Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor, Jr.
Wrote a report on November 27, 1963 in which he detailed his activities providing security for the limousine immediately after the car?s return to Washington following the assassination. The JFK limousine and the Secret Service follow-up car known as the ?Queen Mary? arrived at Andrews AFB aboard a C-130 propeller-driven cargo plane at about 8:00 PM on November 22, 1963. Agent Taylor rode in the Presidential limousine as it was driven from Andrews AFB to the White House garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W. In his report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage during the vehicle?s inspection, he wrote: ?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.?
[David Lifton, Best Evidence.1988 Edition pp 370-371]
Add to this Altgens 7 which shows something looking a lot like a bullet hole in the windshield you seem to have pretty solid evidence of a bullet hole Yet the WC is completely silent in regard to the windshield?
(https://i.imgur.com/95E5UdW.png)
Medical student Evalea Glanges: "There was a bullet hole in the windshield", a through and through bullet hole from front to back .
Dallas motorcycle patrolmen Stavis Ellis and H. R. Freeman both observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: " There was a hole in the left front windshield ... You could put a pencil through it. Freeman corroborated this, saying: "[I was] right beside it. I could have touched it ... It was a bullet hole .
I assume whatever Taylor is looking at in 1975 is not the entire windshield Do we have a chain of custody from Dallas 63 to 76?
So if was indeed a bullet that came from the front I assume it would have come from the overpass if it hit JFK?
I'm sure they pinkie-swore that it was the same windshield.
Numerous witnesses saw a hole in the windshield. I have covered this in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" and it will be reposted later on.
Conversely, and equally important, neither Kellerman or Greer saw a crack in the windshield as the WC claimed on November 22, 1963, and they were both sitting in the front seats of the limousine!
As per Reply #6 on this topic " Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo "
Mr. George Whitaker said that the original windshield , with the bullet hole in it , had been broken up and scrapped---as ordered---after the new windshield had been made.
Who ordered that?
Jack The short answer is Whitaker's superiors at the Ford Motor Company The link below provides some interesting material on how one of episodes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, presented by the History channel was pulled after it's first airing, and how Bill Moyer's and others, insisted the episode be removed and apparently some of the footage regarding the window is no longer available to the public It always just becomes a bigger and bigger outrage
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
Doug Horne/Lew Rockwell article ? Whitaker
https://ss100x.wordpress.com/tag/whitaker/
"This story is patently ridiculous. SS100X had a stock LCC windshield. It could have been replaced anywhere, including at Love Field when it sat on the tarmac in the AF C-130 for over two hours. In addition, there is no evidence of any nature to indicate that Whitaker ever saw the limo (as he describes it so inaccurately) or that the limo had any connection to the Rouge. It then goes without saying that nothing Whitaker says about the windshield has any significance. How a reasoning person can fall for such illogical statements as these, I have no clue. But, every so often, another unsuspecting newbie comes by and gets tripped up by this disinfo. Then they tend to go around in circles huffing and puffing when asked to provide even a shred of documentation for any of Whitaker?s claims."
Whittakers an afterthought We already have reliable witnesses who saw a through and through hole There is no chain of custody on the window, know verifiable report on the windshield early on in the investigation, and the cracking looks much different in the later photographs from the interior looking out Even with the through and through hole there is enough damage to call into question whether you are running out of fragments to explain the damage that is shown in the original photographs
know verifiable report on the windshield early on in the investigation
What do you mean by "no chain of custody on the window"?
From FBI Agent Robert Frazier:
(https://i.imgur.com/zQeZT2G.png)
I asked the chain of custody question earlier, so I should have stated no chain of custody that anyone here has so far provided. I should have stated that differently
It still not clear what you mean by chain of custody though. What would constitute as a chain of custody. Is there a timeframe that you have in mind? And what would be the purpose of said chain of custody of the windshield?
Same importance as it had for other evidence such as CE 399
Which was what exactly?
Who was responsible for the possession and integrity of evidence
That doesn't answer my question. What exactly was the importance of maintaining an intact chain of custody of the windshield? I believe that I've shown you before a chain of custody of CE-399. Have I not? Would you like to see it again? I don't know if a similarly intact one is available for the windshield or not. I'll look.
That doesn't answer my question. What exactly was the importance of maintaining an intact chain of custody of the windshield? I believe that I've shown you before a chain of custody of CE-399. Have I not? Would you like to see it again? I don't know if a similarly intact one is available for the windshield or not. I'll look.
Why was the windshield removed in the 1st place? Wasn't it crucial crime scene evidence that should have been left in situ? Aren't you supposed to preserve evidence instead of obliterate or tamper with it in any way? And didn't the SS and FBI know any of this before they tampered with it? Of course they did. No one would be that incompetent, unless...
No need to redo CE399 Thanks for being willing to take a look Also the question remains of the three separate defects on the windshield and window frame and rear view mirror Has anyone done an analysis of what he estimated size of these fragments would need to have been to create said damage? Not saying you have special responsibility to know but to me at least it would seem like a logical calculation to see if the head-shot was capable of all it needed to be responsible for If I recall correctly the four fragments from the head of JFK took up at least three fifths of its mass
How would one go about doing an analysis on what the size of the fragments would need to have been to create the damage to the windshield and chrome piece?Science just halts in this area? Hard to count the ways you could approach the problem If it was impossible then where the testimony saying it was impossible
http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif
. There was never a hole in it.
The windshield was removed because they wanted the limo to be put back into service. It was preserved long enough. It was thoroughly examined. Measurements and photographs were taken of it. It remained essentially unaltered except for the addition of some cracks to it during its removal on Nov 26. There was never a hole in it.
The windshield was removed because they wanted the limo to be put back into service. It was preserved long enough. It was thoroughly examined. Measurements and photographs were taken of it. It remained essentially unaltered except for the addition of some cracks to it during its removal on Nov 26. There was never a hole in it.
OK CTs, let's say there was a bullet hole in the windshield.
I guess that means we have more altered/falsified/faked photos to expose.
It also means that the windshield assassin would probably be located somewhere atop the underpass or in that vicinity. Yet to my knowledge none was seen.
It also means that glass shards would be expected to be showered into the limo and upon it's occupants. I don't believe any glass shards were reported.
It also means that CTs should be prepared to attempt to explain what happened to the bullet that passed through the windshield.
How do you know that?
Because of the evidence that I and others have presented here. The windshield exists this very day in the National Archives and photos of it reveal no hole in it. FBI agent Robert Frazier noted on a diagram of the limo that he drew in the early morning hours of Nov 23 that there were no bullet holes in the limo.
(https://i.imgur.com/zQeZT2G.png)
At about 10 AM that same morning, F. Vaughn Ferguson of the Ford Motor Company examined the windshield and on December 18 wrote: "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation"
http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif
Doug Horne/Lew Rockwell article ? Whitaker
https://ss100x.wordpress.com/tag/whitaker/
"This story is patently ridiculous. SS100X had a stock LCC windshield. It could have been replaced anywhere, including at Love Field when it sat on the tarmac in the AF C-130 for over two hours. In addition, there is no evidence of any nature to indicate that Whitaker ever saw the limo (as he describes it so inaccurately) or that the limo had any connection to the Rouge. It then goes without saying that nothing Whitaker says about the windshield has any significance. How a reasoning person can fall for such illogical statements as these, I have no clue. But, every so often, another unsuspecting newbie comes by and gets tripped up by this disinfo. Then they tend to go around in circles huffing and puffing when asked to provide even a shred of documentation for any of Whitaker?s claims."
Because of the evidence that I and others have presented here. The windshield exists this very day in the National Archives and photos of it reveal no hole in it. FBI agent Robert Frazier noted on a diagram of the limo that he drew in the early morning hours of Nov 23 that there were no bullet holes in the limo.
(https://i.imgur.com/zQeZT2G.png)
At about 10 AM that same morning, F. Vaughn Ferguson of the Ford Motor Company examined the windshield and on December 18 wrote: "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation"
http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif
[/quote I asked you if their diagram included the crack, deformity, whatever you want to call it in Altgens 7
OK CTs, let's say there was a bullet hole in the windshield.
I guess that means we have more altered/falsified/faked photos to expose.
It also means that the windshield assassin would probably be located somewhere atop the underpass or in that vicinity. Yet to my knowledge none was seen.
It also means that glass shards would be expected to be showered into the limo and upon it's occupants. I don't believe any glass shards were reported.
It also means that CTs should be prepared to attempt to explain what happened to the bullet that passed through the windshield.
Medical student Evalea Glanges: "There was a bullet hole in the windshield", a through and through bullet hole from front to back .
Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor, Jr.
Wrote a report on November 27, 1963 in which he detailed his activities providing security for the limousine immediately after the car?s return to Washington following the assassination. The JFK limousine and the Secret Service follow-up car known as the ?Queen Mary? arrived at Andrews AFB aboard a C-130 propeller-driven cargo plane at about 8:00 PM on November 22, 1963. Agent Taylor rode in the Presidential limousine as it was driven from Andrews AFB to the White House garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W. In his report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage during the vehicle?s inspection, he wrote: ?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.?
[David Lifton, Best Evidence.1988 Edition pp 370-371]
Add to this Altgens 7 which shows something looking a lot like a bullet hole in t
he windshield you seem to have pretty solid evidence of a bullet hole Yet the WC is completely silent in regard to the windshield?
Yeah, they could have just called "Safelite repair, Safelite replace". ::)
Six witnesses said there was a through and through hole, but they were all mistaken because . . .
Reasons.
Why was the windshield removed in the 1st place? Wasn't it crucial crime scene evidence that should have been left in situ? Aren't you supposed to preserve evidence instead of obliterate or tamper with it in any way? And didn't the SS and FBI know any of this before they tampered with it? Of course they did. No one would be that incompetent, unless...
Rob I found this particularly interesting Thanks
Henry Wade and Chief Curry give the following advice: "Do not release the body until the missile is taken into custody." This comment has given researchers much dilemma over the years, as they are not sure what "missile" they could be talking about as the CE-399 bullet is NOT found until 1:45 p.m. How did Wade and Curry know a bullet would be found?
Get the limo back in service??? Tight budget? HA!
Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company's Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November 25th , he discovered the JFK limousine -- a unique, one of a kind item that he unequivocally identified -- in the Rouge Plant's B building, with the interior stripped out and in the process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately , After knocking on the locked door(which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it in shape -- and to then get the new windshield back to the B building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly being rebuilt. Whitaker told Weldon ( quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview): "And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through...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." Whitaker told Weldon that he eventually became superintendent of his division and was placed in charge of five plant divisions. He also told Weldon that the original windshield, with the bullet hole in it, had been broken up and scrapped---as ordered ---after the new windshield had been made. After George Whitakers death in 2001, his family released his written testament to Nigel Turner, who with their permission revealed Mr. Whitaker's name , as well as the text of his "memo for history," in episode 7 of " The Men Who Killed Kennedy ", " The Smoking Guns "This testimony... along with the "hurry it up" replace and repair of Kennedy's limo... which in any other investigation would be considered tampering of evidence... seems to confirm a conspiracy from among the highest officials of government...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne-/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine
Could the hole or crack emanated from a rock or stone thrown up by the motorcycle escort in front of the limo on Stemmons and to the hospital. I read somewhere where one of the front escort patrolmen said they traversed some gravel around a RR crossing and he thought he might wipe out as he was going really fast for it.
