Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

alt

The most direct evidence we have concerning the windshield is photographic.... the undamaged windshield apparent in Altgens #6 and the windshield damage apparent in Altgens #7. The damage in Altgens #7 matches the location and character of both Frazier's notes and the photo he took of the windshield in the early morning hours of November 23rd. The results of Frazier's examination of the windshield is echoed in various reports from percipient witnesses including Secret Service agents who passed their fingers over the windshield to determine whether there was a perforation. All of this is very direct evidence from Noveber 22nd and 23rd and indicates the windshield was struck a glancing blow from the rear leaving a lead smear on the interior surface of the windshield. Are Altgens' photos to be disbelieved? Have they been altered? What about Frazier's photo? Was it altered or was it just faked up after the fact? Was Frazier and his crime scene search unit all part of some consiracy to hide the fact of a hole in he windshield?

You say a lot about Whitaker but very little about the evidence from November 22nd and 23rd that has the most probative significance. Or does "probative significance" not matter anymore once we are in the hall of mirrors where ever widening conspiracy makes white black and black white?

For starters, how about telling us what you make of Altgens #6?

Josiah Thompson

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 543
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

alt

The most direct evidence we have concerning the windshield is photographic.... the undamaged windshield apparent in Altgens #6 and the windshield damage apparent in Altgens #7. The damage in Altgens #7 matches the location and character of both Frazier's notes and the photo he took of the windshield in the early morning hours of November 23rd. The results of Frazier's examination of the windshield is echoed in various reports from percipient witnesses including Secret Service agents who passed their fingers over the windshield to determine whether there was a perforation. All of this is very direct evidence from Noveber 22nd and 23rd and indicates the windshield was struck a glancing blow from the rear leaving a lead smear on the interior surface of the windshield. Are Altgens' photos to be disbelieved? Have they been altered? What about Frazier's photo? Was it altered or was it just faked up after the fact? Was Frazier and his crime scene search unit all part of some consiracy to hide the fact of a hole in he windshield?

You say a lot about Whitaker but very little about the evidence from November 22nd and 23rd that has the most probative significance. Or does "probative significance" not matter anymore once we are in the hall of mirrors where ever widening conspiracy makes white black and black white?

For starters, how about telling us what you make of Altgens #6?

Josiah Thompson

Isn't there a window from the limo in evidence at the NARA?

What does that look like?

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I find "no perforation" to be highly unusual. I have never seen anything like it. Unless someone raised the issue of a hole being there, which they knew was happening at Parkland, it is beyond belief that they would do that.

Doug, the *windshield* itself raised the issue of the possibility of a through and through hole possibly being there. The windshield was damaged in a shooting ... it had a stellate cracking pattern. It would have been ridiculous, not to mention incompetent, to *not* look for, and report, whether or not there was a perforation there.

Charles Taylor Jr. was obviously not part of the "reindeer games" that night and somehow with all the rush in the coverup his report slipped through. Both the FBI and Ferguson, a layman did the same thing. If Ferguson was just going off the FBI report why did he not use the same terminology " Hole" and why did he describe the location of the damage in a different place? Yes, it is highly surprising but the Ford Motor Company was operating On November 25, 1963 when virtually the whole country and the other automobile companies were closed. They were closed for two hours in the afternoon which would have been a great opportunity to truck the limo out of there. I have NO doubt that the limo was there. Please understand that I am only speculating why the vehicle was stripped to bare metal. The response from Whitaker was "That's what they did." I definitely think the limo was in Dearborn to change the windshield. Don't forget that Ferguson tried to claim that Arlington glass was there on the 25th. Absent the garage logs there woud have been no documentation to contradict Ferguson's false account. Do you believe Ferguson drove 520 miles on Dec. 20, 1963 in a vehicle that got maybe

6-7 mpg in the most recognized vehicle in the world when Hess and Eisenhardt said the vehicle was in Cinncinati on December 13. When other questions are answered I am going to tell you some things that are phony about Arlington Glass on November 26 that I have never discussed. I have only speculated about Ford searching and repairing a hole in the floor pan to explain why the limo may have been "stripped" but I do know that the FBI was in a panic about a magazine publishing something about it. After all the information you have examined have you started to see something amiss? When more questions are answered I will come back to Arlington Glass. Certainly, there must be people on this forum who supported your article. I welcome any supporters of the article's position to contribute to this thread and will answer any questions as long as they agree to respond to any statements and questions I raise. I understand you are going to take this in small chunks but I continue to hope you will address all of the questions I raised in the long post of this thread. Let's get to truth.

