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

[Robin Unger]

Woman (8) in Weigman.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Woman (8) in Weigman.

Very nice job, Robin.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I was asked to post this by Calli Robertson.

Croft Ladies in Betzner 3

Lady (8) can just be seen on the far right of the image.

Posting of the Betzner image reminds me of a question I have always had (may work on it tomorrow).

Betzner and Willis are on an ALMOST IDENTICAL line of sight and snap their pix at almost the same

instant (compare photos). Willis stepped way off the curb to take his photo. He is farther west than

Betzner. Should he (or his shadow) appear in Betzner? I also worry that the man in the foreground

blocks much of the Betzner image, yet I remember trying to find this man in Zapruder in front of

Betzner. Something has always bothered me about these two pix.

Jack

Jack

Calling attention to Croft woman number 8 caused me to do a comparison. The images

do not show the same things. In Croft, the woman seems to be cradling a baby wrapped

in a white blanket IN BOTH ARMS, and wearing a very odd maternity apron.

In Betzner, "a baby IN SHADOW seemingly is held by a harness dangles from the woman's

waist, but she still wears the odd apron with attachments.

It appears that what I interpreted as a white shawl is the woman's blouse.

Very strange. A clearer version of Betzner is needed.

Thanks, Robin.

Jack

Again with the baby!?

There's nothing here that even remotely looks like a baby.

[Pamela Brown]

I agree and disagree, Pamela.

Unless I've been mislead, I believe Doug Weldon was a prosecutor for only a short period of time although he's been a lawyer for most of his life. I don't think it is necessarily the mindset of the prosecutor that causes him problems but rather the mindset of the lawyer.

You vividly described what an historian does. A lawyer is trained from law school on to build cases. I think that is the fundamental problem here for Doug Weldon. His whole interview of Principe goes forward as part of a case-building project. Since he needs Principe's report of seeing a bullet hole, he questions Principe on a very short leash, asking him to confirm what Principe already told you. The historian would have opened up Principe's story... would have asked him how far away from the windshield was he when he saw what he took to be a bullet hole. A historian would have drilled in deeper when Principe said he "got only a glance at it... very quick." A historian would have asked Principe whether the hole he saw could possibly have been not through-and-through. A historian would have asked Principe to explain how he could have met with Greer when it was clear Greer was at Bethesda. Weldon did not do this because to do so might undermine the case he was trying to build. He can claim to be an historian and not a lawyer but his actual actions give it away.

Under a wider horizon, think of the damage lawyers building their cases have done to research in the Kennedy assassination. For my money, we need a lot less advocacy as practiced by Weldon and other lawyers and a lot more genuine research as practiced by you and others. On the bright side, Jerry Logan has shown clearly that even being trained as a lawyer doesn't condemn you to advocacy and its mistakes.

Josiah Thompson

I am now revising my thinking about the issue with Weldon's process based on your input; thanks.

As I have been trained as an historian, studying history in both the US and the UK, with a father who immersed himself in history and took us to visit battefields instead of amusement parks, I do feel that I have some needed credentials for dealing with the complexities of the JFK assassination. However, I did interview Prencipe (even prior to Weldon) and I did not ask most of the questions you have brought up. I wish I had asked him more detailed questions about the windshield, in particular.

I was concerned about coaching him and did not want to taint his testimony by bringing up things I knew were red flags, such as the fact that the location of the 'hole' he thought he saw did not jibe with the reports of any of the other witnesses, he claimed he walked right into the WHG without talking to anyone when the limo and QMII were supposed to be under tight surveillance (not to mention the SS started scouring the car the minute it was brought in), his timeline for viewing the car tended more toward early evening, when the limo did not actually return to the WHG until 9 p.m., not to mention the issues of talking with Greer. I have also since realized that I gave Prencipe too much credit -- whereas he did have credentials to place him on duty with the USPP that day (I verified that with the head of USPP), he had no credentials connecting him to the WHG, much less the limo.

However, as you will see from the emails posted on this forum (without my permission) I did ask him questions about seeing Greer as my chapter "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave, 2002) was going to print. I explained to him that I could not justify what he had said based on the information we have available, and that I would have to say so. That resulted in a negative reaction from him, and at that point we stopped communicating.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I am now revising my thinking about the issue with Weldon's process based on your input; thanks.