I thought the Altgens photo of the JFK Limo approaching the Triple Underpass displayed damage to the windshield being present at that time?
They did preserve it. It was replaced on the 26th and now sits in the National Archives.How does someone gain access to the National Archives to examine the windshield?
How does someone gain access to the National Archives to examine the windshield?7Why would yo want to examine it? If it is as described wouldn't you then claim it's not the original? That's how it works isn't it?
When was it last examined? I think examination of the windshield would clear up a lot of the discussion. There is testimony that there was an actual hole, and that the shattered glass was on the inside, suggesting a bullet from the outside, indicating a shooter from the front...
7Why would yo want to examine it? If it is as described wouldn't you then claim it's not the original? That's how it works isn't it?I think you've got the wrong fellow here...
I thought the Altgens photo of the JFK Limo approaching the Triple Underpass displayed damage to the windshield being present at that time?
How does someone gain access to the National Archives to examine the windshield?
When was it last examined? I think examination of the windshield would clear up a lot of the discussion. There is testimony that there was an actual hole, and that the shattered glass was on the inside, suggesting a bullet from the outside, indicating a shooter from the front...
7Why would yo want to examine it? If it is as described wouldn't you then claim it's not the original? That's how it works isn't it?
Some people claim that, but if you look closely at a good copy of the photo, the "spiral nebula" Fetzer, et al, presume to be a hole stops abruptly at the edge of the rear-view mirror. That is, the mirror is between the "nebula" and the camera, and must therefore be ahead of it. That couldn't be true if the "nebula" was on or in the windshield.
This testimony... along with the "hurry it up" replace and repair of Kennedy's limo... which in any other investigation would be considered tampering of evidence... seems to confirm a conspiracy from among the highest officials of government...
Somone claimed there was a hole clean through the windshield, the diameter of a pencil.Yes... I would want to know if that claim can be debunked... close examination would settle the issue...
Naturally some folks want to see for themselves. I don't know if that claim was ever debunked or not.
Here's some NARA photos of the windshield
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
EXCERPT
Later that afternoon at 3.30 pm CST the limousine was taken to Love Field and boarded on a C-130 and flown to Andrews Air Force Base, Washington DC, landing at 8 pm EST. After arrival at Andrews AFB, the limo was delivered to the White House garage. The Secret Service and later the FBI took photos of the limo's interior and searched it for evidence before it was thoroughly cleaned and valeted.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/s4ynp3.jpg)
The speculation posted above Might be possible if JFK was wearing his shirt around his Ears.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/11371.jpg) | (https://d146hcqz7izbhz.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/21163643/jfk-dallas.jpg) | (https://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070219&t=2&i=395973&r=395973) |
| (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4e3gLIt_8NU/WAPemw9A-zI/AAAAAAABKuo/mnOTXseZ1sE8MQ6jvGsVcXUP5QmAyB5DQCLcB/s800/JFK-At-Love-Field-11-22-63.png) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/DCA.jpg) |
Cool, where can I find the photos showing the bullet fragments in place?
How does someone gain access to the National Archives to examine the windshield?
When was it last examined? I think examination of the windshield would clear up a lot of the discussion. There is testimony that there was an actual hole, and that the shattered glass was on the inside, suggesting a bullet from the outside, indicating a shooter from the front...
The guy who actually examined the windshield (Robert Frazier) testified that there certainly was no hole. Do you have an opinion on that fact?Frazier
I think Jerry was talking about the lower white spot, not the ?spiral nebula?.
How would one go about doing an analysis on what the size of the fragments would need to have been to create the damage to the windshield and chrome piece?There is a major issue with what Vaughn Ferguson report in this letter and there is no synergy between his statements and the crated windshield as evidence or the Altgens "7" photograph as evidence. If you note his statement he was called in to look solely at the windshield on the first day. The rest of the car was covered up with canvas and he was told to look at the windshield only. "Bubbletop"????
http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif
Is a lack of photos showing the fragments in place supposed to prove that the fragments truly were not found inside the limo?
Mr. SPECTER. And did you ever observe any bullet fragments in the car at rest after the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Some here think their opponents require Trek's time-travel wrap-holes in order to "prove" things. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/cheesy.gif)
Some here think their opponents require Trek's time-travel wrap-holes in order to "prove" things. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/cheesy.gif)
And that is supposed to prove what, exactly?
Frazier
"I am a special agent assigned to the FBI laboratory, the firearms identification unit in Washington, D.C., where I make examinations of bullets, cartridges, gunpowder tests, bullet holes, examinations of clothing, and other similar types of examinations."
'Special Agent" Hardly an unbiased investigator. :D
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired three shots from BEHIND the limousine that carried President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in it, and that these were the ONLY shots fired that day. Period. That is why there has been much discussion regarding what quite a few witnesses saw on November 22, 1963, when they viewed the limousine up close at Parkland Hospital (PH). They saw a bullet hole in the limousine?s windshield which was a through-and-through hole, which means it had to be fired from the FRONT of the limousine since the WC could NOT account for a shot in the three shot scenario that could have done this damage.I think you summed it up fairly accurately!! Now you have to go one step further and figure out who could have passed in front of the car at the very instant that this hole formed! Altgens remained stationary throughout this period - however you can see a man in the Zapruder film "roll" in the grass alongside of him. So many have tried to say years later that this was Malcom Summers - I beg to differ as he was not there! This man appeared to be in motion and coming across the front of the limousine.
Let?s look at this issue in more detail in this post.
***********************************************
After arriving at PH the Presidential limousine was parked in front of the hospital for a short while in order to have JFK removed from it and taken inside. Also, it appears something was done to the limousine as we see some men with a bucket next to the car and after several witnesses commented on the hole in the windshield the limousine was driven away.
Richard Dudman - reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch - wrote in an article entitled "Commentary of an Eyewitness" that appeared in the "New Republic" on December, 21, 1963, which stated: "A few of us NOTICED the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has PIERCED the glass from the opposite side." (Emphasis mine) Dudman went on to say he and other reporters were SHOVED away by Secret Service (SS) agents when they tried to examine the hole to determine from which direction the bullet had been fired from. (Mark Lane, Amherst speech, 1964)
Dudman will receive corroboration from others in this matter. Two Dallas Police Department (DPD) police officers will see a hole in the presidential limousine as well. Sergeant Starvis Ellis will say he saw a hole in the windshield of the limousine when he saw the limousine at PH. Ellis would tell interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: ?There was a hole in the left front windshield?You could put a pencil through it?you could take a regular standard writing pencil?and stick [it] through there.? Ellis said a SS agent tried to persuade him that it was a ?fragment? and not a hole, but Ellis remained adamant and said, ?It wasn?t a damn fragment. It was a HOLE.? (David Lifton, Best Evidence, 1980)
He would tell researcher Vincent Palamara the following in a letter.
Quote on
Yes, I did see a hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. I did not see the bone fragment. That officer on the escort with me said there was one fragment, approximately six or seven inches around. (Starvis Ellis letter to Vince Palamara, 9/8/98)
Quote off
Ellis? partner was H.R. Freeman and he said, "I was right beside it. I could of [sic] touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.? (David Lifton, Best Evidence, 1980) This gives us two police officers and a reporter so far saying they saw a bullet hole in the windshield.
Another witness to this incident was Dr. Evalea Glanges and she was a second year medical student at Southwestern Hospital, which was right next to PH. When she heard of the shooting she knew the President would be taken to PH so she ventured out there for a look. She wound up standing RIGHT NEXT TO THE LIMOUSINE! She leaned against the fender and looked at the windshield up close and saw a HOLE in it. Looking from her outside position she noted it "was a real clean hole? and told this to researcher Douglas Weldon many years later. Mr. Weldon had this interview taped and it was included in the The Men Who Killed Kennedy (TMWKK) episode seven titled ?The Smoking Guns.? This is the episode that was pretty much banned due to pressure. In the interview she said the following to Mr. Weldon.
Quote on
?it [bullet hole in windshield] was very clear, it was a through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back?it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.
Quote off
Dr. Glanges was not alone when she noticed this hole in the windshield, but her friend would not discuss this issue (or allow Dr. Glanges to say their name) when she met with Douglas Weldon in 1999! She was very afraid of speaking about what she saw and perhaps Dr. Glanges should have been too as Dr. Glanges would die in February 1999 after meeting with Weldon in January 1999 for an interview about the hole. Glanges told Weldon that she talked about the hole in a loud voice at PH, this caused someone to get into the car and speed away with it. Glanges said it happened so fast they "almost took my arm off." She said she knew the official story was "phony", and that she should "keep her mouth shut", but with retirement on the horizon and so many years gone by I guess she thought it was safe. What was odd about her sudden demise was that she had told him about a vacation she was taking in a month, and did NOT mention any serious illnesses so the fact she was dead that fast after the interview has to make the normal person believe she had seen something she should not have seen.
Another witness to this hole was SS Agent Charles Taylor, Jr., who noted the following in a report he wrote on November 27, 1963.
Quote on
Mr. Orin Bartlett drove the Presidential vehicle out of the bin. The team of FBI Agents, assisted by the Secret Service Agents on duty, removed the leatherette convertible top and the plexi-glass bubbletop; also the molding strips that secure the floor matting, and the rear seat. What appeared to be bullet fragments were removed from the windshield and the floor rug in the rear of the car.
In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.
http://jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-entrance-hole-in-windshield.html
Quote off
Whatever happened to these bullet fragments taken from the windshield? They are not part of the evidence we have to use currently. He also mentions the small hole in the windshield. Of course Agent Taylor would be forced to recant this report as a hole in the windshield did NOT support the official conclusion.
Another witness was George Whitaker who was a senior manager Ford Motor Company?s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan. He would tell Mr. Weldon in a taped interview that on November 25, 1963, he saw the presidential limousine (a unique, one-of-a-kind automobile) in building B of the Rogue Plant when he reported for work. He said the interior had been stripped out and the windshield had been removed as well. Let?s pick up the interview as seen in TMWKK episode seven in this quote.
Quote on
He was then contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it in shape ? and to then get the new windshield back to the B building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly being rebuilt. Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview): "And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through...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." Whitaker told Weldon that he eventually became superintendent of his division and was placed in charge of five plant divisions. He also told Weldon that the original windshield, with the bullet hole in it, had been broken up and scrapped ? as ordered ? after the new windshield had been made.
