Pamela Brown Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 The Dr.Galanges statements are most compelling and chilling....as is the work of Doug Weldon. So much evidence - so little 'penetration' to the public of it and almost none by the controlled media. Yes, here and there some slips out and the internet is helping mightily, but then you get books like VBs that ignore most of the facts and hand-pick those that indicate the official lie as possible, and many people 'buy' it....sad. Very sad, indeed. Well, before they start to control the internet we had better redouble our efforts - and before all of us who remember and care are too old (or no longer here)......persevere 'group'. It is interesting that Weldon's info is considered outside of media control when he is, or was, a prosecutor and used some of the same strategies the Bug did in compiling his theories. One of the issues is that each of the witnesses to seeing a t&t hole in the windshield saw it in different places on the windshield. How can that be? Weldon glossed over that, as it didn't fit his theory. Another issue is that they all described a hole about the size of a pencil. Why would they say such a thing? Had someone suggested that the windshield was 'special', perhaps 'bulletproof'? The windshield was a stock '61 LCC part. There was nothing special about it. Weldon avoided this fact, as it was inconvenient. Tie those items into the fact that the windshield that was photographed by Robert Frazier's team at 1 a.m. 11.23.63 during the FBI exam was the same one kicked out by the Arlington Glass men on Monday. That windshield is the one still at NARA. Based on that information, any windshield swapping would have to have taken place prior to the FBI exam and the photographing of it that became CE 350. A prosecutor can make a case out of anything and make it appear believable. The truth may be something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 The Dr.Galanges statements are most compelling and chilling....as is the work of Doug Weldon. So much evidence - so little 'penetration' to the public of it and almost none by the controlled media. Yes, here and there some slips out and the internet is helping mightily, but then you get books like VBs that ignore most of the facts and hand-pick those that indicate the official lie as possible, and many people 'buy' it....sad. Very sad, indeed. Well, before they start to control the internet we had better redouble our efforts - and before all of us who remember and care are too old (or no longer here)......persevere 'group'. It is interesting that Weldon's info is considered outside of media control when he is, or was, a prosecutor and used some of the same strategies the Bug did in compiling his theories. One of the issues is that each of the witnesses to seeing a t&t hole in the windshield saw it in different places on the windshield. How can that be? Weldon glossed over that, as it didn't fit his theory. Another issue is that they all described a hole about the size of a pencil. Why would they say such a thing? Had someone suggested that the windshield was 'special', perhaps 'bulletproof'? The windshield was a stock '61 LCC part. There was nothing special about it. Weldon avoided this fact, as it was inconvenient. Tie those items into the fact that the windshield that was photographed by Robert Frazier's team at 1 a.m. 11.23.63 during the FBI exam was the same one kicked out by the Arlington Glass men on Monday. That windshield is the one still at NARA. Based on that information, any windshield swapping would have to have taken place prior to the FBI exam and the photographing of it that became CE 350. A prosecutor can make a case out of anything and make it appear believable. The truth may be something else. I just read your Hole is a hole site and can't make out exactly what you think the explanation for the crack/hole/defect is and what made it and when. It seems hard for me to believe people would say they saw a hole [as oppossed to a crack] had they not seen one. The fact that people put it in slightly different places is not surprising. Perhaps there was even both a crack and a hole. Given the government's handling of the evidence with just about everything else, anything is possible, and anything they now hold as the 'original' needs to at least be entertained as potentially suspect, IMO. Yet another mystery of that mysterious day. They were using safely glass in 63 weren't they [if, as you say, it was not bullet-proof]? Has anyone taken a similar windshield and tried to see what bullets and fragments of bullets would do to it? Galanges statement seems fairly clear, as did the other statement of a hole clear through. The Greer statement is strange and debated - as are just about all the facts of that day. Perhaps just as someone clearly tampered with the body and autopsy photos, so