A Hole In One!

[Mike Williams]

A Hole in One!

During part of my thread “First shot, First hit”(Lancer) there was some discussion about the shot coming through the windshield and striking JFK in the throat. I have for some time believed this to be a theoretical quirk, and have not held much belief in it.

None the less it keeps resurfacing, as a point of contention, so I decided to take a closer look at this hole.

This is the original photograph from which the point originates.

The photo is further blown up to this.

And last but not least to this with the alleged bullet hole marked.

After consulting 3 separate sources, I have determined that the rear view mirror dimensions are 9 7/8” inches wide, 2” High and 7/8” front to back thickness.

My own determination was 10” wide by using the other parts of the limo as reference. But I felt that this measurement was not accurate enough, thus I consulted outside sources.

To be continued......

[Mike Williams]

And on we go....

I contacted Cadillac, Automotive Restorations Inc. (which actually did a 61 Lincoln JFK Limo in 1987), and a member of Ebay Motors who was selling a 1961 Lincoln Rearview mirror.

All three of these sources verified the 9 7/8” Length, the 2” Height, and the 7/8” Front to back thickness.

From there I began to scale the photo that shows the alleged hole.

Lets take a look at that photo with my measure marks in place.

As we can see the most reliable measurement in this photo is the height of the 2” rear view mirror, which in this photo on my computer measures 16mm. This makes the scale of the 1mm hole equal about 1/8 inch.

1/8 inch equals .125 inches. Significantly smaller than the .264 of the Carcano, and half the size of the expected hole from a .22 caliber rifle. For those fans of the .30 caliber series such as the .308 and 30-06, the difference is even more significant.

We would expect to see a hole from an MC bullet leave a hole no smaller than 1/8 of an inch larger than that of the projectile size, or say something in the range of 3/8”. The Carcano bullet is .264, but for the sake of ease in measuring lest make it a smaller .250 or ¼ inch even. So the very smallest hole a .264 MC would leave is 3/8, which I have also replicated to scale in this photo for your ease of comparison.

Now let us compare the photo at Parkland with the known exhibit CE350. The photos of CE 350 were taken by the secret service after midnight, or in the early morning hours of 23NOV63. I would assume the parkland photos have to be authentic, as I hardly believe there was time to alter the glass and have it replaced and other such foolishness before the limo arrived at Parkland.

Here is CE350

And for comparison the PL photo.

I have marked each photo with colors to indicate the same area in general in each photo. I did this because one photo was taken from front, and one from back, at varied distances.

Note the Dark area in the CE350 photo and how it corresponds with the so called “translucent” spot in the PL photo.

In conclusion.

There was no hole in the glass, the artifact that has been labeled a hole is even to small to have been a hole from a rifle bullet, unless of course some half crazed assassin out there was shooting at the Limo with a .177 caliber pellet gun, which I might add is still to LARGE to have created the hole in the parkland photo.

Physical evidence beats witness testimony any day.

I am sure there will be those who will say “well we are looking at this on an angle.” I do not care how you turn it you can not make a 1/8” hole into a 3/8” hole. Not gonna happen within the realm of logic.

Best to all,

Mike

[Paul Rigby]

In conclusion.

There was no hole in the glass, the artifact that has been labeled a hole is even to small to have been a hole from a rifle bullet, unless of course some half crazed assassin out there was shooting at the Limo with a .177 caliber pellet gun, which I might add is still to LARGE to have created the hole in the parkland photo.

Physical evidence beats witness testimony any day.

I am sure there will be those who will say “well we are looking at this on an angle.” I do not care how you turn it you can not make a 1/8” hole into a 3/8” hole. Not gonna happen within the realm of logic.

Best to all,

Mike

For a very different view:

Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, California: 1974): Extract from Chapter 3, “Execution”:

The Fifth Shot

When Mrs. Kennedy was about to climb out of the Presidential limousine and Governor Connolly pulled himself up and looked over into the front seat, another shot was fired. That bullet hit the windshield of the limousine (88). The damage can clearly be seen in one of Altgens' photographs (Fig. 3-9).