When Doug Weldon interviewed Whitaker in August of 1993, his witness insisted on anonymity. Weldon reported on the story without releasing Whitaker's name in his excellent and comprehensive article titled: "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," which was published in Jim Fetzer's anthology Murder in Dealey Plaza, in 2000. After Weldon interviewed Whitaker in August of 1993, Mr. Whitaker subsequently ? on November 22, 1993 (the 30th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination) ? wrote down all he could remember about the events he witnessed involving the Presidential limousine and its windshield. After George Whitaker's death in 2001, his family released his written testament to Nigel Turner, who with their permission revealed Mr. Whitaker's name, as well as the text of his "memo for history," in episode 7 of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, "The Smoking Guns."
http://jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-entrance-hole-in-windshield.html
Quote off
Further confirmation of the frontal shot comes from SS Agent Roy Kellerman (although he probably was referring to the first replacement windshield) when he testified before the WC about what he felt on the windshield.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day [November 27]; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car.
Safety glass show damage on the OTHER SIDE of impact, thus, the fact it was smoothed on the outside and rough on the inside shows a frontal shot hit it (albeit this was the first false new windshield). Since it was probably not the original windshield that was on the limousine on November 22, 1963, this shows even in this area the conspirators were not very competent as they created a new windshield that showed it was hit from the front. This would lead to a second replacement that showed a shot from the back hit it.
Quote on
Researcher Robert P. Smith (as reported by David Lifton in Best Evidence) interviewed a Mr. Bill Ashby, crew leader at the Arlington Glass Company, who told Smith he removed the limousine?s windshield in Washington, D.C. on November 27th; this occurred after Roy Kellerman had felt the interior surface earlier that day and determined it to be damaged on the inside, and smooth on the outside.
But the windshield at the National Archives today exhibits long cracks ? not a through-and-through bullet hole ? and is damaged on the outside, which is the opposite of what Kellerman noted by physical examination on November 27th.
Co-owner Willard Hess of the automotive firm Hess and Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, Ohio told Doug Weldon that his company also replaced the windshield in the Presidential limousine, and that the glass removed was standard safety glass ? consistent with what George Whitaker said his team reinstalled in the limousine in Detroit, immediately after the assassination. Hess and Eisenhardt replaced the standard safety glass with special bullet resistant glass made by the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. (Presumably, the windshield removed by Hess and Eisenhardt was the second new windshield installed ? by the Arlington Glass Company ? on November 27th, 1963, and is the one in the National Archives today.) Mr. Hess told Weldon that the windshield his company removed was not damaged at the time it was removed.
The clear implication here is that the windshield in the Archives today, which exhibits cracks but not a bullet hole, was intentionally damaged by someone involved in the cover-up AFTER its removal by Hess and Eisenhardt.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
Quote off
We see that the windshield was replaced yet again on November 27, 1963, after Roy Kellerman had felt it and that is the current one in the National Archives. Why would this be necessary if the original had either NO hole in it or did NOT reflect a shot from the front? Another disturbing incident occurred outside of PH on November 22, 1963, as well.
Sergeant Ellis said he saw a SS agent take the camera away from a small boy and expose the film to the sun after he had taken a few photographs of the limousine outside of PH. Why would the SS act like bullies with a small boy and take the undeveloped film out of his camera if there was NO hole in the windshield and other damage seen on the limousine that differed with the official conclusion? Ellis? account of this event was corroborated by another DPD officer, James W. Courson, so it is NOT just Ellis's word for it.
Finally, in Douglas Horne?s look at this issue we see he studied the film in the DVD version of the TMWKK episode seven and wrote about what he saw.
Quote on
The Stunning Content of ?The Smoking Guns?
This ?B-roll? footage appears between the times of 14:02 and 14:04 on the DVD, and consists of a total of 84 video frames (there are 30 video frames per second in a U.S. television broadcast). The black-and-white images appear to come from standard 16 mm B & W newsreel footage, taken by a stocky man wearing a hat who had approached the Presidential limousine as it was parked outside the Parkland Hospital emergency room (and before the bubble top was installed). The point of view (POV) of the camera was that of someone sitting in the limousine, or rather standing just beside it and to the right side. The camera is pointed at the inside surface of the windshield from behind ? that is the POV. One man in a suit and tie can be seen standing on the front side, or forward of, the windshield, and two DPD motorcycle patrolmen (are they Ellis and Freeman?) can be seen leaning in and examining the windshield. What looks to me like a through-and-through bullet hole is visible in all 84 video frames, left of center on the windshield (adopting the POV of the camera) and approximately halfway down from the top, although these are only rough approximations. The location appears to be entirely consistent with that described by Charles Taylor and George Whitaker (above).
I wish to make something very clear here: you cannot access the images I am describing above in the U-Tube segment in which this episode has been put up on the internet. First, the timing is different in the U-Tube segment (13:08, vice 14:02), because the U-Tube segment was copied from the broadcast. [The factory DVD location of the clip is at a later point in the program, at 14:02, because of advertising material inserted at the beginning of the DVD.] Second, the size of the U-Tube presentation is so small on one?s computer screen, and the resolution so poor in comparison with a big screen HD television, that you can forget seeing this windshield bullet hole on U-Tube. The viewer needs the factory-produced DVD; a good DVD player with functioning frame-by-frame advance; and a big screen, High Definition (1080p) TV. The bullet hole shows up clearly on my 52″ SONY Bravia television. So anyone concerned with doing research here simply must obtain the factory-produced DVD.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
Quote off
Dr. Horne also gives great advice regarding the WC defenders too.
Quote on
Now, no doubt the ?lone-nutter? crowd ? both those who are in denial of the reality of an American coup in 1963 (because they can?t handle the truth), and the U.S. government?s third-party surrogates in the midst of the research community (whose job it is to cast doubt on all new research pointing to conspiracy and cover-up) ? will react violently to this essay, and that is predictable. But you don?t have to listen to their opinions?EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.
Quote off
He is exactly right, don?t listen to anyone?examine the evidence for yourself. It is clear that a conspiracy occurred and that is why the WC defenders don?t want to discuss it very often.
Here is a link to Mr. Weldon?s very good article on this issue:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=226698
I think we see again there is an abundance of evidence that show the official conclusion of the WC is incorrect, and thus, it is sunk by the evidence.
I can't solve your reading comprehension issues.
So you agree then that what you posted has no meaning.
You wish. It was clear to everyone who doesn't have a reading comprehension issue like you.
Cool, where can I find the photos showing the bullet fragments in place?
Is a lack of photos showing the fragments in place supposed to prove that the fragments truly were not found inside the limo?
Mr. SPECTER. And did you ever observe any bullet fragments in the car at rest after the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
I guess we're just supposed to take it on faith that those particular fragments were in the limo.
Yes, since they were turned over to some "unknown person", right? :DThe newbs can't appreciate that one.
Yes, since they were turned over to some "unknown person", right? :D
Okay then. Explain it to me.
What are you trying to say by posting the portion of Kellerman's testimony (below)?
Kellerman did not see the tiny shell fragments in the limo as the limo was speeding to Parkland. So what?
Are we even certain these two bullet cracks are the same?
(https://image.ibb.co/cr407p/Screen_Shot_2018_08_30_at_9_16_36_PM.png)
| (https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/posters/alfred-eisenstaedt-president-john-f-kennedy-working-at-his-desk-in-the-oval-office-of-the-white-house_a-G-3597916-4990704.jpg) | (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/docroot/dulcinea/fd_images/news/on-this-day/November/Kennedy-Defeats-Nixon-in-Presidential-Election/news/0/image.jpg) | (https://i.etsystatic.com/13037325/d/il/a9a171/1085907849/il_340x270.1085907849_hqco.jpg) |
Different lighting, camera angle. Maybe the cracks spread during the time between the taking of the photos.
(https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/posters/alfred-eisenstaedt-president-john-f-kennedy-working-at-his-desk-in-the-oval-office-of-the-white-house_a-G-3597916-4990704.jpg) (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/docroot/dulcinea/fd_images/news/on-this-day/November/Kennedy-Defeats-Nixon-in-Presidential-Election/news/0/image.jpg) (https://i.etsystatic.com/13037325/d/il/a9a171/1085907849/il_340x270.1085907849_hqco.jpg)
Yeah. And maybe we are looking at a completely different windshield.I really think this would be an easy thing to settle, if we could get a better picture of the windshield now housed in the national archives... If anyone gets a good HD picture of it, please post... and we'll compare... It should settle a lot of issues... Glass specialists can tell if it came from the front or rear... If from the front... game-changer...!
I really think this would be an easy thing to settle, if we could get a better picture of the windshield now housed in the national archives... If anyone gets a good HD picture of it, please post... and we'll compare... It should settle a lot of issues... Glass specialists can tell if it came from the front or rear... If from the front... game-changer...!
I really think this would be an easy thing to settle, if we could get a better picture of the windshield now housed in the national archives... If anyone gets a good HD picture of it, please post... and we'll compare... It should settle a lot of issues... Glass specialists can tell if it came from the front or rear... If from the front... game-changer...!
How about using the regular font size?I have a friend on here who has difficulty with smaller type... We've read testimony (a little confusing) about the crack in the windshield... The pic taken at the hospital, looks different from the one in the archives IMO... I'd like to examine more closely... A good HD picture would help....
I have a friend on here who has difficulty with smaller type... We've read testimony (a little confusing) about the crack in the windshield... The pic taken at the hospital, looks different from the one in the archives IMO... I'd like to examine more closely... A good HD picture would help....
I really think this would be an easy thing to settle, if we could get a better picture of the windshield now housed in the national archives... If anyone gets a good HD picture of it, please post... and we'll compare... It should settle a lot of issues... Glass specialists can tell if it came from the front or rear... If from the front... game-changer...!
You shouldn't necessarily assume that the windshield in the National Archives was on the limo that day. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company?s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan said that they were instructed on November 25 to replace the windshield.John, if this image is a legitimate image of the crack in JFK's limo windshield, it would seem that it would be easy to make a comparison of the two... If they don't match, and we're sure the image below is legit, then we've got confirmation of a conspiracy. I would really like to know 1) is the image below legitimate and 2) can the two cracks be compared...
John, if this image is a legitimate image of the crack in JFK's limo windshield, it would seem that it would be easy to make a comparison of the two... If they don't match, and we're sure the image below is legit, then we've got confirmation of a conspiracy. I would really like to know 1) is the image below legitimate and 2) can the two cracks be compared...Are you aware of the technique used to remove that windshield?
Oh boy, it would really settle some things for us...
(https://image.ibb.co/cHs2WK/Screen_Shot_2018_08_05_at_2_52_48_PM.png)
(https://image.ibb.co/dGZTFK/576877618_1024x1024.jpg)
John, if this image is a legitimate image of the crack in JFK's limo windshield, it would seem that it would be easy to make a comparison of the two... If they don't match, and we're sure the image below is legit, then we've got confirmation of a conspiracy. I would really like to know 1) is the image below legitimate and 2) can the two cracks be compared...
Oh boy, it would really settle some things for us...
(https://image.ibb.co/cHs2WK/Screen_Shot_2018_08_05_at_2_52_48_PM.png)
Start with a graphics program that has transparent layers, free transform and image flip.Jerry, I've tried some of this with a Power Point program... However, the quality of the photos are different as well as the angle...
Free on-line one at Pixlr (http://pixlr.com/editor/). (Note: Text tool doesn't work in browser private-mode.)
