Doug Horne's article at the Lew Rockwell site on damage to

[jfk...@gmail.com]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

I have emailed both Lew Rockwell and Doug Horne, and hopefully they will
begin to address the false statements in this article. I will be
disecting it here as well, so this should be a good arena for
discussion...

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I've heard back from Lew Rockwell. I pointed him to the online version of
MB2B at:

http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/midnight-blue-to-black-the-vanishing-act-of-the-jfk-presidential-limousine-ss100x-in-broad-daylight/

I may end up writing an article to rebut these false statements and if so,
I'll send that to him.

[mainframetech]

LOL! Pamela, you're really on a crusade to validate what you've been
writing and speaking about all these years! And it's finally coming to a
head. When you have NO backup for your accusations, and you malign decent
people, it's going to come home to you. I see you've been selling this
stuff in other forums too. Why won't you back up what you've said? You
said you had done the research work, so where is it?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Anyone can write an article and it would say just what you wanted it to.
But what of the documentation you said you had from research that you paid
for? Where is that? Wouldn't that solve some of your problems?

Chris

[deke]

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:35:27 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

Regarding the sightings of the through and through bullet hole in the
windshield, you mentioned three witnesses in you Lancer presentation.
There were actually six, including two Dallas policemen and a Ford Motor
Co. employee, George Whitaker. Just wondering what your take is on
Whitaker's account about the hole and the destruction and replacement of
the original windshield. It's a real stretch for me to thing that six
witnesses, all of them professional people, could be mistaken about what
they saw from a close up view.

[Anthony Marsh]

Decent people? What a joke. You are defending the kooks.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Chris seems to have it backward. When you see someone falling for an
obvious hoax, what does one do? Nothing?

My preference is to give anyone who has been sucked in by disinfo
information that they can use, if they choose, to amend their stance.
There is a great deal of disinfo in the JFK assassination research. For
anyone who has read 1984, you will know that there is the Big Brother
position (aka WC defender) and then there is also the Goldstein position
(Fetzer). If you recall, Goldstein sucked in all the dissidents who were
then turned over to Big Brother. In the case of the JFK assassination,
what seems to happen is that those who fall for the lunatic fringe disinfo
theories tend to become so discouraged that they give up all together and
throw their hands in the air. Then, what is left for them? They are
supposed to 'see the light' and come into the fold of the WC defenders.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

We're still waiting for just one piece of objective documentation showing
that Whitaker ever saw the limo. Won't that solve your problems?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Here is an article from ss100x.com on the subject of the different places
witnesses thought they saw a hole in the windshield. Doug Horne fails to
disclose this information in his article:

http://ss100x.com/hole1.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Ah, but you aren't thinking kooky enough. The conspirators could have
stolen the limo and shot a bullet through the windshield to account for
the missed shot. So the hole that everyone saw was faked.

[Bud]

Are you admitting that this is just now a silly game played by
conspiracy hobbyists, a sort of creative writing exercise?

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:49:41 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

Apparently from your statements, they rejected your ideas, else why go
to the trouble of writing any articles to try and counter the truth?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Pamela has already labeled George Whitaker as a liar in these threads.
I've been contending with her that it is not true and asked for her backup
or proof, but none has been forthcoming. Whitaker had no reason to lie
back then. He also wanted to remain anonymous until after his death.

Whitaker is also corroborated by the date he said he saw the windshield
with the hole in it. It was on the 25th of Nov. and the W.H. garage log
shows that no one accessed the limo on that date, but they did just before
and after it. There's no way that Whitaker would know that and pick just
the right date for his experience.

Chris

[mainframetech]

There you go making errors again. Fortunately I'm here and can
straighten out the mess. Among the 6 witnesses there were 2 Dallas cops,
a medical doctor, a Secret Service agent (Charles Taylor), a journalist
and George Whitaker, a lifelong career employee of the Ford Motor Company.
These are decidedly NOT 'kooks' as you attempted to call them. Are you
sure you're familiar with this case?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 12:19:03 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Chris seems to have it backward. When you see someone falling for an
>
> obvious hoax, what does one do? Nothing?
>

So you're going to try and discredit me too by insulting me publicly?
It doesn't work on me. Your accusation has no basis. Show your proof of
your statements about me, or about George Whitaker or even Doug Weldon.
They are dead and can't defend themselves, but I'm here and can and will.
Part of my checking on this story was to talk to YOU, and I got nothing
that could be used as evidence either for or against Whitaker's story, and
all that you've said on the boards has been strictly your word with NO
backup of any kind. If you've formed your beliefs from nothing, then the
gullibility is yours, not mine. If you have the backup, which you said
you paid money to get, then show it. Now would be a good time to solve a
few of the problems you've generated for yourself by displaying your
proof. Hopefully you were being honest about having such proof.
Otherwise it wouldn't look good for you.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 12:19:28 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> We're still waiting for just one piece of objective documentation showing
>
> that Whitaker ever saw the limo. Won't that solve your problems?
>

Why pretend that you didn't see the proof? Thin, yes, but sensible,
and not just opinion like you've been spouting. Whitaker is corroborated
by the other 5 witnesses that also saw the bullet hole in the windshield,
and by the fact that the date he had his experience with the windshield
was exactly the date the W.H. garage log showed that the limo wasn't
accessed by anyone. There's no way that Whitaker would pick just the
right date for his seeing the limo and windshield. The garage log show
that the limo was accessed both just before and just after the date that
Whitaker saw it.

Now where is your proof that Whitaker was a liar as you called him?
I'm asking since he's dead and can't defend himself from your insults.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ut-oh! The article that is linked to is incorrect and needs 'updating' by
Pamela. It states there was an unnamed witness to the bullet hole, but
she knows well that the person was George Whitaker and was identified and
told his story about seeing the windshield and replacing it in Michigan.


The article will be disinfo until corrected. Be cautious in reading it.

Chris

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 12:26:19 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

What do you mean??!! That's exactly what conspirators do, do, and that's
what they did. They stole the body our of Parkland, they stole the idea
they were in charge of the investigation, then they stole the evidence
(breaking the law, altering, and returning it after three days back to
Dallas). The stole films in Dealey Plaza shot. They stole evidence while
they were at the hospital washing the limo.

Do you actually think stealing a car for a day or so would even be
considered out of the norm???!!!

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I could easily have spent the entire 45 minutes talking about the
windshield and those who said they saw a t+t hole in it. As it was, I was
able to discuss this at some length during the breakout session that
followed the presentation; which lasted almost two hours.

