SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Dean Hagerman]

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

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451.

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

Very nice Doug!

Welcome to the forum, I look forward to reading more of your posts and talking with you about them

I enjoyed your section in MIDP very much, good job on that

Dean

[Jack White]

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”?

Jim...I DID post an image of the spiral nebula yesterday. You must have missed it. It is right beside the rear view mirror.

Jack

Jack,

Please post the provenance of the version you are using.

Thanks,

Pamela

The Altgens image with the spiral nebula in the windshield is the Richard Sprague

copy on page 44 of Computers and Automation, May, 1970.

It is from a scan I made years ago. If desired, I can not make a much bigger and

clearer descreened high resolution scan from the page.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

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

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451.

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 ;-)

Barb:

Thank you. I simply do not have the time to transcribe a two hour talk for the forum. I am not making a personal attack against you and the other authors of the article but only the content. I do not know you or Jerry and I have only met Josiah Thompson once. SSID is an important book and I am stating so in my book. I appreciated the new knowledge about Charles Taylor but in my analysis, it reinforced the position I present as Richard Dudman underwent a similar experience. Jim did not invite me to the forum as my first contact with him in a number of years was this past week. Jim and I don't agree on everything and I thought David Lifton's post about Josiah Thompson not being an "agent" was very appropriate. I hope you see specificity in my prior comments and concerns such as not posting here or on Lancer the careful analysis by Martin Heinrich concluding that the two windshields used in the article were not a match. I do not believe that the first picture shows the windshield that was in the limousine in Dallas. Critical witnesses such as George Whitaker were omitted. Names were misspelled. Information was utilized from a site that is filled with inaccuracies. I have sometimes noticed that people who have claimed expertise on certain facets of the assassination often know very little. Documents are conflicting and there has to be a reasonable analysis of those documents. As for an example of something I consider sloppy or even a fabrication in your article is the statement, "Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: " What is your source of information for this. This is entirely contrary to the photographic evidence at Parkland and the observation of witnesses. A cordon was eventualy established but the people who were inside that cordon, including officers, hospital personnel, and other civilians were not removed and placed outside of it. Were any witnesses interviewed. These were decent, ordinary citizens. People like Whitaker,Glanges, Ellis, and Prencipe were very principled people. They know what they saw. I understand eye-witness testimony and am well aware of observations made about it by the foremost expert in the world, Elizabeth Loftus of Harvard. I have heard thousands of witness testify in my career. When I wanted to find out more about the limousine after the assassination I went to the home of Willard Hess, whose company made the limousine for Kennedy and refurbished it for Johnson. I often spoke with him and exchanged correspondence. I talked with a number of his workers who were involved. i wanted to understand them. Every witness I talked with I would ask other witnesses about them,i.e., were they honest, did they have a tendency to exaggerate, etc. Certain witnesses I would not use. In my interview I indicateIi could not use Madeline Brown without further corroboration to state what I believe is true, that Lyndon Johnson was aware of what is going on. What is the explanation for characterizing two trained police officers (and Elis had a career in Military Intelligence) as "casual" observers. I let the evidence lead me, not vice versa.

My best,

Doig

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack, Sure, a higher-resolution scan from COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970) might be useful here. Thanks. Jim

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”?

Jim...I DID post an image of the spiral nebula yesterday. You must have missed it. It is right beside the rear view mirror.

Jack

Jack,

Please post the provenance of the version you are using.

Thanks,

Pamela

The Altgens image with the spiral nebula in the windshield is the Richard Sprague

copy on page 44 of Computers and Automation, May, 1970.

It is from a scan I made years ago. If desired, I can not make a much bigger and

clearer descreened high resolution scan from the page.

Jack

[Jack White]

This is about as good as I can do from the halftone.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Greer and Kellerman have been shaded out, so the photo has been

retouched. I have seen versions in which the hole at the center of

the spiral is considerably darker. Page 436 of HOAX (2003) shows

one. It may have been lightened here. Thank you for posting this.

This is about as good as I can do from the halftone.

Jack

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

Jack, Sure, a higher-resolution scan from COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970) might be useful here. Thanks. Jim

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”?

Jim...I DID post an image of the spiral nebula yesterday. You must have missed it. It is right beside the rear view mirror.

Jack

Jack,

Please post the provenance of the version you are using.

Thanks,

Pamela

The Altgens image with the spiral nebula in the windshield is the Richard Sprague

copy on page 44 of Computers and Automation, May, 1970.

It is from a scan I made years ago. If desired, I can not make a much bigger and

clearer descreened high resolution scan from the page.