Jerry, I've tried some of this with a Power Point program... However, the quality of the photos are different as well as the angle...
Again, a good up close HD image of the National Archives windshield would determine if these are the very same bullet cracks.
Also, an up close examination would allow a glass expert to determine if the bullet crack came from the front or the back of the windshield.
If it came from the front, two questions arise: 1) Who made the shot that cracked the windshield 2) Was the shot intended for SA Bill Greer, who might have known too much about the assassination details (the same reason it could be claimed Oswald was killed... to shut him up)
(https://image.ibb.co/bZisue/Screen_Shot_2018_09_02_at_1_55_46_PM.png)
(https://image.ibb.co/jERsSz/Screen_Shot_2018_09_02_at_1_54_54_PM.png)
Analysis by Barb Junkkarinen concludes that there was no through hole in the windscreen but rather damage to the inner surface which remains consistent in the different photographs, disproving the windscreen switch idea. An interesting read.
She also thinks that there was a clip present in the TSBD when the rifle was found. She wasn't near the windshield on November 22, 1963, like the witnesses that saw a hole were.
You shouldn't necessarily assume that the windshield in the National Archives was on the limo that day. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company?s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan said that they were instructed on November 25 to replace the windshield.
No, she was assessing the evidence and the witness statements. Always a good exercise.
Then I have no idea what she was "assessing" as numerous witnesses described a bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine. Most of them were trained observers too.
So Mr. George Whitaker Sr. said in writing that there was a hole in the windshield but never wanted anyone to know that he said that until he was dead and gone. I find that to be a very smart move on Mr. Whitaker's part . It game him more time to live, unlike Dorothy Kilgallen who left life a little earlier !
Analysis by Barb Junkkarinen concludes that there was no through hole in the windscreen but rather damage to the inner surface which remains consistent in the different photographs, disproving the windscreen switch idea. An interesting read.Damage to the inner surface would seem to be consistent with a sharp blow from the opposite side...
So Mr. George Whitaker Sr. said in writing that there was a hole in the windshield but never wanted anyone to know that he said that until he was dead and gone. I find that to be a very smart move on Mr. Whitaker's part . It game him more time to live, unlike Dorothy Kilgallen who left life a little earlier!Read what Pam McElwain Brown, who knows more about ss100x than anyone else, has written about Whitaker and the limo. She found that there was no "repair garage" in Building B in '63, contra Whitaker's claims. She also notes that the limo had a standard '61 Continental windshield from the day it rolled off the line at Wixom until it was rebuilt after the assassination. It wasn't "made special" as Whitaker would have you believe, and a replacement didn't need to be custom-made, either. She's noted that the limo was built in Wixom, Michigan, had its chassis stretched at the Ford Experimental Garage at the Ford Proving Ground, and all the extra coachwork and interior were custom-made to fit by Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. Ford generally, and River Rouge in particular, didn't have the expertise to replace the interior; that's why it had been farmed out to H&E in the first place. There are too many problems with Whitaker's story to take it seriously, and that's why he didn't want to see it public in the first place. He simply didn't want to live to eat his words.
Damage to the inner surface would seem to be consistent with a sharp blow from the opposite side...
I don't see why. A bullet fragment hitting the inner surface is more likely isn't it.I don't think I can explain the physics of this... probably something to do with one of Newton's laws... All I know is that I've seen BB's hit glass, and the glass chips out on the opposite side... I suppose others have had that same experience and could confirm this...
Why not read her assessment before dismissing it then?
I don't see why. A bullet fragment hitting the inner surface is more likely isn't it.
I don't think I can explain the physics of this... probably something to do with one of Newton's laws... All I know is that I've seen BB's hit glass, and the glass chips out on the opposite side... I suppose others have had that same experience and could confirm this...
No thanks as she showed her true colors on ACJ.You mean, by being a thoughtful commentator and good moderator?
What is a BB?
What bullet would this fragment have come from?
a .177 caliber (4.5mm) round metal pellet commonly fired by air guns.
I would think that a crack in a piece of glass is as distinct as a fingerprint... We seem to have a pretty good picture (if legit) of the windshield crack from 1963... and allegedly we have the actual windshield that was removed from the limo in the National Archives. A good closeup HD image of the windshield in the National Archives would allow a good enough comparison that would, perhaps, help us determine if the two windshield images are from the very same windshield. What I have seen so far says they are very possibly not from the same windshield....
A through and through bullet hole from front to back is a lot different than a crack in the windshield. A blasted out back of the head is a little different than a right side and top of the head blowout on JFK. A neat frontal neck wound is a little different than a grisly mess in the front of the neck at Humes " move my wounds " and Ford's movement of a back wound with no exit , turning into a neck wound at the base of the back of the neck which now all of a sudden allowed a Single Bullet to make its way through JFK and JC and end up in JC's thigh but then make it's way out of JC's thigh and on to a stretcher and become the Magic Bullet known as CE 399 . 26 Volumes to make it look like LHO ( Maggies Drawers ) , shooting a piece of sheet rifle known as the Mannlicher Carcano killing JFK and then of course killing J. D. Tippit with a piece of sheet revolver . You couldn't sell this BS to the National Enquirer . The Warren Commission Report can be found in the fiction section of the Library under " Totally Unbelievable " ! The Agent who was made to recant the hole in the windshield story and turn that hole into a cracked windshield story is right there with Ford , Humes and J. Edgar Hoover ( We have the shooter on both counts ) NCIS and Jethro would have had a heyday with this case .
You mean, by being a thoughtful commentator and good moderator?
Lead that was extruded from the second bullet, not a fragment.
Those seeing a hole in the windshield can exactly point where the hole is?
(https://s8.postimg.cc/ozahdxbed/33-3423a.jpg)
There is no hole in the windshield.
Patrick, I believe that is the best photo of the windshield available (I assume from the National Archives). I did a Powerpoint 180 flip to match up to the Limo photo from 1963 (which I assume is on the right side panel) - and also changed the angle on the Archives photo to try to match them up... There seem to be enough characteristics to say they are the same windshield, in my opinion. As Royell commented, neither of these seems to have a bullet hole (at least not one the size of a pencil or so). There does seem to be some material chipped off, which appears to be on the inside, suggesting to me that whatever struck the windshield likely came from the outside... Of course, a glass expert would need to examine and confirm..JFK limo windshield had three layers, glass-plastic-glass. I had no doubt there is no hole in it but it is very hard to conclude if the damage is from the inside or outside. I tend to believe it is from the outside. In the area of the impact both glass layers cracked but but there is no hole, at least not a bullet hole. If there is a hole it is 1-2mm, not more than that. Is there a procedure ordinary citizen to ask NARA to see and check the windshield? It would bring the final conclusion to the JFK assassination researchers.
(https://image.ibb.co/eGWYnz/Screen_Shot_2018_09_04_at_11_29_59_AM.png)
(https://image.ibb.co/jRKYLK/Screen_Shot_2018_09_04_at_11_44_45_AM.png)
Patrick, I believe that is the best photo of the windshield available (I assume from the National Archives). I did a Powerpoint 180 flip to match up to the Limo photo from 1963 (which I assume is what we see on the right side panel) - and also changed the angle on the Archives photo to try to match them up... There seem to be enough characteristics to say they are the same windshield, in my opinion.Jake, by flipping the NARA image and placing it next to the White house garage photo, you have done one great thing, proved that the damage was OUTSIDE!!! You can clearly see the depth of the lines. Damage and cracks were on the outside glass layer of the windshield. When there is a crack on the three layer windshield, crack is usually on one glass layer, does not transfer to both glass layers and this was the casa with the Lincoln windshield. Crack lines are only on the outside glass layer.
As Royell commented, neither of these seems to have a bullet hole (at least not one the size of a pencil or so). There does seem to be some material chipped off, which appears to be on the inside, suggesting to me that whatever struck the windshield likely came from the outside... Of course, a glass expert would need to examine and confirm..
(https://image.ibb.co/eGWYnz/Screen_Shot_2018_09_04_at_11_29_59_AM.png)
(https://image.ibb.co/jRKYLK/Screen_Shot_2018_09_04_at_11_44_45_AM.png)
Those seeing a hole in the windshield can exactly point where the hole is?
(https://s8.postimg.cc/ozahdxbed/33-3423a.jpg)
There is no hole in the windshield.
Who knows where and when this was taken?I agree. Where did that photo come from again?
I agree. Where did that photo come from again?Gentlemen, do your homework:
Is that picture logged [officially] into the Warren Report Exhibits?
If not..it is just a random photo of anything.
Gentlemen, do your homework:We can spend all night googling around or...
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
We can spend all night googling around or...I have provided the link to you, for NARA site.
You could provide a link with a picture...that's what we do here [though I forget at times]
I would prefer to see a close up photo of the limo windshield while it was intact at the Dallas hospital.
No doubt a bullet caused the damage.
Always with the sinister motive, eh John.
Tell us what happened to the replaced windshield
I have provided the link to you, for NARA site.
So, now you do not believe that the windshield at NARA is the one taken off the limo? Were there two windshields, one with the hole and one without?
You believe to witneses stating there was a hole?
Gentlemen, do your homework:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
I have provided the link to you, for NARA site.The link that I requested. Thanks loads.
So, now you do not believe that the windshield at NARA is the one taken off the limo? Were there two windshields, one with the hole and one without? You believe to witneses stating there was a hole?
I would prefer to see a close up photo of the limo windshield while it was [still] intact at the Dallas hospital.I understand that the Secret Service would not permit anyone anywhere near that limo at the hospital.
No doubt a bullet caused the damage.
The link that I requested. Thanks loads.
Did I mention anything about 'not believing' ?I understand that the Secret Service would not permit anyone anywhere near that limo at the hospital.
They were more protective of everything when the president was dead than they ever were when he was living and breathing it seems. Pretty shtty IMO.
Gentlemen, do your homework:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
Check this 1961 Lincoln Continental bullet hole.
(https://s26.postimg.cc/n1rdmffdl/Screenshot_20180906-005457_2.png)
Same should be visible on JFK limo but it is not, right?
Just curious, but if we are seeing the windshield as it sits INSIDE the wooden crate, Exactly what are we seeing through the windshield/underneath the windshield? It is difficult to differentiate between where the crack(s) stretching out from the epicenter end and whatever that is beneath the windshield begins. This is why NARA is known for storing and sometimes misplacing items such as the Ark Of The Covenant.It looks like they put sheets of white museum board behind the windshield in that photo. I suspect that was done to make the damage stand out in the photo.
And how do we Know with that is a "Bullet" hole ?? A Tent Pole would fit into that gaping hole.Person selling this Lincoln says it is a bullet hole. It does not prove anything of course. This must be very old hole where the glass chips fell off over the long period the time widening the hole to almost the whole inch.
Check this 1961 Lincoln Continental bullet hole.Are you sure its a bullet hole? at doesn't look like a bullet hole. A bullet hole in auto safety glass looks like one of these:
(https://s26.postimg.cc/n1rdmffdl/Screenshot_20180906-005457_2.png)
Same should be visible on JFK limo but it is not, right?
