Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Doug Weldon

Recommended Posts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have the same problem identifying the swirl with the proper spectator in the background. Like you, I can't tell if it is Lady 8 or Lady 9. As far as I recall, Anthony Marsh pointed out that the socalled "spiral nebula" was a swirl in the fabric of a woman's dress. I don't recall him saying anything about a "pocket."

I just took a magnifying glass to the best copy I have of Altgens #6. It looks to me like the "spiral nebula" is some fabric in the dress of Lady #9 that is tbetween the camera and something Lady #8 is holding. I wonder if any other photos would provide views of Lady #8 and #9?

Josiah Thompson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we're getting real close to something here, Martin. You guys are really making great progress. I wonder what Duncan might say about this.

Josiah Thompson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe this will help, Martin. It's an enlargement from the original Altgens #6 negative that was done in 1967. It's about as clear as anything I've seen and matches what Pamela got from an Archives copy.

The light area containing the socalled "spiral nebula" has a dark area very near it. This would be what you would get with the dark green surrounding the light area that Barb thought might be a "purse" being held by Lady #8. The white area surronded by green would show up in Altgens from a very different angle... nearly in profile. This looks better and better, Martin. You may have the answer.

Doug Weldon started this thread but has uttered not a peep when asked if he believes Altgens #6 shows a bullet hole in the windshield. What do you think, Doug? Has Martin worked us to the answer concerning the true nature of the socalled "spiral nebula?"

Josiah Thompson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not seen any other expert analysis of the two windshield photographs. In this instance Josiah has lauded Martin's analysis of Altgen's 6. However, he misunderstood what Martin was saying. Martin painstakingly concludde that there was damage in Altgen's 6 and the damage was the same as Altgen's 7. Take care.

Sincerely,

Doug

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I did was ask for your numbers and maybe a little demo, not a 3D replica of of the entire assassination.

I asked, in part, because of exactly what you quoted from me "There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart."

So I'd like to know what numbers you used because - maybe I made a mistake!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin you and Doug and OTHERS keep on keeping on... I know how one can get pulled of track and forced to loose focus on facts and drift into speculations.... what is this thread really about... pro or con? was there a hole?... did a shot miss? What does it all really mean? Was there two shooters, or more, in the Plaza that day? Was there a conspiracy that day? Did JFK change shorts before he left for the plaza? This is an important thread I believe, but I also believe it -- in time will go into oblivion. And that could be by design.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stunned is one word for it, Jerry. Several others have run through my mind since I read it. Unbelievable. Think I best just sit on my hands for awhile on this and the rest of the ridiculous pap that's been posted this morning. Imagine the umbrage over expecting someone who says they are an expert and posts a conclusion to answer a few questions about the work they did and their findings in reaching that conclusion. So much for scholarship in research and any real quest for fact finding and establishing *the* truth. Since when are experts offended by questions about their work by those who want to understand and verify ... and self-proclaimed truth seekers are offended as well. How can anyone really wanting truth ever expect - or accept - anything less than verification of any claim. There is something very wrong with this picture. Would be a good one for Jack to study, but this is probably the one picture that Jack cannot find an anomaly in.

Barb

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you put up an expert before a jury and he crashes and burns, you’ve got a real problem. Right Doug? Well, you offered up Martin Hinrichs as “the only impartial photo expert on this forum” and look what happened.

First off, if you look carefully at the visual of Altgens #6 that Martin put up, you can see that it came from a printed source... a book or a magazine. Obviously, such a source won’t cut it for detailed analysis because of the digital manipulation involved in the printing process itself. For the kind of analysis Martin is indicating he might do in the future, he will have to use a photo or scan deriving from the original AP negative. I’m sure Pamela McElwaine-Brown would oblige him if he asked. Or he could ask me and I would gladly oblige. Garbage in, garbage out... as we all understand.

He claims that the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7 occurs at the identical place where the “spiral nebula” appears in Altgens #6. He says this and indicates how he might start to show this but he hasn’t done any part of what is necessary to show this. That is why he cannot provide Jerry Logan with the actual numbers required for a 3D reconstruction.

He also says that “I do believe we see the same damage in Altgens 6 and 7.” [emphasis in original] By this, he must mean that the damage to the windshield apparent in Altgens #7 is identical to the purported “damage” of the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. Here he gives no back up or argument whatsoever. Apparently, he is saying, “Well, that’s the way it looks to me! Trust me!”

Alas, that is not the way it looks to anyone else. Here are two photos recently put up on this thread by Robin Ungar. Outlined in red are the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6 and the damage to the windshield apparent in Altgens #7. (Note that for reasons unknown Ungar reversed the enlargement form Altgens #7.)

