JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 14, 2026, 02:23:11 PM
-
Eight witnesses in three different locations saw a hole in the front windshield of JFK's limousine. The lone-gunman theory has no way to explain the hole. The hole is proof of a second gunman. The eight witnesses who saw the hole were as follows:
-- Stavis Ellis, a Dallas police officer who saw JFK's limousine after it arrived at Parkland Hospital.
-- H. R. Freeman, a Dallas police officer who saw the limo after it arrived at Parkland Hospital.
-- Dr. Evalea Glanges, a medical student who was at Parkland Hospital when the limo arrived and who saw the limo there. Glanges had extensive experience with guns, having started doing recreational shooting as a child.
-- Richard Dudman, a journalist who saw the limo at Parkland Hospital.
-- Charles Taylor, Secret Service agent, who drove the limo to the White House garage. Taylor noted in an official memo that there was a "small hole" in the windshield.
-- Joe Paolella, Secret Service agent who guarded the limo at the White House garage.
-- George Whitaker, a Ford Motor Company (FMC) windshield glass technician who saw the limousine when it was brought to the company's River Rouge Assembly Plant, Building B, in Dearborn, Michigan.
-- Robert D. Harrison, an FMC automotive engineer at the company's Dearborn plant who saw the limo when it was at the plant.
Doug Weldon, a professor of criminal justice and an attorney, discusses the first seven witnesses in his chapter on the limo in Murder in Dealey Plaza. Here's a link to the chapter:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing) Weldon is the leading expert on the hole in the windshield of JFK's limo.
Another source available online on the evidence of the windshield hole is Doug Horne's article "Photographic Evidence of Bullet Hole in JFK Limousine Windshield ‘Hiding in Plain Sight,’" June 4, 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/)
The eighth witness, Robert Harrison, was discovered by Dr. David Mantik, who discusses Harrison in his chapter on the windshield hole in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis (chapter 5).
Weldon interviewed Officer Ellis:
Over extensive interviews with this author, Mr. Ellis was unequivocal about observing the hole. . . . He recalls actually placing a pencil in the hole. He recounted that there were numerous people and police officers at Parkland Hospital who viewed the whole. He vividly remembers that while he was observing the hole a Secret Service agent came up to him and tried to persuade him that he was seeing a “fragment” and not a hole. Mr. Ellis noted: “It wasn’t a damn fragment. It was a hole.” Mr. Ellis has been totally consistent with this statement over the years and has not wavered in his insistence that he saw a hole in the windshield immediately after the assassination. . . .
Stavis Ellis also distinctly recalled another incident at Parkland Memorial Hospital on that day, which he found disturbing. When a young boy, who had taken photographs along the motorcade route, took pictures of the limousine at Parkland Hospital, a Secret Service agent grabbed the boy's camera and exposed his film by rolling it out of the camera. Dallas Police Officer James W. Courson, another motorcade officer, corroborated this account of the Secret Service agent destroying the film. ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," pp. 139-140)
In a recorded interview in 1971, Officer Freeman said,
I was right beside it [the limo]. I could have touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was." ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," p. 139)
In a filmed interview shown in the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, Dr. Glanges, who later chaired the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, said this:
We ran around the side of the building [Parkland Hospital] to the emergency room exit, and the presidential limousine was there. I had been standing there just watching the back of the emergency room when I realized there that was a bullet hole in the windshield. I talked to my friends next to me and said, “Look, there’s a bullet hole in the windshield,” and pointed it out to them. At the time, I did not know any of the details of the shooting. I was quite shocked when I looked up and saw the bullet hole. But was very clear it was a through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back. . . . (The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, 11:36 to 13:13 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNchhZBWhPM)
Weldon interviewed Dr. Glanges in 1999 and reported the following:
She leaned against the fender and viewed the hole in the windshield. Looking from the outside she noted, "It was a real clean hole". . . .
She was insistent that the official story was “phony.” When I interviewed her, she was anticipating retirement in the near future. She confirmed that she was 100% certain that there was a hole in the windshield in the limousine at Parkland Hospital. ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," p. 140)
On November 27, 1963, SS agent Taylor wrote an official report on the security of the limo in the White House garage after its return from Dallas. He noted that a team of four FBI agents removed “bullet fragments” from the windshield, starting at 1:00 a.m. on November 23, 1963. Taylor noted in the report that there was a "small hole" in the windshield:
In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments. ("Photographic Evidence of Bullet Hole in JFK Limousine Windshield ‘Hiding in Plain Sight,’" June 4, 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/))
SS agent Paolella broke his silence in a radio interview with his friend Dr. John DeSalvo. Paolella recalled seeing a bullet hole in the windshield:
Walking around the car, I didn’t want to sit back there—it was pretty horrible. I noticed that there appeared to be a bullet hole in the windshield on the driver’s side, several inches over the hood of the car (i.e., elevated up on the windshield) but I, in turn, was in a state of shock myself, and I had heard that he got shot from the back, from the Dealey Plaza. So I didn’t really look to see if the glass particles from the windshield were in the driver’s side or on the hood. That would have given me some indication where the bullet came from. (Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, p. 296)
Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, saw the limo at Parkland and reported the following:
A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance [to Parkland Hospital] after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side. ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," p. 139)
Whitaker told Weldon in 1993 that he replaced the limousine windshield on Monday, November 25, at the River Rouge Assembly Plant, Building B. He said he saw a hole in the windshield, four to six inches to the (driver’s) side of the rearview mirror, and he was certain, based on his years of experience, that the shot came from the front.
At Whitaker’s request, Weldon kept Whitaker’s name confidential until after his death. Whitaker was very hesitant to disclose what he had seen. He almost declined to be interviewed, but his son persuaded him to do it. After Whitaker’s death in 2001, his family released Whitaker’s written testament to Nigel Turner. Here is his statement:
This is November 22, 1993, 30 years after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and as I will be 80 years old in about two months I think it is about time I put this bit of history in writing or on tape, so when I am gone the record will still be here. This is what I know about this part of the records. I know they are incomplete. JFK was shot and killed on November 22, 1963. This was a Friday afternoon. On Monday morning (November 25th) the Lincoln was in the Rouge Plant of the Ford Motor Co. When it [sic] around there I do not know at about 9:00 I was called to report to [the] glass laboratory, which I did. When arrived at the lab the door was locked. I was let in. There were two glass engineers there. They had a car windshield that had a bullet hole in it. The hole about 4 or 6 inches to the right of the rear view mirror [as viewed from the front]. The impact had come from the front of the windshield. (If you have spent 40 years in the glass [illegible] you know which way the impact was from.)