might they have tampered with the car evidence, and statements made about it - even photos of it. The strange gap in the logbook is curious. Any of these individually can be explained away, but when taken as as whole, alone with the 'whole' of other strange events that day and in the investigation, little the officials say holds water - nor was meant to. ************ Peter : The last time Doug was an Assistant Prosecutor was in 1985. It also gave him an understanding of how people like the Bug and Specter manipulate evidence...He has not been such in the past 23 years...... There was only One witness who recalled seeing the hole a bit lower in the windshield, than the other witnesses, and that was Stavis Ellis...Doug notes this information in his chapter in "Murder In Dealey Plaza"...and he offers an explanation..He does not gloss anything over.....Doug spoke to Stavis hundreds of times.. Stavis was only certain that there was a bullethole and admitted his recollection as to the exact location could have been flawed... As for the Arlington glass company, the White House log records show that they were not there Monday, but after that. The F. Vaughn Ferguson memo, may have been a cover-up tool. The Ferguson memo states that the windshield was removed and stored in a closet and not seen again. Yet there are accounts of people seeing the windshield after that date..... The analysis and fallacy of that memo is also in his chapter in MIDP.... Doug also spoke with Willard Hess , the man who was most closely aligned with the limo.....who knew Ferguson and about him....and well, he did not think much about his account....... As far as what windshield is at the Archives , they will not allow anyone to examine it, sound familiar....Now Livingstone did published a photo, which differed from CE 350.....but I believe he also was not allowed to view it.. Doug Weldon, also has Never stated that the windshield was bulletproof, Nor implied such.......This is discussed also extensively in his chapter in Murder In Dealey Plaza........ B.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 I just read your Hole is a hole site and can't make out exactly what you think the explanation for the crack/hole/defect is and what made it and when. That's not the point of the article. > It seems hard for me to believe people would say they saw a hole [as oppossed to a crack] had they not seen one. The fact that people put it in slightly different places is not surprising. Perhaps there was even both a crack and a hole. There was a lot of confusion at PH at that time. The limo was only there for about 1/2 hour. During some of that time it was cordoned off. The witnessess were communicating what they believed they saw. What they actually did see may be something different. Given the government's handling of the evidence with just about everything else, anything is possible, and anything they now hold as the 'original' needs to at least be entertained as potentially suspect, IMO. Y The windshield that is at NARA now has the long spider cracks from having been kicked out by the Arlington Glass men on Monday, 11.25.63. It also has the same defect that is visible in CE 350 which was taken by Frazier's FBI team during the forensic exam at 1 a.m. on 11.23.63. There was no windshield swap during the interim. et another mystery of that mysterious day. They were using safely glass in 63 weren't they [if, as you say, it was not bullet-proof]? Has anyone taken a similar windshield and tried to see what bullets and fragments of bullets would do to it? There is a section of the upcoming DC program which may address that. The strange gap in the logbook is curious. The WHG logs were kept throughout the weekend. Any 'strange gap' is a strategy to discount that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. William King Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Pamela, Thanks for all the hard work you've put into the Limo over the years. Being a car nut, I've tended to focus on the vehicles involved in the case, and of course, the Limo is at the top of my list. There is one thing I've always wondered about, and maybe you know the answer. Why did Vaughn Ferguson drive the car to Dearborn rather than having it shipped in a van or at least on a flatbed? Can you imagine the attention he must have drawn driving that thing for 618 miles (according to my map program) on public roads? Did he have an escort or anything? It may not be sinister, but it sure is strange. Also, are there any maintainance records for the car prior to the assassination? JWK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 The last time Doug was an Assistant Prosecutor was in 1985. It also gave him an understanding of how people like the Bug and Specter manipulate evidence...He has not been such in the past 23 years...... Weldon encouraged Stavis Ellis to move the