Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
When you saw those cracked windshield, did you have knowledge that somebody in the car had just been shot? If you did and you weren't in position to get a close-up view of the crack, I think you would have had a very different judgement. The human mind is subject to suggestion and the sight of a cracked windshield combined with the knowledge that JFK had just been shot would very much influence how those witnesses assessed what they were seeing.
The limo windshield issue should have been resolved a long time ago by the Secret Service's close up examination of the windshield which revealed a strike to the inside surface of the windshield and no penetration through the windshield.

   Yes, I have seen the SS Pics of "A" windshield. The images of the windshield I refer to were taken at Parkland Hospital, only minutes after the car arrived there, and only minutes after JFK had been removed from the vehicle. Now, put yourself in a jury box. Which images of the windshield are You going to place your trust in?
2
Weldon’s chapter on the limousine is especially valuable because he documents that the White House garage logs contain no entries for November 25, the same day Ford Motor Company glass technician George Whitaker reported that the limousine was at the Ford Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and when Whitaker saw the hole in the windshield.

The government's official version of what happened to the limousine after the assassination appears very simple if one conducts a cursory examination. That "story" alleges that the limousine was flown to Washington D.C. on the evening of 22 November 1963. It then remained in the White House Garage under the supervision of the Secret Service until, according to James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, it was driven to Dearborn, Michigan-approximately 500 miles--on 20 December 1963 to design a new bubble-top. The vehicle was then supposed to have been driven from Dearborn, Michigan to Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, Ohio, on 24 December 1963, for the manufacture and installation of the new bullet resistant bubble-top. (See Appendix C.)

This was the official account James Rowley provided to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel to the Warren Commission in a letter dated 6 January 1964, a version of events which has been suspect for many years, . . .

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), during its tenure from 1976 to 1978, became confused about what happened to the limousine in the aftermath of the assassination. In an examination of 11 specific dates regarding the limousine after the assassination beginning with 22 November 1963, the HSCA noted conspicuous discrepancies in testimony about 4 of those dates as it developed its chronology of the movements of the limousine.

An article published in Car Exchange (December 1983) reported that the limousine was delivered to Hess & Eisenhardt around the date of 12 December 1963. In addition, however, the HSCA, in referring to the records of Hess & Eisenhardt, also noted that the vehicle was delivered to Hess & Eisenhardt on 13 December 1963. This date was confirmed to me personally by Willard Hess, one of the owners of the company. Notice that both of these dates drastically contradict the information provided by the Chief of the Secret Service to Mr. Rankin in his letter of 6 January 1964. . . .

The Ferguson memorandum raises other questions. An examination of the White House Garage logs is revealing. Mr. Ferguson's name, for example, does not appear on the logs until 26 November 1963. . . .

The logs also reveal more critical information. The most significant aspect of the White House Garage logs is the absence of even one person logging in to see the limousine on 25 November 1963. This critical observation becomes of paramount importance when the statement of a witness from the Ford Motor Company, who asserts that he worked on the windshield at Ford on 25 November, is scrutinized. . . .

On 15 August 1993, I was able to conduct an interview that answered many of the questions raised by the windshield controversy. Awareness of the existence of this individual came to me purely by circumstance and not through any investigative efforts for which I can take credit. I am not revealing the identity of the individual at this time. A number of trusted researchers have been provided this information with an unedited copy of the full interview between us as a verification of its legitimacy. As I write today, this individual is still living but in poor health.

Having been an attorney since 1978, I have literally seen thousands of people testify in the courtroom. While serving as a hearing official for a number of those years, it has been my duty to weigh the credibility of witnesses. This individual was as credible a witness as I had ever observed in any courtroom. . . .

He had worked for the Ford Motor Company for forty years, starting in 1934. He has never forgotten what occurred on 25 November 1963. The two lab men to whom he makes reference are now deceased. These are some important excerpts from my interview:

“Around noon, we got it around 2:00 that he had been killed. So, right away they called meetings to find out what we were going to do. Are we gonna run Monday morning with the President being killed? We didn't decide on anything at that meeting, and being that I had charge of all power service, I was in charge of getting that plant ready to run or to shut it down and everything. So, they decided that they would let everything ride and they would call me on Sunday. So, on Sunday, around noon-I had just finished dinner-they called me up and told me to go in and make arrangements to start the plant up.