Here is an article I wrote in the late 90's about the "Hole is a hole"
concept:
http://ss100x.com/hole1.html

The "t+t hole" believers fail to disclose that these people, a number of
whom are documented to have been at PH, saw a hole in the same location.
If they are each seeing something in a different place, it is a whole new
ballgame imo.

Pamela Brown
MB2B
http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/midnight-blue-to-black-the-vanishing-act-of-the-jfk-presidential-limousine-ss100x-in-broad-daylight/

[Anthony Marsh]

Admitting? No. Stop putting words in my mouth. I am ACCUSING them of
making up nonsense.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I'll start posting from Doug's article (in quotes) with my comments:

"In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK
assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the
through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine
that had been reported by six credible witnesses."

Mr. Horne fails to disclose that the 'six credible witnesses' did not see
the same hole. Research was provided to the community on this issue in
the late 90's, so one might ask whether or not this lapse was deliberate
or not.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

DH: "I revisited that evidence today, and am more convinced than ever that
the bullet hole in the limousine windshield is what I am looking at in
those images."

PB: Mr. Horne has said nothing to demonstrate that there was any 'bullet
hole' in the windshield. We are supposed to jump to that assumption.
This is false logic. The first question should and could have been 'what
sort of damage was done to the windshield, and what documentation is there
to support it?"

[jfk...@gmail.com]

DH: "But the readers of this piece don’t have to take my word for it —
you can examine the images yourself, and make up your own minds. The
evidence is contained in one of the banned, suppressed episodes of Nigel
Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy — episode 7 in the series, called
“The Smoking Guns,” which was aired in 2003, and then removed from
circulation by The History Channel in response to intense political
pressure by former LBJ aides Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers."

PB: Apparently, Mr. Horne wants the reader to find TMWKK to be 'true'
because the last segments were suppressed. The fact is, TMWKK has tended
to go far and wide into CT theories, and some of them have been presented
without research at all. The segment he is referencing happens to be one
of them.

[mainframetech]

As one of the conspiracy hobbyists posting here, what's your opinion?
Odd that you have a hobby of going around arguing with and insulting
people that believe there was more to the murder of JFK than the wacky
'lone nut' theory of the WC. But it takes all kinds...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 12:19:03 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Chris seems to have it backward. When you see someone falling for an
>
> obvious hoax, what does one do? Nothing?
>

"Chris seems to have it backward" sounds like you're playing to an
audience. Is that because you're not making any headway with us who
continue to ask you for proof of your opinions that Whitaker was a liar?

>
>
> My preference is to give anyone who has been sucked in by disinfo
>
> information that they can use, if they choose, to amend their stance.
>
> There is a great deal of disinfo in the JFK assassination research. For
>
> anyone who has read 1984, you will know that there is the Big Brother
>
> position (aka WC defender) and then there is also the Goldstein position
>
> (Fetzer). If you recall, Goldstein sucked in all the dissidents who were
>
> then turned over to Big Brother. In the case of the JFK assassination,
>
> what seems to happen is that those who fall for the lunatic fringe disinfo
>
> theories tend to become so discouraged that they give up all together and
>
> throw their hands in the air. Then, what is left for them? They are
>
> supposed to 'see the light' and come into the fold of the WC defenders.
>
>

Oh stop! Drama isn't the tool to use at this juncture. You said that
you paid money for research on the Whitaker issue and got it, so let's see
it. You haven't mentioned that since you've been asked to show it.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 12:19:28 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

> We're still waiting for just one piece of objective documentation showing
>
> that Whitaker ever saw the limo. Won't that solve your problems?
>

It's been produced, and it comes to a lot more than you've provided that
Whitaker was lying. Now that you've tried to destroy the man's
reputation, you need to back it up with proof. Going around saying nasty
things about someone that died and can't defend himself doesn't go well
with most people. But you have yet to provide anything.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 12:19:47 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

this article contains disinformation. You know about it and said it
needed "updating", but you haven't lifted a finger to correct the errors
in it. Why is that? Why leave poor George Whitaker hanging, when you
know what you're saying about him is incorrect?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Caution readers! The above link has errors in it and the author has said it needs "updating", which hasn't been done yet. Don't believe anything you read until that has been accomplished.

>
>
> The "t+t hole" believers fail to disclose that these people, a number of
>
> whom are documented to have been at PH, saw a hole in the same location.
>
> If they are each seeing something in a different place, it is a whole new
>
> ballgame imo.
>
>

Were some witnesses looking at the limo from the outside and saw a
bullet hole on the right of the mirror, and some others thinking of being
in the driver's seat saying that it was to the left of the mirror? We may
never know.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Now we're attacking Doug Horne. Given that Pamela's articles are
missing correct information altogether to do with the witnesses to the
bullet hole, she shouldn't talk. The witnesses saw the same hole. Were
they seeing it from the outside or thinking of it from the driver's point
of view? That might make a right or left difference, and high or low is a
relative term. A hole is indeed a hole, but Pamela doesn't want to allow
that kind of thinking, because it goes against some of her speeches and
articles. Doug Horne had done his homework, where it appears that Pamela
hasn't yet.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Chris has yet to acknowledge a simple fact -- that documentation
demonstrates that Vaughn Ferguson was involved with the limo from the time
it came back to the WHG to when it was gutted and rebuilt. Of course,
that demonstrates that Whitaker was making up a tall tale. He probably
heard about Ferguson from the guys in Dearborn who played gold with him
when he was there. I have no doubt Ferguson told others about what really
happened to the limo.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

My article is demonstrably accurate. There is no disinfo in it. The
different spots Dudman and Ellis and Prencipe said they saw a 'hole' are
supported by statements in the public domain.

Chris doesn't seem to 'like' the fact that there was no concensus to where
this 'hole' was. It doesn't seem to concern him either that Horne failed
to disclose this fact. Why not?

[mainframetech]

Pamela seems to forget that there were 6 witnesses to the bullet hole,
which "demonstrates" it very nicely. There is NO assumption to "jump to",
since the statements (like the bullet hole) are there for all to see. The
damage was described as a "through-and-through bullet hole in the
windshield".
That should be enough normally to cause an investigation of the hole by
authorities, but it might prove a second shooter was in front of the limo,
destroying the wacky 'lone nut' theory of the WC.

Pamela also forgets to mention that Doug Horne is speaking from an
article he wrote where he gives the location of a photo of what he
believes is the bullet hole:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Chris

[mainframetech]

Pamela doesn't supply an alternate reason for the History Channel to
suppress the video, which is very much on the side of the conspiracy
believers.


