A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

[Pamela Brown]

A historian does not just "collect historical accounts." A historian tries to find out the truth about an event or historical series of events. A lawyer tries to build a case. You did the latter.

Good point, Josiah. The process of the historian is not at all similar to that of a prosecutor. An historian will document evidence and witness statements and then weigh and evaluate them based on a number of different factors. At some point an historian will probably choose a working hypothesis which they may use to tie different things together. They will continue to research while keeping an open mind to the possibility that their hypothesis is mistaken, incomplete, or in some way flawed and will need tweaking. If and when they believe they have enough information they may then attempt to persuade others that their hypothesis is, in fact, valid.

A prosecutor has a target, the accused, and there are no holds barred in weighing and evaluating information toward demonstrating guilt. They have their hypothesis right at the start -- the accused is guilty and that is that. Then they work to persuade the jury that their position has merit and that of the opposition does not. Very black and white, and very manipulative. It is this mindset which imo causes Weldon problems, as he has not as yet been able to step aside from his working hypothesis to objectively weigh and evaluate all the different factors that do not work with it. Instead, he seems to keep on trying to tweak what he has to try to force a 'fit'.

[Josiah Thompson]

A historian does not just "collect historical accounts." A historian tries to find out the truth about an event or historical series of events. A lawyer tries to build a case. You did the latter.

Good point, Josiah. The process of the historian is not at all similar to that of a prosecutor. An historian will document evidence and witness statements and then weigh and evaluate them based on a number of diferent factors. At some point an historian will probably choose a working hypothesis which they may use to tie different things together. They will continue to research while keeping an open mind to the possibility that their hypothesis is mistaken, incomplete, or in some way flawed and will need tweaking. If and when they believe they have enough information they may then attempt to persuade others that their hypothesis is, in fact, valid.

A prosecutor has a target, the accused, and there are no holds barred in weighing and evaluating information toward demonstrating guilt. They have their hypothesis right at the start -- the accused is guilty and that is that. Then they work to persuade the jury that their position has merit and that of the opposition does not. Very black and white, and very manipulative. It is this mindset which imo causes Weldon problems, as he has not as yet been able to step aside from his working hypothesis to objectively weigh and evaluate all the different factors that do not work with it. Instead, he seems to keep on trying to tweak what he has to try to force a 'fit'.

I agree and disagree, Pamela.

Unless I've been mislead, I believe Doug Weldon was a prosecutor for only a short period of time although he's been a lawyer for most of his life. I don't think it is necessarily the mindset of the prosecutor that causes him problems but rather the mindset of the lawyer.

You vividly described what an historian does. A lawyer is trained from law school on to build cases. I think that is the fundamental problem here for Doug Weldon. His whole interview of Principe goes forward as part of a case-building project. Since he needs Principe's report of seeing a bullet hole, he questions Principe on a very short leash, asking him to confirm what Principe already told you. The historian would have opened up Principe's story... would have asked him how far away from the windshield was he when he saw what he took to be a bullet hole. A historian would have drilled in deeper when Principe said he "got only a glance at it... very quick." A historian would have asked Principe whether the hole he saw could possibly have been not through-and-through. A historian would have asked Principe to explain how he could have met with Greer when it was clear Greer was at Bethesda. Weldon did not do this because to do so might undermine the case he was trying to build. He can claim to be an historian and not a lawyer but his actual actions give it away.

Under a wider horizon, think of the damage lawyers building their cases have done to research in the Kennedy assassination. For my money, we need a lot less advocacy as practiced by Weldon and other lawyers and a lot more genuine research as practiced by you and others. On the bright side, Jerry Logan has shown clearly that even being trained as a lawyer doesn't condemn you to advocacy and its mistakes.

Josiah Thompson

[Michael Hogan]

The Kennedy assassination has suffered from a surfeit of historians and a shortage of prosecutors.

[Josiah Thompson]

MY COMMENTS ARE IN bold-face:

Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole.. [A week after the shooting, Dudman told Livingston he could not see that the hole was through-and- through and not just damage on one side.].His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, [Please provide citation to prove this extremely unlikely claim.] no more than they did Taylor's.....

You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table. [A beautiful example of the psychological mechanism of projection! Nice way to end. Project onto your interlocutor what you yourself are doing!]

Doug Weldon

Josiah:

I will apologize for the tone I used as I do not believe it is benefiting either of us and certainly not me... Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence.

Doug Weldon

******************************************************************************

Let's just pull out this one thread about Dudman and see where it goes.