It looks like they put sheets of white museum board behind the windshield in that photo. I suspect that was done to make the damage stand out in the photo.True. Photographer needed white background so placed sheets of white paper or similar behind the glass or it is the part of original wraping. If there was no white paper behind, background would be wood making the cracks invisible. Apart from narrow impact area crack all other occured when the windshield was removed from the body frame.
Are you sure its a bullet hole? at doesn't look like a bullet hole. A bullet hole in auto safety glass looks like one of these:I cannot be sure, can only believe what the seller says:
(https://interactives.dallasnews.com/2016/chapa/images/bullet_holes_photo-1800.jpg)
JFK Secret Service Agent Joe Paolella, who passed away in 2017, admits that he saw a bullet hole in the windshield of President Kennedy?s bloody limousine the night of the assassination AND that Gerald Blaine omitted this from his book The Kennedy Detail
Check this 1961 Lincoln Continental bullet hole.
(https://s26.postimg.cc/n1rdmffdl/Screenshot_20180906-005457_2.png)
Same should be visible on JFK limo but it is not, right?
Since it would have supported a shot from the front, why do you expect to see a photo of it?
True. Photographer needed white background so placed sheets of white paper or similar behind the glass or it is the part of original wraping. If there was no white paper behind, background would be wood making the cracks invisible. Apart from narrow impact area crack all other occured when the windshield was removed from the body frame.
If they want to make the cracks "visible", why not Remove the windshield from the crate and then apply whatever background necessary? Leaving that windshield Inside the crate does Nothing to enhance viewing it or the cracks upon it.There was no need to pull it outside. It is quite visible in the crate. Pulling it outside would damage it much more.
Back to the window in question....But, again, where is the hole? Paolella states "apeard to be a hole". The story about two windshields is interesting but why would they do it? Why would somebody remove through and through hole and place second windshield without a hole and when this was done?
Medical observer at Parkland.....
Why do you automatically assume that a hole in the windscreen indicates a shot only from the front?
Kennedy's Limo was completely open and a shot from behind can also penetrate the glass.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/3utoz26zv/Kennedy_limo_empty_from_back.jpg)
Btw why hasn't some conspiracy brainiac plotted the trajectory, you have two known positions the "spiral nebula" and the neck wound, so tell me again why hasn't this simple analysis been done?
JohnM
Since it would have supported a shot from the front, why do you expect to see a photo of it?
That's what George Whitaker, Sr. said.
SIX witnesses said there was a hole.
Why do you automatically assume that a hole in the windscreen indicates a shot only from the front?
Kennedy's Limo was completely open and a shot from behind can also penetrate the glass.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/3utoz26zv/Kennedy_limo_empty_from_back.jpg)
Btw why hasn't some conspiracy brainiac plotted the trajectory, you have two known positions the "spiral nebula" and the neck wound, so tell me again why hasn't this simple analysis been done?
JohnM
But, again, where is the hole? Paolella states "apeard to be a hole". The story about two windshields is interesting but why would they do it? Why would somebody remove through and through hole and place second windshield without a hole and when this was done?
What?
..read my post on page 9 and you will see that there were numerous witnesses that saw a bullet hole in the windshield on November 22, 1963.(https://vincepalamara.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/gg.jpg)
Where did he find the cracks in the windshield? About 2 inches below the rearview mirror he reported. His report and I quote front the first paragraph where he said: "....substantial cracks radiating a couple of inches from the center of the windshield at a point directly beneath the mirror...."
http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif (http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif)
(http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif)
Obviously you only need to read this one man's report. He was brought in to look at the windshield to specifically point out that there was no hole through and through the windshield while the rest of the automobile remained under canvas wrap!
Note in his statement that only the windshield was uncovered while the rest of the car was covered up. He then came back the next day (he claimed) and removed dried blood from around upholstery buttons. What kind of ludicrous statements would you concur from those made?
Where did he find the cracks in the windshield? About 2 inches below the rearview mirror he reported. His report and I quote front the first paragraph where he said: "....substantial cracks radiating a couple of inches from the center of the windshield at a point directly beneath the mirror...."
So why make a statement that doesn't match any of the windshields in the crate or photos? He is brought in specifically the first night to examine the windshield! Why does someone make a written statement like he did? Obviously this piece of paper was needed by someone to MAKE SURE there were no perforations in the windshield! Conspiracy? Hell yeah! Does it look to you that the "cracks" in the windshield are below the rearview mirror? He supposedly examined this windshield in DETAIL! You don't need someone from Ford to look at a stock windshield and draw an observation that yes it has cracks and should be replied - Safelite repair!
Interesting that this guy that allegedly made, "...arrangements to replace the windshield" on 11/23/63, returns the following day and "On My Own initiative", starts popping buttons off of the rear seat the JFK Limo.
He didn't cut off and remove the buttons, if that what you're claiming.
I think he says the center of the crack is several inches from the mid-line of the windshield. The reference to the mirror seems to do with the level of the crack center.
When on the car, the main part of the windshield is on a slanted plane. The windshield crack location relative to the mirror changes depending on the viewer's position.
A question that needs an answer: Has it ever been suggested that the windshield bullet was intended for SA Bill Greer?Looks more like a question that should never have been asked.
Looks more like a question that should never have been asked.I'm not sure why that is... but I'll take it that you've never read anything suggesting this...
Now that is a crock of BS that you are perpetuating Jerry! Ferguson was sent specifically to look at the windshield and comment on it. He specifically confirms the position of the cracks and that there was a lack of perforation on it. There must have been a reason for this. The rest of the car was covered up and so he was able to concentrate solely at looking at the windshield that "first night". He spent an hour at the scene and the best you can come up with is that his observation was on the same plane! Yeah, the windshield is all one plane if you want to get technical!!!
You can't even read his report properly! It specifically points out that the cracks are 2 inches below at a point directly beneath the mirror and radiating outwards from there!! This correspondence can't be any clearer!
You have the audacity to make an interjection and presuming something much different - trying to make up excuses for his report and why it doesn't match the crated windshield which could be a stock item from the Lincoln Factory with a hammer blow applied! Doesn't look like a windshield removed from a vehicle. It has the tape still around the edges. Likely a roped in model - not urethaned in my opinion.
Secondly, Ferguson mentions the fact that there will be further damage when they have to kick out the windshield during its replacement. That is a very true statement. So what further damage was done in that crated windshield provided as evidence? I have seen "urethane"d windshields removed and or the style that uses a "rope" to put in. If it is "urethane"d, the windshield suffers extreme enhanced crack damage during the removal/cutout process as you do put a lot of pressure on it during the removal process and the cracks spread all over! There will be evidence of cut urethane along its edges as well - none seen on the one in the crate. Even if it is a roped in w/s model, it has to be pushed out forcibly and cracks will propagate further cracking and rather quickly will run all over in an enhanced manner. Glass is a hard surface and even a crack in your car's windshield can be easily enhanced/propagate with thumb pressure! Remarkably, the crated windshield looks like it was so carefully removed that there was no further damage other than original - it is in pristine condition (kind of like the magic bullet rolling off the stretcher gurney)! That would be an impossibility! He further dams his report by saying he comes back the next night unguarded, car uncovered, and proceeds to remove dried blood from around upholstery buttons with his knife! What was he the janitor?
| (https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5f/Photo_naraevid_Windshield-1.jpg) | (https://catalog.archives.gov/OpaAPI/media/305143/content/arcmedia/media/images/33/35/33-3416a.gif) |
It is pretty obvious to me that there were a lot of reports of holes in windshield floating around and at the time of introduction of the Ferguson document the secret service needed a corroborated document to state that the windshield remained unperforated so as to disqualify/refute rumors that substantiated the reality of a frontal assault and a hole through and through it. It really was one big coverup.
Maybe the bullet came from the lead car hiding in the shadows of the tunnel waiting for the assassination to take place. The frontal assault where the glass shards get reflected in the light at Zapruder Film Z-330 and show up in the film can't be disputed. The man in the front seat was wearing black and is not reflecting light like a piece of chrome would off a bumper - but glass spray would and does get caught on films periodically. Fortunately for the man in the front, his head was down below the dash and out of the line of fire. The driver at the same time moves his head towards the windshield to keep the spray from getting into his eyes! Looking at about 3 frames in the Zapruder film you can note his frontal movement! As the President's head goes back, his goes forward!(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/open-roll-aluminum-foil-food-white-background-aluminium-wrapping-cooking-isolated-clipping-path-39283513.jpg)
Give me a break! When he examines the cracks in the windshield for an hour, he is looking at it from all viewpoints and you come up with a conclusion that his statement says directly below a mirror means he is looking at it from a fender perspective and just gave it a chance glance.
You are out of your mind! You are stating that it is skewed over to a side and he is incorrectly stating what he saw and told to report this after looking at it for an hour. I call BS on that. Directly below the mirror is from the vantage point of the front so that you have a point of reference!
In your view, He just can't seem to describe the axis of the car and has no point of reference to his statements - BS! In reality, he may have never even seen the windshield and the car and was told what to write up his report is more like is as this statement came out on December 18 -nearly a month later. Remember he was called in to look specifically at the windshield, the rest of the car was covered and he was there for that purpose only. I think anyone brought in to describe what they saw would have to figure out a frame of reference when asked to observe - not from a fender perspective or at some obscure/obtuse undescribable angle.
You might then also say that this guy was so dumb
that he couldn't tell the difference between a crack and a perforation because he only was allowed to view it from the outside since the entire car was canvassed in and he would not have seen any glass shards on the inside! Obviously his statement was required to point evidence in a certain direction, otherwise why not use in situ photographs rather than his written report as the only basis to dismiss a hole in the windshield? There is no need to have him come in if there were real investigators coming in, taking place and trying to figure out exactly what took place at the crime scene.
Obviously, Ferguson provides 2 pieces of evidence in this report that the public is meant to see and that he observes for the record. Firstly, there was no perforation ie. hole in the windshield. Secondly, he examined the right car the following night as he knifed off dried blood from upholstery buttons - blood which was missed by the cleanup crew. This is proof of just how thorough and intricate an examination he took. Never mind he can't seem to describe a point of reference in your opinion Gerry. He is therefor a worthy expert!! He examined the right car and discovered no hole in the windshield is what conclusion and that is the only conclusion you are meant to derive from his observation. That is why his report is important and squelches the fact that there really was other eyewitnesses out there that actually saw a hole in the windshield - which again, MUST NOT be reported at all costs. The rest really is just filler for the report! I mean really look at the subject line "bubble top" and try to imagine why Ferguson's was called to go there the very first night and why the secret service called him again the second night (implied as he seemed to have authorization to go there a second night -seemingly could let himself in as there were no guards). Is he a bullet hole examiner expert sent by Ford Motor Company? The secret service certainly didn't call for a group of detectives to swarm over the crime scene and gather evidence did they? Why call Ferguson unless you are requiring a statement from him?