Doug Horne starts out with "you can examine the images yourself, and
make up your own minds", which doesn't sound like he is pushing folks to
believe what he believes. He's saying here's the evidence, you decide.
Yet he is attacked for the episode not doing enough research as if it were
his fault! Note that the series TMWKK was well documented where evidence
existed, and was well done. Watch what you can of it and you'll see that
immediately. The parts that deal with the bullet hole in the limo
windshield are particularly interesting, and they are backed up by the
W.H, garage log and the 5 other witnesses to the bullet hole in the
windshield.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2014 9:44 PM, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> DH: "But the readers of this piece don?t have to take my word for it ?

> you can examine the images yourself, and make up your own minds. The
> evidence is contained in one of the banned, suppressed episodes of Nigel

> Turner?s The Men Who Killed Kennedy ? episode 7 in the series, called
> ?The Smoking Guns,? which was aired in 2003, and then removed from

> circulation by The History Channel in response to intense political
> pressure by former LBJ aides Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers."
>
> PB: Apparently, Mr. Horne wants the reader to find TMWKK to be 'true'
> because the last segments were suppressed. The fact is, TMWKK has tended
> to go far and wide into CT theories, and some of them have been presented
> without research at all. The segment he is referencing happens to be one
> of them.
>
>
>

That is the problem with a cover-up. It just increases the suspicion that
the story may be true. Remember how lame the Watergate cover-up was.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:25:47 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:


Is Pamela desperately trying to save her income? Accusing me of
hijacking this thread, when anyone that wants can comment in ANY thread.
Does she think she OWNS a thread?

> Chris has yet to acknowledge a simple fact -- that documentation
>
> demonstrates that Vaughn Ferguson was involved with the limo from the time
>
> it came back to the WHG to when it was gutted and rebuilt.

Ferguson knew that he had to do for what the client (the Secret
Service) wanted, and if they asked for a memo that covered where the limo
was for a day and a half, he would do it, and you can be sure that Ford
would agree if needed. Since he supposedly drove the limo to Michigan on
another day, he could have just as well drove it to Michigan on the 25th
when the garage log says it was not accessed by anyone. Ferguson either
lied or was mistaken when he wrote the memo because he said the limo was
worked on by local repairmen on the 25th, when the garage log shows it was
the next day they worked on it. His memo was also dated 3 weeks later on
Dec. 18th. Suggesting an after thought to cover for where the limo really
had been.

Of course,
>
> that demonstrates that Whitaker was making up a tall tale. He probably
>
> heard about Ferguson from the guys in Dearborn who played gold with him
>
> when he was there. I have no doubt Ferguson told others about what really
>
> happened to the limo.
>

That's Pamela's opinion, and there is NO proof of such stuff. What was
Whitaker's reason for lying? Why make up such a weird story that was
backed up by the other 5 witnesses and the garage log? He wanted to
remain anonymous until after his death, so he wasn't a fame or fortune
hunter. Why make up such a story? Why won't Pamela correct her articles
that are now incorrect in referring to Whitaker as an unknown person?
does she want to avoid the mention of his name?

[Anthony Marsh]

So simply because you can imagine something happening that is proof that
it did?

[Anthony Marsh]

Horne shows what an idiot he is in that quote. We had been discussing
the hole in the windshield theory long before 2009. He didn't discover
anything.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm

[jfk...@gmail.com]

If you followed the online commentary after the releast of the last 3
episodes of TMWKK in 2003 it might be evident that they may have been
suppressed because at least one of them pointed to an LBJ connection to
the assassination.

Here is one link:
http://911blogger.com/node/21711

Here's a Wiki entry:

"The addition of three further episodes in 2003 caused great controversy,
particularly in the final episode implicating Lyndon Johnson, and the
withdrawal of these additional episodes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy

Here is an HNN article with more detail:
http://hnn.us/article/4504

Horne pulls the reader in with a false premise and then tells them to look
for themselves. I find that just a tad disingenuous.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Chris needs to get his facts straight.
Dudman was at PH. He saw it in one spot.
Ellis was at PH. He saw it in another spot.
Freeman was at PH. He did not mention a spot.
Glanges was at PH. She did not mention a location.
These witnesses have objective documentation showing that they were indeed
at PH while SS100X was there.
Prencipe said he went there, although it had nothing to do with his work,
but had an unconvincing story. He mentioned yet another spot.
Whitaker has no documentation, so cannot be included as credible. Only he
saw the hole in the spot where the 'spiral nebulae' was supposed to be.
Taylor drove the car from AAFB to the WHG. He mentioned a 'hole', without
any details.
Frazier said he saw a 'hole' but with no perforation. So did Ferguson.
You can see that defect in the Altgens 1-7 close-up
http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/mb2b-exhibit-19-2/
and CE350
http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/mb2b-exhibit-23/

The Altgens 1-6 photo issue was started by Fetzer long ago. He thought he
saw a 'spiral nebulae'. But in fact, it was an anomaly that occurred with
some newspaper copies when the photo was quickly uploaded to the
newswires. The NARA original shows no such hole. There is info on that
at ss100x.com.

[mainframetech]

Which statement did you find idiotic? You (as usual) didn't note it or
quote it. The photo you showed also had a very nice little black hole in
the middle of it. Wow, that photo enhancing really does it, doesn't it?
:)

And as a researcher, Horne has shown far more than you at gathering
data and writing it up. Check out his 5 volumes of ARRB work as you
contemplate what an 'idiot' you think he is.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:58:11 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you followed the online commentary after the releast of the last 3
>
> episodes of TMWKK in 2003 it might be evident that they may have been
>
> suppressed because at least one of them pointed to an LBJ connection to
>
> the assassination.
>
>
>
> Here is one link:
>
> http://911blogger.com/node/21711
>
>
>
> Here's a Wiki entry:
>
>
>
> "The addition of three further episodes in 2003 caused great controversy,
>
> particularly in the final episode implicating Lyndon Johnson, and the
>
> withdrawal of these additional episodes."
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy
>
>
>
> Here is an HNN article with more detail:
>
> http://hnn.us/article/4504
>
>
>
> Horne pulls the reader in with a false premise and then tells them to look
>
> for themselves. I find that just a tad disingenuous.
>

And yet another slap at Horne. He made the mistake of researching the
story of George Whitaker and incorporating it into an article about the
bullet hole in the limo windshield, and she took offense. Such anger!

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I have no idea how Horne managed to jump on the Fetzer t+t hole bandwagon.
I would have thought he would see right through it. I've met him and he
seemed like a logical sort of person. Apparently, I was mistaken.

On the other hand, I was in contact with Lifton in the late 90's when all
this was playing out, and, to his credit, he did not fall for it, or
Whitaker. If I recall correctly, he even declined to write an intro to
the Fetzer book that contained the Whitaker disinfo as a result.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

When I talk about something that I consider disinfo, what I mean by that
is that imo it is deliberately false information intended to lead the
reader astray. In many cases, it will be vague, and in nearly all cases
there will be no documentation for the statement.

