Barb Junkkarinen Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 PB: This is little more than repeating what I have been saying for years. Don't you Google? What new evidence have you offered? I'm glad to have you on board. I believe I am right too, but am hardly claiming absolute authority over it. New evidence ... that Taylor was not present in the WH garage for the FBI limo exam. That was a long ago misreading of the Taylor Report by David Lifton, who published his comments on it as a footnote in Best Evidence, for starters. Fetzer, et al and others, who one can only think haven't read it completely for themselves or also failed to understand it, quote from it and claim Taylor was present at the wee hours exam til this day. Even you make that claim on your website. Your website: http://in-broad-daylight.com/ Quoting Pam: "A description of the activities of the FBI exam comes from SS/PRS Agents Taylor and Geiglein who were also present at the White House Garage during the exam." That's something you have been saying for years. Did you ever read the entire document? And note the info about who was on duty and when? Is that one of the updates you mentioned in a post that you will be making to your site ... along with Evalea Glanges being a medical student, and not a nursing student, I expect? Why do you include Nick Principe talking to Greer on Executive Ave the evening of the assassination in your limo timeline when you know perfectly well that Greer was nowhere near the WH in Principe's time frame for this purported chat? PB: You are entitled to your opinion. I believe your approach and conclusions are narrow in that they just cherrypick information rather than weighing and evaluating everything that is available. What other information do you know is available on any of the witnesses? What, specifically, do you say was "cherrypicked"? And if something was "cherrypicked" ... then what was ignored? Please be specific. I don't think we have all the answers; you seem to think you do. You claim two of the witnesses later changed their statements, but where is the cite on that? Which two witnesses do we claim changed their statements? You wrote, November 23, 2003, that Ellis and Freeman changed their statements, writing: "Stavis Ellis/Freeman - Two DPD motorcycle policemen. Ellis is on record (_No More Silence_) as saying he saw a hole low on the windshield; both have told interviewers they put a 'pencil' through the hole; also are on record saying they 'could have' put a pencil through the hole." We would have liked to include your information that they changed their statements, but, alas ... you cite no source for your claim. Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Barb/Josiah, The difference between you two and Pamela is that, while she agrees with you on the hole in the windshield issue, she doesn't believe you closed the debate with this article. I respect her a great deal for this, although I do wish she'd refrain from labeling Jim Fetzer as some kind of persona non grata. I tend to agree with Jim quite a bit, so I'm a little sensitive about that. Much as was the case with the article you posted a while back, regarding film alteration, you haven't "won" anything conclusively here. You made your points, and some of us agree, while others disagree. As has been pointed out on this thread, many of us harbor a great deal of suspicion about the official sources you use to buttress your argument. The entire critical community, including Josiah Thompson, was born because of the distrust in the FBI, Dallas Police, Secret Service, CIA and Warren Commission. It's hardly impressive to die-hard conspiracy believers that the Secret Service saw no hole, and convinced an agent who thought he did that in fact he didn't. Obviously, Frazier's testimony holds little weight with us. I'm not saying you're wrong; while I tend to think there was a hole in the windshield, I realize that there are legitimate questions about the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) No DNA match here. chris Edited July 16, 2009 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Hello Pamala, I haven’t commented on your posts because it seemed reasonable for you to want to point out your own efforts and accomplishments. It also seemed very reasonable to shout out some recognition for Tony Marsh. In retrospect, I think we should have acknowledged both your contributions instead of simply incorporating them by reference. However, while you and Mr. Marsh are justifiably proud of what you’ve done, it seems that you (not Mr. Marsh) are rewriting history by underestimating the importance of the new information presented and by overestimating the significance of your own work. Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community and your efforts should be recognized and applauded. But in all your efforts you’ve failed to resolve the serious issue raised by a serious scholar – David Lifton. Lifton noticed something very important. The Secret Service agent in change of security for the limousine in Washington, D.C. the night of the assassination apparently saw a hole in the limousine windshield. And he saw the FBI inspection where bullet fragments were removed from the hole. Charles Taylor didn’t casually report this to an associate or friend. He didn’t suddenly mention it twenty years later in a television interview or private chat with Doug Weldon. He wrote and signed an official report five days after the assassination that went to the Chief of the Secret Service. A trained, professional observer filed a clearly written official report that directly contradicted the FBI findings of that evening as reported by Frazier. Not only is this by far one of the strongest eyewitness statements for a hole, it’s also very strong evidence that Frazier’s account of the inspection that night was less than honest. And frankly, for all the effort you put into your battles with the clownish Fetzer, you didn’t really lay a hand on Lifton. It was good to obtain and publish some of the FBI notes from that night. But of course it’s possible to write anything at any time and date it 11/22. It’s possible to keep two sets of notes and leave only one in the official files. Frazier’s notes only have value if you think Frazier is playing fair and Taylor gave us reason to think Frazier wasn't. Your only response to Taylor’s report was “Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it.” Huh? Your best response to David Lifton was that Agent Taylor had a limited vocabulary? The word “defect” was apparently unknown to him so he used “hole” instead. On the theory that “hole” is close enough for an official report to the Chief of the Secret Service on the most important event in his career. And what did you use to support your conclusion? No words or statements of Taylor’s. Instead, you resorted to the ultimate appeal to authority – ignore the plain meaning of Agent Taylor’s words because Pamala doesn’t think that’s what he meant. To be frank, whatever conclusions you reached looking at fuzzy photos, studying possibly falsified notes and parsing words with the skill of the finest Talmudic scholar – Charles Taylor was there that night, he sat in the passenger seat, he was a trained professional and he said that he and the FBI had seen a hole. What do we know now that we didn’t know before our post? First, we know that you were wrong. When Agent Taylor wrote his report he thought the hole was a “hole” not a “defect”. Second, we know that that even if you didn’t think Agent Taylor’s report was important, the Church Committee did. We know this because they conducted a secret investigation of Taylor’s report that included an interview, a trip to the Archives to view the windshield and an affidavit from Taylor himself. This investigation and its results were unknown and unreported until our post. Third, we now know on the basis of Taylor’s own words rather than Pamala’s authority that Taylor believed he was mistaken in what he reported. That he did not examine the windshield closely and that he wasn’t a participant in the FBI examination of the windshield. Fourth, we now know that what was arguably the strongest eyewitness statement for a windshield hole and FBI shenanigans is significantly weakened if not fatally flawed. Fifth, we know that the Taylor statement has been used for over twenty nine years yet the evidence to impeach the statement has been has been waiting quietly for thirty three years. Where it remained undiscovered until now. I wasn’t aware that you knew all this and so our post represented nothing new to you. I wasn’t aware that you had compared the FBI photos to the HSCA photos. I wasn’t aware that Frazier’s complete notes of the FBI examination were on your web site where anyone could look for themselves instead of relying on your authority. I don't know about you, but I think it's time to thank Tony Marsh and stop talking about "who knew what first." Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) I guess I really don't understand the critical community anymore at all. There is an uproar when someone points out the obvious changes in Gary Mack's perspective on the assassination, and the fact it coincided with his employment with the Sixth Floor Museum, where he enjoys the highest public profile of any assassination researcher. There is even a degree of sympathy for the likes of Dave Perry, who is another of the magical converts to lone nutterism. While no one should directly accuse Mack, Perry or anyone else of anything sinister without evidence to back it up, it seems to me that it's perfectly appropriate to raise these kinds of questions on a JFK assassination discussion forum. However, no one seems to mind when strong believers in conspiracy like Jim Fetzer and Jack White, are constantly mocked and belittled on this and other forums. Fetzer, for instance, hasn't participated in this thread yet his name has come up several times, always in a negative way (and usually with a nasty