Best,

Doug

On Taylor, I don't really have anything to add aside from what we included in our article. What happened and why was covered thoroughly there, imo.

The rest in this post seems to be mostly a jumble of speculation mixed with a few claims and hints of more info to come - but quite short on actual information or even explanation - all on thigs that go beyond the scope of our article. As you quoted us in your initial post in this thread:

Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum.

You follow that quote with this comment: "If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem."

Great! Because the article was what we said it was in our intro ... nothing more, nothing less. We didn't go to Dearborn or Ohio ... that whole weird little world didn't come up in the discussions that led to our article at all, from what I recall.

Am I interested? Sure ... I'd like to understand the theory and what supports it. But without knowing that, I can't really comment on it much.

It all seems to come down to this Whitaker vs everyone and everything else. At this point, I have more questions than answers on what you have asked about here, Doug.

Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it.

BTW, it does seem a tad odd to me that they would drive the limo to Michigan rather than have it flown there ... but weirder things happen all the time. Was any reason given for the drive vs fly?

Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article.

Best,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Thanks. Hopefully I can answer some questions and if I omit anything please let me know. This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article.

Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. Certain people were highly critical (perhaps justifiably so ) when I presented his story, publicallly at the Lancer conference in 1998 and refused to name him. I had made a promise to him not to reveal his information until after his death. I was only able to interbview him in 1993 because of a fluke conversation with his son (a physician and an attorney). He saw me with a book about the assassination and told me as he was growing up his father, since 1963, was always telling the family about something he was involved with concerning the assassination. He said he would try to arrange to have his father talk to me when he was in town. This was the spring of 1993. I finally met his father at a picnic in August 1993 at his son's house. Everyone ate and I could sense his father, George Whitaker, did not want to talk to me. We sat down at a small table after his son assured him it was okay. Whitaker was extremely disturbed when I placed a microcassette recorder on the table. He told me his account and became more comfortable as I and his son questioned him. His wife became very concerned and can be heard in the background urging him to go and finally becoming almost hysterical saying "We have to go. We have family you know." Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. Your question about the Ford Motor Company being closed on Monday the 25th was an excellent question. It was a national day of mourning. The Ford Motor Company had perhaps the closest link to any business in the country in regards to the assassination by virtue of owning the limousine. In his taped account Whitaker told me that he received a call while eating dinner on Sunday, the 24th, and was called to a meeting about whether the plant was going to be operational the next day. One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it. At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses

I decided to determine whether there was literature, documents, or witnesses that addressed the issue. In short, I examined everything. I came up with Taylor's report, Dudman's article, witness accounts, radio programs in which witnesses had talked. I obtained and reviewed tapes from researchers in the 1960's to determine whether the issue had been raised before. It had. David Lifton had very interesting information about the windshield in "Best Evidence." It became clear from the official documents that something very strange had gone on and that the official record was inconsistent and did not make sense. I spent time at the National Archives. I spent a couple of days in 1996 with Harold Weisberg who I had sent a copy of the Whitaker tape. Knowing how dismissive he was of other researchers I was very surprised when he believed that Whitaker's account was credible. I wrote and phoned witnesses. I went and talked with them. Because of my background police officers and other people who would often be hesitant to talk were open to me and i would use the names of those who talked with me to open the door to get other people to talk with me. I was doing this for over five years. I weighed the credibility of everyone just as I would do in court. I went to Dallas and I have to credit Gary Mack with showing me the tape of James Chaney saying the second shot hit Kennedy in the face. i even went so far as talking to people like Irene Chaney, James Chaney's widow, to find out more about him and his reactions when he got home that day. I promised myself I would not have predetermined conclusions and would allow the evidence to lead me, not the reverse. I wrote and spoke with Dudman and was shocked to see how he reacted and tried to find out why. This was a man who was in fear. I discovered that any witness did not know more than one other witness.Independent corroboration is very powerful in determining facts in the law. I contacted Willard Hess of Hess and Eisenhardt whose company built the Kennedy limo and refurbished the vehicle for Johnson. I talked with him many times, corresponded with him and went to Cincinnati to spend a day with him. If anything, I wanted to believe the government. I worked for government. I had been an assistant prosecutor. I had friends who were or had been FBI, Secret Service, and DEA agents.