I have no idea whether Martin Hinrichs is an expert in 3D technology. He may well be. If so, I look forward to seeing his analysis of Altgens #6. I think his comparing the Couch photo with Altgens #6 was a nifty piece of research that disclosed the true nature of the socalled “spiral nebula”.... it’s the apron or purse of Lady #8 standing along the curb of Elm Street. However, his claim that the “spiral nebula” is identical to the damage shown in Altgens #7 is just loopy.

You offered as an important consideration, Doug, that “the one impartial photo expert on the forum concluded that there was the same damage in Altgens #6 and Altgens #7.” So we took a look at your expert and the absence of any reasons or evidence given for his “conclusion.”

You put an expert like that on the stand and you must know what will happen to him. If you want credibility, Doug, in the future, I’d be more careful about what experts you commend to us.

Josiah Thompson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not the messenger but the message... not the expert but the evidence the expert adduces. Hinrich was very alert to compare the Couch photo with Altgens #6. By doing so, he could place the purse or dress or apron worn by Lady #8 where it would be seen through the windshield as the "spiral nebula." This was a nifty piece of research which, in my mind, settled the question as to what we are looking at in Altgens #6.

His later claims have no stuffing to them. I paid scant attention to them the first time around because I thought, being German, he was having difficulty expressing his opinions. Then, when I went back to them and thoughtfully considered what he was saying, it became clear it was all Schwarmerei.!

In your replies to me, you appear to have an unerring eye for striking at the capillary. What on earth is the significance of the fact that I failed to pay much attention to Hinrich's somewhat tortured prose?

First, you failed to reply for days when asked if you believed there was damage to the windshield in Altgens #6. Then you replied by saying you never pretended to be a photo expert and that anonymous experts you had consulted told you that "grey-scale analysis" indicated the "nebula" was a bullet hole. When Henrich's analysis of the "nebula" proved convincing you cited the fact that he "concluded that there was the same damage in Altgens 6 as in Altgens 7." When this conclusion was shown to be without any stuffing and loopy anyway, you ask why I would criticize someone whom earlier I praised.

I take this to be the kind of argument one puts up when one has nothing to say substantially about the point under debate. Does Altgens #6 show an undamaged windshield? If you have something substantial to say, then, by all means, let us know what it is. Otherwise, we might come to think that your replies are ... how to put it?.... lawyerly?

Josiah Thompson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The claim that Altgens #6 contains an indication of a through-and-through bullet hole at what has come to be called the location of the "spiral nebula" has been circulating for at least a decade. Pamela McElwaine-Brown has repeatedly made the excellent point that claimants for this view often use degraded images of Altgens #6 taken from books or magazines. Simple inspection of an image used by Martin shows it derived from a printed source. This, in itself, is enough to disqualify any research done on that basis.

Martin's most controversial claim that the damage in Altgens #6 and #7 is identical does not depend upon any 3D studies he is planning to make in the future.

Hence the question still sits on the table. Why shouldn't we understand the "spiral nebula" to be a view through the windshield of the apron, dress or purse of Lady #8? The discussion has progressed nicely to this point. Here, substantial discussion was replaced by reference to unsubstantial claims. Would anyone like to continue the discussion by saying why the conclusion above should not be adopted?

Josiah Thompson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and gentlemen, this above quotings are just a kind record board for me.

It's easier for me to gather it here in this posting instead of search over and over again through this now long thread.

It will help me to find easier what i'am searching for, when i need it in the future.

This whole thread was frightening and revealing at the same time.

I learned a lot about the mechanism of two long experienced competing parties.

It seems there is a deep trench between the lines, where newcomers become immediate and ruthless in the line of fire.

Some of my research was cherrypicked, missunderstood and misquoted.

There were moments were i felt like Oswald. The patsy who was abused for something bigger.

I learned also a lot about some persons.

I pondered now i while in silence and calmly about this happening.

I will try to see it positive and will transfer it into something constructive. I take it as a chance.

I change the way i initially wanted to public my assertation.

Meanwhile i think it's a better idea to create something greater.

Something which is permanent available. Maybe a website, a Blog or/and a Youtube video about my entire 3D study.

Something which is not lost quickly in the deep throat of a forum.

I recognized the brisance of this subject and i think it's wortwhile to present it now to a

great audience.

Some names will get a special bonus.

To get underestimated has it advantages.

I like to take the chance to thank persons whom participating in this thread:

Thank you Robin Unger, Bernice Moore, Doug Weldon, Jack White, Jim Fetzer, Tosh Plumlee, Todd Vaughan,

John Dolva, Thomas Graves, Don Jeffries, David Butler and Jerry Logan. :rolleyes:

Ah, before i forget it...thanks for the motivation.

Sincerely

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 542
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well put, I think you've passed the hazing stage. You see what a s...hole this is. Not to say there aren't people who work against that. It's an education forum of sorts. Many, certainly myself, like to be educated. Educate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind words Jerry.

Robin,

You know I love Martin dearly so before you and Bernice get completely outraged it might be helpful to recall what I actually requested.

