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

[John Dolva]

Yes, even if not, his fingers to the left. He's trying to open his coat/shirt/tie/collar. (imo for now)

[Bernice Moore]

yes jack it has always appeared strange, some others older collected fwtaw..thanks .b

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Meanwhile, back to the ridiculous charade being conducted by Josiah Thompson. The evidence in favor of Doug's position is extensive and varied. It ranges from photographic to medical to acoustical. Jim Lewis has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity bullets through the windshields of abandoned cars from about 200 yards to see if he can hit a dummy in the back seat. He has not only done that but has also discovered (i) that the bullets make the share of a spiral nebula in the windshields and (ii) that, as the pass through, the bullets create the sound of a firecracker. What better empirical proof could we have than this? Many spectators, as we all know, reported that the sound of the first shot was different and that it sounded like that of a "firecracker". The images in these junked cars is the same as the image in the Altgens. Martin has confirmed that the image is in the windshield, not at some distance behind the limo. Josiah has shown a penchant for absurd theories when the evidence contradicts his position. He has gone so far as to suggest that the throat wound--which was described by Malcolm Perry, M.D., three times as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, which I published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998); drawn in diagrams by Charles Crenshaw, M.D., which I also published there; and included in his front-page story in The New York Times by Tom Wicker in the most important story of his career--was actually an exit wound caused by a bone fragment caused by a hit to the back of the head fired from above and behind just as THE WARREN REPORT (1964) proposed. This guy thereby disqualifies himself not only as a student of the death of JFK but as a competent PI, since no competent PI would even confound the features of this wound (as a clean, small puncture wound) with those of an exit would (irregular, with ragged edges and skin pushed outward). Now he suggests that the spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center is actually a feature of a purse or a dress or some other item belonging to a woman in the background, after Martin has explained that the damage is in the same location in Altgens7 as it is in Altgens6. The situation must be desperate for this man to make himself look like an idiot by advancing these completely ad hoc hypotheses for which there is no evidence.

As thought that were not sufficient proof of his incompetence, now he produces the windshield of a car that has obviously been hit by low velocity rounds. He has systematically ignored the results that Jim Lewis has obtained by firing high-velocity rounds through junked cars from about 200 yards range, even though the relevant page from HOAX was posted long ago. In addition to the entry wound to the throat, moreover, we have small shrapnel wounds to the face, which Tom Robinson reported to Joe West during their interview. David Mantik has drawn the inference that they were probably caused by small shards of glass when the bullet passed through the windshield. A copy of Joe West's notes can be found on page 9 of HOAX. So Jim Lewis' experiments tie together the wound trajectory (of a wound to the neck), the more subtle shrapnel wounds to his face (which Tom Robinson has described), the photographic image (of the spiral nebula in Altgens6), and the acoustical evidence (of reports that the first shot sounded "like a firecracker"). A serious student of the death of JFK who did not have his own agenda would have to be enormously impressed. Instead, he claims to be unaware of Jim Lewis's research, even though you can find a report about in HOAX on page 436, which Bernice posted long ago in post #143. Josiah has, as I have already explained, argued that the wound to the throat is actually an exit wound, which is a sign of desperation. He has offered the windshield of a car that has not been hit with high-velocity bullets as if it discounted the through-and-through hole to which so many witnesses attest. And recently he has claimed to have shown a copy taken directly from Altgens6, which appears to have been altered by muting the dark hole at the center of the spiral nebula. Compare it with the image on page 436 of HOAX in post #143. It is obvious that there are better copies of Altens6 in which the dark hole at the center is more conspicuous. Since any trustworthy PI would not submit inappropriate evidence as he has done in this very post to which I now reply, Josia has thereby further burnished his credentials as an incompetent student of the death of JFK and as a completely unreliable and untrustworthy PI. His conduct is a disgrace to his Yale Ph.D.

I have made this point before but, given the totality of the evidence--including these small wounds to the face caused by shards of glass, Malcolm Perry's descriptions of the entry wound at the Parkland press conference, the spiral nebulae pattern made by firing high-velocity bullets through the windshields of vehicles and hitting dummies in the back seat, the sound of a firecracker made when that happens, that Martin has confirmed the image is in the windshield and not in the background, the trajectory alignment, the witnesses who saw a hole at the hospital, the articles some of them wrote about it, the reports from Ford, on and on, all of which are highly probable if a bullet had traversed the windshield en route to the throat--the likelihood that there was such a spiral nebula as the result of firing a high-velocity bullet through the windshield is extremely high. Certainly, given the motivation to conceal evidence of conspiracy in this case, it is overwhelmingly more likely that some of these photos were altered to conceal the dark hole at the center of the spiral nebula than it is that the dark hole did not exist, as is confirmed by other photographs. It is, of course, a common technique to attempt to place greater weight upon photographs in this case than upon witness testimony and other forms of evidence. That is a blunder, as any competent PI would know, insofar as photographs and films require witness authentication to be admissible in courts of law and, as we all know from the study of this case, manipulating X-rays, autopsy photographs, and other photos and films turns out to have been the principal mode of creating a false impression of the evidence in this case, including the Oswald backyard photographs. So it is unsurprising in the extreme that the "official photographs" might not show the dark hole at the center of the spiral nebula, even though others show it.. What is important is that its existence is confirmed by the convergence of so many other forms of proof, both physical, medical and even acoustical. No other hypothesis appears to be reasonable. Which means that the hypothesis of a through-and-through hole to the windshield--which the Secret Service and others have tried desperately to cover up--has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

Edited March 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

What sort of silencer and/or flash suppressor did Jim use? Out of how many shots did he hit the dummy? When he missed, how did the bullet behave and what caused the miss?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Am I the ONLY one who thinks JFK's face did not look like this?