The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. I went to Dallas to see if there was a location that would have matched the damage he saw and described by Taylor and Whitaker. There was, in the area of the south knoll. I filmed what it would have looked like to a sniper with a telescopic lens. I consulted photographic experts. I consulted ballistic experts such as the late John Ritchson to determine the possibilities of a shot being effective through the windshield and causing the damage described. What would have been the effect of a silencer or the distance. I contacted and studied the work of other researchers. Could there have been members of the Secret Service compromised and actually have been complicit in the assassination? I examined the work of Vince Palamara. Why would the Secret Service have anything against Kennedy?

These are important questions. The three of you who wrote the article are good people. However, your article was meant to put a period on the issue of a shot being fired through the windshield. A shot being fired through the windshield turns everything we know about the assassination upside down. It proves conspiracy. It proves a deliberate criminal coverup at the highest levels of our government with all the ramifications that would even include the highest office in our country. It demonstrates a conspiratorial connection between the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company. Conspiracy is not a theory. Conspiracy is a crime.

I wanted to mention one thing about Ferguson. When I said Hess laughed about Ferguson's account and then said he was a "company man" I interpreted that to mean that he would do whatever he was told to do. I do believe his memorandum of December 18, 1963 was released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown probably because its release would create further confusion and reveal proven inaccuracies about things he wrote about. Where is his "testimony" that the HSCA document Chronology of he Limousine refers to? Ferguson's account is proveable beyond any reasonable doubt to be a combination of fact and fabrication in order to confuse the official record.

I do not have all of the answers to everything. The government removed evidence and planted evidence in this instance as it did in so many aspects of the assassination. You are correct that I speculate about some things. When I speculate I acknowledge it. However, other observations I make are educated reasonings that flow from the evidence that exists. If I dropped a vase on the floor and it shattered I could pick up a piece and say to you, "Look, this is not a vase."

I could do that with each piece and maybe there would have been pieces lost when the vase was dropped. However, if I pick up each piece and put them all together, even if there were pieces missing, I could then say to you this is a vase. I state with the same certainty based upon the evidence, the testimony, the documents (whether they exist to support or sidetrack), the study of Dealey Plaza, that it is certain that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield with the "likely" result that it caused an entrance wound to Kennedy's throat and that it was fired from the area of the south knoll part of the underpass.

Your article should not have been conclusive. It should not have omitted so much, including totally failing to mention Whitaker. You are bright people but you tried to bring closure to the issue when you did not have enough evidence to do so. There was character assassination of Nick Prencipe, a fine and honorable police officer who spent his entire career as a member of the United States Park Police. You have heard a tape of him. What did he have to gain or did any of the witnesses have to gain by telling their accounts of witnessing a hole in the windshield? Money? Fame? Popularity? Often they experienced real fear. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, a career police officer, a veteran, and who also worked after his police career in military intelligence, he told me "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." These people were not fictional names in a novel. They were real people. They did not ask or desire to be cast in a role in history, especially an event such as this. Each one I talked with probably would have chosen not to be there or to see what they saw. What did they get for it? Harassment? Ridicule? Having their character impugned?

I want to understand your viewponts and do want to go over each question I raised or to understand if your reasoning has changed? I think this exchange will help many of the dedicated people on this forum to better understand the evidnce and make their own judgments. I also hope to learn from you. To anyone reading your article it stands as the testament of the three of you. I did not want to reach the conclusions I did. It shocks me. It haunts me. However, the evidence can lead me to no other conclusion.

Again, I know there are people who have questioned me and there must be people on this forum who agree with you. I would like them to come forward and support you. As long as they agree to be responsive I will participate with them. William Kelly has gone on record as stating he did not believe Whitaker. I will answer any questions. Gary Mack? The three of you who wrote the article are intelligent people and I need to understand your thoughts in order that I may be complete in addressing any questions that may exist. I then want to get back to writing my book. I hope that I have addressed your questions. I highly respect you for engaging in this exchange. One does not have to agree with me to be my friend. However, this is not an academic exercise. This was a real murder of a president whose death changed the whole scope of our history. I, like the witnesses, would rather have not been so deeply involved in this. There have been few rewards, with the exception of getting to know so many fine people, including witnesses and researchers. I have paid a very high price in many aspects of my life because of my involvement. None of us are going to see the million dollars bestowed upon Bugliousi. It is thankless. However, we must care about the truth. It is like the rhetorical question I pose in MIDP, "Why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow." We have to care about the world in which we exist and for those who will come after us. That is all I seek. I hope to continue this exchange and I do sincerely thank you Barb.