location of the hole he thought he saw upwards, and for Nick Prencipe to 'forget' the location of the hole he saw after he had already provided a location for it. There was only One witness who recalled seeing the hole a bit lower in the windshield, than the other witnesses, and that was Stavis Ellis...Doug notes this information in his chapter in "Murder In Dealey Plaza"...and he offers an explanation..He does not gloss anything over.....Doug spoke to Stavis hundreds of times.. Stavis was only certain that there was a bullethole and admitted his recollection as to the exact location could have been flawed... Not so. Nick Prencipe also saw a hole low on the windshield, at least when I interviewed him. Later, Weldon got him to say that he couldn't recall where the hole was. A legal tactic at the least. As you have pointed out, Weldon also got Ellis to be 'uncertain' about where the hole was he thought he saw. Rather convenient. As for the Arlington glass company, the White House log records show that they were not there Monday, but after that. Not so. The logs show the Arlington Glass replacement to have been done on Monday. Trying to muddle that is another prosecutor strategy. The n Ferguson memo, may have been a cover-up tool. T No. The Ferguson memo was not supposed to be seen. Weldon's pushing a witness without any documentation to have been anywhere near the limo during that weekend may well be an establishment response to that. he Ferguson memo states that the windshield was removed and stored in a closet and not seen again. Yet there are accounts of people seeing the windshield after that date..... The analysis and fallacy of that memo is also in his chapter in MIDP.... You might want to start doing your own research. The Ferguson memo states no such thing. Doug also spoke with Willard Hess , the man who was most closely aligned with the limo.....who knew Ferguson and about him....and well, he did not think much about his account....... Willard Hess also told people he saw the limo at H&E two days after the assassination. That wasn't true either. Weldon encouraged Hess to provide information that would shore up his flimsy theory and ignored a Hess statement that didn't fit in with it. Doug Weldon, also has Never stated that the windshield was bulletproof, Nor implied such.......This is discussed also extensively in his chapter in Murder In Weldon sanitized his witness statements. In addition, Whittaker originally claimed that when he saw the rebuilt limo he was sure the windshield in it was the one he had made for it. That windshield was bulletproof. Seems you can be mesmerized by legal strategy and not even aware of it. It is the Ferguson Memo NARA did not intent to have released. Weldon has tried to use every kind of strategy to attempt to diminish its significance. But the memo is only part of the story. His statements, plus documentation, plus the fact that Ferguson had pieces of the leather from the back seat of the limo corroborate the fact that it was he who was with the limo not only after the assassination but when it was stripped down to metal. We're not supposed to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Not passing the sniff test, Pamela... What I'm seeing here is simply; D. Weldon is an attorney therefore he knows how to manipulate witnesses....? Ya want to discredit someone else's work, get eyewitness testimony stating the attorney manipulated their testimony, or PROOF (like a tape recording) from a uninterested 3rd party stating same... " Weldon pushing.... Weldon sanatized witness statement.... Weldon encouraged... x2 Weldon used every kind of strategy....etc." Pamela, whats all this about --sounds like envy, eh? Ya missed the boat, lady.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 6, 2008 Author Share Posted July 6, 2008 (edited) J. William King' Pamela, Thanks for all the hard work you've put into the Limo over the years. Being a car nut, I've tended to focus on the vehicles involved in the case, and of course, the Limo is at the top of my list. You're welcome. When I became a dedicated researcher in 1988 I tried to find a niche that nobody else cared about. That was the limo. Now it is almost common knowledge that the limo was the crime scene of the assassination, and not the TSBD. That is so validating. There is one thing I've always wondered about, and maybe you know the answer. Why did Vaughn Ferguson drive the car to Dearborn rather than having it shipped in a van or at least on a flatbed? Can you imagine the attention he must have drawn driving that thing for 618 miles (according to my map program) on public roads? Did he have an escort or anything? It may not be sinister, but it sure is strange. The limo was always the property of the FMC, leased to the WHG at a mere $500 a year. The car was meant to be product placement on the world stage. It ended up being