Why would a no name secret service agent call for him to come over to have a look at the windshield in the first place? The report keeps it anonymous so there is no further paper trail as to which individual would want to have him come there to examine the windshield!!!! It certainly is not an important detail to name that individual or individuals who authorized his arrival at this would be crime scene. Does it not make sense that your are trying to disclaim that a hole in the windshield exists? This is just a stock windshield for a Lincoln! Do you think someone really needs to call safelite repair / safelite replace and have a custom fitted Lincoln windshield fitted. Did they needed verification that the windshield doctor could just fill in the crack and rather save the cost of replacement in this case? Or would you suggest that this is bulletproof plate glass specifically made and tempered to protect a President - a one of a kind with no design specs for replacement that a knife wielding windshield expert comes to inspec on the first night and then proceeds to using his own knife to clean up upholstery buttons on a second night in the course of his escapades and investigation!
Of course Mr. Ferguson is not only a glass expert but also a knife wielding upholstery button cleaner. LOL!! LOL!!! Then, he claims the guards the first night are not even aware of why he has been sent onto the scene there and the next night the whole car is wide open for inspection without even a guard present! I guess the cleanup crew shampooed the rugs and everything was left ready for the next POTUS to climb in and go for a drive! This statement involving having guards present was there to be sure that no one was even allowed to get close to tamper with evidence and yet all the evidence disappears without even a photograph by investigators independent of the FBI, CIA and SS!
As the safelite repair expert, he proceeds to scrape dried blood from upholstery buttons just to verify that he actually is looking at the right car - just to make sure there is no doubt that the report wasn't just invented for obvious purposes. Take it one step further, he can likely smell that it was the President's blood on those buttons and vouch for it!!!! It was so necessary for his report that they couldn't accompany the claim with forensic photographs to back it up or have a cameraman with him to back up his statements. Yes, smash a windshield, crate it and claim that it was from the President's car is about all you can really say. Real investigators even in the 1960s used cameras to back up crime scenes. The investigation was all provided from within an internal ring with no outside help. This crime scene was backed up by nothing but pieces of paper observation! Normal investigation means taking pictures of everything at the scene as it is evidence - especially when we are talking the POTUS! IF however you want to make sure it is dismissed as not being a Coup D'etat, you hide it all and only release scanty details so that the public draws a very specific conclusion to dismiss that fact!
Wow give your head a shake! You know why he is there! He is there to report that there are no perforations to the windshield and called upon to make that statement so that it refutes the evidence that people actually saw holes in the windshield and made statements to that effect. It doesn't take a rocket science to see evidence being invented as necessary to squelch any disapproval to only shots fired from a sniper's nest and the real Coup d'etat which actually did take place.
When you begin to see this and its corruption, you will then understand how Twin Towers go down in their own footprints on 9/11 and a 3rd Tower not hit by an airplane implodes and falls within itself - even though it was never even hit by an airplane like the other two! If you can believe that, yes I guess you can believe that JFK was killed by a lone nutty crackshot gunman at 300 yards in a moving car, all by himself with no help! The nice thing is that he dies before confessing or allowed to defend himself! Police custody failed to preserve his life as he is killed by a patriotic strip club owner inside a police station who loves his country so much that he takes justice into his own hands and helps the nation out by ridding them of the truth.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Weaver_Scan.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Weaver.jpg) |
These three photos were taken in the same garage comparing the hat on the wall:Very Nice! Clearly the first 3 photos don't show cracks. How are they even related to the others? Can you see if someone took the liberty to roll down the partially raised side window by Nellie Connally's seat which can be scene in the Zapruder frames? I would ask at which garage(s) was this car parked in as well? What is the other vehicle (truck?) doing in this garage. A cube van or Fire Truck? Additional questions: Is this at the Whitehouse? Is the photo detailed enough that we can get a read on the license plate? Or is there too much light aberration?! When were the photos taken? It certainly looks like irregular dirt lines on the tires as it is near the tread line and not light aberration - maybe wrong though!
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLbC7F8r/image.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZMrSpLY/image.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kM0FWV2t/image.jpg)
There is absolutely no doubt that this crack
(https://i.postimg.cc/kM0FWV2t/image.jpg)
is same as these cracks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L4Y3qk8p/33-3423a.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/T39V8CCr/Photo_naraevid_Windshield-5_1_3.jpg)
Question is in which garage the first three photos were taken?
Also, this
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJnqbbxM/image.jpg)
and this
(https://i.postimg.cc/7hywN6XL/image.jpg)
and this
(https://i.postimg.cc/rp38Kgrx/image.jpg)
photos were not taken at the same spot. Were they taken in the same garage?
Also, note the mud on the wheels, where did the mud came from, where did they drove the limo?
Regarding the "mud" on the tire sidewalls in the garage, I believe it might be an effect caused by the flash and camera angle.Jerry, under no flash light or camera angle this can not be any effect or whatsoever. This can only be mud and nothing else.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Weaver_Scan.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Weaver.jpg)
There's a similar irregular "caked-on" pattern on the tire sidewall in the Weaver photo. Instead of flash, it's the way the sun angle is hitting the tire relative to the photographer.
Clearly the first 3 photos don't show cracks.
Absolutely no doubt windshields are the same, no hole and the crack is outside.
I agree Patrick but you can be sure this issue will be brought up again with people who should know better expressing the same astonishment and disbelief as if they have just uncovered irrefutable proof of evidence tampering. After almost 55 years of mining for clues and coming up empty handed you'd like to think the matter would be closed but that ain't gonna happen. ::)Thing is that some people will not believe it no matter what. If they would go to NARA and check personally and see there is no hole they will say it is not the same windshield. No matter what evidence to present, they will dispute them find the ways to extend the issue further more. I find there are two groups of people doing this, not believing to their own eyes: first group are those whose job is to lead us to a false stories, meaning there are government people here whose job is to make the truth unreachable and second group of people are those who do not want to admit they are/were wrong no matter what. They see with their own eyes but since they started pushing one story years ago, it is very hard for them to accept and admit they were wrong.
Thing is that some people will not believe it no matter what. If they would go to NARA and check personally and see there is no hole they will say it is not the same windshield. No matter what evidence to present, they will dispute them find the ways to extend the issue further more. I find there are two groups of people doing this, not believing to their own eyes: first group are those whose job is to lead us to a false stories, meaning there are government people here whose job is to make the truth unreachable and second group of people are those who do not want to admit they are/were wrong no matter what. They see with their own eyes but since they started pushing one story years ago, it is very hard for them to accept and admit they were wrong.
In any case, I think that the full truth will never be reached since it would destroy America. Just imagine what would happen if FBI, CIA, NSA admits 9/11 was inside job (I am not claiming it was)? People would get confused, stock would drop drastically and who knows what else can happen. No doubt there was one conspiracy in Dallas: to blame Oswald for everything no matter what.
....These three photos were taken in the same garage comparing the hat on the wall:(https://i.postimg.cc/CLbC7F8r/image.jpg)
There is absolutely no doubt that this crack
is same as these cracks.
Question is in which garage the first three photos were taken?
photos were not taken at the same spot. Were they taken in the same garage?
Also, note the mud on the wheels, where did the mud came from, where did they drove the limo?....
Clearly the first 3 photos don't show cracks.
Picture bellow clearly show the crack.
I'm reposting to show the same windshield crack pattern... I did a Powerpoint 180 flip to match up to the Limo photo from 1963 (which I assume is what we see on the right side panel) - and also changed the angle on the Archives photo to try to match them up... There seem to be enough characteristics to say they are the same windshield, in my opinion.[/size]
This photo (can't even read the license plate) and doesn't show a crack unless you want to imagine it. I could point to the white spot located way below the mirror and infer that there is a bullet hole through and through as it looks like it! All ridiculous conclusions and not evidence of anything. To find a crack on Altgens pictures is also ridiculous in my opinion. People see what they want to see.
Are you the same Patrick Jackson that theorized a 'blood cannon' was used to fake JFK's head exploding ?Yes, that is me, thank you for remembering.
If two people say that opposite claims are "clear", then obviously it not clear.
Umm... no, not necessarily.
But, I'm not surprised that you would jump to that conclusion without "clearly" thinking it through.
::)
Jerry, under no flash light or camera angle this can not be any effect or whatsoever. This can only be mud and nothing else.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBr1bkNc/4752588738_1f44ebcb2d_b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FKc4HBMS/image.jpg)
| (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vzRVCgo7Ux8/T_YTLyg6TQI/AAAAAAAADyo/W5YVHQg24yg/s530/JFK-Limo.jpg) | (http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/fbiblky3.jpg) | |
low-res photos | "caked-on mud" on rear seat-back | |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_fbiblkyUnger2.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_fbiblkyUnger1.jpg) | |
better-resolution | better-resolution |
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4135/4752588738_1f44ebcb2d_b.jpg) "Caked-on mud" pattern on tire sidewalls similar to that on rear seat-back seams, on chrome trim, on side of jumpseats, etc. Seems consistent with flash and respective reflective properties. Wheel-well interiors light-in-tone anyway, so probably not mud. |
Adding the word "clearly" to a subjective opinion doesn't turn it into a fact.
lol
Spin and twist all you want.
You are intentionally dishonest with many of your posts. The fact that you think your subjective opinion is any more important is quite evident.
I don't think my subjective opinion is more important. I just ask people who consider their subjective opinions to be fact to support them accordingly.
And if I've been intentionally dishonest in many of my posts, then you should be able to point to even a single example of dishonesty. Maybe you'll have more success than "Richard". Like every other claim.....easy to make, harder to prove.
I just did that.
They're either identical or they're not.
When? You mean you disagreed with something I said? That's supposed to be an example of dishonesty?
False dichotomy.
lol, yeah, that's what it was, because YOU said it was, right?
How about this one... stating something was a few inches, when in fact, it's actually much closer to a few feet.
You'll have to be more specific.
If you don't remember the conversation, there's no need for me to be more specific. You'll just twist and spin like you always do anyways.
The example in this thread clearly shows what you asked as an example of your dishonesty.
No it's actually not. Take a basic logic class. What other possibilities would there be besides "identical" or "not identical"?
They're either identical or they're not.
| (http://tpepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SAN-ANTONIO1.jpg) | (https://i.postimg.cc/rp38Kgrx/image.jpg) |
| (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C4k-TnCl5vk/UpKK4WCjIQI/AAAAAAAACCI/8vNczF49tCk/s1600/John+F.+Kennedy+1962+Lincoln+Continental+Towne+Limousine+Original+Photo.JPG) | (http://jfklancer.com/photos/limo/open.JPG) |
With a bullet hole in the windshield and a round bullet entry in the chrome molding of the JFK's limo , a shallow shot in JFK's back as per (move the wound Humes ) , an entrance in the front of JFK's neck , and then a frontal wound of the temple area that blew out the back of JFK's head blowing all kinds of brain matter on Bobby Hargis who was at the left rear of the limo , a missed shot that never even touched the Limo but put a shallow scrapping wound on James Tague's cheek and this is before we get to the wounds of John Connally who we know was shot at least once and more than likely twice . I'm counting shots and possibly more shots when we look at John Connally's wounds . So when they say there was a flurry of shots that came into the Limo , then I'm thinking of more than 2 shots because one of those supposed shots out of the 3 that LHO was to have fired , missed the whole damn LIMO. 7,8 maybe 9 shots with the limo stopping for the head shot . 3 shots from LHO in the break room ?"round bullet entry in the chrome molding"
Showing wheel-wells were lighter-in-tone, made even brighter by flash indoors:It is very hard to believe and understand why are you trying to show something that there is absolutely no chance in the whole universe to be true... Are you really serious to believe it is flash creating something on the wheels? Did you ever drive your car through a shallow mud? Do you have a car at all? Do you go out of your home at all?... so probably not mud.
