SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

Michael Hogan · January 12, 2010

I've been familiar with Doug Weldon's research, particularly since the publication of Murder in Dealey Plaza. More recently, I've had the opportunity
to listen to him on Black Op Radio and YouTube. Mr. Weldon's research methods and his approach to the evidence resonate with me.

It's not necessary to accept each and every conclusion reached by Mr. Weldon in order to appreciate the significant contributions he has made.

Thanks. The bulk of Doug's research does not involve CONCLUSIONS. He merely conducts

interviews and researches documents related to the limo and the windshield hole.

Only in his speculation about a shot from the south knoll does he speculate.

One can parse words by displaying them in bold. Of course his research involves conclusions. The last two pages of his essay in MIDP

bear the title Conclusions.

On page 157 Horne writes: "The conclusions that I have been forced to reach in light of compelling evidence are not only disturbing but

leave me with both emptiness and sadness."

Of course he conducts interviews and researches documents. That's the research methods and approach to the evidence that I referred to.

Are you discussing HORNE or WELDON?

Jack

Weldon, of course. I'll make the correction. Why the caps?

January 12, 2010

Doug, We are learning what it means for Tink & Jerry & Barb

to collaborate--and "fundamentally dishonest" seems to fit!

Barb,
There's more. I agree with this complete incompetent on this

point: that one of us is a complete waste of time! What a flake!

Notice how much this person--who uses your name!--indulges in

the shallowest kind of despicable conduct. I'm glad it's not you!

Jim

No one can figure how Fetzer, who taught critical thinking and logic

for years as a philosophy professor, can spout the stuff he does. He

doesn't seem to think, and he really has a very poor grasp of any of

the evidence overall .... he runs on what others, whom he holds close,

tell him and runs off on his own from there. He ignores any info that

does not fit what he has already decided. He is a waste of time and a

real distraction to any real discussion taking place.

and

CTs who do not espouse Zfilm alteration are considered LNs or disinfo

agents .... that's not Simkin, that's the vocal bats in the belfry

that intimidate a lot of others from participating. Thousands read

posts there, a handful participates....largely, I expect, because of

that.

Barb :-)

and

The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.

It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of

their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays

too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our

article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being

very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be

Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!

Barb :-)

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!

January 12, 2010

This suggestion by Jerry strikes me as borderline absurdity. A bullet hole in a windshield is not a random observation,

nor the kind of thing anyone would make up. I think we are discerning a pattern here, where Tink & Jerry & Barb are,

as they say, "birds of a feather". They indulge in fabricated attacks on witnesses and research that exposed what in

fact happened on 22 November 1963. It is a sad commentary, but deception and obfuscation seems to be their game.

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

Edited January 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

Doug Weldon · January 12, 2010

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

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.

Jerry:

You do know that Greer is on record as stating there was no damage to the windshield!

Doug Weldon

Martin Hinrichs · January 12, 2010

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

Thank you Doug.

Feel free to contact me anytime. You are welcome.

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

Hi Jack, you are quoting a conversation between Doug and me.

So, i don't know if your judgement belongs to me.

Just in case you may missed it.....it appears to me that Doug and me are in sync regarding the windshield crack issue.

best

Martin

Jerry Logan · January 12, 2010

Hello Doug,

I fear others may be trying to prod us into lawyer land. since we've both already lived at that address, I'm not going there and I bet you won't either.

Best regards to you,

Jerry

..........
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?

Vaughn Ferguson :>)

The memo was part of the internal work product of the Senate Select Committee on Governmental Operations (the Church Committee). All of that product was classified because of the nature of the committees work. The memo wasn't special or singled out from hundreds of similar documents on other subjects. Besides, if the purpose of the memo is to cover the original Taylor report, then it would be very, very counter-productive to hide it for thirty years where no one sees it. It would defeat the entire purpose of beating Taylor into recanting.

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.

Jerry:

You do know that Greer is on record as stating there was no damage to the windshield!

Yes, he said he didn't notice it on the ride to Parkland and didn't see it until he was in the White House garage. Don't you think that supports the variability of human observation under stress? Is any conspiracy goal served by his failure to observe it on the ride to Parkland? If his testimony is faked to hide the hole why bother to say he didn't even notice a defect at first? Doesn't that introduce an element of doubt when you're trying to sell a specific story?

Also you mentioned in another thread that you agreed with Martin that the cracks in the windshield don't match. You should be aware that the FBI photo of the crack that we used was a print from a negative that Tony Marsh had obtained from the Archives. Mr. Marsh informed me that he had printed the negative with exposure settings designed to highlight specific features of the photo and that the appearance of the cracks (and ability to distinguish crack v. shadow) changed depending on the exposure settings. That is one of the reasons I postponed any conclusions and decided I had to go to the Archives myself in order to try to insure that we're matching apples to apples. A lot of the photo work on all sides of the issues is misleading because we're comparing different versions of different quality from different sources. I wanted to wait until I was sure we were all comparing the same things before reaching a conclusion.

Doug Weldon

Paul Rigby · January 12, 2010

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

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

At about the 24:25 mark
Josiah Thompson:

"It seems to me that at one's most extreme hazard does one move to the postion of saying that any government investigator lied about evidence, lied about what the evidence was, or fiddled the evidence. For example I think one of the strongest indications of the impact of a bullet from behind...And incidentally seems to me there is much more evidence of the impact of a bullet from the front on the President's head then there is of one from behind....."

