Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Brian Doyle, Michael T. Griffith, Barry Wilton, Mitch Todd

Author Topic: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 147 times)

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #7 on: Today at 08:04:03 PM »
Glanges was pretty sure it was a through and through bullet hole.

Covered up at the Rouge Plant 3 days later.

Of course.

The Rouge Plant was just another cog in Steve "I am a Leninist" Bannon's Deep State-Administrative State and/or Jimmy D'Eugenio's Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex that killed JFK and Jimi Hendrix, too!!!

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1757
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #8 on: Today at 08:08:55 PM »

MG: A Dallas police officer actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole.

TG: Who was that?

DPD officer Stavis Ellis.


Show us the damage that is "undisputedly" visible in Altgens 6.

Seriously? Well, this is a first. You're the first person I've ever encountered who has disputed the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6.

Folks, again, the link for Weldon's chapter on the hole in the limo's windshield has been fixed. I had the wrong link in the first version of the OP.  Here it is again:

"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963"

But I repeat that this thread is not intended to debate the evidence of a hole in the windshield but to show that the lone-gunman theory cannot explain the windshield damage seen in Altgens 6 and in the Zapruder film.


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #9 on: Today at 08:51:07 PM »
Show us the damage that is "undisputedly" visible in Altgens 6.

   MARK -  I agree. This "undisputedly" stuff with respect to Altgens 6 and possible windshield damage is pure  BS: Thanks for maintaining a "standard of proof" around here.

Online Mark Ulrik

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #10 on: Today at 08:57:23 PM »
Seriously? Well, this is a first. You're the first person I've ever encountered who has disputed the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6.

Are you for real? No one has ever disputed that the windshield was damaged, but is the damage visible in Altgens 6? Undisputedly? Your (w)hole argument depends on it, so I was hoping that it wouldn't be too inconvenient for you to actually show us.

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #11 on: Today at 08:57:41 PM »
DPD officer Stavis Ellis actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole.

Stavis Ellis doesn't say that in this YouTube video.



He says, "You could put a pencil through it."

Unless you can provide us with a quote in which he says he or Chaney actually put a pencil through it, you're a liar.

It seems to me that you lie a lot.
« Last Edit: Today at 10:28:04 PM by Tom Graves »

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1757
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #12 on: Today at 10:22:47 PM »
Quote
Tom Graves: Stavis Ellis doesn't say that in this YouTube video.

He said it emphatically when he was interviewed by Doug Weldon. Let me guess: You can't bring yourself to read Weldon's chapter on the hole in the windshield.

Are you for real? No one has ever disputed that the windshield was damaged, but is the damage visible in Altgens 6? Undisputedly? Your (w)hole argument depends on it, so I was hoping that it wouldn't be too inconvenient for you to actually show us.

Are you for real? I didn't say anyone disputed the windshield was damaged. Can you read?

I said I've never met anyone who has denied that windshield damage can be seen in Altgens 6. It can also be seen in Altgens 7. Good grief, Roy Schaeffer noticed and talked about the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. This has been discussed in many books.

I'm curious: Do you also deny that windshield damage can be seen in a number of Zapruder frames before Z233, especially in the MPI large-format version of the film?

So it's looking like the LNer tactic is going to be to just deny that Altgens 6 and pre-Z233 Zapruder frames show windshield damage. You're gonna say, "I don't see that!" Well, no one can force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing.

The problem is that you guys have no bullet that can explain the pre-Z256 windshield damage. But, rather than admit this, it looks like you're going to claim that no such damage existed before Z256.

Here's what Dr. Mantik says about the windshield damage in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis:

On Friday, November 20, 2009, I viewed the first generation, large format MPI transparencies of the Zapruder film at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas with Sydney Wilkinson, a Zapruder film expert. The MPI transparencies had incredible clarity. The first sign of windshield damage appears at Z-193. This is uncannily consistent with the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) conclusion that JFK was hit in the throat at Z-190. Quite naïvely, as I examined the MPI images, I had forgotten this NPIC conclusion, so my observations were quite unbiased.

In these MPI images, this windshield site is obscured during Z-203 to Z-214, but the damage is visible (consistently at the same site) in Z-215 to Z-232. It is especially obvious in Z-229 and Z-230, but it is more difficult to see after Z-232. The windshield damage in the Zapruder frames appears at the same site as seen in Altgens 6 and Altgens 7. Roy’s description is also consistent with this.

I would emphasize that if the shot had occurred earlier than Z-222 (i.e., that was Roy’s selected frame), then a windshield transit would have been more likely—because the windshield elevation would have been higher. The Altgens 6 photograph (Figure 5.4) was taken at about Z-255, just thirty frames after Z-225 (i.e., less than two seconds later); it shows windshield damage consistent with a South Knoll shot. Shaeffer was the first to notice this windshield damage that lay very near JFK’s left ear (in the Altgens 6—see Figure 5.4). He observed that “the small spiral nebula has a dark spot at the center, strongly suggesting a through-and-through bullet hole.”   

Of note, the official view is that the windshield damage was caused by a fragment from the headshot; that is nonsense, of course—because the headshots occurred after Z-300, far too late to affect the windshield at Z-255.

Figure 5.4: Altgens 6. The circle highlights damage to the windshield. The damage to the windshield can also be seen in Altgens 7 (Figures 5.5 and 5.6), taken as the limousine sped toward the Triple Overpass. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291)






« Last Edit: Today at 10:26:28 PM by Michael T. Griffith »