Jump to content
The Education Forum

SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Barb,

I thought you might want to know that someone has been posting

the most dishonest and ridiculous drivel and signing your name to it.

Jim

Hi John,

Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone

started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her

bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to

lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote

last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in

the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the

authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit

.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a

bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining

the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a

whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything

someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....

Barb :-)

and

Tink has handlked himself well

thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.

Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with

Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our

articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on

and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character

assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there

to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been

willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."

Barb :-)

McAdams replied:

I think it is time for some of this at this forum to

>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,

>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.

>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,

>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,

>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.

>>

>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.

>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.

>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the

>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure

>> >he would much appreciate it.

>>

>> >Who is with me?

No, that was not McAdams reply, those words were posted by someone who calls himself Whiskey Joe. Pretty selective in what you culled from the mod group .... no small wonder given the things being said about you there. :-) As for my comments .... just a quick round up synopsis, like a Soap Opera digest, for those commenting on the little bits that they've heard of the goings on here.

Now, James, if you are interested in discussing evidence .... let's discuss. If this is all you are interested in doing, and that would seem to be the case, then please locate your "off" button and keep it engaged so as to not impede, distract or intimidate those who are interested in discussing the evidence.

Such childish games, imo.

'Nuf!

.john's place, alt.assassination.jfk. Is that the place that clears and approves every single post posted there (for the past 10 years since its inception)? And that groups mandate when conceived was what, again? Weren't you a moderator there beholden to .john? Such childish games, yes indeed....

'Nuf! LMAO!

So come on Barb, Dr. Josiah Thompson can take care of himself, he needs not you or John McAdams (.john) feeble support --quite frankly, he might just be looking at Zapruder film related posts recently posted here (including recent DHorne material) with different eyes (as I suspect have many).....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 391
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Doug,

Thanks for being so patient. I was surfing the break point of rhetorical excess on another thread. Everything was balanced and A-ok until some real life events overtook my exciting cyber/life. Also, thanks for the restraint and tone of your reply. I think we're both capable of full court legalese nit-picking and I appreciate your heartfelt/non-lawyer approach. The truth is the truth, not my truth or your truth. I don't know how old you are but the President's assassination was a defining event for me and I'd really, really like some type of answer that quiets my mind before it's time for the final check out. I sense that you're on the same path whatever personal reasons are pushing you down the same road. So thanks for your attitude and thanks for your work.

I've tried to answer some of your concerns in highlight below. It's the first time I've tried it this way so we'll see how it goes. I have trouble following the flow of information because of the formatting here so I'm experimenting with different ways of structuring my replies. Let me know if it doesn't work for you since communication is a two way street.

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.

This is a good point and brings up a very foundational question for me. I've had a lot of experience with stressful events (accidents, structural failures) that involved lots of people and lots of witnesses to the events. In more than thirty years, I've never had everyone tell the same story about a complex event. Instead, there's usually a distribution of descriptions - lots of the differences clump around simple things like location, but even when you factor those clumps out there's still an unresolvable difference in descriptions of the very same event. There's lot of frustration in the research community because we've got four or five or whatever number of witnesses to something and the folks on one side or the other will say - good grief, that's what all the witnesses say, what's your problem? But the problem is that in a sufficiently complex event we can find five or six or whatever witnesses that will sincerely testify to anything. So one set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and another set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and where are we, really?

Concrete application - say 100-150 people saw the limousine close-up after the assassination. Everybody is upset, everybody is in the context of a shooting and there's blood and brain material on the windhield as well a damaged focal point. Honestly, I'd be shocked if I couldn't find ten or twenty people who saw a bullet hole, no matter what was actually on the windshield. And these people won't be lying. They are going to be very convincing because they're telling us what they sincerely believe they saw. If you gave them a polygraph they would not come close to failing. But no one has done the opposite study and it's probably too late now. Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield.

So I know it drives some people crazy and they want to know how I could be so blind to sincere and honest eyewitnesses, but my experience has been that in a complex event I can find sincere and convincing witnesses to almost any controversial issue. In my heart I fully recognize the honesty and conviction of the people you've had the honor to interview, but the cold lawyer in me whispers doubt in my ear. That's what I mean when I say I'm looking for something to quiet my mind and I still haven't located it.

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?

Yes, she does -but see above. Also, I found the whole TMWKK Glanges segment a little manipulative. Not her, but the context into which the producers placed her. The opening at the skeet range was a little over the top. Presumably it was meant to visually tell the story that this isn't some fru, fru - it's a serious woman who knows her weapons. But, I don't think firing a shotgun makes you an expert on on bullet holes and unless Dr. Glanges has a history I don't know about, knowing a lot about using even rifles wouldn't mean you knew what bullet holes in windshields looked like. I came from a hunting family and I'm no stranger to rifles and hand guns but I really didn't see a lot of windshield holes. So I found that visual segment sort of misleading but not Dr. Glanges herself, not at all.

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.

Right, unless we can talk to that person we'll never know why. I can speculate and you can too - we just don't know. But, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Glanges story was clearly told in a high profile book seven years before you interviewed her. She wasn't murdered or unemployed. So it seems like it was possible to tell your truth about what you saw and still do all right. I know that people were afraid to come forward, but were there concrete threats from actual people or just a sense that it was a dangerous topic because of its nature and because of the "mystery deaths"?

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.

Yes, I agree with you about people who are lying and know they're lying. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think she's lying and she certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who would lie. But she is human and our memories do change over time , usually in a way that enhances our dramatic role in the past. So our first recorded account of what she saw comes nineteen years after the event. And, in fact, the story does change over the seven subsequent years. In Crenshaw's book she's standing near the limousine with her friend. She spots the hole and comments on it and the Secret Service hops in the car and drives away. By the time you speak with her she's actually touching the automobile and her hand is almost injured by the violence of the event. Maybe she told Crenshaw the same thing and it just didn't make it into the book but that's the kind of detail Dr. Crenshaw seemed to thrive on. In any case, as I've said, I don't doubt the basics of her story. I believe she was there and I believe she saw what she believed to be a bullet hole. But there's a big difference in the reliability of her evaluation depending on where she's actually located when she sees these things. And, as I indicated in my last post, I just don't think the dramatic details that put her so close to the limousine are credible.

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

OK, I'm going to get a little lawyerish here but just for a moment. You've just given a a set of very good reasons why people might not all place a single defect in the same location on the windshield. But why don't those same reasons apply to the hole itself? If the angle of the windshield makes it difficult to accurately locate the defect, why doesn't that make it difficult to accurately assess if it's actually a hole? You mention Taylor and cite the reliability of his location observation. Yet, Taylor thought the "hole" was something through which a pin could pass, not a substantial hole. If the defect was so substantial, why did people want to pass an object through the hole to test their observations? What was it about the "hole" that made them think there might be some question about a pencil or pen making it through? If people can have trouble with their memories and the windshield shape and slant make it difficult why is it so hard to accept that there was a defect that looked a lot like some type of hole and they were simply mistaken, just like they were mistaken about its location?