label). Their beliefs in faked moon landings and a 911 conspiracy are not germaine to this discussion. Their strong views about film alteration are legitimate and worthy of discussion, not nasty derision. For the record, many of us have strong suspicions about 911, the Apollo missions, and similar issues, and we are not "kooks," "extremists," part of the "looney fringe," etc. We're informed citizens who believe there is a great deal of corruption in the world, and that the most powerful forces in our society are not averse to conspiring together on a regular basis to achieve their sordid goals. The JFK assassination did not happen in a vacuum; there were conspiracies long before November 22, 1963, and there have been many since then. Our leaders were not suddenly thrown into a fit of dishonesty and violence during the Kennedy administration. Like others before and others since, JFK offended some very powerful people and they decided to accord him what George Bernard Shaw aptly termed "the most extreme form of censorship." As long as we keep up this childish infighting, we will never be able to break through the establishment media's blackout of reasonable criticism of the official story. We need to agree on a few obvious salient points, and go from there. There WAS a conspiracy, Oswald WAS framed by someone, there WAS a government coverup and powerful officials like J. Edgar Hoover WERE involved. The FBI, Dallas Police, Secret Service, CIA and Warren Commission DID withhold, destroy and distort evidence in order to implicate Oswald as the lone assassin. The single bullet theory is IMPOSSIBLE and anyone still pushing it should be instantly seen as uncredible. The crime was never investigated by anyone at the time, and was not honestly investigated by the HSCA a decade later. These are all, to me, seminal historical truths. I can't imagine anyone on this forum, who is not a lone nutter, disagreeing with any of them. Most of the other issues that we discuss here are open to debate, imho. It's okay to be confident about your opinion, but name calling and labeling should always be beyond the pale and won't "win" you anything with reasonable people. Edited July 17, 2009 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 [...]Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. Jerry And your sideshow got its kindling from where, Counselor? This is a PR war my dear Watson... And the Lone Nut-Trolls (with and without college degrees) are losing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Barb/Josiah,The difference between you two and Pamela is that, while she agrees with you on the hole in the windshield issue, she doesn't believe you closed the debate with this article. I respect her a great deal for this, although I do wish she'd refrain from labeling Jim Fetzer as some kind of persona non grata. I tend to agree with Jim quite a bit, so I'm a little sensitive about that. Much as was the case with the article you posted a while back, regarding film alteration, you haven't "won" anything conclusively here. You made your points, and some of us agree, while others disagree. As has been pointed out on this thread, many of us harbor a great deal of suspicion about the official sources you use to buttress your argument. The entire critical community, including Josiah Thompson, was born because of the distrust in the FBI, Dallas Police, Secret Service, CIA and Warren Commission. It's hardly impressive to die-hard conspiracy believers that the Secret Service saw no hole, and convinced an agent who thought he did that in fact he didn't. Obviously, Frazier's testimony holds little weight with us. I'm not saying you're wrong; while I tend to think there was a hole in the windshield, I realize that there are legitimate questions about the issue. I have just had the privilege of reading a prepublication copy of an important new book which shows TWO holes in the windshield...one at the spiral nebula location, and another farther to the right which caused Kellerman to dodge and shield his face with a notebook. Yeah, I know that is not in the Z-film. Stay tuned. Jack (Roy stated to the WC that "there has to be more than three shots, gentlemen" and that a "flurry of shells" came into the car.) Edited July 16, 2009 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 A question for you Pamela... We're doing some work on Evalea Glanges. It's pretty obvious that she ended up as an M.D. and not an R.N. However, I was wondering why you wrote that she was a "nursing student." Did someone tell you that or did you read it somewhere? It would be useful for us to know as we learn more and more about her. Could you oblige us? Thanks. Josiah Thompson Pamela,I just wanted to say my respect for you really grew with your answers in this thread. You actually agree with Josiah and Barb, and have maintained there wasn't a hole in the windshield for a long time. Still, you point out the obvious- there is nothing dramatically conclusive in this article, which closes