Jump to content
The Education Forum

SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

Best,

Doug Weldon

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

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

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

Posting#77

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

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

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 by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I've been sitting on the sidelines and listening intently. You should know, Doug, that when I said I wanted to "investigate" Glanges I meant nothing serious or sinister. I had not a clue who she was. I think Pamela said she was a nursing student. Probably, I should have said "I want to find out who Glanges is. I've never heard of her before." That would have expressed my meaning more accurately.

Here's a really simple view of how I see it: Altgens 5 shows an undamaged windshield at Z 255. Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot. The placement and form of the damage seen in Altgens 6 is replicated in the Frazier photo of damage taken a few hours later. Since Dudman claimed in the New Republic he had seen a hole in the windshield, it was only natural and proper for Rowley's report that came out later to stress the reports of agents who had passed their hands over the damage and found there was no through-and-through hole. Dudman and Taylor are the most persuasive witnesses for a through-and-through hole. Both have made it clear that they did not observe a through-and-through hole. This seems to form a kind of comprehensive package. On the other side are the witnesses you mentioned. I don't believe that just because someone is a police officer they are a trained observer.

I guess I'm just wondering why on balance you weigh this evidence so differently.

I too have enjoyed listening in on your conversation with Barb and Jerry. Not only civil conversation and discussion, but discussion between smart people who are without guile.

Josiah Thompson

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

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

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few.

(Bolds mine.)

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

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

Bests to you!

Barb :-)

BUT PRAY TELL GIRLS WHY LEAVE OUT THE MENTION OF THE ZILLION OF TIMES ON THE BOARDS that are still available to view THE ALTERATIONISTS HAVE BEEN JUMPED ON..for their view...SO ''We miss alot of thought from the silent majority who do not wish to be branded THAT GOes BOTH WAYS SOME WHO HAVE OR WOULD AGREE DO NOT POST BECAUSE OF SUCH PAst and continuing performances do not try to make this out as sooooo one sided as usual kathy as that is simply not true..if anyone is in doubt simply do a search...excuse the caps thankyou b..

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

I've been sitting on the sidelines and listening intently. You should know, Doug, that when I said I wanted to "investigate" Glanges I meant nothing serious or sinister. I had not a clue who she was. I think Pamela said she was a nursing student. Probably, I should have said "I want to find out who Glanges is. I've never heard of her before." That would have expressed my meaning more accurately.

Here's a really simple view of how I see it: Altgens 5 shows an undamaged windshield at Z 255. Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot. The placement and form of the damage seen in Altgens 6 is replicated in the Frazier photo of damage taken a few hours later. Since Dudman claimed in the New Republic he had seen a hole in the windshield, it was only natural and proper for Rowley's report that came out later to stress the reports of agents who had passed their hands over the damage and found there was no through-and-through hole. Dudman and Taylor are the most persuasive witnesses for a through-and-through hole. Both have made it clear that they did not observe a through-and-through hole. This seems to form a kind of comprehensive package. On the other side are the witnesses you mentioned. I don't believe that just because someone is a police officer they are a trained observer.

I guess I'm just wondering why on balance you weigh this evidence so differently.

I too have enjoyed listening in on your conversation with Barb and Jerry. Not only civil conversation and discussion, but discussion between smart people who are without guile.

Josiah Thompson

Am I to actually believe this admission?

Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

I've been sitting on the sidelines and listening intently. You should know, Doug, that when I said I wanted to "investigate" Glanges I meant nothing serious or sinister. I had not a clue who she was. I think Pamela said she was a nursing student. Probably, I should have said "I want to find out who Glanges is. I've never heard of her before." That would have expressed my meaning more accurately.

Here's a really simple view of how I see it: Altgens 5 shows an undamaged windshield at Z 255. Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot. The placement and form of the damage seen in Altgens 6 is replicated in the Frazier photo of damage taken a few hours later. Since Dudman claimed in the New Republic he had seen a hole in the windshield, it was only natural and proper for Rowley's report that came out later to stress the reports of agents who had passed their hands over the damage and found there was no through-and-through hole. Dudman and Taylor are the most persuasive witnesses for a through-and-through hole. Both have made it clear that they did not observe a through-and-through hole. This seems to form a kind of comprehensive package. On the other side are the witnesses you mentioned. I don't believe that just because someone is a police officer they are a trained observer.

I guess I'm just wondering why on balance you weigh this evidence so differently.