Let's see it as a kind support which i'am very grateful of and not as an outrage Jerry.

Martin

"I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6."

Jerry

"It would be very helpful for you to show the model - and tell us what numbers you actually used for a,b, and c.

Right now you're just stating conclusions, you're not demonstrating why we should come to the conclusions along with you."

You'll note that Martin said he had already built a 3D dummy of the windshield.

You'll note that he said three numbers were important in doing it right.

So I asked Martin for the three numbers he had already used and for a copy of the 3D dummy he's already completed.

If he doesn't want to share that information with me or anyone else that's fine. But I don't see exactly how requesting his estimate of the size of the mirror is imposing an undue burden on him.

I mean it doesn't take weeks and weeks of work to report three numbers you already have, does it?

My best to you and Bernice,

Jerry

Jerry, i think it would be fair to post the whole informations in this context.

I hope you don't mind if i do it.

1. I provided a comparison of Altgens6 and Croft with the intention to demystify the secrets of this altgens crop with a coloring.

My initial goal was not to find a damage in the windshield. I stumbled over this part cause i found no solution in this area.

It was a painstaking progress which has lasted over months on Duncan forum. Some 95% of this crop is now to me uncovered.

Not many people know me here, so i wanted them to know i'am not just a buff and i know what i'am talking about.

2. I provided my expertise that the POI in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6.

Based upon my experience as a 3D expert and a photo research student. This is also based on my 3D dummy of the windshield.

I know you know that i made that claim not just out of hot air.

3. I provided to accomplish this work and to public it as well. Ergo, i have nothing to hide.

The reason why i don't want to show this work in a beta status did i have mentioned very clear. Isn't it?

There are fellows out here whom have a crash on me. There are just waiting for something like that to attack me.

I wanted to get avoid to name that people, but on the other hand it may help that some people may understood me and thought

that shoe may fit to them. I mean Lamson and Colby.

I don't know if you are aware of my work on the backyard photos. This work is in Beta Status and is bluntly attacked by this persons.

Some of them even count the number of my views and when i'am online here.

a. You provided your expertise to made a study of the windshield by your own.

Let me quote you:

Martin,

I can see how you might think that - however, today I went out with white tape, large automobile and 105mm Nikon lens. Replicating Altgens 6 puts the "nebula" very close to the edge of the mirror. There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart. Moving to the rear of the vehicle I tried to create the separation between the defect and mirror shown in Altgens 7. My result was that there's no reasonable way to get the "nebula" in 6 to the same position as Altgens 7. (Note: I wasn't concerned with up/down, just left/right.)

So here's the deal - based on my tests it's not possible to place the "nebula" in Altgens 6 at either the Altgens 7 position or the CE350 position. However, it is possible to place the Altgens 7 defect at the CE350 location. (Left/right of mirror.)

Best to you,

Jerry

so far so good.

b. You have never shown your study to the public. Is this correct?

You may have your reasons as me as well but you didn't say why. And you didn't promise to publish it at any time.

Is this correct? Isn't there a discrepancy?

I don't understand why i'am now the bad guy here.

All i want to do, is to inform the public and to show the whole image.

I hope thats Ok with you

My best to you

Martin

Edited by Martin Hinrichs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind words Jerry.
Robin,

You know I love Martin dearly so before you and Bernice get completely outraged it might be helpful to recall what I actually requested.

Let's see it as a kind support which i'am very grateful of and not as an outrage Jerry.

Martin

"I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6."

Jerry

"It would be very helpful for you to show the model - and tell us what numbers you actually used for a,b, and c.

Right now you're just stating conclusions, you're not demonstrating why we should come to the conclusions along with you."

You'll note that Martin said he had already built a 3D dummy of the windshield.

You'll note that he said three numbers were important in doing it right.

So I asked Martin for the three numbers he had already used and for a copy of the 3D dummy he's already completed.

If he doesn't want to share that information with me or anyone else that's fine. But I don't see exactly how requesting his estimate of the size of the mirror is imposing an undue burden on him.

I mean it doesn't take weeks and weeks of work to report three numbers you already have, does it?

My best to you and Bernice,

Jerry

Jerry, i think it would be fair to post the whole informations in this context.

I hope you don't mind if i do it.

1. I provided a comparison of Altgens6 and Croft with the intention to demystify the secrets of this altgens crop with a coloring.

My initial goal was not to find a damage in the windshield. I stumbled over this part cause i found no solution in this area.

It was a painstaking progress which has lasted over months on Duncan forum. Some 95% of this crop is now to me uncovered.

Not many people know me here, so i wanted them to know i'am not just a buff and i know what i'am talking about.

2. I provided my expertise that the POI in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6.

Based upon my experience as a 3D expert and a photo research student. This is also based on my 3D dummy of the windshield.

I know you know that made that claim not just out of hot air.