(http://tpepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SAN-ANTONIO1.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/rp38Kgrx/image.jpg)
Flash creating appearance of "caked-on-mud" on tire side-walls.(Not same automobile)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C4k-TnCl5vk/UpKK4WCjIQI/AAAAAAAACCI/8vNczF49tCk/s1600/John+F.+Kennedy+1962+Lincoln+Continental+Towne+Limousine+Original+Photo.JPG) (http://jfklancer.com/photos/limo/open.JPG)
With a bullet hole in the windshield and a round bullet entry in the chrome molding of the JFK's limo , a shallow shot in JFK's back as per (move the wound Humes ) , an entrance in the front of JFK's neck , and then a frontal wound of the temple area that blew out the back of JFK's head blowing all kinds of brain matter on Bobby Hargis who was at the left rear of the limo , a missed shot that never even touched the Limo but put a shallow scrapping wound on James Tague's cheek and this is before we get to the wounds of John Connally who we know was shot at least once and more than likely twice . I'm counting shots and possibly more shots when we look at John Connally's wounds . So when they say there was a flurry of shots that came into the Limo , then I'm thinking of more than 2 shots because one of those supposed shots out of the 3 that LHO was to have fired , missed the whole damn LIMO. 7,8 maybe 9 shots with the limo stopping for the head shot . 3 shots from LHO in the break room ?Looks more like explosion and shells flying all around.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLbC7F8r/image.jpg)If you take that van into consideration, there are good chances that the pictures were taken in the same garage while the limo moved from one spot to another so there are at least four photos from that garage (same garage, two limo positions).
(https://i.postimg.cc/7hywN6XL/image.jpg)
Clearly the above 2 pictures with the cube van in the background are at different locations or the car was moved between photographs! Why was it moved or were photos taken at 2 different times? Or is it 2 different trucks with matching bumpers and cabs?
If you take that van into consideration, there are good chances that the pictures were taken in the same garage while the limo moved from one spot to another so there are at least four photos from that garage (same garage, two limo positions).And here is the MOST interesting part: if bellow two pictures were taken in the same garage (based on the van and hat on the wall), note the mud on the back wheel!!!
Is there a record on where the White House Garage is/was? I was trying to find it on the White House plan but no GARAGE anywhere. Suppose it was outside White House complex? Any other pictures of the White House garage?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Amazing. Provide nothing and then just claim you already provided it. Just like the evidence in the JFK case. Clearly.
And here is the MOST interesting part: if bellow two pictures were taken in the same garage (based on the van and hat on the wall), note the mud on the back wheel!!!
Limo was drove in in front of the van, no mud on the back wheel:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7hywN6XL/image.jpg)
Then it was driven who knows where outside the garage and when drove back in the same garage on the different spot, there is mud on the back wheel:
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJnqbbxM/image.jpg)
There is not much importance on the mud but who knows what was done with the limo considering proper investigation and evidence collection.
I can't link the conversation, because it was prior to the recent forum crash. But you made reference that the package in BWF's back seat is a few inches away from BWF, when it, in fact, would have been closer to a few feet. Dishonesty is your MO.
You stated something, and when someone calls you out on your dishonesty you start your twisting.
Dishonesty at its finest.
Oh brother....and you guys accuse me of nitpicking. Yes, I underestimated the distance. How does that make me "dishonest"?Now can you explain how that makes a difference in Frazier's ability to see how much of the back seat the package took up?
Compare that with somebody who knowingly makes a false statement like "the rifle in the backyard photo was proven to be C2766".
The dishonesty bit comes in when you are challenged on an exaggeration to make a point, but refuse to admit it at the time.
But, thank you, for acknowledging it now.
As much as I would like to discuss the other questions and statements above, I think we should stop the thread highjack here.
Mike Orr.....Mr. George Whitaker said that the original windshield , with the bullet hole in it , had been broken up and scrapped---as ordered---after the new windshield had been made.The long answer is Lyndon Baines Johnson did.
Jack Trojan .....Who ordered that?
Matt Grantham.....Jack, The short answer is Whitaker's superiors at the Ford Motor Company The link below provides some interesting material on how one of episodes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, presented by the History channel was pulled after it's first airing, and how Bill Moyer's and others, insisted the episode be removed and apparently some of the footage regarding the window is no longer available to the public It always just becomes a bigger and bigger outrage.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
The windshield bullet hole has been firmly established through numerous witnesses in different locations. But, here too, WC apologists must brush aside all the reports of the hole as "mistaken."
Doug Weldon's 1999 presentation on the evidence of a windshield cover-up is perhaps the best available video on the subject. Weldon is a very cautious researcher, and his presentation is thorough and compelling (unless you're determined to deny evidence of more than three shots):
The windshield exists this very day in the National Archives.https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
Hole? Judge for yourself.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T39V8CCr/Photo_naraevid_Windshield-5_1_3.jpg)I merely provided a link to the photo and stated "Judge for yourself' ...
What's your next Not-A-Conspiracy-Loon-Claim-Just-Axin'?
Thumb1:
Altgens 6. Here is a random image I found which points out some lens flare and highlights their "spiral nebula".
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-667-1262903178.jpg)
In the following gif we see Altgens 7 on a 22nd Nov newspaper and when compared to the official photo which was taken a few hour after midnight, we see crack in the same position and the start of the same radiating cracks which line up.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/uzdmbro7v/Altgenscrack_zpsfb0eb03c_1.gif)
JohnM
(https://i.ibb.co/jb1CcRr/Windscreen-impact-demo.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)If you are trying to find bullet damage in Altgens 6 you won't. According to Altgens there was definitely only one shot to that point. According to Tague himself, Tague was struck on the cheek on the second shot. According to SBT adherents, damage could only have occurred on the third shot.
If you are trying to find bullet damage in Altgens 6 you won't.
Yet it is mighty strange that the zone in Altgens 6 perfectly matches the position of the bullet impact photographed at Parkland:The damage was not as large as your shaded area. This is the damage to the windshield glass as showing to the WC:
(https://i.ibb.co/FHXQnR1/gettyimages-576877618-2048x2048.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WV0rsmX)
The damage was not as large as your shaded area. This is the damage to the windshield glass as showing to the WC:
The area is less than a square inch.
Also, it appears that whatever that area is, it is behind JFK's shoulder in Altgens' #6:
It is not much but it is certainly interesting that there appears to be a difference in the orientation of the rearview mirror between Altgens #6 and Altgens #7.The AR15 hollow-point that dented the chrome trim at say Z310 contacted the chrome on the crease in the chrome, a little right of center of windshield.
The four identical horizontal lines on Altgens 6 show that the car and the mirror are horizontally aligned:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCLd79TV/Altgens-6-mirror-horizontal.jpg)
It is a bit more difficult to find the car horizontal in Altgens 7 because the car is accelerating as it negotiates the left to right curve and Clint Hill has jumped on the left rear. Both of these things push the car down toward the left rear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFY0vZ59/Altgens-7-mirror-askew.jpg)
But it does seem that there is a marked difference between the orientation of the mirror between Altgens 6 and Altgens 7
I have never seen an exact description of the damage to the mirror. I doubt that damage is visible in photos at Parkland & at the garage.
Yet it is mighty strange that the zone in Altgens 6 perfectly matches the position of the bullet impact photographed at Parkland:Here in the above pix there is nearnuff no obliqueness to worry about (koz the camera is at the same level as the mirror) -- & the mirror is definitely (still) lower on the rhs here (now hours later i suppose).
(https://i.ibb.co/FHXQnR1/gettyimages-576877618-2048x2048.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WV0rsmX)
Well it certainly looks puckered in this Parkland photo (click on the image twice to see it bigger):Yes there is some strange denting.
(https://i.ibb.co/10zbGxF/gettyimages-576877618-2048x2048.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Zf2NzCq)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/d2/b3/lTdT4CJk_o.gif)Yes, but see my reply#260.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/79/32/8jR5vFXT_o.jpg)
That photo of the WASH Bucket sitting next to the JFK Limo at Parkland Hospital reveals this "crime scene" to have been tainted. The JFK Limo is worthless regarding Evidence. This includes all possible bullet fragments within. To put the top on the car at Parkland meant even the visors were Moved into the Down position. This too tainted the crime scene/JFK Limo. The jump seats were moved around, SS Agents were tramping around inside the vehicle as they struggled to remove JFK's body, etc. On and On it goes. The JFK Limo issa dead fish regarding Legit Evidence.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/d2/b3/lTdT4CJk_o.gif)Are you suggesting that Altgens was crouching for #6 and on his tiptoes for #7?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/79/32/8jR5vFXT_o.jpg)
Apart from that bullet hole/impact.
It does look like the mirror was dented in the middle:
Are you suggesting that Altgens was crouching for #6 and on his tiptoes for #7?
| (https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/13018301_web1_AP_685479771488.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens7Unger.jpg) |
Who knows. It could have been slightly crumpled like that before November 22nd.Yes. The Rowley report (CD80) mentions that SA Gies, who was responsible for the care and maintenance for the car, thought the damage to the windshield frame was done earlier at the Lincoln dealer on November 1, 1961. (the year must be a typo, but that is what the report says). Gies said that they were making repairs to the crank that secures the convertible top and damage may have occurred then. So maybe that damaged the mirror.
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/03/bf/xYvg3uff_o.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/DPowers.jpg) |
Thanks for posting these Jerry. Where did you find that Love Field photo? I have been searching for that kind of view from Love Field.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/03/bf/xYvg3uff_o.jpg)
There was mirror slant at Love Field before the motorcade began that equals that in the Parkland picture.
Thanks for posting these Jerry. Where did you find that Love Field photo? I have been searching for that kind of view from Love Field.
(https://i.ibb.co/jb1CcRr/Windscreen-impact-demo.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Hi Jim, nice graphic, the left side and bottom border are clearly defined by the edge of the mirror(which in your graphic was a little fudged) and the top of Kennedy's jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR5bc3G1/Windscreen-impact-demo-crop.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cLcgBBVM/JFK-limo-mirror-shoulder-crack.gif)
JohnM
Look at this too. You can plainly see that the fracture is in front of Kennedy here:
(https://i.ibb.co/74PpTgd/Impact-zoom.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gVNWXvL)
Thanks Jim for this higher res crop because now it's even more clear that the edge of the mirror is in front of the lighter object behind.