So, you can, if you wish, test any statement that I call 'disinfo' by that
equation and decide for yourself what to think. I sincerely apologize if
I come across as trying to 'tell you what to think.' It is just that I
have been through these rabbit trails for so many years with so many
different people that sometimes I become frustrated when they can't see
something that is, to me, blatantly obvious.

An example of what I can disinfo is the statement that "six people saw a
hole in the windshield". It implies that they all were valid witnesses
and that they all saw the same thing in the same place. That is false.
Anyone who tries to move forward with that statement will go around in
circles until they become uncomfortable, and then will likely try to
attack anyone who provides them with the information that has been
concealed.

If I am providing info and references, I consider that information that
you can weigh and evaluate.

Hope this helps,
Pamela
ss100x.com

[Anthony Marsh]

When Horne deliberately misrepresents facts which we can easily check
ourselves that puts him into the same hoaxer category as James Files.

[Anthony Marsh]

Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where he claims
that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the windshield
controversy. He is not a careful researcher. It was first brought up in
the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

The way this forum software works it automatically quotes it for me. And
my next sentence makes it clear that I am talking about his claim that he
discovered something new.

> the middle of it. Wow, that photo enhancing really does it, doesn't it?
> :)
>

A hole in the windshield would not he a black hole.

> And as a researcher, Horne has shown far more than you at gathering
> data and writing it up. Check out his 5 volumes of ARRB work as you
> contemplate what an 'idiot' you think he is.
>

He completely overlooked the fact that it was discussed in the December

30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg

Why do I have to write the same message hundreds of times just because
someone can not pay attention or understand English?

> Chris
>

[Lanny]

On Monday, January 6, 2014 2:24:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
> When Horne deliberately misrepresents facts which we can easily check
>
> ourselves that puts him into the same hoaxer category as James Files.
>

And the frequency with which Horne engages in such misrepresentation is
exceeded only by his propensity to misrepresent facts that he helped
reveal in his work with the ARRB.

He has routinely lied about either the specifics or context of various
testimonies given in depositions he is on record as having attended.
He's damn near single handedly liquidated the Earth's entire chutzpah
reserves.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:52:29 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > On 1/5/2014 3:20 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:42:27 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> I'll start posting from Doug's article (in quotes) with my comments:
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> "In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> that had been reported by six credible witnesses."
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Mr. Horne fails to disclose that the 'six credible witnesses' did not see
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> the same hole. Research was provided to the community on this issue in
>
> >

False again. Spreading disinformation is not helping your case. They
all saw the same hole but may have seen it from different vantage points.
Some might have seen it from the front of the limo, so it would be on the
right to them. Some might see it as if in the driver's seat and see it to
the left. A good reason for seemingly different reports as to location of
the one and only hole.

>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> the late 90's, so one might ask whether or not this lapse was deliberate
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> or not.
>
> >

If Horne hears of you damaging his reputation, I think he may tie you
up in logic knots. But then, anyone is fair game to you if your income is
threatened.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:29:14 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> When I talk about something that I consider disinfo, what I mean by that
>
> is that imo it is deliberately false information intended to lead the
>
> reader astray. In many cases, it will be vague, and in nearly all cases
>
> there will be no documentation for the statement.
>
>
>
> So, you can, if you wish, test any statement that I call 'disinfo' by that
>
> equation and decide for yourself what to think. I sincerely apologize if
>
> I come across as trying to 'tell you what to think.' It is just that I
>
> have been through these rabbit trails for so many years with so many
>
> different people that sometimes I become frustrated when they can't see
>
> something that is, to me, blatantly obvious.
>
>
>
> An example of what I can disinfo is the statement that "six people saw a
>
> hole in the windshield". It implies that they all were valid witnesses
>
> and that they all saw the same thing in the same place. That is false.
>
> Anyone who tries to move forward with that statement will go around in
>
> circles until they become uncomfortable, and then will likely try to
>
> attack anyone who provides them with the information that has been
>
> concealed.
>
>

Your attempt to use the bullet hole situation as am example may not do
you well. Since my feeling (given your definition) is that YOU have
presented us with disinfo yourself in this case. As well you have left
uncorrected the articles you wrote that have the errors in them that I
made you aware of. You may differ as to the importance of Whitaker's
statements, but you know his name and his occupation and he is NOT an
unknown. By leaving that uncorrected you are letting people think that
Weldon has been talking about a person that may doesn't exist. That is
knowingly promoting disinfo.

And BTW, I didn't have the trouble you had when I tracked down some of
this info about the limo bullet hole. After speaking with you, I was
helped to a good degree to believe the Weldon + Whitaker story, since
there is nothing out there that is strong enough to defeat it logically.
No rabbit trails for me I'm happy to say.

I'm not sure why you attempt to bring Fetzer into the bullet hole
thing, I've not seen him involved anywhere I've looked . And personally,
I'd just as soon leave him out, since he seems happier going for
publicity. Weldon on the other hand seemed much more competent at vetting
the story and following up.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/6/2014 8:17 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:27:53 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:52:29 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/5/2014 3:20 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:42:27 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> I'll start posting from Doug's article (in quotes) with my comments:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> "In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> that had been reported by six credible witnesses."
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Mr. Horne fails to disclose that the 'six credible witnesses' did not see
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> the same hole. Research was provided to the community on this issue in
>>
>>>
>
>
> False again. Spreading disinformation is not helping your case. They
> all saw the same hole but may have seen it from different vantage points.
> Some might have seen it from the front of the limo, so it would be on the
> right to them. Some might see it as if in the driver's seat and see it to
> the left. A good reason for seemingly different reports as to location of
> the one and only hole.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> the late 90's, so one might ask whether or not this lapse was deliberate
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> or not.
>>
>>>
>
>
>
> If Horne hears of you damaging his reputation, I think he may tie you
> up in logic knots. But then, anyone is fair game to you if your income is
> threatened.
>

Income? What are you babbling about?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Chris seems to be using the tactic of throwing as much 'stuff" up as
possible to see what (if anything) sticks...unfortunately, none of it
seems to make much sense, either...

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I agree. That is disappointing.

