Jump to content

Photographic Evidence of Bullet Hole in JFK Limousine Windshield ‘Hiding in Plain Sight’


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you Peter... fantastic synopsis...

The number of witnesses that have to be "mistaken" about what they saw, according to the gov't investigations, is staggering....

I guess my point all along has been that IN THIS CASE the witness testimony, even with its inherent problems, is FAR SUPERIOR to any piece of unauthenticated physical evidence... such as a windshield, autopsy report, xrays, photos, films, bullets, fragments, etc, etc, etc.....

Cheers

DJ

Well put. I believe that the physical evidence is icing on the cake in this matter. It is not even needed since there are simply too many witnesses saying the windshield had a hole in it and now it does not.

…And the U.S. Government Later Suborned Perjury in the Matter of the Damage to the Limousine Windshield

Unfortunately for Mr. Charles Taylor of the Secret Service, he – like Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition in the 17th century – was forced to recant, for he had committed heresy when he wrote in his official report on November 27th that he had observed a bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine as the car was closely examined in the White House garage the evening of the assassination, in 1963. In his 1976 recantation, an affidavit prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Taylor indicated that he changed his mind after examining the windshield stored in the Archives on December 19, 1975. Like Galileo, when prompted by his inquisitors, Taylor reversed himself, saying: “…I never examined this apparent hole [on November 22, 1963] to determine if there had been any penetration of the glass, nor did I even get a good look at the windshield in well-lighted surroundings…”. This is hardly credible. SA Kinney drove JFK’s limousine from Andrews AFB to the White House garage on November 22nd, 1963, and Taylor was the only passenger. The back seat bench (as revealed by horrifying color photographs taken in the White House garage) was still covered with gore, so we know Taylor did not sit there amidst the blood and brain tissue; and it is most doubtful that he sat in one of the uncomfortable jump seats in the middle of the car. Surely, he sat in the right front seat of the limousine all the way from Andrews AFB, to the garage where it was examined that evening – an ideal spot for noticing the bullet hole in the windshield, which would have been within arm’s reach for him. Inevitably, when the interior of the car was disassembled that evening inside the White House garage by FBI and Secret Service agents working together, the lights must have been on for this crucial joint inspection! Taylor reported on their activities in detail in his report, prepared on November 27th, 1963. The report makes clear that the agents could see what they were doing. In that context, consider Taylor’s written statement in his 1976 HSCA affidavit, about thirteen years later, in which he stated: “I have no doubt that the cracks [seen in the windshield placed in the Archives and in official photographs]…cracks in the inner layers of the glass only, are the ones I noticed on the trip from Andrews Air Force Base…it is clear to me that my use of the word ‘hole’ to describe the flaw in the windshield was incorrect.” Taylor’s sworn affidavit in 1976, shortly after he was asked by someone in government to examine the switched-out windshield deposited in the Archives, can only be viewed and described for what it was: perjury.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very difficult to address any of the physical evidence in this case since it has been systematically destroyed from day one. That being said , Doug Horne and many researchers have taken their time to help the rest of us understand what really happened in the matter of the murder of President Kennedy. Those covering this up can always come up with a story , however absurd, to counter physical evidence. They have done it for a long time and have become quite good at it. In fact, exposing what really happened plays right into their hands because now they know what countermeasures to use in that particular piece of evidence. When it comes to witness testimony though, all they can say is that "it is unreliable." and hope for the best. In these cases they either ignore debate ( as in the case of the actions and inactions of the Secret Service, which is in plain sight ) or they argue that witness testimony is unreliable, as in this case.

It is simply not going to fly regarding the windshield. Here you have physical evidence and a half dozen credible witness stating that they saw the hole in the windshield.

Therefore, there was a hole in the windshield in the aftermath of the shooting.

