Jump to content
The Education Forum

SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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

Jerry:

Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.

My best,

Doug

Doug,

No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.

You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!

First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html

Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.

However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.

Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... 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..."

The short version is this:

1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did

2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it

3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away

4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them

5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand

Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.

Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.

There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.

Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!

(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?

I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "

I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?

I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.

Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?

I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 391
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion.

But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified.

If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?

Finck was not incompetent in his probing of the back wound. Humes and

Boswell were not qualified. Finck was.

Diana Bowron saw the back wound at Parkland.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Finck, who had performed autopsies on gunshot victims before, probed the wound with his finger. It was a shallow wound, about as deep as the second knuckle of your little finger, at a downward 45-60 degree angle. Sibert and O'Neill have it in their report.

Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion.

But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified.

If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?

Finck was not incompetent in his probing of the back wound. Humes and

Boswell were not qualified. Finck was.

Diana Bowron saw the back wound at Parkland.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Finck, who had performed autopsies on gunshot victims before, probed the wound with his finger. It was a shallow wound, about as deep as the second knuckle of your little finger, at a downward 45-60 degree angle. Sibert and O'Neill have it in their report.

No. That was Humes. Not Finck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Finck, who had performed autopsies on gunshot victims before, probed the wound with his finger. It was a shallow wound, about as deep as the second knuckle of your little finger, at a downward 45-60 degree angle. Sibert and O'Neill have it in their report.

No. That was Humes. Not Finck.

I doubt that this person has read HORNE.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Jerry:

Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.

My best,

Doug

Doug,

No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.

You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!

First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html

Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.

However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.

Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... 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..."

The short version is this:

1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did

2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it

3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away

4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them

5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand

Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.

Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.

There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.

Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!

(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?

I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "

I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?

I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.

Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?

I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.

My best,

Doug Weldon

As everyone can see I am a terrible typist. Also, in the next to last paragraph Iwant to clarify that I meant can anyone account for every minute of Greer's time at Bethesda that evening.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Finck, who had performed autopsies on gunshot victims before, probed the wound with his finger. It was a shallow wound, about as deep as the second knuckle of your little finger, at a downward 45-60 degree angle. Sibert and O'Neill have it in their report.

No. That was Humes. Not Finck.

I doubt that this person has read HORNE.

Jack

Try reading the Sibert & O'Neil report, which Mr. Fetzer cited, for this one, Mr. White. It's one of the ABCs of the medical evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Jerry:

Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.

My best,

Doug

Doug,

No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.

You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!

First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html

Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.

However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.

Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... 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..."

The short version is this:

1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did

2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it

3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away

4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them

5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand

Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.

Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.

There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.

Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!

(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?

I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "

I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?

I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.

Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?

I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.

My best,

Doug Weldon

As everyone can see I am a terrible typist. Also, in the next to last paragraph Iwant to clarify that I meant can anyone account for every minute of Greer's time at Bethesda that evening.

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

Greer never left the autopsy room that night according to his WC testimony and mention by others as well. He is included as being present for the autopsy by Sibert & O'Neil. Kellerman too, who also testified to them both being present there all night and included that info in his original report as well. They were present when the morticians prepared the body, and then Greer drove JFK back to the White House for the last time in the wee hours of 11/23 ... leaving Bethesda just minutes before 4am and arriving at the White House at about 4:25am ... times are from memory. The driving distance from Bethesda to the White House and also to the White House Garage is just under 9 miles (a few tenths farther to the WH than to the WHG) ... don't have the numbers in front of me, I have driven the route and looked it up at the time our article was being written.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The information is in HORNE IV. Horne also lists the many prevarications of Kellerman.

He shows the likelihood that Greer and Kellerman were among the SS conspirators.

Jack

I doubt very much that Doug made the mistake of attributing what Sibert and O'Neil said about Humes to Finck in his book. If he did, he'll need to add it to his errata page.

This is just a matter of being precise, Jack. It was HUMES Sibert & O'Neil described in their report as probing the back wound with his finger, of discovering it was shallow, etc.

I expect Fetzer merely misspoke.

The point is to be correct when putting out information that some not steeped in the evidence may not realize is in error, and wah-lah .... a new myth is born.

We can do better than that, and it shouldn't be such a thorn strewn labyrinth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The information is in HORNE IV. Horne also lists the many prevarications of Kellerman.

He shows the likelihood that Greer and Kellerman were among the SS conspirators.