When Weldon interviewed Whitaker in 1993, he asked him how certain was he that the bullet hole in the windshield came from the front:
Answer: I worked in the industry for forty years and I’ve seen all kinds of testing on glass and I know it came from the front.
Question: So you’re 100% certain.
Answer: I’m 100% positive that it came from the front! ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," pp. 144-145)
As for Harrison, his two sons confirmed to Dr. Mantik that Harrison had told them on several occasions that he had seen a bullet hole in the windshield when the limo was at the Ford Dearborn plant (Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, p. 325).
Videos on the evidence of a hole in the windshield:
Doug Weldon segment on the hole in the windshield in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO47m8DIjBQ)
JFK Limousine Windshield Bullet Hole (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboGla8AGmY)
Bullet holes in the limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFoPCKVp-8)
The precise location of a bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limousine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2DhBgasCM)
The precise location of a bullet hole in the windshield of JFK limousine - PART 3 OF 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_12l1uYQ)
JFK Secret Service Agent: hole in windshield of limo! INTERVIEW BY DR. JOHN DESALVO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg_x4sx_m-w) This is DeSalvo's interview with SS agent Paolella.
-
Amazing how that bullet hole keeps moving around.
-
Amazing how that bullet hole keeps moving around.
Uh-huh. As usual, you obviously did not bother to read any of the cited sources, especially Weldon's chapter and Mantik's chapter, and did not bother to watch any of the linked videos.
All the descriptions that mention a location put the hole in the same general area. All said it was on the driver's side of the mirror. Perhaps you got confused because the witnesses used different frames of reference--some described the location from the rear view while others described it from the frontal view.
So we're all eight of these witnesses -- spread over three different locations and unaware of each other's accounts -- hallucinating?
-
This GIF shows that Altgens 7 captured the exact same windscreen crack in the exact same spot as the windscreen crack seen in evidence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NM8DDYp5/Altgen-s-crack.gif)
BTW, the official windscreen photo was not captured a few hours later but later that night.
JohnM
-
Uh-huh. As usual, you obviously did not bother to read any of the cited sources, especially Weldon's chapter and Mantik's chapter, and did not bother to watch any of the linked videos.
Actually, this was one of the rare occasions that did look at your bogus sources. That's how I can see those alleged bullet holes keeps showing up in different places. [/quote]
All the descriptions that mention a location put the hole in the same general area. [/quote]
The same general area? Are you freaking nuts? If these were legitimate, they would show the bullet hole in the same EXACT place. Did you really need me to explain that to you?
All said it was on the driver's side of the mirror.
WOW! You've really narrowed it down there, Sherlock.
Perhaps you got confused because the witnesses used different frames of reference--some described the location from the rear view while others described it from the frontal view.
Depending one which photo you show, the bullet hole could be up by the mirror or down near the bottom of the windshield. Instead of a Magic Bullet, you are postulating a Magic Bullet Hole.
So we're all eight of these witnesses -- spread over three different locations and unaware of each other's accounts -- hallucinating?
You seems that you are.
-
MTG--
In general, I am not in the JFK was "shot from the front" team.
That said, you have presented a compelling collection of witnesses who say they saw a hole in the JFL limo windshield.
It is not comforting that the original windshield has not preserved. How hard would it be to preserve a windshield?
I am keeping an open mind on the JFKA "hole in the windshield" story.
-
MTG--
In general, I am not in the JFK was "shot from the front" team.
That said, you have presented a compelling collection of witnesses who say they saw a hole in the JFL limo windshield.
It is not comforting that the original windshield has not preserved. How hard would it be to preserve a windshield?
I am keeping an open mind on the JFKA "hole in the windshield" story.
Compellng. You must have a very low bar for what you consider compelling.
-
Dudman walked back his claim of a bullet hole in the windshield.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Litwinpage.jpg)
-
Dudman walked back his claim of a bullet hole in the windshield.
Dudman did not tell Mark Lane that he did not see a hole in the windshield. What he told Lane was that Lane was wrong for claiming that Dudman had been discriminated against by "news sources in Washington" over his reporting regarding the throat wound and the windshield hole.
Only in 1988 did Dudman, relying on the replacement windshield, assume he must have been mistaken, but at the time he wrote his accounts, he had no doubt, as noted by one of the other journalists you quote in your article (Dudman "insisted" he saw a small hole in the windshield).
We did not know that the windshield was replaced until the 1990s, so Dudman naturally assumed that the windshield in evidence proved he must have been mistaken. If Dudman had been made aware of the Whitaker and Robinson evidence, he may well have stood by his original accounts, which he wrote while events were still fresh in his mind. Dudman retired in the late 1980s and was no longer involved in the JFK case by then.
-
Fred, this is wrong. Dudman did not tell Mark Lane that he did not see a hole in the windshield. What he told Lane was that Lane was wrong for claiming that Dudman had been discriminated against by "news sources in Washington" over his reporting regarding the throat wound and the windshield hole.
Only in 1988 did Dudman, relying on the replacement windshield, assume he must have been mistaken, but at the time he wrote his accounts, he had no doubt, as noted by one of the other journalists you quote in your article (Dudman "insisted" he saw a small hole in the windshield).
We did not know that the windshield was replaced until the 1990s, so Dudman naturally assumed that the windshield in evidence proved he must have been mistaken. If Dudman had been made aware of the Whitaker and Robinson evidence, he may well have stood by his original accounts, which he wrote while events were still fresh in his mind. Dudman retired in the late 1980s and was no longer involved in the JFK case by then.
WHO CARES about this bickering between Lane and Dudman? You guys get knotted up in BS: that does Not matter.