I too have enjoyed listening in on your conversation with Barb and Jerry. Not only civil conversation and discussion, but discussion between smart people who are without guile.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Thank you for your response. I thank you for clarifying the Glanges situation. I do believe it left a bad impression. I believe it would be constructive to indicate what you discovered about her. I give more credibility to Ellis, Glanges, and Whitaker than Dudman and Taylor because they were available to be questioned and their accounts tested. Ellis had a very distinquished career, including military intelligence. I do believe police officers are better trained observers than a newspaper reporter and I know nothing about Taylor's career beyond his documents. I know what was done to Dudman and how it affected him as I have noted. Also I believe Dudman's only question was the direction of the hole, not its existence. However, they all corroborated each other. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time, Taylor and Whitaker, both unequivocally described the hole in the exact same location. Yes, there were some differences among some of the witnesses but as you know in your career as a private investigator, that is always expected. You also are aware of how recanted accounts are treated in the legal system. Again, I don't want to be repetive but how does Taylor state with certainty in 1975 that there was a hole and this is labeled "Top Secret" and then his name soon after appears on an affidavit that is not classified as such. I don't want to repeat everything as I have made my points. I want people to understand that I approached this issue with some skepticism as my career has mainly consisted of a prosecution perspective and being on the "good" side of the criminal justice system.

I am one, whether I agree or disagree, who has highly respected your work and the contributions you have made to the understanding of what transpired in Dallas. I am not saying this in a patronizing way, but I am sincere. i even mailed your book to you years ago and you were kind enough to sign it for me. However, that appreciation would not prevent me from arguing points vigorously with you. I have found in my thirty one years of study and investigation that the only person who is going to agree with every position one has is oneself. It is a very lonely venture. I absolutely believe that I could have taken the witnesses and evidence and convinced any impartial jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield. These people who shared their accounts with me, at times under the stress of great fear, wanted me to find answers for them. I could not keep a promise to many of them to do so within their lifetimes, but it is my major motivation to complete this. I appreciate your reply.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, we all appreciate your bending over backwards to be polite and civil.

However, a firmer position would be preferable, for instance, if you were standing before 12 jurors.

In that case a lawyer would say...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...you have just heard 15 witnesses tell you that they saw a

HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. My esteemed opponent presents what...a photo of a windshield with

a crack on it? Would YOU or any other reasonable person say that crack is a HOLE? No, a hole

is a hole; a crack is a crack. These witnesses have nothing to gain by lying and saying a crack

is a HOLE, do they?"

Thanks for all your dedication and hard work in search of the truth.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug, we all appreciate your bending over backwards to be polite and civil.

However, a firmer position would be preferable, for instance, if you were standing before 12 jurors.

In that case a lawyer would say...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...you have just heard 15 witnesses tell you that they saw a

HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. My esteemed opponent presents what...a photo of a windshield with

a crack on it? Would YOU or any other reasonable person say that crack is a HOLE? No, a hole

is a hole; a crack is a crack. These witnesses have nothing to gain by lying and saying a crack

is a HOLE, do they?"

Thanks for all your dedication and hard work in search of the truth.

Jack

Jack:

I thank you but I believe I have been firm and unequivocal but open to the views of others. I think I have made it clear that nothing has altered my view yet. The evidence speaks for itself. Civility is not an expression of weakness. I have been before hundreds of juries. I give respect where I believe it is due and I honestly have deep respect for people like Josiah. BTW Jack, it sounds like you would have been a good attorney.

Best,

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug, we all appreciate your bending over backwards to be polite and civil.

However, a firmer position would be preferable, for instance, if you were standing before 12 jurors.

In that case a lawyer would say...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...you have just heard 15 witnesses tell you that they saw a

HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. My esteemed opponent presents what...a photo of a windshield with

a crack on it? Would YOU or any other reasonable person say that crack is a HOLE? No, a hole

is a hole; a crack is a crack. These witnesses have nothing to gain by lying and saying a crack

is a HOLE, do they?"

Thanks for all your dedication and hard work in search of the truth.

Jack

Jack:

I thank you but I believe I have been firm and unequivocal but open to the views of others. I think I have made it clear that nothing has altered my view yet. The evidence speaks for itself. Civility is not an expression of weakness. I have been before hundreds of juries. I give respect where I believe it is due and I honestly have deep respect for people like Josiah. BTW Jack, it sounds like you would have been a good attorney.

Best,

Doug

Keep up the good work, Doug! You do your thing, and I will do mine. Your great work is appreciated. You are a true patriot and gentleman!

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Doug,

I've had a heavy day of real vs. cyber life so I'm not able to give the detailed reply your thoughtful post deserves. I'm going to reserve until I have more time/energy. However, I did want to make one quick correction. All of the Secret Service materials presented to the Warren Commission were initially classified. The official reason offered was because they contained information about SS policies and procedures that could possibly be used to compromise Presidential security. (Yes, I know, the horse had left the barn.) However, the materials were declassified in short order and available to anyone who visited the archives. Tink published Rowley's letter in an appendix to SSID and David Lifton spotted the reference to Taylor's report and had it in hand shortly thereafter. So the Taylor report was out in the open in 1967 at the latest. I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact is that the "hole in the glass" report was generally available and made well known by David Lifton while the recanting affidavit was classified and withheld from public view for more than 20 years. Even after it was declassified it remained unnoticed for more than ten years until I tripped over it.

Best to you,

Jerry

....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.....
Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Jerry, Is there some reason why you have never responded to my questions about this? How about doing that now? Thanks.