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

"....And critics have suggested this -- that these fragments were planted by governmental agents since the car was in government hands after the assassination. This throws.... to suggest this sort of thing throws the whole investigation into paralysis it seems to me. Because at that point it becomes impossible to disjoin the good evidence, the clean evidence, from the dirty evidence. In otherwords, one has, then, no longer any criteria for distinguishing between evidence one wants to base conclusions on, and evidence which one wants to throw away as false trails. And, it seems to me, that a logical consequence of doing that at any point in the study of this whole case is to announce that one has ended one's study. Because logically, one can't proceed any farther."

So who was Thompson protecting when he manufactured this fantastic criterion of investigative procedure, and invested such excessive emotion in the baseless assertion which followed it?

The car was flown from Dallas to Washington aboard Air Force jet and driven to the White House garage. Shortly after 10:00 p.m., Deputy Secret Service Chief Paul Paterni, and Floyd Boring, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the White House detail, began an inspection. In a letter to the Warren Commission, Secret Service Chief Rowley stated: “In running his hands over the front cushion of the automobile, Deputy Chief Paterni found a metallic fragment in the front seat in the area between left and right front seat.” (53 to ch 14). A second fragment was found by Thomas Mills, a hospital corpsman assigned to Dr. Burkley’s office, who was requested by Paterni and Boring to accompany them on the inspection.
Lifton’s Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy(Signet, 1992), p.421

Paterni, as Vince Palamara has pointed out, served in the OSS, in Italy, with James Jesus Angleton, the man whose CI unit, SIG, ran the patsy. Small world.

Now we begin to see only too clearly who Thompson - and, indeed, the entire Axis of Deception which seeks to prop him up - were created to serve.

Barb Junkkarinen · January 12, 2010

Barb:
Thank you. It is spelled Prencipe.

Thank you for the correction, that is completely my bad. I went with the spelling used on the yahoo group discussions and in some email I received from someone who knew him. His "PRINCE9" e address seemed in keeping with that. Robert Livingston, by the way has no e on the end of it. People often confuse his name with the spelling of JFK author Harry Livingstone.

By the way, I have done some serious deletion of old exchanges here ... partly for the sake of brevity, partly because I was getting error messages saying there were too many quoted blocks of text. Everything that we have posted is available further up in the thread for reference if need be. ;-)

I, in all my many contacts with Nick, never heard that
"By the way, Rich DellaRosa related a different telling of Principe's claim, one Principe told him directly ... in that version, Principe claimed that he saw the limo in the garage with both Greer and Kellerman and credits Kellerman with the comment about shots coming at them from all directions."

Do you have any e-mails or anything from Nick saying Greer or Kellerman were with him in the garage. I have a tremendous amount of material from Nick and I promise you that I never heard such claims. I did not know that Nick and Rich had ever met each other.

I have no email written by Nick that says this. This was in an email from Rich during a big thread on this on a yahoo group. Rich is not a member of the group so was sending things via email to several of us. It was posted and discussed during the discussion, so I can send it to you, if you would like. Rich says Nick related this info to him at a later time ... after Pamela's interview with him. As the emails you included below show, Nick was quite frustrated with Pamela. I expect that is because she knew his time frame setting was not plausible, what she said to him about that, I have no way of knowing. But Nick was clearly upset by it. What I note in the later e-mails about that, and in what Rich related, is that Nick's time frame became vague and broader. Yet, in his own telling, as in the email previously posted, he set the time frame by his comments of when his meeting with Greer on the WH grounds occurred in relation to when the plane returned from Dallas and preparations for the limo being escorted to the WH garage were underway. That is a quite specific, and known, time frame. I don't know that Rich and Nick ever met in person, I know they had gotten very close according to Rich, and that Rich told me they had spoken very shortly (within days, as I recall) before Mr. Prencipe passed away.

I am attaching two e-mails from Nick. In the second e-mail I am eliminating the first sentence only because it is critical of another researcher and I don't think it's constructive in this discussion. You are correct that I know very little about you and Jerry and my rhetoric was very strong but the article upset me as I knew these people and I evaluate evidence very carefully and there is much I do not use even though it would be supportive of some of my conclusions. I do not have problems with the responses from you and Jerry. I thought my questions and observations have been cleare. Why were trained police officers considered "casual observers?"

Even trained observers have to have the opportunity to observe something close enough and completely enough to reach a conclusion. From the statements we have from each, they did not have that opportunity, and the most specific thing one relates is hearsay from what the other told him. None of these people known to have seen and comment on the windshield had an opportunity to closely observe what they called a hole, or, as Dudman put it, test its patency to see if it went all the way through. That there was a ding of some sort in the windshield is known. That people standing around in close enough proximity to see that ding, at a time the vehicle was known to have been involved in a shooting, when bloodied victims of that shooting had been taken inside the hospital, is it really so odd that they might assume that a bullet made that ding and may have gone all the way through the glass? I don't think so.

Were you aware that Dudman was subjected to similar treatment as Taylor and would never speak about the assassination again and ended his close friendship with Livingstone?

I am aware he has refused to talk about the assassination for decades. You have mentioned before that he underwent some "treatment." Dudman never said the hole he saw went completely through the glass. In his original article, he said he wanted to pass a pencil through it to test that, and was not allowed to do so. That tells me he couldn't tell by what he was observing. If he could see a hole went all the way through, there would be no reason to test its "patency," would there? And Livingston wrote about his conversation with Dudman saying that Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a complete perforation or not. So, I fail to see how Dudman was ever elevated to the status of a witness who provided proof that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Can you explain your thinking on that? And what about this experience you say Dudman had? Did he tell you he had been pressured to change his story (not that his story had a complete perforation in it in the first place)?