3. I provided to accompish this work and to public it as well. Ergo, i have nothing to hide.

The reason why i don't want to show this work in a beta status did i have mentioned very clear. Isn't it?

There are fellows out here whom have a crash on me. There are just waiting for something like that to attack me.

I wanted to get avoid to name that people, but on the other hand it may help that some people may understood me and thought

that shoe may fit to them. I mean Lamson and Colby.

I don't know if you are aware of my work on the backyard photos. This work is in Beta Status and is bluntly attacked by this persons.

Some of them even count the number of my views and when i'am online here.

a. You provided your expertise to made a study of the windshield by your own.

Let me quote you:

Martin,

I can see how you might think that - however, today I went out with white tape, large automobile and 105mm Nikon lens. Replicating Altgens 6 puts the "nebula" very close to the edge of the mirror. There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart. Moving to the rear of the vehicle I tried to create the separation between the defect and mirror shown in Altgens 7. My result was that there's no reasonable way to get the "nebula" in 6 to the same position as Altgens 7. (Note: I wasn't concerned with up/down, just left/right.)

So here's the deal - based on my tests it's not possible to place the "nebula" in Altgens 6 at either the Altgens 7 position or the CE350 position. However, it is possible to place the Altgens 7 defect at the CE350 location. (Left/right of mirror.)

Best to you,

Jerry

so far so good.

b. You have never shown your study to the public. Is this correct?

You may have your reasons as me as well but you didn't say why. And you didn't promise to publish it at any time.

Is this correct? Isn't there a discrepancy?

I don't understand why i'am now the bad guy here.

All i want to do, is to inform the public and to show the whole image.

I hope thats Ok with you

My best to you

Martin

Martin...you are not a "bad guy" to me. You are more like an impartial expert, just looking for answers.

That does not mean I am obliged to always agree with you.

You are a far superior RESEARCHER to most of the airheads here.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put, I think you've passed the hazing stage. You see what a s...hole this is. Not to say there aren't people who work against that. It's an education forum of sorts. Many, certainly myself, like to be educated. Educate.

Welcome to the club. Its hard to rise above the twisting and pre conceived ideals and speculations of some. I know, I have been there also. Some have a motive, which one can only guess. Others are really sincere in their research and findings and protect it much like a new born baby. However, regardless of individual motives and passions its our duty to rise above the pathetic whimpering of some and continue to forge ahead in the search for truth.

I have followed these post these past few days and watched them decay into personal slaps on both sides. I feel we should refocus, extend our hands to each other and together continue the work, which is so badly need at this time in our history. Its our duty to find the truth as to the JFK assassination and the reasons behind it. Some of us have been thrown into this muck, because of our past actions and decisions, good or bad, of many years ago. Circumstances and the grinding wheels of history has at times dictated our movements and actions, and our destiny. In most cases it was by our choice that we threw ourselves into this fray.

I have made thousands of mistakes over the years. I have let some rub me the wrong way. I have played into the hands of some who had no other motive than to destroy the truth or to push their private speculations upon me in hopes of drawing me into their fold. Perhaps their reasons were only to add stature to their egos at the expense of truth. I walked into the Kennedy assassination research years ago, as a blind man, as a child grouping around trying to find my way in a sea of disinformation. I have been shot at, stabbed, burned out of my house, lost two marriages, put in jail, fought IRS for years, and lost my mind, because of JFK and the operations of our secret, shadow, government. I too, have lost focus many times and reacted in childless ways to those who took issue as to what I have said and had to say about that dreadful day.

So let us get back to the donut and not concentrate on its hole, and together focus on the task of which we chose.., and do it in a respectful manner to each other. Thank you, Tosh Plumlee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it.

Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article.

Barb:

This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article.

It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem.

I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above.

As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon.

Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not.

Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote:

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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.

If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science:

Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil.

"Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not.

Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was:

Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it.

That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why.

Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it.

Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage?

At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses .....

The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ......

People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory.

Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources.

I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

I am sorry my incomplete post repeated a number of times . I had not hit reply and my reply posted numerous times. You state " Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? What is odd. That was part of his job. He was in charge of the glass lab and his responsibility included glass lamination and making windshields. I'll try again.

Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you noted I did not try to suggest where he "should have seen it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in only one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman you referred to. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole. It is unambiguous: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Again i have no idea about the dinner converstaion and question its accuracy as Livingstone was actually very specific and said "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative in a further sense: The 'hole' in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield."