Show this Forum the Image Evidence of a hole in the windshield. Personally, I believe there are far better images of the JFK Limo windshield than Altgens 6. There are very clear images of the JFK Limo taken from the rear of the car as it sat at Parkland Hospital. The trunk of the car is closed and there is No Top on the car. These CLEAR Images of the JFK Limo also include Wiegman entering the picture from the (R) with his camera at his face. (time stamp). The entire inside of the windshield is visible in these images. Research 'Work" focusing on these images of the inside of the windshield should reveal whether it had a thru-n-thru HOLE in it or Not.
-
WHO CARES about this bickering between Lane and Dudman? You guys get knotted up in BS: that does Not matter.
Show this Forum the Image Evidence of a hole in the windshield. Personally, I believe there are far better images of the JFK Limo windshield than Altgens 6. There are very clear images of the JFK Limo taken from the rear of the car as it sat at Parkland Hospital. The trunk of the car is closed and there is No Top on the car. These CLEAR Images of the JFK Limo also include Wiegman entering the picture from the (R) with his camera at his face. (time stamp). The entire inside of the windshield is visible in these images. Research 'Work" focusing on these images of the inside of the windshield should reveal whether it had a thru-n-thru HOLE in it or Not.
I have said nothing about the photographic evidence of a windshield bullet hole. My point is that eight witnesses in three different locations saw a hole the windshield.
When Dudman spoke in 1988, he had no idea that the windshield in evidence was not the original windshield, that the windshield had been replaced. If he had known this, he almost certainly would have stood by his original account as expressed in his two December 1963 articles. He had no doubt that he had seen a hole in the windshield.
Two weeks after Dudman wrote his December 1 article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, fellow journalist Robert Branson noted that "Richard Dudman . . . insists that when he inspected the car afterward, he saw what appeared to him to be a small, round hole near the middle of the windshield."
-
Dr. Evalea Glanges sure seems like a credible witness. Serious medical student, became a doctor. A gun enthusiast. She says she saw a hole in the JFK limo windshield.
Then, why destroy the original JFK limo windshield? Destroying crime scene evidence is not a good look.
I have reasonable doubts about the nature of cracks or bullet holes in the JFK limo windshield. I cannot fathom destroying the original windshield.
-
Dr. Evalea Glanges sure seems like a credible witness. Serious medical student, became a doctor. A gun enthusiast. She says she saw a hole in the JFK limo windshield.
Did the Secret Service Agents (especially if they were part of the plot!!!) really let her get that close to the limo?
-
TG-
Evidently, the SS did shoo her away, although I doubt the SS was a part of any plot.
My only point is that there are credible witnesses to a hole in the JFK limo windshield when it arrived at Parkland.
BTW I may have to correct myself. It appears the original windshield was not destroyed.
https://docsteach.org/document/winshield-limousine-assassination/
Then there is this:
https://i.postimg.cc/vZNyWyLf/Screen-Shot-2569-07-16-at-19-06-13.png
This doc appears to indicate the limo windshield was cracked, possibly with a hole, but from a strike on the inside.
That tends to refute the "shot from the front" narrative.
I have never been a fan of the "JFK was shot from the front" narrative, due to the windshield, and the lack of any eyewitnesses to a shooter in front of JFK.
I am open to the possibility a shot from the GK struck JFK. But who knows?
-
Dr. Evalea Glanges sure seems like a credible witness. Serious medical student, became a doctor. A gun enthusiast. She says she saw a hole in the JFK limo windshield.
Yes, she was very credible.
Then, why destroy the original JFK limo windshield?
Obviously, because they knew that a bullet hole in the windshield would wreck the lone-gunman story. They knew they had no way to explain the hole.
Destroying crime scene evidence is not a good look.
That's why they secretly flew the limo to the FMC Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and to destroy the original one. If George Whitaker had not reluctantly agreed to do a recorded interview with Doug Weldon, and if he had not left an end-of-life testament about what he saw and did, there would be no first-hand accounts of the windshield's replacement.
I have reasonable doubts about the nature of cracks or bullet holes in the JFK limo windshield. I cannot fathom destroying the original windshield.
So you think Whitaker just made up the whole thing? I find Whitaker compellingly credible. He was down-to-earth, sincere, and reluctant to speak. He never sought publicity, and in fact he insisted that Weldon not use his name until after he passed away because he feared he would suffer repercussions from revealing what he knew.
How about SS agent Charles Taylor's written report in which he mentioned seeing a hole in the windshield? He said the hole was of "particular note" and he located it in the same area as the other witnesses -- left of center (driver's view). Taylor got a long, up-close view of the hole because he drove the limo to the White House garage. I find it impossible to believe he was "mistaken."
How about the two Dallas police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who were certain they saw a hole in the windshield, and on of whom actually put a pencil through the hole?
How does one dismiss such specific, independent, mutually corroborating accounts? If such accounts conflict with someone's theory of the assassination, that person should adjust their theory to fit the evidence.
-
Yes, she was very credible.
Obviously, because they knew that a bullet hole in the windshield would wreck the lone-gunman story. They knew they had no way to explain the hole.
That's why they secretly flew the limo to the FMC Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and to destroy the original one. If George Whitaker had not reluctantly agreed to do a recorded interview with Doug Weldon, and if he had not left an end-of-life testament about what he saw and did, there would be no first-hand accounts of the windshield's replacement.
So you think Whitaker just made up the whole thing? I find Whitaker compellingly credible. He was down-to-earth, sincere, and reluctant to speak. He never sought publicity, and in fact he insisted that Weldon not use his name until after he passed away because he feared he would suffer repercussions from revealing what he knew.
How about SS agent Charles Taylor's written report in which he mentioned seeing a hole in the windshield? He said the hole was of "particular note" and he located it in the same area as the other witnesses -- left of center (driver's view). Taylor got a long, up-close view of the hole because he drove the limo to the White House garage. I find it impossible to believe he was "mistaken."
How about the two Dallas police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who were certain they saw a hole in the windshield, and on of whom actually put a pencil through the hole?
How does one dismiss such specific, independent, mutually corroborating accounts? If such accounts conflict with someone's theory of the assassination, that person should adjust their theory to fit the evidence.