Did you know that it took more than "moments" to cordon off the limousine and that the people who were already inside the cordon were not removed? I have not heard from Jerry yet about if the limo was so tightly cordoned then who is that odd lady standing directly in front of the limo? Did any of you ever speak with any of these witnesses? Why did you leave George Whitaker out as one of the witnesses? Did Glanges sound credible on TMWKK? Did you know that Nigel Turner filmed that interview with her years before? What do you think the motivation for these people to lie was? How did all these people who did not know each other come up with the same lie? Why were these people afraid and people like Whitaker never mention such outside his own family since November 25,1963? Your speculation on the latter questions are fine. Have I misrepresented anything in MIDP or TMWKK?

Whoa, what happened to Prencipe?<g> Jerry has been discussing the limo being cordoned off with you, and he is your best contact on that. Regardless of when or how completely it was cordoned off ... none of the witnesses proffered as proof of a through-and-throuh hole say they were able to make that determination, in fact, the say they could not ... could not get close enough to see, weren't able to "test" it to see if it went all the way through, etc. Seems a bit of a moot point to me. We did not speak with any of these witnesses. You and Pamela are the only two researcher I know of who have specifically focused your research on the limo overall. We are not limo specialists. Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor, we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere .... like on the Ed Forum. I do not know that you have misrepresented anything. I do not accuse any of these witnesses of lying. Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been, a complete hole. None of them were able to get a good enough, long enough, close enough look or be able to test what they thought to know for sure. It is unfortunate that no one who spoke to Glanges before she died asked her for the names of others she could recall being out there in the area that day. As a medical student there she may have been able name several people. How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo.

Do you acknowledge that Greer changed his story many times and obviously lied to the WC about there being no people on the overpass? Does thataffect his credibility in your mind?

I am not familiar with whatever all changes Greer made over the years. To the WC he testified about the overpass:

Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?

Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember.

Why do you think he would bother to lie about something like this .... there are photos, witnesses ON the overpass who gave statements, etc?

My 1999 presentation will soon be posted on you-tube. I have changed my thoughts on some minor items and of course have learned a great deal more in the past ten years but it only adds and does not detract from the evidence and my conclusions. I will be glad to mail you a cd of my first interview with Nick so you can evaluate him for yourself. I would hope Jerry would let me know where he posted the study by Martin Hinrich on this forum and Lancer. I do want to find truth and I have no problem with people who seek the same andare willing to address the evidence objectively. If I believe I am ever wrong on something I will be the first to admit it. I judge people by how I perceive them. You and Jerry have been very decent in your responses to me. I believe this exchange can be constructive for all of us.
(BTW "Monk" is not "Rich")

My best,

Doug

I certainly plan to watch your presentation. And thank you so very much for the offer of the CD with your interview of Nick, I will gladly accept and look forward to seeing it. We have been fortunate to live in a bit of a golden age for research, with the ARRB and with the internet at our fingertips, we are very fortunate. Yes, I know Monk and Rich are separate people, but thanks for clarifying, because some may not.

I agree, these exchanges can be very constructive. We need more reasoned exchange on the evidence in this arena ... it's how we can all learn. Considering things from someone else's perspective is a good thing. The more facts we can establish, the more old canards and myths we can do away with, the more progress we can make. Jim Fetzer said something in a post last April that I agree with! He wrote,

It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be

true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has

been verified. (Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)

Thanks again for the CD, I will email you my address.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Jack White · January 12, 2010

Doug's presentation has been on YouTube for more than a week, courtesy of Rich DellaRosa.

I posted the links here, and Fetzer repeated them later.

Lies and misinformation persist regarding the work of Doug Weldon.

Shameful!

Jack

Barb Junkkarinen · January 12, 2010

Barb:
It appears we are both posting at the same time. I have another long post. I was 10 years old and remember everything remarkably well and will be recalling some of my impressions from then in my book. I remember watching everything on television and my father had contacts and brought flowers home fron Kennedy's grave. My mother, like many did at that time, was making a scrapbook. I do not know whatever became of it. I am not pinning the Prencipe-Greer encouter to 8 - 8:30 and he addresses this in the e-mail I posted. Otherwise I would agree with you. I had many contacts with the person who has the Greer manuscript and I was never told it was 14 pages. If it was so innocuous why has he never posted it? I urged him to do so but he never would. I cannot get the picture out of my mind of Greer laughing as he came out from giving his testimony. Nick shared many things about Greer with me so I believe they were friends. I corroborated that Nick told his account about the hole in the windshield in the 1960's and also asked those people about Nick and whether they thought he was a truthful person, etc. I tried to do this with everyone I presented as a witness. That is why it bothered me when Josiah, in a later post, said he was going to investigate Glanges as if there were something sinister about her. Well, what was found out about her? I had several contacts with her sister after Glanges's death and her sister, who was in Germany at that time, also has a very unusual story.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

Again, I have shortened this quite long string, leaving in our just previous exchanges. It will be interesting to read your memories and thoughts about that weekend ... you were certainly in closer proximity to all in D.C. that weekend than anyone else I know. When is your book expected to come out ... do you have a publication date? I wish you well with it.

I have no idea why the person with Greer's manuscript holds it so tightly, I do not even know who that person is. I also don't know why Greer was laughing when he came out from testifying ... certainly could be perceived as being an affront to decorum, but it doesn't necessarily imply anything sinister in and of itself, in my opinion.

Jerry has been discussing Glanges with you, I will leave that to the two of you, and I think he addressed this.

