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

[Jerry Logan]

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support!

Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others.

best to you

Martin

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.

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I have to admit I'm completely stunned by this post. Josiah is actively engaging you on the Altgens photos. Barb has just finished several long posts on the Principe issue. You and I have been actively exchanging information on Taylor. I'm trying to get Martin to show at least a little of his work. I'm sorry if we're slow or need to take things in small bits but if we wanted the issue to simply languish and fade away then we probably wouldn't have posted a giant article on the Education Forum and Lancer. I know Tink, Barb and I are supposed to be crafty and subtle but that's a hell of a way to let something quietly sink into obscurity.

Jerry

Edited February 26, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I have to admit I'm completely stunned by this post. Josiah is actively engaging you on the Altgens photos. Barb has just finished several long posts on the Principe issue. You and I have been actively exchanging information on Taylor. I'm trying to get Martin to show at least a little of his work. I'm sorry if we're slow or need to take things in small bits but if we wanted the issue to simply languish and fade away then we probably wouldn't have posted a giant article on the Education Forum and Lancer. I know Tink, Barb and I are supposed to be crafty and subtle but that's a hell of a way to let something quietly sink into obscurity.

Jerry

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.

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

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

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

Barb

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I have no interest in getting bogged down in this redux; but do want to clarify one point:

There is little doubt from my standpoint that Weldon coached Nick Prencipe to change his statement about where he saw the hole in the windshield, which he defined in his interview with me (low on the passenger side). Apparently, when I was allowed to interview him first, nobody thought that I would ask him for a location; but I did.

When Weldon interviewed him, Nick could no longer recall just where the hole was. That was very convenient. It also suited Weldon's theory, which necessitates a *hole* near the supposed *spiral nebulae* spot.

All this is spelled out in my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave, 2001, which I hope to have scanned in at my site in the near future.

Pamela,

In Weldon's initial interview with Prencipe, Prencipe told him the hole he saw was low on the passenger side, just a couple inches above the bottom. I have the audio of that interview. Rather than ask Prencipe how confident he was of that location, like Weldon had done about whether or not there was a through and through hole just a couple of minutes before, asking Prencipe to rate his confidence on a scale of 1 to 100, Weldon actually told Prencipe that others had placed the hole elsewhere and then asked him if he might be in error. I was amazed and found that very poor procedure! What else would he expect Prencipe to say having been given that information other than that, yeah, sure, it's been a long time, I could be mistaken about the location.

Can you recall, or do you have any correspondence, that indicates just when Prencipe started saying he couldn't recall the location where he saw the hole ... or started saying it was in the "correct" spot?

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Pamela Brown]

I have no interest in getting bogged down in this redux; but do want to clarify one point:

There is little doubt from my standpoint that Weldon coached Nick Prencipe to change his statement about where he saw the hole in the windshield, which he defined in his interview with me (low on the passenger side). Apparently, when I was allowed to interview him first, nobody thought that I would ask him for a location; but I did.

When Weldon interviewed him, Nick could no longer recall just where the hole was. That was very convenient. It also suited Weldon's theory, which necessitates a *hole* near the supposed *spiral nebulae* spot.

All this is spelled out in my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave, 2001, which I hope to have scanned in at my site in the near future.

Pamela,

In Weldon's initial interview with Prencipe, Prencipe told him the hole he saw was low on the passenger side, just a couple inches above the bottom. I have the audio of that interview. Rather than ask Prencipe how confident he was of that location, like Weldon had done about whether or not there was a through and through hole just a couple of minutes before, asking Prencipe to rate his confidence on a scale of 1 to 100, Weldon actually told Prencipe that others had placed the hole elsewhere and then asked him if he might be in error. I was amazed and found that very poor procedure! What else would he expect Prencipe to say having been given that information other than that, yeah, sure, it's been a long time, I could be mistaken about the location.

Can you recall, or do you have any correspondence, that indicates just when Prencipe started saying he couldn't recall the location where he saw the hole ... or started saying it was in the "correct" spot?

Bests,

Barb :-)

I was quite shocked when I listened to the tape Weldon sent me of his interview with Prencipe, as he had said nothing to me that I can recall about conveniently changing his mind.

[Pamela Brown]

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support!

Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others.

best to you

Martin

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.

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I have to admit I'm completely stunned by this post. Josiah is actively engaging you on the Altgens photos. Barb has just finished several long posts on the Principe issue. You and I have been actively exchanging information on Taylor. I'm trying to get Martin to show at least a little of his work. I'm sorry if we're slow or need to take things in small bits but if we wanted the issue to simply languish and fade away then we probably wouldn't have posted a giant article on the Education Forum and Lancer. I know Tink, Barb and I are supposed to be crafty and subtle but that's a hell of a way to let something quietly sink into obscurity.

Jerry

If you have not already figured it out, Weldon wants you to do his homework for him.

[Josiah Thompson]

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

[Doug Weldon]

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support!

Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others.

best to you

Martin

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.

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I have to admit I'm completely stunned by this post. Josiah is actively engaging you on the Altgens photos. Barb has just finished several long posts on the Principe issue. You and I have been actively exchanging information on Taylor. I'm trying to get Martin to show at least a little of his work. I'm sorry if we're slow or need to take things in small bits but if we wanted the issue to simply languish and fade away then we probably wouldn't have posted a giant article on the Education Forum and Lancer. I know Tink, Barb and I are supposed to be crafty and subtle but that's a hell of a way to let something quietly sink into obscurity.

Jerry

Jerry:

I have nothing but positive to say about you and Barb publically and privately. I have no problem with Martin supporting his work and I am not critical of your post. It is frustrating that Thompson "missed" several posts of Martin stating his conclusion and was supportive of his analysis but now questions his conclusion. I understand how posts can be missed as I missed a very good post by Barb. I have not expected you to respond recently but before I came on this forum I know there were a number of people critical of me. None of these people have responded. So far, on the windshield hole I have seen it described as fabric, a dress, a purse, a pocket, and even that there was nothing there in the original negative. Are these people going to change their mind even if I posted a picture of Greer sticking his finger through the hole and Kinney pointing at it? I understand that this is critical but there has been no one addressing my points or questions in four days. I do not mind if there is a parallel discussion but my intent was to enter the forum for a short period of time, explain my position and criticisms of your article and engage in dialog with those critical of me. Yes, you, Barb, and I have addressed some things off line and I respect both of you. However, I do not enjoy forums, though this has been very beneficial to me. People like Martin have impressed me and I have learned from a number of people. I hope you and Barb will be my friends after this is over. I have been involved with this for over 31 years. I want to be out of it. I understand why people like Gary Shaw just put it behind them. I am only in this because of the people I made promises to. I sincerely apologize if you interpreted my post as an attack on you or Barb. It was not my intent. I purposely have come to this forum so people can hit me with their best shot and form their own judgments of me. I have seen the posts where people have casually dismissed what I have done. This is their chance to confront me. If and when I finish my book there are going to be things I have not yet discussed that I think will bring the evidence together or raise legitimate questions to anyone with an open mind. As I noted before I have been privileged to touch history in such a unique way and in the pursuit of truth gotten to know such incredible people. However, the price of admission has been very high in many aspects of my life as things were sacrificed in order to pursue this. I don't care if people criticize me or my evidence but please do not question my motives. I understand that people can examine the evidence and reach different conclusions. As long as someone is sincere in trying to find truth I will never have a problem with them. If one seeks to obstruct truth from emerging I will have no use for that person. The Posners and Bugliousi's of the world will have to live with themselves. If anyone wants to go through my points and/or answer my questions I am happy to move forward. As Martin said:

"I'am going to predict another thing:

Let's say my upcoming work will convince everybody that the Location of the POI is in both Altgens6+7 in the same place.....

you and other will say thats no proof...just a coincidence. Thats just a pocket in the background. Isn't it?

Welcome in the mad world of the JFK assassiantion forums."

It is that I don't have time for.

My best,

Doug

[Doug Weldon]

I have no interest in getting bogged down in this redux; but do want to clarify one point:

There is little doubt from my standpoint that Weldon coached Nick Prencipe to change his statement about where he saw the hole in the windshield, which he defined in his interview with me (low on the passenger side). Apparently, when I was allowed to interview him first, nobody thought that I would ask him for a location; but I did.