a symbol of the powerlessness of JFK's protection. Nonetheless, by December, 1963, when the new carpeting arrived for the rear of the limo, and was installed, the limo was ready to travel. In its covered configuration, without the flags flying, it looked like any other limousine. It was being taken to Dearborn to be stripped down to metal, in other words, junked, except for the frame. Driving it doesn't seem to have been an issue. There was no need for an escort. There was nothing special about the car anymore, other than the fact that it was the crime scene of the assassination and that was being destroyed. Also, are there any maintainance records for the car prior to the assassination? JWK I haven't found any yet. Edited July 6, 2008 by Pamela McElwain-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. William King Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 (edited) Nonetheless, by December, 1963, when the new carpeting arrived for the rear of the limo, and was installed, the limo was ready to travel. In its covered configuration, without the flags flying, it looked like any other limousine. It was being taken to Dearborn to be stripped down to metal, in other words, junked, except for the frame. Driving it doesn't seem to have been an issue. There was no need for an escort. There was nothing special about the car anymore, other than the fact that it was the crime scene of the assassination and that was being destroyed. I beg to differ about it looking like any other limousine, especially with the roof texture and general configuration. There were very few Lincoln limos on the roads back then, especially ones with fabric covering the roof. Add to that the exposure it got after the assassination and I think it would be very recognizable. I'm actually surprised they didn't fly it up there. Of course, nothing about this case surprises me anymore. Also, are there any maintainance records for the car prior to the assassination?JWK I haven't found any yet. Since the car was used mainly in low-speed driving...very low in some cases, I'm thinking that the ride to Parkland was probably the first time it was really opened up. I've driven enough cars of that vintage (I currently own a 1961 Oldsmobile Super 88) to know that when driven slowly over a long period, they sometimes carbon up, or the 2 extra barrels on the carburetors get gunked up. I know that sometimes my Olds will almost stall if I suddenly hit the gas. I'm wondering if when Greer hit the gas pedal, it might have hesitated, and slowed down almost to a stop before finally catching and accelerating away. It could explain the sudden slowdown at the moment of the head shot. JWK Edited July 7, 2008 by J. William King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 (edited) David G. Healy'Jul 4 2008, 01:28 PM' Not passing the sniff test, Pamela... What I'm seeing here is simply; D. Weldon is an attorney therefore he knows how to manipulate witnesses....? Ya want to discredit someone else's work, get eyewitness testimony stating the attorney manipulated their testimony, or PROOF (like a tape recording) from a uninterested 3rd party stating same... Perhaps you will share with us whatever fragrant aroma you were sniffing when you were lured away from information the govt doesn't want you to know? Weldon pushing.... Weldon sanatized witness statement.... Weldon encouraged... x2 Weldon used every kind of strategy....etc." Pamela, whats all this about --sounds like envy, eh? Ya missed the boat, lady.... If you choose to remain blissfully naive to the legal strategies prosecutors use, you will not be of much help in deprogramming those 'persuaded' by the Bug's WCR redux, will you? Edited July 7, 2008 by Pamela McElwain-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 I am curious about this alleging that the Zapruder film made it to the movie theater within the a month of the shooting. There were press films that were shown in theaters, but they only had the Nix and Muchmore films on them. I hope I didn't miss it, but could you post what town or theater this played in again? And could it be that you are misremembering the time frame? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. William King Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 (edited) Nonetheless, by December, 1963, when the new carpeting arrived for the rear of the limo, and was installed, the limo was ready to travel. In its covered configuration, without the flags flying, it looked like any other limousine. It was being taken to Dearborn to be stripped down to metal, in other words, junked, except for the frame. Driving it doesn't seem to have been an issue. There was no need for an escort. There was nothing special about the car anymore, other than the fact that it was the crime scene of the assassination and that was being destroyed. I beg to differ about it looking like any other limousine, especially with the roof texture and general configuration. There were very few Lincoln limos on the roads back then, especially ones with fabric covering the roof. Add to that the exposure it got after the assassination and I think it would be very recognizable. I'm actually surprised they didn't fly it up there. Of course, nothing about this case surprises me anymore. Also, are there any maintainance records for the car prior to the assassination?JWK I haven't found any yet. Since the car was used mainly in low-speed driving...very low in some cases, I'm thinking that the ride to Parkland was probably the first time it was really opened up. I've driven enough cars of that vintage (I currently own a 1961 Oldsmobile Super 88) to know that when driven slowly over a long period, they sometimes carbon up, or the 2 extra barrels on the carburetors get gunked up. I know that sometimes my Olds will almost stall if I suddenly hit the gas. I'm wondering if when Greer hit the gas pedal, it might have hesitated, and slowed down almost to a stop before finally catching and accelerating away. It could explain the sudden slowdown at the moment of the head shot. JWK I don't doubt your knowledge of cars, but now we have the 'gunk in the carburetor did it' varient. Enough coincidences for one day to add yet another, methinks. I assume the USG had enough money for good servicing of the engine - better than their 'servicing' of the Chief of State I'll wager. The brakelight issue is also not addressed by the gunk theory. I'm not suggesting for a minute that "gunk in the carburetor" killed JFK. Like any big event, it's always a bunch of small things that come together to create the larger event. This might be one of those small things that contributed. The traditional cure of a carboned up engine is to take it out on the highway once in a while to "blow the carbon out". Since this was mainly a parade car driven very slowly much of the time, I'm wondering what maintainance procedures were done to insure that it didn't get "gunked up" like grandma's car that she only drove to church once a week. Maybe they ran it down the runways at Andrews once a week to blow it out. I don't know. Thats why I was asking Pamela about the records. JWK Edited July 8, 2008 by J. William King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 From post # 25........ Quote B: "The Ferguson memo states that the windshield was removed and stored in a closet and not seen again. Yet there are accounts of people seeing the windshield after that date..... The analysis and fallacy of that memo is also in his chapter in MIDP...." "Quote :Pamela: You might want to start doing your own research. The Ferguson memo states no such thing. " ...B.........Here is the exact quote from Ferguson's Dec. 18 memo after describing that the windshield had been removed on Nov. 25: "A Mr. Davis of the Secret Service then took the windshield and put it in the stockroom under lock and key and I have not seen it since." Also noted later is that Kelllerman examined the damaged windshield on November 27, allegedly a short time before the windshield was replaced (and two days after Ferguson said it was locked away.) Discussed on page 137.of "Murder In Dealey Plaza"....... Ferguson un-numbered statement posted below....... B......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 From post # 25........Re Nick Prencipe..... Quote Pamela: "Weldon encouraged Stavis Ellis to move the location of the hole he thought he saw upwards, and for Nick Prencipe to 'forget' the location of the hole he saw after he had already provided a location for it. " Quote B:......"There was only One witness who recalled seeing the hole a bit lower in the windshield, than the other witnesses, and that was Stavis Ellis...Doug notes this information in his chapter in "Murder In Dealey Plaza"...and he offers an explanation..He does not gloss anything over.....Doug spoke to Stavis hundreds of times.. Stavis was only certain that there was a bullethole and admitted his recollection as to the exact location could have been flawed... Quote : Pamela "Not so. Nick Prencipe also saw a hole low on the windshield, at least when I interviewed him. Later, Weldon got him to say that he couldn't recall where the hole was. A legal tactic at the least. As you have pointed out, Weldon also got Ellis to be 'uncertain' about where the hole was he thought he saw. Rather convenient." --------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: NPRINCE9@juno.com > To: pamelamXXXXXXX > Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:18:36 -0400 > Subject: Re: Re: reply again > Message-ID: <20000710.082154.