The people who claimed there was a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield never got close enough to closely examine it. It's not at all surprising that seeing the crack created by a fragment of the headshot would cause people to believe a shot was fired through the windshield, especially since at the time, none of those people would have had any idea where the shooter had fired from. The Secret Service was able to closely examine the crack and determined the windshield was struck from the inside and the missile had not passed through the windshield. It remained inside the limo.
-
MTG--
I think you misunderstood my comment.
I have reasonable doubts about narratives of the JFKA that assert there was/is no hole in the limo windshield.
Did you see my other post?
Was the windshield destroyed or not? Or is it in the National Archives?
And did the HSCA determine the hole in the windshield resulted from a strike on the interior side of the windshield?
-
Did the HSCA determine the hole in the windshield resulted from a strike on the interior side of the windshield?
There was no through-and-through hole in the windshield.
-
The people who claimed there was a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield never got close enough to closely examine it. It's not at all surprising that seeing the crack created by a fragment of the headshot would cause people to believe a shot was fired through the windshield, especially since at the time, none of those people would have had any idea where the shooter had fired from. The Secret Service was able to closely examine the crack and determined the windshield was struck from the inside and the missile had not passed through the windshield. It remained inside the limo.
Just my own personal experience, but I have seen several CRACKED Windshields. I Never initially thought I was looking at a windshield with a HOLE in it. Never. If someone connected to law enforcement claimed that on 11/22/63 that they saw the JFK Limo windshield with a HOLE in it, "big enough to put a pencil through it", I believe that law enforcement official.
There are plenty of images of the JFK Limo sitting at Parkland Hospital with the Limo Trunk CLOSED and no top on the car. These images would therefore be before the trunk was opened and the Limo Top extracted, etc. These images would be FRESH Images of the car. These images show the JFK Limo from the rear toward Parkland Hospital. These images clearly show the inside of the windshield. These images are clear enough to show the 2 Doors on Parkland Hospital that FACED the JFK Limo. These images even show Wiegman on the (R) as he began to approach the JFK Limo with his camera at his face. These are extremely clear images. These are EARLY ON IMAGES of the JFK Limo. It would Not be difficult to Zoom in on the inside of the Limo windshield and examine the alleged Hole/Crack. This Limo "windshield" issue should have been put-to-bed long ago. Maybe it was?
-
Just my own personal experience, but I have seen several CRACKED Windshields. I Never initially thought I was looking at a windshield with a HOLE in it. Never. If someone connected to law enforcement claimed that on 11/22/63 that they saw the JFK Limo windshield with a HOLE in it, "big enough to put a pencil through it", I believe that law enforcement official.
When you saw those cracked windshield, did you have knowledge that somebody in the car had just been shot? If you did and you weren't in position to get a close-up view of the crack, I think you would have had a very different judgement. The human mind is subject to suggestion and the sight of a cracked windshield combined with the knowledge that JFK had just been shot would very much influence how those witnesses assessed what they were seeing.
There are plenty of images of the JFK Limo sitting at Parkland Hospital with the Limo Trunk CLOSED and no top on the car. These images would therefore be before the trunk was opened and the Limo Top extracted, etc. These images would be FRESH Images of the car. These images show the JFK Limo from the rear toward Parkland Hospital. These images clearly show the inside of the windshield. These images are clear enough to show the 2 Doors on Parkland Hospital that FACED the JFK Limo. These images even show Wiegman on the (R) as he began to approach the JFK Limo with his camera at his face. These are extremely clear images. These are EARLY ON IMAGES of the JFK Limo. It would Not be difficult to Zoom in on the inside of the Limo windshield and examine the alleged Hole/Crack. This Limo "windshield" issue should have been put-to-bed long ago. Maybe it was?
The limo windshield issue should have been resolved a long time ago by the Secret Service's close up examination of the windshield which revealed a strike to the inside surface of the windshield and no penetration through the windshield.
-
Weldon’s chapter on the limousine is especially valuable because he documents that the White House garage logs contain no entries for November 25, the same day Ford Motor Company glass technician George Whitaker reported that the limousine was at the Ford Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and when Whitaker saw the hole in the windshield.
The government's official version of what happened to the limousine after the assassination appears very simple if one conducts a cursory examination. That "story" alleges that the limousine was flown to Washington D.C. on the evening of 22 November 1963. It then remained in the White House Garage under the supervision of the Secret Service until, according to James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, it was driven to Dearborn, Michigan-approximately 500 miles--on 20 December 1963 to design a new bubble-top. The vehicle was then supposed to have been driven from Dearborn, Michigan to Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, Ohio, on 24 December 1963, for the manufacture and installation of the new bullet resistant bubble-top. (See Appendix C.)
This was the official account James Rowley provided to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel to the Warren Commission in a letter dated 6 January 1964, a version of events which has been suspect for many years, . . .
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), during its tenure from 1976 to 1978, became confused about what happened to the limousine in the aftermath of the assassination. In an examination of 11 specific dates regarding the limousine after the assassination beginning with 22 November 1963, the HSCA noted conspicuous discrepancies in testimony about 4 of those dates as it developed its chronology of the movements of the limousine.
An article published in Car Exchange (December 1983) reported that the limousine was delivered to Hess & Eisenhardt around the date of 12 December 1963. In addition, however, the HSCA, in referring to the records of Hess & Eisenhardt, also noted that the vehicle was delivered to Hess & Eisenhardt on 13 December 1963. This date was confirmed to me personally by Willard Hess, one of the owners of the company. Notice that both of these dates drastically contradict the information provided by the Chief of the Secret Service to Mr. Rankin in his letter of 6 January 1964. . . .
The Ferguson memorandum raises other questions. An examination of the White House Garage logs is revealing. Mr. Ferguson's name, for example, does not appear on the logs until 26 November 1963. . . .
The logs also reveal more critical information. The most significant aspect of the White House Garage logs is the absence of even one person logging in to see the limousine on 25 November 1963. This critical observation becomes of paramount importance when the statement of a witness from the Ford Motor Company, who asserts that he worked on the windshield at Ford on 25 November, is scrutinized. . . .
