Antti Hynonen Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Mike Williams Posted Yesterday, 11:25 AM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 10 2008, 03:26 AM) 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 Mike, thanks for your reply. http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/forensic.htm Any comments on the above? 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. Mike, I do agree that one shot could have caused damage to different areas of the vehicle, however most likely not a FMJ bullet as alleged by the WC. Perhaps my wording was off, as it leads the reader to believe that my opinion is that a hole in the windshield indicates a 4th shot (from the front, not an impossibility either), when in fact I wanted to allude to the likeliness of a 4th bullet having been one that fragmented, one of a different type that is. I don't believe that a FMJ bullet would fragment as seen in the x-rays and and other evidence. Therefore this evidence does not agree with the Carcano being the only weapon used for all the shooting done in Dealy Plaza that day. Therefore if 3 shots were fired from the Carcano, the damage caused by the fragments at the scene and in the victim is likely caused by a different weapon/bullet. Further, I do place more weight on the eyewitness statements regarding a hole in the windshield, than the photos I have seen depicting the limousine and windshield (which IMO do not contain enough detail to form a definitive opinion). By the way, do you consider the existance of a hole in the windshield, or alternatively the lack of a hole to be a key issue? If yes, how so, if I may ask? Also, do you consider you calculations regarding the precise size of the damaged area in the windshield to be accurate? I'm sure the size of the mirror is correct though - as you indicated. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Mike, Re: measurements, I was having trouble reading your presentation. I believe 1" means one inch, correct? Therefore 1 inch is 2,54 cm. This is 25,4 mm. 1mm= 1/25,4 of an inch. 2" would be 5,08cm or 50,8mm. 16mm. would be just around 5/8 of an inch or more precisely 16/25,4 of an inch. http://bluefive.pair.com/inches_to_cm_to_inches.htm Antti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 Mike Williams Posted Yesterday, 11:25 AM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 10 2008, 03:26 AM) 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 Mike, thanks for your reply. http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/forensic.htm Any comments on the above? 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. Mike, I do agree that one shot could have caused damage to different areas of the vehicle, however most likely not a FMJ bullet as alleged by the WC. Perhaps my wording was off, as it leads the reader to believe that my opinion is that a hole in the windshield indicates a 4th shot (from the front, not an impossibility either), when in fact I wanted to allude to the likeliness of a 4th bullet having been one that fragmented, one of a different type that is. I don't believe that a FMJ bullet would fragment as seen in the x-rays and and other evidence. Therefore this evidence does not agree with the Carcano being the only weapon used for all the shooting done in Dealy Plaza that day. Therefore if 3 shots were fired from the Carcano, the damage caused by the fragments at the scene and in the victim is likely caused by a different weapon/bullet. Further, I do place more weight on the eyewitness statements regarding a hole in the windshield, than the photos I have seen depicting the limousine and windshield (which IMO do not contain enough detail to form a definitive opinion). By the way, do you consider the existance of a hole in the windshield, or alternatively the lack of a hole to be a key issue? If yes, how so, if I may ask? Also, do you consider you calculations regarding the precise size of the damaged area in the windshield to be accurate? I'm sure the size of the mirror is correct though - as you indicated. Thanks! Antti, I consider the hole a key issue in some respects. If it were proven to be a hole from the front, the implications would be huge. However this creates many issues. Shooters location, disposition of the projectile, etc. I printed the photos and then scaled them with both a mm ruler and digital calipers. They are as accurate as I can make them. Now one thing to consider here is that the alleged hole, or translucent area is further from the camera than the rear view, this would mean that the scale would be off slightly. However given the 1/8 size in relation the difference would really be a non-issue. By comparing the 3/8 mark I made, as to how large the hole should be, we can clearly see there is nothing to indicate a hole that large. Given the fact that charicteristically the PL damage replicates the CE350 damage, we have to agree that both photos are genuine and replicate the damage, and this damage just does not show a hole of any significant size if it shows any type of hole at all. I have some other photos of this damage which do show the same damage at PL and CE350, they clearly show no hole. I will dig those up and post them for you, but might not be able to until this evening. As for the article you posted, I will give it a read and then offer what I can. I have not read that article yet. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 Mike,Re: measurements, I was having trouble reading your presentation. I believe 1" means one inch, correct? Therefore 1 inch is 2,54 cm. This is 25,4 mm. 1mm= 1/25,4 of an inch. 2" would be 5,08cm or 50,8mm. 16mm. would be just around 5/8 of an inch or more precisely 16/25,4 of an inch. http://bluefive.pair.com/inches_to_cm_to_inches.htm Antti What I did was print the images at 100% then measured the known 2 inch height of the rear view. It measured 16mm. This means to scale that 16mm=2 inches. Thus 1mm equals 1/8 inch. The defect in the glass that has been called a hole because it appears translucent measures 1mm or to scale 1/8" less than 1/3 of what a 6.5mm bullet hole would be. Bear in mind 1/8" is .125 inches and smaller than a .177 caliber pellet! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) I have family concerns right now to attend to, and do not have much time, so I cannot regularly contribute to this thread.. So I have compiled some information from my files, for any member who is interested... .B..... Post # 13......Mike To Don Jeffries :Quote "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. " Some ??? ...There are at least 9 people , plus.......who have spoken about a hole in the windshield.. 9 Windshield hole witnesses Dr. Evalea Glanges, resident at Parkland Hospital and a friend who would not use her name.. George Whitaker, Ford Motor Company Glass Expert Richard Dudman- reporter Frank Cormier..reporter both -St.Louis Post-Dispatch Sgt. Stavis Ellis- Motorcyclist Dallas Police Department quote.. ''You could take a regular standard writing pencil, a wood pencil and stick it through there'.... and some SS agent run up and said 'Thats no bullet hole! thats a fragment''.. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page H.R. Freeman- Motorcyclist Dallas Police Department Nick Principe-WH USA Park Officer SS Agent Charles Taylor Jr...accompanied SS Kenney who drove the limo to the W/H garage from Andrews page 370-371 of " Best Evidence".. it was examined by a 5-man team from the FBI Lab..Agent Taylor witnessed that examination, and wrote in his report, "of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield" SS Abraham Bolden...who stated to Vince Palamara in a interview, he heard about a hole in the windshield And FWTAW. Two different unidentified callers to the "Jim Bohannon Radio Show......and to the "Larry King Live TV show..... The hole you have shown in the cropped enlarged Parkland photo, is almost the same size as the button seen on the hospital attendant's white smock seen on the left..... Post # 7...To Jack White :....Quote " It also would go to their credit if they had all identified the hole in the same place." All the descriptions are in the same general location..They are not describing a hole in the oppositie side of the windshield... Other than Ferguson, who describes the "defect"...and there is no defect in that location..... With the slant of the windshield their descriptions differ by a couple of inches and this is explained in Doug Weldon's work in the book "Murder In Dealey Plaza"......why this is logical..... Also read SSA Kellerman's testimony to the W/C....he notes a flurry of shots, though Specter accomplished changing that information..... He also speaks of how the windshield damage felt to him on the inside, the first time, he examined it.....and then how that had changed when he viewed and examined it on the second....exam.... Here also is a post by Ron Ecker Dec.04 on Kellerman's information....to the WC.. It is apparent from the WC testimony of SS agent Roy Kellerman that the damaged windshield was switched, not once but at least twice, between the shooting and the time that a windshield was brought into the WC hearing for Kellerman to examine. It should be noted, to begin with, that Kellerman believed there was a conspiracy, as is evident from his testimony that there had to be more than three shots. (And Senator Cooper obviously couldn’t believe what he heard.) I think that this would eliminate Kellerman as a conspirator. Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen. Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say? Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. Representative FORD. Is that why you have described-- Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry. Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir. Arlen Specter then gets Kellerman to admit that he didn’t actually remember hearing more than three shots. On to the windshield: Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir. (“That day” refers to Nov. 27, in the White House garage, the first time Kellerman noted the damage.) Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything? Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth. Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did. Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you? Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car. Several witnesses saw a through hole in the windshield. This is discussed in detail by Weldon in "Murder in Dealey Plaza." The windshield with no hole that Kellerman saw in the White House garage and described to the WC was therefore not the original windshield, but a replacement windshield that had been damaged by hitting it with something on the inside, making no hole and leaving the outside smooth. After the windshield is admitted into evidence: Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman. I would like for you at this time to actually touch the outside (of the windshield) and tell me, first of all, if it is the same or if it differs in any way from the sense of feel which you noted when you touched it on or about November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. As I touch the outside on the impact, it would be the same as I noticed on the 27th of November. Mr. SPECTER. What do you notice, if anything? Mr. KELLERMAN. It is a smooth surface without any-- Mr. SPECTER. Without any--finish your answer. Mr. KELLERMAN. On the inside. Mr. SPECTER. No; before. It is a smooth surface without any what? Mr. KELLERMAN. Without any crack lines. Mr. SPECTER. On the outside? Mr. KELLERMAN. That can be felt. Mr. SPECTER. On the outside? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; on the outside of the windshield. But now Specter makes a mistake similar to the one the prosecution made in the O.J. trial by having O.J. try on the glove (it didn’t fit!): Mr. SPECTER. Feel the inside and tell us, first of all, whether it is the same or different from the way you touched it on November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. On November 27, when I felt the inside of this impact area, I was convinced that I could - that I felt an opening in one of these lines, which was indicative to me that the blow was struck from the inside of the car on this windshield. Mr. SPECTER. Does it feel the same to you today as it did on or about November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. As a matter of fact, it feels rather smooth today. Mr. SPECTER. It feels somewhat differently today than it felt before? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; it does. Kellerman had to know at that moment that the windshield had been switched. And this was the second switch (at least) that had been made. (Having gotten rid of the hole with the first switch, why was a second switch made, to have both sides of the windshield smooth? I don’t have a clue.) Ron Ecker http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm Concerning SSA Charles Taylor Jr.... ""In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion."" Record Number 180-10099-10390 Agency File Number 002528 Originator-WC From: Taylor, Charles E. To: Date: 11/27/63 Pages: 4 Subjects: Kennedy, John, Autopsy Evidence, Medical Wound Ballistics USSS Date of release: 12/16/93 Contents: Secret Service Report dated 11/27/63 by Agents Charles E. Taylor, Jr. and Harry W. Geiglein on investigation of clues found in the Presidential limousine. Document follows in full. ORIGIN: White House Detail OFFICE: Washington, D.C. FILE NO.: CO-2-34,030 TYPE OF CASE: Protective Research STATUS: Closed INVESTIGATION MADE AT: Washington, D.C. PERIOD COVERED: November 22-23, 1963 INVESTIGATION MADE BY: SAIC Harry W. Geiglein SA Charles E. Taylor, Jr. TITLE OR CAPTION: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy SYNOPSIS This report relates to the measures employed to effect security of the President's car, 100-X, and the follow-up car, 679-X, on return from Dallas, Texas, following the assassination of President Kennedy. DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was initiated on November 22, 1963, following receipt of instructions from ASAIC Floyd M. Boring, White House Detail, that steps be taken to effect security of the President's car (100-X) and the follow-up car (679-X) on their return from Dallas, Texas. President John F. Kennedy occupied the rear seat of SS-100-X when he was assassinated, and SS-679-X was directly behind the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination. There two vehicles were driven to Love Field, Dallas, Texas, for immediate transportation to Andrews Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. Following the arrival of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the remains of President Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base, the reporting Special Agents conferred with Captain Milton B. Hartenblower, Duty Operations Officer, and Lt. Colonel Robert Best, Provost Marshal, Andrews Air Force Base, to arrange for landing instruction of the Air Force cargo plane transporting the subject vehicles and to escort these vehicles from Andrews Air Force Base. Also, arrangements were made with the U.S. Park Police for motorcycle escort of these automobiles to the White House Garage. DISTRIBUTION: Chief Washington COPIES: Orig. & 2 cc 2 cc REPORT MADE BY: /s/ Charles E. Taylor, Jr. DATE: 11/27/63 Charles E. Taylor, Jr. APPROVED: /s/ Harry W. Geiglein DATE: 11/27/63 Harry W. Geiglein SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: Harry W. Geiglein CO-2-34,030 Page 2 At 8:00 P.M. on November 22, 1963, SS-100-X and SS-679-X arrived at Andrews Air Force Base on Air Force Cargo Plane No. 612373 (C-130-E), which plane was assigned to the 78th Air Transport Squadron from Charleston Air Force Base and piloted by Captain Thomason. The plane was taxied to a point just off of Runway 1028, approximately 100 yards from the Control Tower at Andrews AFB, and a security cordon was placed around the aircraft while these vehicles were being unloaded. On the plane accompanying these vehicles were Special Agents Kinney and Hickey. The Presidential vehicles were driven under escort to the White House Garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C., arriving at approximately 9:00 P.M. SS-100-X was driven by SA Kinney, accompanied by SA Taylor, and SS-679-x was driven by SA Hickey, accompanied by Special Agents Keiser and Brett. On arrival, SS-100-X was backed into the designated parking bin and SS-679-X was parked a few feet away. A plastic cover was placed over SS-100-X