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

[Josiah Thompson]

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 :-)

I've done interviews with witnesses in criminal and civil cases for the last thirty-five years. This is just outrageous. It goes beyond the bounds of what any reasonable interviewer should do. If I did this in a criminal case to get a witness to say he was unsure about what he had told me earlier... and the attorney found out about it... he would have laughed at me uproariously. Why? Because the mistake is so obvious and accomplishes nothing. By doing this, the interviewer betrays his bias and accomplishes exactly nothing. In short, it's a really stupid thing to do.

Josiah Thompson

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

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.

I'm confused.

If it's left of center ( when facing the car ) i assume that's facing the FRONT of the car, doesn't that position the hole on the drivers side. ?

Edited February 27, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If I understand what you are showing, this confirms the existence of a through-and-through hole at the location of the spiral nebula. And if that is right, how can Josiah, Barb, and others continue with their ridiculous charade? Great work!

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

Edited February 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

I'LL BE BACK WITH A COUPLE MORE...B

"December 2, 1998

[received 1/12/99]

Dear Mr. Palamara,

In reply to your letter in regard to the events at Parkland Hospital on

that fateful date November 22, 1963.

I was present at Parkland Hospital on that date in my role as a 2nd year

medical student. I observed President Kennedy's limousine outside the

emergency entrance. Another student and I went closer to observe the

limousine and the damage to the front windshield. Secret Service agents

appeared and moved the car to another location.

There was a bullet hole in the windshield.

I believe that the entire story has never been told.

Sincerely,

Evalea Glanges, M.D. "

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/glanges.html

FLIPPED

Edited February 27, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Can you flip the first photo? If that is Clint Hill, it has been printed with a left-right reversal to mislead the viewer. The reddish colored star-like images are obviously completely different than the spiral nebula in the Altgens photo, which, I take it, Jack has now confirmed has a though-and-through hole in the middle. This case certainly appears to be closed!

I'LL BE BACK WITH A COUPLE MORE...B

Edited February 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

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 :-)

Barb:

Yes, ths is correct. Please note "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." Think what you want to think. Feel free to share a copy with Jerry. Thompson's feigned indignance is absolutely ludicrous. It is laughable. Did I suggest any location to Nick as to where I thought he should have seen the hole? I simply asked him if he could have been mistaken about the location. He could have respionded no, he was not mistaken.I would have done that with anyone whose account I was going to present. Nick clarified his position in his e-mails. Did Nick sound like I was strong-arming him? I would never present a witness in court without asking them logical questions that would come up. Has Thompson ever been in court? We have used investigators many times. If someone came back without asking questions I would send out an FIO (further investigation order) and that investigaor would not be employed long. In virtually every case I have ever been involved with I never had two witnesses describe something the same way. There were witnesses that saw the hole in different locations. I would expect that. However, each of them saw only one hole. Did Nick, in my tape or Pamela's have any question that he saw a hole? I did not ask him the 1-100 question because I already had a copy of Pamela's interview with him. Have you read Elizabeth Loftus on eye-witness testimony. Again, if I askedyou who was at your 30th birthday party and you named someone who was there and two other people said that person was not there would it be improper to ask you if you could have been mistaken about that person being there? I I have practiced law over 31 years. Does Jerry talk to witnesses before going to court? I am starting to understand some people better on this forum. Are you going to respond to points I raised or just focus on diversions. Dismiss Nick if you wish. I am not suggesting anything to you. Let's discuss the article and quit creating diversions.Do you believe it is wrong to mischaracterize witnesses such as referring to trained police officers as "casual observers" or leaving out witnesses altogether as was done with Whitaker? That's what was done in your article and one of my questions is why was that done?Also, as I listened to the tape again it was very obvious that Nick and Greer remained friends and that when Nick was given a station that Greer would stop by to see him as he lived nearby. Why would Nick lie abour Greer telling him that "Nick, you should have been there. Shots were coming from anywhere. One came through the windshield and almost hit me." Nick's e-mails are on this thread. His own words. not mine. Some people need to get real.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