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?

Certainly not. But the question here isn't was there a defect? (Was there a body?) The question is did the defect actually penetrate the windshield (north-south, red brown). It's the detail that's the issue. OK, lawyer -off.

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? "

It would have been great if you'd been able to do that. I've got quite a collection of Parkland photos and I've located an early photo of Dr. Glanges so I'd be happy to share those with you. I think I can see her but who knows. You've actually seen her so that might be a big help. Was the other student with her female? Because there are two white coated young women who are there for some time. The odd looking lady is there as the top is going up - she looks like she might be part of housekeeping but that's a guess. The odd lady is there before the cordon fully forms and before the limousine speeds away so it's earlier than when Glanges says she was at the front of the limousine. Karl is a very interesting guy but the limousine doesn't move unless they parked it on the curb a second time. Besides, Glanges is very clear that she's seeing the limousine while she's outside the emergency department and when the limousine left it drove out of sight. She would have still seen the limousine if it was just moved to the top/wash location.

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?

No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.

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.

I should let Martin speak for himself if he cares to; I think he believes there was a conspiracy, but can find no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. At least for some of us, that places him in the conspiracy camp. My experience with Martin is that he regularly thumps me at every opportunity so I was sure he'd test the hypothesis! The photo analysts are litigation guys - they charge a $100 for their calls to tell you your materials aren't ready yet. It comes with the territory. For what it's worth, the charge would be for creating the proof, not for their opinion. They thought (if I had correctly sorted out the shadows and cracks), that it all fit together but that would be all you have- their statements. What cost money was creating the cad files and transformations that anyone could see and say-- that's a match. Otherwise it's just more of the same old, same old. "Yeah, that's how it looks to you, but not me." Bernice posted it here for sure. Bernice is amazing. I suspect she may actually have a copy of everything. On Lancer I'm not sure - I'll try to find that but their search function is a challenge for me. Your suggestion of making sure Martin's thread was posted with the study is a good one but I didn't think of it. Martin's work was mentioned only in the course of discussion, not as a specific addition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time following the various boards but there's a very large cross-over between Duncan's, Lancer and the Ed Forum. I assumed that anyone who cared would know about it. I don't think anyone would believe Duncan's forum is a good place to hide information from other researchers.

*Update - I finally cracked the Lancer search engine (yes, I know) and we didn't mention Martin's thread. There was a lot with Robin Unger's archive which is hosted on Duncan's site but no Martin.

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?

Barb knows more about that, so you'd get a better answer from her.

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?

I think if you read what I wrote to Pamela more closely you'll see that I was attempting to represent what a dedicated alterationist like David Lifton would say to her, and that her her answers weren't satisfactory from that perspective. I don't have any reason to doubt Frazier's photograph and Taylor did subsequently view the photo and validate it. There's no doubt that Taylor said there was a hole. Before the opportunity for Treasury Department pressure, he said he thought it was a pin hole which is consistent with the appearance of Frazier's photo. Also, if you believe that the Secret Service was switching windows multiple times and the FBI examiner was fixed, I find it hard to see how Taylor escaped the the web of deception and that no one would check the after action reports from the uninvolved agents to make sure they didn't reveal something that shouldn't be known. Instead, an official report shoots up to the SS Chief and then to the WC that directly refers to the hole everyone has spent so much time and effort to hide.

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.

That would be great! I'll send that information to you. Also we can discuss the Parkland photos if you're interested.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Jerry:

I sincerely thank you for your reasonable replies. I want to clear up one misconception. I did not interview Glanges in person but did so over the phone. From what I have been able to determine the other witness with Glanges was a man and I believe I know who it was. Even though people may have told their story before it was clear to me that people like Ellis, Dudman, and Whitaker were genuinely worried about their welfare. I don't know what your experience is but I have been to many murder scenes and have prosecuted and defended a murder case.I don't accept all evidence and was very diligent in allowing the evidence to lead me. From my experience with Nigel Turner he probably filmed Glanges for many hours and then edited it to make his point. He filmed me for several days at a time I was quite ill. That is probably why the Glanges segment with her shooting skeet may appear contrived but whatever issues I have with Nigel do not include a dishonest presentation of the person. Crenshaw and Glanges were friends but I also found Crenshaw to be honest. A week after the assassination there was I believe a Life article (I have it) talking about Kennedy's T-shirt and Crenshaw verified that he had one. Where is it? Greer testified there was no T-shirt (It was interesting they were pursuing this) but one of his stories was there was NO damage to the windshied. As a lawyer I am sure you also know that the Kennedy assassination fell within the timeframe of Miranda v Arizona and we well today might have been reading people their "Oswald" rights.

I believe there is point after point I could impeach any credibility Frazier has and it is interesting that Taylor could verify Frazier's photograph when many said he was not there during the FBI examination. From Lifton and my own examination of the evidence I believe I can prove there were multiple windshields. You are correct that in a moment of crisis people will have different observations of the same event but to expect people to describe the same thing, a hole, I do not find that reasonable. Indeed, even if not under emotional distress, many will describe the event a little diffferently, but again, to see a hole I don't think so. Ellis told me he placed a pencil in it. Was Taylor hysterical as he sat in the passenger seat as the limo was driven from Andrews to the WH Garage . I would be incredulous it he was on things. I am obviously not nor would I pretend to be an expert on everything. I cannot analyze the Zapruder film, understand complicated medical evidence, ballistics, etc. but I do rely on impartial experts I trust. What about the police officers? I have interviewed a number of officers in the motorcade that day. What did shock me is that none of them said the assassination was the most significant event in their career. They believed they did their job well that day. I don't know how you can speculate that all of these people "thought" they saw a hole. It is certainly something I cannot do. Why did you leave out the Whitaker story? Don't you find it amazing that he described the exact same thing, a hole, ias the witnesses in Dallas and Taylor in Washington. He knew none of these people and never studied the assassination. He talked about this within his family since November 1963. Does it bother you that the plight of the limousine has been demonstrably proven false and that even HSCA found conflicts?

I thought Matrin did a good, honest analysis. Thank you Jerry. We both appear to seek truth, not as you and I perceive it, but truth as it is. I am not exaggerating when I state I have heard thousands of witnesses in criminal cases in my career and believe I have a good "feel" for weighing veracity. I believe these witnesses I have presented. Apparently, you choose not to do so. I am not talking what witnesses in general might do but I am talking about these specific witnesses. I believe an objective person would also believe them. Jerry, we can agree to disagree and there are no hard feelings. I welcome intelligent criticism as it makes me reexamine what I have done to ensure to myself that I have not been blinded by any personal bias. I would be a pleasure to send you something if you give me your address. I hope you might view my you-tube presentation. As I mentioned I have changed my thoughts on some small things but in the past ten years I have learned much more and it has only solidified my conclusions.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

Yes, precisely .... it was Humes S & O wrote that passage about, NOT Finck as Fetzer cited. That's why I merely corrected the name noting it was Humes, not Finck. I figured Fetzer had merely mistyped.