On 15 August 1993, I was able to conduct an interview that answered many of the questions raised by the windshield controversy. Awareness of the existence of this individual came to me purely by circumstance and not through any investigative efforts for which I can take credit. I am not revealing the identity of the individual at this time. A number of trusted researchers have been provided this information with an unedited copy of the full interview between us as a verification of its legitimacy. As I write today, this individual is still living but in poor health.
Having been an attorney since 1978, I have literally seen thousands of people testify in the courtroom. While serving as a hearing official for a number of those years, it has been my duty to weigh the credibility of witnesses. This individual was as credible a witness as I had ever observed in any courtroom. . . .
He had worked for the Ford Motor Company for forty years, starting in 1934. He has never forgotten what occurred on 25 November 1963. The two lab men to whom he makes reference are now deceased. These are some important excerpts from my interview:
“Around noon, we got it around 2:00 that he had been killed. So, right away they called meetings to find out what we were going to do. Are we gonna run Monday morning with the President being killed? We didn't decide on anything at that meeting, and being that I had charge of all power service, I was in charge of getting that plant ready to run or to shut it down and everything. So, they decided that they would let everything ride and they would call me on Sunday. So, on Sunday, around noon-I had just finished dinner-they called me up and told me to go in and make arrangements to start the plant up.
“Cause we would have to start that plant up around midnight to get it going for the day shift and number two shift. So, that I did, but then I arrived my normal time on Monday and they had me on a two-way radio and they had me on a Cushman scooter because I was covering a large plant. So I got a call from the Vice President of the division, and he told me on the radio that I was wanted in the glass plant lab, now! So I went down to the lab and the door was locked ....
"I knocked on the door and they let me in. There were two of the lab men in there and they had the windshield there. And they told me that we were to use that to-see now the car was a special built car.
“We were to use that windshield as a template to make a new windshield. And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through. You could see it, from the way it was broken....
"But the car was in the B building, where we had a repair garage. And they had taken the windshield out, it was back in the glass plant, we were using it as a template. And to make a windshield, and we were told to follow it right straight through until it was a finished product and get it back to the B building. We were told if anybody asked us what we were doing, we were running a template for a prototype.... "
After describing the process for making a new windshield he noted,
"We laminated it, when we took it out of there, it was a finished windshield. We took it to the B building; it was put in that limousine. Now that limousine had the entire interior completely stripped out.... The carpeting and everything was gone....
"It was gone, it was nothing, it was down to metal, and they restored the whole interior."
When asked if the limousine had been "stripped" at the plant, he replied, "... I assumed it was there, that's what they did....
"It was a good clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or anything, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it .... This had a clean round hole in the front and fragmented in the back....
"I went on from there and I became superintendent of the division and I had the whole five plant divisions.'' (“The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963,” in Murder in Dealey Plaza, pp. 132-135, 142-143).
I again encourage interested readers to read Weldon's entire chapter. It contains much more information than the quotes from it provided above. Here's the link:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing)
-
When you saw those cracked windshield, did you have knowledge that somebody in the car had just been shot? If you did and you weren't in position to get a close-up view of the crack, I think you would have had a very different judgement. The human mind is subject to suggestion and the sight of a cracked windshield combined with the knowledge that JFK had just been shot would very much influence how those witnesses assessed what they were seeing.
The limo windshield issue should have been resolved a long time ago by the Secret Service's close up examination of the windshield which revealed a strike to the inside surface of the windshield and no penetration through the windshield.
Yes, I have seen the SS Pics of "A" windshield. The images of the windshield I refer to were taken at Parkland Hospital, only minutes after the car arrived there, and only minutes after JFK had been removed from the vehicle. Now, put yourself in a jury box. Which images of the windshield are You going to place your trust in?
-
Yes, I have seen the SS Pics of "A" windshield. The images of the windshield I refer to were taken at Parkland Hospital, only minutes after the car arrived there, and only minutes after JFK had been removed from the vehicle. Now, put yourself in a jury box. Which images of the windshield are You going to place your trust in?
If I'm in the jury box, I'd put my faith in whatever pictures were presented unless one side or another presented evidence the pictures were fabricated. Of course, if credible evidence of forgery was presented, the judge might rule the pictures inadmissible. I'm not a lawyer but my experience on four different juries tells me it's likely any objections one side or the other had to pictures presented by the other side would not be done in the presence of the jury. The judge would rule on admissibility BEFORE the jury was allowed to see them.
-
A windshield repair person would most likely conclude the windshield damage came from outside...
Bill "Rubbernecking" Greer was likely being put on notice... "don't divulge why you slowed the limo... we can get to you too..."
-
A windshield repair person would most likely conclude the windshield damage came from outside...
Bill "Rubbernecking" Greer was likely being put on notice... "don't divulge why you slowed the limo... we can get to you too..."
I never cease to be amazed at the things CTs can dream up without an ounce of evidence to support it.
-
I never cease to be amazed at the things CTs can dream up without an ounce of evidence to support it.
The clear images of the JFK Limo at Parkland showing the windshield are there. When instead, images are posted by the WC AFTER the windshield was removed, you gotta smell a rat. Those running this operation had to of viewed the Parkland Hospital windshield images taken only minutes after the kill shot. They know.
-
The clear images of the JFK Limo at Parkland showing the windshield are there. When instead, images are posted by the WC AFTER the windshield was removed, you gotta smell a rat. Those running this operation had to of viewed the Parkland Hospital windshield images taken only minutes after the kill shot. They know.
I don't know which photos you are referring to that you say were taken after the windshield was removed. I've seen a photo showing the cracked windshield. The limo was returned to be refurbished and reconfigured. Naturally the windshield would be removed during that process but I know of no photos taken at that time. If you have those please post them.
Here is the photo I am familiar with
https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.F9a7y61ooNJFZ5VRhTGbVwHaGW?r=0&rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain&o=7&rm=3
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whitaker's account explains why the windshield in the limo on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn has no hole in it. 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.
-
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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
-
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. It was a committee of congressmen. 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.
The HSCA accepts the no bullet hole in the limo windshield narrative.