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 :-)

Barb:

Yes, ths is correct. Please note "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." Think what you want to think. Feel free to share a copy with Jerry. Thompson's feigned indignance is absolutely ludicrous. It is laughable. Did I suggest any location to Nick as to where I thought he should have seen the hole? I simply asked him if he could have been mistaken about the location. He could have respionded no, he was not mistaken.I would have done that with anyone whose account I was going to present. Nick clarified his position in his e-mails. Did Nick sound like I was strong-arming him? I would never present a witness in court without asking them logical questions that would come up. Has Thompson ever been in court? We have used investigators many times. If someone came back without asking questions I would send out an FIO (further investigation order) and that investigaor would not be employed long. In virtually every case I have ever been involved with I never had two witnesses describe something the same way. There were witnesses that saw the hole in different locations. I would expect that. However, each of them saw only one hole. Did Nick, in my tape or Pamela's have any question that he saw a hole? I did not ask him the 1-100 question because I already had a copy of Pamela's interview with him. Have you read Elizabeth Loftus on eye-witness testimony. Again, if I askedyou who was at your 30th birthday party and you named someone who was there and two other people said that person was not there would it be improper to ask you if you could have been mistaken about that person being there? I I have practiced law over 31 years. Does Jerry talk to witnesses before going to court? I am starting to understand some people better on this forum. Are you going to respond to points I raised or just focus on diversions. Dismiss Nick if you wish. I am not suggesting anything to you. Let's discuss the article and quit creating diversions.Do you believe it is wrong to mischaracterize witnesses such as referring to trained police officers as "casual observers" or leaving out witnesses altogether as was done with Whitaker? That's what was done in your article and one of my questions is why was that done?Also, as I listened to the tape again it was very obvious that Nick and Greer remained friends and that when Nick was given a station that Greer would stop by to see him as he lived nearby. Why would Nick lie abour Greer telling him that "Nick, you should have been there. Shots were coming from anywhere. One came through the windshield and almost hit me." Nick's e-mails are on this thread. His own words. not mine. Some people need to get real.

Doug Weldon

One small correction. I stated "

In virtually every case I have ever been involved with I never had two witnesses describe something the same way. There were witnesses that saw the hole in different locations. "

The word "something" should be "everything."If we didn't have people (investigators)clarify things I could train a monkey to go up to a door with a tape recorder wearing a sign saying "Please push record and tell me your account."

Doug

[Bernice Moore]

Dr.Crenshaw....ama/jama..report by aguilar ( SOME APPARENTLY STILL DOUBT THAT DR CRENSHAW WAS IN THE PARKLAND OR WITH THE PRESIDENT THIS IS FOR THEIR INFORMATION BELOW...

3) Lundberg sought to impugn Crenshaw's book describing it as "a sad

fabrication based on unsubstantiated allegations" for Crenshaw's

descriptions of JFK's wounds which suggested a shot from the front.

Parkland physician witnesses were presented in JAMA to refute Crenshaw's

conspiracy-supporting wound descriptions. JAMA failed to acknowledge,

however, that the very witnesses Breo used to disprove Crenshaw's

assertions, Drs. Perry, Baxter, McClelland and Jenkins gave eerily similar

wound descriptions to those of Crenshaw in 1963 and 1964 - when,

presumably, their recollections were fresher and more reliable, and, when

they were not being pressured by the AMA/JAMA to give the 'correct' wound

descriptions

4) The AMA/JAMA falsely suggested that Crenshaw's observations were

worthless as he was not even in JFK's trauma room. That Crenshaw was

present was sworn to by two of JAMA's own interviewees, Drs. Baxter and

McClelland, before the Warren Commission, and is also confirmed by the

Warren testimonies of three other witnesses (6H32, 40, 60, 80 & 131).

