The Education Forum

# SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

## Recommended Posts

Thanks Kathy. I used Jack's measurements which show when scaled, that the figures are all the same size. As you can see, I just lined up Jack's yellow lines close enough to make the comparison, and mirror imaged the opposite views of the pedestal to match them up.

Duncan

Setting Duncan straight.

Setting Jack Straight''

As thsi simple test shows, your study is a failure.

One has to wonder if you will admit your error or just continue to recycle your failed study again and again....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry174475

Bill, I'm going to give you first chance to respond.

Your work on the backyard photos center on the head size and neck size...correct? To make comparisons you took the backyard photos and scaled them all the the same headsize and found the bodies to not match in size...correct? And you scaled bodies to the same size and the heads did not match...correct? Finally you took a backyard photo and a sample photo of Oswalds head and scaled them to the same size and noticed the neck did not match...correct?

Your error is that you just can't scale things from different photos and expect thingts to match..or not.

You can test this concept easily, as I did.

I took three photos of a yardstick, with the same camera and same lens focal length. Much like the camera height in the backyard photos , the camera height was placed about in the middle of yardstick length(using 0 to 22 inches on the yardstick). And again like the backyard photos the the camera was placed in three different distances from the yardstick (subect) It was also like the backyard photos pointed upward or level to include the lenght of the yardstick as the camera moved closer the the yardsticki.

These are the three quick photos:

Now lets resize each yardstick so that the first 4 inches is the same on each yardstick (head). Notice how the "body ' is not the same size on each yardstick and also the the 'neck" ( width of the yardstick) is different as well. The point here is that you can't just scale different photos taken from different camera to subject distances and expect things to match up.

Here is the very best part. This same principle applys to EVERY 'study" ever done on the JFK photos that involvles resizing different photos taken from different places with the intention of comparing sizes between the photos. I think we can find quite a few examples of White doing this very thing, and citing the results as proof the images, whatever they my be are faked. He failed in his so called proof, but he did prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to understanding the basics of photography, he does not. Now to be fair, he is not the only one to make this mistake and I'm sure he won't be the last. But the bottom line is that work produced via this method gets tossed into the trash bin .

• Replies 391
• Created

#### Posted Images

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

##### Share on other sites

Jeez, Barb. I've been waiting for you to show up. Whenever Tink is getting an intellectual whipping, he calls upon his faithful flock, of which you are such a prominent member! I find it fascinating that you would cite the first paragraph of that post but exclude the second. Egad! I wouldn't want to accuse YOU of OBFUSCATION. No, indeed. That would be a breech of manners and, as we all know, since we are supposed to tolerate even the most corrupt members of this forum. Here's the second paragraph OF THE VERY SAME POST. So what's going on with Barb Junkkarinen. She isn't Cindarella, but the shoe seems to fit:

In additon, we have Doug Weldon's brilliant chapter on the limousine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and photos of the windshields involved on several pages, including 149, 157, and 158. Plus I added page 436 about it in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), with three more photographs, one of which is of the windshield of a junked car, where Jim Lewis has been firing high-velocity bullets through it and finding it makes the sound of a firecracker. So spare us any more nonsense about the hole in the windshield. I suppose I should not be surprised that you were sent on a fool's errand. We have multiple witnesses and substantiating photographs. It was there, it was real--and its denial is simply more obfuscation!

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Edited by James H. Fetzer
##### Share on other sites
I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to

##### Share on other sites

Doug,

You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.

Jim

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to

##### Share on other sites

Barb! I was wondering when you would show up. Whenever Tink is getting an intellectual whipping, he calls for support!

What I find most puzzling here is that you have quote the first paragraph of my post but not the second. That is called "picking and choosing" or "selection and elimination", when it is done to misrepresent someone's position. Here's the rest for the community to judge for itself:

This is quite absurd and more than slightly disturbing. Even Richard Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994), publishes a very clear Altgens in which the bullet hole is visible. We know so much about this that I am troubled that Pamela would make a post like this. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound. So what is Pamela doing raising this very misleading possibility?