Jerry, I'll bite. Let me begin by observing that Doug Weldon's appearance on blackopradio.com is available in the show's archives at http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451, where we can draw from it. I expect it will be invaluable. For my edification, do you have ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? Because I will be citing references from all three, especially pages 161 to 175 of the first, pages 129 to 158 of the second, and page 436 of the third.

Are we in agreement that three windshields are involved: (1) the one on the car in the plaza, which was photographed by Altgens; (2) the new windshield that was installed by Ford when it dismantled and rebuilt the limousine; and (3) another windshield produced by the Secret Service, which it claimed was on the limousine in the plaza? If that claim were true, then (1) and (3) would have to be the same windshield. You can find photos of (1) and (3) on pages 149 and 157 of MURDER and on page 436 of HOAX, but (2) is not shown. OK?

Moreover, I take it that differences in some of the descriptions of the precise location of the windshield in by Bob Livingston or Richard Dudman, for example, do not show that there was no through-and-through hole in the windshield and that we are going to employ inference to the best explanation, where the hypothesis which, if true, confers the highest probability on the evidence is more likely to be true than its alternatives, where we are entitled to adopt the most likely explanation as true when sufficient evidence becomes available. OK?

Accepting an hypothesis as true in the sense of science, however, is always tentative and fallible, insofar as as the acquisition of new evidence or new hypotheses may lead us to reject previously accepted hypotheses, accept previously rejected ones, and leave in suspense others we previously accepted or rejected. And I also assume that the convergence of multiple lines of proof involving testimonial, photographic, medical and even acoustical evidence will be among the strongest indications of truth in a matter of this kind. Are we in agreement?

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

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

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry...since this is an OPEN FORUM, I will take the liberty of replying (instead of only one person, as you suggest).

In the photo you show, the "spiral nebula" effect is hidden behind the sun visor.

Jack

Thank you Mr. White. You may have missed my point which was that from the rear there may appear to be a bullet hole just above the metal near the bottom of the glass.

However, that does raise an interesting point.

1) You and Jim are deeply committed to the "spiral nebula" and its location is well known.

2) You and Jim often rely on eyewitness testimony to impeach the photographic record - particularly the Zapruder film.

Yet, two of the eyewitness repeatedly cited for a bullet hole in the windshield don't place the bullet hole anywhere near the "spiral nebula"

From Jim Fetzer citing Livingstone on Dudman ..."there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield."

From Larry Sneed on Officer Stavis Ellis...."To the right of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass there appeared to be a bullet hole."

So I'm wondering how the "spiral nebula" managed to find its way to "just above the metal near the bottom of the glass."

Why are you telling us where the bullet hole is when Officer Ellis, who was there, has already told us it wasn't anywhere near the "spiral nebula"?

And if the bullet hole is where the eyewitness places it, doesn't that mean that whatever the "spiral nebula" is, it isn't a bullet hole prior to Zapruder 255?

Jerry

Hello Doug,

I've had a heavy day of real vs. cyber life so I'm not able to give the detailed reply your thoughtful post deserves. I'm going to reserve until I have more time/energy. However, I did want to make one quick correction. All of the Secret Service materials presented to the Warren Commission were initially classified. The official reason offered was because they contained information about SS policies and procedures that could possibly be used to compromise Presidential security. (Yes, I know, the horse had left the barn.) However, the materials were declassified in short order and available to anyone who visited the archives. Tink published Rowley's letter in an appendix to SSID and David Lifton spotted the reference to Taylor's report and had it in hand shortly thereafter. So the Taylor report was out in the open in 1967 at the latest. I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact is that the "hole in the glass" report was generally available and made well known by David Lifton while the recanting affidavit was classified and withheld from public view for more than 20 years. Even after it was declassified it remained unnoticed for more than ten years until I tripped over it.

Best to you,

Jerry

....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.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point to consider -- when we talk about obfuscation in relation to the Zapruder film, there are very simple categories that can accomplish that end without any red flags being raised (though they should).

One example of this is the fact that LIFE did not supply to the WC the best copy of the Zapruder it had. Therefore, whatever conclusions or inferences the WC made based on what they saw in the Zapruder were made based on evidence that was muddier than what they could have had.

Another area is the MPI Image of an Assassination. We are supposed to consider these films the latest and greatest versions of the Zapruder; but, in fact, they have not much definition and it is impossible to view detail. Was this simply an oversight?

Also, the version of the Zapruder Groden aired on Geraldo, though he claims to have enhanced it, scoped it, whatever, was of inferior quality in terms of color and definition compared to a very good copy. Why was this the public not provided with at least a screening of the best copy available?

Add these things to the so-called 'accidental' splices in at least two places on the original (just how do you burn film like that unless you are trying to alter it in the first place?), the missing copy of the film that we are apparently supposed to forget, plus the rogue copies, and we can get an idea of the scope of the shell game, if not hoax, being perpetrated on us right before our eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...