Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Paul Davies

Author Topic: The Hole in the Limousine's Windshield: Proof of a Second Gunman  (Read 2123 times)

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
Re: The Hole in the Limousine's Windshield: Proof of a Second Gunman
« Reply #28 on: Yesterday at 05:18:29 PM »
This issue is a prime example of the fact that some people judge the facts by their theory instead of judging their theory by the facts.

Oh, the irony! There is nobody on this forum who exemplifies that approach more than MTG. He sees bullet holes where none exist. He cites the opinions of people who operate outside their field of expertise and ignores what people who are actual experts in those fields. He will embrace any opinion that runs counter to the findings of the WC because he decided long ago that the WC was wrong because he wanted to believe a different story than the one the WC gave us. He doesn't even care if the people he cites conflict with each other as long as their opinions conflict with the WC.
Quote

We have solid, mutually corroborating eyewitness accounts, from three different locations, that there was a bullet hole in the windshield. Two of the witnesses were police officers. Two other witnesses were Secret Service agents. One witness was a medical student who went on to become the head of the surgery department at a major hospital in the Dallas area.

A perfect example of what I just wrote. He cites the opinions of people who took just a casual glance at the windshield and ignore the findings of the Secret Service who were able to give a close examination of the windshield and determined that it had been struck from the inside and that a missile hand NOT gone through the windshield in either direction.
Quote

We have a highly credible witness, George Whitaker, who was actually involved in replacing the limo's windshield on 11/25/63 at the Ford Motor Company's River Rouge Assembly Plant in Dearborn, Michigan, and this same witness saw the bullet hole and was certain, based on years of relevant experience, that it was a front-to-back hole.

Relevant experience??? Just how many windshields with bullet holes in them does he think George Whitaker replaced?
Quote

Whitaker said in a recorded 1993 interview that when he arrived to work on 11/25/63, the limo was already at the plant, in Building B, and that the windshield had already been removed. Two of the employees whom he supervised had been ordered to remove it, and they were given a cover story if anyone asked them what they did. He examined the windshield and saw the bullet hole. He added that the windshield was soon destroyed. Toward the end of his life, Whitaker produced a written statement about what he had seen and experienced on 11/25/1963.

I'll take the word of the Secret Service over George Whitaker.
Quote

We have support for Whitaker's account in the second-hand accounts of two family members whose father, Robert Harrison, worked at the Dearborn plant at the time and who told his family he saw a hole in the windshield. We have the fact that the logs for the White House garage show that no one came to see the limo on 11/25/63, whereas the logs show that people came before and after that date to see the limo. It would have been an easy operation to fly the limo to the Dearborn plant, have the windshield removed, and then fly the limo back to the White House garage in one day.

I guess that explanation makes sense to MTG. Of course it does. It feeds his wacky mindset.
Quote

You couldn't ask for a more credible, solid witness than George Whitaker. Doug Weldon spends nearly three pages in his chapter on the limo talking about why Whitaker was a credible witness. Anyone who listens to Whitaker's 1993 recorded interview can't help but be struck by his sincerity and clarity. Whitaker never sought publicity, had no interest in the JFK case, and spoke on the record reluctantly and only at the urging of his oldest son.

Like MTG, Weldon finds Whitaker credible solely because his story conflicts with the WCR.
Quote

Whitaker's account explains why the windshield in the limo on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn has no hole in it.

This is comical. Does he think they would have put the limo on display with the bullet hole still in it. I guess MTG isn't aware that the limo was completely reconfigured, converted to a hardtop, and put back into service. Does he think they would have done all that and not replaced the windshield?  I doubt he knows that the Ford Motor company owned the vehicle throughout its service life and leased it to the government at a nominal cost. 
Quote

Whitaker's account shows that all those witnesses who reported seeing a hole in the windshield were not "mistaken." The windshield in evidence is not the original windshield. It was replaced on 11/25/63. It was replaced (1) because the Secret Service was aware that many witnesses had seen the windshield hole while the limo was parked outside the ER entrance at Parkland Hospital, and (2) because the Secret Service knew that if any independent experts examined the original windshield, they would realize the hole was made by a missile that entered from the front.

All Whitaker did was show he got the same mistaken impression of the damaged windshield as the people who saw it at Parkland. It's understandable why those people would have gotten that impression since they knew JFK had been shot while riding in that limo and when they saw the crack in the windshield, they would have jumped to the conclusion a shot was fired through the windshield. At the time those witnesses saw the windshield, they would have had no idea of where the limo was when the shots were fired or from where the shots were fired. MTG never bothers to consider how silly it would have been to fire a shot at JFK through the windshield from a frontal position. The shooter would have been right out in the open for all to see. The witnesses on the bridge would have easily seen such a shooter and heard the shot. That shooter would have had to thread the needle to get a shot past Kellerman and JBC. Really neat trick given that Kellerman was in the front passenger seat and JBC's jump seat was offset to the inside. A bullet fired from the bridge striking low on the windshield where MTG claims it did, would never have been on a trajectory to reach JFK. Considering all those factors would have required MTG to apply critical thinking to the situation. Critical thinking is a trait rarely displayed by JFKA conspiracy fanatics.....like MTG.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Hole in the Limousine's Windshield: Proof of a Second Gunman
« Reply #28 on: Yesterday at 05:18:29 PM »


Online Benjamin Cole

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
I tend to accept HSCA conclusions. There were smart group, and operated on a different wavelength than the WC, which more-or-less was committed to the LN narrative even before conception (see President LBJ's directive).

The HSCA accepts the no bullet hole in the limo windshield narrative.


AI Overview


The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded there was no bullet hole that penetrated the original limousine windshield, but rather that a bullet fragment struck the inside surface of the glass, causing a crack and a "star-shaped" fracture.

Wikimedia Commons
 +1
The HSCA commissioned a detailed forensic examination of the original windshield (designated Commission Exhibit No. 351) by its Firearms Panel. They made the following specific determinations detailed in Volume VII of the HSCA Appendices:

Two Fractures: There were two separate fracture areas on the laminated, tinted glass.

Wikimedia Commons

Internal Impact: One impact point (located slightly down and to the right of the center of the rearview mirror) showed fracture lines radiating outward only on the outside surface of the glass. This indicated the glass was struck from the inside by a foreign object—which experts identified as a metal/lead deposit.

Wikimedia Commons
 +1
No Puncture: Because the impact only created an internal "star-shaped" crack and lead smear without piercing all the way through the dual-pane glass, it did not leave a clean, open "hole".

Wikimedia Commons

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
I tend to accept HSCA conclusions. There were smart group, and operated on a different wavelength than the WC, which more-or-less was committed to the LN narrative even before conception (see President LBJ's directive).

Smart group? I'm sorry. I just couldn't let that one slide. If was a committee of congressman. It's not as if we send our best and brightest people to Washington. Many of the people in Congress ended up there because they sucked at everything else they had tried.
Quote


The HSCA accepts the no bullet hole in the limo windshield narrative.

Good for them. They didn't screw everything up.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
Smart group? I'm sorry. I just couldn't let that one slide. If was a committee of congressman. It's not as if we send our best and brightest people to Washington. Many of the people in Congress ended up there because they sucked at everything else they had tried.
Good for them. They didn't screw everything up.

   The above is comical. You run down Congress on-the-whole, and then slap them on the back when they agree with You. The HSCA came up with 4 shots. That's what torks you off and taints your overall opinions of that body. If not for the HSCA, what material would Groden have walked off with?

JFK Assassination Forum