Jack

Thanks. This one is from my copy of HSCA JFK Exhibit F-126 (shows negative) print from NARA.

Pamela

Edited January 8, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Jerry Logan]

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

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451.

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 ;-)

Barb:

Thank you. I simply do not have the time to transcribe a two hour talk for the forum. I am not making a personal attack against you and the other authors of the article but only the content. I do not know you or Jerry and I have only met Josiah Thompson once. SSID is an important book and I am stating so in my book. I appreciated the new knowledge about Charles Taylor but in my analysis, it reinforced the position I present as Richard Dudman underwent a similar experience. Jim did not invite me to the forum as my first contact with him in a number of years was this past week. Jim and I don't agree on everything and I thought David Lifton's post about Josiah Thompson not being an "agent" was very appropriate. I hope you see specificity in my prior comments and concerns such as not posting here or on Lancer the careful analysis by Martin Heinrich concluding that the two windshields used in the article were not a match. I do not believe that the first picture shows the windshield that was in the limousine in Dallas. Critical witnesses such as George Whitaker were omitted. Names were misspelled. Information was utilized from a site that is filled with inaccuracies. I have sometimes noticed that people who have claimed expertise on certain facets of the assassination often know very little. Documents are conflicting and there has to be a reasonable analysis of those documents. As for an example of something I consider sloppy or even a fabrication in your article is the statement, "Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: " What is your source of information for this. This is entirely contrary to the photographic evidence at Parkland and the observation of witnesses. A cordon was eventualy established but the people who were inside that cordon, including officers, hospital personnel, and other civilians were not removed and placed outside of it. Were any witnesses interviewed. These were decent, ordinary citizens. People like Whitaker,Glanges, Ellis, and Prencipe were very principled people. They know what they saw. I understand eye-witness testimony and am well aware of observations made about it by the foremost expert in the world, Elizabeth Loftus of Harvard. I have heard thousands of witness testify in my career. When I wanted to find out more about the limousine after the assassination I went to the home of Willard Hess, whose company made the limousine for Kennedy and refurbished it for Johnson. I often spoke with him and exchanged correspondence. I talked with a number of his workers who were involved. i wanted to understand them. Every witness I talked with I would ask other witnesses about them,i.e., were they honest, did they have a tendency to exaggerate, etc. Certain witnesses I would not use. In my interview I indicateIi could not use Madeline Brown without further corroboration to state what I believe is true, that Lyndon Johnson was aware of what is going on. What is the explanation for characterizing two trained police officers (and Elis had a career in Military Intelligence) as "casual" observers. I let the evidence lead me, not vice versa.

My best,

Doig

Hello Doug!

It's nice to meet you even if it is only electronic -

I appreciate your taking the effort to point out that you didn't mean anything personal in your analysis of the article and I truly appreciate the fact that you didn't need to know what we were all doing in 1967 before you could look at the evidence we presented. But wouldn't you say that "dishonest" is just a little extreme? It implies that you had access to our states of mind and we set out to foist untruth on an unknowing public. Maybe we were "hopelessly confused", "profoundly mistaken", and "blindly wrong" like Pamela, but dishonest? That's kind of harsh, isn't it?

Seriously, I do appreciate your comments. I'm going to check your transcript so I'm sure there'll be more. I just wanted to address your main example here - the question of a police cordon at Parkland.

As you know, the situation evolved at Parkland. The photo record shows that early on there was confusion as officers moved some, but not all civilians away from limousine. Eventually however, there was a perimeter. And what was particularly important for us was that at the time of the perimeter Glanges said she was standing with her arm/hand? resting on the automobile. For us at least, that called her credibility into question.

Really, honestly - no deception. That's what I believe. So if I'm mistaken it's because I'm simple minded, like Pamela. Not because I'm dishonest.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, Sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: "dishonest" might be a little extreme. Maybe you were "hopelessly confused", "profoundly mistaken", or "blindly wrong". I would even concede that an alternative explanation for the inadequacies of Josiah's work could be that, even though he earned a Ph.D. from Yale, he might be "incredibly sloppy" instead of a dedicated obfuscationist. I find that implausible, but it would appear to be the only available alternative that could explain the evidence accumulated on the threads of this forum. Incidentally, while you appear to be right about the crowds at Parkland, if you look up toward the right where the limo sits beneath the overhang, you will see that no one is close to it and that several police officers seem to be creating a cordon around it. So, while you are right in general about the crowds, that does not mean that Doug is wrong about the limo.

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

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451.

