Jack White Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 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 enhancementwhich 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 Jim...The enhancement of the windshield INSIDE shows what can be interpreted as a hole in the same location as the OUTSIDE view which shows the spiral nebula. However, from the INSIDE, the shattered glass around the hole does not assume the spiral nebula shape. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 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 :-) Thanks Barb. Of course, my error ! Cheers. Robin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 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. No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point. 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. I have never heard Pamela's tape. You having a copy of Pamela's tape didn't keep you from asking him the 1-100 question as regards having seen a hole ... as I noted before. You *did* ask the 1-100 question just minutes earlier regarding him having seen a hole. The instead of asking him the same question as to his certainty of the location of the hole he had recalled, you informed him, in a notably different tone, that other witnesses you had talked to placed the hole elsewhere. *Then* you asked him if he could be in error. C'mon, Doug. Have you read Elizabeth Loftus on eye-witness testimony. Again, if I asked you 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. And some need to get a grip. Calm down, Doug. Why do you keep posting these repetitive rants over and over and claiming no one is addressing your "issues" when, as Jerry noted earlier this evening, all 3 of us are engaged in discussing your "issues" with you. I posted a response to your humongous reply to me on the scope of our article and Whitaker just yesterday. This isn't a private conversation between the 4 of us. Lots of other people are posting. We are responding to their points and issues. You are responding to them as well. You responded to my Prencipe post ... Prencipe being another of your issues ... and then Pamela posted something about Prencipe and I responded to her because it is relevant to that issue and I had a question. You responded, got indignant and asked for the transcript of that portion of your interview with him. I transcribed it and posted it. If I hadn't, maybe I would have had time to answer your Prencipe response where you brought in Loftus (yes I am familiar and also aware of her comments on salient points) and the birthday comparison, etc. You posted a couple other things today about what you want, what you expect and that it's not happening. You are creating your own chaos and diversions. Stop whining and give it a chance to happen. Geesh. Go enjoy that weekend you told me about. Perhaps the happy diversion will serve you well. It will me. :-) Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) Thanks Barb.Of course, my error ! Cheers. Robin No prob, Robin .... you leftie drivers! I always find myself walking to the wrong side of the car to get in when in leftie countries.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Edited February 27, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) 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. Of course the damage was on the driver's side, Jack. But that wasn't the issue or the question. Prencipe said it was on the passenger side ... and low, just a couple inches above the frame. Edited February 27, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 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. Robin, You know I love Martin dearly so before you and Bernice get completely outraged it might be helpful to recall what I actually requested. Martin "I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no solution for this crucial part. What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror. Important is: a.) the correct angle of the windshield b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield. Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6." Jerry "It would be very helpful for you to show the model - and tell us what numbers you actually used for a,b, and c. Right now you're just stating conclusions, you're not demonstrating why we should come to the conclusions along with you." You'll note that Martin said he had already built a 3D dummy of the windshield. You'll note that he said three numbers were important in doing it right. So I asked Martin for the three numbers he had already used and for a copy of the 3D dummy he's already completed. If he doesn't want to share that information with me or anyone else that's fine. But I don't see exactly how requesting his estimate of the size of the mirror is imposing an undue burden on him. I mean it doesn't take weeks and weeks of work to report three numbers you already have, does it? My best to you and Bernice, Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 ".... TEA ANYONE?...". Mr. Plumlee, Why have they been hiding you? I'm sure we wouldn't agree on almost everything but you are a delight! Best regards, Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Hi Jerry. Yes, i know that you would never intentionally do anything to harm Martins research, and that you are one of his best supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Hi Jerry.Yes, i know that you would never intentionally do anything to harm Martins research, and that you are one of his best supporters. Thank you Robin. As you know from Duncan's forum, Martin and I go back a long way. Sometimes agreeing and sometimes not. The idea that I could chase Martin away by asking a few questions is insulting to Martin. Martin's not the kind of guy who steps away from a fight. And I've never been able to run him off anything in the 2? years we've been posting together. Lots of people here (definitely not you!) have trouble with the idea that it's possible to respect someone with whom you disagree. I count Martin as a friend and I hope he feels the same. Best to you, Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 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. That would place the hole somewhere in this area. left of centre, a couple inches above the rim of the frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 ".... TEA ANYONE?...". Mr. Plumlee, Why have they been hiding you? I'm sure we wouldn't agree on almost everything but you are a delight! Best regards, Jerry LOL ... agreed. Tosh has certainly said things that made the most sense today. And I agree with what you posted to Robin as well ... the mindset that vigorous debate on the issues and evidence can't happen without personal grudges and mean spiritedness is a foreign concept to me. I have a lot of respect for those who can argue their position well, whatever it might be. Maybe we need a forum picnic.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it. Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article. Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole’s presumed patency by probing it with a pen or a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses ..... The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ...... People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it. Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article. Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole’s presumed patency by probing it with a pen or a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses ..... The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ...... People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it. Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article. Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole’s presumed patency by probing it with a pen or a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses ..... The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ...... People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it. Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article. Barb: This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article. It's difficult to move forward when you keep raising the same issues already addressed, Doug. :-) It may be you don't like the answers, they aren't the answers you want ... whatever. We have both quoted what Jerry, Tink and I noted about the scope of our article in its introduction. You said that, If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. I told you that is exactly what it was; Tink has posted to you that we were involved with that 11-22 and early 11-23 evidence. It seems you do have a problem with it, for once again, you argue Ferguson, Whitaker, Dearborn, Ohio, etc were not beyond the scope. They may not be beyond the scope you would have liked, but they were beyond our intended...and stated in the article intro ... scope. But I have said I am interested in your Whitaker theory and have asked about it, above. As I said before, there's not anything I can really add to the Taylor issue ... it's explained well in our article, imo. Lifton's repeated contacts with the Church Committee and his telling them several times that Taylor was at the FBI exam of the limo (which was an error on his part, Taylor was not present) and reported a through and through hole is what resulted in them contacting Taylor, him seeing the windshield, the affidavit, etc. Taylor saw the damage to the windshield from the passenger seat, in the dark, while on the way from Andrews to the WHG. He said he didn't inspect it once there. He was not present for the FBI exam. He said "hole" in his summary investigative report of the measures taken involving the limo that weekend. Once shown the windshield, he agreed there was no perforation ... of any size. Like it or not, that is the way it went down. We reported what we found and brought those documents forward. Recanted or clarified? In the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Jerry used the word "spot" in some post .... you will have to ask him about that, and about what doubt you say he expressed about the windshield comparisons. I don't recall seeing either comment. On "spot" ... perhaps he used that word to differentiate use of the word "hole" which some people take to always mean a through-and-through perforation and others do not. Take Dudman, one of the witnesses you criticize us for dismissing as a witness to a through and through perforation, for example. In his New Republic piece on 11-21-63, he wrote: A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side. If he was not close enough to see "which side" had the cup-shaped *spot*, then he couldn't tell that it was actually a perforating hole. Which is precisely in keeping with what his long time friend Robert Livingston wrote in Assassination Science: Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole’s presumed patency by probing it with a pen or a pencil. "Presumed patency" - if one can see a complete through and through hole, there is no need for "testing" it with a pen or pencil. Livingston, says Dudman didn't know if the "hole" he saw penetrated the windshield. "Hole" was used to indicate the spot he saw and presumed, speculated, even thought or believed might be a complete perforation, but he was never able to test it to be sure. Dudman has no probative value to a through and through hole in the windshield. He used "hole" without knowing if it was a perforating hole or not. Our conclusion, as stated in the article, was: Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it. That was prefaced by a summary of the evidence that had been ponied up as proof and that we had addressed. I don't think any of us have been shy about standing behind that conclusion ... or why. Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. .... Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. ..... One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it. Thank you for explaining how you came upon Whitaker. Beyond that, what you have written here raises more questions than it answers. What all were you able to corroborate? Seems odd that he would be behind a locked door with 2 subordinates watching some secret thing going on with the limo and then be told by the VP to forget about it. Why would he be in there at all? And why would anyone need to make a "template" of a stock windshield? And, let's assume for a moment that there was some reason the SS (whomever) wanted to hide the amount of damage to the windshield .... why the heck go to all this nonsense when they could do whatever they wanted to the limo within the confines of their own garage without leaving trails and witnesses ... not to mention going through all the baloney of creating false document trails at the garage? At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses ..... The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. ...... People's motivations are hard to figure, especially when they seem to go against what others think of them. But it happens all the time. There's also the possibility that Whitaker is confused about what exactly he saw ... and when he saw it. The limo is on record as having been at Ford just 2 or 3 weeks later. Without knowing what all he said, and what all you found to corroborate it, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate. I understand you are writing a book and may not want to disclose all that information yet. I understand that, but please understand the need for something substantive before one can get too excited about or declare anything one way or the other about your claim/theory. Note to all, I have attempted to make this a more manageable size and just keep in things I wanted to address. Doug's extensive recitation of all the research he did regarding a through and through hole in the windshield and some other questions and items he mentioned can be seen in his post #94 in this thread. While all admirable research efforts, Doug, none of those things, people, etc in Dallas corroborate Whitaker or answer the question I asked in my last post. I left that quoted above at the beginning of this post. If we can stick to Whitaker's claim ... what all he claimed, and what all it is you say you were able to corroborate about Whitaker's claim, that will be a definite help to me in understanding the thrust of your research, your theory and why you think the document trail we have on the limo after 11-24 is false. As for "all the other witnesses" ... they didn't all report the "same defect" ... not even all reported the same location. Between 1963 and 1993 when you spoke to him, Whitaker could have heard about a hole in the windshield from countless sources. I know we do still have some things we are exploring on your original comments on our article ... ie I posted on Prencipe as you requested, and I know you have replied, and I will respond. I included Dudman here because he was an example of a hole not always being a perforating hole, but will address Ellis and any others separately as I did Prencipe. If there is anything I eliminated from here that you want me to address, just hit me with that item again ... in just a wee small chunk.<g> Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Weather has forced a change in my weekend plans. I have no problem with the transcript you posted about Prencipe but I have a real problem with your suggestion that my questioning somehow influenced him. His placement of the hole after a quick look made no difference to me and as you oted I did not try to suggest where he "should have saw it." What was important was that he saw a hole and his conversation with Greer. It was Greer's statement that could have put the hole in one place. Whether you agree or not the questions were totally proper. Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation. I still do not know the context of this supposed dinner conversation with Dudman. Dudman had no question that he saw a hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now