The bullet hole was noted by reporter Richard Dudman (89). Sgt. Stavis Ellis described it: "Well, it was a hole. You could put a pencil through it. I showed it to Officer Chaney out there at the hospital [Parkland]…you could take a regular standard writing pencil - wood pencil - and stick it through there…and some Secret Service agent run up there and said, 'That's no bullet hole, that's a fragment.' It wasn't a damn fragment; it was a hole” (90).

There was a bullet scar on the curb near the triple underpass (91). By projecting a line, from the curb, through the windshield of the limousine at that point in time, it aligns near the centre of the road.

The line of trajectory points to a source within the motorcade.

Because of the steep angle - 45 degrees - of the front windshield, this shot must have been fired at or about ground level from some point behind the limousine. A shot fired from above the motorcade, such as from the sixth floor of the depository, would have hit either the windshield or the curb, not both.

Footnotes:

(88) Zapruder frame number 330.

(89) Charles Roberts, op. cit., p. 17.

(90) Ellis, loc. cit.

(91) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26. ‘FBI report, dated July 17, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 472-474.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27. ‘Letter from the FBI to the Commission, dated August 12, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 475-477.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29-30. ‘Charts prepared by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt showing locations of curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 478-480.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “’Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. ‘Piece of curb containing lead markings removed from Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, p. 482.

According to Shaneyfelt, “These metal smears [on the curb] were spectographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found. The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.” [Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated Sept. 1, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 15, p. 700.

[Mike Williams]

In conclusion.

There was no hole in the glass, the artifact that has been labeled a hole is even to small to have been a hole from a rifle bullet, unless of course some half crazed assassin out there was shooting at the Limo with a .177 caliber pellet gun, which I might add is still to LARGE to have created the hole in the parkland photo.

Physical evidence beats witness testimony any day.

I am sure there will be those who will say “well we are looking at this on an angle.” I do not care how you turn it you can not make a 1/8” hole into a 3/8” hole. Not gonna happen within the realm of logic.

Best to all,

Mike

For a very different view:

Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, California: 1974): Extract from Chapter 3, “Execution”:

The Fifth Shot

When Mrs. Kennedy was about to climb out of the Presidential limousine and Governor Connolly pulled himself up and looked over into the front seat, another shot was fired. That bullet hit the windshield of the limousine (88). The damage can clearly be seen in one of Altgens' photographs (Fig. 3-9).

The bullet hole was noted by reporter Richard Dudman (89). Sgt. Stavis Ellis described it: "Well, it was a hole. You could put a pencil through it. I showed it to Officer Chaney out there at the hospital [Parkland]…you could take a regular standard writing pencil - wood pencil - and stick it through there…and some Secret Service agent run up there and said, 'That's no bullet hole, that's a fragment.' It wasn't a damn fragment; it was a hole” (90).

There was a bullet scar on the curb near the triple underpass (91). By projecting a line, from the curb, through the windshield of the limousine at that point in time, it aligns near the centre of the road.

The line of trajectory points to a source within the motorcade.

Because of the steep angle - 45 degrees - of the front windshield, this shot must have been fired at or about ground level from some point behind the limousine. A shot fired from above the motorcade, such as from the sixth floor of the depository, would have hit either the windshield or the curb, not both.

Footnotes:

(88) Zapruder frame number 330.

(89) Charles Roberts, op. cit., p. 17.

(90) Ellis, loc. cit.

(91) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26. ‘FBI report, dated July 17, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 472-474.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27. ‘Letter from the FBI to the Commission, dated August 12, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 475-477.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29-30. ‘Charts prepared by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt showing locations of curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 478-480.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “’Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. ‘Piece of curb containing lead markings removed from Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, p. 482.

According to Shaneyfelt, “These metal smears [on the curb] were spectographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found. The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.” [Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated Sept. 1, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 15, p. 700.

Paul,

I would think if there were a hole, there would be some evidence of it in some of the photos at least. Even in the Altgens photo there is no easily visible hole.

What interests me here is the idea that the shot had come from in the motorcade itself, which I would have to add is nearly impossible.

Before I would spend any further effort on investigating trajectory, etc, I would have to find something to substantiate the hole even exists.