Jack

I doubt very much that Doug made the mistake of attributing what Sibert and O'Neil said about Humes to Finck in his book. If he did, he'll need to add it to his errata page.

This is just a matter of being precise, Jack. It was HUMES Sibert & O'Neil described in their report as probing the back wound with his finger, of discovering it was shallow, etc.

I expect Fetzer merely misspoke.

The point is to be correct when putting out information that some not steeped in the evidence may not realize is in error, and wah-lah .... a new myth is born.

We can do better than that, and it shouldn't be such a thorn strewn labyrinth.

While Doug does have an errata page, it is mostly typos.

Doug (p. 699 Vol. III), "In their FD-302 report (Appendix 16), they wrote: During the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger...."

Though I also seem to recall that Dr. Finck was asked about this during his testimony in New Orleans and he said that a military general in the room ordered them not to probe further.

The word Doug Horne uses is you must "emerse" yourself in the evidence before you can understand it.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Harold Weisberg. Never Again! The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1995), p.61:

Josiah Thompson’s account of his January 10, 1967, interview with Boswell appears scattered through the eighteen pages of his Six Seconds in Dallas, in which he takes Boswell at face value, unquestioningly. Apparently, Thompson asked Boswell no questions about his body-chart making of that bullet hole because he wrote instead, “When the press pointed this fact [that his marking of the hole is inches lower that in the official account] out to Commander Boswell, he replied that the sketch was only meant to a rough mark locations and that he had mistakenly placed the back wound too low” [six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1967, p.48].

That satisfied Thompson, too. He was then Professor of Philosophy at Haverford College, in suburban Philadelphia, with a speciality in the Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard. Thompson’s personal philosophy then does not appear to have included pointed questions.

He since abandoned the halls of ivy to become a successful private eye in the San Francisco area, and presumably, he has learned that not all responses, especially to embarrassing questions, can now be assumed to be truthful.

http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/ssid.html

Six Seconds in Dallas: A Belated Review

by Jerrold "Fatback" Smith

Copyright © 1999

For the first seven years of my study of Kennedy's assassination, Six Seconds in Dallas, by Josiah Thompson, was a book I had heard about but not read. I understood that Thompson was an early Warren Commission critic, but his work was not easy to find. After I joined the Coalition on Political Assassinations in 1995, I heard him speak at conferences and I had a few conversations with him; but that didn't make Six Seconds any easier to locate. Only this year did I finally get a chance to borrow a copy and take notes. It's quite a book.

Consider the times in which he wrote. Rush to Judgment, by Mark Lane, and Accessories After the Fact, by Sylvia Meagher, had dissected significant aspects of the case. Jim Garrison's investigation of Clay Shaw in New Orleans was under way and was disclosed to the public in the same year Six Seconds in Dallas was published. The Zapruder film had still not been shown to the American public, and it was certain to be of interest to the Garrison inquiry.

Thompson thought that four shots may have been fired from three locations --- the Depository, the knoll, and possibly the roof of the County Records Building or the Dal Tex Building. (SSID, p. 137. Hereafter, all citations are from SSID unless otherwise noted.) Lone assassin theorists had suggested that witnesses to smoke from a shot on the knoll had actually only seen puffs of steam from a nearby pipe. Thompson demolished the "steam pipe" explanation:

An alternative explanation sometimes proffered by governmental sources-namely, that the smoke was really escaping steam from a steam line in the vicinity-makes even less sense. At the time Holland and the other railroad workers saw the smoke, they were standing not a foot from the steam line in question. This line parallels the railroad tracks and at no time is anywhere near the corner of the stockade fence. (p. 138, n 4)

But for lone assassin advocates, there is no story so false that it cannot be repeated. I encountered the steam pipe theory in 1992, when Jacob Cohen resurrected it in Commentary magazine. Gerald Posner reprised it in Case Closed the following year.

But in some other facets of the case, Thompson presented interpretations which seemed to argue against the evidence. He suggested that Kennedy's anterior throat wound was a product of the head shot. (p. 51-55) A fragment of bullet or bone veered downward, severing Kennedy's left cerebral peduncle in the process and exiting the front of his throat. Since the Zapruder film showed Kennedy raising his hands to his throat well before frame 313, Thompson's view is hard to believe:

A close study of the Zapruder film, however, reveals that the President's fists are clenched and that the movement carries his hands above his neck. Gayle Newman described how the President "covered his head with his hands" (19H488), and Marilyn Sitzman told me how "he put his hands up to guard his face." These descriptions accurately characterize what we see on the Zapruder film. ...Such a movement seems as consistent with a shot lodged in his back as with a transiting shot: there is no science of the way a person reacts to a bullet hit. (p. 39).