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 ;-)

Barb:

Thank you. I simply do not have the time to transcribe a two hour talk for the forum. I am not making a personal attack against you and the other authors of the article but only the content. I do not know you or Jerry and I have only met Josiah Thompson once. SSID is an important book and I am stating so in my book. I appreciated the new knowledge about Charles Taylor but in my analysis, it reinforced the position I present as Richard Dudman underwent a similar experience. Jim did not invite me to the forum as my first contact with him in a number of years was this past week. Jim and I don't agree on everything and I thought David Lifton's post about Josiah Thompson not being an "agent" was very appropriate. I hope you see specificity in my prior comments and concerns such as not posting here or on Lancer the careful analysis by Martin Heinrich concluding that the two windshields used in the article were not a match. I do not believe that the first picture shows the windshield that was in the limousine in Dallas. Critical witnesses such as George Whitaker were omitted. Names were misspelled. Information was utilized from a site that is filled with inaccuracies. I have sometimes noticed that people who have claimed expertise on certain facets of the assassination often know very little. Documents are conflicting and there has to be a reasonable analysis of those documents. As for an example of something I consider sloppy or even a fabrication in your article is the statement, "Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: " What is your source of information for this. This is entirely contrary to the photographic evidence at Parkland and the observation of witnesses. A cordon was eventualy established but the people who were inside that cordon, including officers, hospital personnel, and other civilians were not removed and placed outside of it. Were any witnesses interviewed. These were decent, ordinary citizens. People like Whitaker,Glanges, Ellis, and Prencipe were very principled people. They know what they saw. I understand eye-witness testimony and am well aware of observations made about it by the foremost expert in the world, Elizabeth Loftus of Harvard. I have heard thousands of witness testify in my career. When I wanted to find out more about the limousine after the assassination I went to the home of Willard Hess, whose company made the limousine for Kennedy and refurbished it for Johnson. I often spoke with him and exchanged correspondence. I talked with a number of his workers who were involved. i wanted to understand them. Every witness I talked with I would ask other witnesses about them,i.e., were they honest, did they have a tendency to exaggerate, etc. Certain witnesses I would not use. In my interview I indicateIi could not use Madeline Brown without further corroboration to state what I believe is true, that Lyndon Johnson was aware of what is going on. What is the explanation for characterizing two trained police officers (and Elis had a career in Military Intelligence) as "casual" observers. I let the evidence lead me, not vice versa.

My best,

Doig

Hello Doug!

It's nice to meet you even if it is only electronic -

I appreciate your taking the effort to point out that you didn't mean anything personal in your analysis of the article and I truly appreciate the fact that you didn't need to know what we were all doing in 1967 before you could look at the evidence we presented. But wouldn't you say that "dishonest" is just a little extreme? It implies that you had access to our states of mind and we set out to foist untruth on an unknowing public. Maybe we were "hopelessly confused", "profoundly mistaken", and "blindly wrong" like Pamela, but dishonest? That's kind of harsh, isn't it?

Seriously, I do appreciate your comments. I'm going to check your transcript so I'm sure there'll be more. I just wanted to address your main example here - the question of a police cordon at Parkland.

As you know, the situation evolved at Parkland. The photo record shows that early on there was confusion as officers moved some, but not all civilians away from limousine. Eventually however, there was a perimeter. And what was particularly important for us was that at the time of the perimeter Glanges said she was standing with her arm/hand? resting on the automobile. For us at least, that called her credibility into question.

Really, honestly - no deception. That's what I believe. So if I'm mistaken it's because I'm simple minded, like Pamela. Not because I'm dishonest.

Best to you,

Jerry

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jerry Logan]

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Edited January 8, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Jerry Logan]

..."Incidentally, while you appear to be right about the crowds at Parkland, if you look up toward the right where the limo sits beneath the overhang, you will see that no one is close to it and that several police officers seem to be creating a cordon around it. So, while you are right in general about the crowds, that does not mean that Doug is wrong about the limo."...

Uh Jim, .....that would be exactly my point. I'm sure Doug will understand so maybe you should just leave that to him. You seem to be having a little trouble with the specifics today.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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 Connally 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.

But, Jerry, Bob Livingston would not have been wrong when he wrote to David Lifton about this, where Richard Dudman's observations occurred before the police created any kind of cordon around the limo. While I look forward to Doug's reply to you, I hope you are not peddling the trifling argument that, because there was a cordon later in the day -- no doubt, inspired by the interest of bystanders like Dudman in the hole in the windshield -- he can't have seen it! That would be acutely disappointing.

