Commission Document 80

[BT George]

A recent post by DVP in the FB-Based Group "JFK ---The truth." that caught
my attention:

https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/449371715190297/

(See post THE "HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD" MYTH: posted late 06/10/14)


In it he links to Commission Document 80 that discusses the handling of
the Presidential Limo (SS-100-X) after the assassination:

Here is a direct link to Commission Document 80:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10482&relPageId=13


I thought it was interesting because it covered, not only the topic of the
*initial* condition of the damaged windshield and how it changed, but also
covers the damage to the chrome topping and the recovery of the bullet
fragments.


BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/11/2014 12:59 PM, BT George wrote:
> A recent post by DVP in the FB-Based Group "JFK ---The truth." that caught
> my attention:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/449371715190297/
>

Don't post links to Facebook. We should not be required to give all our
personal information to Zuckerberg and the CIA just to read an article.

> (See post THE "HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD" MYTH: posted late 06/10/14)
>
>
> In it he links to Commission Document 80 that discusses the handling of
> the Presidential Limo (SS-100-X) after the assassination:
>
> Here is a direct link to Commission Document 80:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10482&relPageId=13
>

Nothing new.

>
> I thought it was interesting because it covered, not only the topic of the
> *initial* condition of the damaged windshield and how it changed, but also
> covers the damage to the chrome topping and the recovery of the bullet
> fragments.
>
>

You seem to be unaware that I covered all this back in 1995.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/bestwitn.htm





> BT George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[mainframetech]

I didn't see anything about the condition of the windshield in there
anywhere. Only the picking off of fragments from it. And the position of
the fragments is not quite the same as the FBI version of the discoveries
of the fragments:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE2011.JPG

That memo says they found the fragments on the right of the front seat,
and in the middle of the front seat. Of course, all day with a fragment
in the middle of the front seat, no SS agent saw or felt the fragment
through the ride to the airport from Parkland hospital, onto the C-130,
driving off the C-130 to the W.H. garage.


Oddly enough, commission exhibit 80 is listed as being "Two receipts
written by Marina Oswald, dated December 2, 1963."

Chris

[BT George]

Yes. I was sure it's been covered before. However, what's "new" about
reposting something already covered before here?

Aside from the CT-oriented interpretations, good work on what you linked
to. The WC and HSCA should have realized there were photos that could
have ruled out the speculation that the dent to the chrome topping was
related to anything that happened before the shooting.

Your observation on the damage to the back of the rear-veiw mirror (though
I found it hard to see on my screen) as being indicative of a shot from
behind that did not pass clean through the window, is surely correct as
well.

BT George

[BT George]

Actually it looks like the prior link to the actual document is not taking
one to the first page. Here it is again and hopefully this time it
directs to the start of the document:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10482&relPageId=1

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

You are conflating and confusing the fragments.
There were two large fragements which included the jacket. One was found
embedded in the middle of the front seat. The other was found on the
floor just to the right of the front seat.
The fragments the SS found were gone by the time the FBI did it's
examination. The FBI found fragments so tiny that they were overlooked
by the SS.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. That would be too much like a real investigation.
Now I want you to pretend that you are a WC lawyer and write the report
to include a bullet strike to the chrome topping. They couldn't even try.

> Your observation on the damage to the back of the rear-veiw mirror (though
> I found it hard to see on my screen) as being indicative of a shot from
> behind that did not pass clean through the window, is surely correct as
> well.
>

Which is perhaps the only reason to buy Mortal Error. Or you can buy the
negative from the National Archives as I also did.
Even Groden said he couldn't see that the back of the rearview mirror
was damaged.

> BT George
>

[mainframetech]

The damage was supposedly on the back of the mirror, and that means the
odds were that the missile if any, came from the front of the limo and had
to break the windshield. There was no damage to the back of the mirror.
There was a bullet hole in the windshield that was seen by 6 people, all
corroborating each other. The limo was rapidly sent away to have it
replaced and all the upholstery and everything else was replaced, wiping
out any evidence that may have been there.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

I doubt there was any damage to the back of the rearview mirror. Such
damage would have reported by Bob Frazier when he (and others) were
scouring the limo for any signs of bullet impacts. But no such damage was
reported by anybody.

But even if some minor damage to the back of the mirror was sustained, it
certainly doesn't automatically mean "A shot from the front". A
slow-moving fragment could have simply bounced off the windshield or the
chrome and struck the back of the mirror (and somehow Robert Frazier and
everybody else failed to notice it). No second gunman is required there at
all.

More Mirror Talk....
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/TmLf510-siw/6mUOzaNghmcJ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2014 10:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> I doubt there was any damage to the back of the rearview mirror. Such
> damage would have reported by Bob Frazier when he (and others) were
> scouring the limo for any signs of bullet impacts. But no such damage was
> reported by anybody.
>

No. Can't you SEE it for yourself? Or are you only pretending not to see it?