You say that "Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole." With respect to Dudman, you say "his account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account any more than they did Taylor's." When I challenge your claim that Dudman was scared by the government into changing his story, you reply: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

Now let's look at the critical passage from Robert Livingston:

"In the supporting documents, there is a single page from the 21 December 1963 issue of The New Republic. It is entitled "Commentary of an Eyewitness." It was written by Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Dick Dudman is a classmate of mine from Stanford. He telephoned me about this from Dallas shortly after the assassination; and our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination. Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole's presumed patency by probing it with a pen or pencil."

The whole point of this revelation coming from Livingston is that Dudman never knew whether he was looking at damage to the windshield or a hole through it. Dudman never changed his mind. He was looking at a limousine with damage to the windshield. He called his friend Livingston from Dallas and the two families met and discussed the windshield within a week of the assassination. Dudman just couldn't tell what it was he saw. No government leaning on him to change his story. No heavy conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just the actuality of what Dudman saw or didn't see... a hole or no hole, he couldn't tell.

Yet you characterized Dudman as having seen a hole and then changing "his account.. only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account." Finally, there is your lame excuse for writing what you did: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

This is a simple unambiguous example of you massaging the facts to build your case.

Josiah Thompson

[Doug Weldon]

MY COMMENTS ARE IN bold-face:

Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole.. [A week after the shooting, Dudman told Livingston he could not see that the hole was through-and- through and not just damage on one side.].His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, [Please provide citation to prove this extremely unlikely claim.] no more than they did Taylor's.....

You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table. [A beautiful example of the psychological mechanism of projection! Nice way to end. Project onto your interlocutor what you yourself are doing!]

Doug Weldon

Josiah:

I will apologize for the tone I used as I do not believe it is benefiting either of us and certainly not me... Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence.

Doug Weldon

******************************************************************************

Let's just pull out this one thread about Dudman and see where it goes.

You say that "Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole." With respect to Dudman, you say "his account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account any more than they did Taylor's." When I challenge your claim that Dudman was scared by the government into changing his story, you reply: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

Now let's look at the critical passage from Robert Livingston:

"In the supporting documents, there is a single page from the 21 December 1963 issue of The New Republic. It is entitled "Commentary of an Eyewitness." It was written by Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Dick Dudman is a classmate of mine from Stanford. He telephoned me about this from Dallas shortly after the assassination; and our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination. Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole's presumed patency by probing it with a pen or pencil."

The whole point of this revelation coming from Livingston is that Dudman never knew whether he was looking at damage to the windshield or a hole through it. Dudman never changed his mind. He was looking at a limousine with damage to the windshield. He called his friend Livingston from Dallas and the two families met and discussed the windshield within a week of the assassination. Dudman just couldn't tell what it was he saw. No government leaning on him to change his story. No heavy conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just the actuality of what Dudman saw or didn't see... a hole or no hole, he couldn't tell.

Yet you characterized Dudman as having seen a hole and then changing "his account.. only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account." Finally, there is your lame excuse for writing what you did: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

This is a simple unambiguous example of you massaging the facts to build your case.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Why don't you quote the article from Dudman " A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enoughto see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Is this ambiguous? Did Dudman, who wrote for a living, not understand what the word "hole" meant?. Was the word "damage" not in his vocabulary? It appears to me the only question he had was whether the hole pierced the windshield from the outside or inside or maybe that's just lawyer talk. Jerry raised the issue and asked me how I would address the statement of Officer Martin stating there was no damage to the windshield. I have not yet seen the statement but I am curious as to how you would respond to that st atement. I also quoted Livingston as saying "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative ia a further sense: The 'hole' was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." How does the historian reconcile that?

Wait, how blinded am I by "lawyer think." Your friend for today, the same one who has accused you of being a government agent, is now recognized by you as being a true historian and we are fortunate that she interviewed Nick first. We can ignore my interview as she already obtained all of those answers. Let's just use that interview as Nick must have obviously said he could have been mistaken. I suppose the government just flew Dudman to Washington D.C. from St. Louis so that he could enjoy a plane ride and they could wine and dine him and oh, by the way, show him the windshield. Everyone who saw the hole and/or damge to the windshield was affected by hysteria and by the greatest coincidence ever known to mankind mistook what they saw for a hole. That hysteria spreak from Dallas to Washington to Dearborn. They all decsribed it as a hole for what better observation could there be than a hole to win the respect of their families, their friends, and the country as they loudly proclaimed their observation to others, not knowing that others were doing the same, thus stealing their thunder. We are back to the vase logic where a vase is dropped and broken and you pick up one piece after another and proclaim look, this is not a vase.

