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

[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

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

[Robin Unger]

Josiah / Doug

Clarification.

In Altgens 6 the anomaly appears on the "right side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "upward"

In Altgens 7 the anomaly appears on the "left side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "downward"

This is why i reversed Altgens 7

To make the anomaly appear on the same side of the image for comparison purposes, and to have the mirror angle match.

I could have just as easily reversed altgens 6 it would have given the same effect.

I have been a fence sitter for the last 10-years as most on this forum and others would know.

I get just as many LN as Conspiracy visitores to my image galleries, and that is just fine by me, the images are free to take and be used for either "LN" OR "CONSPIRACY" posts on the various forums.

So as you see Doug there are many impartial researchers, apart from Martin.

Had you spent more time on this forum you would realise that. !

As i have stated many times before on this forum " I HAVE NO AXES TO GRIND " let the chips fall where they may.

MY IMAGE GALLERIES

Edited February 27, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

NARA Image showing Altgens 7 perspective.

"Inside of the windscreen"

The line seen running vertically through the edge of the circle, as Martin pointed out on Duncan's Forum, is actually the edge of the foam packing supporting the windscreen in the crate.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Bernice Moore]

STOP THE PRESSURE....whatever is going on why all of a sudden are some like josiah and jerry pushing and pressing so hard for Martin to post what he has already made clear he has not finished...GIVE THE MAN SOME TIME FELLAS TO FINISH HIS WORK AND RELEASE THEN YOU CAN AND WILL CONTINUE YOUR DITZING..I SEE THIS AS SO UNFAIR HOW CAN YOU GUYS EXPECT MARTIN TO DO So AND yet be CRITICIZING HIM FOR NOT DOING SO WHEN THE WORK IS NOT COMPLETED THIS IS THE IMPRESSION I GOT FROM WHAT I JUST READ..ARE YOU TRYING TO P HIM OFF SO HE WILL LEAVE WITHOUT FINISHING HIS STUDIES..I AM BEGINNING TO WONDER AS THAT IS WHAT APPEARS TO BE COMING ACROSS.back off the man and get to picking at other cherry pits for now josiah and jerry...OR POST YOUR RESEARCH STUDIES AND PROVE HIM WRONG BEFORE HE FINISHES HIS YOU HAVE SO MUCH TO SAY ABOUT IT...WHAT CRUMMY ATTITUDES YOU HAVE JUST SHOWN YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL THAT HE IS DOING SO INSTEAD OF SHOWING YOUR UNGRATITUDE...BUT EASY COME EASY GO WHEN YOUR NOT PRESENTING YOURS RIGHT... IMO....B

Edited February 27, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Robin Unger]

Limo at Parkland.

Credit: Bill Miller.

Large version:

[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

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 :-)

Barb:

Okay. Can we move forward and address the questions I have raised about your article??

Doug

[Robin Unger]

STOP THE PRESSURE....whatever is going on why all of a sudden are some like josiah and jerry pushing and pressing so hard for Martin to post what he has already made clear he has not finished...GIVE THE MAN SOME TIME FELLAS TO FINISH HIS WORK AND RELEASE THEN YOU CAN AND WILL CONTINUE YOUR DITZING..I SEE THIS AS SO UNFAIR HOW CAN YOU GUYS EXPECT MARTIN TO DO So AND yet be CRITICIZING HIM FOR NOT DOING SO WHEN THE WORK IS NOT COMPLETED THIS IS THE IMPRESSION I GOT FROM WHAT I JUST READ..ARE YOU TRYING TO P HIM OFF SO HE WILL LEAVE WITHOUT FINISHING HIS STUDIES..I AM BEGINNING TO WONDER AS THAT IS WHAT APPEARS TO BE COMING ACROSS.back off the man and get to picking at other cherry pits for now josiah and jerry...OR POST YOUR RESEARCH STUDIES AND PROVE HIM WRONG BEFORE HE FINISHES HIS YOU HAVE SO MUCH TO SAY ABOUT IT...WHAT CRUMMY ATTITUDES YOU HAVE JUST SHOWN YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL THAT HE IS DOING SO INSTEAD OF SHOWING YOUR UNGRATITUDE...BUT EASY COME EASY GO WHEN YOUR NOT PRESENTING YOURS RIGHT... IMO....B

You tell them Bernice

Do you gentleman think that you can just knock up one of these 3D studies OVERNIGHT.

It takes weeks of playing with it, in his spare time.

I am sure that the final product will be worth the wait.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Bernice Moore]

THANKS ROBIN, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY KNOW NOT THEY DO NOT KNOW...I HAVE NO IDEA BUT THEY WILL NOT STOP HIM NOR CHASE HIM AWAY IF THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO..TAKE CARE...B

[Doug Weldon]

Josiah / Doug

Clarification.