In reply to Whitaker, I do not understand why his account was omitted, as I noticed in prior posts why it is credible. I will do so again. You write "Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources." My response would be "How could he have learned about the hole?" Remember the reason I was referred to Whitaker was because his son had recalled his father talking about something at the dinner table since 1963 about something with the assasination." Whitaker told me that he only discussed it within his family. He was very specific including the meeting the night before when he was calle at dinner for a meeting to determine whether the plant was going to run monday. How could he have known his account would match Taylor's, that he would describe the same defect so man other people he could not have known,described, a hole, or how could he have known that the WH Garage logs would match his account. How unusual is it that the Ford Motor Company was running that day except for two hours? You state there is a record that the vehicle was on record as being at Ford two or three weeks late. Yes Ferguson testified that the vehicle left Washington for the firdt time on December 20 for the first time as he drove it to Dearborn on December 20. We know not only improbable that was as I discussed before because of weather and circumstances, again the vehicle was not designed to be driven that far, what if the car broke down, how did he get gas, how did you eliminate the possibility of people seeing the vehicle, and Hess and Eisenhardt records indicate the vehicle was there on December 13 and every employee I spoke with said the vehicle was there well before December 24, the day Ferguson testified he drove the vehicle was in Cincinnati, again a day of inclement weather. Did you know there was a UPI report on Decmber 18 or 19 stating that he vehicle had been secretly flown to Dearborn? Does it hint to any of you at all that a shell game was being played? Are you sure stock windshields were readily available either stocked at dealerships or glass companies and how were they going to explain the disposal of the original windshield especially if there was a hole in it. Why did they call in Arlington glass. company under the pretext that a windshield was being measured if they could have just obtained a stock windshield from a Ford dealership in Washington D.C.? Why did Ferguson say Arlington Glass Company Company replaced the windshield on the 25th (as repeated by Pamela) when the logs show they were there on the 26th. Why did Bill Ashby of Arlington Glass tell researcher Robert P. Smith he replaced the windshield on the 27th when Ferguson said it was under lock and key, Ferguson said when the windshield was replaced on the 25th, ADDITIONAL CRACKS WERE MADE. HE SAId THE WINDSHIELD WAS PLACED UNDER LOCK AND KEY IN A STOCKROOM ON THE 25TH AND HE DID NOT SEE THE WINDSHIELD AGAIN. Roy Kellerman alleged he examined the windsield on the 27th, allegedly a short time before it was removed. Kellerman noted that he ran his hand over the outside of the windshield and found it to be smooth, the opposite of what the later FBI report would show. Kellerman stated that the damage was on the inside surface of the windshield. When Kellerman testified before the Warren Commission in March 1964, he was asked to run his hand over the INSIDE of the windshield. Incredibly, he then testified to the exact opposite of his original statement, remarking'... it feels rather smooth today."

Ferguson's account is also confusing in light of James Rowley's January 6, 1964 memorandum to Rankin. In that memorandum Rowley wrote that Secret Service Agent Morgan Geis of the White Hiuse Garage detail requested permission to clean the blood from the back seat on November 23, 1963. The reason given wasnthat the odor was bothersome to him. According to Rowley, permission was given to Geis, Special Officer (William) Davis, and White House Police officer (Andrew) hutch to remove these bloodstains on late Sunday evening, November 24, 1963 (CD-80). But where was Ferguson at this time? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Chief Rowly fail to mention that Ferguson had done anything to clean the limousine. This is another conflict that bothered the HSCA. Why did the Secret Service order twelve windshields for the Lincoln Limousine from the Ford Motor Company for "Target Practice."if there were stock windshields that was readily available?

Even though Whitaker's account was totally consistent with the hole, the Dallas witnesses, Taylor, the White House Garage logs and he had no reason to fabricate his account, yes, I can see why you totally left out any mention of him in your article when the official record was so totally clear. Yes, strange things happen and anything is possible. I guess it is possible and if the right hypothetical questions are asked, as Spector did in questioning Warren Commission witnesses, that there could be a suggested possibility that Kennedy shot himself, how far can all those possibilities be stetched. How likely is it that at least nine witnesses only "thought" they saw a hole and how coincidental is it that all of these people who did not know each other thought they saw the same thing. How likely is it that Whitaker made up something or read something immediately in 1963 and decided to pull a ruse on his family yet would still be afraid to discuss it 30 years later? Yes, it does make sense with that logic that you totally omitted him from your article, that police officers are casual observers, that up is down and that black is white.

Doug Weldon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it.

Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article.

Barb:

This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article.

It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem.

I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above.

As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon.

Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not.

Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote:

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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.

If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science:

Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil.

"Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not.

Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was:

Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it.

That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why.

Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it.

Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage?

At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses .....

The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ......

People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory.

Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources.

I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

I am sorry my incomplete post repeated a number of times . I had not hit reply and my reply posted numerous times. You state " Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? What is odd. That was part of his job. He was in charge of the glass lab and his responsibility included glass lamination and making windshields. I'll try again.

Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you noted I did not try to suggest where he "should have seen it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in only one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman you referred to. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole. It is unambiguous: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Again i have no idea about the dinner conversation and question its accuracy as Livingstone was actually very specific and said "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative in a further sense: The 'hole' in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield."