Good for them. They didn't screw everything up.
-
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?
-
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 HSCA investigation was, like the Warren Commission, mostly conducted by the staffers and technical experts and not the members, the congressmen. And the committee members largely accepted (or not, see below) what the staffers and experts concluded. That was their key mistake near the end: uncritically (enough) accepting the rushed and poorly examined acoustics analysis. Despite that it seems to me that much of their work, especially the other scientific analysis, is still good. You're throwing out the good with the bad.
Remember, some on the committee dissented from the "probably a conspiracy" view. Here is Rep. Edgar making these critical points:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13652407788/Keydyx5ciu5diut/edgar.jpg)
His complaint was they believed a "11th hour" report of the acoustics without adequately vetting it. And ignoring the other evidence. He was right.
But he added this equally important point about their work:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13652480242/Keyo6nlc8vlvc85/edgar two.jpg)
The "great job" was the HSCA proved the BYP were authentic. That the single bullet explanation was supported by the evidence. The autopsy x-rays and photos were authentic. There was no evidence that CIA or Cubans or Soviets were involved. There was no windshield hole. And much more. The investigation was flawed at the end but a lot of their work stands up.
As for the conspiracists here: they like to point to the HSCA conclusions but they don't really believe them and certainly not the main one. The HSCA said there "probably" was a conspiracy. Probably. But as Edgar points out above they found "no evidence" to suggest there actually was one. "Probably" is not saying there was one. It's simply arguing that if there was a second gunman he must have conspired with Oswald. But they didn't say how this conspiracy took place. Or even who this second gunman was.
-
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?
The HSCA's conclusion of 4 shots confirms my low opinion of Congress as a whole. Given that the approval rating for Congress hovers in the 15-18% range, it seems I am not alone.
-
The HSCA's conclusion of 4 shots confirms my low opinion of Congress as a whole. Given that the approval rating for Congress hovers in the 15-18% range, it seems I am not alone.
Why should your opinion need to be buttressed by some lame "approval rating"? Polls are a dime a dozen. Buck up.
-
Why should your opinion need to be buttressed by some lame "approval rating"? Polls are a dime a dozen. Buck up.
I cited the poll to show that my low opinion of Congress is shared by the vast majority of Americans. We can always debate the validity of that opinion. Suffice it to say that I don't find getting elected to Congress an indication that person has a great deal of intelligence. Some do but it is not a prerequisite for getting elected. Hell, even this person not only got elected 18 times but is now the ranking member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=dKx%2f2Y%2bY&id=B12CD0A59C020812F625131E767D0DF96CE76C63&thid=OIP.dKx_2Y-YAWeyKsH5WyQzlgHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fstatic.foxnews.com%2ffoxnews.com%2fcontent%2fuploads%2f2023%2f09%2fRosa-DeLauro.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.74ac7fd98f980167b22ac1f95b243396%3frik%3dY2znbPkNfXYeEw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=pictures+of+the+blue+haired+congresswoman&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=2FF3A90E0CE29E75ACC426927892818C&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
-
I cited the poll to show that my low opinion of Congress is shared by the vast majority of Americans. We can always debate the validity of that opinion. Suffice it to say that I don't find getting elected to Congress an indication that person has a great deal of intelligence. Some do but it is not a prerequisite for getting elected. Hell, even this person not only got elected 18 times but is now the ranking member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=dKx%2f2Y%2bY&id=B12CD0A59C020812F625131E767D0DF96CE76C63&thid=OIP.dKx_2Y-YAWeyKsH5WyQzlgHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fstatic.foxnews.com%2ffoxnews.com%2fcontent%2fuploads%2f2023%2f09%2fRosa-DeLauro.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.74ac7fd98f980167b22ac1f95b243396%3frik%3dY2znbPkNfXYeEw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=pictures+of+the+blue+haired+congresswoman&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=2FF3A90E0CE29E75ACC426927892818C&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
What does public opinion of Congress *today* tell us about how the HSCA conducted its investigation some 45 years ago? How does the first relate to the second?
American don't like Congress today, they think it does a poor job and that means the HSCA also did a poor job? A completely different Congress and committee almost half a century ago? In your thinking the fact that most Americans *today* think it's doing a poor job means every Congress and every committee in American history, everything done before now, was incompetent and worthless. Regardless of what they did.
That's not logical.
In their very first paragraph of their report, the HSCA said this:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13654827996/Keydiqfs4fd2dia/hscaconclusions.jpg)
Should we reject all of the above because *today* Americans view Congress so negatively?
-
Let's back up a bit. My initial comments about Congress were in response to Benjamin Cole's comment that the HSCA was a "smart group". I find it laughable to assume that being a member of Congress is an indication of superior intellect. There have been some outstanding people who served in Congress over the years but there have been some real dumbasses as well as more than a few sleaze bags. Eric Swalwell and Matt Gsetz being just two recent examples of that. I see no evidence that the people we send Congress are our best and brightest people. A few are, but they seem to be the exceptions.
I judge the HSCA on their work, not their credentials. They had an opportunity to provide a valuable service to country and they blew it. They spit the bit before they crossed the finish line and all they did was muddy the waters. Those who wrote the dissenting opinions showed both intelligence and character but unfortunately, they were in the minority on that body.
-
Additional support for the front-to-back windshield shot comes from former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's 2023 disclosure that he recovered a moderately damaged bullet from the top of the back seat of the limo and that he also saw two bullet fragments on the back seat, next to where Jackie had been sitting.
His disclosure of seeing two bullet fragments on the back seat is almost as important as his account of finding an extra bullet. The two limo fragments that were later entered into evidence, CE 567 and CE 569, could not have been the fragments that Landis saw recovered from the front end of the limo's interior: one was found on the seat beside the driver, while the other was found along the right side of the front seat. We can add the back-seat bullet fragments to the sizable list of fragments that were excluded from the official record and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Two articles on Landis's disclosure:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-makes-a-big-splash-in-2023-ahead-of-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-kennedy-assassination-but-how-credible-is-he
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman#intcid=_vanity-fair-verso-hp-trending_55769946-16e1-4879-9a1f-360e0a2eb3c7_popular4-1
Landis insisted he put the bullet on JFK's stretcher, since he assumed it came from JFK's body. However, there is compelling evidence that another bullet was found on Connally's stretcher, a fact that Connally himself confirmed, and that the Connally stretcher bullet was not CE 399 (see, for example, Robert Harris's article "The Connally Bullet" (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-connally-bullet) and Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Josiah Thompson's article "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?" (https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm)).