In Altgens 6 the anomaly appears on the "right side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "upward"

In Altgens 7 the anomaly appears on the "left side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "downward"

This is why i reversed Altgens 7

To make the anomaly appear on the same side of the image for comparison purposes, and to have the mirror angle match.

I could have just as easily reversed altgens 6 it would have given the same effect.

I have been a fence sitter for the last 10-years as most on this forum and others would know.

I get just as many LN as Conspiracy visitores to my image galleries, and that is just fine by me, the images are free to take and be used for either "LN" OR "CONSPIRACY" posts on the various forums.

So as you see Doug there are many impartial researchers, apart from Martin.

Had you spent more time on this forum you would realise that. !

As i have stated many times before on this forum " I HAVE NO AXES TO GRIND " let the chips fall where they may.

MY IMAGE GALLERIES

Robin:

I appreciate that. I am not making judgments about anyone. I am familiar with your photographs. My point to Josiah is that many of the names on this forum are not familiar to me so I have no idea what their position is. You are correct. The more time I am spending on this forum the more I am understanding people better.There are a number of people on this forum I do know. Truth is what matters to me. All I have seen is that even among those who do not believe there is a hole in Altgens-6 they have no idea what it is. There were many people supportive of the article by Thompson, Jerry, and Barb. I started this thread to address the entire article. The article made many conclusions about issues that have nothing to do with Altgens-6. I am afraid that solely trying to focus this discussion on Altgens now diverts attention from the other issues, which is the bulk of the article and genesis of this thread. I simply want to move these issues forward and not allow a diversion or anything else to detract from my points. I am simply saying to anyone that if the article is defensible then let's address it. If Josiah is, as he wrote, not a photographic expert, as I am certainly am not, then let's have the photographic experts address that issue and let's address the issues that all three signed thier name to and others supported. That is not being done. I have confidence that Martin will defend his position well but you are correct, he needs some time. I am hopeful we cannot hide behind personalities or indignation, but let's move this forward.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

The photo of the damage to the windshield FROM THE INSIDE allows this computer enhancement

which delineates the round hole in the middle of the damaged glass around the hole. It is in

the same location as the spiral nebulae from the outside.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

Josiah / Doug

Clarification.

In Altgens 6 the anomaly appears on the "right side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "upward"

In Altgens 7 the anomaly appears on the "left side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "downward"

This is why i reversed Altgens 7

To make the anomaly appear on the same side of the image for comparison purposes, and to have the mirror angle match.

I could have just as easily reversed altgens 6 it would have given the same effect.

I have been a fence sitter for the last 10-years as most on this forum and others would know.

I get just as many LN as Conspiracy visitores to my image galleries, and that is just fine by me, the images are free to take and be used for either "LN" OR "CONSPIRACY" posts on the various forums.

So as you see Doug there are many impartial researchers, apart from Martin.

Had you spent more time on this forum you would realise that. !

As i have stated many times before on this forum " I HAVE NO AXES TO GRIND " let the chips fall where they may.

MY IMAGE GALLERIES

Thanks for the explanation, Robin. I understand why you reversed the image.

Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice, Robin, and Doug, the shills and trolls are out in force! Rarely do we see such an elaborate assortment from the top of the deck to the bottom. The evidence in favor of Doug's position is extensive and varied. It ranges from photographic to medical to acoustical. Jim Lewis has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity bullets through the windshields of abandoned cars from about 200 yards to see if he can hit a dummy in the back seat. He has not only done that but has also discovered (i) that the bullets make the share of a spiral nebula in the windshields and (ii) that, as the pass through, the bullets create the sound of a firecracker. What better empirical proof could we have than this? Many spectators, as we all know, reported that the sound of the first shot was different and that it sounded like that of a "firecracker". The images in these junked cars is the same as the image in the Altgens. Martin has confirmed that the image is in the windshield, not at some distance behind the limo. Josiah has a penchant for absurd theories when the evidence contradicts his position. He has gone so far as to suggest that the throat wound--which was described by Malcolm Perry, M.D., three times as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, which I published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998); drawn in diagrams by Charles Crenshas, M.D., which I also published there; and included in his front-page story in The New York Times by Tom Wicker in the most important story of his career--was actually an exit wound caused by a bone fragment caused by a hit to the back of the head fired from above and behind just as THE WARREN REPORT (1964) proposed. He thereby disqualifies himself not only as a student of the death of JFK but as a competent PI, since no competent PI would even confound the features of this wound (as a clean, small puncture wound) with those of an exit would (irregular, with ragged edges and skin pushed outward). Now he suggests that the spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center is actually a feature of a purse or a dress or some other item belonging to a woman in the background! The situation must be desperate for this man to make himself look like an idiot by advancing these completely ad hoc hypotheses for which there is no evidence. I guess that is what he learned at Yale: that he can discount logic and evidence, because his boyish charm is all that matters! What a farce!