Take care,

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very poor detail FBI photo, but unlike the other one it has been oriented so that the oval is seen headon so it's a circle and within that circle are what appears a matching star pattern of straight cracks. These are the initial cracks. The spread of them was due to a couple of factors. The drive that continued from then saw a spreading crack pattern but because the supercooled liguid has regained its normal temperarure it no longer cracks according to the forces applied during the initial impact but snakes according to whatever forces are acting rather than any particular weakness. THEN came the removal of the screen and in doing so the normal practice is to push from the inside and to do that without exacerbating and creating new crack patterns is almost unavoidable possibly with the best of intention highly unlikely. So, a circle was drawn first. The orientation of the screen for the circle to be there...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a very poor detail FBI photo, but unlike the other one it has been oriented so that the oval is seen headon so it's a circle and within that circle are what appears a matching star pattern of straight cracks. These are the initial cracks. The spread of them was due to a couple of factors. The drive that continued from then saw a spreading crack pattern but because the supercooled liguid has regained its normal temperarure it no longer cracks according to the forces applied during the initial impact but snakes according to whatever forces are acting rather than any particular weakness. THEN came the removal of the screen and in doing so the normal practice is to push from the inside and to do that without exacerbating and creating new crack patterns is almost unavoidable possibly with the best of intention highly unlikely. So, a circle was drawn first. The orientation of the screen for the circle to be there...?

b

Link to post
Share on other sites
The most direct evidence we have concerning the windshield is photographic.... the undamaged windshield apparent in Altgens #6 and the windshield damage apparent in Altgens #7.

For starters, how about telling us what you make of Altgens #6?

Josiah Thompson

Hello Josiah :rolleyes:

I was the one who made earlier in this thread the claim Altgens7 damage fits Altgens6.

I had a while ago a little discussion with Jerry on Duncan's forum about this issue and we both disagreed.

Let me try to explain why i come to my conclusion from the beginning.

I started month's ago a new Thread on Duncan's forum with the intention to colorize Altgens6 for a better

understanding of this unaltered great photograph. At this time many parts of this image left it's secrets to me.

It was a work in progress and every member was invited to join.

The progress lasted a couple of month examining all the details with little unkown parts left in the end.

Altgens-coloring.jpg

Jerry, in the beginning of this work stated that the so called spiral nebula close to the mirror is just a pocket of a woman in the background.

Jerry, i hope you don't mind i mentioned it here.

As far as i know Anthony Marsh was the first who mentioned this.

Well after a very nitpicking progress examining Altgens6 i'am not so sure we see just a pocket.

But at first here my cross reference. Croft-Altgens6.

altgens6croppedpersons.jpg

Lady 8 is the one under inspection.

I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6.

Please test it by your own if possible with photographs.

It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood.

10356Kopie.jpg

We have to keep in mind that Altgens7 is hiding parts of the evidence with the antenna.

Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6.

We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center.

altgens1-6snblKopie-1.jpg

How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way?

A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft.

Apart from that...the shape of JFK's head have to be further examined to make sure what it hides.

Thats the next part on my tasklist.

You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved.

And the discussion of it has not ended.

best

Martin

Edited by Martin Hinrichs
Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I find "no perforation" to be highly unusual. I have never seen anything like it. Unless someone raised the issue of a hole being there, which they knew was happening at Parkland, it is beyond belief that they would do that.

Doug, the *windshield* itself raised the issue of the possibility of a through and through hole possibly being there. The windshield was damaged in a shooting ... it had a stellate cracking pattern. It would have been ridiculous, not to mention incompetent, to *not* look for, and report, whether or not there was a perforation there.

Charles Taylor Jr. was obviously not part of the "reindeer games" that night and somehow with all the rush in the coverup his report slipped through. Both the FBI and Ferguson, a layman did the same thing. If Ferguson was just going off the FBI report why did he not use the same terminology " Hole" and why did he describe the location of the damage in a different place? Yes, it is highly surprising but the Ford Motor Company was operating On November 25, 1963 when virtually the whole country and the other automobile companies were closed. They were closed for two hours in the afternoon which would have been a great opportunity to truck the limo out of there. I have NO doubt that the limo was there. Please understand that I am only speculating why the vehicle was stripped to bare metal. The response from Whitaker was "That's what they did." I definitely think the limo was in Dearborn to change the windshield. Don't forget that Ferguson tried to claim that Arlington glass was there on the 25th. Absent the garage logs there woud have been no documentation to contradict Ferguson's false account. Do you believe Ferguson drove 520 miles on Dec. 20, 1963 in a vehicle that got maybe