The bullet that Landis found could have come from the windshield shot. The limo's safety glass would have caused little deformity to a rifle bullet, although it could have slightly altered the bullet's course.
-
Additional support for the front-to-back windshield shot comes from former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's 2023 disclosure that he recovered a moderately damaged bullet from the top of the back seat of the limo and that he also saw two bullet fragments on the back seat, next to where Jackie had been sitting.
His disclosure of seeing two bullet fragments on the back seat is almost as important as his account of finding an extra bullet. The two limo fragments that were later entered into evidence, CE 567 and CE 569, could not have been the fragments that Landis saw recovered from the front end of the limo's interior: one was found on the seat beside the driver, while the other was found along the right side of the front seat. We can add the back-seat bullet fragments to the sizable list of fragments that were excluded from the official record and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Two articles on Landis's disclosure:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-makes-a-big-splash-in-2023-ahead-of-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-kennedy-assassination-but-how-credible-is-he
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman#intcid=_vanity-fair-verso-hp-trending_55769946-16e1-4879-9a1f-360e0a2eb3c7_popular4-1
Landis insisted he put the bullet on JFK's stretcher, since he assumed it came from JFK's body. However, there is compelling evidence that another bullet was found on Connally's stretcher, a fact that Connally himself confirmed, and that the Connally stretcher bullet was not CE 399 (see, for example, Robert Harris's article "The Connally Bullet" (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-connally-bullet) and Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Josiah Thompson's article "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?" (https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm)).
The bullet that Landis found could have come from the windshield shot. The limo's safety glass would have caused little deformity to a rifle bullet, although it could have slightly altered the bullet's course.
Landis' 60 year old account is rather dubious on the surface. I understand he wasn't an experienced crime scene investigator but even a layman would understand that a bullet found in the limo would be a critical piece of evidence and it is hard to comprehend that he would have casually placed such a critical piece of evidence on JFK's stretcher. Even if true, that bullet is almost certainly CE399 which precludes it from having been fired from the front since it was proven to have been fired by the rifle found in the TSBD to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The only bullets in evidence are CE399 and the fragmented bullet found in the limo, both having been fired by Oswald's Carcano. No bullets or spent shells from any other weapon were recovered from Dealey Plaza following the shooting.
-
All Whitaker did was show he got the same mistaken impression of the damaged windshield as the people who saw it at Parkland.
"Mistaken impression"?! So eight witnesses in three different locations all "got the same mistaken impression"?! All eight of them could not tell the difference between a crack and a hole?!
So do tell us how Officer Ellis could have gotten this "mistaken impression" when he put a pencil through the hole. Tell us how Secret Service agent Taylor, who rode in the limousine from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House garage, a 25-35-minute drive, and then watched FBI technicians remove fragments from the hole, could have mistaken a crack for a hole, especially given the wording of his report:
In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.
Do tell us how Evalea Glanges, a medical student at the time who later became head of the surgery department at a major hospital, could have "mistaken" a crack for a hole, given that she specified that she didn't see any cracks around the hole, but just the hole. This rings true because when objects make holes in windshields, cracks often don't develop from the hole until later, as I have personally seen with the windshields of two of my cars. Glanges specified that the hole was a "real clean hole." I should add that Glanges had years of experience with firearms, having been a recreational gun enthusiast since childhood.
And Whitaker was the last person on Earth would have confused a crack for a hole. As a senior windshield technician, he had seen all kinds of testing done on windshields. He saw the windshield after it had been removed from the limo. He was able to examine both sides of the windshield from just inches away. Noted Whitaker,
And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through. You could see it from the way it was broken. . . It was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it. This had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back. . . .
I worked in the industry for forty years and I've seen all kinds of testing on glass, and I know it came from the front. ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing), pp. 143-144)
You lamely and dishonestly claim that Weldon found Whitaker to be credible "solely because his story conflicts" with the Warren Report. You obviously know nothing about Doug Weldon, and you apparently have not read Weldon's detailed explanation for why he found Whitaker to be credible.
You see, you folks aren't interested in following the evidence where it leads. You keep saying, "if there was a conspiracy, someone would have talked." Well, many people have talked, but in every single case, when those people's accounts contradict the lone-gunman theory, you reach and strain for any excuse, no matter how lame, to either reject their accounts or to accuse them of lying.
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.
This is yet another display of your ignorance of JFK assassination research. Obviously, you didn't bother to read the main source I linked in the OP, i.e., Weldon's chapter on the windshield hole. I'm sure you didn't read any of the other linked sources either. If you had read Weldon's chapter, you would have discovered that he addresses the issue of the position of the shooter who fired through the windshield. He documents that a shooter firing the from the south side of the triple underpass would not have been "right in the open for all to see." In fact, he would have been well concealed.
Moreover, Sherry Fiester, an instructor and court-certified expert in crime-scene reconstruction and blood-spatter analysis, found another location on the south knoll, a different location than the one Weldon identified, that would have also provided good concealment. She discusses this in her 2012 book Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination and in the 2016 documentary A Coup in Camelot.
This stuff was covered years ago, but, as usual, you have no clue because your research has been so meager and biased.
-
I cited the poll to show that my low opinion of Congress is shared by the vast majority of Americans. We can always debate the validity of that opinion. Suffice it to say that I don't find getting elected to Congress an indication that person has a great deal of intelligence. Some do but it is not a prerequisite for getting elected. Hell, even this person not only got elected 18 times but is now the ranking member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=dKx%2f2Y%2bY&id=B12CD0A59C020812F625131E767D0DF96CE76C63&thid=OIP.dKx_2Y-YAWeyKsH5WyQzlgHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fstatic.foxnews.com%2ffoxnews.com%2fcontent%2fuploads%2f2023%2f09%2fRosa-DeLauro.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.74ac7fd98f980167b22ac1f95b243396%3frik%3dY2znbPkNfXYeEw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=pictures+of+the+blue+haired+congresswoman&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=2FF3A90E0CE29E75ACC426927892818C&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Citing a "poll"? Like that poll that had a "Nazi" running ahead in the race for U.S. Senate? Stop with the polls!