Since those descriptions do not accurately characterize what we see on the Zapruder film, one is left to wonder what film Thompson saw. Appeals to the absense of science in these matters do little to strengthen the argument.

In the Warren Commission's version of the crime, two of the alleged killer's bullets had to do double duty. One shot, the Magic Bullet, had to wound Kennedy and Connally. Another either had to hit the oak tree in front of the Depository and then wound James Tague, or it had to strike Kennedy's skull and then wound James Tague. The Commission never put the matter quite so concisely, but those were the only possibilities if the single assassin theory was true.

Thompson suggested that the wounding of James Tague was a consequence of the head shot. (p. 231) In Case Closed, twenty-six years later, Gerald Posner chose the tree --- the head shot being too unlikely a source. (Posner, p. 325-326) Since both explanations are incredible, it is difficult to choose between them.

But if Bullet 399 was not Magic, it had to do amazing things anyway. It had to strike Kennedy in the limousine and be found near someone else's stretcher by the emergency level elevator entrance.

The Warren Commission's story was that the bullet must have been found on or by Governor Connally's stretcher --- a position utterly defeated by the evidence. Thompson theorized that Bullet 399 was the bullet which caused the shallow wound in Kennedy's back. The bullet worked its way back out during efforts to resuscitate the President. How did it get from Kennedy's stretcher to the emergency level elevators where it was found? "To answer this question we must appeal to an old, traditionally American institution --- souvenir hunting." Perhaps someone "momentarily snatched it as a souvenir, only to recognize its importance and quickly secrete it on a stretcher" where it could be found later with "no questions asked." (p. 168-169)

Thompson approached the issue of why Bullet 399 wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher by contriving a possible link between Kennedy's stretcher and the stretcher for a different patient altogether --- a two-year-old boy named Ronald Fuller who had fallen and cut his jaw. And if that was what had occurred, then Bullet 399 could conceivably be genuine.

Thompson's analysis of the markings on the three spent shells and single live round found in the Depository was closer to the mark. (p. 143-146) I once attempted, without the benefit of photos, to deconstruct Hoover's memo on the markings, which raised a lot of questions in my mind. (CE 2968, XXVI 449-450. In Lt. J. C. Day's Warren Commission testimony, he referred to them as "hulls.") Thompson noted that one shell, designated by the FBI as C 6 and by the Warren Commission as CE 543, was dented in a fashion which would have precluded its use in the shooting. The shell evidence is clearly suspect, for the reasons Thompson enumerated and others that he did not. If the evidence was taken to be genuine, then the other two hulls must have accounted for the two shots from the Depository. One of them seemingly struck Kennedy's skull. The other loosed Bullet 399.

In Thompson's presentation, a single bullet didn't have to account for wounds in Kennedy and Connally and emerge unscathed; it only had to penetrate a couple of inches into Kennedy's back. Why did a jacketed bullet traveling at 2000 feet per second fail to go completely through the President's body? Because it was a dud; because the ammunition was old and unreliable.

Evidently, the sniper in the Depository brought three live rounds and one spent shell. By coincidence, his first round was a "short charge," thus explaining the firecracker noise reported by witnesses. (p. 167-168. Did the firecrackers sound as if they had exploded well above street level? Thompson didn't elaborate.) Bullet 399 struck no bones and barely entered its target; that was why it was recovered in excellent condition. Someone found the bullet at Parkland Hospital and kept it briefly, only to change his mind and abandon it, presumably shamed or frightened by his actions.

The assassin's second round worked better. It struck Kennedy's skull and then must have wounded Tague. Thus, the Depository assassin fired two shots, the maximum permitted by Thompson's assessment of the shell evidence and the minimum demanded in the case against Lee Oswald.

Throughout Thompson's book, the Zapruder film was taken to be genuine, though profoundly enigmatic. William Manchester watched it 75 times:

and even this did not prevent him from making several important errors. Commission Counsel Liebeler saw it so often he lost track of the number of times. I had seen it countless times myself; in fact, I had spent considerable time viewing the copy in the National Archives... The crucial nuances and details in this film are easily overlooked..." (p. 7)

Thompson implied that the FBI might have made mistakes in interpreting the film because they had a copy of a Secret Service copy of the film. When Thompson saw color enlargements of the film, "the full impact of the Commission's oversight was brought home" to him. (p. 8-9) Presumably, the Secret Service must not have looked at their copy too carefully, or they might have seen the President's head thrown back and alerted the FBI.