Finck was asked about this wound during the Shaw trial, but he was not the one mentioned by S&O as probing with his finger.

The S & O report, as I noted before, is one of the ABCs of the medical evidence. I've known those ABCs for about 30 yrs now.

Thanks for this, Bill, Jack will more likely believe you. :-)

Barb :-)

While S & O are often portrayed as being part of the conspiracy, unlike Humes and Boswell, both Sibert and O'Neill, according to Horne, were anxious to testify under oath to the ARRB, and both did so, while others were left out, or not recalled after the original testimony was called into question by subsequent testimony.

BK

S&O were also interviewed by the HSCA (contact report style) and both took it upon themselves to type and sign affidavits because they wanted to get all their info in ... and they submitted those to the HSCA. You can find them in the ARRB Med Exhibits, if you are interested ... the master list is here:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents...ed-exhibits.htm

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Junkkarinen’s appeal to the Langleyians

John McAdams for Beginners

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

Inside the Target Car, Part Three

How Gary Mack became Dan Rather

By James DiEugenio

Which brings us to the second overt way Loomis and the Dark Side struck back. See, Paul Nolan is an alias. More accurately, it is an undercover name. Paul Nolan's real name is John McAdams. And to understand why Loomis and company would use him to go after COPA and defend David Phillips, you have to understand a bit about his background.

McAdams first surfaced after Stone's film was released. But he first reared his ugly visage not in public, but on the Internet. He began to frequent many of the JFK forums that sprang up around the time period of 1992-93. Except he outdid almost anyone in the number of posts he delivered. At times they were around fifty per day. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 3 p. 13) But as I wrote at the time, his personality was so repellent and his style so pugnacious that many new to the field saw through him quickly. One wrote in an e-mail: "McAdams is a spook isn't he ... I am concerned about McAdams and his ilk. The stuff he puts up on the 'Net is pure disinformation ... The stuff McAdams puts on the 'Net is pure acid. He doesn't respond to the facts, he just discredits witnesses and posters." (ibid.)

At the time, I noted that McAdams liked to forge false messages in order to insult people in the JFK field, like Jim Garrison, and to promote others, like Posner. He would jump around from forum to forum posting disinformation. Like for example that Clay Shaw was never really on the Board of Directors of Permindex. According to McAdams, that was a myth promoted by Oliver Stone. Well, finally someone actually scanned Shaw's own Who's Who entry in which he himself noted he was on the board of Permindex. This shut up McAdams on that forum. So what did McAdams do? He went to another forum and said the same thing about Shaw—knowing it had been proven false! Nothing tells us more about the man than that fact. And nothing tells us more about the people who choose to associate with McAdams in spite of that, e.g. Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein.

But one good thing about McAdams at the time, at least for the Dark Side, was that his presence in the JFK case had been confined to the Internet. So very few people in the critical community had ever seen him. That facial anonymity, plus his willingness in using a false name made him useful in the attack against COPA. In 1995, McAdams/Nolan attended the COPA Conference in Washington. Unfortunately for him, there actually was another JFK researcher whose real name was Paul Nolan. When he found out about the McAdams deception, he posted a web message: "I was just doing some research over the net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently some asshole wants to use my name as an alias." (ibid)

Using this phony name, McAdams went to the above conference. He happened to meet a conservative reporter named Matt Labash there. Labash was on assignment for City Paper out of Washington D.C. Nolan/McAdams told Labash that he managed a computer store in Shorewood, Wisconsin—which he did not. In Labash's resultant negative article on that conference, Nolan was the only participant quoted at length. And what was one of the things Labash quoted him on? Shades of Mark Zaid. It was Dr. Luis Alvarez' nutty "jet effect" explanation of Kennedy's back and to the left reaction in the Zapruder film. (ibid, p. 26)

Coincidence? Hardly. Labash had worked for rightwing propaganda mills like American Spectator and the intelligence riddled Washington Times. At the time of his hit piece on COPA he was working at Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard. Further, Labash is believed to have done this kind of infiltration assignment before for the Washington Times. His target then was the Institute for Policy Studies. When Gary Aguilar called Labash, he admitted that he had his "marching orders" from on high for his COPA assignment (ibid). To most people, it would appear that Colby and Shackley had fulfilled their mission. Except it was not through Russo. It was through McAdams masquerading as Paul Nolan.

In summary, then, good old Barb, that disinterested voice of reason, the last great hope of logic in the case, has appealed to some of the most overt Agency people on the net to assist in repudiating the charge that Josiah Thompson was from the first, and remains to this day, er, a creature of the CIA.

Splendid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb,

I thought you might want to know that someone has been posting

the most dishonest and ridiculous drivel and signing your name to it.

Jim

Hi John,

Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone

started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her

bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to

lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote

last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in

the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the

authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit

.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a

bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining

the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a

whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything

someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....

Barb :-)

and

Tink has handlked himself well

thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.

Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with

Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our

articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on

and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character

assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there

to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been

willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."

Barb :-)

McAdams replied:

I think it is time for some of this at this forum to

>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,

>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.

>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,

>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,

>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.

>>

>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.

>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.

>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the

>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure

>> >he would much appreciate it.

>>

>> >Who is with me?

No, that was not McAdams reply, those words were posted by someone who calls himself Whiskey Joe. Pretty selective in what you culled from the mod group .... no small wonder given the things being said about you there. :-) As for my comments .... just a quick round up synopsis, like a Soap Opera digest, for those commenting on the little bits that they've heard of the goings on here.

Now, James, if you are interested in discussing evidence .... let's discuss. If this is all you are interested in doing, and that would seem to be the case, then please locate your "off" button and keep it engaged so as to not impede, distract or intimidate those who are interested in discussing the evidence.

Such childish games, imo.

'Nuf!

.john's place, alt.assassination.jfk. Is that the place that clears and approves every single post posted there (for the past 10 years since its inception)?

Checked for direct ad hominems, situations getting out of hand in that direction only .... and spam ads and off topic cross posts weeded out. That's all. Period.

But then you already know that, though I don't think the mod group has ever been graced by your presence, so you don't know anything of your own accord .... and have never been on the inside of the mod process, so of course, you don't know about that either.

And that groups mandate when conceived was what, again? Weren't you a moderator there beholden to .john? Such childish games, yes indeed....

'Nuf! LMAO!

The concept was an open forum for all who wanted to discuss the case without the intimidation that runs rampant on what's affectionately known as the nuthouse. And it has been one of the most successful forums on the net for years with a mix of CTs and LNs getting along for the most part and actually accomplishing discussion of evidence. Yes, I was once a moderator, for about 2 yrs or so, occasionally fill in when needed rarely still. The only "mandate" is that there must always be at least 2 moderators ... one LN and one CT ... and that it takes BOTH of those moderators to agree that a post is over the line and should not be posted... if one moderator disagrees, the post goes up. If it's just a matter of a word or phrase or sentence that is over the line, the poster is given the opportunity to edit.