In reply to Whitaker, I do not understand why his account was omitted, as I noticed in prior posts why it is credible. I will do so again. You write "Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources." My response would be "How could he have learned about the hole?" Remember the reason I was referred to Whitaker was because his son had recalled his father talking about something at the dinner table since 1963 about something with the assassination." Whitaker told me that he only discussed it within his family. He was very specific including the meeting the night before when he was calle at dinner for a meeting to determine whether the plant was going to run on monday. How could he have known his account would match Taylor's, that he would describe the same defect so man other people he could not have known, described, a hole, or how could he have known that the WH Garage logs would match his account. How unusual is it that the Ford Motor Company was running that day except for two hours? You state there is a record that the vehicle was on record as being at Ford two or three weeks late. Yes Ferguson testified that the vehicle left Washington for the first time as he drove it to Dearborn on December 20. We know not only improbable that was as I discussed before because of weather and circumstances, again the vehicle was not designed to be driven that far, what if the car broke down, how did he get gas, how did you eliminate the possibility of people seeing the vehicle, and furthermor Hess and Eisenhardt records indicate the vehicle was there on December 13 and every employee I spoke with said the vehicle was there well before December 24, the day Ferguson testified he drove the vehicle was in Cincinnati, again a day of inclement weather. Did you know there was a UPI report on December 18 or 19 stating that he vehicle had been secretly flown to Dearborn? Does it hint to any of you at all that a shell game was being played? Are you sure stock windshields were readily available either stocked at dealerships or glass companies and how were they going to explain the disposal of the original windshield especially if there was a hole in it. Why did they call in Arlington glass. company under the pretext that a windshield was being measured if they could have just obtained a stock windshield from a Ford dealership in Washington D.C.? Why did Ferguson say Arlington Glass Company Company replaced the windshield on the 25th (as repeated by Pamela) when the logs show they were there on the 26th. Why did Bill Ashby of Arlington Glass tell researcher Robert P. Smith he replaced the windshield on the 27th when Ferguson said it was under lock and key, Ferguson said when the windshield was replaced on the 25th, ADDITIONAL CRACKS WERE MADE. HE SAID THE WINDSHIELD WAS PLACED UNDER LOCK AND KEY IN A STOCKROOM ON THE 25TH AND HE DID NOT SEE THE WINDSHIELD AGAIN. Roy Kellerman alleged he examined the windsield on the 27th, allegedly a short time before it was removed. Kellerman noted that he ran his hand over the outside of the windshield and found it to be smooth, the opposite of what the later FBI report would show. Kellerman stated that the damage was on the inside surface of the windshield. When Kellerman testified before the Warren Commission in March 1964, he was asked to run his hand over the INSIDE of the windshield. Incredibly, he then testified to the exact opposite of his original statement, remarking'... it feels rather smooth today."

Ferguson's account is also confusing in light of James Rowley's January 6, 1964 memorandum to Rankin. In that memorandum Rowley wrote that Secret Service Agent Morgan Geis of the White Hiuse Garage detail requested permission to clean the blood from the back seat on November 23, 1963. The reason given was that the odor was bothersome to him. According to Rowley, permission was given to Geis, Special Officer (William) Davis, and White House Police officer (Andrew) hutch to remove these bloodstains on late Sunday evening, November 24, 1963 (CD-80). But where was Ferguson at this time? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Chief Rowley fail to mention that Ferguson had done anything to clean the limousine. This is another conflict that bothered the HSCA. Why did the Secret Service order twelve windshields for the Lincoln Limousine from the Ford Motor Company for "Target Practice" if there were stock windshields that were readily available?

Even though Whitaker's account was totally consistent with the hole, the Dallas witnesses, Taylor, the White House Garage logs and he had no reason to fabricate his account, yes, I can see why you totally left out any mention of him in your article when the official record was so totally clear. Yes, strange things happen and anything is possible. I guess it is possible and if the right hypothetical questions are asked, as Spector did in questioning Warren Commission witnesses, that there could be a suggested possibility that Kennedy shot himself, how far can all those possibilities be stretched. How likely is it that at least nine witnesses only "thought" they saw a hole and how coincidental is it that all of these people who did not know each other thought they saw the same thing. How likely is it that Whitaker made up something or read something immediately in 1963 and decided to pull a ruse on his family yet would still be afraid to discuss it 30 years later? Yes, it does make sense with that logic that you totally omitted him from your article, that police officers are casual observers, that up is down and that black is white.

Doug Weldon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. I provided to accompish this work and to public it as well. Ergo, i have nothing to hide.

The reason why i don't want to show this work in a beta status did i have mentioned very clear. Isn't it?

There are fellows out here whom have a crash on me. There are just waiting for something like that to attack me.

I wanted to get avoid to name that people, but on the other hand it may help that some people may understood me and thought

that shoe may fit to them. I mean Lamson and Colby.