More to the point, Thompson went to considerable lengths to measure the movements of the President's head and the implied accelerations. Thompson reasoned that Kennedy's skull was hit by two shots. (p. 111) While it might have been barely plausible that the FBI did not recognize important details of the film, the same cannot be said of Life magazine, which held the original. Why didn't Life score the journalistic coup of the century and publish its proof of conspiracy and high-level cover-up? In 1967, who had seen the Zapruder film? A tiny number of people might have gone to the library and examined the poor reproductions of the film in Commission volume XVIII. A tiny number of people might have learned of the film from the Garrison investigation in New Orleans. Dan Rather, having seen the film once at normal speed, certainly reached a far wider audience when he described it on CBS radio and television --- an account which was surrealistically inaccurate. If not from Dan Rather, Life magazine, or Josiah Thompson, how were people to know what the film revealed?

Thompson enjoyed, at least initially, the assistance of Life, which granted him access to the Zapruder film but then denied him use of stills from the film --- forcing Thompson to illustrate his text with black-and-white charcoal sketches. In the last chapter, "Answered and Unanswered Questions," Thompson was able to resolve the "needless controversy" over frames missing from the film, citing Life Managing Editor George Hunt on the fate of frames 207-212. Hunt's statement, however, did not explain when or how frames from the original were lost, merely that intact copies of the film remained. One of those frames, 210, was printed in the Warren Report. (p. 217-218) It was also printed without the intersprocket area, although that is a matter of more recent interest. Hunt's explanation explained nothing.

Thompson then dealt with Julia Ann Mercer's reported sighting of a man with a gun case on the knoll shortly before the assassination. Thompson referred to an affidavit which, according to Jim Garrison, Mercer had repudiated. On NBC television on January 31, 1968, well after the publication of Six Seconds, Garrison related Mercer's story and its aftermath. It could be that Thompson had completed his study before that information developed. In any event, his interpretation was puzzling. Having seen the shell game, having seen the movie of the murder, how could he so easily accept the investigation's views on Julia Ann Mercer?

Thompson discounted the notion that Deputy Roger Craig saw Oswald getting into a station wagon after the shooting, relying on the account of taxi driver William Whaley to prove that Oswald was already away from Dealey Plaza. Thompson did not point out the various errors in Whaley's testimony which the Report admitted, or any of the errors it didn't. For example, Whaley said Oswald was wearing a jacket, although the jacket Oswald supposedly wore that day was found in the Depository after Oswald's death.

Whoever got in that taxi supposedly got on a bus first. The bus witnesses, in my opinion, ruled out Oswald as the someone in question; but I have rarely seen things as the Commission did. In any event, Thompson's acceptance of the bus-taxi get-away story, and all the contradictions it contained, was connected to another issue. To explain the testimony of James Worrell and Richard Carr, who saw men leaving the scene, Thompson proposed a possible route for the vehicle reportedly used, a station wagon. The route brought the car back to Elm Street, traveling west in front of the Depository, which accorded well with Craig's testimony. Had Thompson not overturned Craig on other grounds, Thompson might have perceived a connection between Oswald and that car.

It could be that Thompson's research was uneven or inadequate or rushed. Maybe he just put too much faith in the good faith of the authorities. Some of his work was sound --- his description of the shell markings, for instance. But his account otherwise self-destructed. His explanation for Bullet 399 was a daisy-chain of speculation as improbable as the Magic Bullet theory.

In his introductory remarks, Thompson provided a brief history of books on the assassination. The first generation of critics "advanced frantic and irresponsible hypotheses," while the second generation went through "labored point-by-point refutations of the Report." (p. ix) Thompson saw himself in the next echelon, attempting to:

synthesize the evidence (new and old) and point the way to an emerging conclusion. ...Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them. It is the responsibility of future works ... to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it. [p. ix-x, italics in the original.]

