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

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

I am asking why the three of you treated Ellis the way you did in your article? What information did you have in dismissing him as a "casual observer"? You wrote the article, not me. That is the question that is among many that it appears to me is constantly being avoided. My questions about your article are spelled out in several posts. After all this time why don't one of you simply answer the questions in the first post. I do not understand why they are so hard to answer or why it appears tou are refusing to answer them. I did not publish the article on this and other forums. The three of you did. Josiah says all of you contributed to the writing. Why can't you respond as you promised to do? Why does Josiah not defend anything he wrote about the evidence and witnesses (except the Altgen's photo)It is one diversion after another. If you canno t defend your article simply say so and we can stop wasting everyone's time. My guess is that you wrote the article without knowing much about any of the witnesses. Prove me wrong. Josiah admitted he knew nothing about Glanges. Once again, why did you leave out Whitaker? Geesh!

Doug

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

I am asking why the three of you treated Ellis the way you did in your article? What information did you have in dismissing him as a "casual observer"? You wrote the article, not me. That is the question that is among many that it appears to me is constantly being avoided. My questions about your article are spelled out in several posts. After all this time why don't one of you simply answer the questions in the first post. I do not understand why they are so hard to answer or why it appears tou are refusing to answer them. I did not publish the article on this and other forums. The three of you did. Josiah says all of you contributed to the writing. Why can't you respond as you promised to do? Why does Josiah not defend anything he wrote about the evidence and witnesses (except the Altgen's photo)It is one diversion after another. If you canno t defend your article simply say so and we can stop wasting everyone's time. My guess is that you wrote the article without knowing much about any of the witnesses. Prove me wrong. Josiah admitted he knew nothing about Glanges. Once again, why did you leave out Whitaker? Geesh!

Doug

No disrespect, intended, Doug, but do you even bother to read what I write? Or Jerry or Tink either? I have answered your question on the scope of our article and on Whitaker not be included several times now. Tink replied to you on that one as well. But you don't like the answer, I guess, so you keep repeating it like nothing has been addressed.

I have addressed Dudman. We are in the middle of Prencipe. I thought I'd start Ellis by asking you what he told you. I don't see the need to "defend" our article against anything ... you have offered nothing but waxing generalities and speculative airy questions. Our article tells you why we did not find the witnesses you are so fond of as reliable to having seen a through and through perforation. Nonetheless, I agreed to respond and explain with some specificity, explaining the reasoning. I feel like I am wasting my time. If you are going to keep asking the questions like nothing has been already addressed, then you are wasting all of our time.

You tell me what you want to do. Shall I continue responding and addressing the other witnesses and issues you raised, or like the ones already addressed, will you keep posting that nothing is being addressed and making speculative swipes about us? Ellis has a major credibility problem ... more than we knew, because of what you claim he told you about putting a pencil through the hole he says he saw. But trying to get anything specific out of you is proving impossible. You claim you were able to corroborate everything Whitaker told you ... but when asked, 3 times now, I think, what those things are, you come back with another rant on all you have done and how no one is addressing your issues ... then criticize us for not addressing Whitaker... and you don't answer the question.

You keep making claims about Dudman ... what he went through, that there was fear there, that he had no doubt he saw a hole. But you offer no support. What Dudman wrote does not say that, and what his friend Livingston wrote flat out says Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a perforating hole or not. Glanges showed up at a time she was working with Crenshaw and he was writing his book. Not impressive. She's dead, we couldn't interview her. But, didn't you? Where are some specifics? Why didn't you show her some of the pics taken at Parkland and see if she could identify herself or others? Her story about the secret service taking off in the car and nearly pulling her arm off (whatever) makes no sense.

You say you are open to give and take, to people disagreeing with you, etc, but that is not proving to be the case, imo. Again, you distract from what it is you keep saying you want. I've begun to think that you just may not really want to hear it at all. You've got too much riding on your take on these witnesses ... which unfortunately means ignoring things that directly impact their credibility. Make up your mind as to what you want. If you want me to continue going through these witnesses and clearly defining my thinking ... I will. If not ... I am not going to waste my time. Lurkers I hear from from time to time are watching and eager to see the details on the witnesses as well as what all you have to support your many contentions. I'd like to see it through. The choice is yours.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

I understand. But, with all due respect; after twenty plus pages on a tight thread, what do we really know at this point? I don't mean to be disrespectful but its the professional tone which I see deteriorating. BUT! What do I know? I'M just a eight hundred pond guerilla in the room.