As I have been trained as an historian, studying history in both the US and the UK, with a father who immersed himself in history and took us to visit battefields instead of amusement parks, I do feel that I have some needed credentials for dealing with the complexities of the JFK assassination. However, I did interview Prencipe (even prior to Weldon) and I did not ask most of the questions you have brought up. I wish I had asked him more detailed questions about the windshield, in particular.

I was concerned about coaching him and did not want to taint his testimony by bringing up things I knew were red flags, such as the fact that the location of the 'hole' he thought he saw did not jibe with the reports of any of the other witnesses, he claimed he walked right into the WHG without talking to anyone when the limo and QMII were supposed to be under tight surveillance (not to mention the SS started scouring the car the minute it was brought in), his timeline for viewing the car tended more toward early evening, when the limo did not actually return to the WHG until 9 p.m., not to mention the issues of talking with Greer. I have also since realized that I gave Prencipe too much credit -- whereas he did have credentials to place him on duty with the USPP that day (I verified that with the head of USPP), he had no credentials connecting him to the WHG, much less the limo.

However, as you will see from the emails posted on this forum (without my permission) I did ask him questions about seeing Greer as my chapter "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave, 2002) was going to print. I explained to him that I could not justify what he had said based on the information we have available, and that I would have to say so. That resulted in a negative reaction from him, and at that point we stopped communicating.

Thanks for posting all of this information, Pamela. Do you recall about what date/month you stopped communicating because of the Greer timing problem? I know that when Doug Weldon interviewed Prencipe for the first time, Prencipe was quite happy about you. It was sometime after that when he began writing those letters to you, and had exchanges with Doug as well, complaining .... and his story became a bit more vague as to the timing and all.

At whatever point, Weldon became aware of the problem ... and that Prencipe had stopped communicating with you because of it. Yet, I have no sense of Weldon ever having delved into that problem with Prencipe. In fact, when I posted about it recently, and Weldon showed up on the foum, he asked me if I was actually saying that Greer's whereabouts were known for the whole night. Which tells me, imo, that knowing there was a problem with Prencipe relative to Greer, he did not research Greer's whereabouts that night, nor did he seem aware of Greer having been driving the ambulance during Prencipe's "prime time" according to his story. And he interviewed Prencipe what...10 years ago? That's very troubling.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Doug Weldon]

I agree and disagree, Pamela.

Unless I've been mislead, I believe Doug Weldon was a prosecutor for only a short period of time although he's been a lawyer for most of his life. I don't think it is necessarily the mindset of the prosecutor that causes him problems but rather the mindset of the lawyer.

You vividly described what an historian does. A lawyer is trained from law school on to build cases. I think that is the fundamental problem here for Doug Weldon. His whole interview of Principe goes forward as part of a case-building project. Since he needs Principe's report of seeing a bullet hole, he questions Principe on a very short leash, asking him to confirm what Principe already told you. The historian would have opened up Principe's story... would have asked him how far away from the windshield was he when he saw what he took to be a bullet hole. A historian would have drilled in deeper when Principe said he "got only a glance at it... very quick." A historian would have asked Principe whether the hole he saw could possibly have been not through-and-through. A historian would have asked Principe to explain how he could have met with Greer when it was clear Greer was at Bethesda. Weldon did not do this because to do so might undermine the case he was trying to build. He can claim to be an historian and not a lawyer but his actual actions give it away.

Under a wider horizon, think of the damage lawyers building their cases have done to research in the Kennedy assassination. For my money, we need a lot less advocacy as practiced by Weldon and other lawyers and a lot more genuine research as practiced by you and others. On the bright side, Jerry Logan has shown clearly that even being trained as a lawyer doesn't condemn you to advocacy and its mistakes.

Josiah Thompson

I am now revising my thinking about the issue with Weldon's process based on your input; thanks.

As I have been trained as an historian, studying history in both the US and the UK, with a father who immersed himself in history and took us to visit battefields instead of amusement parks, I do feel that I have some needed credentials for dealing with the complexities of the JFK assassination. However, I did interview Prencipe (even prior to Weldon) and I did not ask most of the questions you have brought up. I wish I had asked him more detailed questions about the windshield, in particular.

I was concerned about coaching him and did not want to taint his testimony by bringing up things I knew were red flags, such as the fact that the location of the 'hole' he thought he saw did not jibe with the reports of any of the other witnesses, he claimed he walked right into the WHG without talking to anyone when the limo and QMII were supposed to be under tight surveillance (not to mention the SS started scouring the car the minute it was brought in), his timeline for viewing the car tended more toward early evening, when the limo did not actually return to the WHG until 9 p.m., not to mention the issues of talking with Greer. I have also since realized that I gave Prencipe too much credit -- whereas he did have credentials to place him on duty with the USPP that day (I verified that with the head of USPP), he had no credentials connecting him to the WHG, much less the limo.