The problem is Martin, your work was wrong. Let's start with your NOW claimed BETA of the backyard photo. About a year ago you posted the work claiming you had it so right and had proven the backyard photos fake, that you were ready to quit posting on forums if you were wrong.

Well guess what, you were DEAD WRONG! Your render did not even come close to matching the backyard photos, and you got called on it along with the shabby (meaning you based your work on conclusions and not fact) methods you used. Hell even a very simple shadow VPA shows the shadows to be the product of a single light source in a single location. You totally blew it.

Nearly a year has passed and your promised redo of your once claimed "perfect proof" is still not available. You always have an excuse for not completing it..usually you are just too busy. Fine, we can accept that... but its really quite funny that you find the time to explore other aspects and create other models and gifs. And in the meantime Farid just totally killed you with his model... and you still can't or won't refute his findings other than to say...Forget Farid, I'm right and he is wrong.

And of course that's the crux of the problem we face with your work here...again. You just say..TRUST ME, I'M THE EXPERT!

We simply can't do that anymore Martin, you have sullied your reputation. You got asked for some simple data to back a major claim on your part and you refused. You simply ask us to believe. Sorry that's just not good enough.

Your BIG mistake is thinking you can accurately recreate a photo, either in a 3d application or in real life, using a camera. Why? Because you simply can't define and or measure all the variables. The best you can do is guess.

That is why recreations are a fools errand and anyone who thinks they can do so with total accuracy (or as you once claimed 99.7 percent which is good enough) is just plain silly.

So its time to put up or shut up Martin....just answer Jerry's simple question.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it.

Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article.

Barb:

This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article.

It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem.

I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above.

As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon.

Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not.

Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote:

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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.

If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science:

Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “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 a pencil.

"Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not.

Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was:

Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it.

That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why.

Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it.

Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage?

At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses .....

The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ......

People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory.

Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources.

I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

I am having terrible problems with my postings

Barb:

I am sorry my incomplete post repeated a number of times . I had not hit reply and my reply posted numerous times. You state " Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? What is odd. That was part of his job. He was in charge of the glass lab and his responsibility included glass lamination and making windshields. I'll try again.

Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you noted I did not try to suggest where he "should have seen it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in only one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman you referred to. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole. It is unambiguous: 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 enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side." Again i have no idea about the dinner conversation and question its accuracy as Livingstone was actually very specific and said "In our personal conversations, Dick Dudman was informative in a further sense: The 'hole' in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield."

In reply to Whitaker, I do not understand why his account was omitted, as I noticed in prior posts why it is credible. I will do so again. You write "Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources." My response would be "How could he have learned about the hole?" Remember the reason I was referred to Whitaker was because his son had recalled his father talking about something at the dinner table since 1963 about something with the assassination." Whitaker told me that he only discussed it within his family. He was very specific including the meeting the night before when he was calle at dinner for a meeting to determine whether the plant was going to run on monday. How could he have known his account would match Taylor's, that he would describe the same defect so man other people he could not have known, described, a hole, or how could he have known that the WH Garage logs would match his account. How unusual is it that the Ford Motor Company was running that day except for two hours? You state there is a record that the vehicle was on record as being at Ford two or three weeks late. Yes Ferguson testified that the vehicle left Washington for the first time as he drove it to Dearborn on December 20. We know not only improbable that was as I discussed before because of weather and circumstances, again the vehicle was not designed to be driven that far, what if the car broke down, how did he get gas, how did you eliminate the possibility of people seeing the vehicle, and furthermor Hess and Eisenhardt records indicate the vehicle was there on December 13 and every employee I spoke with said the vehicle was there well before December 24, the day Ferguson testified he drove the vehicle was in Cincinnati, again a day of inclement weather. Did you know there was a UPI report on December 18 or 19 stating that he vehicle had been secretly flown to Dearborn? Does it hint to any of you at all that a shell game was being played? Are you sure stock windshields were readily available either stocked at dealerships or glass companies and how were they going to explain the disposal of the original windshield especially if there was a hole in it. Why did they call in Arlington glass. company under the pretext that a windshield was being measured if they could have just obtained a stock windshield from a Ford dealership in Washington D.C.? Why did Ferguson say Arlington Glass Company Company replaced the windshield on the 25th (as repeated by Pamela) when the logs show they were there on the 26th. Why did Bill Ashby of Arlington Glass tell researcher Robert P. Smith he replaced the windshield on the 27th when Ferguson said it was under lock and key, Ferguson said when the windshield was replaced on the 25th, ADDITIONAL CRACKS WERE MADE. HE SAID THE WINDSHIELD WAS PLACED UNDER LOCK AND KEY IN A STOCKROOM ON THE 25TH AND HE DID NOT SEE THE WINDSHIELD AGAIN. Roy Kellerman alleged he examined the windsield on the 27th, allegedly a short time before it was removed. Kellerman noted that he ran his hand over the outside of the windshield and found it to be smooth, the opposite of what the later FBI report would show. Kellerman stated that the damage was on the inside surface of the windshield. When Kellerman testified before the Warren Commission in March 1964, he was asked to run his hand over the INSIDE of the windshield. Incredibly, he then testified to the exact opposite of his original statement, remarking'... it feels rather smooth today."