6-7 mpg in the most recognized vehicle in the world when Hess and Eisenhardt said the vehicle was in Cinncinati on December 13. When other questions are answered I am going to tell you some things that are phony about Arlington Glass on November 26 that I have never discussed. I have only speculated about Ford searching and repairing a hole in the floor pan to explain why the limo may have been "stripped" but I do know that the FBI was in a panic about a magazine publishing something about it. After all the information you have examined have you started to see something amiss? When more questions are answered I will come back to Arlington Glass. Certainly, there must be people on this forum who supported your article. I welcome any supporters of the article's position to contribute to this thread and will answer any questions as long as they agree to respond to any statements and questions I raise. I understand you are going to take this in small chunks but I continue to hope you will address all of the questions I raised in the long post of this thread. Let's get to truth.

Best,

Doug

On Taylor, I don't really have anything to add aside from what we included in our article. What happened and why was covered thoroughly there, imo.

The rest in this post seems to be mostly a jumble of speculation mixed with a few claims and hints of more info to come - but quite short on actual information or even explanation - all on thigs that go beyond the scope of our article. As you quoted us in your initial post in this thread:

Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum.

You follow that quote with this comment: "If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem."

Great! Because the article was what we said it was in our intro ... nothing more, nothing less. We didn't go to Dearborn or Ohio ... that whole weird little world didn't come up in the discussions that led to our article at all, from what I recall.

Am I interested? Sure ... I'd like to understand the theory and what supports it. But without knowing that, I can't really comment on it much.

It all seems to come down to this Whitaker vs everyone and everything else. At this point, I have more questions than answers on what you have asked about here, Doug.

Let me ask you this .... what is the basis for this entire scenario about the limo being spirited away to Michigan and a false trail of dummy documents and activities .... with many players ... put in place? What was the genesis of all this .... and .... what actual documentation supports it? I expect that Whitaker is the unnamed mystery witness whose claims were the basis of your Minnesota presentation. Can you give me just a concise, clear rendering of what is the claim, your reasoning for believing it (why does it even make sense to you that this would be done?) ... and list some of the documentation you've been able to find that supports it.

BTW, it does seem a tad odd to me that they would drive the limo to Michigan rather than have it flown there ... but weirder things happen all the time. Was any reason given for the drive vs fly?

Trying to get a handle on your theory, Doug. Willing to answer questions about what I think about it .... but I need some clear info about it before I can begin to do that. Again, this is beyond the scope of our article.

Best,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Thanks. Hopefully I can answer some questions and if I omit anything please let me know. This is not beyond the scope of your article. Your article reached the conclusion that there was no hole in the windshield. Everything has to fit together in its totality before such a conclusion can be reached. I was disturbed by the analysis that because witnesses had supposedly recanted their stories and a written article and official report we should just accept that without trying to understand why they may have done so and understanding something about the people involved. Our system of justice "frowns" on the idea of accepting a recanted account. I was also concerned that conclusions were reached that identifiable witnesses who saw a hole were dismissed wihout any of you knowing anything about the witnesses and it was even concluded by Jerry that they saw a "spot" not a hole. Not one person ever has claimed to see a "spot." Since the three of you co-wrote the article and attached your names to it I believe each of you has to be able to defend its content. Jerry, very honestly, has written on this forum, that he has doubts now about the windshield comparison in the article.