If you find how I asked Doug for what Ellis told him disrespectful, then you are a very sensitive gorilla (or guerilla?).<g> I agree things have become tangled and deteriorating on several levels. It's not unusual on forums such as this, but unfortunate. I like your donut comment.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[William Plumlee]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

I understand. But, with all due respect; after twenty plus pages on a tight thread, what do we really know at this point? I don't mean to be disrespectful but its the professional tone which I see deteriorating. BUT! What do I know? I'M just a eight hundred pond guerilla in the room.

If you find how I asked Doug for what Ellis told him disrespectful, then you are a very sensitive gorilla (or guerilla?).<g> I agree things have become tangled and deteriorating on several levels. It's not unusual on forums such as this, but unfortunate. I like your donut comment.

Bests,

Barb :-)

"... If you find how I asked Doug for what Ellis told him disrespectful, then you are a very sensitive gorilla (or guerilla?).<g> I agree things have become tangled and deteriorating on several levels. It's not unusual on forums such as this, but unfortunate. I like your donut comment. ..".

I used to fight guerilla warfare and after retirement I put on a lot of weight, because of those, "donuts".

".... Guerrilla warfare is the irregular warfare and combat in which a small group of combatants use mobile military tactics in the form of ambushes and raids. ...". You have a "guerrilla combatant" as well as a Gorilla, in the room. And I am not being disrespectful, nor you.

I'm thick skinned, believe me.

Edited February 28, 2010 by William Plumlee

[Pamela Brown]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

I understand. But, with all due respect; after twenty plus pages on a tight thread, what do we really know at this point? I don't mean to be disrespectful but its the professional tone which I see deteriorating. BUT! What do I know? I'M just a eight hundred pond guerilla in the room.

It seems to me that the framework of the debate is faulty, and that the debacle we are seeing is the consequence of that fact.

Each side pushes whether or not there were a t&t hole in the windshield. As we have been given so-called *evidence* that has been suppressed, altered, dribbled out in little bits, and who knows what else, what if we were to acknowledge the possibility that we do not have everything we need to come to an either-or-conclusion at this time?

Something happened, something odd or unusual occurred to the primary crime scene, the limo, and all the PH witnesses' statements attest to that. They spoke about what they thought they saw. They spoke honestly. They spoke with conviction. They might have been mistaken, they might have been told by someone on the scene (for some reason) that there was a 'hole' and they rushed to see for themselves. The damage may have been caused by something else -- gore and brain tissue on the windshield reflecting light, for example. Or they might have been right, but got the location wrong because things moved so quickly and the limo was covered and whisked away from PH soon after 1 p.m. Weldon imo correctly promotes the value of these witnesses, but does them an injustice by trying to change what they said in order to fit into his narrow theory.

There also may have been real windshield damage not to the JFK limo, but to the follow-up car, QMII, for whom there is no documented evidence available even though it was transported back to AAFB and the WHG with SS-100-X and sequestered there with it.

So, difficult as this is for the Weldon camp, perhaps we need to continue to look for additional information. What if we were to acknowledge the two camps and simply discuss which position we find more persuasive at this time? What if we were not to fight over a conclusion, but continue on the path of research on this issue, acknowledging the existing statements and leaving them unchanged?

[William Plumlee]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

I understand. But, with all due respect; after twenty plus pages on a tight thread, what do we really know at this point? I don't mean to be disrespectful but its the professional tone which I see deteriorating. BUT! What do I know? I'M just a eight hundred pond guerilla in the room.

It seems to me that the framework of the debate is faulty, and that the debacle we are seeing is the consequence of that fact.

Each side pushes whether or not there were a t&t hole in the windshield. As we have been given so-called *evidence* that has been suppressed, altered, dribbled out in little bits, and who knows what else, what if we were to acknowledge the possibility that we do not have everything we need to come to an either-or-conclusion at this time?

Something happened, something odd or unusual occurred to the primary crime scene, the limo, and all the PH witnesses' statements attest to that. They spoke about what they thought they saw. They spoke honestly. They spoke with conviction. They might have been mistaken, they might have been told by someone on the scene (for some reason) that there was a 'hole' and they rushed to see for themselves. The damage may have been caused by something else -- gore and brain tissue on the windshield reflecting light, for example. Or they might have been right, but got the location wrong because things moved so quickly and the limo was covered and whisked away from PH soon after 1 p.m. Weldon imo correctly promotes the value of these witnesses, but does them an injustice by trying to change what they said in order to fit into his narrow theory.

There also may have been real windshield damage not to the JFK limo, but to the follow-up car, QMII, for whom there is no documented evidence available even though it was transported back to AAFB and the WHG with SS-100-X and sequestered there with it.