and it was secured. The follow-up car, SS-679-X, was locked and secured. Special Agents Keiser, Brett, and the reporting Special Agent effected security, assisted by White House Policemen Snyder and Rubenstal. At 10:10 P.M., Deputy Chief Paterni, ASAIC Boring, and representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X. At 12:01 A.M., November 23, 1963, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Paraschos and Kennedy and White House Policeman J. W. Edwards. At 1:00 A.M., as per arrangements by Deputy Chief Paterni, a team of FBI Agents examined the Presidential limousine. This team was comprised of Orrin H. Bartlett, Charles L. Killian, Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert A. Frazier, and Walter E. Thomas . Mr. Orin Bartlett drove the Presidential vehicle out of the bin. The team of FBI Agents, assisted by the Secret Service Agents on duty, removed the leatherette convertible top and the plexi-glass bubbletop; also the molding strips that secure the floor matting, and the rear seat. What appeared to be bullet fragments were removed from the windshield and the floor rug in the rear of the car. CO-2-34,030 Page 3 The two blankets on the left and right rear doors were removed, inspected, and returned to the vehicle. The trunk of the vehicle was opened and the contents examined, and nothing was removed. A meticulous examination was made of the back seat to the car and the floor rug, and no evidence was found. In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion. During the course of this examination, a number of color photos were taken by this FBI <"FBI" inserted in longhand with an arrow> search team. They concluded their examination at 4:30 A.M. and the President's car was reassembled and put back in the storage bin. At 8:00 A.M. on November 23, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Hancock and Davis and White House Policeman J. C. Rowe. SA Gonzalez relieved SA Hancock at Noon and at 4:00 P.M., Messrs, Fox and Norton, Protective Research Section, photographed the Presidential limousine. At 4:30 P.M., SA Gonzalez contacted SAIC Bouck and Deputy Chief Paterni and, at their request, the flowers, torn pieces of paper, and other miscellaneous debris were removed from the floor of the car (SS-100-X) and taken to the Washington Field Office. At that time, the special detail securing the Presidential limousine and the follow-up car was discontinued. DISPOSITION This case is closed with the submission of this report. CET:mkd Below 1...the photo taken at Parkland.....enlarged showing hit... 2......Altgens 7....showing hit....from a different angle.....does the W/H garage photo show the same damage as in Altgens 7...or is it larger......?? 3...Photo taken at the W/H garage showing a frosted hit, to windshield... 4...Windshield hit, W/C CE 351 5....HSCA FIRS_CE 251_showing hit.......( the driver's stain on the right...not positive right now, I think that it was coffee....) 6: As to some who may say that people were not allowed to view the Limo, while at Parkland .....this is just one of the many, showing a few of the many people in that area that continually did so.... 7.....Another showing the visor turned down over the damage.... 8....Showing possible direction of the shot......from the overpass area..... 9::Bullet fragments shown.....""..In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed."" 10...As far as I know, this is the Photo taken by Robert Groden at the National Archives as the windshield appears today, they would not allow him to examine. FYI...... B......... Edited August 12, 2008 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) B, I am not convinced that what we see in Altgens7 is the damage to the glass. The main reason for this, is that it does not seem to be consistent with what we see at Parkland. Further it is difficult to determine just what we see in the Altgens7 photo. I am fairly certain there was no glass switch between the shooting event, and Parkland. The Parkland damage does reflect the CE350 photo. Which is also reflected in other photos, none of which show a hole at all. There is also the testimony of Robert Frazier, who examined this damage at approx 1am on 11/23/63. I have found nothing in Fraziers testimony that gives me reason to dispute him. We have many accounts of lead samples being taken from the inside of the glass, if this were a hole from the outside, there would be no lead on the inside shell, it would be chamfered away. Further problems, where did this bullet go? We do know by the description of the neck wound that this was not the answer. First hand accounts are not the best item to base an issue with no physical evidence. Many of the officers and reporters made inaccurate statements. Our glass expert tells us it was a clean neat hole, if that were the case the impact angle would be 90 degrees, You do of course know this would have struck the inside of the limo at the best, and an occupant at the worst. Never mind the fact that a projectile striking a slanted windshield would not leave a neat round hole. How soon after the event did Whittaker see the damage? How reliable are the reports of those who saw this damage at Parkland, and how do these reports and their reliability stack up against other reports made that day? To date, I have yet to find one solid piece of evidence for a hole to exist. In regard to the button in relation to the hole. I have no idea how large that button is of course, but I do know and scaled precisely the mirror in relation to the