AMA/JAMA interviewee Robert McClelland, MD even told Breo that Crenshaw was

in JFK's trauma room, yet JAMA printed the false slander anyhow, and

apparently without further pursuing the easily found truth. Had a

legitimate "peer reviewer" been used by JAMA this error, and myriad others,

would have never appeared on its pages.

) The Dallas Morning News and AMA/JAMA derided Crenshaw's claim that he'd

picked up a call from LBJ while caring for the mortally wounded Oswald. The

New York Times pointed out, however, that Charles R. Baxter, MD, the

JAMA-cited physician who denied Crenshaw's claim, was not even in the

operating room when the call he disputed came in. Moreover, The New York

Times also noted that another Parkland physician who was there, Philip

Williams, MD, did remember such a call and had mentioned it to others for

years. Moreover the former chief Parkland hospital operator claimed in a

letter to the Dallas Morning News that she clearly recalled LBJ's call.

�The News� refused to publish her letter and no retraction or correction of

this error was ever made by AMA/JAMA.

THE TWO BELOW ARE FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS...B

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=172539

This is from the Executive Session on April 30, 1964.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=172849

Some other witness documentation of the limo and windshield.

via you tube..TMWKK

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

There is also a contemporaneous confirmation of what she said on 11.22.63 in Conspiracy of Silence, p. 105:

"When I walked back into the hall, Evalea Glanges, a medical student, was standing by the nurses' station. She told me a most peculiar story. While we had been working on President Kennedy, she was outside in the emergency room parking lot. Standing beside the President's limousine, she pointed out to another medical student that there was a bullet hole in the windshield. Upon over-hearing her comment, a Secret Service agent nervously jumped into the car and sped away".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...60&start=60

Subject: Larry HANCOCK .heard tape La conf..windshield hole

BY LARRY Not to cloud the issue but the lack of physical evidence might be partially explained by the statement of the glass expert from Ford who described the secret replacement of the windshield.

I'm sure that story is archived on the forum somewhere - and certainly it has been challenged. But having heard the taped interview with him, presented at a Lancer conference, there is little doubt that he sounded sincere in describing his orders replace a window with a hole in it - and his wife sounded absolutely terrified that he was even talking about it decades later, she made a number of attempts to shut him up during the interview.And I for one have to view Johnson's order to rework that limo so quickly as highly suspicious....its not like he could not have found another "ride" and surely he had more important things on his mind.

I wouldn't have been surprised to have found a hole in the floorboards either.

-- Larry

Shortcut to: http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...opic_page=2#top SORRY THIS LINK TO LANCER IIS BROKEN..

Edited February 27, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Doug Weldon]

Dr.Crenshaw....ama/jama..report by aguilar

3) Lundberg sought to impugn Crenshaw's book describing it as "a sad

fabrication based on unsubstantiated allegations" for Crenshaw's

descriptions of JFK's wounds which suggested a shot from the front.

Parkland physician witnesses were presented in JAMA to refute Crenshaw's

conspiracy-supporting wound descriptions. JAMA failed to acknowledge,

however, that the very witnesses Breo used to disprove Crenshaw's

assertions, Drs. Perry, Baxter, McClelland and Jenkins gave eerily similar

wound descriptions to those of Crenshaw in 1963 and 1964 - when,

presumably, their recollections were fresher and more reliable, and, when

they were not being pressured by the AMA/JAMA to give the 'correct' wound

descriptions

4) The AMA/JAMA falsely suggested that Crenshaw's observations were

worthless as he was not even in JFK's trauma room. That Crenshaw was

present was sworn to by two of JAMA's own interviewees, Drs. Baxter and

McClelland, before the Warren Commission, and is also confirmed by the

Warren testimonies of three other witnesses (6H32, 40, 60, 80 & 131).

AMA/JAMA interviewee Robert McClelland, MD even told Breo that Crenshaw was

in JFK's trauma room, yet JAMA printed the false slander anyhow, and

apparently without further pursuing the easily found truth. Had a

legitimate "peer reviewer" been used by JAMA this error, and myriad others,

would have never appeared on its pages.