Yes, Whitaker is the individual who became the genesis of my invetigation into this isuue. Certain people were highly critical (perhaps justifiably so ) when I presented his story, publicallly at the Lancer conference in 1998 and refused to name him. I had made a promise to him not to reveal his information until after his death. I was only able to interbview him in 1993 because of a fluke conversation with his son (a physician and an attorney). He saw me with a book about the assassination and told me as he was growing up his father, since 1963, was always telling the family about something he was involved with concerning the assassination. He said he would try to arrange to have his father talk to me when he was in town. This was the spring of 1993. I finally met his father at a picnic in August 1993 at his son's house. Everyone ate and I could sense his father, George Whitaker, did not want to talk to me. We sat down at a small table after his son assured him it was okay. Whitaker was extremely disturbed when I placed a microcassette recorder on the table. He told me his account and became more comfortable as I and his son questioned him. His wife became very concerned and can be heard in the background urging him to go and finally becoming almost hysterical saying "We have to go. We have family you know." Whitaker said a number of things each which all could be determined to be verifiable later. Your question about the Ford Motor Company being closed on Monday the 25th was an excellent question. It was a national day of mourning. The Ford Motor Company had perhaps the closest link to any business in the country in regards to the assassination by virtue of owning the limousine. In his taped account Whitaker told me that he received a call while eating dinner on Sunday, the 24th, and was called to a meeting about whether the plant was going to be operational the next day. One of his responsibilities was power services and there was a lot of preparation to be done in order to get the plant geared up for running. I was suspicious of this also assuming, like you, that the plant would be closed on a national day of mourning. I was later able to verify through the Detroit News or Free Press that it was open except for two hours on the 25th (it will be in my book). Eventually everything he said was able to be corroborated, an important element of proof in the law. You know the story of him seeing the limo, the winshield being behind a locked door with two of his subordinates, of using the Kennedy windshield as a template to make a new windshield (with a very detailed desription as how it was done) and then destroying the original windshield. He tried to find out from the VP of the division (who I name in MIDP) what was going on and was basically told to forget about it. At that time Whitaker had 30 years of experience with glass and had seen many tests performed with glass with bullets. Often I ask witnesses how certain they are of their recollections. I use a scale of 1-100 with one being unsure and 100 being absolute certainty. I will get different numbeers depending on my question. Whitaker was 100% certain that there was a bullet hole in the windshield and that it had penetrated the window from the front. One has to ask why would he make up this elaborate story and lie? What would he have to gain from it? Did he want publicity? No, I had to promise not to reveal his name. I could not think of any other motive. I asked his son if his father would ever exaggerate things and what kind of reputation his father would have for truth or veracity. He said his father was as sraightforward as anyone he ever knew. I would later use this with other witnesses to the windshield hole asking their colleagues what they thought about that witness and how truthful they were known to be. It helped me to evaluate the witnesses

I decided to determine whether there was literature, documents, or witnesses that addressed the issue. In short, I examined everything. I came up with Taylor's report, Dudman's article, witness accounts, radio programs in which witnesses had talked. I obtained and reviewed tapes from researchers in the 1960's to determine whether the issue had been raised before. It had. David Lifton had very interesting information about the windshield in "Best Evidence." It became clear from the official documents that something very strange had gone on and that the official record was inconsistent and did not make sense. I spent time at the National Archives. I spent a couple of days in 1996 with Harold Weisberg who I had sent a copy of the Whitaker tape. Knowing how dismissive he was of other researchers I was very surprised when he believed that Whitaker's account was credible. I wrote and phoned witnesses. I went and talked with them. Because of my background police officers and other people who would often be hesitant to talk were open to me and i would use the names of those who talked with me to open the door to get other people to talk with me. I was doing this for over five years. I weighed the credibility of everyone just as I would do in court. I went to Dallas and I have to credit Gary Mack with showing me the tape of James Chaney saying the second shot hit Kennedy in the face. i even went so far as talking to people like Irene Chaney, James Chaney's widow, to find out more about him and his reactions when he got home that day. I promised myself I would not have predetermined conclusions and would allow the evidence to lead me, not the reverse. I wrote and spoke with Dudman and was shocked to see how he reacted and tried to find out why. This was a man who was in fear. I discovered that any witness did not know more than one other witness.Independent corroboration is very powerful in determining facts in the law. I contacted Willard Hess of Hess and Eisenhardt whose company built the Kennedy limo and refurbished the vehicle for Johnson. I talked with him many times, corresponded with him and went to Cincinnati to spend a day with him. If anything, I wanted to believe the government. I worked for government. I had been an assistant prosecutor. I had friends who were or had been FBI, Secret Service, and DEA agents.

The bottom line is everything checked out. How could Whitaker just happen to make up, of all things, that he saw a bullet hole, which just happened to be the same defect that all of the other witnesses, none of whom he could possibly have know about, also saw. I went to Dallas to see if there was a location that would have matched the damage he saw and described by Taylor and Whitaker. There was, in the area of the south knoll. I filmed what it would have looked like to a sniper with a telescopic lens. I consulted photographic experts. I consulted ballistic experts such as the late John Ritchson to determine the possibilities of a shot being effective through the windshield and causing the damage described. What would have been the effect of a silencer or the distance. I contacted and studied the work of other researchers. Could there have been members of the Secret Service compromised and actually have been complicit in the assassination? I examined the work of Vince Palamara. Why would the Secret Service have anything against Kennedy?