However, as you will see from the emails posted on this forum (without my permission) I did ask him questions about seeing Greer as my chapter "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave, 2002) was going to print. I explained to him that I could not justify what he had said based on the information we have available, and that I would have to say so. That resulted in a negative reaction from him, and at that point we stopped communicating.

Some time ago I took offense when it seemed that Doug Weldon was getting witnesses to change their testimony about what they believed they saw at PH and in the WHG. I had no idea how much worse it would be to realize that there were people trying to shut down research on these witnesses and dismiss or discredit them. Yet that has happened. So I find myself much more appreciative of Doug's efforts in this regard, even though we do not see things the same way -- for at least we both realize the importance of these witness statements and will refuse to allow them to go into a black hole.

Pamela McElwain-Brown (january this forum)

Doug

> I am sure that Pam will convince those who are of the same theory,

> to begin with.

> I note that she takes things out of contex in that she keeps saying that

> I talked to Greer early in the evening.

> I never said that and incidentally, the evening runs to midnight. I dont

> really know exactly what time it was. If I looked at my watch that

> night, I knew the time, but that was a long time ago.

> I will also say, I have been in theW.H. many times and in the SS and WH

> garages many times and NEVER was I EVER asked to log in. She just cant

> believe that I guess.

> She seems to get more and more frustrated with time.

> Bill Greer, as I remember reading, did change his story, and eventually

> came up with all the shots coming from the rear--probably to keek in line

> with the Warren commission procedure. Who knows what went thru his head

> then--and later. I wont change my story, some of the facts are dimmed a

> bit, but basic facts are still the same. I will keep you advised of

> anything new I turn up.

> Have a great holiday.

>

> Regards Nick

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

[Josiah Thompson]

My answers in CAPS:

Josiah said:

"Do you think Livingston just made this up?"

This is a remarkable comment from someone who discounts the word of all the witnesses who reported seeing a hole in the windshield.

Josiah said:

"I would say that eyewitnesses often don't get details right."

But you believe that Livingston, Frazier and any witness who supports your own preconceived bias did "get the details right," correct?

OKAY, LET'S GO TO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT IN FRONT OF US. LET'S SAY YOU ARE FRIENDLY WITH A DOCTOR WHO, IN TURN, IS FRIENDLY WITH A JOURNALIST. THE JOURNALIST PUBLISHES A PIECE IN THE NEW REPUBLIC SAYING HE WAS STANDING AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL AND SAW A HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. YOU TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR FRIEND WHO TELLS YOU THAT HE'S BEEN FRIENDS WITH THE JOURNALIST SINCE THEY BOTH WENT TO STANFORD TOGETHER. HE TELLS YOU OF A DINNER WITH BOTH FAMILIES WHERE THE JOURNALIST SAID HE COULDN'T TELL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A THROUGH-AND-THROUGH BULLET HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. THE DINNER HAPPENED WITHIN A WEEK OF THE SHOOTING AND SUBSTANTIALLY BEFORE THE NEW REPUBLIC PIECE. WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE? YOUR DOCTOR FRIEND OR THE NEW REPUBLIC PIECE?

I asked this question before, but I'd sincerely like to know which assassination witnesses you think ARE credible. As you more than anyone else here must know, many of these witnesses were crucial to the early critics demolishing the official version of events. If they are all discredited, and the neo-con tendency to accept the "official" evidence at face value becomes the predominant view in the CT community, what are we left with?

If we maintain that no evidence was altered, and discredit all witnesses who reported something contrary to the official story, as well as accept that such things as the single bullet theory, bunched up coat theory and jet muscle reaction theory are possible, then how do we make the case for conspiracy?

THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHICH "SIDE" THE WITNESS IS ON. THE EARLY SHOWINGS OF WARREN REPORT VULNERABILITY DEPENDED PROBABLY MORE ON FILM EVIDENCE (THE ZAPRUDER FILM IN PARTICULAR) AND THE ANALYSIS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE GOVERNMENT. CF. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLES BY VINCE SALANDRIA IN LIBERATION AND THE MINORITY OF ONE.