-
"Mistaken impression"?! So eight witnesses in three different locations all "got the same mistaken impression"?! All eight of them could not tell the difference between a crack and a hole?!
Yeah, pretty much.
So do tell us how Officer Ellis could have gotten this "mistaken impression" when he put a pencil through the hole.
I don't believe he did.
Tell us how Secret Service agent Taylor, who rode in the limousine from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House garage, a 25-35-minute drive, and then watched FBI technicians remove fragments from the hole, could have mistaken a crack for a hole, especially given the wording of his report:
I'm not able to explain why people make mistakes. I just know that they do.
In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.
Do tell us how Evalea Glanges, a medical student at the time who later became head of the surgery department at a major hospital, could have "mistaken" a crack for a hole, given that she specified that she didn't see any cracks around the hole, but just the hole. This rings true because when objects make holes in windshields, cracks often don't develop from the hole until later, as I have personally seen with the windshields of two of my cars. Glanges specified that the hole was a "real clean hole." I should add that Glanges had years of experience with firearms, having been a recreational gun enthusiast since childhood.
And Whitaker was the last person on Earth would have confused a crack for a hole. As a senior windshield technician, he had seen all kinds of testing done on windshields. He saw the windshield after it had been removed from the limo. He was able to examine both sides of the windshield from just inches away. Noted Whitaker,
And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through. You could see it from the way it was broken. . . It was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it. This had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back. . . .
I worked in the industry for forty years and I've seen all kinds of testing on glass, and I know it came from the front. ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing), pp. 143-144)
You lamely and dishonestly claim that Weldon found Whitaker to be credible "solely because his story conflicts" with the Warren Report. You obviously know nothing about Doug Weldon, and you apparently have not read Weldon's detailed explanation for why he found Whitaker to be credible.
I see no reason to read every book written by crackpot authors. You on the other hand seem gullible enough to accept anything and everything that disputes the findings of the WC.
You see, you folks aren't interested in following the evidence where it leads. You keep saying, "if there was a conspiracy, someone would have talked." Well, many people have talked, but in every single case, when those people's accounts contradict the lone-gunman theory, you reach and strain for any excuse, no matter how lame, to either reject their accounts or to accuse them of lying.
There are dozens if not hundreds of various conspiracy theories. Am I supposed to give credence to all of them. The fact is, I've seen nothing that gives credence to any of them.
This is yet another display of your ignorance of JFK assassination research.
I don't consider reading crackpot authors research.
Obviously, you didn't bother to read the main source I linked in the OP, i.e., Weldon's chapter on the windshield hole. I'm sure you didn't read any of the other linked sources either. If you had read Weldon's chapter, you would have discovered that he addresses the issue of the position of the shooter who fired through the windshield. He documents that a shooter firing the from the south side of the triple underpass would not have been "right in the open for all to see." In fact, he would have been well concealed.
You're right. I'm not into going on snipe hunts. You, on the other hand, seem to revel in it.
Moreover, Sherry Fiester, an instructor and court-certified expert in crime-scene reconstruction and blood-spatter analysis, found another location on the south knoll, a different location than the one Weldon identified, that would have also provided good concealment. She discusses this in her 2012 book Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination and in the 2016 documentary A Coup in Camelot.
Oh, this should be good. Tell us how somebody could fire a shot through the windshield trying to hit JFK.
This stuff was covered years ago, but, as usual, you have no clue because your research has been so meager and biased.
There's a mountain of crap that's been covered the past 62 years. That doesn't give any of it credibility.
-
The agents who examined the hole when the limo was taken back to the White House garage said the windshield was struck from the inside and that there was no hole through the windshield.
What you are you referring to was done AFTER the JFK Limo was gone through while being flown back to DC. And THAT was done after the Scrub Bucket was taken to it at Parkland Hospital. That murder scene was tampered with Before it arrived in DC.
-
What you are you referring to was done AFTER the JFK Limo was gone through while being flown back to DC. And THAT was done after the Scrub Bucket was taken to it at Parkland Hospital. That murder scene was tampered with Before it arrived in DC.
Did they scrub away a bullet hole in the windshield?
-
The windshield shot... Bill "Rubbernecking" Greer was likely being put on notice... "don't you dare divulge why you slowed the limo... because we can get to you too..."
-
The windshield shot... Bill "Rubbernecking" Greer was likely being put on notice... "don't you dare divulge why you slowed the limo... because we can get to you too..."
It's amazing what imagination can conjure up in lieu of evidence.
-
Why does a 2nd gunman shoot thru the windshield from the front?
Why are 2 gunman selecting Dealey Plaza and a moving limo as their option?
It must be either they or the master conspirator who hired them desired a spectacle assassination that would be photographed and filmed from multiple perspectives.
If the MC rifle and shells were left by the TSBD shooter to frame Oswald, this master conspirator was taking a really big chance that Oswald would get himself filmed at the time of the shooting which would be an iron clad alibi.
So was it just Oswald in TSBD and one other shooter at the GK far sewer location?
-
Why does a 2nd gunman shoot thru the windshield from the front?
Why are 2 gunman selecting Dealey Plaza and a moving limo as their option?
It must be either they or the master conspirator who hired them desired a spectacle assassination that would be photographed and filmed from multiple perspectives.
If the MC rifle and shells were left by the TSBD shooter to frame Oswald, this master conspirator was taking a really big chance that Oswald would get himself filmed at the time of the shooting which would be an iron clad alibi.
So was it just Oswald in TSBD and one other shooter at the GK far sewer location?
It was just Oswald. All other shooters are phantoms. It would be pretty silly to try to frame a lone patsy by shooting at JFK from two different directions with two different rifles. The forensic evidence would easily establish two gunmen.
-
Show us a picture of the hole. All photos only show a crack.