Josiah, we are just going in a circle. Let's not waste each other's time. I am not going to be persuaded by your "vase" logic nor does it appear that anything will convince you. Let's allow others to decide. This has been a long thread.Anyone can review this entire thread. Anyone can view me on you-tube, MIDP, "The Smoking Guns' and hopefully will read my book. Good luck.

Best,

Doug

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

You have it exactly right. This is known as the "divide and conquer" technique, where the broken vase piece-by-piece

analogy is perfect. Josiah KNOWS what he is saying is deceitful. He KNOWS that there was a through-and-through hole

in the windshield. He KNOWS when you put the medical evidence, the photographic evidence, and even the acoustical

evidence together, there is no doubt about it: the matter has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt! You have been

unbelievably patient with him and his allies, who, in this instance, nominally include Pamela. Jerry has made a post in

which he observes that, if your account is correct, then GREER HAD TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED! But of course GREER

WAS INVOLVED--HE HAD BROUGHT THE CAR TO A HALT TO MAKE SURE JFK WOULD BE KILLED.

I can't believe how consistently Josiah has ignored the Jim Lewis experiments of firing high-velocity bullets through

windshields and finding that they not only create the impression of a small spiral nebula but also make the sound of a

firecracker! But to admit that would upset his apple cart--really, horse dung--so he simply ignores it. I must add that

I had noticed that Bob was not consistent in that remark about Dudman, which bothered me. Your response was hitting

the proverbial nail right on the head. As far as I can see, they made many attempts but never handed a glove on you.

Well done! Congratulations! And I also agree: Enough is enough. Your point has been proven a half-dozen different

ways. Simply excellent work!

Jim

MY COMMENTS ARE IN bold-face:

Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole.. [A week after the shooting, Dudman told Livingston he could not see that the hole was through-and- through and not just damage on one side.].His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, [Please provide citation to prove this extremely unlikely claim.] no more than they did Taylor's.....

You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table. [A beautiful example of the psychological mechanism of projection! Nice way to end. Project onto your interlocutor what you yourself are doing!]

Doug Weldon

Josiah:

I will apologize for the tone I used as I do not believe it is benefiting either of us and certainly not me... Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence.

Doug Weldon

******************************************************************************

Let's just pull out this one thread about Dudman and see where it goes.

You say that "Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole." With respect to Dudman, you say "his account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account any more than they did Taylor's." When I challenge your claim that Dudman was scared by the government into changing his story, you reply: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

Now let's look at the critical passage from Robert Livingston:

"In the supporting documents, there is a single page from the 21 December 1963 issue of The New Republic. It is entitled "Commentary of an Eyewitness." It was written by Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Dick Dudman is a classmate of mine from Stanford. He telephoned me about this from Dallas shortly after the assassination; and our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination. Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole's presumed patency by probing it with a pen or pencil."

The whole point of this revelation coming from Livingston is that Dudman never knew whether he was looking at damage to the windshield or a hole through it. Dudman never changed his mind. He was looking at a limousine with damage to the windshield. He called his friend Livingston from Dallas and the two families met and discussed the windshield within a week of the assassination. Dudman just couldn't tell what it was he saw. No government leaning on him to change his story. No heavy conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just the actuality of what Dudman saw or didn't see... a hole or no hole, he couldn't tell.

Yet you characterized Dudman as having seen a hole and then changing "his account.. only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account." Finally, there is your lame excuse for writing what you did: "Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence."

This is a simple unambiguous example of you massaging the facts to build your case.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Why don't you quote the article from Dudman " A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enoughto see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Is this ambiguous? Did Dudman, who wrote for a living, not understand what the word "hole" meant?. Was the word "damage" not in his vocabulary? It appears to me the only question he had was whether the hole pierced the windshield from the outside or inside or maybe that's just lawyer talk. Jerry raised the issue and asked me how I would address the statement of Officer Martin stating there was no damage to the windshield. I have not yet seen the statement but I am curious as to how you would respond to that st atement. I also quoted Livingston as saying "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative ia a further sense: The 'hole' was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." How does the historian reconcile that?

Wait, how blinded am I by "lawyer think." Your friend for today, the same one who has accused you of being a government agent, is now recognized by you as being a true historian and we are fortunate that she interviewed Nick first. We can ignore my interview as she already obtained all of those answers. Let's just use that interview as Nick must have obviously said he could have been mistaken. I suppose the government just flew Dudman to Washington D.C. from St. Louis so that he could enjoy a plane ride and they could wine and dine him and oh, by the way, show him the windshield. Everyone who saw the hole and/or damge to the windshield was affected by hysteria and by the greatest coincidence ever known to mankind mistook what they saw for a hole. That hysteria spreak from Dallas to Washington to Dearborn. They all decsribed it as a hole for what better observation could there be than a hole to win the respect of their families, their friends, and the country as they loudly proclaimed their observation to others, not knowing that others were doing the same, thus stealing their thunder. We are back to the vase logic where a vase is dropped and broken and you pick up one piece after another and proclaim look, this is not a vase.