So, difficult as this is for the Weldon camp, perhaps we need to continue to look for additional information. What if we were to acknowledge the two camps and simply discuss which position we find more persuasive at this time? What if we were not to fight over a conclusion, but continue on the path of research on this issue, acknowledging the existing statements and leaving them unchanged?

"... There also may have been real windshield damage not to the JFK limo, but to the follow-up car, QMII, for whom there is no documented evidence available even though it was transported back to AAFB and the WHG with SS-100-X and sequestered there with it. ..".

This came up some years ago in one of the panels, chaired by Congressman Thomas N. Downing before the HSCA was formed. (1974) I was asked about the shots and could one of them have hit another car in the rear, behind the Limo. I told them (staff) I would have no way of knowing. Nothing was said to me at that time about a windshield hole in the Limo. They were thinking in terms of a missed shot.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

"... If you find how I asked Doug for what Ellis told him disrespectful, then you are a very sensitive gorilla (or guerilla?).<g> I agree things have become tangled and deteriorating on several levels. It's not unusual on forums such as this, but unfortunate. I like your donut comment. ..".

I used to fight guerilla warfare and after retirement I put on a lot of weight, because of those, "donuts".

".... Guerrilla warfare is the irregular warfare and combat in which a small group of combatants use mobile military tactics in the form of ambushes and raids. ...". You have a "guerrilla combatant" as well as a Gorilla, in the room. And I am not being disrespectful, nor you.

I'm thick skinned, believe me.

I expected your "guerilla" was a personal play on words of sorts. <g>

And thank you.

Thick skin is required in these forums. I got high boots and a flak jacket years ago too ... they're not bad, but I hate the helmet. lol

Bests,

Barb :-)

[William Plumlee]

"... If you find how I asked Doug for what Ellis told him disrespectful, then you are a very sensitive gorilla (or guerilla?).<g> I agree things have become tangled and deteriorating on several levels. It's not unusual on forums such as this, but unfortunate. I like your donut comment. ..".

I used to fight guerilla warfare and after retirement I put on a lot of weight, because of those, "donuts".

".... Guerrilla warfare is the irregular warfare and combat in which a small group of combatants use mobile military tactics in the form of ambushes and raids. ...". You have a "guerrilla combatant" as well as a Gorilla, in the room. And I am not being disrespectful, nor you.

I'm thick skinned, believe me.

I expected your "guerilla" was a personal play on words of sorts. <g>

And thank you.

Thick skin is required in these forums. I got high boots and a flak jacket years ago too ... they're not bad, but I hate the helmet. lol

Bests,

Barb :-)

Don't buckle the chin strap... you could loose your head.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

"... If you find how I asked Doug for what Ellis told him disrespectful, then you are a very sensitive gorilla (or guerilla?).<g> I agree things have become tangled and deteriorating on several levels. It's not unusual on forums such as this, but unfortunate. I like your donut comment. ..".

I used to fight guerilla warfare and after retirement I put on a lot of weight, because of those, "donuts".

".... Guerrilla warfare is the irregular warfare and combat in which a small group of combatants use mobile military tactics in the form of ambushes and raids. ...". You have a "guerrilla combatant" as well as a Gorilla, in the room. And I am not being disrespectful, nor you.

I'm thick skinned, believe me.

I expected your "guerilla" was a personal play on words of sorts. <g>

And thank you.

Thick skin is required in these forums. I got high boots and a flak jacket years ago too ... they're not bad, but I hate the helmet. lol

Bests,

Barb :-)

Don't buckle the chin strap... you could loose your head.

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

I am asking why the three of you treated Ellis the way you did in your article? What information did you have in dismissing him as a "casual observer"? You wrote the article, not me. That is the question that is among many that it appears to me is constantly being avoided. My questions about your article are spelled out in several posts. After all this time why don't one of you simply answer the questions in the first post. I do not understand why they are so hard to answer or why it appears tou are refusing to answer them. I did not publish the article on this and other forums. The three of you did. Josiah says all of you contributed to the writing. Why can't you respond as you promised to do? Why does Josiah not defend anything he wrote about the evidence and witnesses (except the Altgen's photo)It is one diversion after another. If you canno t defend your article simply say so and we can stop wasting everyone's time. My guess is that you wrote the article without knowing much about any of the witnesses. Prove me wrong. Josiah admitted he knew nothing about Glanges. Once again, why did you leave out Whitaker? Geesh!