> But even if some minor damage to the back of the mirror was sustained, it
> certainly doesn't automatically mean "A shot from the front". A
> slow-moving fragment could have simply bounced off the windshield or the
> chrome and struck the back of the mirror (and somehow Robert Frazier and
> everybody else failed to notice it). No second gunman is required there at
> all.
>

The point of my article was that it proves the bullet struck the
windshield from behind.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, the dent does not line up with the crack. It was a ricochet.

[magoos...@msn.com]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:15:40 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> Actually it looks like the prior link to the actual document is not taking
>
> one to the first page. Here it is again and hopefully this time it
>
> directs to the start of the document:
>
>
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10482&relPageId=1
>
>
>
> BT George

That report leaves out the bucket of water and rag and partial cleaning
of the limo while still at Parkland....hmmmm.

Squinty Magoo

[magoos...@msn.com]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:55:00 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 9:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:31:35 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:27:03 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 6/11/2014 12:59 PM, B
>
>

> Anthony Marsh wrote

>
> No, the dent does not line up with the crack. It was a ricochet.

And all that ricocheting off chrome topping, windshields and mirrors is
what Kellerman heard and mistakenly called a "flurry of shots."

Squinty Magoo

[magoos...@msn.com]

Did they find the fragment that Blaine describes as being behind the back
of the rear seat, before the trunk? That he moved to the rear seat.

Do we know why a "hospital corpsman" was called on to identify the right
seat/door fragment as detailed here?

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE2011.JPG

Squinty Magoo

[mainframetech]

You're talking some pretty exaggerated angles there. I doubt it
happened that way. Try and see the damage to the mirror, and you will be
stymied. There just isn't any.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I see in that memo that Rowley got his dates right this time. His memo
to J. Lee Rankin of Dec. 18th made the mistake that suggested that the
limo was in the garage on the 25th, when it had been taken to Rouge,
Michigan that day. A Vaughn Ferguson (Ford representative) made exactly
the same mistake suggesting that the limo was in the garage and being
worked on the 25th, when it was really the 26th based on the garage log:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WHgatelog1.jpg

On the day in question, a manager at the Ford plant in Rouge said he
had been called in to work and had found that the limo was in the glass
shop with the windshield taken off and sitting on the side. He looked at
the windshield and saw the same thing that 5 other witnesses saw at
Parkland hospital. He saw a clean through bullet hole in the windshield.
From his experience he knew that the bullet had come in from in front of
the limousine. He noted too, that the limo was stripped of all upholstery
which was going to be replaced.

In the memo from Rowley in the link, dated January 6, there is specific
mention of the damage to the windshield and humorously, they mention
running their hands over the outside of the windshield and feeling how
smooth it was! When you have safety glass, as in most cars, the glass
will crack and be rough and pitted on the OPPOSITE side from the side that
was hit. So in this case, the windshield was hit from outside the
vehicle, and there can't be any ricochet from inside that caused the
bullet hole in the windshield.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

How come you can't find files like that on WC defender Web sites?
I got it directly from Pamela.

> On the day in question, a manager at the Ford plant in Rouge said he
> had been called in to work and had found that the limo was in the glass
> shop with the windshield taken off and sitting on the side. He looked at
> the windshield and saw the same thing that 5 other witnesses saw at
> Parkland hospital. He saw a clean through bullet hole in the windshield.
> From his experience he knew that the bullet had come in from in front of
> the limousine. He noted too, that the limo was stripped of all upholstery
> which was going to be replaced.
>

Phony story.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you blind?

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2014 11:42 AM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:23 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/12/2014 1:55 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You are conflating and confusing the fragments.
>>
>> There were two large fragements which included the jacket. One was found
>>
>> embedded in the middle of the front seat. The other was found on the
>>
>> floor just to the right of the front seat.
>>
>> The fragments the SS found were gone by the time the FBI did it's
>>
>> examination. The FBI found fragments so tiny that they were overlooked
>>
>> by the SS.
>>
>
> Did they find the fragment that Blaine describes as being behind the back
> of the rear seat, before the trunk? That he moved to the rear seat.
>

Not sure what you mean. SHOW me.
I think you are conflating BULLET fragments with SKULL fragments.