Such language. The critics had "gotten by" somehow, as if they had met the minimum standard. It was responsibility of the critics to make sense of the evidence. With respect to the Zapruder film, the "full impact of the Commission's oversight" had been made clear to Thompson; yet he concluded Six Seconds in Dallas by writing:

What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy...[n]or does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. It also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain --- nearly four years after the event --- still unanswered. (p. 246)

As I said, it's quite a book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.archive.org/details/OnTheKenned...iamOconnell1968

On the Kennedy assassination; interview by William O'Connell. Recorded: 29 Dec. 1967. Description: Josiah Thompson is interviewed about his book "Six Seconds in Dallas about the President Kennedy Assassination".(58:24 mins.) BB4627 Pacifica Radio Archives.

No, it’s not Vincent Price, though the listener could be forgiven for the error, initially at least.

Thompson moves swiftly to establish himself as the prudent professional (er, scholar) who scrupulously resists the powerful temptation to “let one’s wishes pull the conclusions further than the evidence warrants.” The exemplar of the critic who does succumb to precisely this “problem of the unlimited,” according to Thompson, is Garrison, who had just pronounced the assassination a coup d’etat: “If a very steely-eyed and cool investigative reporter said, ‘Now, Mr. Garrison, that’s very interesting rhetoric, let’s have a few facts…” Thompson’s interest in the considerable contemporaneous evidence of conflict between Kennedy and the CIA was, then, pronounced from the first. Listen on…

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.archive.org/details/OnTheKenned...iamOconnell1968
On the Kennedy assassination; interview by William O'Connell. Recorded: 29 Dec. 1967. Description: Josiah Thompson is interviewed about his book "Six Seconds in Dallas about the President Kennedy Assassination".(58:24 mins.) BB4627 Pacifica Radio Archives.

No, it’s not Vincent Price, though the listener could be forgiven for the error, initially at least.

Thompson moves swiftly to establish himself as the prudent professional (er, scholar) who scrupulously resists the powerful temptation to “let one’s wishes pull the conclusions further than the evidence warrants.” The exemplar of the critic who does succumb to precisely this “problem of the unlimited,” according to Thompson, is Garrison, who had just pronounced the assassination a coup d’etat: “If a very steely-eyed and cool investigative reporter said, ‘Now, Mr. Garrison, that’s very interesting rhetoric, let’s have a few facts…” Thompson’s interest in the considerable contemporaneous evidence of conflict between Kennedy and the CIA was, then, pronounced from the first. Listen on…

At about the 24:25 mark

Josiah Thompson:

"It seems to me that at one's most extreme hazard does one move to the postion of saying that any government investigator lied about evidence,

lied about what the evidence was, or fiddled the evidence.

For example I think one of the strongest indications of the impact of a bullet from behind...And incidentally seems to me there is much

more evidence of the impact of a bullet from the front on the President's head then there is of one from behind....."

(Thompson then mentions the fragments "ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle" found in the front seat of the limousine)

"....And critics have suggested this -- that these fragments were planted by governmental agents since the car was in

government hands after the assassination.

This throws.... to suggest this sort of thing throws the whole investigation into paralysis it seems to me. Because at that point it becomes

impossible to disjoin the good evidence, the clean evidence, from the dirty evidence. In otherwords, one has, then, no longer any criteria

for distinguishing between evidence one wants to base conclusions on, and evidence which one wants to throw away as false trails.

And, it seems to me, that a logical consequence of doing that at any point in the study of this whole case is to announce that one

has ended one's study. Because logically, one can't proceed any farther."

Link to post
Share on other sites
At about the 24:25 mark

Josiah Thompson:

"It seems to me that at one's most extreme hazard does one move to the postion of saying that any government investigator lied about evidence,

lied about what the evidence was, or fiddled the evidence.

For example I think one of the strongest indications of the impact of a bullet from behind...And incidentally seems to me there is much

more evidence of the impact of a bullet from the front on the President's head then there is of one from behind....."

(Thompson then mentions the fragments "ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle" found in the front seat of the limousine)

"....And critics have suggested this -- that these fragments were planted by governmental agents since the car was in

government hands after the assassination.

This throws.... to suggest this sort of thing throws the whole investigation into paralysis it seems to me. Because at that point it becomes

impossible to disjoin the good evidence, the clean evidence, from the dirty evidence. In otherwords, one has, then, no longer any criteria

for distinguishing between evidence one wants to base conclusions on, and evidence which one wants to throw away as false trails.

And, it seems to me, that a logical consequence of doing that at any point in the study of this whole case is to announce that one

has ended one's study. Because logically, one can't proceed any farther."

Unbelievable tosh, even for late 1967, yet it's a position Thompson and his network still cling to. For reasons, we are invited to believe, of intellectual "scruple."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...