Sounds just horrible, doesn't it? :-)

So come on Barb, Dr. Josiah Thompson can take care of himself, he needs not you or John McAdams (.john) feeble support --quite frankly, he might just be looking at Zapruder film related posts recently posted here (including recent DHorne material) with different eyes (as I suspect have many).....

Tink can and does take care of himself quite well. That some on the mod group (again, that was NOT McAdams' post) might want to speak out on his behalf is their personal choice, not any recruitment by Tink. But, imo, it speaks well of Tink's reputation in the community at large. Which, in my personal opinion, is one reason he is subjected to such attacks by some.

I have a new New Year's resolution: to avoid nonsense and smarmy unctuous emissions. Wish me luck! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary, Barb, I am happy to see this posted here, especially this part:
Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there

to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few.

(Bolds mine.)

It is always this way-- how very sad. We miss alot of thought from the silent majority who do not wish to be branded disinfo agents,or neocons, for disagreeing.

Thank you, Kathy. And I agree. The more the mainstream people speak out, the less power to intimidate and divert & distract from real discussion the "predictables" have. Never too late to turn the tide. We're both moms ... you know the parenting skills for dealing with tantrums....

Bests to you!

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
"RALLY AROUND THOMPSON IN HIS TIME OF NEED?"

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Is that an admission that he is losing and needs help

from other losers?

Or as David would say, ROTFALMFAO!

Jack :-)

In my opinion, there are 2 groups of losers ...

those who talk and act like this is a game,

and those who seriously want to read and participate in reasoned give and take

on the evidence, but can't because

the first group of losers make it difficult or impossible.

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb,

I thought you might want to know that someone has been posting

the most dishonest and ridiculous drivel and signing your name to it.

Jim

Hi John,

Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone

started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her

bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to

lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote

last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in

the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the

authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit

.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a

bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining

the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a

whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything

someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....

Barb :-)

and

Tink has handlked himself well

thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.

Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with

Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our

articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on

and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character

assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there

to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been

willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."

Barb :-)

McAdams replied:

I think it is time for some of this at this forum to

>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,

>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.

>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,

>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,

>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.

>>

>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.

>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.

>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the

>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure

>> >he would much appreciate it.

>>

>> >Who is with me?

No, that was not McAdams reply, those words were posted by someone who calls himself Whiskey Joe. Pretty selective in what you culled from the mod group .... no small wonder given the things being said about you there. :-) As for my comments .... just a quick round up synopsis, like a Soap Opera digest, for those commenting on the little bits that they've heard of the goings on here.

Now, James, if you are interested in discussing evidence .... let's discuss. If this is all you are interested in doing, and that would seem to be the case, then please locate your "off" button and keep it engaged so as to not impede, distract or intimidate those who are interested in discussing the evidence.

Such childish games, imo.

'Nuf!

.john's place, alt.assassination.jfk. Is that the place that clears and approves every single post posted there (for the past 10 years since its inception)?

Checked for direct ad hominems, situations getting out of hand in that direction only .... and spam ads and off topic cross posts weeded out. That's all. Period.

But then you already know that, though I don't think the mod group has ever been graced by your presence, so you don't know anything of your own accord .... and have never been on the inside of the mod process, so of course, you don't know about that either.

And that groups mandate when conceived was what, again? Weren't you a moderator there beholden to .john? Such childish games, yes indeed....

'Nuf! LMAO!

The concept was an open forum for all who wanted to discuss the case without the intimidation that runs rampant on what's affectionately known as the nuthouse. And it has been one of the most successful forums on the net for years with a mix of CTs and LNs getting along for the most part and actually accomplishing discussion of evidence. Yes, I was once a moderator, for about 2 yrs or so, occasionally fill in when needed rarely still. The only "mandate" is that there must always be at least 2 moderators ... one LN and one CT ... and that it takes BOTH of those moderators to agree that a post is over the line and should not be posted... if one moderator disagrees, the post goes up. If it's just a matter of a word or phrase or sentence that is over the line, the poster is given the opportunity to edit.

Sounds just horrible, doesn't it? :-)

So come on Barb, Dr. Josiah Thompson can take care of himself, he needs not you or John McAdams (.john) feeble support --quite frankly, he might just be looking at Zapruder film related posts recently posted here (including recent DHorne material) with different eyes (as I suspect have many).....

Tink can and does take care of himself quite well. That some on the mod group (again, that was NOT McAdams' post) might want to speak out on his behalf is their personal choice, not any recruitment by Tink. But, imo, it speaks well of Tink's reputation in the community at large. Which, in my personal opinion, is one reason he is subjected to such attacks by some.

I have a new New Year's resolution: to avoid nonsense and smarmy unctuous emissions. Wish me luck! :-)

they drug you out of retirement for this? Only to say: "I have a new New Year's resolution: to avoid nonsense and smarmy unctuous emissions."

Oh-my..... it's the Zapruder film, Barb. This is all about the Zapruder Film... and yes, I'm sorry to say, the ONLY assassination issue that drives folks by the herd to this board...

Bests,

Paul Nolan (aka .john)

Link to post
Share on other sites
"RALLY AROUND THOMPSON IN HIS TIME OF NEED?"

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Is that an admission that he is losing and needs help

from other losers?

Or as David would say, ROTFALMFAO!

Jack :-)

In my opinion, there are 2 groups of losers ...

those who talk and act like this is a game,

and those who seriously want to read and participate in reasoned give and take

on the evidence, but can't because

the first group of losers make it difficult or impossible.

think solutions, Barb! 40+years of give-n-take. S-O-L-U-T-I-O-N-S

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug,

Thanks for being so patient. I was surfing the break point of rhetorical excess on another thread. Everything was balanced and A-ok until some real life events overtook my exciting cyber/life. Also, thanks for the restraint and tone of your reply. I think we're both capable of full court legalese nit-picking and I appreciate your heartfelt/non-lawyer approach. The truth is the truth, not my truth or your truth. I don't know how old you are but the President's assassination was a defining event for me and I'd really, really like some type of answer that quiets my mind before it's time for the final check out. I sense that you're on the same path whatever personal reasons are pushing you down the same road. So thanks for your attitude and thanks for your work.

I've tried to answer some of your concerns in highlight below. It's the first time I've tried it this way so we'll see how it goes. I have trouble following the flow of information because of the formatting here so I'm experimenting with different ways of structuring my replies. Let me know if it doesn't work for you since communication is a two way street.

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.

This is a good point and brings up a very foundational question for me. I've had a lot of experience with stressful events (accidents, structural failures) that involved lots of people and lots of witnesses to the events. In more than thirty years, I've never had everyone tell the same story about a complex event. Instead, there's usually a distribution of descriptions - lots of the differences clump around simple things like location, but even when you factor those clumps out there's still an unresolvable difference in descriptions of the very same event. There's lot of frustration in the research community because we've got four or five or whatever number of witnesses to something and the folks on one side or the other will say - good grief, that's what all the witnesses say, what's your problem? But the problem is that in a sufficiently complex event we can find five or six or whatever witnesses that will sincerely testify to anything. So one set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and another set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and where are we, really?