I just replied to you in our Prencipe discussion. I did comment there about his expanding his "evening" to include time up to midnight. Shall we leave Prencipe to be all in that post? I think it will be easier. I will be interested in what timeline you think he can be held to given that he established it himself and bracketed his Greer event between two known events. And, important, of course, is whatever it is you were able to corroborate about his telling anyone about his events of that night in the 60s.

Thank you for a nice reasoned discussion ... nice to have you aboard. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Doug Weldon · January 12, 2010

Barb:
Thank you. It is spelled Prencipe.

Thank you for the correction, that is completely my bad. I went with the spelling used on the yahoo group discussions and in some email I received from someone who knew him. His "PRINCE9" e address seemed in keeping with that. Robert Livingston, by the way has no e on the end of it. People often confuse his name with the spelling of JFK author Harry Livingstone.

By the way, I have done some serious deletion of old exchanges here ... partly for the sake of brevity, partly because I was getting error messages saying there were too many quoted blocks of text. Everything that we have posted is available further up in the thread for reference if need be. ;-)

I, in all my many contacts with Nick, never heard that
"By the way, Rich DellaRosa related a different telling of Principe's claim, one Principe told him directly ... in that version, Principe claimed that he saw the limo in the garage with both Greer and Kellerman and credits Kellerman with the comment about shots coming at them from all directions."

Do you have any e-mails or anything from Nick saying Greer or Kellerman were with him in the garage. I have a tremendous amount of material from Nick and I promise you that I never heard such claims. I did not know that Nick and Rich had ever met each other.

I have no email written by Nick that says this. This was in an email from Rich during a big thread on this on a yahoo group. Rich is not a member of the group so was sending things via email to several of us. It was posted and discussed during the discussion, so I can send it to you, if you would like. Rich says Nick related this info to him at a later time ... after Pamela's interview with him. As the emails you included below show, Nick was quite frustrated with Pamela. I expect that is because she knew his time frame setting was not plausible, what she said to him about that, I have no way of knowing. But Nick was clearly upset by it. What I note in the later e-mails about that, and in what Rich related, is that Nick's time frame became vague and broader. Yet, in his own telling, as in the email previously posted, he set the time frame by his comments of when his meeting with Greer on the WH grounds occurred in relation to when the plane returned from Dallas and preparations for the limo being escorted to the WH garage were underway. That is a quite specific, and known, time frame. I don't know that Rich and Nick ever met in person, I know they had gotten very close according to Rich, and that Rich told me they had spoken very shortly (within days, as I recall) before Mr. Prencipe passed away.

I am attaching two e-mails from Nick. In the second e-mail I am eliminating the first sentence only because it is critical of another researcher and I don't think it's constructive in this discussion. You are correct that I know very little about you and Jerry and my rhetoric was very strong but the article upset me as I knew these people and I evaluate evidence very carefully and there is much I do not use even though it would be supportive of some of my conclusions. I do not have problems with the responses from you and Jerry. I thought my questions and observations have been cleare. Why were trained police officers considered "casual observers?"

Even trained observers have to have the opportunity to observe something close enough and completely enough to reach a conclusion. From the statements we have from each, they did not have that opportunity, and the most specific thing one relates is hearsay from what the other told him. None of these people known to have seen and comment on the windshield had an opportunity to closely observe what they called a hole, or, as Dudman put it, test its patency to see if it went all the way through. That there was a ding of some sort in the windshield is known. That people standing around in close enough proximity to see that ding, at a time the vehicle was known to have been involved in a shooting, when bloodied victims of that shooting had been taken inside the hospital, is it really so odd that they might assume that a bullet made that ding and may have gone all the way through the glass? I don't think so.

Were you aware that Dudman was subjected to similar treatment as Taylor and would never speak about the assassination again and ended his close friendship with Livingstone?

I am aware he has refused to talk about the assassination for decades. You have mentioned before that he underwent some "treatment." Dudman never said the hole he saw went completely through the glass. In his original article, he said he wanted to pass a pencil through it to test that, and was not allowed to do so. That tells me he couldn't tell by what he was observing. If he could see a hole went all the way through, there would be no reason to test its "patency," would there? And Livingston wrote about his conversation with Dudman saying that Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a complete perforation or not. So, I fail to see how Dudman was ever elevated to the status of a witness who provided proof that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Can you explain your thinking on that? And what about this experience you say Dudman had? Did he tell you he had been pressured to change his story (not that his story had a complete perforation in it in the first place)?

Did you know that it took more than "moments" to cordon off the limousine and that the people who were already inside the cordon were not removed? I have not heard from Jerry yet about if the limo was so tightly cordoned then who is that odd lady standing directly in front of the limo? Did any of you ever speak with any of these witnesses? Why did you leave George Whitaker out as one of the witnesses? Did Glanges sound credible on TMWKK? Did you know that Nigel Turner filmed that interview with her years before? What do you think the motivation for these people to lie was? How did all these people who did not know each other come up with the same lie? Why were these people afraid and people like Whitaker never mention such outside his own family since November 25,1963? Your speculation on the latter questions are fine. Have I misrepresented anything in MIDP or TMWKK?

Whoa, what happened to Prencipe?<g> Jerry has been discussing the limo being cordoned off with you, and he is your best contact on that. Regardless of when or how completely it was cordoned off ... none of the witnesses proffered as proof of a through-and-throuh hole say they were able to make that determination, in fact, the say they could not ... could not get close enough to see, weren't able to "test" it to see if it went all the way through, etc. Seems a bit of a moot point to me. We did not speak with any of these witnesses. You and Pamela are the only two researcher I know of who have specifically focused your research on the limo overall. We are not limo specialists. Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor, we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere .... like on the Ed Forum. I do not know that you have misrepresented anything. I do not accuse any of these witnesses of lying. Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been, a complete hole. None of them were able to get a good enough, long enough, close enough look or be able to test what they thought to know for sure. It is unfortunate that no one who spoke to Glanges before she died asked her for the names of others she could recall being out there in the area that day. As a medical student there she may have been able name several people. How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo.