When Weldon interviewed him, Nick could no longer recall just where the hole was. That was very convenient. It also suited Weldon's theory, which necessitates a *hole* near the supposed *spiral nebulae* spot.

All this is spelled out in my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave, 2001, which I hope to have scanned in at my site in the near future.

Pamela,

In Weldon's initial interview with Prencipe, Prencipe told him the hole he saw was low on the passenger side, just a couple inches above the bottom. I have the audio of that interview. Rather than ask Prencipe how confident he was of that location, like Weldon had done about whether or not there was a through and through hole just a couple of minutes before, asking Prencipe to rate his confidence on a scale of 1 to 100, Weldon actually told Prencipe that others had placed the hole elsewhere and then asked him if he might be in error. I was amazed and found that very poor procedure! What else would he expect Prencipe to say having been given that information other than that, yeah, sure, it's been a long time, I could be mistaken about the location.

Can you recall, or do you have any correspondence, that indicates just when Prencipe started saying he couldn't recall the location where he saw the hole ... or started saying it was in the "correct" spot?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

To be fair, if you are critical of that portion of the tape why don't you transcribe everything that was said at that point? Please feel free to send the tape to Jerry and ask him if it was improper? As I said, go ahead and dismiss Prencipe. I am surprised. This is kind of a cheap shot.

Doug

[Doug Weldon]

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

Josiah:

Which expert do you want me to pay attention to, the purse, the pocket, the apron, the fabric , the dress, or that there is nothing there? I am not a photo expert but I am confident that Martin is very knowledgeable or I don't believe Jerry would have consulted him about comparing the windshields in your article. You were stating your praises until he disagreed with you.

Doug Weldon

[William Plumlee]

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

Josiah:

Which expert do you want me to pay attention to, the purse, the pocket, the apron, the fabric , the dress, or that there is nothing there? I am not a photo expert but I am confident that Martin is very knowledgeable or I don't believe Jerry would have consulted him about comparing the windshields in your article. You were stating your praises until he disagreed with you.

Doug Weldon

Hey! Lets get re-focused.. let us, together..., "keep our eye upon the donut and not upon the hole". We have a good debate going here on some of these threads. I for one have blocked out a few days so I can study what is being presented and put forth as facts. I am learning a few things and I am an "Old Dog". Let us remember that an "EXPERT" in reference to the Kennedy assassination means, "X" is an unknown quantity and "spurt" is a drip under pressure. Which are we?

[Jerry Logan]

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

Josiah:

Which expert do you want me to pay attention to, the purse, the pocket, the apron, the fabric , the dress, or that there is nothing there? I am not a photo expert but I am confident that Martin is very knowledgeable or I don't believe Jerry would have consulted him about comparing the windshields in your article. You were stating your praises until he disagreed with you.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

So you honestly think that A6 looks just like A7 and CE350?

If we did photo lineup and asked who wasn't a member of the gang which of these would the average person say didn't belong?

After Martin's analysis, would you please point out the pencil, pen sized hole in A6 and A7.

I hope you're not relying on Martin just because I asked his opinion. I asked for three opinions and he was in the minority.

Martin is a smart guy with a good eye but I wouldn't want my entire book to rest on what he's actually demonstrated so far.

Jerry

Edited February 26, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I have no interest in getting bogged down in this redux; but do want to clarify one point:

There is little doubt from my standpoint that Weldon coached Nick Prencipe to change his statement about where he saw the hole in the windshield, which he defined in his interview with me (low on the passenger side). Apparently, when I was allowed to interview him first, nobody thought that I would ask him for a location; but I did.

When Weldon interviewed him, Nick could no longer recall just where the hole was. That was very convenient. It also suited Weldon's theory, which necessitates a *hole* near the supposed *spiral nebulae* spot.

All this is spelled out in my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave, 2001, which I hope to have scanned in at my site in the near future.

Pamela,

In Weldon's initial interview with Prencipe, Prencipe told him the hole he saw was low on the passenger side, just a couple inches above the bottom. I have the audio of that interview. Rather than ask Prencipe how confident he was of that location, like Weldon had done about whether or not there was a through and through hole just a couple of minutes before, asking Prencipe to rate his confidence on a scale of 1 to 100, Weldon actually told Prencipe that others had placed the hole elsewhere and then asked him if he might be in error. I was amazed and found that very poor procedure! What else would he expect Prencipe to say having been given that information other than that, yeah, sure, it's been a long time, I could be mistaken about the location.