translucence alleged to be a hole, and the hole does in fact measure 1/8" I would suspect that given the fact that the length of the hood is 80.3 inches, nearly 7 feet, that this button is significantly further from the camera than the "hole" and mirror. The photo you posted with the arrow does not represent the location of the supposed hole. The arrow indicates a location on the right of the rear view mirror. I wish you the best with your family situation, whatever it maybe. Mike Edited August 12, 2008 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) Mike I just spent ages, replying to you, and it is gone, it did not post ?????????and I now do not have the time to do so again.....the photos posted I see, or some. some will show you how close the limo parked to the inner sidewalk, and past the step leading into the Emerg...... but nothing of my long post............?? Now that sucks... Thanks for your good wishes...... For now.B..... Edited August 12, 2008 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) In 2 out of the 3 close up photos (windshield removed from vehicle) posted by Bernice it seems that the defect in the window is closer to the middle of the windshield than in the pictures where the windshield is attached to the vehicle. In the first photos taken after the incident the defect appears just slightly to the driver side of the top of the rear-view mirror - non towards the middle of the windshield as in the windshield removed photos. Hmmm...... The close ups do not clearly show a hole in either, were cameras and film really that poor in 1963??? Thanks for the photos. Edited August 12, 2008 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 In 2 out of the 3 close up photos (windshield removed from vehicle) posted by Bernice it seems that the defect in the window is closer to the middle of the windshield than in the pictures where the windshield is attached to the vehicle.In the first photos taken after the incident the defect appears just slightly to the driver side of the top of the rear-view mirror - non towards the middle of the windshield as in the windshield removed photos. Hmmm...... The close ups do not clearly show a hole in either, were cameras and film really that poor in 1963??? Thanks for the photos. B, Im sorry you were gotten by the post gobblin. I hope things are going well in the family matters. Antti, I would suggest this is simply because of the different angles the photos were taken from. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I have family concerns right now to attend to, and do not have much time, so I cannot regularly contribute to this thread..So I have compiled some information from my files, for any member who is interested... .B..... Post # 13......Mike To Don Jeffries :Quote "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. " Some ??? ...There are at least 9 people , plus.......who have spoken about a hole in the windshield.. 9 Windshield hole witnesses Dr. Evalea Glanges, resident at Parkland Hospital and a friend who would not use her name.. George Whitaker, Ford Motor Company Glass Expert Richard Dudman- reporter Frank Cormier..reporter both -St.Louis Post-Dispatch Sgt. Stavis Ellis- Motorcyclist Dallas Police Department quote.. ''You could take a regular standard writing pencil, a wood pencil and stick it through there'.... and some SS agent run up and said 'Thats no bullet hole! thats a fragment''.. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page H.R. Freeman- Motorcyclist Dallas Police Department Nick Principe-WH USA Park Officer SS Agent Charles Taylor Jr...accompanied SS Kenney who drove the limo to the W/H garage from Andrews page 370-371 of " Best Evidence".. it was examined by a 5-man team from the FBI Lab..Agent Taylor witnessed that examination, and wrote in his report, "of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield" SS Abraham Bolden...who stated to Vince Palamara in a interview, he heard about a hole in the windshield And FWTAW. Two different unidentified callers to the "Jim Bohannon Radio Show......and to the "Larry King Live TV show..... The hole you have shown in the cropped enlarged Parkland photo, is almost the same size as the button seen on the hospital attendant's white smock seen on the left..... Post # 7...To Jack White :....Quote " It also would go to their credit if they had all identified the hole in the same place." All the descriptions are in the same general location..They are not describing a hole in the oppositie side of the windshield... Other than Ferguson, who describes the "defect"...and there is no defect in that location..... With the slant of the windshield their descriptions differ by a couple of inches and this is explained in Doug Weldon's work in the book "Murder In Dealey Plaza"......why this is logical..... Also read SSA Kellerman's testimony to the W/C....he notes a flurry of shots, though Specter accomplished changing that information..... He also speaks of how the windshield damage felt to him on the inside, the first time, he examined it.....and then how that had changed when he viewed and examined it on the second....exam.... Here also is a post by Ron Ecker Dec.04 on Kellerman's information....to the WC.. It is apparent from the WC testimony of SS agent Roy Kellerman that the damaged windshield was switched, not once but at least twice, between the shooting and the time that a windshield was brought into the WC hearing for Kellerman to examine. It should be noted, to begin with, that Kellerman believed there was a conspiracy, as is evident from his testimony that there had to be more than three shots. (And Senator Cooper obviously couldn’t believe what he heard.) I think that this would eliminate Kellerman as a conspirator. Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen. Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say? Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. Representative FORD. Is that why you have described-- Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry. Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir. Arlen Specter then gets Kellerman to admit that he didn’t actually remember hearing more than three shots. On to the windshield: Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir. (“That day” refers to Nov. 27, in the White House garage, the first time Kellerman noted the damage.) Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything? Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth. Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did. Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you? Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car. Several witnesses saw a through hole in the windshield. This is discussed in detail by Weldon in "Murder in Dealey Plaza." The windshield with no hole that Kellerman saw in the White House garage and described to the WC was therefore not the original windshield, but a replacement windshield that had been damaged by hitting it with something on the inside, making no hole and leaving the outside smooth. After the windshield is admitted into evidence: Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman. I would like for you at this time to actually touch the outside (of the windshield) and tell me, first of all, if it is the same or if it differs in any way from the sense of feel which you noted when you touched it on or about November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. As I touch the outside on the impact, it would be the same as I noticed on the 27th of November. Mr. SPECTER. What do you notice, if anything? Mr. KELLERMAN. It is a smooth surface without any-- Mr. SPECTER. Without any--finish your answer. Mr. KELLERMAN. On the inside. Mr. SPECTER. No; before. It is a smooth surface without any what? Mr. KELLERMAN. Without any crack lines. Mr. SPECTER. On the outside? Mr. KELLERMAN. That can be felt. Mr. SPECTER. On the outside? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; on the outside of the windshield. But now Specter makes a mistake similar to the one the prosecution made in the O.J. trial by having O.J. try on the glove (it didn’t fit!): Mr. SPECTER. Feel the inside and tell us, first of all, whether it is the same or different from the way you touched it on November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. On November 27, when I felt the inside of this impact area, I was convinced that I could - that I felt an opening in one of these lines, which was indicative to me that the blow was struck from the inside of the car on this windshield. Mr. SPECTER. Does it feel the same to you today as it did on or about November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. As a matter of fact, it feels rather smooth today. Mr. SPECTER. It feels somewhat differently today than it felt before? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; it does. Kellerman had to know at that moment that the windshield had been switched. And this was the second switch (at least) that had been made. (Having gotten rid of the hole with the first switch, why was a second switch made, to have both sides of the windshield smooth? I don’t have a clue.) Ron Ecker http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm Concerning SSA Charles Taylor Jr.... ""In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion."" Record Number 180-10099-10390 Agency File Number 002528 Originator-WC From: Taylor, Charles E. To: Date: 11/27/63 Pages: 4 Subjects: Kennedy, John, Autopsy Evidence, Medical Wound Ballistics USSS Date of release: 12/16/93 Contents: Secret Service Report dated 11/27/63 by Agents Charles E. Taylor, Jr. and Harry W. Geiglein on investigation of clues found in the Presidential limousine. Document follows in full. ORIGIN: White House Detail OFFICE: Washington, D.C. FILE NO.: CO-2-34,030 TYPE OF CASE: Protective Research STATUS: Closed INVESTIGATION MADE AT: Washington, D.C. PERIOD COVERED: November 22-23, 1963 INVESTIGATION MADE BY: SAIC Harry W. Geiglein SA Charles E. Taylor, Jr. TITLE OR CAPTION: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy SYNOPSIS This report relates to the measures employed to effect security of the President's car, 100-X, and the follow-up car, 679-X, on return from Dallas, Texas, following the assassination of President Kennedy. DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was initiated on November 22, 1963, following receipt of instructions from ASAIC Floyd M. Boring, White House Detail, that steps be taken to effect security of the President's car (100-X) and the follow-up car (679-X) on their return from Dallas, Texas. President John F. Kennedy occupied the rear seat of SS-100-X when he was assassinated, and SS-679-X was directly behind the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination. There two vehicles were driven to Love Field, Dallas, Texas, for immediate transportation to Andrews Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. Following the arrival of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the remains of President Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base, the reporting Special Agents conferred with Captain Milton B. Hartenblower, Duty Operations Officer, and Lt. Colonel Robert Best, Provost Marshal, Andrews Air Force Base, to arrange for landing instruction of the Air Force cargo plane transporting the subject vehicles and to escort these vehicles from Andrews Air Force Base. Also, arrangements were made with the U.S. Park Police for motorcycle escort of these automobiles to the White House Garage. DISTRIBUTION: Chief Washington COPIES: Orig. & 2 cc 2 cc REPORT MADE BY: /s/ Charles E. Taylor, Jr. DATE: 11/27/63 Charles E. Taylor, Jr. APPROVED: /s/ Harry W. Geiglein DATE: 11/27/63 Harry W. Geiglein SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: Harry W. Geiglein CO-2-34,030 Page 2 At 8:00 P.M. on November 22, 1963, SS-100-X and SS-679-X arrived at Andrews Air Force Base on Air Force Cargo Plane No. 612373 (C-130-E), which plane was assigned to the 78th Air Transport Squadron from Charleston Air Force Base and piloted by Captain Thomason. The plane was taxied to a point just off of Runway 1028, approximately 100 yards from the Control Tower at Andrews AFB, and a security cordon was placed around the aircraft while these vehicles were being unloaded. On the plane accompanying these vehicles were Special Agents Kinney and Hickey. The Presidential vehicles were driven under escort to the White House Garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C., arriving at approximately 9:00 P.M. SS-100-X was driven by SA Kinney, accompanied by SA Taylor, and SS-679-x was driven by SA Hickey, accompanied by Special Agents Keiser and Brett. On arrival, SS-100-X was backed into the designated parking bin and SS-679-X was parked a few feet away. A plastic cover was placed over SS-100-X and it was secured. The follow-up car, SS-679-X, was locked and secured. Special Agents Keiser, Brett, and the reporting Special Agent effected security, assisted by White House Policemen Snyder and Rubenstal. At 10:10 P.M., Deputy Chief Paterni, ASAIC Boring, and representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X. At 12:01 A.M., November 23, 1963, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Paraschos and Kennedy and White House Policeman J. W. Edwards. At 1:00 A.M., as per arrangements by Deputy Chief Paterni, a team of FBI Agents examined the Presidential limousine. This team was comprised of Orrin H. Bartlett, Charles L. Killian, Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert A. Frazier, and Walter E. Thomas . Mr. Orin Bartlett drove the Presidential vehicle out of the bin. The team of FBI Agents, assisted by the Secret Service Agents on duty, removed the leatherette convertible top and the plexi-glass bubbletop; also the molding strips that secure the floor matting, and the rear seat. What appeared to be bullet fragments were removed from the windshield and the floor rug in the rear of the car. CO-2-34,030 Page 3 The two blankets on the left and right rear doors were removed, inspected, and returned to the vehicle. The trunk of the vehicle was opened and the contents examined, and nothing was removed. A meticulous examination was made of the back seat to the car and the floor rug, and no evidence was found. In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion. During the course of this examination, a number of color photos were taken by this FBI <"FBI" inserted in longhand with an arrow> search team. They concluded their examination at 4:30 A.M. and the President's car was reassembled and put back in the storage bin. At 8:00 A.M. on November 23, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Hancock and Davis and White House Policeman J. C. Rowe. SA Gonzalez relieved SA Hancock at Noon and at 4:00 P.M., Messrs, Fox and Norton, Protective Research Section, photographed the Presidential limousine. At 4:30 P.M., SA Gonzalez contacted SAIC Bouck and Deputy Chief Paterni and, at their request, the flowers, torn pieces of paper, and other miscellaneous debris were removed from the floor of the car (SS-100-X) and taken to the Washington Field Office. At that time, the special detail securing the Presidential limousine and the follow-up car was discontinued. DISPOSITION This case is closed with the submission of this report. CET:mkd Below 1...the photo taken at Parkland.....enlarged showing hit... 2......Altgens 7....showing hit....from a different angle.....does the W/H garage photo show the same damage as in Altgens 7...or is it larger......?? 3...Photo taken at the W/H garage showing a frosted hit, to windshield... 4...Windshield hit, W/C CE 351 5....HSCA FIRS_CE 251_showing hit.......( the driver's stain on the right...not positive right now, I think that it was coffee....) 6: As to some who may say that people were not allowed to view the Limo, while at Parkland .....this is just one of the many, showing a few of the many people in that area that continually did so.... 7.....Another showing the visor turned down over the damage.... 8....Showing possible direction of the shot......from the overpass area..... 9::Bullet fragments shown.....""..In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed."" 10...As far as I know, this is the Photo taken by Robert Groden at the National Archives as the windshield appears today, they would not allow him to examine. FYI...... B......... 9::Bullet fragments shown Which came from the left rear floor at Jackie's feet and from under the seat on which Nellie Connally was seated. Therefore, have little bearing on the windshield. And, while it is often fun (although a considerable waste of time) to chase such as the mythological hole in the window, it is often more fun to demonstrate exactly how the WC pulled the wool over the eyes of many. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. Mr. ALTGENS - I would say that--I know there was one in between. It is possible there might have been another one I don't really know, but two, I can really account for. Mr. LIEBELER - And that's the first one and the last one? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President? Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that. Mr. LIEBELER - Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 354, we have placed you at No. 3 on that picture. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm [b]it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that.[/b] http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg It often helps to place things into proper perspective if one pays attention to what is actually of some importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 The different people who thought they saw a T&T hole in the windshield pointed to different locations. Ellis saw a hole low on one side, Nick saw a hole low on another, Dudman saw a hole high up. Any attempt to make them all appear to be addressing the same spot is simplistic. There are obviously other factors involved. In addition, there was a defect in the windshield, that has been captured in CE350, and is also visible in Altgens 1-7, as well as in CE 351, the windshield removed from the limo on Monday following the assassination. The real question that we need to be asking is why there was so little damage to the limo? How could someone who was never seen shooting the M/C able to kill one person and nearly kill another without damaging the vehicle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 The different people who thought they saw a T&T hole in the windshield pointed to different locations. Ellis saw a hole low on one side, Nick saw a hole low on another, Dudman saw a hole high up. Any attempt to make them all appear to be addressing the same spot is simplistic. There are obviously other factors involved.In addition, there was a defect in the windshield, that has been captured in CE350, and is also visible in Altgens 1-7, as well as in CE 351, the windshield removed from the limo on Monday following the assassination. The real question that we need to be asking is why there was so little damage to the limo? How could someone who was never seen shooting the M/C able to kill one person and nearly kill another without damaging the vehicle? Pamela, The short answer is that there were no misses inside the limo. These shots were not difficult at all. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 (edited) The different people who thought they saw a T&T hole in the windshield pointed to different locations. Ellis saw a hole low on one side, Nick saw a hole low on another, Dudman saw a hole high up. Any attempt to make them all appear to be addressing the same spot is simplistic. There are obviously other factors involved.In addition, there was a defect in the windshield, that has been captured in CE350, and is also visible in Altgens 1-7, as well as in CE 351, the windshield removed from the limo on Monday following the assassination. The real question that we need to be asking is why there was so little damage to the limo? How could someone who was never seen shooting the M/C able to kill one person and nearly kill another without damaging the vehicle? Pamela, The short answer is that there were no misses inside the limo. These shots were not difficult at all. Mike Whether one accepts it or not! #1. Fired at approximately Z204/Z206. Almost miss due primarily as same reason of Walker miss. (Scope shooting line-of-sight v. line-of-flight at short ranges). Bullet was travelling between one to two inches lower than line-of-sight through scope. Impact in back to to interference with tree limb/fragment from bullet base out anterior neck of JFK. Range/distance:---------------------------184 feet (+/-) #2. Some 5.8 to 5.9 seconds later. Z313 Cowlick impact. Severe fragmentation of bullet due primarily to manner in which bullet exited the skull. Fragment to right wrist of JBC. Stationing: 4+65 Range/distance:-------------------------265 feet (+/-) #3. Some 1.8 to 2.0 seconds later (impossible to factually determine due to Z-film manipulations of frames). Lucky and/or good shot. JFK fully bent forward. Stationing: 4+95 Impact to rear of skull at edge of hairline, passage through mid-brain and exit in frontal lobe of brain (skull missing area), continuation on downward to strike JBC in right shoulder as JBC leaned across jump seats with head in Nellie's lap, thus exposing his shoulder in a lateral/horizontal position to the downward pathway of the bullet. Range/distance:------------------------295 feet (+/-) ======================== Three shots-------three hits. Rock chunking ranges for even the most basic USMC recruit after boot camp. Edited August 14, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Pamela,The short answer is that there were no misses inside the limo. These shots were not difficult at all. Mike What is your frame of reference? Have you attempted to duplicate these shots yourself? What are the details? Not difficult for whom? A sniper? LHO was never seen shooting the M/C, much less practicing with it. 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