[Josiah Thompson]

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

Does this mean that you are going to walk away and never deal with the most important discovery brought up in this thread... namely, that Martin Hinrichs has identified the person and the part of that person's clothing that you and Fetzer have claimed for a long time is the "spiral nebula?" Are you really going to do that? Are you really going to just not deal with something that has been brought to your attention innumerable times? Funny, I thought real historians loved to grapple with evidentiary difficulties like this. I thought that dealing with such points was what writing history was all about. On the other hand, if you're committed to just building a case, the simplest thing is just to walk away. Evidentiary difficulties don't help in the building of cases.

Josiah Thompson

[Don Jeffries]

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

Does this mean that you are going to walk away and never deal with the most important discovery brought up in this thread... namely, that Martin Hinrichs has identified the person and the part of that person's clothing that you and Fetzer have claimed for a long time is the "spiral nebula?" Are you really going to do that? Are you really going to just not deal with something that has been brought to your attention innumerable times? Funny, I thought real historians loved to grapple with evidentiary difficulties like this. I thought that dealing with such points was what writing history was all about. On the other hand, if you're committed to just building a case, the simplest thing is just to walk away. Evidentiary difficulties don't help in the building of cases.

Josiah Thompson

I'm glad you appreciate the work of Martin Hinrichs. What do you think of his recent post (on another thread), revealing that Oswald was questioned by the authorities about the backyard photos BEFORE they were discovered in the Paine garage? Now tbat should interest real historians.

[Josiah Thompson]

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

Meanwhile, back at the evidence...

I thought this thread was proving fairly productive in drilling into the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the limousine’s windshield. It was revealing to actually listen to Doug Weldon’s phone interview of Nick Principe. Of even more importance was the discovery made by Martin Hinrichs concerning what has been called the “spiral nebula.”

From the very beginning, I’ve been scratching my head as to why anyone would claim that this is a bullet hole through the windshield. Over the last thirty years in the course of various criminal investigations, I’ve actually seen a number of bullet holes through windshields. No matter what the caliber or other factors involved they have a common appearance... a hole in the middle surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. Sometimes there will be cracks leading outward from the hole but not always. The only common feature that I’ve seen is the hole and the surrounding halo of shattered glass.

I hoped to find an illustration on the Internet. I typed “hole in windshield” into Google. I came up with several sites that discussed the problems with claiming a hole existed in the windshield of the Presidential limousine. I found one address [http://www.banpei.net/blog/dots-honda-civic-mk4-bullet-holes] that contained photos of bullet holes in the windshield of a Honda Civic. These photos illustrated exactly the common feature of hole plus halo of shattered glass that I had observed in all the windshield bullet holes I had seen. Here are the photos:

Holding these photos in mind, now take a look at the socalled “spiral nebula.” Here it is below in a copy made from the original Altgens negative:

If you look closely at what has been called the “spiral nubula” you can see that one part of it is cut off by interference of the mirror in the sight line while other parts are cut off by Kennedy’s shoulder and head. This could only happen if the form is really something behind the mirror and behind Kennedy... not the windshield that is in front of both. As you can see by inspection, the socalled “spiral nebula” doesn’t look at all like a bullet hole. Rather it appears to be clothes on a spectator in the background seen through the windshield. Hinrichs’ clever contribution was to compare the Altgens photo with the Croft photo. By doing so, he showed that both the alignment and the color of the socalled “spiral nebula” matched an apron or something held at thigh level by Lady #8. His illustration of this is below:

I asked Doug Weldon to comment on this discovery but he declined. Professor Fetzer has been claiming that someone in Texas named “Lewis” has been shooting bullets through windshields. Fetzer claims the resulting damage looks like the spiral nebula. I asked Professor Fetzer to provide a photo of Lewis’s results but he has not complied.

It would be useful if we could move this discussion about the socalled “sprial nebula” a bit further on. Anyone care to join in?

Josiah Thompson

[Martin Hinrichs]

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

Meanwhile, back at the evidence...

I thought this thread was proving fairly productive in drilling into the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the limousine’s windshield. It was revealing to actually listen to Doug Weldon’s phone interview of Nick Principe. Of even more importance was the discovery made by Martin Hinrichs concerning what has been called the “spiral nebula.”

From the very beginning, I’ve been scratching my head as to why anyone would claim that this is a bullet hole through the windshield. Over the last thirty years in the course of various criminal investigations, I’ve actually seen a number of bullet holes through windshields. No matter what the caliber or other factors involved they have a common appearance... a hole in the middle surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. Sometimes there will be cracks leading outward from the hole but not always. The only common feature that I’ve seen is the hole and the surrounding halo of shattered glass.