The folks at Duncan's forum thought the area in red was the President's right hand.

If so, you're not seeing much of his face, just his forehead.

Can someone post a copy of Z255 next to the Altgen's closeup above? I believe it is the fingers of his left hand too, but in the Z film, I don't think the hands were touching yet at Z255 .... though from Altgen's angle, I reckon it could look like they are.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Jerry Logan]

Am I the ONLY one who thinks JFK's face did not look like this?

The folks at Duncan's forum thought the area in red was the President's right hand.

If so, you're not seeing much of his face, just his forehead.

Can someone post a copy of Z255 next to the Altgen's closeup above? I believe it is the fingers of his left hand too, but in the Z film, I don't think the hands were touching yet at Z255 .... though from Altgen's angle, I reckon it could look like they are.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb,

255 is a little blurred - will you accept 256?

I'm writing from memory and don't want to speak for others so you can check the thread for yourself at:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,964.0.html

Edited March 17, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Jerry Logan]

What sort of silencer and/or flash suppressor did Jim use? Out of how many shots did he hit the dummy? When he missed, how did the bullet behave and what caused the miss?

I think our chance of getting that information is just about the same as our chance of seeing nice clear pictures of all the "spiral nebula" Jim Lewis has been shooting.

[Josiah Thompson]

Meanwhile, back to the ridiculous charade being conducted by Josiah Thompson....

Same old... same old. I won’t take much time to reply.

You keep trotting out the same old insults: I’m “a disgrace to my Yale Ph.D.” I’m “unreliable... untrustworthy... and an incompetent student of the death of JFK.” And how do we know all this? Because in 1967 I offered an hypothesis that the throat wound was caused by a skull fragment being driven downward and out the front of the neck. What is the truth of the matter? I don’t know. There are enormous difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as an entry wound from the front. Likewise, there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as coming from a fragment of skull being driven down and out the throat just as there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as the exit wound of a bullet that entered Kennedy’s back. Anyone who has studied the case more than superficially knows this.

You have said that someone in Texas named Lewis shot windshields and obtained a bullet hole through a windshield that looks just like the “spiral nebula.” Cool. Show it to us instead of bloviating. If you produced what you are talking about we could then compare it with the socalled “spiral nebula” and make up our own minds. Asking us to trust you just doesn’t cut the mustard.

And what is this about Altgens #5 being altered? Pamela and I produced photos made many decades apart from the same original Altgens #5 negative. They show the same thing with respect to the socalled “spiral nebula.” Sure, if you screw around with Altgens #5 (for example as you did for one of your papers) you can crank the contrast sufficiently to make the nebula look ambiguous. Or you can use printed copies and get the same effect. But this proves nothing since only the original negative counts. Do you really want to argue that that negative has been altered? Or do you just want to say that and have people believe you?

Post a photo of a bullet hole through a windshield that looks like what we have in Altgens #5 and maybe then there will be something to talk about. Otherwise, you’re just, as usual, bloviatinng.

Josiah Thompson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Chris...way too small to be Greer. Interesting, however.

But the important thing is your enlargement seems to put to rest the shape of the JFK head

in relation to the spiral nebula.

Jack

Why does the red outline include a giant dark area as if it is a "sidecar" growing out of the left side of JFK's head? (On the right side of the right pic, as you look at it.)

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Edited to add the pic!

Edited March 17, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[John Dolva]

qqq

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Am I the ONLY one who thinks JFK's face did not look like this?

The folks at Duncan's forum thought the area in red was the President's right hand.

If so, you're not seeing much of his face, just his forehead.

Can someone post a copy of Z255 next to the Altgen's closeup above? I believe it is the fingers of his left hand too, but in the Z film, I don't think the hands were touching yet at Z255 .... though from Altgen's angle, I reckon it could look like they are.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb,

255 is a little blurred - will you accept 256?

Yes, Jerry ... thanks! So, yes, it is JFK's right hand/fingers in the pic .... not quite touching his left hand/fingers in reality, but from Altgen's angle they appear as if touching, imo. No JFK chin showing there in the photo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I'm writing from memory and don't want to speak for others so you can check the thread for yourself at:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,964.0.html

[Robin Unger]

I think that the "black patch" next to kennedy's head near the spiral nebular, may actually be the "top right hand corner" of what appears to be a large black bag, which lady #7 in the blue dress seems to have hanging from her left arm. ?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

Robin, I think it's something as simple as that.

I'm not up to it, but with Drommer and the photos I think it's possible to map persons and the location of Altgens camera and using back ground static objects correctly place persons and make more definite statements about this.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Am I the ONLY one who thinks JFK's face did not look like this?

Jack,

Maybe he's yet another person in DP holding a baby. You should check it out.

Todd

[John Dolva]

Robin, on further thought. I think you are very on target.

It could also be the bag/shadow of the tall lady with a white blouse and blue skirt. Either way, I think you're looking at it right. Also the front of her bag seems to have a chquerboard emboss, which I suppose from the side, in the resolution available gives hints of lines which could become the spiral nebula.

edit:typo

Edited March 17, 2010 by John Dolva