Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo  (Read 8258 times)

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #190 on: September 14, 2018, 02:47:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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!!! 

I'll try again. The windshield is on a slanted plane. The mirror is not on the same plane. The relative positions of the mirror and crack changes depending on the viewer's position.

Quote
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!   

What part of "a couple of inches from the center of the windshield" don't you comprehend?



Seems reasonable to think that  Ferguson didn't stay at the car's front grille (ie: top inset) to view the windshield, but instead that he walked up along the side to get a better view (ie: bottom inset).

Quote
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.

Seems the windshield photographed at the White House Garage and National Archives match within reason. No, not on the molecule level if that's what you expect. It's a reasonable match given the difference in lighting and camera angles, and that one image is of the exterior surface while the other is of the interior.



Quote

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?
 

You critics and your definition of "pristine condition." Hee hee. There are cracks beyond the circled area and in other areas of the windshield.
Quote
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.

It's your theory that has the holes in it. It's looking like a screen door.

Quote
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!

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #190 on: September 14, 2018, 02:47:28 AM »


Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #191 on: September 14, 2018, 07:56:43 AM »
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.

Offline Mike Orr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #192 on: September 14, 2018, 02:31:29 PM »
Very well put , Allan .

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #193 on: September 14, 2018, 03:08:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

I didn't say his description came from him looking from the front grille; I said it was a result of his perspective when he walked up along the side to get a proper look.

Quote
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!

I think he would have described it from the more optimal close-up view. Either way, it's still "a couple of inches from the center of the windshield".

Quote
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. 

That's an idealistic dramatization. We're living in a world where they have to ink-mark what leg to operate on so the surgical team don't mix it up.

Quote
You might then also say that this guy was so dumb

No. I wouldn't say that guy was so dumb. ::)

Quote
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.

Well, I'm glad you had a chance to vent. Feel better? You sound like a 9-11 Truther.

Regarding the "300 yards". Would it improve the LN case if that figure could be reduced by 2/3rds?

Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #194 on: September 14, 2018, 07:42:25 PM »
The purpose of this report was solely to refute the presence of  a hole (perforation) in the windshield.    There is no other reason to have this Ford Motor Company representative be called in by the SS and write a report on December 18.  This December 18 report also claims that he is allowed to climb around/lean on the limousine yet and pick off dried blood from around upholstery buttons.  One day canvas covered, next day almost completely sterilized, save the dried blood remaining in a poorly done sterilization process!  Its a laugh!

You can't let it rest that his exact description after looking at the windshield for an hour in his written statement doesn't match the crated windshield offered as an exhibit -each on its own totally different!   He was very descriptive in his observation in my opinion.   Meanwhile LHO has a McChicken sandwich, hiding amongst the boxes and is just waiting for the opportunity to prove what an expert marksman he really is - not only getting off one shot with his bolt action carcano sniper rifle but 3!  He mixed casing as well, some were frangible bullets and some where hard core bullets, one of which ended up on a stretcher gurney!   

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #194 on: September 14, 2018, 07:42:25 PM »


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #195 on: September 15, 2018, 12:59:13 AM »


    This is par for the course.  Stuff does Not add up and you always hear, "it wasn't intended to be precise", "it's an estimate", " this is a perspective issue". The same song-and-dance that is spouted for the conflicting measurements/wound locations on the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #196 on: September 17, 2018, 06:08:55 AM »
Roy Kellerman saw the crack in the windshield.  He ran his hand across the outer surface of the windshield and stated that it felt smooth, no interruption, i.e. no bullet hole.  He stated that the crack was on the interior surface only.

Offline Patrick Jackson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #197 on: September 19, 2018, 10:30:24 PM »
These three photos were taken in the same garage comparing the hat on the wall:




There is absolutely no doubt that this crack

is same as these cracks.


Question is in which garage the first three photos were taken?

Also, this

and this

and this

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?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #197 on: September 19, 2018, 10:30:24 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #198 on: September 20, 2018, 03:09:53 AM »
Regarding the "mud" on the tire sidewalls in the garage, I believe it might be an effect caused by the flash and camera angle.

 

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.

Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #199 on: September 20, 2018, 03:51:54 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These three photos were taken in the same garage comparing the hat on the wall:




There is absolutely no doubt that this crack

is same as these cracks.


Question is in which garage the first three photos were taken?

Also, this

and this

and this

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?
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!

Why do none of these pictures even remotely come close to what this man describes on December 18, 1963.  He claimed he went to look at in the Whitehouse Garage (specifically asked too look at the w/s by an unknown SS official) on November 23rd and look at where he describes the crack - oh my!


« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 04:11:50 AM by Allan Fritzke »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bullet hole in windshield on JFK's Limo
« Reply #199 on: September 20, 2018, 03:51:54 AM »