Concrete application - say 100-150 people saw the limousine close-up after the assassination. Everybody is upset, everybody is in the context of a shooting and there's blood and brain material on the windhield as well a damaged focal point. Honestly, I'd be shocked if I couldn't find ten or twenty people who saw a bullet hole, no matter what was actually on the windshield. And these people won't be lying. They are going to be very convincing because they're telling us what they sincerely believe they saw. If you gave them a polygraph they would not come close to failing. But no one has done the opposite study and it's probably too late now. Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield.

So I know it drives some people crazy and they want to know how I could be so blind to sincere and honest eyewitnesses, but my experience has been that in a complex event I can find sincere and convincing witnesses to almost any controversial issue. In my heart I fully recognize the honesty and conviction of the people you've had the honor to interview, but the cold lawyer in me whispers doubt in my ear. That's what I mean when I say I'm looking for something to quiet my mind and I still haven't located it.

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?

Yes, she does -but see above. Also, I found the whole TMWKK Glanges segment a little manipulative. Not her, but the context into which the producers placed her. The opening at the skeet range was a little over the top. Presumably it was meant to visually tell the story that this isn't some fru, fru - it's a serious woman who knows her weapons. But, I don't think firing a shotgun makes you an expert on on bullet holes and unless Dr. Glanges has a history I don't know about, knowing a lot about using even rifles wouldn't mean you knew what bullet holes in windshields looked like. I came from a hunting family and I'm no stranger to rifles and hand guns but I really didn't see a lot of windshield holes. So I found that visual segment sort of misleading but not Dr. Glanges herself, not at all.

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.

Right, unless we can talk to that person we'll never know why. I can speculate and you can too - we just don't know. But, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Glanges story was clearly told in a high profile book seven years before you interviewed her. She wasn't murdered or unemployed. So it seems like it was possible to tell your truth about what you saw and still do all right. I know that people were afraid to come forward, but were there concrete threats from actual people or just a sense that it was a dangerous topic because of its nature and because of the "mystery deaths"?

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.

Yes, I agree with you about people who are lying and know they're lying. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think she's lying and she certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who would lie. But she is human and our memories do change over time , usually in a way that enhances our dramatic role in the past. So our first recorded account of what she saw comes nineteen years after the event. And, in fact, the story does change over the seven subsequent years. In Crenshaw's book she's standing near the limousine with her friend. She spots the hole and comments on it and the Secret Service hops in the car and drives away. By the time you speak with her she's actually touching the automobile and her hand is almost injured by the violence of the event. Maybe she told Crenshaw the same thing and it just didn't make it into the book but that's the kind of detail Dr. Crenshaw seemed to thrive on. In any case, as I've said, I don't doubt the basics of her story. I believe she was there and I believe she saw what she believed to be a bullet hole. But there's a big difference in the reliability of her evaluation depending on where she's actually located when she sees these things. And, as I indicated in my last post, I just don't think the dramatic details that put her so close to the limousine are credible.

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

OK, I'm going to get a little lawyerish here but just for a moment. You've just given a a set of very good reasons why people might not all place a single defect in the same location on the windshield. But why don't those same reasons apply to the hole itself? If the angle of the windshield makes it difficult to accurately locate the defect, why doesn't that make it difficult to accurately assess if it's actually a hole? You mention Taylor and cite the reliability of his location observation. Yet, Taylor thought the "hole" was something through which a pin could pass, not a substantial hole. If the defect was so substantial, why did people want to pass an object through the hole to test their observations? What was it about the "hole" that made them think there might be some question about a pencil or pen making it through? If people can have trouble with their memories and the windshield shape and slant make it difficult why is it so hard to accept that there was a defect that looked a lot like some type of hole and they were simply mistaken, just like they were mistaken about its location?

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?

Certainly not. But the question here isn't was there a defect? (Was there a body?) The question is did the defect actually penetrate the windshield (north-south, red brown). It's the detail that's the issue. OK, lawyer -off.

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? "

It would have been great if you'd been able to do that. I've got quite a collection of Parkland photos and I've located an early photo of Dr. Glanges so I'd be happy to share those with you. I think I can see her but who knows. You've actually seen her so that might be a big help. Was the other student with her female? Because there are two white coated young women who are there for some time. The odd looking lady is there as the top is going up - she looks like she might be part of housekeeping but that's a guess. The odd lady is there before the cordon fully forms and before the limousine speeds away so it's earlier than when Glanges says she was at the front of the limousine. Karl is a very interesting guy but the limousine doesn't move unless they parked it on the curb a second time. Besides, Glanges is very clear that she's seeing the limousine while she's outside the emergency department and when the limousine left it drove out of sight. She would have still seen the limousine if it was just moved to the top/wash location.

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?

No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.

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.

I should let Martin speak for himself if he cares to; I think he believes there was a conspiracy, but can find no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. At least for some of us, that places him in the conspiracy camp. My experience with Martin is that he regularly thumps me at every opportunity so I was sure he'd test the hypothesis! The photo analysts are litigation guys - they charge a $100 for their calls to tell you your materials aren't ready yet. It comes with the territory. For what it's worth, the charge would be for creating the proof, not for their opinion. They thought (if I had correctly sorted out the shadows and cracks), that it all fit together but that would be all you have- their statements. What cost money was creating the cad files and transformations that anyone could see and say-- that's a match. Otherwise it's just more of the same old, same old. "Yeah, that's how it looks to you, but not me." Bernice posted it here for sure. Bernice is amazing. I suspect she may actually have a copy of everything. On Lancer I'm not sure - I'll try to find that but their search function is a challenge for me. Your suggestion of making sure Martin's thread was posted with the study is a good one but I didn't think of it. Martin's work was mentioned only in the course of discussion, not as a specific addition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time following the various boards but there's a very large cross-over between Duncan's, Lancer and the Ed Forum. I assumed that anyone who cared would know about it. I don't think anyone would believe Duncan's forum is a good place to hide information from other researchers.

*Update - I finally cracked the Lancer search engine (yes, I know) and we didn't mention Martin's thread. There was a lot with Robin Unger's archive which is hosted on Duncan's site but no Martin.

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?

Barb knows more about that, so you'd get a better answer from her.

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?

I think if you read what I wrote to Pamela more closely you'll see that I was attempting to represent what a dedicated alterationist like David Lifton would say to her, and that her her answers weren't satisfactory from that perspective. I don't have any reason to doubt Frazier's photograph and Taylor did subsequently view the photo and validate it. There's no doubt that Taylor said there was a hole. Before the opportunity for Treasury Department pressure, he said he thought it was a pin hole which is consistent with the appearance of Frazier's photo. Also, if you believe that the Secret Service was switching windows multiple times and the FBI examiner was fixed, I find it hard to see how Taylor escaped the the web of deception and that no one would check the after action reports from the uninvolved agents to make sure they didn't reveal something that shouldn't be known. Instead, an official report shoots up to the SS Chief and then to the WC that directly refers to the hole everyone has spent so much time and effort to hide.

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.