Doug

No disrespect, intended, Doug, but do you even bother to read what I write? Or Jerry or Tink either? I have answered your question on the scope of our article and on Whitaker not be included several times now. Tink replied to you on that one as well. But you don't like the answer, I guess, so you keep repeating it like nothing has been addressed.

I have addressed Dudman. We are in the middle of Prencipe. I thought I'd start Ellis by asking you what he told you. I don't see the need to "defend" our article against anything ... you have offered nothing but waxing generalities and speculative airy questions. Our article tells you why we did not find the witnesses you are so fond of as reliable to having seen a through and through perforation. Nonetheless, I agreed to respond and explain with some specificity, explaining the reasoning. I feel like I am wasting my time. If you are going to keep asking the questions like nothing has been already addressed, then you are wasting all of our time.

You tell me what you want to do. Shall I continue responding and addressing the other witnesses and issues you raised, or like the ones already addressed, will you keep posting that nothing is being addressed and making speculative swipes about us? Ellis has a major credibility problem ... more than we knew, because of what you claim he told you about putting a pencil through the hole he says he saw. But trying to get anything specific out of you is proving impossible. You claim you were able to corroborate everything Whitaker told you ... but when asked, 3 times now, I think, what those things are, you come back with another rant on all you have done and how no one is addressing your issues ... then criticize us for not addressing Whitaker... and you don't answer the question.

You keep making claims about Dudman ... what he went through, that there was fear there, that he had no doubt he saw a hole. But you offer no support. What Dudman wrote does not say that, and what his friend Livingston wrote flat out says Dudman never did know if the hole he saw was a perforating hole or not. Glanges showed up at a time she was working with Crenshaw and he was writing his book. Not impressive. She's dead, we couldn't interview her. But, didn't you? Where are some specifics? Why didn't you show her some of the pics taken at Parkland and see if she could identify herself or others? Her story about the secret service taking off in the car and nearly pulling her arm off (whatever) makes no sense.

You say you are open to give and take, to people disagreeing with you, etc, but that is not proving to be the case, imo. Again, you distract from what it is you keep saying you want. I've begun to think that you just may not really want to hear it at all. You've got too much riding on your take on these witnesses ... which unfortunately means ignoring things that directly impact their credibility. Make up your mind as to what you want. If you want me to continue going through these witnesses and clearly defining my thinking ... I will. If not ... I am not going to waste my time. Lurkers I hear from from time to time are watching and eager to see the details on the witnesses as well as what all you have to support your many contentions. I'd like to see it through. The choice is yours.

Barb:

I have quoted Livingston as saying something far different about Dudman and even where he saw the hole. Dudman's language is unambiguous. I spoke to Dudman. I spoke to Livingston.The best explanation about why you did not include Whitaker is that he could have gotten the information from anywhere or to ask why was the vehicle flown to Ford. Why is it that I think none of you had any idea who he was? I sense that everything you know about Whitaker was obtained from me after the article was written. None of you apparently knew about him to even dismiss his account. None of you knew anything about Glanges, whether she was a medical or nursing student. Do you know when her account was filmed by Nigel Turner? Did you know about the convoluted evidence with Ferguson's account, Willard Hess, the problems that the HSCA was having with the limo evidence. Respectfully, I believe it is only me that is providing information and now you want to know everything about Ellis even though I have already said a lot about him. You have only seen a fraction about Prencipe yet the best response is that his account cannot be true because every moment of Gree'rs evening was accounted for or that Nick may not have been sure exactly what time he saw him. Yet, when Taylor signs a prepared affidavit. everything he wrote and said before is dismissed. I outlined in great detail what corroborates Whitaker, the hole, the WH Garage logs and I have a fairly detailed account in MIDP. I explained the huge mess of the varying accounts in the official record. See post 293. Go back to my example of a vase. I came to this forum because I criticized your article. I ask simple questions. Why is Ellis a "casual observer?" You do not know everything he said about a pencil and whatever he said has nothing to do with him being a casual observer. I simply want to know why you weighed the evidence the way that you did. One of the main thrusts of your article was the windshield comparison. Now, even as Jerry posted:

