All Whitaker did was show he got the same mistaken impression of the damaged windshield as the people who saw it at Parkland.

"Mistaken impression"?! So eight witnesses in three different locations all "got the same mistaken impression"?! All eight of them could not tell the difference between a crack and a hole?!

So do tell us how Officer Ellis could have gotten this "mistaken impression" when he put a pencil through the hole. Tell us how Secret Service agent Taylor, who rode in the limousine from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House garage, a 25-35-minute drive, and then watched FBI technicians remove fragments from the hole, could have mistaken a crack for a hole, especially given the wording of his report:

In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.

Do tell us how Evalea Glanges, a medical student at the time who later became head of the surgery department at a major hospital, could have "mistaken" a crack for a hole, given that she specified that she didn't see any cracks around the hole, but just the hole. This rings true because when objects make holes in windshields, cracks often don't develop from the hole until later, as I have personally seen with the windshields of two of my cars. Glanges specified that the hole was a "real clean hole." I should add that Glanges had years of experience with firearms, having been a recreational gun enthusiast since childhood. 

And Whitaker was the last person on Earth would have confused a crack for a hole. As a senior windshield technician, he had seen all kinds of testing done on windshields. He saw the windshield after it had been removed from the limo. He was able to examine both sides of the windshield from just inches away. Noted Whitaker,

And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through. You could see it from the way it was broken. . . It was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it. This had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back. . . .

I worked in the industry for forty years and I've seen all kinds of testing on glass, and I know it came from the front. ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963", pp. 143-144)

You lamely and dishonestly claim that Weldon found Whitaker to be credible "solely because his story conflicts" with the Warren Report. You obviously know nothing about Doug Weldon, and you apparently have not read Weldon's detailed explanation for why he found Whitaker to be credible. 

You see, you folks aren't interested in following the evidence where it leads. You keep saying, "if there was a conspiracy, someone would have talked." Well, many people have talked, but in every single case, when those people's accounts contradict the lone-gunman theory, you reach and strain for any excuse, no matter how lame, to either reject their accounts or to accuse them of lying.

MTG never bothers to consider how silly it would have been to fire a shot at JFK through the windshield from a frontal position. The shooter would have been right out in the open for all to see. The witnesses on the bridge would have easily seen such a shooter and heard the shot. That shooter would have had to thread the needle to get a shot past Kellerman and JBC. Really neat trick given that Kellerman was in the front passenger seat and JBC's jump seat was offset to the inside. A bullet fired from the bridge striking low on the windshield where MTG claims it did, would never have been on a trajectory to reach JFK. Considering all those factors would have required MTG to apply critical thinking to the situation. Critical thinking is a trait rarely displayed by JFKA conspiracy fanatics.....like MTG.

This is yet another display of your ignorance of JFK assassination research. Obviously, you didn't bother to read the main source I linked in the OP, i.e., Weldon's chapter on the windshield hole. I'm sure you didn't read any of the other linked sources either. If you had read Weldon's chapter, you would have discovered that he addresses the issue of the position of the shooter who fired through the windshield. He documents that a shooter firing the from the south side of the triple underpass would not have been "right in the open for all to see." In fact, he would have been well concealed.

Moreover, Sherry Fiester, an instructor and court-certified expert in crime-scene reconstruction and blood-spatter analysis, found another location on the south knoll, a different location than the one Weldon identified, that would have also provided good concealment. She discusses this in her 2012 book Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination and in the 2016 documentary A Coup in Camelot.

This stuff was covered years ago, but, as usual, you have no clue because your research has been so meager and biased. 

 

"The conspiracy [that Tom Graves] posits subsumes not only the JFKA, but pretty much the entire history of the United States for the past 75 years [sic]."

Dear Macho Genius Fancy Pants Rants,

Not necessarily the JFK assassination, itself, but a lot of our history ever since the early 1960s when risk-taking General Oleg Gribanov sent GRU Lt. Col. Dmitry Polyakov and KGB Major Aleksey Kulak (J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA) to the FBI's NYC field office to volunteer to spy for it at the U.N., and sent false-defector-in-place Yuri Nosenko to the CIA in Geneva in June 1962 to discredit what a recent true defector, KGB Major Anatoly Golitsyn, was telling father-figure-requiring James Angleton about probable moles in the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies -- which intel Angleton unfortunately shared with his confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Leonard Solie in the Office of Security (look him up).

-- Tom

Answer my question about the hypothetical in my last post and we'll go from there. Don't side track it, just answer it as if you were a jury member.

I'm not going to get involved in your inane games, Slater.

You asked a question about Jackie, and I answered you.

If you'll actually read my answer and look at the pertinent Zapruder frames, you might even, despite your agonizing cognitive dissonance, actually learn something.

A document declassified by Trump on 3 July 2026 reveals that Russia tried to help him win the 2020 election.

Who cares?  There is not one iota of evidence that any votes were influenced.  Isn't that the leftist talking point on election fraud?  No evidence.  In the case of illegal aliens or other voter fraud, the leftist narrative is that it doesn't matter because there is no evidence that there is enough fraud to make any difference.  And now there is actually evidence that thousands of illegal aliens were on the voting rolls in places like NJ and even allowed to vote.  But the Dems are not concerned about that. 

You think Trump is responsible for Ukraine's sudden insurgence? 
Look to Z's advanced drone and anti-aircraft technology 

...and who belittled and berated the President of the country being attacked?

You are concerned about words again and not actions?  The US has sent Ukraine billions of dollars in weapons and aid.  That includes under Trump.  So yes.  Without the weapons that Trump has sent, Ukraine would be toast.  In fact, that is a narrative supported by the Dems that the US must send weapons and aid or Ukraine will go under.   

Now did Russia invade Ukraine while Obama was president?  Yes or no.  Did Obama send Ukraine any weapons?  Yes or no.