That would be great! I'll send that information to you. Also we can discuss the Parkland photos if you're interested.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Jerry:

I sincerely thank you for your reasonable replies. I want to clear up one misconception. I did not interview Glanges in person but did so over the phone. From what I have been able to determine the other witness with Glanges was a man and I believe I know who it was. Even though people may have told their story before it was clear to me that people like Ellis, Dudman, and Whitaker were genuinely worried about their welfare. I don't know what your experience is but I have been to many murder scenes and have prosecuted and defended a murder case.I don't accept all evidence and was very diligent in allowing the evidence to lead me. From my experience with Nigel Turner he probably filmed Glanges for many hours and then edited it to make his point. He filmed me for several days at a time I was quite ill. That is probably why the Glanges segment with her shooting skeet may appear contrived but whatever issues I have with Nigel do not include a dishonest presentation of the person. Crenshaw and Glanges were friends but I also found Crenshaw to be honest. A week after the assassination there was I believe a Life article (I have it) talking about Kennedy's T-shirt and Crenshaw verified that he had one. Where is it? Greer testified there was no T-shirt (It was interesting they were pursuing this) but one of his stories was there was NO damage to the windshied. As a lawyer I am sure you also know that the Kennedy assassination fell within the timeframe of Miranda v Arizona and we well today might have been reading people their "Oswald" rights.

I believe there is point after point I could impeach any credibility Frazier has and it is interesting that Taylor could verify Frazier's photograph when many said he was not there during the FBI examination. From Lifton and my own examination of the evidence I believe I can prove there were multiple windshields. You are correct that in a moment of crisis people will have different observations of the same event but to expect people to describe the same thing, a hole, I do not find that reasonable. Indeed, even if not under emotional distress, many will describe the event a little diffferently, but again, to see a hole I don't think so. Ellis told me he placed a pencil in it. Was Taylor hysterical as he sat in the passenger seat as the limo was driven from Andrews to the WH Garage . I would be incredulous it he was on things. I am obviously not nor would I pretend to be an expert on everything. I cannot analyze the Zapruder film, understand complicated medical evidence, ballistics, etc. but I do rely on impartial experts I trust. What about the police officers? I have interviewed a number of officers in the motorcade that day. What did shock me is that none of them said the assassination was the most significant event in their career. They believed they did their job well that day. I don't know how you can speculate that all of these people "thought" they saw a hole. It is certainly something I cannot do. Why did you leave out the Whitaker story? Don't you find it amazing that he described the exact same thing, a hole, ias the witnesses in Dallas and Taylor in Washington. He knew none of these people and never studied the assassination. He talked about this within his family since November 1963. Does it bother you that the plight of the limousine has been demonstrably proven false and that even HSCA found conflicts?

I thought Matrin did a good, honest analysis. Thank you Jerry. We both appear to seek truth, not as you and I perceive it, but truth as it is. I am not exaggerating when I state I have heard thousands of witnesses in criminal cases in my career and believe I have a good "feel" for weighing veracity. I believe these witnesses I have presented. Apparently, you choose not to do so. I am not talking what witnesses in general might do but I am talking about these specific witnesses. I believe an objective person would also believe them. Jerry, we can agree to disagree and there are no hard feelings. I welcome intelligent criticism as it makes me reexamine what I have done to ensure to myself that I have not been blinded by any personal bias. I would be a pleasure to send you something if you give me your address. I hope you might view my you-tube presentation. As I mentioned I have changed my thoughts on some small things but in the past ten years I have learned much more and it has only solidified my conclusions.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Again, please excuse my typing skills in my prior post. I wanted to mention that Glanges never saw any of the films taken of her by Nigel Turner. At the time Nigel filmed her he did not know what to think of it as he was unaware that anyone else had seen a hole. I am guessing he filmed her probably about 1993. I have no idea what was left out. I was very disturbed that it was suggested that there was something sinister about her and That Thompson was going to investigate her. That impression was never corrected. What did Thompson discover? She was a dedicated, no-nonsense person. She described for me that it was a time when women were not allowed to become surgeons. She was a groundbreaker. I spoke with her and taped the conversation for about an hour. I had hoped to meet her in person but then she unexpectedly died four weeks later. In retrospect, I am unable to explain how some of these things fell into my lap under such fluke circumstnces. I am sometimes given credit for things I had no control over. Had I waited to speak with Glanges a conversation would never have occurred. Had I not had Lifton's book at a time I went to the opthamologist I would never have known about Whitaker. Fate is strange sometimes. I was and am not a member of Duncan's forum and did not follow any of the forums for a long time but some information and your article was forwarded to me as was Martin's analysis. If you say you posted it here I will accept your word but I do think you should also post it on the lancer forum.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was and am not a member of Duncan's forum and did not follow any of the forums for a long time but some information and your article was forwarded to me as was Martin's analysis. If you say you posted it here I will accept your word but I do think you should also post it on the lancer forum.

Best,

Doug Weldon

It was Bernice Moore who kindly posted the link over here, Doug.

At that time i wasn't a member of this forum here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...14532&st=75

Posting#77

I will state something about my study soon but i wait for something which will have to be arrived here at my home the next days.

Meanwhile i thank you both Doug and Jerry for your very kind words. :)

Take care

Sincerely

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug,

Thanks for being so patient. I was surfing the break point of rhetorical excess on another thread. Everything was balanced and A-ok until some real life events overtook my exciting cyber/life. Also, thanks for the restraint and tone of your reply. I think we're both capable of full court legalese nit-picking and I appreciate your heartfelt/non-lawyer approach. The truth is the truth, not my truth or your truth. I don't know how old you are but the President's assassination was a defining event for me and I'd really, really like some type of answer that quiets my mind before it's time for the final check out. I sense that you're on the same path whatever personal reasons are pushing you down the same road. So thanks for your attitude and thanks for your work.

I've tried to answer some of your concerns in highlight below. It's the first time I've tried it this way so we'll see how it goes. I have trouble following the flow of information because of the formatting here so I'm experimenting with different ways of structuring my replies. Let me know if it doesn't work for you since communication is a two way street.

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.

This is a good point and brings up a very foundational question for me. I've had a lot of experience with stressful events (accidents, structural failures) that involved lots of people and lots of witnesses to the events. In more than thirty years, I've never had everyone tell the same story about a complex event. Instead, there's usually a distribution of descriptions - lots of the differences clump around simple things like location, but even when you factor those clumps out there's still an unresolvable difference in descriptions of the very same event. There's lot of frustration in the research community because we've got four or five or whatever number of witnesses to something and the folks on one side or the other will say - good grief, that's what all the witnesses say, what's your problem? But the problem is that in a sufficiently complex event we can find five or six or whatever witnesses that will sincerely testify to anything. So one set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and another set of researchers combs the records and finds their six witnesses and where are we, really?

Concrete application - say 100-150 people saw the limousine close-up after the assassination. Everybody is upset, everybody is in the context of a shooting and there's blood and brain material on the windhield as well a damaged focal point. Honestly, I'd be shocked if I couldn't find ten or twenty people who saw a bullet hole, no matter what was actually on the windshield. And these people won't be lying. They are going to be very convincing because they're telling us what they sincerely believe they saw. If you gave them a polygraph they would not come close to failing. But no one has done the opposite study and it's probably too late now. Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield.