I have made this point before but, given the totality of the evidence--including several small wounds to the face caused by shards of glass, Malcolm Perry's descriptions of the entry wound at the Parkland press conference, the spiral nebulae pattern made by firing high-velocity bullets through the windshields of vehicles and hitting dummies in the back seat, the sound of a firecracker made when that happens, that Martin has confirmed the image is in the windshield and not in the background, the trajectory alignment, the witnesses who saw a hole at the hospital, the articles some of them wrote about it, the reports from Ford, on and on, all of which are highly probable if a bullet had traversed the windshield en route to the throat--the likelihood that there was such a spiral nebula as the result of firing a high-velocity bullet through the windshield is extremely high. Certainly, given the motivation to conceal evidence of conspiracy in this case, it is overwhelmingly more likely that some of these photos were altered to conceal the spiral nebula than it is that the spiral nebula did not exist, as is confirmed by other photographs. It is a common technique to attempt to place greater weight upon photographs in this case than upon witness testimony and other forms of evidence. That is a blunder, insofar as photographs and films require witness authentication to be admissible in courts of law and, as we all know from the study of this case, manipulating X-rays, autopsy photographs, and other photos and films turns out to have been the principal mode of creating a false impression of the evidence in this case, including the backyard photographs. So it is unsurprising in the extreme that the "official photographs" would not show the spiral nebula. What is important is that its existence is confirmed by the convergence of so many other forms of proof, both physical, medical and even acoustical. No other hypothesis appears even remotely capable of explaining all of the evidence.

Josiah / Doug

Clarification.

In Altgens 6 the anomaly appears on the "right side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "upward"

In Altgens 7 the anomaly appears on the "left side" of the mirror, with the mirror angled "downward"

This is why i reversed Altgens 7

To make the anomaly appear on the same side of the image for comparison purposes, and to have the mirror angle match.

I could have just as easily reversed altgens 6 it would have given the same effect.

I have been a fence sitter for the last 10-years as most on this forum and others would know.

I get just as many LN as Conspiracy visitores to my image galleries, and that is just fine by me, the images are free to take and be used for either "LN" OR "CONSPIRACY" posts on the various forums.

So as you see Doug there are many impartial researchers, apart from Martin.

Had you spent more time on this forum you would realise that. !

As i have stated many times before on this forum " I HAVE NO AXES TO GRIND " let the chips fall where they may.

MY IMAGE GALLERIES

Robin:

I appreciate that. I am not making judgments about anyone. I am familiar with your photographs. My point to Josiah is that many of the names on this forum are not familiar to me so I have no idea what their position is. You are correct. The more time I am spending on this forum the more I am understanding people better.There are a number of people on this forum I do know. Truth is what matters to me. All I have seen is that even among those who do not believe there is a hole in Altgens-6 they have no idea what it is. There were many people supportive of the article by Thompson, Jerry, and Barb. I started this thread to address the entire article. The article made many conclusions about issues that have nothing to do with Altgens-6. I am afraid that solely trying to focus this discussion on Altgens now diverts attention from the other issues, which is the bulk of the article and genesis of this thread. I simply want to move these issues forward and not allow a diversion or anything else to detract from my points. I am simply saying to anyone that if the article is defensible then let's address it. If Josiah is, as he wrote, not a photographic expert, as I am certainly am not, then let's have the photographic experts address that issue and let's address the issues that all three signed thier name to and others supported. That is not being done. I have confidence that Martin will defend his position well but you are correct, he needs some time. I am hopeful we cannot hide behind personalities or indignation, but let's move this forward.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Edited February 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Robin:

I appreciate that. I am not making judgments about anyone. I am familiar with your photographs. My point to Josiah is that many of the names on this forum are not familiar to me so I have no idea what their position is. You are correct. The more time I am spending on this forum the more I am understanding people better.There are a number of people on this forum I do know. Truth is what matters to me. All I have seen is that even among those who do not believe there is a hole in Altgens-6 they have no idea what it is. There were many people supportive of the article by Thompson, Jerry, and Barb. I started this thread to address the entire article. The article made many conclusions about issues that have nothing to do with Altgens-6. I am afraid that solely trying to focus this discussion on Altgens now diverts attention from the other issues, which is the bulk of the article and genesis of this thread. I simply want to move these issues forward and not allow a diversion or anything else to detract from my points. I am simply saying to anyone that if the article is defensible then let's address it. If Josiah is, as he wrote, not a photographic expert, as I am certainly am not, then let's have the photographic experts address that issue and let's address the issues that all three signed thier name to and others supported. That is not being done. I have confidence that Martin will defend his position well but you are correct, he needs some time. I am hopeful we cannot hide behind personalities or indignation, but let's move this forward.

Best,

Doug Weldon

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah continues to grasp after straws. Desperate times call for desperate measures. His position verges upon absurdity.

Robin:

I appreciate that. I am not making judgments about anyone. I am familiar with your photographs. My point to Josiah is that many of the names on this forum are not familiar to me so I have no idea what their position is. You are correct. The more time I am spending on this forum the more I am understanding people better.There are a number of people on this forum I do know. Truth is what matters to me. All I have seen is that even among those who do not believe there is a hole in Altgens-6 they have no idea what it is. There were many people supportive of the article by Thompson, Jerry, and Barb. I started this thread to address the entire article. The article made many conclusions about issues that have nothing to do with Altgens-6. I am afraid that solely trying to focus this discussion on Altgens now diverts attention from the other issues, which is the bulk of the article and genesis of this thread. I simply want to move these issues forward and not allow a diversion or anything else to detract from my points. I am simply saying to anyone that if the article is defensible then let's address it. If Josiah is, as he wrote, not a photographic expert, as I am certainly am not, then let's have the photographic experts address that issue and let's address the issues that all three signed thier name to and others supported. That is not being done. I have confidence that Martin will defend his position well but you are correct, he needs some time. I am hopeful we cannot hide behind personalities or indignation, but let's move this forward.

Best,

Doug Weldon

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

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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

Here's the transcript of that section you asked for, Doug. I've already told you my problem with it. At the beginning of the interview, you told Prencipe that you knew Pamela had interviewed him and told him you had a copy of that interview. That's fine. So, you knew what all he was going to say. When you asked him about how certain he was he saw a through and through hole in the windshield, you gave him a scale of 1 to 100 and asked him how certain he was. Why didn't you do that when he told you the location of the hole? Instead you informed him that others placed it elsewhere, then asked him if he could be in error. Had you given him your 1 to 100 scale after he described the location he recalled .... just as you had done a few minutes earlier as regards seeing a hole ... would he have said 100%? He might have. You cut that possibility off at the pass, imo.

Anyway, here it is...

Start at 32:41

Weldon (W): Now you had told Pamela and I guess without without leading you, Nick I am going to ask you again, where do you recall on the windshield that that hole was?

Prencipe (P): Well, it wasn’t in the center, it was more to the, it was more to the left, in other words, left center, left of center, that is facing the car.

W: Okay, so a little bit more – if we use the rearview mirror …

P: Yeah, okay, that’s a good location

W: … as a reference …

P: But not that high, of course.

W: … as a reference point, …

P: Right

W: …would it be to the passenger side or to the driver’s side?

P: To the passenger side.

W: Okay, and if we use it there not that high, how low was that hole that you recall?

P: Well, to the best of my recollection, it was a couple inches above the rim of the frame.

W: The bottom? Okay. Now, now this is very interesting. Now let me just ask you for a practical standpoint, if the bullet entered there, and Greer is in the driver’s seat, how could a bullet entering there almost hit Greer?

P: [laughs] Well, that’s what he said. I didn’t say this was actual or factual, this is what he said.

W: Could, could time –

P: You know, you know one other thing, Bill was really shook up that night …

W: Sure.

P: … he was really shook up and he had a good reason to – now as I understand it, and at the time I didn’t say anything, I wasn’t there, all I’m saying is it’s quite possible he heard other shots and that there were other bullets whizzing around him – what he was saying anyway.

W: Now, Nick, now I am going to tell you as a basis, and Pamela is aware of this also, that I know of at least a couple and mentioned their names, and I’ve talked to Stavis Ellis extensively, and I know I have talked to at least three or four people that saw a bullet hole through the windshield. Now a couple of them describe it in a little bit different location.

P: Okay.

W: Is there any possibility that just time could have effected how certain you are where that bullet hole was in that windshield?

P: No question about it.

W: Okay, so it’s possible that you could be in error about that location?

P: Yes, there is definitely.

W: Okay, okay, good, that’s fair enough. Now what’s very interesting, did you know that Greer was telling people towards the end of his life that there was no damage to that windshield at all?

P: No, I never heard that …

[conversation continued with that and other subjects for about 10 minutes, then Doug did the typical disclaimer thing … we don’t know each other, have never talked, I’ve never given you any information, etc … and brought up not trying to have tainted Prencipe in any way by sending him any info on his research before the interview, and brought up as an example, when he asked Prencipe about the location of the hole in the windshield, saying this at 45:43:]

W: For example, as I asked you about the certainty, could you have been wrong about the location of the hole in the windshield. I did not want to influence you either way. I just want to accept whatever response you would offer.

My problem with it is simply that you did not ask him the certainty question, instead you informed him he was wrong according to other witnesses ... then asked him if it was possible he was in error. That's influence and tainting, imo.

Bests,

Barb :-)