Do you acknowledge that Greer changed his story many times and obviously lied to the WC about there being no people on the overpass? Does thataffect his credibility in your mind?

I am not familiar with whatever all changes Greer made over the years. To the WC he testified about the overpass:

Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?

Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember.

Why do you think he would bother to lie about something like this .... there are photos, witnesses ON the overpass who gave statements, etc?

My 1999 presentation will soon be posted on you-tube. I have changed my thoughts on some minor items and of course have learned a great deal more in the past ten years but it only adds and does not detract from the evidence and my conclusions. I will be glad to mail you a cd of my first interview with Nick so you can evaluate him for yourself. I would hope Jerry would let me know where he posted the study by Martin Hinrich on this forum and Lancer. I do want to find truth and I have no problem with people who seek the same andare willing to address the evidence objectively. If I believe I am ever wrong on something I will be the first to admit it. I judge people by how I perceive them. You and Jerry have been very decent in your responses to me. I believe this exchange can be constructive for all of us.
(BTW "Monk" is not "Rich")

My best,

Doug

I certainly plan to watch your presentation. And thank you so very much for the offer of the CD with your interview of Nick, I will gladly accept and look forward to seeing it. We have been fortunate to live in a bit of a golden age for research, with the ARRB and with the internet at our fingertips, we are very fortunate. Yes, I know Monk and Rich are separate people, but thanks for clarifying, because some may not.

I agree, these exchanges can be very constructive. We need more reasoned exchange on the evidence in this arena ... it's how we can all learn. Considering things from someone else's perspective is a good thing. The more facts we can establish, the more old canards and myths we can do away with, the more progress we can make. Jim Fetzer said something in a post last April that I agree with! He wrote,

It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be

true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has

been verified. (Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)

Thanks again for the CD, I will email you my address.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb, (Jerry and Tink):

Thanks again for the reply. I believe the exhange is constructive and I have appreciated the demeanor expressed by you and Jerry. Sincere disagreement can be expressed without personal attacks. I would define a " fact" as testimony or evidence which a finder of fact, here being as the people who are reading this exchange, determine to be true. I do have to take exception to a couple of your replies. First, Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered or exited the windshield.

Second, this is an extremely serious issue. You stated "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor, we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere .... like on the Ed Forum." If you are summarizing what the exchange was on the group and since I did not read the exchange I have no problem with that. However, please understand that Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they said I can neither support or defend anything they presented. None of you spoke to any of the witnesses and are not aware of all of the things they said. I did not read your article as being a summary but I read it as being a profound statement that there was no hole in the windshield.

I do not know what Rich said Nick stated but unless there is some audio or written proof I cannot accept that Nick said that as it runs contrary to all the e-mail and audios I have of Nick. I let the deceased Nick Prencipe speak for himself on my Black Op interview.I will gladly send you my first interview with Nick. I neither enhance or minimize his account but tried to thoroughly question him for clarification. My research is comprehensive on the assassination as I studied it from 1978-1993 when I received some information on the limo. I have done such things as sat down with John Carl Day and spoke with him for five hours at his house. It bothers me that you would note that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet posted such definitive conclusions. It bothers me that you characterized two trained police officers as casual observers and that three police officers, including Nick described the hole as a "bullet hole" that Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with guns described it as a "bullet holes", that Taylor described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed and that George Whitaker, who in 1963 had thirty years of experience of working with glass had had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass described it as a "bullet hole." Am I missing something or can you explain the ambiguity to me? I still have not heard an explanation why you omitted George Whitaker, who becomes a witness in a third geographical location , Dallas, Washington D.C. and Dearborn. What is unclear about Dalllas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, a man of provable integrity, stating he put a pencil in the hole? Did you or do you know the background of these people.

I am sincerely dumfounded by the contenton that witness "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield but yet there are at least eight people who clearly witnessed the hole in the windshield, and at least one other identifiable witness (Greer) if Prencipe was credible? There is not one person you can identify at Parkland who stated there was no hole. I simply wish I could use that logic and say I bet I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence there is is when Ellis loudly stated there was a hole and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said:That's not a hole, it's a fragment" and Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

You state "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were the TWO police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who reported they saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would make one conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who saw the hole while the Secret Service were pushing them away? As for Glanges she did say there was someone with her but that he was in fear of his job when she spoke to me. Is that reasonable? I think so based upon the fears, perceived or legitimate, that so many witnesses expressed to me. Wouldn't it have been easier to have said she was by herself and thus noone could contradict her? Again, what happened to Tink's "investigation" of Glanges.

You state "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been, a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? They all said they saw a hole. How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a spot or thought/speculated/ assumed they saw a hole. Again. if anyone has such power to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is knowledge far beyond anything I have ever known.

I appreciate the information you brought forth about Taylor. I did not say Dudman had undergone "treatment" but said he was treated in a similar fashion as Taylor. Both clearly wrote that they saw a hole. Both appeared to be encouraged to change their observations. Taylor was interviewed and stated that he was "certain" he saw a hole and then signed an affidavit (which we do not know if he wrote or was written for him) and changed his mind. Dudman was flown to Washington D.C. from St. Louis and shown a windshield that had no hole. If you were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful. Dudman wrote an article renouncing his prior position and would never speak about the assasination again and broke his deep friendship with Livinston (I did know the spelling, I type terribly, and in fact, even talked with Livingston, and have also talked with Livingstone).