..."Incidentally, while you appear to be right about the crowds at Parkland, if you look up toward the right where the limo sits beneath the overhang, you will see that no one is close to it and that several police officers seem to be creating a cordon around it. So, while you are right in general about the crowds, that does not mean that Doug is wrong about the limo."...

Uh Jim, .....that would be exactly my point. I'm sure Doug will understand so maybe you should just leave that to him. You seem to be having a little trouble with the specifics today.

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jerry Logan]

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 Connally 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.

But, Jerry, Bob Livingston would not have been wrong when he wrote to David Lifton about this, where Richard Dudman's observations occurred before the police created any kind of cordon around the limo. While I look forward to Doug's reply to you, I hope you are not peddling the trifling argument that, because there was a cordon later in the day -- no doubt, inspired by the interest of bystanders like Dudman in the hole in the windshield -- he can't have seen it! That would be acutely disappointing.

..."Incidentally, while you appear to be right about the crowds at Parkland, if you look up toward the right where the limo sits beneath the overhang, you will see that no one is close to it and that several police officers seem to be creating a cordon around it. So, while you are right in general about the crowds, that does not mean that Doug is wrong about the limo."...

Uh Jim, .....that would be exactly my point. I'm sure Doug will understand so maybe you should just leave that to him. You seem to be having a little trouble with the specifics today.

Really Jim, you've just offered additional evidence for my point...I urge you to let Doug answer.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Peter,

This is such an excellent post that I want to reply to it. The point of assessing motives in a case like this is that we need to distinguish between those who are making arguments because they are sincere seekers of truth who may have intellectual shortcomings or because they are playing a role that has some independent motivation. Tink uses his boyish charm to deceive and obfuscate important discoveries about the death of JFK -- and I have no real doubt that he is playing some kind of role, as Vincent Salandria, among others, observed long before me.

The classic ad hominem is discounting a position because of the person who advances it. In this case, I am discounting the person because of the positions they are advancing. All arguments must be evaluated on the basis of their merits, but when fallacious arguments that have no foundation in the evidence are offered over and over, with the effect of undermining significant advances in understanding -- including Tink's own "double hit" theory, the throat wound and hole in the windshield -- then the case for role playing accumulates and deserves to be addressed.

The Zapruder film controversy is a case in point, where you have offered an excellent prolegomenon. Some of the arguments may be complicated or complex, but others are simple and direct. Mary-in-the-street is sufficiently complex that I can understand why some might be uncertain about it. The conflict between the medical evidence of a blow-out to the left-rear and the bulging brains to the right-front, however, is not so subtle that most on this forum should not be able to appreciate it. And the findings by -- up to eight! -- Hollywood film experts is as simple and direct as it gets!

Over a long period of time, I have observed him advance one fallacious argument after another. Just as the truthfulness of a person can be measured by the relative frequency with which they say things that are true, the reliability of someone like Josiah as a student of JFK can be measured by the relative frequency with which they offer well-founded arguments. I have discovered that, on matters of great importance, his arguments are unsound, which is the basis for drawing an inference to his unreliability. Someone who promotes so many fallacious argument is simply not a reliable source.

Jim

 I was not offended, but someone was. May I suggest that those posting on what I personally consider a VERY important and significant threat TRY to keep it civil and OK for the kiddies et al. 

That being said, as I said before SSID was my FIRST JFK book of any substance and opened up my mind to the full realm of CONSPIRACY. Now, with its writer defending the Z-film as authentic, I really have to ask, as have others, Tink, have you changed your mind as to conspiracy or only think there was a conspiracy but that the Z-film was not faked? I find that EVERYTHING was faked.

The assassin was a fake

The films [many still and most motion picture] were faked

The body was 'faked'

The protection [sic] was faked

The police acting as police were fakes

The 'tramps' were not tramps [i.e. fakes]

The WC was a fake - as were [to a lesser extent all other official investigations]

The reasons why JFK was killed was faked

Tippit's murder and murderer was faked

'Oswald's' actions and motivations and past were faked

Documents were faked or withheld

The autopsy was faked and the autopsy photos/notes were faked and destroyed

Witness testimony was coerced, some witnesses threatened or killed - thus faked

and on and on and on....and we find ourselves [Americans, as well as others] in a world where HISTORY has been FAKED....

I find the chances that the Z film has not been faked and its provenance and chain of custody faked approaching the limit as x goes to zero [if you remember your calculus].

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Photos are only a single moment frozen in time, and offer little if any

information about what happened in the time before and after any

particular photo. The Parkland image is after the top has been put

back on the limo. Clearly many people, including medical personnel,

reporters, police and others were able to have close access BEFORE

the photo was taken.

Jack