the door to that possibility. I have long suspected there was a hole in the windshield, but it certainly isn't a sure thing. This is a perfect example of how critics can disagree about a myriad of issues in this case, but still respect each other's views. Thanks. Thanks, Don. As you may know, Fetzer's 'spiral nebulae' idea and the Weldon theory that was spawned from it have been a bete noir of mine for over ten years. I was booted off the DellaRosa forum (from which the article was generated) for butting heads with Fetzer over this -- as I recall, the statement that incurred the greatest outrage was my saying that it was the lack of damage to the limo, not extent of damage to the limo, that proved a conspiracy. So, as you can imagine, I am pleased to see that this issue is being picked up and run with by others who have access to that forum and are able to stand up to Fetzer's bullying. However, any appeal to authority is weak and in this case particularly ineffective imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Did Tink really say "We're doing work on Evalea Glanges"? Well I think Ms. Glanges, Dr. Miller and Dr. Livingston are not just witnesses. - BK http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;start=0& - entry169886 3. Witness Reports: From Dealey Plaza to Parkland Hospital Secret Service Agent William Greer drove the car during the assassination and then on to Parkland Hospital. In a January 6, 1964 letter to Lee Rankin at the Warren Commission, Chief James Rowley of the Secret Service said Greer “states that he did not notice any damage to the windshield on the drive to the hospital.” At Parkland Hospital, Secret Service and other law enforcement personnel kept onlookers away from the limousine. Two police officers and a reporter later indicated they had seen a hole in the windshield at Parkland Hospital. Richard Dudman, St. Louis-Dispatch reporter. Dudman wrote a New Republic opinion piece on December 21, 1963 arguing that Kennedy had been shot from the front in Dealey Plaza. “Some of the points raised here bothered me on the scene in Dallas,” wrote Dudman, “where I witnessed President Kennedy's assassination and the slaying of the accused assassin two days later. Three circumstances --- the entry wound in the throat, the small, round hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine, and the number of bullets found afterward --- suggested that there had been a second sniper firing from a point in front of the automobile.” And what of “the small, round hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine?” Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.” Professor Fetzer and others often quote this remark of Dudman’s as proof a bullet penetrated the windshield of the limousine. What Fetzer does not quote is a follow-up to Dudman’s remark from Robert B. Livingston, M.D. published in Assassination Science. Dudman and Livingston were Stanford classmates and their families were friendly. “Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole’s presumed patency by probing it with a pen or a pencil.” Evangelea Glanges, Nursing student at Parkland Hospital or medical student at Southwestern Medical School. On Pamela McElwain-Brown’s web site, she is described as a “nursing student at Parkland Hospital.” She is reported to have seen a hole in the windshield. According to McElwain-Brown, Glanges did not mention a location for the hole when interviewed by Doug Weldon or Vince Palamara. Once again according to McElwain-Brown, Glanges “maintains that she leaned on100X, noticed the hole, commented on it, and, at that point, a Secret Service agent drove the car away.” Glanges is mentioned in an article on the windshield (“The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963") penned by attorney Doug Weldon for Fetzer’s Murder in Dealey Plaza. Weldon argues for Secret Service misconduct with respect to the windshield and the likelihood it was penetrated by a shot from the front. In Weldon’s article, Glanges is described as “Dr. Evalea Glanges” who, in 1963, was a second-year medical student at Southwestern Medical School. According to Weldon, Glanges later became Chairperson of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. Weldon reports that Dr. Glanges died one month after his interview of her in January 1999. Weldon had this to say about what Glanges reported: She found herself standing next to the limousine. She leaned against the fender and viewed the hole in the windshield. Looking from the outside, she noted, “It was a real clean hole.” A friend, also a physician, was with Dr. Glanges at Parkland Hospital and refused to speak to this date about the incident. Dr. Glanges did not disclose the name of that person in an interview conducted by this author in January 1999. Apparently there was concern that disclosure might jeopardize her friend’s employment or otherwise be hazardous to his health. Dr. Glanges told me that, when she talked about the hole in a loud voice at Parkland, someone got into the vehicle and sped away, “almost taking my arm off.”