Doug Horne sums it up well:

President Kennedy was killed in Dealey Plaza by a crossfire, meted out by shooters firing from multiple directions, from both the front and behind – therefore, he was felled by a conspiracy, by definition. The windshield bullet hole evidence, all by itself, proves a conspiracy; and its clumsy and unsuccessful suppression, all by itself, is proof of a government cover-up of the facts in President Kennedy’s assassination, since the U.S. government controlled all of the windshield evidence. The facts contained in this tale prove that we had a coup in America in 1963, and that powerful and influential people were still covering it up in 1975, and 1976, and 1979, and in 2003. Former CIA Director William Colby once said that everyone of any significance in the U.S. media was owned by the CIA. I believe it – otherwise, this windshield nonsense would have been exposed long ago on a show like “60 Minutes.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The PH witnesses are all credible people. They did, however, state that they saw various locations for a t+t hole in the windshield of 100X. I'll be discussing this more at NID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Peter... fantastic synopsis...

The number of witnesses that have to be "mistaken" about what they saw, according to the gov't investigations, is staggering....

I guess my point all along has been that IN THIS CASE the witness testimony, even with its inherent problems, is FAR SUPERIOR to any piece of unauthenticated physical evidence... such as a windshield, autopsy report, xrays, photos, films, bullets, fragments, etc, etc, etc.....

Cheers

DJ

Well put. I believe that the physical evidence is icing on the cake in this matter. It is not even needed since there are simply too many witnesses saying the windshield had a hole in it and now it does not.

…And the U.S. Government Later Suborned Perjury in the Matter of the Damage to the Limousine Windshield

Unfortunately for Mr. Charles Taylor of the Secret Service, he – like Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition in the 17th century – was forced to recant, for he had committed heresy when he wrote in his official report on November 27th that he had observed a bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine as the car was closely examined in the White House garage the evening of the assassination, in 1963. In his 1976 recantation, an affidavit prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Taylor indicated that he changed his mind after examining the windshield stored in the Archives on December 19, 1975. Like Galileo, when prompted by his inquisitors, Taylor reversed himself, saying: “…I never examined this apparent hole [on November 22, 1963] to determine if there had been any penetration of the glass, nor did I even get a good look at the windshield in well-lighted surroundings…”. This is hardly credible. SA Kinney drove JFK’s limousine from Andrews AFB to the White House garage on November 22nd, 1963, and Taylor was the only passenger. The back seat bench (as revealed by horrifying color photographs taken in the White House garage) was still covered with gore, so we know Taylor did not sit there amidst the blood and brain tissue; and it is most doubtful that he sat in one of the uncomfortable jump seats in the middle of the car. Surely, he sat in the right front seat of the limousine all the way from Andrews AFB, to the garage where it was examined that evening – an ideal spot for noticing the bullet hole in the windshield, which would have been within arm’s reach for him. Inevitably, when the interior of the car was disassembled that evening inside the White House garage by FBI and Secret Service agents working together, the lights must have been on for this crucial joint inspection! Taylor reported on their activities in detail in his report, prepared on November 27th, 1963. The report makes clear that the agents could see what they were doing. In that context, consider Taylor’s written statement in his 1976 HSCA affidavit, about thirteen years later, in which he stated: “I have no doubt that the cracks [seen in the windshield placed in the Archives and in official photographs]…cracks in the inner layers of the glass only, are the ones I noticed on the trip from Andrews Air Force Base…it is clear to me that my use of the word ‘hole’ to describe the flaw in the windshield was incorrect.” Taylor’s sworn affidavit in 1976, shortly after he was asked by someone in government to examine the switched-out windshield deposited in the Archives, can only be viewed and described for what it was: perjury.

There was indeed damage to the windshield. Everybody acknowledges that. The appearance of the damage changed somewhat due to the 1600 mile flight to AAFB. By the time 100X was offloaded from the C130 it was 8 pm. We all know it was dark when LBJ gave his speech after getting off AF1. This needs to be taken into account.