“Cause we would have to start that plant up around midnight to get it going for the day shift and number two shift. So, that I did, but then I arrived my normal time on Monday and they had me on a two-way radio and they had me on a Cushman scooter because I was covering a large plant. So I got a call from the Vice President of the division, and he told me on the radio that I was wanted in the glass plant lab, now! So I went down to the lab and the door was locked ....

"I knocked on the door and they let me in. There were two of the lab men in there and they had the windshield there. And they told me that we were to use that to-see now the car was a special built car.

“We were to use that windshield as a template to make a new windshield. And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through. You could see it, from the way it was broken....

"But the car was in the B building, where we had a repair garage. And they had taken the windshield out, it was back in the glass plant, we were using it as a template. And to make a windshield, and we were told to follow it right straight through until it was a finished product and get it back to the B building. We were told if anybody asked us what we were doing, we were running a template for a prototype.... "

After describing the process for making a new windshield he noted,

"We laminated it, when we took it out of there, it was a finished windshield. We took it to the B building; it was put in that limousine. Now that limousine had the entire interior completely stripped out.... The carpeting and everything was gone....

"It was gone, it was nothing, it was down to metal, and they restored the whole interior."

When asked if the limousine had been "stripped" at the plant, he replied, "... I assumed it was there, that's what they did....

"It was a good clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or anything, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it .... This had a clean round hole in the front and fragmented in the back....

"I went on from there and I became superintendent of the division and I had the whole five plant divisions.'' (“The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963,” in Murder in Dealey Plaza, pp. 132-135, 142-143).


I again encourage interested readers to read Weldon's entire chapter. It contains much more information than the quotes from it provided above.  Here's the link:

"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" 


3
   Just my own personal experience, but I have seen several CRACKED Windshields. I Never initially thought I was looking at a windshield with a HOLE in it. Never. If someone connected to law enforcement claimed that on 11/22/63 that they saw the JFK Limo windshield with a HOLE in it, "big enough to put a pencil through it", I believe that law enforcement official.

When you saw those cracked windshield, did you have knowledge that somebody in the car had just been shot? If you did and you weren't in position to get a close-up view of the crack, I think you would have had a very different judgement. The human mind is subject to suggestion and the sight of a cracked windshield combined with the knowledge that JFK had just been shot would very much influence how those witnesses assessed what they were seeing.
Quote

    There are plenty of images of the JFK Limo sitting at Parkland Hospital with the Limo Trunk CLOSED and no top on the car. These images would therefore be before the trunk was opened and the Limo Top extracted, etc. These images would be FRESH Images of the car. These images show the JFK Limo from the rear toward Parkland Hospital. These images clearly show the inside of the windshield. These images are clear enough to show the 2 Doors on Parkland Hospital that FACED the JFK Limo. These images even show Wiegman on the (R) as he began to approach the JFK Limo with his camera at his face. These are extremely clear images. These are EARLY ON IMAGES of the JFK Limo. It would Not be difficult to Zoom in on the inside of the Limo windshield and examine the alleged Hole/Crack. This Limo "windshield" issue should have been put-to-bed long ago. Maybe it was?

The limo windshield issue should have been resolved a long time ago by the Secret Service's close up examination of the windshield which revealed a strike to the inside surface of the windshield and no penetration through the windshield.
4
The people who claimed there was a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield never got close enough to closely examine it. It's not at all surprising that seeing the crack created by a fragment of the headshot would cause people to believe a shot was fired through the windshield, especially since at the time, none of those people would have had any idea where the shooter had fired from. The Secret Service was able to closely examine the crack and determined the windshield was struck from the inside and the missile had not passed through the windshield. It remained inside the limo.