Best to you Paul,

Mike

[Don Roberdeau]

Good Day Mike.... Simply Outstanding.

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

Discovery: ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap : Westward, Ultrafast, & Directly Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, & Important information & considerations

President KENNEDY "Men of Courage: 4 Principles" speech, and a portion of fellow researchers articles and my research & discoveries, 1975 to present

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

National Terror Alert for the United States:

"Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE

the President." (my EMPHASIS)

----CHARLES F. BREHM, a combat gunfire experienced, United States

Army Ranger, World War II, D-day veteran, & very close Dealey Plaza

attack witness, quoted only minutes after the attack, and while he

is still standing within Dealey Plaza (11-22-63 "Dallas Times Herald,"

fifth & final daily edition, which mis-spelled his name)

"Another eyewitness, Charles Brehm, said he was 15 feet away from the

President when he was shot.

'He was waving, then the FIRST shot hit him and that awful look

crossed his face.' " (my EMPHASIS)

CHARLES F. BREHM, a combat gunfire experienced, United States Army

Ranger, World War II, D-day veteran, & very close Dealey Plaza attack

witness (quoted to the "Associated Press," 11-22-63)

Edited August 8, 2008 by Don Roberdeau

[Jack White]

I recall at least 3 sources who saw a THROUGH AND THROUGH hole. One reporter

even said he stuck a pencil thru the hole. Nick Principe, Washington policeman

on the White House detail, reported he saw the hole when the limo came back to

the WH garage from Texas. Reliable eyewitnesses trump doctored photos.

Jack

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

[Mike Williams]

I recall at least 3 sources who saw a THROUGH AND THROUGH hole. One reporter

even said he stuck a pencil thru the hole. Nick Principe, Washington policeman

on the White House detail, reported he saw the hole when the limo came back to

the WH garage from Texas. Reliable eyewitnesses trump doctored photos.

Jack

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Jack,

First the photos were given me by Richard Van Nood, a hole supporter. Second...your witness NEVER said he stuck a pencil in the hole, he said he could have. It also would go to their credit if they had all identified the hole in the same place.

You can cry alteration about anything that does not support your ideals, however that is a cop out. Just as it is with the Zapruder BS.

Now...How do you reconcile the fact that the damage in this photo matches the damage in the CE350 photo taken in the White House garage at 1am clearly showing no hole?

Is there anything that is not altered??

Mike

Edited August 8, 2008 by Mike Williams

[Antti Hynonen]

IMO there's not enough detail (or pixels) in the attached photos to determine whether the damaged area in the windshield shows a hole. More importantly IMO the existance of this defect (and the one in the trim of the windshield) indicates that most likely, there were more than 3 shots fired at the limo and it's occupants, thus indicating a conspiracy.

[Mike Williams]

IMO there's not enough detail (or pixels) in the attached photos to determine whether the damaged area in the windshield shows a hole. More importantly IMO the existance of this defect (and the one in the trim of the windshield) indicates that most likely, there were more than 3 shots fired at the limo and it's occupants, thus indicating a conspiracy.

Antti,

The one certain thing is that a hole would leave a translucent area. We can see the crack in the parkland photo, and an alleged area of translucence. This area however could also be the chip in the glass that we see in the CE350 photo also above. The similarities in the cracks are marked by colored arrows. This means we are looking at the same damage in the PL photo that we are looking at in the CE350 photo (ala no switcheroo).

There is not a single photo in evidence that shows a hole in the glass. Not one. Yet all the photos in evidence share like characteristics with the original damage. Further evidence of the lack of a hole.

As for the damage to the limo overall being an indication of a conspiracy, you will have to expand on this a bit, as both the glass and chrome damage could come from a single shot passing through the rear of the head of JFK, fragmenting, and causing the damage. The total damage can be attributed to a single shot.

Best,

Mike

[Lee Forman]

Hi Mike.