Jerry gave an explanation of why he statement of Taylor was kept hidden but does not explain why Taylor's statement verifying that he had clearly seen a hole in the windshield was labeled "Top Secret" but the affidavit atating there was no hole was not.

Finally, I have sincere concerns why the study of Martin Hinrichs that contradicted your statements about the comparison of the windshields in your article, which though I do not believe either windshield was on the limo in Dallas, but was used by the three of you as a strong part of your article, was not published by any of you here or on Lancer. It was Jerry, not Jim, Lifton,Whitr,etc., who chose Martin to do the study. Jerry also did so by noting in effect to Martin that he knew that the two windshields matched but he needed some corroboration. In defense, Jerry stated that many here and on Lancer are also members of Duncan's forum so it wasn't necessary. I am not and my guess is that many here and Lancer are not.

I honestly do want to and am waiting to hear your response to ALL of the questions I have raised here and in prior posts. There is no shame in admitting that one may have been wrong in anlyzing the evidence. I believe there has to be stronger arguments than I 'think" they were all mistaken or I am sure witnesses could be found who saw the windshield and did not see a hole, when no such witness exists. In my honest opinion, such arguments are trying to defend the indefensible. I do appreciaate this exchange. It is intelligent and I do not believe you are alone in your beliefs. I would not have known about the Taylor info had you not postedit and I am always willing to reexamine the evidence. I look forward to responses from any of you in the near future to all of these points. Thank you.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Pat Speer · January 13, 2010

I have done such things as sat down with John Carl Day and spoke with him for five hours at his house.
Doug Weldon

Doug, did you tape this discussion? Do you have notes? I'm interested in anything Day had to say. If you have anything which would be of help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Pat

Doug Weldon · January 13, 2010

I have done such things as sat down with John Carl Day and spoke with him for five hours at his house.
Doug Weldon

Doug, did you tape this discussion? Do you have notes? I'm interested in anything Day had to say. If you have anything which would be of help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Pat

Pat,

Yes, I did do some recording. I talked with him in 1996 or 1998. I believe it was more likely 1996. I did so on microcassette and also did some videotaping on 8mm. Fortunately I still have a microcassette recorder and until two days ago I thought I no longer had an 8mm video camera but discovered I do. Hopefully. it stills work. I would be happy to assist you once I complete some of my current projects.The tapes are buried amongst a tremendous amount of material I have. I enjoyed talking with him. I had a police officer friend of mine with me and I believe that was probably why he was so gracious. I remember little things such as asking him why would Oswald have had only four bullets on the sixth floor and got an interesting response that it was all Oswald could probably afford. I remember also talking with him about what happened to the shells they collected and why the DPD kept one. I was very interested at the time in the hulls found on the floor. He was interesting but clearly was uncomfortable with some of the things we talked about. I have talked with many Dallas police officers and even with Rusty Livingston with some taped phone interviews. One of the most rewarding aspects of what at times I think of as a thankless endeavor was to get tto know so many of these people simply as people. Whatever the results of my labors I cherish so many of the friendly talks I had with these people. I was saddened to hear of Day's passing.

Best,

Doug

Doug Weldon · January 13, 2010

Barb:
Thank you. It is spelled Prencipe.

Thank you for the correction, that is completely my bad. I went with the spelling used on the yahoo group discussions and in some email I received from someone who knew him. His "PRINCE9" e address seemed in keeping with that. Robert Livingston, by the way has no e on the end of it. People often confuse his name with the spelling of JFK author Harry Livingstone.

By the way, I have done some serious deletion of old exchanges here ... partly for the sake of brevity, partly because I was getting error messages saying there were too many quoted blocks of text. Everything that we have posted is available further up in the thread for reference if need be. ;-)

I, in all my many contacts with Nick, never heard that
"By the way, Rich DellaRosa related a different telling of Principe's claim, one Principe told him directly ... in that version, Principe claimed that he saw the limo in the garage with both Greer and Kellerman and credits Kellerman with the comment about shots coming at them from all directions."

Do you have any e-mails or anything from Nick saying Greer or Kellerman were with him in the garage. I have a tremendous amount of material from Nick and I promise you that I never heard such claims. I did not know that Nick and Rich had ever met each other.

I have no email written by Nick that says this. This was in an email from Rich during a big thread on this on a yahoo group. Rich is not a member of the group so was sending things via email to several of us. It was posted and discussed during the discussion, so I can send it to you, if you would like. Rich says Nick related this info to him at a later time ... after Pamela's interview with him. As the emails you included below show, Nick was quite frustrated with Pamela. I expect that is because she knew his time frame setting was not plausible, what she said to him about that, I have no way of knowing. But Nick was clearly upset by it. What I note in the later e-mails about that, and in what Rich related, is that Nick's time frame became vague and broader. Yet, in his own telling, as in the email previously posted, he set the time frame by his comments of when his meeting with Greer on the WH grounds occurred in relation to when the plane returned from Dallas and preparations for the limo being escorted to the WH garage were underway. That is a quite specific, and known, time frame. I don't know that Rich and Nick ever met in person, I know they had gotten very close according to Rich, and that Rich told me they had spoken very shortly (within days, as I recall) before Mr. Prencipe passed away.

I am attaching two e-mails from Nick. In the second e-mail I am eliminating the first sentence only because it is critical of another researcher and I don't think it's constructive in this discussion. You are correct that I know very little about you and Jerry and my rhetoric was very strong but the article upset me as I knew these people and I evaluate evidence very carefully and there is much I do not use even though it would be supportive of some of my conclusions. I do not have problems with the responses from you and Jerry. I thought my questions and observations have been cleare. Why were trained police officers considered "casual observers?"