   Just my own personal experience, but I have seen several CRACKED Windshields. I Never initially thought I was looking at a windshield with a HOLE in it. Never. If someone connected to law enforcement claimed that on 11/22/63 that they saw the JFK Limo windshield with a HOLE in it, "big enough to put a pencil through it", I believe that law enforcement official.
    There are plenty of images of the JFK Limo sitting at Parkland Hospital with the Limo Trunk CLOSED and no top on the car. These images would therefore be before the trunk was opened and the Limo Top extracted, etc. These images would be FRESH Images of the car. These images show the JFK Limo from the rear toward Parkland Hospital. These images clearly show the inside of the windshield. These images are clear enough to show the 2 Doors on Parkland Hospital that FACED the JFK Limo. These images even show Wiegman on the (R) as he began to approach the JFK Limo with his camera at his face. These are extremely clear images. These are EARLY ON IMAGES of the JFK Limo. It would Not be difficult to Zoom in on the inside of the Limo windshield and examine the alleged Hole/Crack. This Limo "windshield" issue should have been put-to-bed long ago. Maybe it was?   
5
TS-

I did not say I thought Trump was innocent of all the allegations against him, or that I admire Trump.

I don't have TDS.

Trump is Trump. Not my cup of tea, but Trump was elected by the American people, he imposed rule of law on our borders, and he may yet take down the IRGC.

Trump appears vainglorious, to put it mildly, and has a short attention span. 

But that is the last I will say about this off-topic.

There is a place in this forum for the red-blue pissing wars, but not here.

If you dislike Trump, fine by me.






6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Oswald In Helsinki
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 07:45:00 AM »
[...]

John M. Newman says in his 2022 book, Uncovering Popov's Mole, that Bruce Solie, James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior in the Office of Security, was a KGB "mole," and that he betrayed CIA's spy, GRU Lt. Col. Pyotr Popov, to Yuri Nosenko's ostensible boss, Vladislav Kovshuk, in Washington, D.C., movie houses in January 1957.

He says that when Popov's handler in West Berlin, Russia-born (probable mole, imho) George Kisevalter, sent a cable to CIA headquarters in April 1958 saying that Popov told him that he'd overheard a drunken GRU colonel boast at a New Year's Eve party that the Kremlin had all of the specifications of the U-2 spy plane, Solie decided to send Oswald to Moscow as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Oswald) planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- the Soviet Russia Division.

Which mole hunt lasted nine years, protected Solie from being uncovered, tore the Soviet Russia Division apart, and drove Angleton nuts.

We know that in the interest of "source protection," Popov wasn't secretly arrested and "played back" against the CIA until November 1958, and that he was publicly arrested on 16 October 1959, the same day that Oswald arrived in Moscow.

https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Oswald In Helsinki
« Last post by Tom Scully on Today at 07:10:43 AM »
I've merely pointed out how you mischaracterized Rankin's words and the absurdity of anyone needing to expedite Oswald's visa

Mischaracterized Rankin's words?
I was the one who posted Rankin's words. Not you.
Just because I misquoted what I'd already posted you jumped on it because you had nothing else. No argument, No evidence.
That's all you had to troll the discussion with.
Zero contribution. Just trolling.

And you pointed out the absurdity of anyone needing to expedite Oswald's visa??
But Oswald's visa WAS EXPEDITED!
It was done in 24 hours!
What don't you understand about things being expedited?
The only thing "absurd" is your presence on this forum.

In response, I've gotten a blizzard of insults and rants.

Stop playing the victim.
You're nothing but a troll.
If you want respect do something worthy of it.

The CIA, according to the WC Report, was silent on the question of which flight Oswald embarked from to arrive in Helsinki
at a time of day that would fit the post arrival narrative. A cost of $111.90 is listed on pg. 257 of the WueCR with no accompanying supporting info.
Two flights from Paris with one intermediate stop was information not volunteered by the CIA, despite offering no support for a London flight
beyond departure time and unsupported cost. No flight manifests were reported to be found.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0141a.htm.


Kat Ford reported to the FBI that Marina said she first met her future husband after he arrived in Moscow to represent his employer at the Science Fair.
Marina explained why she had an address of a building associated with a residence of Robert E Webster in Leningrad, if memory serves me.

In 1965, Nixon hope to suddenly show up with his lawyer on the doorstep of by then retired Khrushchev, but reportedly could not find him  The after the fact reporting claimed the group obtained visas in Helsinki in as few as three hours.
 