[mainframetech]

You really need to learn to research the people involved. Pamela
writes articles and does speaking engagements. When I suggested earlier
that she was protecting her income, she had NO defensive comments that she
wasn't paid for some of her work. So now what are YOU babbling about?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:41:37 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Chris seems to be using the tactic of throwing as much 'stuff" up as
>
> possible to see what (if anything) sticks...unfortunately, none of it
>
> seems to make much sense, either...
>

Taking the debate into the street, Pamela? So far, it has all 'stuck'.
Prove that even one thing has not 'stuck', and is false, other than your
attacks on me, Weldon Horne and Whitaker. And where is the result of the
research that you said you paid money for and was going to answer this
whole problem of Whitaker's story of the bullet hole in the limo
windshield?

Chris
k

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cb0206$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 1/6/2014 12:17 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:58:11 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> If you followed the online commentary after the releast of the last 3
>>>
>>> episodes of TMWKK in 2003 it might be evident that they may have been
>>>
>>> suppressed because at least one of them pointed to an LBJ connection to
>>>
>>> the assassination.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is one link:
>>>
>>> http://911blogger.com/node/21711
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a Wiki entry:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "The addition of three further episodes in 2003 caused great controversy,
>>>
>>> particularly in the final episode implicating Lyndon Johnson, and the
>>>
>>> withdrawal of these additional episodes."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is an HNN article with more detail:
>>>
>>> http://hnn.us/article/4504
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Horne pulls the reader in with a false premise and then tells them to look
>>>
>>> for themselves. I find that just a tad disingenuous.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And yet another slap at Horne. He made the mistake of researching the
>> story of George Whitaker and incorporating it into an article about the
>> bullet hole in the limo windshield, and she took offense. Such anger!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>
>Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where he claims
>that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the windshield
>controversy.

You won't, of course, cite for this.

For if you did, people would see that what Douglas Horne *said*, and what
you're claiming he said... are two different things.

>He is not a careful researcher. It was first brought up in
>the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:
>
>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[Sandy McCroskey]

So... why don't you cite what he said, instead of merely asserting this?

[Anthony Marsh]

Last time he did that he had to walk it back. He posted a quote and when
he was challenged he said that's not what Horne said and suggested that
I buy Horne's volumes to read it for myself.

[Anthony Marsh]

The software did automatically.

> For if you did, people would see that what Douglas Horne *said*, and what
> you're claiming he said... are two different things.
>

Well, if you didn't snip out the context from earlier in the thread you
could see the quote that Mike posted. Are you saying that he
intentionally misquoted Horne?

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Alrighttttyy now. When a McCroskey and Holmes get in the fray, it's what
we call a free-for-all!

[John McAdams]

On 7 Jan 2014 10:49:29 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:38:31 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/6/2014 8:17 PM, mainframetech wrote:

>>=20
>>=20
>> > If Horne hears of you damaging his reputation, I think he may tie y=
>> > up in logic knots. But then, anyone is fair game to you if your income=
> is
>> > threatened.
>>=20

>> Income? What are you babbling about?
>>
>
> You really need to learn to research the people involved. Pamela
>writes articles and does speaking engagements. When I suggested earlier
>that she was protecting her income, she had NO defensive comments that she
>wasn't paid for some of her work. So now what are YOU babbling about?
>

If you were suggesting that she gets paid to take a certain position,
that's out of bounds, and Peter and I would have rejected the post if
we had interpreted it that way.

I *thought* you were threatening Pamela with a libel suit.

That would be rich! You buffs think you can say terrible things about
people who disagree with you, but that it's out of bounds to criticize
buffs.

From now on, expect us to reject any claim that Pamela has a financial
stake in taking a particular position.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Still up there in the disinfo cloud, Chris? Nothing has stuck, nor will
it, as you have yet to provide any documentation for any of these wild
claims.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Chris said:
And yet another slap at Horne. He made the mistake of researching the
>> story of George Whitaker and incorporating it into an article about the
>> bullet hole in the limo windshield, and she took offense. Such anger!

False. I never said Horne researched Whitaker. I think he did not, just
swallowed it whole like others stuck in the disinfo layer about the limo.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 4:33:56 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2014 10:49:29 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:38:31 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 1/6/2014 8:17 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>=20
>
> >>=20
>
> >> > If Horne hears of you damaging his reputation, I think he may tie y=
>
> >> > up in logic knots. But then, anyone is fair game to you if your income=
>
> > is
>
> >> > threatened.
>
> >>=20
>
> >> Income? What are you babbling about?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > You really need to learn to research the people involved. Pamela
>
> >writes articles and does speaking engagements. When I suggested earlier
>
> >that she was protecting her income, she had NO defensive comments that she
>
> >wasn't paid for some of her work. So now what are YOU babbling about?
>
> >
>
>
>
> If you were suggesting that she gets paid to take a certain position,
>
> that's out of bounds, and Peter and I would have rejected the post if
>
> we had interpreted it that way.
>

Nothing of the kind, John. Pamela says here that she does speaking
engagements, and also she has pointed to a few of her articles that she
wrote. No one that I know of is suggesting that she has taken a position
because she was paid to, nor have I heard her say so, so that's a tempest
in a teapot. It might be wise to watch for name calling in this and other
limousine threads though. The terms liar and other similar terms have
been used on some people.

>
>
> I *thought* you were threatening Pamela with a libel suit.
>
>
>
> That would be rich! You buffs think you can say terrible things about
>
> people who disagree with you, but that it's out of bounds to criticize
>
> buffs.
>
>
>
> From now on, expect us to reject any claim that Pamela has a financial
>
> stake in taking a particular position.
>

Sounds reasonable. Now how about if someone says she is acting to
protect her income that she gets from espousing a certain position that
she believes in? Sort of like the various persons that have written
articles and post here, like Anthony March?

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Still up there in the disinfo cloud, Chris? Nothing has stuck, nor will
>
> it, as you have yet to provide any documentation for any of these wild
>
> claims.
>

I have provided as much as there is, including common sense, while you
have provided NONE for your viewpoint, even after you said you had paid
for it. Why would you not post the info if you have it?

>
>
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:50:46 AM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:41:37 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Chris seems to be using the tactic of throwing as much 'stuff" up as
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > possible to see what (if anything) sticks...unfortunately, none of it
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > seems to make much sense, either...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Taking the debate into the street, Pamela? So far, it has all 'stuck'.
>
> >
>
> > Prove that even one thing has not 'stuck', and is false, other than your
>
> >
>

> > attacks on me, Weldon, Horne and Whitaker. And where is the result of the

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/7/2014 7:45 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Still up there in the disinfo cloud, Chris? Nothing has stuck, nor will
>>
>> it, as you have yet to provide any documentation for any of these wild
>>
>> claims.
>>
>
>
>
> I have provided as much as there is, including common sense, while you
> have provided NONE for your viewpoint, even after you said you had paid
> for it. Why would you not post the info if you have it?
>

We provide official documents and official photos. You, nothing except
guessing.

[Anthony Marsh]

You were suggesting that she was getting money for her research and the
easiest way to shut her up is to get Horne to sue her. Guess you've never
heard of Free Speech.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

More the other way around. I have spent $$$ on research and share it at
no cost. That is why I jumped into the community -- JFK said to give
something back.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 7:51:09 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/7/2014 7:45 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Still up there in the disinfo cloud, Chris? Nothing has stuck, nor will
>
> >>
>
> >> it, as you have yet to provide any documentation for any of these wild
>
> >>
>
> >> claims.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have provided as much as there is, including common sense, while you
>
> > have provided NONE for your viewpoint, even after you said you had paid
>
> > for it. Why would you not post the info if you have it?
>
> >
>
>
>
> We provide official documents and official photos. You, nothing except
>
> guessing.
>

[...]Chris seems caught up in the disinfo level of the limo, an area
shrouded in secrecy from PH on, imo. No document or photo will interest
him and no argument of logic will stand in his way. He seems to have gone
down a rabbit hole. Unfortunately, there are others who have done the
same. They are adamant that the limo was at Romulus, MI, and Romeo, MI.
One fellow insists he knows someone who saw the interior burned outside of
H+E at night with SS men surrounding the car. Someone else insists the
car is rusting away in a Florida swamp. All of these wierd stories
stemmed from the disinfo campaign that began immediately after the
assassination.

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Translation: nothing will stop Chris from throwing *stuff* he makes up
out there to see if any of it will stick :-0

[jfk...@gmail.com]

In the events of the real world, Whitaker is absolutely a liar.

At the level of disinfo about the limo, he does fit in. He even has the
right credentials for that -- a distant part of the FMC, 30 miles down the
river from the executive FMC building, but one of the many employees who
heard that something very wrong had happened that involved the limo. His
story fits with the countless other stories of where the limo was in the
days and weeks after the assassination. Perhaps we can have some
resolution in that this gives a clear indication of just how successful
the original strategy was.

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:16:21 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 7:45:46 PM UTC-5, deke wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:35:27 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I have emailed both Lew Rockwell and Doug Horne, and hopefully they will
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > begin to address the false statements in this article. I will be
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > disecting it here as well, so this should be a good arena for
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > discussion...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Pamela Brown
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ss100x.com
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Regarding the sightings of the through and through bullet hole in the
>
> >
>
> > windshield, you mentioned three witnesses in you Lancer presentation.
>
> >
>
> > There were actually six, including two Dallas policemen and a Ford Motor
>
> >
>
> > Co. employee, George Whitaker. Just wondering what your take is on
>
> >
>
> > Whitaker's account about the hole and the destruction and replacement of
>
> >
>
> > the original windshield. It's a real stretch for me to thing that six
>
> >
>
> > witnesses, all of them professional people, could be mistaken about what
>
> >
>
> > they saw from a close up view.
>
>
>
>
>
> Pamela has already labeled George Whitaker as a liar in these threads.
>
> I've been contending with her that it is not true and asked for her backup
>
> or proof, but none has been forthcoming. Whitaker had no reason to lie
>
> back then. He also wanted to remain anonymous until after his death.
>
>
>
> Whitaker is also corroborated by the date he said he saw the windshield
>
> with the hole in it. It was on the 25th of Nov. and the W.H. garage log
>
> shows that no one accessed the limo on that date, but they did just before
>
> and after it. There's no way that Whitaker would know that and pick just
>
> the right date for his experience.
>
>
>
> Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

No Tony, there's no software that can cite the source evidence for a
faulty claim you've made.

Doesn't exist.

All you have to do is point to *ANYTHING* that says that Douglas Horne

claims that "he was the first person to bring up the hole in the
windshield controversy."

Preferably, of course, something written by Douglas Horne...

But I'll even accept an interview where he's being quoted.

ANYTHING AT ALL THAT SHOWS THAT YOU SIMPLY DIDN'T MAKE THIS UP OUT OF
WHOLE CLOTH.

>> For if you did, people would see that what Douglas Horne *said*, and what
>> you're claiming he said... are two different things.
>>
>
>Well, if you didn't snip out the context from earlier in the thread

I snipped absolutely nothing. Anyone can compare my response to the
previous post that I responded to, and note that nothing has been snipped.

I defy you to show otherwise. Perhaps you should get yourself a threaded
newsreader, so you can see what post is being responded to.

>you
>could see the quote that Mike posted. Are you saying that he
>intentionally misquoted Horne?

Still waiting for the cite...


Why can't you cite, Tony? Surely you got this information from
*SOMEWHERE*... where did you get it?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...

Let me understand you correctly.

You believe that *I'M* required to produce the statement that Tony was
reading when he made his statement...

On what basis can I do this?

Do you believe that I have some psychic ability that most people don't
have?

Do you believe that Tony & I are so close that I'm familiar with his
reading habits and where he pulls quotes from?

Tell us Sandy - why is someone else required to support what Tony said???

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cc3f8d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Never happened.

Nor will you cite for any such discussion...


Tell us Tony, why do you keep refusing to cite for your statements?

[deke]

This whole windshield issue is starting to remind me of the back of the
head blowout contoversy where over a dozen witnesses saw a large wound in
the back of Kennedy's skull but they all must have been mistaken because
what they saw didn't fit in with certain theories. Same here. Six
witnesses, albeit with slight variations, said they saw the same thing,
but they all must be mistaken. Very Warren Commissionish! Just how many
people have to witness the same thing in order to make it real?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

DH: I’ll tell you about the stunning evidence I have found in that
episode at the end of this article, but first we need to set the stage by
reviewing the eyewitness testimony about the damage to the windshield
observed the day of JFK’s assassination, on Friday, November 22nd, 1963;
as well as three days later, on Monday, November 25th, 1963.

PB: Horne has set out to enable the reader to *believe* whatever it is he
has to say rather than reason anything through for themselves. He seems
to pretend that they eyewitnesses are valid and that they say the same
thing. Of course, that is a false axiom. Therefore, any conclusions
based on it will also be false.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 8:51:09 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/7/2014 7:45 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Still up there in the disinfo cloud, Chris? Nothing has stuck, nor will
>
> >>
>
> >> it, as you have yet to provide any documentation for any of these wild
>
> >>
>
> >> claims.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have provided as much as there is, including common sense, while you
>
> > have provided NONE for your viewpoint, even after you said you had paid
>
> > for it. Why would you not post the info if you have it?
>
> >
>
>
>
> We provide official documents and official photos. You, nothing except
>
> guessing.
>

You know that's false if you've been following the discussion. I've
produced witnesses that corroborate things that Whitaker said and saw, and
I've provided many reasons he would not be lying.

