Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Mark Ulrik]

The assassination researcher Barb Junkarrein addressed the question of the "hole through the windshield" and specifically whether Altgens 6 shows a hole here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/

Key graf: "Good copies of the Altgens photo show it [i.e., the alleged hole or "spiral nebula" crack] to be not a feature of the windshield. Rather it is a pattern formed by the gathering of fabric in the dress of a woman spectator standing in the background. The Altgens #6 photo demonstrates that the limousine windshield is not damaged at Zapruder frame 255.

Already posted (and predictably ignored by MTG).

[Tommy Shanks]

Barb Junkkarinens disproved the Altgens 6 windshield crack years ago. Can Michael T. Griffith be man enough to admit he’s very wrong and that the whole purpose of starting this thread is moot?

[John Corbett]

Barb Junkkarinens disproved the Altgens 6 windshield crack years ago. Can Michael T. Griffith be man enough to admit he’s very wrong and that the whole purpose of starting this thread is moot?

If MTG were to admit he was wrong, that would take a heap of admissions.

[Steve Barber]

I have seen some really stupid posts by Griffith, but this one takes the cake! 
I usually don't read his tripe, but this one caught my eye because of its special type of absurdity.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I have seen some really stupid posts by Griffith, but this one takes the cake! 
I usually don't read his tripe, but this one caught my eye because of its special type of absurdity.

You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.

I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.

Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.

[John Corbett]

You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.

I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.

What makes you think your musings are worth reading. The stuff you post is silly enough. We don't need to go on a scavenger hunt to find further evidence of your silliness.

Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.

Not nearly as strong as forensic evidence.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

What makes you think your musings are worth reading. The stuff you post is silly enough. We don't need to go on a scavenger hunt to find further evidence of your silliness.
Not nearly as strong as forensic evidence.

Look how Barb Junkkarinen researched this question vs. how Michael Griffith looked into it (Junkkarinen was a conspiracist not a lone assassin believer). She didn't uncritically accept any claims about seeing a hole, she looked into them, tried to re-create where they were, what they could see. Were they credible? She sifted through the evidence pro and con, weighed them, and came to a conclusion. Whether it was right or not is second to the question of *how* she studied the issue.

Michael Griffith simply accepts the bullet hole claims (how would a spectator not at the scene know what caused the "hole"?), does no deeper research into the accounts, dismisses counter claims and then concludes that the evidence by itself "refutes" the long assassin theory.

Meanwhile, at the same time he accepts the acoustic analysis which theorized there was no frontal shot at that time. It didn't happen they said. If he believes the acoustics analysis then he can't believe in a early frontal shot and certainly not here at circa Z 260 or so.