-3779853.1.NPRINCE9XXXXXX > > Pam > Over the years--many--I have met people from all walks of life and I > am a pretty good listener and observer. > When some have a particular interest or goal in mind--many things that > are pertinent--but present an opposite version or opinion--there is > always an inclination to avoid what is evident, or to attempt todiscredit > it. > I have always spoken exactly what I feel and to whomever I am addressing > and I will never change. I have ralked with Presidents and in one case, > gave one a scorching he did not expect--and apologized for it--this is > the truth. > >From day one, I have talked with fellow officers and other people, about > talking with Greer the night of the event. > I have not changed anything I ever stated, and nver will, even under > oath. That is my position. > As far as remembering who was where and what time it was and other > confirmations, its been a long time and I never put too much emphasis on > them, but the facts stated remain AS IS AND WERE. > > Thanks, good luck Nick B......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 (edited) Bill, any evidentiary value of the mobile crime scene better known as SS-100-X was lost on Monday, November 25, 1963 when the limo was taken to Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati and was essentially stripped. So while it IS a crime scene, it is one in name only since that date.Kinda like Elm Street in Dallas after repaving and curb restriping. The SS did informal searches of the limo during the 12 hours following the assassination. Then the FBI did a rather cursory forensic exam at 1 a.m. 11.23.63. All of this is detailed at my JFK website www.in-broad-daylight.com. It was cleaned out on Saturday, the windshield replaced on Monday by Arlington Glass, and new carpeting installed in early December. The limo was kept in the White House Garage until December 20, 1963 when Vaughn Ferguson Drove it to Dearborn to be gutted and rebuilt as a bulletproof limo. Sounds like you may be referencing Mr. Whittaker, who has attempted to appropriate Vaughn Ferguson's statements and rework them into his own experiences. Ferguson was at Dearborn regularly and played golf with a number of FMC employees. Ferguson told the story of his experiences with the limo to numerous people. He was very unhappy with the govt treatment of the car. A few other employees at the FMC have attempted to appropriate Ferguson's statments as well. This is evidence of the significance of the limo as the crime scene. ************************* Quote: Pamela : "Sounds like you may be referencing Mr. Whittaker, who has attempted to appropriate Vaughn Ferguson's statements and rework them into his own experiences. Ferguson was at Dearborn regularly and played golf with a number of FMC employees. Ferguson told the story of his experiences with the limo to numerous people. He was very unhappy with the govt treatment of the car. A few other employees at the FMC have attempted to appropriate Ferguson's statments as well. " There is no congruity between Whitaker's account and Ferguson so how could he rework anything into his account and for what purpose? He never mentioned anything to anyone but his family and he insisted on anonymity so what purpose would there be to do this? Who are these other employees that have attempted to appropriate Ferguson's statements? Can you name one and give an account?. Quote Pamela,"Ferguson was at Dearborn regularly and played golf with a number of FMC employees.." From what is known, it is not thought that Whitaker played golf and certainly no thought that he would have ever met Ferguson. What is truly amazing is that you without any knowledge, have suggestsed that Whitaker played golf with Ferguson and along with others....possibly weaved themselves into his fictictious account. Are you referencing here one of your own made up statements....?? Name the others and give an account.... ........ In addition, Mr. Whitaker started telling his family about what happeneed right away (November 25). Ferguson was allegedly in D.C. for a long time after the asassination ( Pamela are you suggesting that Ferguson was golfing in Michigan in December?) Check the weather. His account was not allegedly written until December 18th and many of the events were post November 25, so how could Whitaker weave anything into his account (though there is not one similarity.) B.......... Edited July 8, 2008 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 (edited) Pamela would you publish the part of the White House Garage log showing that Arlington glass replaced the glass on November 25, as you stated in your posting and that the Ferguson memo claims. Below is the Ferguson statement where he does relate that date...... But within the SS W/H Garge log, the closest that comes to such, but with No Date, mentioned is on page 2... See below......also... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=10482 B..... Edited, for spelling. Edited July 8, 2008 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now