As far as all the documents provided, which ones have you provided that
show that Whitaker was lying, or was mistaken? That's the crux of the
conversation. We've already got a document that shows that Ferguson was
mistaken or lying, which it is, we don't know. The garage log proves that
his memo was incorrect in the date he said they repaired the windshield.

Chris

[mainframetech]

That is false. Look back and see who might have said something like
that, but it wasn't me. I've never threatened to sue anyone on this forum
or any other person at any time.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I always do. You just can't follow the thread. Maybe you are using
Google and stuff gets snipped out.

[Anthony Marsh]

My softare automatically quotes the message to which I am replying.
Can you see all those >>> symbols?

> Doesn't exist.
>
> All you have to do is point to *ANYTHING* that says that Douglas Horne
> claims that "he was the first person to bring up the hole in the
> windshield controversy."
>

Someone else claimed to quote Horne. Are you saying he lied about that?

> Preferably, of course, something written by Douglas Horne...
>
> But I'll even accept an interview where he's being quoted.
>

Someone claimed to be quoting from something that Horne wrote.

> ANYTHING AT ALL THAT SHOWS THAT YOU SIMPLY DIDN'T MAKE THIS UP OUT OF
> WHOLE CLOTH.
>

Well, maybe Horne did make it up out of whole cloth. Not my fault.

>
>>> For if you did, people would see that what Douglas Horne *said*, and what
>>> you're claiming he said... are two different things.
>>>
>>
>> Well, if you didn't snip out the context from earlier in the thread
>
>
> I snipped absolutely nothing. Anyone can compare my response to the
> previous post that I responded to, and note that nothing has been snipped.
>
> I defy you to show otherwise. Perhaps you should get yourself a threaded
> newsreader, so you can see what post is being responded to.
>

When people refused to quote properly it ruins the thread.

>
>
>> you
>> could see the quote that Mike posted. Are you saying that he
>> intentionally misquoted Horne?
>
>
> Still waiting for the cite...
>
>
> Why can't you cite, Tony? Surely you got this information from
> *SOMEWHERE*... where did you get it?
>

Look back through the messages.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, 1,000 people swore they saw the Virgin Mary on a window.
So I guess you think that means it's real!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/9/2014 12:19 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 8:51:09 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/7/2014 7:45 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Still up there in the disinfo cloud, Chris? Nothing has stuck, nor will
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> it, as you have yet to provide any documentation for any of these wild
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> claims.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I have provided as much as there is, including common sense, while you
>>
>>> have provided NONE for your viewpoint, even after you said you had paid
>>
>>> for it. Why would you not post the info if you have it?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We provide official documents and official photos. You, nothing except
>>
>> guessing.
>>
>
>
> You know that's false if you've been following the discussion. I've
> produced witnesses that corroborate things that Whitaker said and saw, and
> I've provided many reasons he would not be lying.
>

As I said before, all you have produced is hearsay. No official
documents or official photos.

[mainframetech]

A dozen witnesses? Try 39+. There is a list here from a couple months
ago that I put up with that many people that saw a 'large hole' in the BOH
of JFK. It begins with "List of 40 people...". Here's a link to it:

http://tinyurl.com/mxtnq79

The list supplies what was said and where to find the quote, many of
the items are from sworn testimony.

Your question is a good one, as to how many witnesses does it take to
convince people that something happened, or was seen. The answer is an
infinite number, when showing them here. There is no amount of evidence
you can show to convince LNers that something happened other than what the
WC dictated to them.

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cdef0f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Here's your claim again: "Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the

quote where he claims that he was the first person to bring up the hole in
the windshield controversy."

You're refusing to cite for it, and no such cite appeared earlier.

You previously claimed that I'd snipped the relevant cite out, even though
it's clear that I've snipped nothing.



Why do you keep refusing to CITE for your statement, Tony?

Where did *YOU* come up with Douglas Horne's statement? If you continue to
refuse to cite, then the obvious conclusion is that you simply made it up.

>>>>>> He is not a careful researcher. It was first brought up in
>>>>>> the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cdf1db$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Do you understand what a citation is, Tony?

You made a claim about what Douglas Horne *said*, you need to be able to
provide a CITATION for that statement.

That means you need to *SOURCE* your statement ... you need to give the
book title, and page number where Douglas Horne said what you *CLAIM* he
said...

Or provide a link to a website where he said this...

Or a link to a forum posting where he said this...


Why do you keep refusing to cite, Tony?

>> Doesn't exist.
>>
>> All you have to do is point to *ANYTHING* that says that Douglas Horne
>> claims that "he was the first person to bring up the hole in the
>> windshield controversy."
>>
>
>Someone else claimed to quote Horne. Are you saying he lied about that?

Then simply quote it.

All I see is *YOU* making the claim that "Another indication of Horne's

dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first person to
bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."

>> Preferably, of course, something written by Douglas Horne...
>>
>> But I'll even accept an interview where he's being quoted.
>>
>
>Someone claimed to be quoting from something that Horne wrote.

Then quote it.

My crystal ball tells me that you won't.

>> ANYTHING AT ALL THAT SHOWS THAT YOU SIMPLY DIDN'T MAKE THIS UP OUT OF
>> WHOLE CLOTH.
>>
>
>Well, maybe Horne did make it up out of whole cloth. Not my fault.

It *IS* your fault if it turns out that *YOU* made it up out of whole
cloth, wouldn't you say?

>>>> For if you did, people would see that what Douglas Horne *said*, and what
>>>> you're claiming he said... are two different things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if you didn't snip out the context from earlier in the thread
>>
>>
>> I snipped absolutely nothing. Anyone can compare my response to the
>> previous post that I responded to, and note that nothing has been snipped.
>>
>> I defy you to show otherwise. Perhaps you should get yourself a threaded
>> newsreader, so you can see what post is being responded to.
>>
>
>When people refused to quote properly it ruins the thread.

Tony... you just claimed that I snipped the post...

I DEFY you to quote anything at all that was in the post I responded to,
that isn't in my response.

You've now made two statements that you can't back up.

Why is that, Tony?

>>> you
>>> could see the quote that Mike posted. Are you saying that he
>>> intentionally misquoted Horne?
>>
>>
>> Still waiting for the cite...
>>
>>
>> Why can't you cite, Tony? Surely you got this information from
>> *SOMEWHERE*... where did you get it?
>>
>
>Look back through the messages.

It's not *my* responsibility to try to find what cannot be found, Tony.