In additon, we have Doug Weldon's brilliant chapter on the limousine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and photos of the windshields involved on several pages, including 149, 157, and 158. Plus I added page 436 about it in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), with three more photographs, one of which is of the windshield of a junked car, where Jim Lewis has been firing high-velocity bullets through it and finding it makes the sound of a firecracker. So spare us any more nonsense about the hole in the windshield. We have multiple witnesses and substantiating photographs. It was there, it was real--and denial is simply more obfuscation!

I had better make a copy of this post in case Evan Burton comes around to sanitize any criticism of Josiah's work or of your collaboration with him. This appears to me to be an abuse of his position, comparable to Josiah's abuse of his in relation to the JFK community. I am very troubled by tactics like this on a forum where serious discussion often takes place. He needs to show the posts he has deleted and justify his action.

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

##### Share on other sites
Doug,

You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.

Jim

Exactly. Thank you, Jim.

Barb :-)

##### Share on other sites
Doug,

You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.

Jim

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to

Jim:

Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information fro

##### Share on other sites
Doug,

You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.

Jim

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to

Jim:

Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle.

If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front."

The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum.

My best,

Doug Weldon

##### Share on other sites
Doug,

You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.

Jim

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to

Jim:

Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle.

If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front."

The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum.

My best,

Doug Weldon

My apologies. I wished to add another example. They note two Dallas police officers whose livelihood and even their lives depended on their observation skills. Both saw a distinct hole in the windshield and one noted that he placed a pencil in the hole. These police officers are characterized by the authors as "casual observers." If they were not serious it would appear as if they were writng an article for "National Lampoon."

Doug Weldon

##### Share on other sites
Barb! I was wondering when you would show up. Whenever Tink is getting an intellectual whipping, he calls for support!

Oh, please. You flatter yourself. I won't. :-) Josiah, along with myself and Jerry Logan, wrote the article on the limo windshield last summer. How much of a surprise can it be that we show up to comment when the subject is being discussed?

What I find most puzzling here is that you have quote the first paragraph of my post but not the second. That is called "picking and choosing" or "selection and elimination", when it is done to misrepresent someone's position.

No, it was simply a matter of cutting to the chase and quoting only that paragraph that I was addressing. The "community" can see that I was not addressing Weldon's work, nor Altgen's photo. I misrepresented nothing. I directly addressed you continuing to make a claim that has already been pointed out to you as erroneous based on what is related right in your own book! And I provided the quotes ... right from your book. You did not. No small wonder there given that your claim is at odds with what Livingston and Dudman had to say! HA! Not puzzling in the least.

Here's the rest for the community to judge for itself:

This is quite absurd and more than slightly disturbing. Even Richard Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994), publishes a very clear Altgens in which the bullet hole is visible. We know so much about this that I am troubled that Pamela would make a post like this. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound. So what is Pamela doing raising this very misleading possibility?

In additon, we have Doug Weldon's brilliant chapter on the limousine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and photos of the windshields involved on several pages, including 149, 157, and 158. Plus I added page 436 about it in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), with three more photographs, one of which is of the windshield of a junked car, where Jim Lewis has been firing high-velocity bullets through it and finding it makes the sound of a firecracker. So spare us any more nonsense about the hole in the windshield. We have multiple witnesses and substantiating photographs. It was there, it was real--and denial is simply more obfuscation!

I had better make a copy of this post in case Evan Burton comes around to sanitize any criticism of Josiah's work or of your collaboration with him. This appears to me to be an abuse of his position, comparable to Josiah's abuse of his in relation to the JFK community. I am very troubled by tactics like this on a forum where serious discussion often takes place. He needs to show the posts he has deleted and justify his action.

How about some of that serious discussion? Are you still going to continue to claim Dudman saw a through-and-through hole in the limo windshield ... even though the man who knew and spoke to Dudman about it and wrote it all for your book wrote otherwise?

What gives with that, Jim? Who is misrepresenting and misleading?

Why won't you address this Dudman issue straight on? You brought it up!

Barb :-)

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

##### Share on other sites

Thanks, Doug, for a very informative post. Your research on the hole in the windshield is an invaluable resource for students of the assassination.

My main argument against the article in question was its claim to be the definitive, final word on the subject. In my view, they made their case by using the witnesses one would expect them to. By any reasonable standard, they did not prove there wasn't a hole, nor did they succeed in discrediting the witnesses who reported seeing one.

I'm glad to see you on the forum. We will all benefit from your presence here.

##### Share on other sites

In response to Dr Fetzer's post could I say I do not edit Dr Fetzer's posts without first making a copy of the original, so that others can review my decision and judge whether it was justified or not. This is why a post is often made invisible - it remains in original form and allows other moderators to view it and review other moderator's actions. It is NOT edited. This is a claim made by others in the past and proven wrong time and time again.

Let me iterate:

- if I have edited a post of Dr Fetzers, I have a screen copy of the original.

- making a post invisible does not alter a post; it simply makes the post not visible except to mods and admins.

##### Share on other sites
Doug,

You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case.

Jim

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, 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.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to

Jim:

Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle.

If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front."

The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Welcome to the forum, Doug. As James Fetzer already noted to you, you do need to make whatever case you want here on the forum. Jerry, Josiah and I invited critique from all when we originally posted the article, and, of course, are certainly interested still in any errors or misrepresentations anyone thinks were made and any other comments one might have. Jim apparently invited you to the forum to do just that. I'm sure you understand that waxing accusatory generalities do not make a base for any discussion or response; nor does any overall audio interview on another site. I am sure that if you choose to present any problems, errors, misrepresentations, etc you say are in the article here with specificity and complete cites in context, of course, one or more of us will be happy to respond. And other members of the forum will probably join the discussion as well. That's one reason having everything spelled out on the forum table is important.

Bests to you,

this woman named Barb ;-)

##### Share on other sites

“Perhaps Jack might outline the image that you claim to find so difficult to discern.”

Good God, professor, you’ve got to be kidding me!

I had absolutely NO problem seeing any portion of the “spiral nebula” image - YOU DID - and so much so that I had to circle it for you after you TWICE denied that Pamelas’ image showed it!

Now you claim I couldn’t “discern it”? What is wrong with you?

As for your question “why don't you repeat my posts when you reply” (and I infer that by “repeat” you mean “quote”), the demonstrable fact is that I HAVE included the quotation of your posts with every single post of yours I’ve responded to here, sans this last one. The reason for that is that after I entered my response (which included the quotation of your posts) and tried to upload it was rejected by the forum software which stated that I had “exceed the allowable size limit for included quotes”, or some such language. After several attempts I simply eliminated all of the quotes and posted just my response.

No matter the reason, to then accuse me of deliberately trying to “create a misleading impression” and claiming that “Obfuscate, at all costs” is what I am “supposed to do”, is not only absurd, it’s quite childish, don’t you think, given that the entire thread is easily readable by any reader who simply scrolls up a bit.

But, oh, I forgot! It gives you the chance to use the word “obfuscate” again for the 500th time.

No, you are right. The degree of magnification threw off my perception. It is right there where it should be -- on a line extending from the inside of her left thumb upward to where JFK's left ear would be visible if it were not obscured by the white spiral nebula. As I have said several times before, the dark hole at the center has been painted out, which makes it look rather more like an open flower. I looks a bit mushy here. Perhaps Jack might outline the image that you claim to find so difficult to discern. And why don't you repeat my posts when you reply? You create a misleading impression by doing that. But, oh, I forgot! That's exactly what someone like you is supposed to do! Obfuscate, at all costs!
No, Professor, sorry, you absolutely 100% did not “identify” the “spiral nebula” in the Altgens 1-6 blow-up that Pamela provided a link for.

In fact, you twice committed yourself here in writing to claiming that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”.

Your first claim regarding this matter was…

“Pamela’s second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, shows Jackie's hand on his left arm and is too low to show the spiral nebula.” (emphasis mine)

When I then pointed out that…

“(it’s) is not "too low" at all, and in fact does show the supposed "spiral nebual" - it's directly above the white cuff of Presient Kennedy's left shirt sleeve.”

To which you replied with…

“Of course it is too low! The spiral nebula is where his left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the white sprial.” (emphasis mine)

Now, given your own words above, how in the world can you honestly sit there and claim that you “not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted.”, when in fact you twice claimed that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”?

### Announcements

×

• #### Support

×
• Create New...