Josiah, we are just going in a circle. Let's not waste each other's time. I am not going to be persuaded by your "vase" logic nor does it appear that anything will convince you. Let's allow others to decide. This has been a long thread.Anyone can review this entire thread. Anyone can view me on you-tube, MIDP, "The Smoking Guns' and hopefully will read my book. Good luck.

Best,

Doug

Edited March 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

I can't believe how consistently Josiah has ignored the Jim Lewis experiments of firing high-velocity bullets through

windshields and finding that they not only create the impression of a small spiral nebula...

Interesting you would mention the size of the so called spiral nebula.

In A6 you 'nebula" looks to be as large as mirror is tall.

In A7, the defect is MUCH smaller, so much so it nowhere near the size of the mirror height.

Somewhere I'm sure Jim Fetzer can fill us in as to why.

Oh, and why you are at it, please give up your impressions at to why the so called "spiral nebula" in A6 stops exactly at the edge of JFK's ear on one side and exactly at the top of his shoulder on another edge.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Don Jeffries

[Josiah Thompson]

My replies in bold-face:

Josiah:

Why don't you quote the article from Dudman " A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enoughto see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Is this ambiguous? Did Dudman, who wrote for a living, not understand what the word "hole" meant?. Was the word "damage" not in his vocabulary? It appears to me the only question he had was whether the hole pierced the windshield from the outside or inside or maybe that's just lawyer talk. [Yes. It is just lawyer-talk. Livingston says that he and Dudman had been friends since Stanford and that he spoke to Dudman within a week of the assassaination. Dudman told him he could not tell if there was a hole that penetrated the windshield. Do you think Livingston just made this up? Why would Dudman tell Livingston this if it wasn't the truth as he remembered it?] Jerry raised the issue and asked me how I would address the statement of Officer Martin stating there was no damage to the windshield. I have not yet seen the statement but I am curious as to how you would respond to that st atement. [The response is obvious. Officer Martin did not see the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7.] I also quoted Livingston as saying "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative ia a further sense: The 'hole' was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." How does the historian reconcile that? [i would say that eyewitnesses often don't get details right. For example, Principe told you the damage was on the passenger side low down when it was actually on the driver's side above the rear view mirror. Same thing here. Dudman got the location of real damage... not a through-and-through hole but real damage... wrong.]

Wait, how blinded am I by "lawyer think." Your friend for today, the same one who has accused you of being a government agent, is now recognized by you as being a true historian and we are fortunate that she interviewed Nick first. [You bet we are!] We can ignore my interview as she already obtained all of those answers. Let's just use that interview as Nick must have obviously said he could have been mistaken. I suppose the government just flew Dudman to Washington D.C. from St. Louis so that he could enjoy a plane ride and they could wine and dine him and oh, by the way, show him the windshield. [Huh!?] Everyone who saw the hole and/or damge to the windshield was affected by hysteria and by the greatest coincidence ever known to mankind mistook what they saw for a hole. [No. They saw damage to the windshield and made the mistake of thinking there was a through-and-through hole there.] That hysteria spreak from Dallas to Washington to Dearborn. They all decsribed it as a hole for what better observation could there be than a hole to win the respect of their families, their friends, and the country as they loudly proclaimed their observation to others, not knowing that others were doing the same, thus stealing their thunder. We are back to the vase logic where a vase is dropped and broken and you pick up one piece after another and proclaim look, this is not a vase.

Josiah, we are just going in a circle. Let's not waste each other's time. I am not going to be persuaded by your "vase" logic nor does it appear that anything will convince you. Let's allow others to decide. This has been a long thread.Anyone can review this entire thread. Anyone can view me on you-tube, MIDP, "The Smoking Guns' and hopefully will read my book. Good luck.

[i'm inclined to agree with you. But oblige all of us who have come this far with you with one reply. Will you? I've asked you several times before to comment and all I got was butkus as you steadfastly evaded the point. Because of the sharp eye of Martin Hinrichs we now recognize that the figures seen through the windshield in Altgens #6 are also pictured in the Croft photo. Through the windshield we can see both Lady #8 and Lady #9. A beige apron or bag held by Lady #8 shows up in the exact position where you folks claim to see the "spiral nebula." The colors seen in Altgens #6 match up perfectly with the colors seen in Croft on Lady #8 and Lady #9. Both position and coloration match between Altgens #6 and Croft. Hence, why shouldn't we conclude that the "spiral nebula" is the beige apron or bag carried by Lady #8 that is seen though the windshield? This is one of the neatest little pieces of photographic research that I've seen in a long time yet you pay it honor by deliberately and consistently ignoring it. So why don't close this thread by telling us what you make of it?]