These are important questions. The three of you who wrote the article are good people. However, your article was meant to put a period on the issue of a shot being fired through the windshield. A shot being fired through the windshield turns everything we know about the assassination upside down. It proves conspiracy. It proves a deliberate criminal coverup at the highest levels of our government with all the ramifications that would even include the highest office in our country. It demonstrates a conspiratorial connection between the Secret Service and the Ford Motor Company. Conspiracy is not a theory. Conspiracy is a crime.

I wanted to mention one thing about Ferguson. When I said Hess laughed about Ferguson's account and then said he was a "company man" I interpreted that to mean that he would do whatever he was told to do. I do believe his memorandum of December 18, 1963 was released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown probably because its release would create further confusion and reveal proven inaccuracies about things he wrote about. Where is his "testimony" that the HSCA document Chronology of he Limousine refers to? Ferguson's account is proveable beyond any reasonable doubt to be a combination of fact and fabrication in order to confuse the official record.

I do not have all of the answers to everything. The government removed evidence and planted evidence in this instance as it did in so many aspects of the assassination. You are correct that I speculate about some things. When I speculate I acknowledge it. However, other observations I make are educated reasonings that flow from the evidence that exists. If I dropped a vase on the floor and it shattered I could pick up a piece and say to you, "Look, this is not a vase."

I could do that with each piece and maybe there would have been pieces lost when the vase was dropped. However, if I pick up each piece and put them all together, even if there were pieces missing, I could then say to you this is a vase. I state with the same certainty based upon the evidence, the testimony, the documents (whether they exist to support or sidetrack), the study of Dealey Plaza, that it is certain that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield with the "likely" result that it caused an entrance wound to Kennedy's throat and that it was fired from the area of the south knoll part of the underpass.

Your article should not have been conclusive. It should not have omitted so much, including totally failing to mention Whitaker. You are bright people but you tried to bring closure to the issue when you did not have enough evidence to do so. There was character assassination of Nick Prencipe, a fine and honorable police officer who spent his entire career as a member of the United States Park Police. You have heard a tape of him. What did he have to gain or did any of the witnesses have to gain by telling their accounts of witnessing a hole in the windshield? Money? Fame? Popularity? Often they experienced real fear. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, a career police officer, a veteran, and who also worked after his police career in military intelligence, he told me "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." These people were not fictional names in a novel. They were real people. They did not ask or desire to be cast in a role in history, especially an event such as this. Each one I talked with probably would have chosen not to be there or to see what they saw. What did they get for it? Harassment? Ridicule? Having their character impugned?

I want to understand your viewponts and do want to go over each question I raised or to understand if your reasoning has changed? I think this exchange will help many of the dedicated people on this forum to better understand the evidnce and make their own judgments. I also hope to learn from you. To anyone reading your article it stands as the testament of the three of you. I did not want to reach the conclusions I did. It shocks me. It haunts me. However, the evidence can lead me to no other conclusion.

Again, I know there are people who have questioned me and there must be people on this forum who agree with you. I would like them to come forward and support you. As long as they agree to be responsive I will participate with them. William Kelly has gone on record as stating he did not believe Whitaker. I will answer any questions. Gary Mack? The three of you who wrote the article are intelligent people and I need to understand your thoughts in order that I may be complete in addressing any questions that may exist. I then want to get back to writing my book. I hope that I have addressed your questions. I highly respect you for engaging in this exchange. One does not have to agree with me to be my friend. However, this is not an academic exercise. This was a real murder of a president whose death changed the whole scope of our history. I, like the witnesses, would rather have not been so deeply involved in this. There have been few rewards, with the exception of getting to know so many fine people, including witnesses and researchers. I have paid a very high price in many aspects of my life because of my involvement. None of us are going to see the million dollars bestowed upon Bugliousi. It is thankless. However, we must care about the truth. It is like the rhetorical question I pose in MIDP, "Why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow." We have to care about the world in which we exist and for those who will come after us. That is all I seek. I hope to continue this exchange and I do sincerely thank you Barb.

Take care,

Doug

Doug...a fantastic recitation of your search for truth. I look forward to your book!

You are far too charitable to those who oppose you. They are not truth-seekers.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are far too charitable to those who oppose you. They are not truth-seekers.