Even trained observers have to have the opportunity to observe something close enough and completely enough to reach a conclusion. From the statements we have from each, they did not have that opportunity, and the most specific thing one relates is hearsay from what the other told him. None of these people known to have seen and comment on the windshield had an opportunity to closely observe what they called a hole, or, as Dudman put it, test its patency to see if it went all the way through. That there was a ding of some sort in the windshield is known. That people standing around in close enough proximity to see that ding, at a time the vehicle was known to have been involved in a shooting, when bloodied victims of that shooting had been taken inside the hospital, is it really so odd that they might assume that a bullet made that ding and may have gone all the way through the glass? I don't think so.

Were you aware that Dudman was subjected to similar treatment as Taylor and would never speak about the assassination again and ended his close friendship with Livingstone?

I am aware he has refused to talk about the assassination for decades. You have mentioned before that he underwent some "treatment." Dudman never said the hole he saw went completely through the glass. In his original article, he said he wanted to pass a pencil through it to test that, and was not allowed to do so. That tells me he couldn't tell by what he was observing. If he could see a hole went all the way through, there would be no reason to test its "patency," would there? And Livingston wrote about his conversation with Dudman saying that Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a complete perforation or not. So, I fail to see how Dudman was ever elevated to the status of a witness who provided proof that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Can you explain your thinking on that? And what about this experience you say Dudman had? Did he tell you he had been pressured to change his story (not that his story had a complete perforation in it in the first place)?

Did you know that it took more than "moments" to cordon off the limousine and that the people who were already inside the cordon were not removed? I have not heard from Jerry yet about if the limo was so tightly cordoned then who is that odd lady standing directly in front of the limo? Did any of you ever speak with any of these witnesses? Why did you leave George Whitaker out as one of the witnesses? Did Glanges sound credible on TMWKK? Did you know that Nigel Turner filmed that interview with her years before? What do you think the motivation for these people to lie was? How did all these people who did not know each other come up with the same lie? Why were these people afraid and people like Whitaker never mention such outside his own family since November 25,1963? Your speculation on the latter questions are fine. Have I misrepresented anything in MIDP or TMWKK?

Whoa, what happened to Prencipe?<g> Jerry has been discussing the limo being cordoned off with you, and he is your best contact on that. Regardless of when or how completely it was cordoned off ... none of the witnesses proffered as proof of a through-and-throuh hole say they were able to make that determination, in fact, the say they could not ... could not get close enough to see, weren't able to "test" it to see if it went all the way through, etc. Seems a bit of a moot point to me. We did not speak with any of these witnesses. You and Pamela are the only two researcher I know of who have specifically focused your research on the limo overall. We are not limo specialists. Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor, we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere .... like on the Ed Forum. I do not know that you have misrepresented anything. I do not accuse any of these witnesses of lying. Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been, a complete hole. None of them were able to get a good enough, long enough, close enough look or be able to test what they thought to know for sure. It is unfortunate that no one who spoke to Glanges before she died asked her for the names of others she could recall being out there in the area that day. As a medical student there she may have been able name several people. How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo.

Do you acknowledge that Greer changed his story many times and obviously lied to the WC about there being no people on the overpass? Does thataffect his credibility in your mind?

I am not familiar with whatever all changes Greer made over the years. To the WC he testified about the overpass:

Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?

Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember.

Why do you think he would bother to lie about something like this .... there are photos, witnesses ON the overpass who gave statements, etc?

My 1999 presentation will soon be posted on you-tube. I have changed my thoughts on some minor items and of course have learned a great deal more in the past ten years but it only adds and does not detract from the evidence and my conclusions. I will be glad to mail you a cd of my first interview with Nick so you can evaluate him for yourself. I would hope Jerry would let me know where he posted the study by Martin Hinrich on this forum and Lancer. I do want to find truth and I have no problem with people who seek the same andare willing to address the evidence objectively. If I believe I am ever wrong on something I will be the first to admit it. I judge people by how I perceive them. You and Jerry have been very decent in your responses to me. I believe this exchange can be constructive for all of us.
(BTW "Monk" is not "Rich")

My best,

Doug

I certainly plan to watch your presentation. And thank you so very much for the offer of the CD with your interview of Nick, I will gladly accept and look forward to seeing it. We have been fortunate to live in a bit of a golden age for research, with the ARRB and with the internet at our fingertips, we are very fortunate. Yes, I know Monk and Rich are separate people, but thanks for clarifying, because some may not.

I agree, these exchanges can be very constructive. We need more reasoned exchange on the evidence in this arena ... it's how we can all learn. Considering things from someone else's perspective is a good thing. The more facts we can establish, the more old canards and myths we can do away with, the more progress we can make. Jim Fetzer said something in a post last April that I agree with! He wrote,

It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be

true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has

been verified. (Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)

Thanks again for the CD, I will email you my address.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb, (Jerry and Tink):

Thanks again for the reply. I believe the exhange is constructive and I have appreciated the demeanor expressed by you and Jerry. Sincere disagreement can be expressed without personal attacks. I would define a " fact" as testimony or evidence which a finder of fact, here being as the people who are reading this exchange, determine to be true. I do have to take exception to a couple of your replies. First, Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered or exited the windshield.

Second, this is an extremely serious issue. You stated "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor, we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere .... like on the Ed Forum." If you are summarizing what the exchange was on the group and since I did not read the exchange I have no problem with that. However, please understand that Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they said I can neither support or defend anything they presented. None of you spoke to any of the witnesses and are not aware of all of the things they said. I did not read your article as being a summary but I read it as being a profound statement that there was no hole in the windshield.