I wasted a lot of time chasing after holes in the windshield myself - went round in a few circles - if you'd like, I can send you the high res scan I did of a Nov 63 crop print taken from the Altgens. Here's a nice view of it - plus I think I have another one up elsewhere on the forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144615

Sort of a dynamic and learning excercise I went through - but my primary goal was to refute the supposed evidence of a hole -put forth in MIDP I think - which suggested a South Knoll shot, and a 'spiral shaped' crack/hole allegedly seen in Altgens and evidence of a hole in the z-footage. I believe that much of the conjecture for a south knoll shooter relies upon information provided by Tosh Plumlee. If one examines a higher quality version of the photo - it is clear that there is no such 'spiral shaped' anything.

In all honesty, after reading, reviewing, etc., my view at the moment would lean towards agreement with Tom Purvis - that the hole/crack in the windshield was the result of a fragment which was part of the rear graze shot to the top of Kennedy's head. There is also the blood on the inside of the windshield to consider [see Robin Unger's stuff on that - here someplace on the forum], the possibility of the rearview mirror suffering damage, and of course the dent in the chrome.

Aside: MANY of the Altgens photos I obtained had signs of I guess what I will have to call 'retouching.' That is not to suggest alteration - but highlighting and 'fixing' a photo prior to publication in a newspaper. I can provide one for example if you'd care to see it. However, that having been said, I have never been satisfied that the original photo was genuine - there are problems with it which still remain unresolved in my opinion.

Al Carrier suggested that shooting a target through a windshield is possible - I agree - it's possible, but that doesn't mean that is what happened - he also posted evidence of the possibility, showing a windsheild with golf-ball sized holes in it. Didn't seem to do much to support his case in my opinion.

Anyway - have a look at the Altgens in the link - if you'd like a copy, let me know. I wasted quite a bit of money collecting Altgens stuff in as original and as early sources as possible.

- lee

[Mike Williams]

Hi Mike.

I wasted a lot of time chasing after holes in the windshield myself - went round in a few circles - if you'd like, I can send you the high res scan I did of a Nov 63 crop print taken from the Altgens. Here's a nice view of it - plus I think I have another one up elsewhere on the forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144615

Sort of a dynamic and learning excercise I went through - but my primary goal was to refute the supposed evidence of a hole -put forth in MIDP I think - which suggested a South Knoll shot, and a 'spiral shaped' crack/hole allegedly seen in Altgens and evidence of a hole in the z-footage. I believe that much of the conjecture for a south knoll shooter relies upon information provided by Tosh Plumlee. If one examines a higher quality version of the photo - it is clear that there is no such 'spiral shaped' anything.

In all honesty, after reading, reviewing, etc., my view at the moment would lean towards agreement with Tom Purvis - that the hole/crack in the windshield was the result of a fragment which was part of the rear graze shot to the top of Kennedy's head. There is also the blood on the inside of the windshield to consider [see Robin Unger's stuff on that - here someplace on the forum], the possibility of the rearview mirror suffering damage, and of course the dent in the chrome.

Aside: MANY of the Altgens photos I obtained had signs of I guess what I will have to call 'retouching.' That is not to suggest alteration - but highlighting and 'fixing' a photo prior to publication in a newspaper. I can provide one for example if you'd care to see it. However, that having been said, I have never been satisfied that the original photo was genuine - there are problems with it which still remain unresolved in my opinion.

Al Carrier suggested that shooting a target through a windshield is possible - I agree - it's possible, but that doesn't mean that is what happened - he also posted evidence of the possibility, showing a windsheild with golf-ball sized holes in it. Didn't seem to do much to support his case in my opinion.

Anyway - have a look at the Altgens in the link - if you'd like a copy, let me know. I wasted quite a bit of money collecting Altgens stuff in as original and as early sources as possible.

- lee

Lee,

Yes Please I would like a copy of that.

I agree there is no hole or damage at this time. I also agree with you and Tom that this is a damage from the head shot, further I do not believe there was a hole.

As we know when a bullet transits glass it bevels out the inside. We have reports of lead samples being taken from the inside, if it were a hole from an outside shot, there would be no lead smear inside. It was that very thing, nothing more than a fragment from the head shot, I am in 100% agreement.