Jack

Ahhh, yes, the old "us vs them" .... "if they are not with me they are agin' me and there is clearly something wrong and suspicious about them" mentality. The real hallmark of what research and seeking truth is all about. Not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

INTERESTING PARTS OF WEISBERG'S FBI/ SS BOOK (NO INDEX): "Whitewash II- the FBI-SS Cover-up" by Weisberg- Marina- pp. 9,11,15,21,23; LHO/Tippit murder(Police radio logs/tapes)- pp. 25-27,29,35; another bullet- p. 38; Brennan- p. 88; autopsy- pp. 110, 113-117; FBI/SS: 3 bullets/hits- p. 123; Sibert and O'Neill- pp. 124-125; Zapruder film- pp. 134 and 141; Kelley report 11/28/63- pp. 166-167; Greer- p. 175; Phil Willis- pp. 202-204; shooting- p. 216; comments- pp. 224-225 ~ Secret Service agent Richard Green on CNN 10/29/94 after "assassination" attempt on President Clinton: " Green said that no serious assassination attempt is made without a diversion( He also said that the attempt is made from 2 or 3 sides). What on earth is he referring to except Dallas, since I don't know of any attempts on Reagan or Ford made with a diversion. I really think Agent Green slipped up"-

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Limousine/limo-URL.htm

b..

Link to post
Share on other sites
The most direct evidence we have concerning the windshield is photographic.... the undamaged windshield apparent in Altgens #6 and the windshield damage apparent in Altgens #7.

For starters, how about telling us what you make of Altgens #6?

Josiah Thompson

Hello Josiah :)

I was the one who made earlier in this thread the claim Altgens7 damage fits Altgens6.

I had a while ago a little discussion with Jerry on Duncan's forum about this issue and we both disagreed.

Let me try to explain why i come to my conclusion from the beginning.

I started month's ago a new Thread on Duncan's forum with the intention to colorize Altgens6 for a better

understanding of this unaltered great photograph. At this time many parts of this image left it's secrets to me.

It was a work in progress and every member was invited to join.

The progress lasted a couple of month examining all the details with little unkown parts left in the end.

Altgens-coloring.jpg

Jerry, in the beginning of this work stated that the so called spiral nebula close to the mirror is just a pocket of a woman in the background.

Jerry, i hope you don't mind i mentioned it here.

As far as i know Anthony Marsh was the first who mentioned this.

Well after a very nitpicking progress examining Altgens6 i'am not so sure we see just a pocket.

But at first here my cross reference. Croft-Altgens6.

altgens6croppedpersons.jpg

Lady 8 is the one under inspection.

I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6.

Please test it by your own if possible with photographs.

It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood.

10356Kopie.jpg

We have to keep in mind that Altgens7 is hiding parts of the evidence with the antenna.

Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6.

We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center.

altgens1-6snblKopie-1.jpg

How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way?

A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft.

Apart from that...the shape of JFK's head have to be further examined to make sure what it hides.

Thats the next part on my tasklist.

You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved.

And the discussion of it has not ended.

best

Martin

Hi Martin

Not quite sure what to make of this yet but just to check if I am looking at the right thing the lady in question would be Lady 9 rather than Lady 8 wouldn't it ?

Thanks

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
Secret Service agent Richard Green on CNN 10/29/94 after "assassination" attempt on President Clinton: " Green said that no serious assassination attempt is made without a diversion( He also said that the attempt is made from 2 or 3 sides). What on earth is he referring to except Dallas, since I don't know of any attempts on Reagan or Ford made with a diversion. I really think Agent Green slipped up"-

b..

A tale has been told that Reagan was shot between the ribs by someone beside him using a gun that fired a compressed metal disc - which projectile was removed from Reagan rather than a bullet. Hinckley, it goes, was occupied shooting two others. Search the net for it FWIW.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
Secret Service agent Richard Green on CNN 10/29/94 after "assassination" attempt on President Clinton: " Green said that no serious assassination attempt is made without a diversion( He also said that the attempt is made from 2 or 3 sides). What on earth is he referring to except Dallas, since I don't know of any attempts on Reagan or Ford made with a diversion. I really think Agent Green slipped up"-

b..

A tale has been told that Reagan was shot between the ribs by someone beside him using a gun that fired a compressed metal disc - which projectile was removed from Reagan rather than a bullet. Hinckley, it goes, was occupied shooting two others. Search the net for it FWIW.

For coverage of Reagan shooting, go to May 22, 1981 issue of The Continuing Inquiry for analysis by White

and Mack. Page one is reproduced below. The Mary Ferrell website has other pages (I do not have a scan of

page 2 of the article). Hinckley was just a Bush* patsy. Reagan was not hit until he was inside the car.

Jack

* according to a long-standing Skull and Bones urban legend, members must kill a rival at some time. This

may be 41's attempt. 43's may have been JohnJohn.

post-667-1266730973_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...