> Do we know why a "hospital corpsman" was called on to identify the right
> seat/door fragment as detailed here?
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE2011.JPG
>

When in doubt check my Web site or Pamela's.

http://ss100x.com/

9:00 pm SA Keiser, Brett and White House Policemen Snyder and Rubenstal
guard 100X and 679X in the White House Garage. SAs Geis and Davis examine
the windshield of 100X -- the outer surface seems smooth, and damage is on
the inside. Paterni and Boring go to Admiral Burkley at White House and
request CPO William Martinelli and Thomas Mills to accompany them to the
White House Garage. SA Kinney advises SAIC Boring of bone or tissue on
floor near jump seat. Nick Prencipe also states that he spoke with William
Greer at the White House entrance that evening, and that Greer said that
there were "shots coming at them from every direction, one came right
through the windshield." Based on this information, Nick goes to the White
House garage, recognizes no one there, states he walked up to the car,
which was parked in the middle of the garage, top up, under a tarp, and
looked at the windshield. He stated he saw no damage near the rear-view
mirror, but saw a 'hole' low on the passenger side of the windshield. He
stated that he was not aware of any guards around the car or any activity
taking place with the car.

10:00 pm "Plastic" cover removed from limo. Admiral Burkley with CPOs
Martinelli and Mills of Burkley's office remove 3" piece of bone and a
"quantity of brain tissue" from the back seat of 100X. Paterni finds
bullet fragment in front seat. Mills finds fragment on front seat right
floor. Per Robert Frazier CE 567 was found on the seat right beside the
driver and CE 569 was found on the floor beside the right side of the
front seat." 5 H 67.

> Squinty Magoo
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. I think they all happened in the same second.

[mainframetech]

Naah. The strike on the chrome overhead was a clear first hit. It made
a neat circle around the bullet. It was probably backed with steel. I
even wonder if the bullet itself was stuck in the middle of the circle and
was destroyed later. I can't see a ricochet from there to a
through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield (seen by 6 people,
including an SS agent). And the mirror damage I didn't see, and it would
be a real oddity for something to hit it from the outside of the
windshield as they proved by running their hands over it and finding it to
be smooth, which is what would happen with automobile safety glass when
you hit it from the outside. It is clean on the struck side, but rough
and dug out on the opposite side (inside of the limo).

Chris

[mainframetech]

I can only think that he helped search the limo for some reason. Other
than that I can't think of any reason that he would be involved.

At least it says all fragments went to the same agent for delivery to
the FBI.

Chris

[mainframetech]

As I noted, it's a CYA memo. Rowley wasn't going to mention the mistakes and foul-ups his people made. Typical bureaucrat.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2014 7:03 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:31:55 AM UTC-4, magoos...@msn.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:55:00 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/12/2014 9:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:31:35 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:27:03 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> On 6/11/2014 12:59 PM, B
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote
>>
>>>
>>
>>> No, the dent does not line up with the crack. It was a ricochet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And all that ricocheting off chrome topping, windshields and mirrors is
>>
>> what Kellerman heard and mistakenly called a "flurry of shots."
>>
>>
>>
>> Squinty Magoo
>
>
>
> Naah. The strike on the chrome overhead was a clear first hit. It made
> a neat circle around the bullet. It was probably backed with steel. I

It was attached to the steel frame of the car.
I think a direct shot would do much more damage, ledting behind a split
not just a dent.

> even wonder if the bullet itself was stuck in the middle of the circle and
> was destroyed later. I can't see a ricochet from there to a

It was only a fragment, not a whole bullet.

> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield (seen by 6 people,
> including an SS agent). And the mirror damage I didn't see, and it would

It can't get to the windshield from the chrome topping. It has to be a
separate fragment.

> be a real oddity for something to hit it from the outside of the
> windshield as they proved by running their hands over it and finding it to
> be smooth, which is what would happen with automobile safety glass when
> you hit it from the outside. It is clean on the struck side, but rough
> and dug out on the opposite side (inside of the limo).
>

Not exactly.
Tiny lead core fragments were deposited on the inside surface of the
windshield.

> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

He was Burkley's aide and would help with identifying biological debris.

[OHLeeRedux]

magoos...@msn.com

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:55:00 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 9:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:31:35 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:27:03 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 6/11/2014 12:59 PM, B
>
>
> Anthony Marsh wrote
>
> No, the dent does not line up with the crack. It was a ricochet.


And all that ricocheting off chrome topping, windshields and mirrors is
what Kellerman heard and mistakenly called a "flurry of shots."

Squinty Magoo

Good call. Unfortunately, it will not stop Robert Harris's flurry of
YouTube videos.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Apparently nothing has changed in the last few months...:-0

[tims...@gmail.com]

You don't even know what you're talking about, as witness THIS nonsense
that you posted:

QUOTE ON:

Poor fellow! Here they are if you really need them...not that you do much
research...:)

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wcexhibits.htm
Those that don't have a blue number, don't have a link to the item,
suggesting that it is missing.

QUOTE OFF

You are simply the LAST person that should be making WILD speculations
about *disposed of* bullets, etc.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

You know very well that that comment was disposed of and explained. So
you saved it to try to harass? Don't work on me. If you have failed to
believe the information about safety glass, then go research it and you'll
find that the 'experts' will agree with me.

Chris