I hoped to find an illustration on the Internet. I typed “hole in windshield” into Google. I came up with several sites that discussed the problems with claiming a hole existed in the windshield of the Presidential limousine. I found one address [http://www.banpei.net/blog/dots-honda-civic-mk4-bullet-holes] that contained photos of bullet holes in the windshield of a Honda Civic. These photos illustrated exactly the common feature of hole plus halo of shattered glass that I had observed in all the windshield bullet holes I had seen. Here are the photos:

Holding these photos in mind, now take a look at the socalled “spiral nebula.” Here it is below in a copy made from the original Altgens negative:

If you look closely at what has been called the “spiral nubula” you can see that one part of it is cut off by interference of the mirror in the sight line while other parts are cut off by Kennedy’s shoulder and head. This could only happen if the form is really something behind the mirror and behind Kennedy... not the windshield that is in front of both. As you can see by inspection, the socalled “spiral nebula” doesn’t look at all like a bullet hole. Rather it appears to be clothes on a spectator in the background seen through the windshield. Hinrichs’ clever contribution was to compare the Altgens photo with the Croft photo. By doing so, he showed that both the alignment and the color of the socalled “spiral nebula” matched an apron or something held at thigh level by Lady #8. His illustration of this is below:

I asked Doug Weldon to comment on this discovery but he declined. Professor Fetzer has been claiming that someone in Texas named “Lewis” has been shooting bullets through windshields. Fetzer claims the resulting damage looks like the spiral nebula. I asked Professor Fetzer to provide a photo of Lewis’s results but he has not complied.

It would be useful if we could move this discussion about the socalled “sprial nebula” a bit further on. Anyone care to join in?

Josiah Thompson

Yes, i'am wrong, just my discover of Lady 8 in Croft is exciting? Isn't it?

But apppreciate that you don't insult me now again.

Martin

[Jack White]

It is my guess that the VELOCITY of a bullet going through a windshield would

cause variations in the shapes of bullet holes. I suspect that the speed of rotation

of a high velocity round would cause a cleaner hole. Just a common sense guess.

So I suspect that hole photos are meaningless without knowing the velocity,

distance, size of projectile and the rifle lands twist.

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

Yes, i'am wrong, just my discover of Lady 8 in Croft is exciting? Isn't it?

But apppreciate that you don't insult me now again.

Martin

Hello Martin!

It was very smart of you to match Altgens with Croft - that was a real insight.

As you know this was a part of your effort to colorize Altgens on Duncan's forum.

Before we all got into A7 defect = A6 defect you were trying to identify the parts of Altgens 6.

It seems to me that the colorization was never completed, in part because of trouble identifying some objects that are very close to the "spiral nebula".

Maybe if we can identify those objects we'd be closer to an answer for the "nebula" issue.

So, if you're willing, let's try to find out what's in the picture.

First, your colorization with the areas in question marked.

As you can see there are two issues. A, the blackish area next to the President's head. B, the whitish folded area to the right and above the "nebula".

Do you have any theory or idea what those areas represent?

Second, the areas in question marked in Tony Marsh's enlargement of Altgens 6.

Frankly, I have no idea what A, the black area next to the head is. I suspect that B is a part of Croft woman 8's apron and newspaper? but that's just a guess.

My main problem with the "spiral nebula" is that it just looks like more of whatever B is.

What do you think?

Best regards,

Jerry

[Chris Davidson]

What happened to Greer's white shirt in Altgen's?

According to the WC reenactment, shouldn't it be there?

Z shows a hard (right hand) motion with the steering wheel and a rising/bracing of Greer from his seat. ( Movie Frames 225-255)

chris

[Jerry Logan]

What happened to Greer's white shirt in Altgen's?

According to the WC reenactment, shouldn't it be there?

Z shows a hard (right hand) motion with the steering wheel and a rising/bracing of Greer from his seat. ( Movie Frames 225-255)

chris

Chris,

I don't think the colorization got as far as Greer but it looks to me like the white shirt would fall just behind the flag if we assume it's Greer's right (his right) shoulder partly blocking the view to Mrs. Kennedy.

I'm not sure about the rising/bracing v. that's the angle where his shoulder blends into the windshield sun strip. He's definitely moving because he eventually winds up looking over his right shoulder and you're very sharp to have noticed the right hand /steering wheel move.

Best regards to you,

Jerry