Ferguson's account is also confusing in light of James Rowley's January 6, 1964 memorandum to Rankin. In that memorandum Rowley wrote that Secret Service Agent Morgan Geis of the White Hiuse Garage detail requested permission to clean the blood from the back seat on November 23, 1963. The reason given was that the odor was bothersome to him. According to Rowley, permission was given to Geis, Special Officer (William) Davis, and White House Police officer (Andrew) hutch to remove these bloodstains on late Sunday evening, November 24, 1963 (CD-80). But where was Ferguson at this time? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Ferguson document in his memorandum that it was he who cleaned the vehicle? Why did Chief Rowley fail to mention that Ferguson had done anything to clean the limousine. This is another conflict that bothered the HSCA. Why did the Secret Service order twelve windshields for the Lincoln Limousine from the Ford Motor Company for "Target Practice" if there were stock windshields that were readily available?

Even though Whitaker's account was totally consistent with the hole, the Dallas witnesses, Taylor, the White House Garage logs and he had no reason to fabricate his account, yes, I can see why you totally left out any mention of him in your article when the official record was so totally clear. Yes, strange things happen and anything is possible. I guess it is possible and if the right hypothetical questions are asked, as Spector did in questioning Warren Commission witnesses, that there could be a suggested possibility that Kennedy shot himself, how far can all those possibilities be stretched. How likely is it that at least nine witnesses only "thought" they saw a hole and how coincidental is it that all of these people who did not know each other thought they saw the same thing. How likely is it that Whitaker made up something or read something immediately in 1963 and decided to pull a ruse on his family yet would still be afraid to discuss it 30 years later? Yes, it does make sense with that logic that you totally omitted him from your article, that police officers are casual observers, that up is down and that black is white.

Doug Weldon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin...you are not a "bad guy" to me. You are more like an impartial expert, just looking for answers.

That does not mean I am obliged to always agree with you.

You are a far superior RESEARCHER to most of the airheads here.

Jack

Thank you for kind words, Jack.

Yes, we don't agree on many things but you spend respect to me altough i'am a newbie over here.

I was also very harsh with you in one posting. But you forgive me with a disagreement.

Thats a respectul manner. We all can disagree. No problem. I even disagree with my best friend many times.

The way the conversation turned out to be, is important.

best to you

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put, I think you've passed the hazing stage. You see what a s...hole this is. Not to say there aren't people who work against that. It's an education forum of sorts. Many, certainly myself, like to be educated. Educate.

Welcome to the club. Its hard to rise above the twisting and pre conceived ideals and speculations of some. I know, I have been there also. Some have a motive, which one can only guess. Others are really sincere in their research and findings and protect it much like a new born baby. However, regardless of individual motives and passions its our duty to rise above the pathetic whimpering of some and continue to forge ahead in the search for truth.

I have followed these post these past few days and watched them decay into personal slaps on both sides. I feel we should refocus, extend our hands to each other and together continue the work, which is so badly need at this time in our history. Its our duty to find the truth as to the JFK assassination and the reasons behind it. Some of us have been thrown into this muck, because of our past actions and decisions, good or bad, of many years ago. Circumstances and the grinding wheels of history has at times dictated our movements and actions, and our destiny. In most cases it was by our choice that we threw ourselves into this fray.

I have made thousands of mistakes over the years. I have let some rub me the wrong way. I have played into the hands of some who had no other motive than to destroy the truth or to push their private speculations upon me in hopes of drawing me into their fold. Perhaps their reasons were only to add stature to their egos at the expense of truth. I walked into the Kennedy assassination research years ago, as a blind man, as a child grouping around trying to find my way in a sea of disinformation. I have been shot at, stabbed, burned out of my house, lost two marriages, put in jail, fought IRS for years, and lost my mind, because of JFK and the operations of our secret, shadow, government. I too, have lost focus many times and reacted in childless ways to those who took issue as to what I have said and had to say about that dreadful day.

So let us get back to the donut and not concentrate on its hole, and together focus on the task of which we chose.., and do it in a respectful manner to each other. Thank you, Tosh Plumlee

Very well said Sir..thank you....carry on being careful in mexico...b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin you have never been the bad guy..you are truthful and honest and one heck of a researcher with an ability some would die for...as they say...you will produce your work, your findings when completed and you are ready and if to some that is not what they wish well that is their problem not yours...accept no pressure of any kind through a frown or a smile...now let's get back to TOSHS' DONUT... :D best b..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
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...