Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Weldon

Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Weldon

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. ****************************************************************************** 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 afte
  5. 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 o
  6. 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
  7. 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 o
  8. 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 a
  9. 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 o
  10. 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 windsh
  11. 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, expos
  12. 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 windsh
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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 2
  17. 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 2
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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 co
  21. 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 co
  22. 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
  23. Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that co
  24. Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that co
×
×
  • Create New...