In the early 1980's the name of the lawyer was linked in a Washington Post article, if I recall the , 19809accurately, to the boyhood town of Tampico in Illinois in which
the two had first met. The population was 600 in 1911 and the lawyer's father was the grocer.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170828135015/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/07/15/the-republicans-in-detroit/a1b4b68b-2673-4b6c-b86c-ecac9147f3e0/?utm_term=.550271ac570d
THE REPUBLICANS IN DETROIT
July 15, 1980

I have a copy of the wedding announcement,, circa 1949, stating that the lawyer's best man
was his former OSS advanced weapons development team member, Jim Rand, who happened to be
the employer who sent Robert Webster to that 1959 Moscow Science exhibition where Webster defected to the Soviet Union from.

That same lawyer was assigned a large role in the October Surprise investigation and its mysteries. He died of cancer about 1984 before
that investigation fully ramped up, leaving his longtime employee, Roy Furmark and Bill Casey's assistant, Robert Gates, questioned after Casey had also
suddenly died, holding the bag, so to speak. Gates did such a poor job answering congressional inquiry questions that he could not be advanced as
planned, to receive senate committee approval for his nomination for DCI.

in the early 1980s a Harvard graduate who in 1959 had been a 29 year old PhD Archeology candidate, came across and reread a journal he had been
keeping during a train trip to Helsinki in which he had written the name of his young berth mate of several days on the train. He had completely
forgotten until then that the name of his travel companion he had written in that journal was Harvey Oswald. About 40 years later the Finnish government
released details that supported the man's claims. He the name of that man as #6 and Oswald's just below it as #7.

His recent obit includes a papragraph describing that encounter,
https://onlinedigeditions.com/article/In+Memoriam%3A+William+B.+Trousdale/5078414/857731/article.html

This is attributed to well known US researcher Weberman who allegedly received it from a Finnish researcher who sent it to him.



Quote
https://www.nytimes.com/1965/04/11/archives/nixon-back-in-moscow-debates-again-issue-of-kennedys-slaying-raised.html
April 11, 1965
Nixon, Back in Moscow, Debates Again; Issue of Kennedy's Slaying Raised by University Aide
".... Mr. Nixon arrived this morning as a private tourist with a group of American and Canadian businessmen with whom he had visited Helsinki on business. His trip to Moscow was decided upon on the spur of the moment Thursday after the group had completed its business in the Finnish capital with unexpected speed. To the surprise of all, including the consular officers at the United States Embassy in Helsinki, a Soviet visa came through quickly in less than three hours. On arrival, after a 20-hour train ride, Mr. Nixon told reporters that he had made no arrangements to see any Soviet officials or any United States or other diplomats. He was philosophical about his own changed station in life and that of his debating partner of almost six years ago. I was on July 24, 1959, that Mr. Nixon, in Moscow to open the American National Exhibition, debated with Mr. Khrushchev
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 05:53:05 AM »
[...]

Connally was mixed up and you're way off.

Rhetorical question:

Why is it we can see almost all of Connally's white shirt in Z-174, but we can't see his tie?
 
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z174.jpg

Answer:

Because Connally, having consciously begun by Z-151 to turn his head quickly to his LEFT (and therefore being captured "looking straight ahead" in the Croft photo at Z-161), by Z-169 has started turning his head and upper torso back to his right to see where the shot had come from and to see if JFK is okay.

By Z-174, Connally's upper torso is turned so far to his right that his tie is obscured from our view by a part of the car.

Although Connally continues turning to his right, he can't "see" JFK in Z-179 because JFK has turned HIS head far to HIS right and has raised his hand to wave to someone.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z179.jpg

Connally gives up looking over his right shoulder and starts turning his upper torso and head back to his LEFT, to, as he said, try to see JFK over his left shoulder, but he doesn't make it very far because both JFK and he are hit by CE-399 at approximately Z-222.
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 03:51:50 AM »
Bennett was already sitting higher than Ken O'Donnell and would have had no difficulty seeing JFK over top of O'Donnell.  Bennett is in the right rear seat in the QM as seen in the Betzner photo at z186:

Who was it, then, who was sitting on the passenger's side of the car and around Z-145 started leaning far to his right while continuing to look straight ahead?
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 03:51:03 AM »
1) Why wasn't she looking at the limo in both of those frames?
She appears to be looking toward her right up to z202.

Quote
2) What was she looking at in Z-148?
She was looking to her right which is where the President's car was.
Quote
3) Why did she start turning her head away from the limo and towards the TSBD by Z-141?
She didn't.  She is always looking  to her right until z202 when she does that major head turn to the rear.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10