Mike

[Don Jeffries]

Mike,

One of the strongest reasons to suspect that photos and/or film of the assassination were altered is because of the extensive eyewitness testimony that seems to contradict what we see in them. There are the numerous witnesses who, independently of each other, reported that the motorcade had stopped or nearly stopped. While eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, when that many people mention the same point (without being prompted), it's extremly unlikely they are all identically mistaken. Reasonable investigators would pay attention to what they were saying. There is strong eyewitness testimony about the bullet hole in the windshield. Reporter Richard Dudman described being shoved by a Secret Service agent when he tried to examine the hole more closely. Doug Weldon did some great work on this- study his research.

Do you also believe that the autopsy photos are genuine? What we see in these photos contradicts the professional opinions of every doctor and nurse who saw the back of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital. People do not see huge, gaping wounds where they don't exist. Certainly, a large number of medical personnel could not have made the same egregious error in describing what they saw. Thus, the autospy photos are clearly and unequivocally altered. So alteration is not a myth.

Witnesses like Richard Dudman had no reason to invent a story about seeing a bullet hole in the windshield. Those who were already starting to cover up the truth about the assassination had very obvious reasons for claiming that there was no hole in the windshield.

Agreeing with Tom Purvis's incomprehensible and rambling theories doesn't exactly lend credibility to your position, although I must grudgingly admire anyone who can halfway understand them.

Quick question- do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy?

[Mike Williams]

Mike,

One of the strongest reasons to suspect that photos and/or film of the assassination were altered is because of the extensive eyewitness testimony that seems to contradict what we see in them. There are the numerous witnesses who, independently of each other, reported that the motorcade had stopped or nearly stopped. While eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, when that many people mention the same point (without being prompted), it's extremly unlikely they are all identically mistaken. Reasonable investigators would pay attention to what they were saying. There is strong eyewitness testimony about the bullet hole in the windshield. Reporter Richard Dudman described being shoved by a Secret Service agent when he tried to examine the hole more closely. Doug Weldon did some great work on this- study his research.

Do you also believe that the autopsy photos are genuine? What we see in these photos contradicts the professional opinions of every doctor and nurse who saw the back of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital. People do not see huge, gaping wounds where they don't exist. Certainly, a large number of medical personnel could not have made the same egregious error in describing what they saw. Thus, the autospy photos are clearly and unequivocally altered. So alteration is not a myth.

Witnesses like Richard Dudman had no reason to invent a story about seeing a bullet hole in the windshield. Those who were already starting to cover up the truth about the assassination had very obvious reasons for claiming that there was no hole in the windshield.

Agreeing with Tom Purvis's incomprehensible and rambling theories doesn't exactly lend credibility to your position, although I must grudgingly admire anyone who can halfway understand them.

Quick question- do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy?

Don,

Good to hear from you.

I have studied the windshield quite a bit, and the one thing that keep coming back, is that the parkland damage replicates the CE350 photo, they are alike, and there is no hole. It really is that simple. There were in fact some, not many, who talk about a hole, yet significantly they do not all put the hole in the same place. A reasonable researcher has to take all this into account as well. The physical evidence simply does not support a hole in the glass. Nor does the inconsistencies in many of those who say there was a hole.

I do in fact have issues with the autopsy photos, in some instances, and I do believe that there may have been issues there in regard to alteration. However, I always hesitate to say something is altered simply because I lack the knowledge to explain it. The comparison of the autopsy photos to the limo glass is a bit off kilter. A large hole in the rear of the head would without fail mean an exit, whereas a hole in the glass could have been written off to a rear penetration, and not a frontal penetration.

I find to many of the times things that can not be explained get written off as altered, I do not buy that, and will not allow myself to enter this quagmire. It could, and for some has, become habitual.

Can you tell me how in the world was the hole covered up between Parkland and the Ce350 photo? They both depict the same damage, see post above.

Moreover, can you tell me why a hole that should be at least 3/8 of an inch, is not observable in the Dallas News Photo taken at Parkland? Obviously, a 1/8 inch translucent area is visible, however this is to small to be a bullet hole, and furthermore, could have just been a chip in the glass, just as Frazier reported.

Are you saying without fail that the photo from parkland is doctored?

Oswald ...well Im still out on this one, and I will tell you why. The doctors have said that the shot to the back may not have been fatal, so therefore the head shot killed JFK and I am uncertain that Oswald fired that shot. I also can offer no evidence that he fired any shots that day.