Can you recall, or do you have any correspondence, that indicates just when Prencipe started saying he couldn't recall the location where he saw the hole ... or started saying it was in the "correct" spot?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

To be fair, if you are critical of that portion of the tape why don't you transcribe everything that was said at that point? Please feel free to send the tape to Jerry and ask him if it was improper? As I said, go ahead and dismiss Prencipe. I am surprised. This is kind of a cheap shot.

Doug

To be *fair* ... I told Pamela that in the interview I heard Prencipe told you it was low on the passenger side just like he told her. It is my opinion that telling him others put the hole elsewhere and then asking him if he could be mistaken was poor procedure. Others, including Jerry, may or may not agree.

No cheap shot involved .... given what you dish out, one wouldn't expect one opinion of mine to elicit such a squeal. As for Jerry and a copy of your interview tape .... consider it done. :-)

Barb :-)

[William Plumlee]

xxxxx

You guys are going into, "in-fighting", and are starting to loose your audience. That seems to always happen when the so called research community tries to resolve matters. Put your egos on the shelf and get back to the basics. Lets say the damn shot missed and is in the grass and there is no hole in the window. Was there a shot fired? If not then why the hell are we here. We are not here to prove who is right and who is wrong. Lay it out, and let your audience make the critical decisions.... geese grow up or move out.

Edited February 27, 2010 by William Plumlee

[Doug Weldon]

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

Josiah:

Which expert do you want me to pay attention to, the purse, the pocket, the apron, the fabric , the dress, or that there is nothing there? I am not a photo expert but I am confident that Martin is very knowledgeable or I don't believe Jerry would have consulted him about comparing the windshields in your article. You were stating your praises until he disagreed with you.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

So you honestly think that A6 looks just like A7 and CE350?

If we did photo lineup and asked who wasn't a member of the gang which of these would the average person say didn't belong?

After Martin's analysis, would you please point out the pencil, pen sized hole in A6 and A7.

I hope you're not relying on Martin just because I asked his opinion. I asked for three opinions and he was in the minority.

Martin is a smart guy with a good eye but I wouldn't want my entire book to rest on what he's actually demonstrated so far.

Jerry

Jerry:

As I've noted before I do not believe that CE 350 is the windshield that was in the limo in Dallas. Also, as I told Josiah I had consulted other experts in photography before and I didn't wait all of these years to hope that I could jump on this forum and hope somewhat like Martin would come forward. If there are two other opinions about the windshield comparison I would respond as Josiah would and ask you to post them and give Martin the opportunity to defend his position. I thought you had stated before that you did not believe there could be a valid comparison of the windshiels now.

Best,

Doug

[William Plumlee]

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

Josiah:

Which expert do you want me to pay attention to, the purse, the pocket, the apron, the fabric , the dress, or that there is nothing there? I am not a photo expert but I am confident that Martin is very knowledgeable or I don't believe Jerry would have consulted him about comparing the windshields in your article. You were stating your praises until he disagreed with you.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

So you honestly think that A6 looks just like A7 and CE350?

If we did photo lineup and asked who wasn't a member of the gang which of these would the average person say didn't belong?

After Martin's analysis, would you please point out the pencil, pen sized hole in A6 and A7.

I hope you're not relying on Martin just because I asked his opinion. I asked for three opinions and he was in the minority.

Martin is a smart guy with a good eye but I wouldn't want my entire book to rest on what he's actually demonstrated so far.

Jerry

Jerry:

As I've noted before I do not believe that CE 350 is the windshield that was in the limo in Dallas. Also, as I told Josiah I had consulted other experts in photography before and I didn't wait all of these years to hope that I could jump on this forum and hope somewhat like Martin would come forward. If there are two other opinions about the windshield comparison I would respond as Josiah would and ask you to post them and give Martin the opportunity to defend his position. I thought you had stated before that you did not believe there could be a valid comparison of the windshiels now.

Best,

Doug

".... TEA ANYONE?...".