I do not know what Rich said Nick stated but unless there is some audio or written proof I cannot accept that Nick said that as it runs contrary to all the e-mail and audios I have of Nick. I let the deceased Nick Prencipe speak for himself on my Black Op interview.I will gladly send you my first interview with Nick. I neither enhance or minimize his account but tried to thoroughly question him for clarification. My research is comprehensive on the assassination as I studied it from 1978-1993 when I received some information on the limo. I have done such things as sat down with John Carl Day and spoke with him for five hours at his house. It bothers me that you would note that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet posted such definitive conclusions. It bothers me that you characterized two trained police officers as casual observers and that three police officers, including Nick described the hole as a "bullet hole" that Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with guns described it as a "bullet holes", that Taylor described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed and that George Whitaker, who in 1963 had thirty years of experience of working with glass had had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass described it as a "bullet hole." Am I missing something or can you explain the ambiguity to me? I still have not heard an explanation why you omitted George Whitaker, who becomes a witness in a third geographical location , Dallas, Washington D.C. and Dearborn. What is unclear about Dalllas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, a man of provable integrity, stating he put a pencil in the hole? Did you or do you know the background of these people.

I am sincerely dumfounded by the contenton that witness "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield but yet there are at least eight people who clearly witnessed the hole in the windshield, and at least one other identifiable witness (Greer) if Prencipe was credible? There is not one person you can identify at Parkland who stated there was no hole. I simply wish I could use that logic and say I bet I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence there is is when Ellis loudly stated there was a hole and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said:That's not a hole, it's a fragment" and Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

You state "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were the TWO police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who reported they saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would make one conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who saw the hole while the Secret Service were pushing them away? As for Glanges she did say there was someone with her but that he was in fear of his job when she spoke to me. Is that reasonable? I think so based upon the fears, perceived or legitimate, that so many witnesses expressed to me. Wouldn't it have been easier to have said she was by herself and thus noone could contradict her? Again, what happened to Tink's "investigation" of Glanges.

You state "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, as Jerry explained, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been, a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? They all said they saw a hole. How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a spot or thought/speculated/ assumed they saw a hole. Again. if anyone has such power to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is knowledge far beyond anything I have ever known.

I appreciate the information you brought forth about Taylor. I did not say Dudman had undergone "treatment" but said he was treated in a similar fashion as Taylor. Both clearly wrote that they saw a hole. Both appeared to be encouraged to change their observations. Taylor was interviewed and stated that he was "certain" he saw a hole and then signed an affidavit (which we do not know if he wrote or was written for him) and changed his mind. Dudman was flown to Washington D.C. from St. Louis and shown a windshield that had no hole. If you were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful. Dudman wrote an article renouncing his prior position and would never speak about the assasination again and broke his deep friendship with Livinston (I did know the spelling, I type terribly, and in fact, even talked with Livingston, and have also talked with Livingstone).

Jerry gave an explanation of why he statement of Taylor was kept hidden but does not explain why Taylor's statement verifying that he had clearly seen a hole in the windshield was labeled "Top Secret" but the affidavit atating there was no hole was not.

Finally, I have sincere concerns why the study of Martin Hinrichs that contradicted your statements about the comparison of the windshields in your article, which though I do not believe either windshield was on the limo in Dallas, but was used by the three of you as a strong part of your article, was not published by any of you here or on Lancer. It was Jerry, not Jim, Lifton,Whitr,etc., who chose Martin to do the study. Jerry also did so by noting in effect to Martin that he knew that the two windshields matched but he needed some corroboration. In defense, Jerry stated that many here and on Lancer are also members of Duncan's forum so it wasn't necessary. I am not and my guess is that many here and Lancer are not.

I honestly do want to and am waiting to hear your response to ALL of the questions I have raised here and in prior posts. There is no shame in admitting that one may have been wrong in anlyzing the evidence. I believe there has to be stronger arguments than I 'think" they were all mistaken or I am sure witnesses could be found who saw the windshield and did not see a hole, when no such witness exists. In my honest opinion, such arguments are trying to defend the indefensible. I do appreciaate this exchange. It is intelligent and I do not believe you are alone in your beliefs. I would not have known about the Taylor info had you not postedit and I am always willing to reexamine the evidence. I look forward to responses from any of you in the near future to all of these points. Thank you.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Barb:

I received your message. I will try to get the cd out to you in the next couple of days. I am hopeful our postings can be helptul to everyone. I must admit that I had some harsh feelings about you and Jerry when you both posted:

The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.

It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of

their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays

too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our

article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being

very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be

Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!

Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community and your efforts should be recognized and applauded

I sometimes come on strong becuase I have strong feelings about the people and evidence involved in this matter. I will ask hard questions but welcome the same in return. Please tell me if I cross a line because I do not intend to do so. I do not proclaim myself as an expert "on" anything except "on", not "in" my own opinion. When I began this venture in 1978 I only wanted to discover a truth for myself. That has been my gameplan. It has not been for my own notierity or to see how many people I could convince.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Bernice Moore · January 13, 2010

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, DOUG, A NIGGLE.... MARTIN IS THAT YOUR STUDY WAS POSTED ALONG IN A PAGE RE THREAD THE ARTICLE THAT TINK, BARB AND JERRY POSTED IN ONE OF THE LATER PAGES...IT COULD BE... :lol: .TAKE CARE...BEST B..

Edited January 13, 2010 by Bernice Moore

SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements