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

[Cliff Varnell]

(James H. Fetzer @ Feb 27 2010, 09:15 PM) *

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,

Always the place to start discussing the JFK assassination! But it isn't enough to point

out the obvious entrance in the throat; we must grasp the fact that the round did not

exit and no round was recovered.

(2) the trajectory from the south end of the Triple Underpass lines up perfectly;

It does? JFK was struck in the throat from the front circa Z190. At Z190 his

head was turned sharply to the right.

The round nicked the right side of his trachea, bruised the tip of his lung,

left a hairline fracture of his right T1 transverse process and an air pocket

overlaying C7 and T1.

This is inconsistent with a shot from the south knoll, to JFK's left.

It is consistent with a shot from Black Dog Man, who had "near

the region of his hands" a "very distinct straight-line feature."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

Rosemary Willis described this individual as a "conspicuous" person

who managed to "disappear the next instant."

Willis 5 (Z202), taken by Phil Willis as a reflex action flinching from the

gunshot. BDM red box upper left corner.

Thanks to Don Roberdeau's analysis of the Zapruder film we can pinpoint

exactly when "the next instant" was -- right before Rosemary's swift

head-snap Z214-17.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Hmmm...conspicuous person with a distinct straight line feature near

the region of their hands who disappears about a second after JFK

was shot in the throat.

Hmmmm....if it could get any more obvious I have no idea how.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

if it could get any more obvious I have no idea how

The critics don't know, but the little girl understands...

Rosemary Willis, a 10-year-old on 11/22, arguably the most important

witness in the case.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Pamela Brown]

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".

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do.

[Josiah Thompson]

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".

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do.

I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable.

This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented.

Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work?

Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield?

[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".

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do.

I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable.

This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented.

Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work?

Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield?

Woman 8 has nothing on her clothing which resembles a spiral nebula.

[Robin Unger]

Scan from Groden's. " The killing of a president "

Edited March 1, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Edited.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert Livingston, M.D., who was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, having supervised an emergency medical facility for injured Okinawans and Japanese prisoners of war during the Battle of Okinawa, told me that it was his conclusion that the bullet had fragmented, with part going down into the lung and the other upward, where it ruptured the tentorium. This is a very tough membrane that covers the cerebellum. He told me that, unless the tentorium had been ruptured, even the impact of two shots--one from behind, the other from in front--would not have been sufficient to disrupt the cerebellum. Since we have numerous, consistent report of cerebellum extruding from the wound, the tentorium had to have been ruptured. It was his opinion, therefore, that President Kennedy had been killed by the causal interaction of three shots: the shot to the throat, a fragment of which ruptured the tentroium, the shot to the back of his head (entering around the EOP), and the shot to his right temple, which was a frangible (or "exploding") bullet, which created shock waves through the brain that blew about half back and to the left with great force--which, of course, is inconsistent with the bulging blob to the right front seen in the Zapruder film. That was his take.

(James H. Fetzer @ Feb 27 2010, 09:15 PM) *

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,

Always the place to start discussing the JFK assassination! But it isn't enough to point

out the obvious entrance in the throat; we must grasp the fact that the round did not

exit and no round was recovered.

(2) the trajectory from the south end of the Triple Underpass lines up perfectly;

It does? JFK was struck in the throat from the front circa Z190. At Z190 his

head was turned sharply to the right.

The round nicked the right side of his trachea, bruised the tip of his lung,

left a hairline fracture of his right T1 transverse process and an air pocket

overlaying C7 and T1.

This is inconsistent with a shot from the south knoll, to JFK's left.

It is consistent with a shot from Black Dog Man, who had "near

the region of his hands" a "very distinct straight-line feature."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

Rosemary Willis described this individual as a "conspicuous" person

who managed to "disappear the next instant."

Willis 5 (Z202), taken by Phil Willis as a reflex action flinching from the

gunshot. BDM red box upper left corner.

Thanks to Don Roberdeau's analysis of the Zapruder film we can pinpoint

exactly when "the next instant" was -- right before Rosemary's swift

head-snap Z214-17.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Hmmm...conspicuous person with a distinct straight line feature near

the region of their hands who disappears about a second after JFK

was shot in the throat.

Hmmmm....if it could get any more obvious I have no idea how.

[John Dolva]

It seems to me that it can be said whether both layers of laminated glass had been cracked. If one considers the crack pattern one may say something about the direction of the impact.

To me it seems that the illumination of the crack is paramount as far as determining what is what. I also don't think that this damage should be considered without also considering the damage to the chrome strip and the sun visor mount with the above in mind.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It is simply unreal how Josiah Thompson, PI, a Yale Ph.D., continues to ignore the basic evidence about the through-and-through hole to the limousine window. I presume we are all aware that the has proposed that the throat wound was actually an exit wound, which was caused by a fragment (of bone or metal) from the shot that hit JFK in the back of the head. The fact that Malcolm Perry, M.D., who performed the tracheostomy through this wound, described it THREE TIMES during the Parkland press conference, a transcript of which I published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), as a wound of entry ("It was coming at him!"), that Charles Crenshaw, M.D., has drawn diagrams of the wound, which was a small, clean puncture wound, which I have also published there, and that Tom Wicker of The New York Times also reported that it had been described as "a wound of entry", which I also published there, does not faze him. Even worse for a PI, if not a Ph.D., the appearance of an exit would caused by a fragment would look entirely different, with an irregular shape and somewhat ragged, blown-out edges. That he would deign to advance an hypothesis so at variance with the available relevant evidence surely earns him a place of honor in the pantheon of obfuscators and dissemblers. It not only impugnes his competence as a PI but his reasoning ability as a Ph.D. Here he simply ignores the convergent medical, photographic, and even acoustical evidence that supports it--as though it did not exist! How many times must I point out that the evidence for a hole in the windshield is simply overwhelming. Since there is no reasonable alternative, it has actually been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, of course, why his arguments and pleadings are so tortuous and strained. Yale must be proud!

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.

QUOTE (Michael Crane @ Feb 28 2010, 12:36 AM) *

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.

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".

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do.

I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable.

This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented.

Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work?

Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield?

[Todd W. Vaughan]

if it could get any more obvious I have no idea how

The critics don't know, but the little girl understands...

Rosemary Willis, a 10-year-old on 11/22, arguably the most important

witness in the case.

Did the critics eat their pork-n-beans?

Edited March 1, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Cliff Varnell]

if it could get any more obvious I have no idea how

The critics don't know, but the little girl understands...

Rosemary Willis, a 10-year-old on 11/22, arguably the most important

witness in the case.

Did the critics eat their pork-n-beans?

They ate more chicken than any man's ever seen.

Hey hey...

[Doug Weldon]

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".

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do.

I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable.

This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented.

Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work?

Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield?

Josiah:

I thank you for your apology. It was a diversion and as you can. see some people are going to leap on anything to support you, as irrational as it may be.. I am very careful in my interviews and I never misrepresent anything. I believe in what Jim, Jack, and Martin are stating. I always, however, speak for myself and there are things that I don't agree upon with Jack or Jim, i.e. I think the cases for Madeline Brown or Judtyh Baker are still lacking in proof. For Altgen's, as Martin said in a recent post on another thread:

Josiah, as i said numberous times before on the other thread, it was work in progress to color Altgens6.

My tranied eye found no solution at this particular place in Altgens. Jerry was drawing my attention to the whole "hole in the windshield" debate on Duncan's forum.

I checked then if the spiral nebula in Altgens7 might be actually in the same place of Altgens6. And yes, it was the case. And i will prove that.

thank you

Martin

We all have to develop thick skin and criticism does not bother me. It is great what Jim Lewis has done with his experiements but I also had done an experiment and if you review my Minnesota presentation or my chapter in MIDP, p. 148 I had noted this before Jim Lewis that a bullet hitting a windshield would sound like a firecracker as so many witnesses described and Lewis has confirmed it and added to it by showing that a target could be hit. I am interested in the totality of the evidence and I remain convinced that none of you understood that in your article. If we had photograpic evidence that there might be a hole in Altgen's but no other corroborative evidence or if we still had the original windshield a debate would be specious. My questions were not answered nor was the twisted evidence addressed by anyone of you. We can go round and round but I need to write my book in an organized way and not in bits and pieces on this forum. It is obvious to me that none of you knew much of anything about the witnesses or the evidence. If othere have questions that is fine and I will lurk here but I don't feel it is fruitful to be like a dog chasing its tail.

My best to you,

Doug

[Doug Weldon]

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".

Weldon is at the center of the discussion on the 'spiral nebulae'. Some of us do not find his arguments on this persuasive. Some do.

I think Pamela has hit the nail on the head. This thread has produced (at least to me) new evidence of great importance concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” We are particularly fortunate in having Altgens photo #6. Altgens was an experienced news photographer and got the focus just right in this photo which he shot with a camera yielding a large negative. The result is a high-resolution photo of the limousine, its windshield and its occupants at Z 255. In the past, it has seemed clear by inspection that what we are seeing as the socalled “spiral nebula” is really something in the background of spectators seen through the windshield. In the past, there have been reports that the “spiral nebula” was really a pattern of folds in some spectator’s dress. Martin Hinrichs has pushed the evidence much farther. By comparing, Altgens #6 with the Couch photograph we can see exactly who the spectators are who are seen through the windshield. We can see the light colored dress of Lady #9, and, just to her left Lady #8. We can see that Lady #8 is either wearing a beige-colored apron or carrying some beige-colored bag that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” in Altgens #6. We have an object that lines up perfectly with the “spiral nebula” and that is somewhat darker than the light-colored dress of Lady #9 just to its right. Position and color of the object fit perfectly. No longer is the claim concerning the “spiral nebula” left necessarily vague. In other words, Martin Hinrichs has produced an evidentiary fit that is truly remarkable.

This changes the logic of the argument concerning whether or not there is a through-and-through hole in the windshield. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped photo #7 that shows damage to the windshield at the location and of the same character as described in Robert Frazier’s notes and photo. Since the head shot intervened between the two photos, it would seem overwhelmingly likely that the damage shown in Altgens #7 came from a bullet fragment hitting the interior side of the windshield. This is, of course, exactly what Frazier found and documented.

Given this advance in our knowledge, it would be useful if Doug Weldon would tell us what he makes of all this. Should we not believe what seems to be the near necessary conclusion springing from Martin Henrich’s work?

Just like with earlier claims that Bill Greer turned around and shot JFK with a chrome revolver, the spiral nebula claim has usually been based upon photos that bear only a distant relationship to Altgens original negative or from pages in a book where the image is distorted by whatever went into the printing process. Pamela put up an enlargement that came from NARA and was made from Altgens’ original negative. Back in 1967, I obtained photos made from the original negative. Pamela’s photo and my photos show the exact same thing. The “spiral negative” appears clearly to be something we are seeing through the windshield. Take a look at these two photos posted earlier on this thread by Robin Unger. Does the “spiral nebula” look anything like the damage to the windshield shown in Altgens #7? Even more importantly, does the “spiral nebula” look anything at all like a through-and-through bullet hit to the windshield?

Josiah:

I thank you for your apology. It was a diversion and as you can. see some people are going to leap on anything to support you, as irrational as it may be.. I am very careful in my interviews and I never misrepresent anything. I believe in what Jim, Jack, and Martin are stating. I always, however, speak for myself and there are things that I don't agree upon with Jack or Jim, i.e. I think the cases for Madeline Brown or Judtyh Baker are still lacking in proof. For Altgen's, as Martin said in a recent post on another thread:

Josiah, as i said numberous times before on the other thread, it was work in progress to color Altgens6.

My tranied eye found no solution at this particular place in Altgens. Jerry was drawing my attention to the whole "hole in the windshield" debate on Duncan's forum.

I checked then if the spiral nebula in Altgens7 might be actually in the same place of Altgens6. And yes, it was the case. And i will prove that.

thank you

Martin

We all have to develop thick skin and criticism does not bother me. It is great what Jim Lewis has done with his experiements but I also had done an experiment and if you review my Minnesota presentation or my chapter in MIDP, p. 148 I had noted this before Jim Lewis that a bullet hitting a windshield would sound like a firecracker as so many witnesses described and Lewis has confirmed it and added to it by showing that a target could be hit. I am interested in the totality of the evidence and I remain convinced that none of you understood that in your article. If we had photograpic evidence that there might be a hole in Altgen's but no other corroborative evidence or if we still had the original windshield a debate would be specious. My questions were not answered nor was the twisted evidence addressed by anyone of you. We can go round and round but I need to write my book in an organized way and not in bits and pieces on this forum. It is obvious to me that none of you knew much of anything about the witnesses or the evidence. If othere have questions that is fine and I will lurk here but I don't feel it is fruitful to be like a dog chasing its tail.

My best to you,

Doug

Not being a photograpic expert Could someone please explain what the big black patch behind and above Kennedy's head is in front of the woman in the Croft slide. i don't have the computer knowledge to post it here.

Doug Weldon

[John Dolva]

bag?