You keep making statements that you refuse to back up. Why is that, Tony?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:35:27 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
>

DH:(1) Dallas motorcycle patrolmen Stavis Ellis and H. R. Freeman both
observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland
Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in
the left front windshield…You could put a pencil through it…you could
take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.”
Freeman corroborated this, saying: “[I was] right beside it. I could of
[sic] touched it…it was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.”
[David Lifton published these quotations in his 1980 book, Best Evidence.]

PB: What Horne fails to disclose is Ellis' statement in Larry Sneed's
book NO MORE SILENCE,

1998, p. 147

"Some of the jockeys around the car were saying, "Looky here!" What they
were looking at was the windshield. TO THE RIGHT OF WHERE THE DRIVER
WAS,JUST ABOVE THE METAL NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE GLASS THERE APPEARED TO BE
A BULLET HOLE. [caps mine].

I talked to a Secret Service man about it, and he said, "Aw, that's just a
fragment! It looked like a clean hole in the windshield to me. In fact,
one of the motor jockeys, Harry Freeman, put a pencil through it, or said
he could."

[Bud]

No, you are not understanding him correctly. He didn`t say anything
about it being a "requirement".

> On what basis can I do this?

You could if you had a particular utterance of Horne`s in mind which you
thought Tony was alluding to.

> Do you believe that I have some psychic ability that most people don't
>
> have?

Have I got a zinger for that!

>
>
> Do you believe that Tony & I are so close that I'm familiar with his
>
> reading habits and where he pulls quotes from?

You seemed sure about it not jiving with Tony`s assertion.

> Tell us Sandy - why is someone else required to support what Tony said???

It would be nice if you supported some of the claims you`ve made over
the years.

[mainframetech]

And so with 5 witnesses at the Parkland hospital ER parking area that
saw the T&T hole, and another who saw it later, you'd rather take the
statement of the one SS agent who said otherwise...:) Welp, that's cherry
picking for you.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Stavis Ellis though he saw a hole low on the windshield. I'm sure you
don't want to conceal that.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:35:27 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Doug Horne conceals information regarding the different places a number of
those who said they saw a hole in the windshield gave for where the hole
was located.

Per Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 166:

...Dick Dudman was informative in a further sense: The "hole" in the
windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield."

Dudman was a PH witness.

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 3, 2014 6:45:46 PM UTC-6, deke wrote:
> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:35:27 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have emailed both Lew Rockwell and Doug Horne, and hopefully they will
>
> >
>
> > begin to address the false statements in this article. I will be
>
> >
>
> > disecting it here as well, so this should be a good arena for
>
> >
>
> > discussion...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Pamela Brown
>
> >
>
> > ss100x.com
>
>
>
> Regarding the sightings of the through and through bullet hole in the
>
> windshield, you mentioned three witnesses in you Lancer presentation.

I could have spent the entire allotment of time discussing the PH
witnesses. There were four -- Freeman, Ellis, Dudman and Glanges. Ellis
and Dudman pointed to different locations of the hole they thought they
saw.

>
> There were actually six, including two Dallas policemen and a Ford Motor
>
> Co. employee, George Whitaker.

Surely you jest? I was the one who brought Nick Prencipe to the
community. I do not consider his statements at the same level of
significance as those of the PH witnesses. In addition, Prencipe gave yet
another location for the hole he thought he saw.

Whitaker has no credentials at all and his statements do not count.

Just wondering what your take is on

>
> Whitaker's account about the hole and the destruction and replacement of
>
> the original windshield. It's a real stretch for me to thing that six
>
> witnesses, all of them professional people, could be mistaken about what
>
> they saw from a close up view.

Some were valid witnesses, some were not. A number of them pointed to
different locations. You don't want to conceal that information, do you?

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I am sure Chris would not deliberately conceal information that has been
made available to him. That includes acknowledging the different
locations of the holes people thought they saw.

BTW, I have posted a slew of documentation to support my contention that
if we were to believe all of what I call disinfo we would end up with a
Santa Claus limo and a Swiss Cheese windshield. But Chris, while
continuing the conversation, has yet to post a single shred of information
showing that Whitaker ever had any connection to the limo.

How much longer do we have to wait, Chris?

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:46:31 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

[cmikes]

The problem is that there are authenticated photographs of the back of
JFK's head taken at the autopsy that show conclusively that there was no
large wound in the back of his head. Unless you can demonstrate that the
government had access to digital technology from at least 30 years in the
future, there was no large wound in the back of the head.

39+ or 39000+ people could tell you that 2+2=5 and they would still be
wrong. The laws of physics do not change depending on what witnesses say.

[mainframetech]

Easier to mistake a hole being high or low than that a bullet hole
didn't exist at all...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, January 10, 2014 3:02:53 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:35:27 PM UTC-6, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
>
>

> Doug Horne conceals information regarding the different places a number of
>
> those who said they saw a hole in the windshield gave for where the hole
>
> was located.
>

"Conceals"? So you now say that Horne was intentionally keeping
something from you? He still saw a hole, which is easier to remember than
the location of it.

>
>
> Per Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 166:
>
>
>
> ...Dick Dudman was informative in a further sense: The "hole" in the
>
> windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield."
>
>
>
> Dudman was a PH witness.
>

And he saw a hole in the windshield, as did a number of others,
including 2 Dallas cops.



>
>
> Pamela Brown
>
> ss100x.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Those who believe in alteration do not suggest digital technology. They
believe it was done with existing technology from 1963 such as a matte.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

If Horne is any sort of a decent research he thoroughly researched his
topic before writing an article. He didn't have to look far -- I brought
all of these inconsistencies to the attention of the community back in the
late 90's. I also spoke to him in person at NID 99, though I don't recall
if we specifically discussed the windshield hole witnesses. I find it
highly unlikely that there is any other explanation than that he concealed
what he did not want the reader to know. If that were to be the case,
once I submit my article on DH's article to Lew Rockwell, I am sure he
will jump up to correct any unintentional mistakes.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Not necessarily -- maybe he saw something else.

[Bud]

You proceed as if your assumptions are fact.

[mainframetech]

"authenticated photographs"? Authenticated by who? I have big news
for you. In 1963 they were very aware of the many techniques for
'fiddling' photographic images, and with what other things were done in
this case, especially by the FBI (proven), evidence is rather slippery.
The photos were altered to back up the wacky 'lone nut' theory. Clint
Hill the agent that climbed up on the back of the limo after the shots
rang out had a perfect view down to JFK's head and HE saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH. Try and realize how badly so many people have been fooled by
photos and film in this case.

"Seeing is Believing" was NOT true in 1963.

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <lame8...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

My guess is that Tony has decided to no longer respond - rather than admit
that he cannot cite for his claim.

No-one else in this forum can cite for his claim either.


That tells the tale.