... She stated she felt she “needed to keep her mouth shut.” She was insistent that the official story was “phony.” (MIDP, 140) It is difficult to know how to evaluate these witness reports. Dudman’s remarks to Dr. Livingston make it clear that he could not tell if the damage to the windshield he observed was a through-and-through hole. Officer Freeman’s remark is fragmentary; it is difficult to tell what to make of it. Officer Stavis places the damage to the windshield “near the bottom of the glass.” Nurse or Doctor Glanges would not disclose the name of a person who could confirm or disconfirm her report. She herself is deceased. However, what seems clear from other witness reports and photos is the extreme unlikelihood of Glanges claim to have “leaned against the fender” of the limousine. She claims to have done this shortly before the car was driven away. Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the...... BK NOTES: Dr. Allen Miller and Dr. Livingston. I don’t know if you can talk about Evalea Glanges, a Parkland Hospital witness affiliated with Southwest Medical School without bothering to mention Dr. Allen Miller, said to be an Iriving, Texas resident and instructor at SMS, whose students needed special access to restricted areas of Parkland Hospital where Gov. Connally was being treated. Is THIS the same Dr. Allen Miller records reflect is married to a women known as Betty Moony McDonald? And also, Dr. Livingston cannot be regarded simply as a witness who asked questions about the windshield, as he was a hiking pal of McNamara and worked at the NIH in an office down the hall from Dr./Col. Jose Rivera, who expressed foreknowledge of the Dealey Plaza Operation. Livingston was probably a friend, neighbor and/or colleague of fellow San Deigo, Calf. Neurosurgeion Lt. Com. Thomas Narut, who tested the Navy’s assassins. I am sure that Evalea Glanges, the women student-nurse witness in question, if affiliated with SWMS. was also associated with Dr. Allen, the Irving doctor said to be married to Betty Moony McDonald. Could this be the same Betty Mooney McDonald that was at the party thrown by deMohrenschildt's friends so Oswald could meet the Paines? Mary Ferrell implies they are one and the same. Of course, while he was alive and I wanted to pose some questions to Dr. Livingston, I was hounded down for accusing Livingston as being part of some plot – which I never did. I just had a few questions for him, and never got to ask them. The case for conspiracy doesn’t rest with a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield, or the cooperation of suspicious Parkland employees. But for anyone who reads that article about the windshield, and glosses over Dr. Livingston and Dr. Miller as if they were just two doctors who happened to be there – well, you have to put them into their proper perspective. And realize that we really don’t know much about either one of them. Bill Kelly http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers...php/t14473.html This Warren Commission memo notes that there were some people affiliated with the Southwest Medical School who needed access to the restricted areas of Parkland Hospital where Gov. Connally was being treated. WCH Vol. XXI Parkland Memo #246 p. 231 of 806 “….Dr. Kemp Clark and I went through the roster to set up a list of names, for identification purposes, of those from Southwest Medical School who would be moving back and forth into the area where the Governor was being treated….” Mary Ferrell notes that Betty Mooney McDonald, who appears as a subject in a number of WC reports, married Dr. Allen Miller, who is identified as an Irving, Texas resident and instructor at the Southwest Medical School. Which makes me wonder about Betty Mooney McDonald, the women who was at the party arranged for Oswald to meet the Paines, and was married to a Parkland doctor whose students included Glanges needed special security passes at Parkland. There must be more information about Dr. Allen that might be relevant. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ult&id=6076 MACDONALD, BETTY MOONEY (MRS. ALLEN MILLER) WC Vol 11, p. 419 (unnamed); CE 342; CE 2589 Dr. Allen Miller, Irving, TX, married "Betty McDonald." http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ult&id=6076 BETTY MOONEY (MRS. ALLEN MILLER) MACDONALD WC Vol. 11, p. 419 (unnamed); CE 342; CE 2589 Dr. Allen MIller, Irving, TX, married “Betty McDonald.” ALAN N., (DR.) MILLER Wife: Betty McDonald Miller (former librarian at Mobil Research Laboratory) He is instructor at Southwest Medical School ALLEN J. MILLER Wife: Charlene. He is research technician for Mobil Oil. Edited July 17, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Thanks, Bill for this interesting information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Thanks, Bill for this interesting information. Which is the facts that Dr. Livingston, cited as a source here, should have been questioned about his relationship with McNamara and possible connection to his NIH associate Dr. Jose Rivera. And that Evalena Glanges was probably a student of Dr. Allen Miller at Southwest Medical School, who obtained special access passes for his students to Connally's room at Parkland, and who was married to Betty Mooney McDonald, the Magnolia librarian who attended the party that was set up for Oswald to meet the Paines. I don't know what all that means, but they both certainly go beyond whether there was a hole in the windshield. I am also curious as to what Tink Thompson is investigating about Ms. Glanges. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 No DNA match here.chris So you have confirmed the the camera to subject angle of the two images is exact and that the lighting was also exact? Inquiring minds want to know davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Thanks, Bill for this interesting information. Which is the facts that Dr. Livingston, cited as a source here, should have been questioned about his relationship with McNamara and possible connection to his NIH associate Dr. Jose Rivera. And that Evalena Glanges was probably a student of Dr. Allen Miller at Southwest Medical School, who obtained special access passes for his students to Connally's room at Parkland, and who was married to Betty Mooney McDonald, the Magnolia librarian who attended the party that was set up for Oswald to meet the Paines. I don't know what all that means, but they both certainly go beyond whether there was a hole in the windshield. I am also curious as to what Tink Thompson is investigating about Ms. Glanges. BK I am too. It seems vaguely ominous. Maybe Dr. Glanges is a stumbling block to whatever they hope to accomplish. It is hard to fault someone of her stature. At the most, she was mistaken in what she saw; certainly not making something up. There is also a contemporaneous confirmation of what she said on 11.22.63 in Conspiracy of Silence, p. 105: "When I walked back into the hall, Evalea Glanges, a medical student, was standing by the nurses' station. She told me a most peculiar story. While we had been working on President Kennedy, she was outside in the emergency room parking lot. Standing beside the President's limousine, she pointed out to another medical student that there was a bullet hole in the windshield. Upon over-hearing her comment, a Secret Service agent nervously jumped into the car and sped away". While it was unlikely that the SS drove 100X away in direct response to Glanges' statement, in that they didn't leave until the top of the limo had been secured, which took about 20 minutes, the fact that she thought she saw something and communicated it at once certainly gives support to the fact that she believed she had seen something out of the ordinary. Now perhaps they will have to investigate Dr. Crenshaw too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 A question for you Pamela...We're doing some work on Evalea Glanges. It's pretty obvious that she ended up as an M.D. and not an R.N. However, I was wondering why you wrote that she was a "nursing student." Did someone tell you that or did you read it somewhere? It would be useful for us to know as we learn more and more about her. Could you oblige us? Thanks. Josiah Thompson It seems to me I may have misread a statement in Crenshaw's CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, p. 105, where it said Glanges was a 'medical student, standing by the nurses' station.' Pamela Pamela,I just wanted to say my respect for you really grew with your answers in this thread. You actually agree with Josiah and Barb, and have maintained there wasn't a hole in the windshield for a long time. Still, you point out the obvious- there is nothing dramatically conclusive in this article, which closes the door to that possibility. I have long suspected there was a hole in the windshield, but it certainly isn't a sure thing. This is a perfect example of how critics can disagree about a myriad of issues in this case, but still respect each other's views. Thanks. Thanks, Don. As you may know, Fetzer's 'spiral nebulae' idea and the Weldon theory that was spawned from it have been a bete noir of mine for over ten years. I was booted off the DellaRosa forum (from which the article was generated) for butting heads with Fetzer over this -- as I recall, the statement that incurred the greatest outrage was my saying that it was the lack of damage to the limo, not extent of damage to the limo, that proved a conspiracy. So, as you can imagine, I am pleased to see that this issue is being picked up and run with by others who have access to that forum and are able to stand up to Fetzer's bullying. However, any appeal to authority is weak and in this case particularly ineffective imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum.... Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... Edited July 22, 2009 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