Josiah Thompson

Best,

Doug

Edited March 3, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Robin Unger]

I was asked to post this by Calli Robertson.

Croft Ladies in Betzner 3

Lady (8) can just be seen on the far right of the image.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Josiah Thompson]

I can't believe how consistently Josiah has ignored the Jim Lewis experiments of firing high-velocity bullets through

windshields and finding that they not only create the impression of a small spiral nebula but also make the sound of a

firecracker!

Put up a photo of the socalled "spiral nebula" that came directly from the Altgens #6 negative (Robin Unger has posted an enlargement in this thread) and right beside it post a photo of the "small spiral nebula" that you claim someone named Jim Lewis produced. If you can do this, then maybe it would be worth inquiring about. If you can't, we will know that you are just "fetzering" once again!

Josiah Thompson

[Don Jeffries]

Josiah said:

"Do you think Livingston just made this up?"

This is a remarkable comment from someone who discounts the word of all the witnesses who reported seeing a hole in the windshield.

Josiah said:

"I would say that eyewitnesses often don't get details right."

But you believe that Livingston, Frazier and any witness who supports your own preconceived bias did "get the details right," correct?

I asked this question before, but I'd sincerely like to know which assassination witnesses you think ARE credible. As you more than anyone else here must know, many of these witnesses were crucial to the early critics demolishing the official version of events. If they are all discredited, and the neo-con tendency to accept the "official" evidence at face value becomes the predominant view in the CT community, what are we left with?

If we maintain that no evidence was altered, and discredit all witnesses who reported something contrary to the official story, as well as accept that such things as the single bullet theory, bunched up coat theory and jet muscle reaction theory are possible, then how do we make the case for conspiracy?

[Jack White]

I was asked to post this by Calli Robertson.

Croft Ladies in Betzner 3

Lady (8) can just be seen on the far right of the image.

Robin...a graphics hint. Keep a piece of black or very dark paper by your scanner. When

scanning printed pages, put the black paper under the image, and all type bleed through

will not be picked up by the scanner.

Jack

[Jack White]

I was asked to post this by Calli Robertson.

Croft Ladies in Betzner 3

Lady (8) can just be seen on the far right of the image.

Posting of the Betzner image reminds me of a question I have always had (may work on it tomorrow).

Betzner and Willis are on an ALMOST IDENTICAL line of sight and snap their pix at almost the same

instant (compare photos). Willis stepped way off the curb to take his photo. He is farther west than

Betzner. Should he (or his shadow) appear in Betzner? I also worry that the man in the foreground

blocks much of the Betzner image, yet I remember trying to find this man in Zapruder in front of

Betzner. Something has always bothered me about these two pix.

Jack

Jack

[Jack White]

I was asked to post this by Calli Robertson.

Croft Ladies in Betzner 3

Lady (8) can just be seen on the far right of the image.

Posting of the Betzner image reminds me of a question I have always had (may work on it tomorrow).

Betzner and Willis are on an ALMOST IDENTICAL line of sight and snap their pix at almost the same

instant (compare photos). Willis stepped way off the curb to take his photo. He is farther west than

Betzner. Should he (or his shadow) appear in Betzner? I also worry that the man in the foreground

blocks much of the Betzner image, yet I remember trying to find this man in Zapruder in front of

Betzner. Something has always bothered me about these two pix.

Jack

Jack

Calling attention to Croft woman number 8 caused me to do a comparison. The images

do not show the same things. In Croft, the woman seems to be cradling a baby wrapped

in a white blanket IN BOTH ARMS, and wearing a very odd maternity apron.

In Betzner, "a baby IN SHADOW seemingly is held by a harness dangles from the woman's

waist, but she still wears the odd apron with attachments.

It appears that what I interpreted as a white shawl is the woman's blouse.

Very strange. A clearer version of Betzner is needed.

Thanks, Robin.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

I was asked to post this by Calli Robertson.

Croft Ladies in Betzner 3

Lady (8) can just be seen on the far right of the image.

Robin...a graphics hint. Keep a piece of black or very dark paper by your scanner. When

scanning printed pages, put the black paper under the image, and all type bleed through

will not be picked up by the scanner.

Jack

Thanks Jack.

Good tip about the black paper.

From memory i think that particular scan was done by Chris Davidson. !

Robin.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Robin Unger