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

I've responded extensively and asked many questions. I do not want this discussion to deteriorate. I am concerned. It simply appears to me that 95% of the information (except for the photographic) is coming from me. If lurkers have questions of either of us they can ask. It was forwarded to me that if I confronted the three of you I was basically going to get an "education." and "be put in my place.' I have learned some things, some of them very important. The Taylor info was valuable. I await Martin's study I wanted to engage smart people and I believe the three of you are very bright. However, I believe your article was reckless and ill conceived and failed to show an understanding of very complex evidence. It is your call. If you want to defend your article and demonstrate an understanding of the evidence I will be glad to respond. Otherwise I would prefer to go back to researching and finishing my book and put a period on this long chapter of my life and move on to more mundane things. I meant it when I said we can disagree and still be friends. However, to engage the three of you I need to know that you understand the evidence here. IMO, most of the responses have been weak and talk about "Possibilities" rather than real evidence or probable circumstances. It has been about diversions rather than substance. I e-mailed Jerry that the law is an unusual profession. You can battle vigorously with someone, go out to lunch with them, battle furiously the rest of the day and then laugh and play cards with them that evening. These are the parameters. Unless both sides have a good knowledge of the witnesses and the evidence we are just wasting everyone's time. When I finish my book and if it's published everyone can become the critic but at that point I'm not coming back to the forum to defend anything. Doug Horne thought this information was extremely important. See Volume 5 pg 1439-1450. He notes, "Most researchers assume that the reason the three episodes that aired in 2003 were suppressed was because the final episode, about LBJ's culpability, was objectionable to Lady Bird Johnson, LBJ's aging widow. I believe that another, equally likely reason for the suppression was the clear and convincing examination of the windshield bullet hole evidence, and the accompanying discussion of the Secret Service's malfeasance in arranging inadequate security for the Dallas motorcade, and in covering up the true damage to the windshield." p.1441

Your call. Josiah?

My best,

Doug

[Josiah Thompson]

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 …

Doug,

I took some time and re-read the critical portion of the transcript that we've been arguing about. I have to tell you that I think I was wrong in criticizing you so vehemently about this. I don't think you did anything that awful. It might have been better had you simply asked the witness if he was sure about the location he observed. But what you did was certainly not that egregious. I've done things like that innumerable times in interviewing witnesses. I think I mistakenly made a mountain out of a mole hill. I would like to apologize to the people like, Tosh Plumlee, who were rightfully unhappy about me junking up a thread that was getting some place. I'm sorry. I hope you will forgive my lapse.

Getting back to the core of the thread. What evidence do you believe actually exists that Altgens #6 shows a bullet hole in the windshield? It would seem to me that everything changes if the socalled "spiral nebula" is really just something in the background and not a defect in the windshield. Hence, I think this would be a really good place to resume a genuine discussion of the evidence uncluttered by extraneous points.

So what do you think?

Josiah Thompson

Edited February 28, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Jack White]

There is no WELDON CAMP, as they keep saying. There is only the TRUTH CAMP and the UNTRUTH CAMP.

Weldon happens to be in the truth camp, with many others of us. I have been in the spiral nebula camp

for more than 20 years. Then Doug came along and gave some meaning to the spiral nebula. I do not

understand the motivation to destroy Doug by the "gang".

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael, Thanks for such a reasonable post. Jim Lewis does not have a lock on this kind of experiment, which could be performed repeatedly with junked cars, a high-velocity weapon, and a firing position of 200 yards. I cannot understand the incapacity to comprehend that (1) JFK has an entrance wound to his throat, (2) the trajectory from the south end of the Triple Underpass lines up perfectly; (3) it would have had to pass through the glass en route to this throat; (4) he had small wounds to the face that appear to have been caused by tiny shards of glass; (5) his military aide was moved from his normal location between Greer and Kellerman to the last car, where otherwise he would have been hit instead; (6) a small spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center is seen in many of the Altgen prints; (7) Martin has confirmed that the defect is in the window and not in the background; (8) many witnesses reported seeing the hole, some at Parkland, some in Washington, others at Ford; (9) Jim Lewis has discovered that a high-velocity bullet makes the sound of a firecracker when it passes through the windshield. The only hypothesis that can explain all these effects is that the shot was fired through the windshield from the location Doug has explored. No alternative hypothesis appears remotely reasonable. When one hypothesis is highly confirmed and there is no reasonable alternative, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, the only available approach to attack the conclusion is by imposing unreasonable demands and advancing unreasonable arguments. Which is further confirmation the hypothesis is true.

Not to deflect the discussion at hand,but I work in the glass industry,and have seen what bullet holes do to glass.I have never known the velocity that bullets keep after impact with laminated glass.Thanks Jim,you have educated me with your last post of how this has been accomplished by Jim Lewis.

Edited February 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

(7) Martin has confirmed that the defect is in the window and not in the background;

Really? And exactly HOW has he done that?????

Edited February 28, 2010 by Don Jeffries

[Michael Crane]

It was a velosity question that I enquired about Jim.Having replaced my share of float,tempered & yes,even laminated glass,I never studied how or where the bullets came to rest.

Thanks again.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Michael Crane