) The Dallas Morning News and AMA/JAMA derided Crenshaw's claim that he'd

picked up a call from LBJ while caring for the mortally wounded Oswald. The

New York Times pointed out, however, that Charles R. Baxter, MD, the

JAMA-cited physician who denied Crenshaw's claim, was not even in the

operating room when the call he disputed came in. Moreover, The New York

Times also noted that another Parkland physician who was there, Philip

Williams, MD, did remember such a call and had mentioned it to others for

years. Moreover the former chief Parkland hospital operator claimed in a

letter to the Dallas Morning News that she clearly recalled LBJ's call.

�The News� refused to publish her letter and no retraction or correction of

this error was ever made by AMA/JAMA.

THE TWO BELOW ARE FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS...B

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=172539

This is from the Executive Session on April 30, 1964.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=172849

Some other witness documentation of the limo and windshield.

via you tube..TMWKK

Subject: Larry HANCOCK .heard tape La conf..windshield hole

BY LARRY Not to cloud the issue but the lack of physical evidence might be partially explained by the statement of the glass expert from Ford who described the secret replacement of the windshield.

I'm sure that story is archived on the forum somewhere - and certainly it has been challenged. But having heard the taped interview with him, presented at a Lancer conference, there is little doubt that he sounded sincere in describing his orders replace a window with a hole in it - and his wife sounded absolutely terrified that he was even talking about it decades later, she made a number of attempts to shut him up during the interview.

And I for one have to view Johnson's order to rework that limo so quickly as highly suspicious....its not like he could not have found another "ride" and surely he had more important things on his mind.

I wouldn't have been surprised to have found a hole in the floorboards either.

-- Larry

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:

Shortcut to: http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...opic_page=2#top SOORY THIS LINK TO LANCER IIS BROKEN..

Bernice,

Again, they seemed to be very concerned about establishing that there are no perforations. If it wasn't a concern again, like the FBI and Ferguson, why would they make such an issue of something that was not there. Great Post!

Doug

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Quote:

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.

I'm confused.

If it's left of center ( when facing the car ) i assume that's facing the FRONT of the car, doesn't that position the hole on the drivers side. ?

Hi Robin .... not in the U.S. As you stand in front of the car and face the hood ornament ... and place one hand on each side of the hood ornament, the left hand will be on the passenger side of the car.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Bernice Moore]

YOUR WELCOME I BELIEVE I HAVE ALL THE CORRECTIONS AND THE LINKS WORKING NOW EXCEPT THE ONE, TO LANCER BUT I SHALL HAVE A FURTHER LOOK IN THE DUNGEON...TAKE CARE ALL PLEASE EXCUSE CAPS THAT TIME OF NIGHT..TXS..

IT REMINDS ONE OF THE THE BAD GUYS TALKING OF AN ACCIDENT THAT HAS NOT OCURRED AS YET BUT THEY KNOW IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN...BECAUSE THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR SETTING IT UP...B

Edited February 27, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

OOPS DOUBLE...DELETED

Edited February 27, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

WOW A TRIPLE BINGO ...BUT NO PRIZE DELETED... B

Edited February 27, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

Quote:

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.

I'm confused.

If it's left of center ( when facing the car ) i assume that's facing the FRONT of the car, doesn't that position the hole on the drivers side. ?

Hi Robin .... not in the U.S. As you stand in front of the car and face the hood ornament ... and place one hand on each side of the hood ornament, the left hand will be on the passenger side of the car.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Yes, the hole was on the driver's side.

[Jack White]

Can you flip the first photo? If that is Clint Hill, it has been printed with a left-right reversal to mislead the viewer. The reddish colored star-like images are obviously completely different than the spiral nebula in the Altgens photo, which, I take it, Jack has now confirmed has a though-and-through hole in the middle. This case certainly appears to be closed!

I'LL BE BACK WITH A COUPLE MORE...B

Jim...that was intentionally flipped when first posted, as was explained at the time, and again by Bernice.

But yes, it is misleading.

Jack