So I know it drives some people crazy and they want to know how I could be so blind to sincere and honest eyewitnesses, but my experience has been that in a complex event I can find sincere and convincing witnesses to almost any controversial issue. In my heart I fully recognize the honesty and conviction of the people you've had the honor to interview, but the cold lawyer in me whispers doubt in my ear. That's what I mean when I say I'm looking for something to quiet my mind and I still haven't located it.

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?

Yes, she does -but see above. Also, I found the whole TMWKK Glanges segment a little manipulative. Not her, but the context into which the producers placed her. The opening at the skeet range was a little over the top. Presumably it was meant to visually tell the story that this isn't some fru, fru - it's a serious woman who knows her weapons. But, I don't think firing a shotgun makes you an expert on on bullet holes and unless Dr. Glanges has a history I don't know about, knowing a lot about using even rifles wouldn't mean you knew what bullet holes in windshields looked like. I came from a hunting family and I'm no stranger to rifles and hand guns but I really didn't see a lot of windshield holes. So I found that visual segment sort of misleading but not Dr. Glanges herself, not at all.

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.

Right, unless we can talk to that person we'll never know why. I can speculate and you can too - we just don't know. But, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Glanges story was clearly told in a high profile book seven years before you interviewed her. She wasn't murdered or unemployed. So it seems like it was possible to tell your truth about what you saw and still do all right. I know that people were afraid to come forward, but were there concrete threats from actual people or just a sense that it was a dangerous topic because of its nature and because of the "mystery deaths"?

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.

Yes, I agree with you about people who are lying and know they're lying. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think she's lying and she certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who would lie. But she is human and our memories do change over time , usually in a way that enhances our dramatic role in the past. So our first recorded account of what she saw comes nineteen years after the event. And, in fact, the story does change over the seven subsequent years. In Crenshaw's book she's standing near the limousine with her friend. She spots the hole and comments on it and the Secret Service hops in the car and drives away. By the time you speak with her she's actually touching the automobile and her hand is almost injured by the violence of the event. Maybe she told Crenshaw the same thing and it just didn't make it into the book but that's the kind of detail Dr. Crenshaw seemed to thrive on. In any case, as I've said, I don't doubt the basics of her story. I believe she was there and I believe she saw what she believed to be a bullet hole. But there's a big difference in the reliability of her evaluation depending on where she's actually located when she sees these things. And, as I indicated in my last post, I just don't think the dramatic details that put her so close to the limousine are credible.

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

OK, I'm going to get a little lawyerish here but just for a moment. You've just given a a set of very good reasons why people might not all place a single defect in the same location on the windshield. But why don't those same reasons apply to the hole itself? If the angle of the windshield makes it difficult to accurately locate the defect, why doesn't that make it difficult to accurately assess if it's actually a hole? You mention Taylor and cite the reliability of his location observation. Yet, Taylor thought the "hole" was something through which a pin could pass, not a substantial hole. If the defect was so substantial, why did people want to pass an object through the hole to test their observations? What was it about the "hole" that made them think there might be some question about a pencil or pen making it through? If people can have trouble with their memories and the windshield shape and slant make it difficult why is it so hard to accept that there was a defect that looked a lot like some type of hole and they were simply mistaken, just like they were mistaken about its location?

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?

Certainly not. But the question here isn't was there a defect? (Was there a body?) The question is did the defect actually penetrate the windshield (north-south, red brown). It's the detail that's the issue. OK, lawyer -off.

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? "

It would have been great if you'd been able to do that. I've got quite a collection of Parkland photos and I've located an early photo of Dr. Glanges so I'd be happy to share those with you. I think I can see her but who knows. You've actually seen her so that might be a big help. Was the other student with her female? Because there are two white coated young women who are there for some time. The odd looking lady is there as the top is going up - she looks like she might be part of housekeeping but that's a guess. The odd lady is there before the cordon fully forms and before the limousine speeds away so it's earlier than when Glanges says she was at the front of the limousine. Karl is a very interesting guy but the limousine doesn't move unless they parked it on the curb a second time. Besides, Glanges is very clear that she's seeing the limousine while she's outside the emergency department and when the limousine left it drove out of sight. She would have still seen the limousine if it was just moved to the top/wash location.

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?

No, I think it's likely that everyone saw the same defect and it looked like a hole to some of them. I also think that if we had interviewed witnesses at the time there would have been many people who said there was a defect but no hole.

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.

I should let Martin speak for himself if he cares to; I think he believes there was a conspiracy, but can find no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. At least for some of us, that places him in the conspiracy camp. My experience with Martin is that he regularly thumps me at every opportunity so I was sure he'd test the hypothesis! The photo analysts are litigation guys - they charge a $100 for their calls to tell you your materials aren't ready yet. It comes with the territory. For what it's worth, the charge would be for creating the proof, not for their opinion. They thought (if I had correctly sorted out the shadows and cracks), that it all fit together but that would be all you have- their statements. What cost money was creating the cad files and transformations that anyone could see and say-- that's a match. Otherwise it's just more of the same old, same old. "Yeah, that's how it looks to you, but not me." Bernice posted it here for sure. Bernice is amazing. I suspect she may actually have a copy of everything. On Lancer I'm not sure - I'll try to find that but their search function is a challenge for me. Your suggestion of making sure Martin's thread was posted with the study is a good one but I didn't think of it. Martin's work was mentioned only in the course of discussion, not as a specific addition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time following the various boards but there's a very large cross-over between Duncan's, Lancer and the Ed Forum. I assumed that anyone who cared would know about it. I don't think anyone would believe Duncan's forum is a good place to hide information from other researchers.

*Update - I finally cracked the Lancer search engine (yes, I know) and we didn't mention Martin's thread. There was a lot with Robin Unger's archive which is hosted on Duncan's site but no Martin.

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?

Barb knows more about that, so you'd get a better answer from her.

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?

I think if you read what I wrote to Pamela more closely you'll see that I was attempting to represent what a dedicated alterationist like David Lifton would say to her, and that her her answers weren't satisfactory from that perspective. I don't have any reason to doubt Frazier's photograph and Taylor did subsequently view the photo and validate it. There's no doubt that Taylor said there was a hole. Before the opportunity for Treasury Department pressure, he said he thought it was a pin hole which is consistent with the appearance of Frazier's photo. Also, if you believe that the Secret Service was switching windows multiple times and the FBI examiner was fixed, I find it hard to see how Taylor escaped the the web of deception and that no one would check the after action reports from the uninvolved agents to make sure they didn't reveal something that shouldn't be known. Instead, an official report shoots up to the SS Chief and then to the WC that directly refers to the hole everyone has spent so much time and effort to hide.

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.

