The Taylor info was valuable. I await Martin's study I wanted to engage smart people and I believe the three of you are very bright. However, I believe your article was reckless and ill conceived and failed to show an understanding of very complex evidence. It is your call. If you want to defend your article and demonstrate an understanding of the evidence I will be glad to respond. Otherwise I would prefer to go back to researching and finishing my book and put a period on this long chapter of my life and move on to more mundane things. I meant it when I said we can disagree and still be friends. However, to engage the three of you I need to know that you understand the evidence here. IMO, most of the responses have been weak and talk about "Possibilities" rather than real evidence or probable circumstances. It has been about diversions rather than substance. I e-mailed Jerry that the law is an unusual profession. You can battle vigorously with someone, go out to lunch with them, battle furiously the rest of the day and then laugh and play cards with them that evening. These are the parameters. Unless both sides have a good knowledge of the witnesses and the evidence we are just wasting everyone's time. When I finish my book and if it's published everyone can become the critic but at that point I'm not coming back to the forum to defend anything. Doug Horne thought this information was extremely important. See Volume 5 pg 1439-1450. He notes, "Most researchers assume that the reason the three episodes that aired in 2003 were suppressed was because the final episode, about LBJ's culpability, was objectionable to Lady Bird Johnson, LBJ's aging widow. I believe that another, equally likely reason for the suppression was the clear and convincing examination of the windshield bullet hole evidence, and the accompanying discussion of the Secret Service's malfeasance in arranging inadequate security for the Dallas motorcade, and in covering up the true damage to the windshield." p.1441 Your call. Josiah? My best, Doug

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE..... Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-) Bests, Barb :-) Barb: I am asking why the three of you treated Ellis the way you did in your article? What information did you have in dismissing him as a "casual observer"? You wrote the article, not me. That is the question that is among many that it appears to me is constantly being avoided. My questions about your article are spelled out in several posts. After all this time why don't one of you simply answer the questions in the first post. I do not understand why they are so hard to answer or why it appears tou are refusing to answer them. I did not publish the article on this and other forums. The three of you did. Josiah says all of you contributed to the writing. Why can't you respond as you promised to do? Why does Josiah not defend anything he wrote about the evidence and witnesses (except the Altgen's photo)It is one diversion after another. If you canno t defend your article simply say so and we can stop wasting everyone's time. My guess is that you wrote the article without knowing much about any of the witnesses. Prove me wrong. Josiah admitted he knew nothing about Glanges. Once again, why did you leave out Whitaker? Geesh! Doug

Ha, Ha... that's very funny. Now to the point at issue. Apparently, in interviewing Principe you indicated to Principe what other witnesses said concerning the location of damage to the windshield. Do you still want to claim that such a gambit is not "coaching" a witness and that you were only clarifying what Principe had remembered? Sorry, this doesn't even remotely pass the smell test. By telling a witness what an other witness said, you contaminate that witnesses recollections. This is a no-no in any law or prosecutor's office in the nation. Do you really want to contend that such coaching is just fine and that it was something as a prosecutor you urged your investigators to do? If so, I'd like to hear it rather than a jocular response that simply ignores the seriousness of what you did. Josiah Thompson Read the transcript again. Nick had already given me his account and where he saw the hole. :W: Now, Nick, now I am going to tell you as a basis, and Pamela is aware of this also, that I know of at least a couple and mentioned their names, and I’ve talked to Stavis Ellis extensively, and I know I have talked to at least three or four people that saw a bullet hole through the windshield. Now a couple of them describe it in a little bit different location. P: Okay. W: Is there any possibility that just time could have effected how certain you are where that bullet hole was in that windshield? P: No question about it. W: Okay, so it’s possible that you could be in error about that location? P: Yes, there is definitely. I said a couple of them saw in a slightly different location (Not all of them ) and I never made mention of where that location might have been. I was only trying to verify how certain he was about the location. I never suggested anything different to him, i.e., where the location might have been, etc. I make no apologies. He had already given his account and I was aware of everything he told Pamela. It's like the birthday example I gave to Barb. Transcripts, as you know, can sometimes be deceiving. The tone of the voice and the nature of the converation sometimes has to be listened to to truly understand it. It was not a trick. As I explain in MIDP (where I acknowledge Ellis giving a different location if anyone cares to read it) it is the fact that they saw a hole which is critical. The exact details and who may or may not have been there at the time, are going to fade with time and the most reliable recollections are going to be of those who viewed the hole the longest period of time. In this instance it is Whitaker and Taylor and both described the hole in the same spot. With Nick I spoke with someone who knew him in 1963, Dick Giordono, and with Ellis I have a taped interview with him by someone in 1970 and him being on the radio in Canada I believe in 1976. It matters not to me whether we agree or disagree whether he could be tainted after he gave his account but once again I would like to move on and examine my criticism of your article. Doug My last point on this: "W: For example, as I asked you about the certainty, could you have been wrong about the location of the hole in the windshield. I did not want to influence you either way. I just want to accept whatever response you would offer." Now can we move on.