Having said that, I also, in light of some things I have been working on, struggle to believe he was 100% innocent.

Now Tom Purvis. I understand where Tom is coming from, although I do not agree with all of what he says. However, that does not nullify all his work. That would be pompous. It simply means I don't agree with parts of it. Tom has in fact done some good work. In the same regard I have issues with some of my own work in this area and could not say that I feel I am 100%, because there are still issues I have uncertainties about.

You may consider Tom as rambling, but dont downplay his work because of your inability to understand it.

Mike

Edited August 11, 2008 by Mike Williams

[Don Jeffries]

Mike,

Thanks for the detailed response.

On the subject of film alteration in this case, I'm an agnostic. While I don't necessarily believe that the Zapruder film or any other film was altered, I think that Jack White, Jim Fetzer, etc. have raised some intriguing questions. Ultimately, I think that it really matters little whether or not those films were altered. There is an abundance of other evidence to indicate there was a conspiracy.

As for Tom Purvis, I certainly don't mean to sound pompous. I simply don't see how any rational person can follow his long, repetitive posts and understand what he's saying. If I comprehend his overall theory about the assassination, he thinks that all the shots were fired by Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano, from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, but he also claims that the Warren Commission engaged in a massive coverup. Which begs the question; since they spent all their efforts trying to establish the extremely flimsy case against Oswald, what kind of coverup is he referring to? He also, I think, agrees with the alterationists. He maintains that Oswald was a crack shot, when all the available evidence indicates otherwise. He seems to have impressed a few people on this forum, which is astonishing to me. However, my hat's off to you if you can decipher what he's saying, because I must not be perceptive (or patient) enough to do so.

On the subject of this thread, I'm certainly no expert, but I am impressed by the testimony of those who adamantly maintained they saw a hole in the windshield. Doug Weldon is a true expert on this subject- maybe you could contact him.

[Mike Williams]

Mike,

Thanks for the detailed response.

On the subject of film alteration in this case, I'm an agnostic. While I don't necessarily believe that the Zapruder film or any other film was altered, I think that Jack White, Jim Fetzer, etc. have raised some intriguing questions. Ultimately, I think that it really matters little whether or not those films were altered. There is an abundance of other evidence to indicate there was a conspiracy.

As for Tom Purvis, I certainly don't mean to sound pompous. I simply don't see how any rational person can follow his long, repetitive posts and understand what he's saying. If I comprehend his overall theory about the assassination, he thinks that all the shots were fired by Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano, from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, but he also claims that the Warren Commission engaged in a massive coverup. Which begs the question; since they spent all their efforts trying to establish the extremely flimsy case against Oswald, what kind of coverup is he referring to? He also, I think, agrees with the alterationists. He maintains that Oswald was a crack shot, when all the available evidence indicates otherwise. He seems to have impressed a few people on this forum, which is astonishing to me. However, my hat's off to you if you can decipher what he's saying, because I must not be perceptive (or patient) enough to do so.

On the subject of this thread, I'm certainly no expert, but I am impressed by the testimony of those who adamantly maintained they saw a hole in the windshield. Doug Weldon is a true expert on this subject- maybe you could contact him.

Don,

I believe that you offer good advice. I will contact Weldon and see what he has to say. If you feel he is a true expert in this area, then it would be the only honorable thing to do. I have no problem with being wrong, if it is proven to be so, I just want to know the correct information, even if that mean I am incorrect. It would seem that if there is an issue here Weldon may be able to point it out to me.

For now until this is proven wrong, I have to maintain there was no hole. I do not do that to be a hardheaded jerk, Its simply that I have not been exposed to sufficient evidence to think otherwise. Perhaps Weldon can change that.

As for Tom. Like I said there are some things I do not agree with. Oswald being a crack shot, is one. BUT I will not belabor that, simply because, Oswald did not have to be a crack shot to accomplish this task. These were not difficult shots. While there are some issues that do point towards conspiracy, and those do have to be accounted for, the only evidence we have by and large, is of a single rear shooter. I do not feel comfortable saying Oswald acted alone, there are questions left unanswered.

Mike