An approximate recreation of sight-lines. The disc in the 3D model representing the windshield damage is unchanged between the garage and Altgens views. The disc physically "sits" on the surface of the model's windshield. The "Spiral Nebula" shape does not correspond to the windshield damage area.
Hi Jim, nice graphic, the left side and bottom border are clearly defined by the edge of the mirror(which in your graphic was a little fudged) and the top of Kennedy's jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR5bc3G1/Windscreen-impact-demo-crop.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cLcgBBVM/JFK-limo-mirror-shoulder-crack.gif)
JohnM
Nice diagram Jerry but could you do it again with the rear view mirror at the correct width? In your diagram, it's conveniently smaller that it was in reality.
You will then see that the bullet impact line up perfectly.
Nothing "convenient" about the mirror in the 3D version of the garage photo appearing smaller. The position of the disc representing damage was based not on the mirror, which I noticed was different, but on the windshield in general. The blue outline of the "nebula" was drawn from the Altgens Photo. The mirrors appear to match in the Altgens photo recreation. Could be that in the garage photo, the mirror needs to be drawn forward in space a bit (which would then make it larger in regards to camera-view). Possibly the stem supporting the mirror is not correct.
I see no need to alter the disc representing the main area of the windshield damage. As the garage photo shows, the damage relative to the mirror was over towards the driver's side. The disc is also lower in elevation compared to the "Nebula" defect.
I think you ought to work this out in 3D being declaring the "Spiral Nebula" is the large windshield defect.
Nothing "convenient" about the mirror in the 3D version of the garage photo appearing smaller. The position of the disc representing damage was based not on the mirror, which I noticed was different, but on the windshield in general. The blue outline of the "nebula" was drawn from the Altgens Photo. The mirrors appear to match in the Altgens photo recreation. Could be that in the garage photo, the mirror needs to be drawn forward in space a bit (which would then make it larger in regards to camera-view). Possibly the stem supporting the mirror is not correct.
I see no need to alter the disc representing the main area of the windshield damage. As the garage photo shows, the damage relative to the mirror was over towards the driver's side. The disc is also lower in elevation compared to the "Nebula" defect.
I think you ought to work this out in 3D being declaring the "Spiral Nebula" is the large windshield defect.
Whatever, the 3D image needs correcting, with the rear view mirror at the correct width. It's the only thing in the image which isn't at the right dimensions. We're talking about very important fine details so that needs to be corrected.
Meanwhile, if you have a better 2D or 3D image that maps your claim that the "Nebula" is directly over the actual windshield damage area, it would be nice if you showed it.
Meanwhile, if you have a better 2D or 3D image that maps your claim that the "Nebula" is directly over the actual windshield damage area, it would be nice if you showed it.
So, this first image shows the errors in the diagram that you posted. In the 3D model, the rear view mirror is too small and the impact is slightly off to the right:
(https://i.ibb.co/qmSSkHf/Diagram-errors.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5s00BQy)
In the following image I have corrected those two errors (in Photoshop - it'd be better if this was done in the 3D model) and presto, the impact point on the windscreen lines up with what we see in Altgens 6:
(https://i.ibb.co/y5Np0fL/Windscreen-impact-demo2x.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FJhX6xG)
My circle is off a whooping 1/8". What a nitpick. As explained to you, the damage was located using the windshield as a guide. The width of the mirror is secondary.
The Garage Photo is difficult to match as it has zoom and very little perpendiculars and straights. The camera angle is depressed and the field-of-vision is unknown. In time, it could be worked out. Much easier to maintain some precision with a photo like the Altgens Photo.
As I predicted, you have now created a new error. It is certainly better to leave the scale of the mirror alone as doing so preserves its match with the Altgens Photo. Personally, I can't see how your new version has the "Nebula" shape corresponding with the windshield damage disc.
So you have never done an original mapping of the damage area on the windshield to see if it corresponded to the "Nebula" shape in the Altgens Photo. You simply thought it did.
I haven’t followed this thread so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has already been covered. But it appears to me that there is some diffraction of light caused by the aperture in the camera that is causing some “starburst effect” that is being confused with a bullet impact defect in the windshield. I have circled in red another area of bright white light that gives a similar effect. I don’t know exactly what the source of that white light is. Maybe someone else has an idea. Best I can tell, there is no windshield defect that corresponds to the “starburst” I have circled in red. Please let me know if you have an idea of the source of this patch of bright white light. Thanks.
(https://i.vgy.me/0y2c4G.jpg)
That lower "starburst" look s like it's merely a relection of the sun. In the car behind, it's reflecting off the front of the hood:
(https://i.ibb.co/GsHgf67/Screenshot-2024-02-13-134634.png) (https://ibb.co/vsX2CF1)
I think that theory is worthy of testing in a 3D model. Your idea is that the windshield is reflecting the sun back towards the camera (if I understand you correctly). The sun’s position in the sky and the positions of the camera and windshield (and its relative angles) can be modeled in 3D. That might help to rule this theory in or out.
These starburst effects are caused by refracted light created by the aperture of the camera. So, I see no reason to believe that there is a defect in the windshield at the time the Altgens 6 photo was taken.
I haven’t followed this thread so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has already been covered. But it appears to me that there is some diffraction of light caused by the aperture in the camera that is causing some “starburst effect” that is being confused with a bullet impact defect in the windshield. I have circled in red another area of bright white light that gives a similar effect. I don’t know exactly what the source of that white light is. Maybe someone else has an idea. Best I can tell, there is no windshield defect that corresponds to the “starburst” I have circled in red. Please let me know if you have an idea of the source of this patch of bright white light. Thanks.The "starburst" which is just over JFK's left shoulder in Altgens' #6 is some part of what the woman red-circled here is holding or some part of her clothing:
The upper zone (which I'm suggesting is a bullet impact) isn't a reflection like the one lower down. It doesn't have the same intensity at all. It's in front of Kennedy's shoulder (as you can see in the extreme zoom) and it merges with the woman's bag at the rear.
The "starburst" which is just over JFK's left shoulder in Altgens' #6 is some part of what the woman red-circled here is holding or some part of her clothing:
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8LjZMy8/Woman-across-from-Croft-seen-in-Altgens6.jpg)
This is what she looks like in Croft's photo:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTb1JrwY/Woman-in-Croft-seen-in-Altgens6-behind-JFK.jpg)
If it is a starburst effect caused by the aperture of the camera, then it might appear to you to be in front of JFK’s shoulder. After all the camera aperture is between the film and JFK’s shoulder.
...and yet it is in the same position as the bullet impact that we see in the following Altgens photo, taken as the limo moves away. It has the same shape too! What are the odds of such a coincidence?!
...and yet it is in the same position as the bullet impact that we see in the following Altgens photo, taken as the limo moves away. It has the same shape too! What are the odds of such a coincidence?!First of all, the Altgens 7 mark does not really have the same shape as the Altgens 6 "mark". Also, coincidence can be argued both ways:you must conclude that it is just a coincidence that the "starburst" appears to be bounded on the left in Altgens 6 by the mirror and below by JFK's shoulder and just happens to be in the area where the lady holding a whole bunch of things is standing.
Similar is not the same as same. There are a lot of intriguing coincidences in the investigation. Something looked at as closely and as long as this case has been is bound to have some coincidences.
This is just too close to be just a coincidence of form... in exactly the same place.
(https://i.ibb.co/vVFp8MT/ALGENS-WINDSCREEN2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Ntv5zGJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/v3B5kXX/Windscreen-impact-demo.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
The lady’s purse is in exactly the same place. It can also be seen in Croft’s photo. What a “coincidence”…. :-\
And yet that light zone is in front of JFK's shoulder:
(https://i.ibb.co/74PpTgd/Impact-zoom.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gVNWXvL)
(https://i.ibb.co/vXW0z92/Shoulder.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
The Muchmore frame on the left is 2 frames after the headshot and the right frame is the next frame after, which shows the crack.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7LbZtzFk/muchmore-before-after-crack-altgens7a.jpg)
The Muchmore frame before the headshot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7LtzzKR/20150407-073427.jpg)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This first frame is Zapruder 255 which is Altgens 6 and thereafter are the next sequential frames.
Spot the crack?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kzd4yrkt/Cold-Case-JFK-mp4-snapshot-50-33-831.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZmPnQjc/Cold-Case-JFK-mp4-snapshot-50-33-898.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRxYNfwk/Cold-Case-JFK-mp4-snapshot-50-33-930.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mkCkZzCJ/Cold-Case-JFK-mp4-snapshot-50-33-997.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNZdKczG/Cold-Case-JFK-mp4-snapshot-50-34-064.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1Zdt61F/Cold-Case-JFK-mp4-snapshot-50-34-099.jpg)
These frames come from the "JFK Assassination Research Photo Gallery" link at the top of the page.
JohnM
The Muchmore frame on the left is 2 frames after the headshot and the right frame is the next frame after, which shows the crack.
I see what you are getting a John but what you show is an impossibility due to the different angles/perspectives of the limo in the two pictures.
If you want that dot in the Muchmore frame to be the bullet impact, we should see it practically touching the rear view mirror or even fusing with it - if we follow the actual position of it in Altgens 7:
(https://i.ibb.co/1RgKySF/demo.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j3NG0pn)
The Zapruder frames don't have the definition to see the crack (neither does the Muchmore for that matter).
If you want that dot in the Muchmore frame to be the bullet impact, we should see it practically touching the rear view mirror or even fusing with it - if we follow the actual position of it in Altgens 7:
The Zapruder frames don't have the definition to see the crack (neither does the Muchmore for that matter).
If the white dot is something on the grass behind then can you point it out in these other frames?
How can make that conclusion by drawing 2 dimensional lines on a 2 dimensional photo? The rear view mirror isn't sitting flush on the windscreen.
There's a multitude of visible objects in the Zapruder frames which are smaller than the size of your crack and if the sun light was lighting up the many angled crack with the intensity of what you claim in Altgens6 and what we can all see in Altgens7 then why wouldn't we see it?
If the white dot is something on the grass behind then can you point it out in these other frames?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/20150407-073457.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/20150407-073539.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/90Pndj7z/Muchmore-4-frames-before-after-headshot.jpg)
How can make that conclusion by drawing 2 dimensional lines on a 2 dimensional photo? The rear view mirror isn't sitting flush on the windscreen.
There's a multitude of visible objects in the Zapruder frames which are smaller than the size of your crack and if the sun light was lighting up the many angled crack with the intensity of what you claim in Altgens6 and what we can all see in Altgens7 then why wouldn't we see it?
JohnM
You guys are focusing on a "mirror" while missing the obvious. NONE of those 3 guys standing on The Steps is wearing Only a WHITE SHIRT. The NIX Film clearly shows a White Shirt Man moving UP-The-Steps. You need to always be looking at assassination images with a 360 Degree Visual/Mental Focus. You are being hoodwinked into wearing "blinders". Avoid being David Copperfield'd.
That is a different subject Royell. Can you direct me to the thread which discusses it please?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5f/46/tnwIQAvl_o.jpg)
These are approximate match-ups, as best as I can do for now.