Is it possible to develop an argument for a t+t windshield hole that doesn't involve calling people 'liars' or using fallacies?

Just a thought...

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was indeed damage to the windshield. Everybody acknowledges that. The appearance of the damage changed somewhat due to the 1600 mile flight to AAFB. By the time 100X was offloaded from the C130 it was 8 pm. We all know it was dark when LBJ gave his speech after getting off AF1. This needs to be taken into account.

Is it possible to develop an argument for a t+t windshield hole that doesn't involve calling people 'liars' or using fallacies?

Just a thought...

How do you know:

1) that the appearance of the damage changed?

2) if so, what caused the change to the appearance of the damage?

3) if the appearance did, in fact, change (which has yet to be established) and was caused "due to the 1600 mile flight to AAFB" (as you assert) -- by what mechanism did such change occur?

--or are you speculating? If you are speculating, that's ok, as long as I'm not being asked to assume facts not yet reasonably proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was indeed damage to the windshield. Everybody acknowledges that. The appearance of the damage changed somewhat due to the 1600 mile flight to AAFB. By the time 100X was offloaded from the C130 it was 8 pm. We all know it was dark when LBJ gave his speech after getting off AF1. This needs to be taken into account.

Is it possible to develop an argument for a t+t windshield hole that doesn't involve calling people 'liars' or using fallacies?

Just a thought...

How do you know:

1) that the appearance of the damage changed?

2) if so, what caused the change to the appearance of the damage?

3) if the appearance did, in fact, change (which has yet to be established) and was caused "due to the 1600 mile flight to AAFB" (as you assert) -- by what mechanism did such change occur?

--or are you speculating? If you are speculating, that's ok, as long as I'm not being asked to assume facts not yet reasonably proved.

Some of this is common sense. Why would anyone expect evidence that has an element of fragility to remain the same after traveling over 1600 miles by air and on the ground? (I think the same thing holds true with the body of JFK as well.)

Secondly, there is infomation in the lettter of SS Chief Rowley Jan 6, 1964, p2, where he sais SA Geis noticed a difference in the damage between that shown in the FBI photo CD350 and when it was first brought to the garage...Kinney said damage was more noticable when he drove it to the WHG than when he loaded on the plane at LF, and so on. Gies also thought the changes were due to the temperature changes in flight and vibrations when the car was being driven. Had the limo been impounded at PH, and a forensic exam done there, we would have a much clearer understanding of what damage had been done. But of course the DPD was way behind the SS on that one...they didn't even think of examining the limo until long after 100X had been secured on the C130 for its trip back to DC.

Another factor is that a number of people ran their hands over the windshield, and some of them (until the Frazier team, anyhow) didn't know what they were doing.

So these are just a few factors that weigh into changes in the appearance of the damage between Elm St. and the WHG, from my standpoint...

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Agents Abraham Bolden and the aforementioned Charles Taylor:

http://drjohnradio.com/co-host_jaimee_lee_reporting_live_from_preston_castle_and_former_secret_service_agent_joe_paolella

Joe will also tell us amazing stories when he was a secret service agent to four US Presidents, including JFK. Joe was the Secret Service agent responsible for guarding JFK’s limousine after the shooting. He noticed a bullet hole through the front windshield and never told anyone about this. About 40 years later, the first and only person he ever told was his good friend Dr John.

Presidential Car

May Be Retired

To A Museum

STEVENS POINT (WISCONSIN) DAILY JOURNALTuesday, Dec 3 1963

WASHINGTON (AP)—Unless

President Johnson decides to

use it the bubble-top limousine

in which President Kennedy

was assassinated probably will

be retired to a museum.

The vehicle was flown back

to Washington after experts

carefully examined it for bullet

fragments or other evidence in

connection with the fatal shooting

of Kennedy in Dallas on

Nov. 22.

The 30-month-old limousine is

in perfect condition except for a

small, unexplained hole in the

windshield which may have

been caused by a bullet fragment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...