Ha, Ha... that's very funny. Now to the point at issue. Apparently, in interviewing Principe you indicated to Principe what other witnesses said concerning the location of damage to the windshield. Do you still want to claim that such a gambit is not "coaching" a witness and that you were only clarifying what Principe had remembered? Sorry, this doesn't even remotely pass the smell test. By telling a witness what an other witness said, you contaminate that witnesses recollections. This is a no-no in any law or prosecutor's office in the nation. Do you really want to contend that such coaching is just fine and that it was something as a prosecutor you urged your investigators to do? If so, I'd like to hear it rather than a jocular response that simply ignores the seriousness of what you did. Josiah Thompson Read the transcript again. Nick had already given me his account and where he saw the hole. :W: Now, Nick, now I am going to tell you as a basis, and Pamela is aware of this also, that I know of at least a couple and mentioned their names, and I’ve talked to Stavis Ellis extensively, and I know I have talked to at least three or four people that saw a bullet hole through the windshield. Now a couple of them describe it in a little bit different location. P: Okay. W: Is there any possibility that just time could have effected how certain you are where that bullet hole was in that windshield? P: No question about it. W: Okay, so it’s possible that you could be in error about that location? P: Yes, there is definitely. I said a couple of them saw in a slightly different location (Not all of them ) and I never made mention of where that location might have been. I was only trying to verify how certain he was about the location. I never suggested anything different to him, i.e., where the location might have been, etc. I make no apologies. He had already given his account and I was aware of everything he told Pamela. It's like the birthday example I gave to Barb. Transcripts, as you know, can sometimes be deceiving. The tone of the voice and the nature of the converation sometimes has to be listened to to truly understand it. It was not a trick. As I explain in MIDP (where I acknowledge Ellis giving a different location if anyone cares to read it) it is the fact that they saw a hole which is critical. The exact details and who may or may not have been there at the time, are going to fade with time and the most reliable recollections are going to be of those who viewed the hole the longest period of time. In this instance it is Whitaker and Taylor and both described the hole in the same spot. With Nick I spoke with someone who knew him in 1963, Dick Giordono, and with Ellis I have a taped interview with him by someone in 1970 and him being on the radio in Canada I believe in 1976. It matters not to me whether we agree or disagree whether he could be tainted after he gave his account but once again I would like to move on and examine my criticism of your article. Doug

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.” If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb. Josiah Thompson Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor. Thanks for using the right word, Pamela. Of course, it's improper to "coach" a witness. Prosecutors do this all the time and get away with it. They use the excuse Weldon used... they were simply trying to "clarify" a witness's report. "Clarify" my fanny. There is never any excuse for telling one percipient witness what another percipient witness said. If a defense investigator tried it, he/she would be looking at an obstruction of justice charge. The problem apparent here is endemic in this case. If you get folks who are zealously pursuing a particular theory, when they start interviewing witnesses all sorts "coaching" begins to happen. The result is that witnesses who may have had something of probative significance to add end up being contaminated and therefore worthless. What happened with respect to Stavis Ellis? Josiah Thompson Josiah : Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint. There were occasional problems such as with Ellis who lived in Texas and my living in Michigan, Nick living in Florida, or Glanges living in Texas. In cases such as that I would try to hold a family member hostage and would bug their phones and intercept their mail to ensure they would not talk with anyone without my prior approval and careful monitoring of what they said. It may appear to have been extreme in retrospect but it was highly effective. In other instances it was amazing how these career police oficers and professionals could so easily be hynotized and say or do anything I asked. I see your article was a total joint effort and you acknowledge your part in the writing of the article. Perhaps you can respond to some of my criticisms and why you see police officers as "casual observers" or totally ignored Whitaker. Thank you in advance. Doug Weldon 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 1/11/2010

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

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