Defect in traffic light "eliminated" as possible bullet hole!

[Peter Fokes]

Now, before anyone submits a post claiming there is a possible bullet
hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING
from the technical report:

<quote on>

After hanging the exemplar light and viewing it from roughly the same
perspective as the USSS training film, the view through the drilled
“bullet” hole showed that the intervening base lip, that was presumed
to form a deflection surface, obscures the view (figure 18, right).
The viewing also revealed that a gap opening exists in the corner
between the right and bottom back plates and produces a visible
unobstructed hole in the same location as the “possible bullet hole”
that was observed in the USSS training film (figure 16). Consequently,
the hole was eliminated as a possible bullet hole. Still, that finding
did not provide closure regarding the Eagle signal as the possible
obstruction and cause of deflection.

<quote off>

The so-called traffic light defect "was eliminated as a possible
bullet hole."

"ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBLE BULLET HOLE."

I'm sure this fact will not dissuade some fervent LNs from
suggesting, despite this conclusion, that this defect is a possible
bullet hole!

Avoid instant reviews.


Peter Fokes,
Toronto

[David Von Pein]

I don't understand this at all. On June 15, 2011, Max Holland had
"eliminated" the hole in the traffic light as being a possible "bullet
hole" (it's in a report co-authored by Holland, it says), but he then
went ahead and said it possibly WAS a bullet hole on the "Lost Bullet"
special anyhow?

Weird.

[HistorianDetective]

RE:

David,

Perhaps they filmed at DP prior to June 15,2011 along with the
editing.

JM/HD

[Peter Fokes]

On 21 Nov 2011 09:06:13 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

Yup. The technical report rules out that possibility.


PF

[Anthony Marsh]

Not exactly. Maybe you haven't learned how to translate kookspeak. He
never actually says bullet hole. He says "white spot." Max never says
"bullet hole" so you should not be claiming that he did.

The argument which he did not make, but should have was that the white
spot appears in exactly the same place whether you view the fixture from
the front or the back. Unless it is a design feature or special marking
that probably means it is hole of some type. I suspect that he actually
did some shooting tests to show what a M-C bullet hole would look like,
assuming similar metal. But maybe the hole was there before, maybe it is
part of the design such as a hole to string wires though or to attach some
wire to keep the light from swaying in high winds. Don't know. So because
Max can't prove his theory he leaves the question dangling and challenges
people to prove him wrong. Where have we seen this before?

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks. I notice that technical report was not brought up in the
special. As typical of kooks when his original theory was proven wrong
by finding no damage to the metal he switched it to a back up theory.
But he was not brave enough to claim the traffic light had a bullet
hole. So he just calls it a white spot. But even if it was actually a
hole how do we know it wasn't there all the time, maybe manufactured
that way? Holland will never do the legwork to try to find out.
Even though I don't agree with his particular theory I appreciate the
fact that a WC defender would bring up a theory that usually only a
conspiracy theorist like me would bring up. Even before Holland thought
of it, I had long ago suggested that maybe the shooter was started by
seeing the traffic light support bar blocking his shot and squeezed off
his first shot too soon.
He couldn't space out the 4 shots within a comfortable 12 seconds, so he
did not shoot when he thought he had an early clear shot and then saw
the tree in the way and rushed his first shot before the limo went under
the tree and fired his second shot just after the limo came out from
underneath the tree.

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b8dde05e2157bdaa

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't understand this at all. On June 15, 2011, Max Holland had
"eliminated" the hole in the traffic light as being a possible "bullet

hole" (it's in a report co-authored by Holland, it says [see link
below]), but he then went ahead and said it possibly WAS a bullet hole

on the "Lost Bullet" special anyhow? Weird." <<<

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2011/11/the-.html



"JM/HD" THEN SAID:

>>> "Perhaps they filmed at Dealey Plaza prior to June 15, 2011 along with the editing." <<<


DVP NOW SAYS:

I suppose that's possible, yes. But it's still rather disingenuous on
Mr. Holland's part to allow his comments (regardless of when they were
put on film) about a possible bullet defect in the traffic light to be
aired in the final broadcast of the NatGeo special on 11/20/2011.

Do you think Max Holland, upon learning of the "gap" in the design of
the traffic light in mid June of 2011, would have had no power to stop
(or edit) the final National Geographic broadcast (which was still
more than five months away, as of 6/15/11)?

That's a strange situation, IMO.

I suppose it's possible that the NatGeo producers just couldn't bear
to edit out the thing that was, by far, the biggest "new" revelation
(or "bombshell", if you prefer that word) that came out of the one-
hour "Lost Bullet" special. So, they just let the viewers think that
the "defect" (white spot) that we see in the traffic light could
possibly have been caused by a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's gun.

But if that last statement I just made is correct, then if I were Max
Holland, I'd be boiling mad and fit to be tied. Because the net result
of the "Lost Bullet" program (as it aired on Nov. 20th), PLUS the
detailed "Technical Report" of Max Holland's research (which has
Holland's name on it as a co-author and was put online on November 20,
2011) is this:

1.) There's almost no way in the world that the "white spot" that we
see on that traffic light (in the 11/27/63 Secret Service film) is the
result of a bullet.

2.) Max Holland, five months before the "Lost Bullet" special aired,
knew full well that #1 above is true.

3.) The National Geographic Channel went ahead and aired Holland's
opinion anyway that the white spot could still be a bullet defect in
the traffic light.

Any way you slice it, there's a bad odor coming from this whole
situation. (IMO.)

Perhaps, however, there's something about this that I'm missing. But
based on the NatGeo special (as it aired), in conjunction with the
June 2011 Technical Report with Mr. Holland's name on it, I'm not
quite sure what that missing "something" might be.

Perhaps Max Holland still thinks that the white spot on the traffic
light IS, indeed, a bullet defect--even AFTER he saw the same type of
traffic light which has a similar "gap" in its metal structure. (Ya
think?)

~shrug~

[Gerry Simone]

Lol.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4eca...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[claviger]

There seems to be a defect on the curved extension support for the traffic
light in a close-up of the Altgens photo. It appears to be a reflection
of sunlight due to a missing spot of paint unaffected by weathering. It
could also be an artifact from the photo development process, but what a
coincidence.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2007/11/nyt.html#comments
Altgens photo
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/altgensBIG.jpg

[HistorianDetective]

On Nov 21, 7:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

RE your question:

Do you think Max Holland, upon learning of the "gap" in the design of
the traffic light in mid June of 2011, would have had no power to
stop
(or edit) the final National Geographic broadcast (which was still
more than five months away, as of 6/15/11)?

I tend to think that the producer, Robert Stone, had the final word in
this regard.

JM/HD