That would be great! I'll send that information to you. Also we can discuss the Parkland photos if you're interested.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Jerry:

I sincerely thank you for your reasonable replies. I want to clear up one misconception. I did not interview Glanges in person but did so over the phone. From what I have been able to determine the other witness with Glanges was a man and I believe I know who it was. Even though people may have told their story before it was clear to me that people like Ellis, Dudman, and Whitaker were genuinely worried about their welfare. I don't know what your experience is but I have been to many murder scenes and have prosecuted and defended a murder case.I don't accept all evidence and was very diligent in allowing the evidence to lead me. From my experience with Nigel Turner he probably filmed Glanges for many hours and then edited it to make his point. He filmed me for several days at a time I was quite ill. That is probably why the Glanges segment with her shooting skeet may appear contrived but whatever issues I have with Nigel do not include a dishonest presentation of the person. Crenshaw and Glanges were friends but I also found Crenshaw to be honest. A week after the assassination there was I believe a Life article (I have it) talking about Kennedy's T-shirt and Crenshaw verified that he had one. Where is it? Greer testified there was no T-shirt (It was interesting they were pursuing this) but one of his stories was there was NO damage to the windshied. As a lawyer I am sure you also know that the Kennedy assassination fell within the timeframe of Miranda v Arizona and we well today might have been reading people their "Oswald" rights.

I believe there is point after point I could impeach any credibility Frazier has and it is interesting that Taylor could verify Frazier's photograph when many said he was not there during the FBI examination. From Lifton and my own examination of the evidence I believe I can prove there were multiple windshields. You are correct that in a moment of crisis people will have different observations of the same event but to expect people to describe the same thing, a hole, I do not find that reasonable. Indeed, even if not under emotional distress, many will describe the event a little diffferently, but again, to see a hole I don't think so. Ellis told me he placed a pencil in it. Was Taylor hysterical as he sat in the passenger seat as the limo was driven from Andrews to the WH Garage . I would be incredulous it he was on things. I am obviously not nor would I pretend to be an expert on everything. I cannot analyze the Zapruder film, understand complicated medical evidence, ballistics, etc. but I do rely on impartial experts I trust. What about the police officers? I have interviewed a number of officers in the motorcade that day. What did shock me is that none of them said the assassination was the most significant event in their career. They believed they did their job well that day. I don't know how you can speculate that all of these people "thought" they saw a hole. It is certainly something I cannot do. Why did you leave out the Whitaker story? Don't you find it amazing that he described the exact same thing, a hole, ias the witnesses in Dallas and Taylor in Washington. He knew none of these people and never studied the assassination. He talked about this within his family since November 1963. Does it bother you that the plight of the limousine has been demonstrably proven false and that even HSCA found conflicts?

I thought Matrin did a good, honest analysis. Thank you Jerry. We both appear to seek truth, not as you and I perceive it, but truth as it is. I am not exaggerating when I state I have heard thousands of witnesses in criminal cases in my career and believe I have a good "feel" for weighing veracity. I believe these witnesses I have presented. Apparently, you choose not to do so. I am not talking what witnesses in general might do but I am talking about these specific witnesses. I believe an objective person would also believe them. Jerry, we can agree to disagree and there are no hard feelings. I welcome intelligent criticism as it makes me reexamine what I have done to ensure to myself that I have not been blinded by any personal bias. I would be a pleasure to send you something if you give me your address. I hope you might view my you-tube presentation. As I mentioned I have changed my thoughts on some small things but in the past ten years I have learned much more and it has only solidified my conclusions.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Jerry:

You noted: Even if there were in fact a bullet hole in the windshield, we could locate an equally sincere number of people who would swear that there wasn't hole in the windshield

Can you name even one such person that was not FBI or Secret Service who has done so? Since I believe that the FBI and especially the Secret Service

were complicit in the assassination their observations are meaningless. I think the Taylor memo slid through by mistake in the vast amount of paperwork generated at that time. That is why I believe the WC ignored it rather than call attention to it. It is also why I believe the memo you posted in 1975 where Taylor confirmed he saw a "pin hole" (I believe he likely said "pen") was classified as "Top Secret." Otherwise why was it necessary to classify it as such?

Best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was and am not a member of Duncan's forum and did not follow any of the forums for a long time but some information and your article was forwarded to me as was Martin's analysis. If you say you posted it here I will accept your word but I do think you should also post it on the lancer forum.

Best,

Doug Weldon

It was Bernice Moore who kindly posted the link over here, Doug.

At that time i wasn't a member of this forum here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...14532&st=75

Posting#77

I will state something about my study soon but i wait for something which will have to be arrived here at my home the next days.

Meanwhile i thank you both Doug and Jerry for your very kind words. :)

Take care

Sincerely

Martin

Martin:

I know that Bernice posted your analysis here. I believe Jerry should have posted your analysis here and on Lancer. There is no question that a shell game was being played with the windshields and I do not believe the first windshield you compared was the windshield from the limo in Dallas. I have your e-mail address and I look forward to contacting you in the near future.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was and am not a member of Duncan's forum and did not follow any of the forums for a long time but some information and your article was forwarded to me as was Martin's analysis. If you say you posted it here I will accept your word but I do think you should also post it on the lancer forum.

Best,

Doug Weldon

It was Bernice Moore who kindly posted the link over here, Doug.

At that time i wasn't a member of this forum here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...14532&st=75

Posting#77

I will state something about my study soon but i wait for something which will have to be arrived here at my home the next days.

Meanwhile i thank you both Doug and Jerry for your very kind words. :)

Take care

Sincerely

Martin

Martin:

I know that Bernice posted your analysis here. I believe Jerry should have posted your analysis here and on Lancer. There is no question that a shell game was being played with the windshields and I do not believe the first windshield you compared was the windshield from the limo in Dallas. I have your e-mail address and I look forward to contacting you in the near future.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug...I appreciate your tactful treatment of some of the "know-nothings" here.

You are far too kind to them. Your great research and documentation of the

"windshield" needs no defense! The people attacking you for the most part

have not read what you have written nor viewed your presentation at Minneapolis.

Before replying to anyone, you should ask if they have read what you wrote

or said. Your research on the windshields is outstanding. Even your theory of

the south knoll shooter is very well constructed, though more open to discussion

than your windshield work.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb,

I thought you might want to know that someone has been posting

the most dishonest and ridiculous drivel and signing your name to it.

Jim

Hi John,

Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone

started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her

bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to

lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote

last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in

the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the

authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit

.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a

bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining

the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a

whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything

someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....

Barb :-)

and

Tink has handlked himself well

thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.

Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with

Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our

articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on

and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character

assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there

to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been

willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."

Barb :-)

McAdams replied:

I think it is time for some of this at this forum to

>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,

>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.

>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,

>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,

>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.

>>

>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.

>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.

>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the

>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure

>> >he would much appreciate it.

>>

>> >Who is with me?

Wow the Paul Nolan (Oh I mean John FakeAdams, dang those pesky fake names that destroy any and all credability you might have once had) groupies are gonna log on and get Tinks back in his time of need

LMFAO

Im sure Tink does not need any help from the FakeAdams crew

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...