Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Is the Lone Nut theory actually one of the strongest theories for

402 views
Skip to first unread message

rushi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 11, 2016, 6:07:06 PM12/11/16
to
Over the course of my independent research into the JFK assassination over
the years, a couple things have struck me that have really stayed with me
and made me reflect on some things.

1) The majority of Americans do not know or do not really care about what
happened on Nov 22, 1963.

2) Those that are somewhat interested in it are more often than not
greatly misinformed about what happened on that day. You can blame a lot
of different things for that.

3) Most people I have encountered, both Conspiracy Theorists and Lone Nut
theory defenders, are so fervent in their beliefs, that they often get
carried away trying to prove their points and succumb to resorting to ad
hominem attacks, lack of open mindedness when debating, and fail to see
that cooperation with each other is the key to finding out the truth.

The one thing I have found, in my modest years of study, is that most of
the people who argue for the Lone Nut theory and defend the Warren
commisions findings, fail to see that it is the strongest theory defending
LHO's innocence.

Why?

Because
1) The Warren Commision already had a predetermined outcome, (LHO MUST be
found guilty)
2) The Warren commission was greatly skewed, and incomplete in that it did
not pay attention to the overwhelming number of witnesses that gave evidence
contrary to its bottom line of finding Oswald guilty.
3) The Warren Commission failed to take into account certain important
witnesses. More often than not, it only took into account those witnesses
that furthered its own conclusions that LHO was guilty and that he was a
lone nut.

With that being said, it is important to realize that the Warren
Commision, skewed, incomplete, and impartial as it was still lends some
important facts to the case.

But nevertheless, with the CIA coming out and covering up certain details
of the investigation, and other dubious elements going on during the
investigation, it is hard not to come up with the next questions one must
ask when talking to lone nut theory defenders.


If the Warren Commission got it right, why is the government still
covering it up 50 years after the fact? What does it have to hide? What is
it afraid of? What does it not want people to see? And therein lies one of
the greatest arguments for Oswald's innocence as I see it. If the Lone Nut
theory was true, why is the government still covering it up?

Was Oswald a CIA asset? It's hard not to say yes. There are too many
overwhelming things that don't add up. But only if the reasonable
conspiracy theorists and lone nut advocates come together, will the truth
be found. There is truth in both camps. But NO ONE on either side can deny
this. Something is not right. Something is being hidden. HAS been hidden.
I only ask for help from both camps to uncover the truth which I can not
help but feel we are inching ever closer to.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 8:31:58 PM12/12/16
to
"CHOSEN TEN" SAID:

If the Warren Commission got it right, why is the government still
covering it up 50 years after the fact?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What makes you think anybody is "covering up" anything to do with the
assassination?

I've seen no real evidence of any "cover up" at all. It's only deemed to
be a "cover up" in the minds and imaginations of the conspiracy theorists
(IMO).

CTers see imagined cover-ups *everywhere* --- in the testimony of
witnesses, in the Warren Commission Executive Session transcripts, and in
almost every FBI document. But it's *perceived* cover-up---not an actual
one.

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 11:27:57 PM12/12/16
to
The proof that the 'lone nut' theory is false has been presented here
a few times already. The proof is within the testimony and statements of
the men that worked at Bethesda hospital. The narrative is that the back
wound bullet that struck in the upper back of JFK, did NOT go through JFK
and come out of a wound in his throat. The bullet was shown to be a
'short shot' which is a nickname for a bullet that is fouled in some way
and does not completely do its job. The proof for that is that during the
autopsy, the prosector ALL stated that "there is NO EXIT" from the body of
JFK for that bullet. Here is where that is stated:

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

They got verification of that conclusion when they removed the organs
and saw the damage to the pleura, which surrounds the lungs. There was
bruising on the pleura and the right lung, but NO TEARS or PUNCTURES of
the tissues there, so that it was obvious that no bullet passed through
those tissues to go further and come out of a throat wound.

Now we listen to an interview from Michael Matson Law of Paul
O'Connor, Bethesda Technologist and autopsy team member, from his book "In
the Eye of History" pages 40-41:

"O'Connor: The bullet went in through the muscles, didn't touch any of
the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity, which
encases the lungs, both front and back. It bounced off that cavity and
stopped. It actually went down and stopped. Went through the ribs and
stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we
eviscerated the body later. That's what happened at that time. We traced
the bullet path down and found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not
go in one side and come out the other side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."


We have then a statement from an autopsy team member that ALL team
members saw that the bullet did NOT go through the body and come out the
throat, it stopped at the pleura, and there was NO tearing or puncture to
let the bullet go past the pleura.

There are other statements that corroborate this finding here in the
sworn ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer, Bethesda X-ray Technician:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.

Custer's testimony is backed up by him having told O'Connor AT THAT
TIME, THAT THE BULLET HAD FALLEN OUT OF THE BODY:

"As I said before, during the X-ray procedure after the photographs were
taken, X-ray technician Jerrol Custer was turning the body over and this
bullet or bullet fragment fell out on the table and was retrieved. I
didn't see that because I was out of the room when they were taking
X-rays.
Law: You were in the anteroom.

O'Connor: I was in the anteroom. As I said before, this shows a short
shot, which didn't get a clean burn or have enough punch to send the
bullet completely into the body. If it had, at that angle, it would have
passed through the l ung and probably through his heart and killed him.
It would have been a fatal shot if it had L gone through the body. But,
then again, it wouldn't have passed through his neck."

Page 62, "In the Eye of History" William Matson Law.


There are many other elements of the case that are proved through
listening to the statements of the autopsy team members, and not just the
prosectors.

Chris

Bud

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 11:40:59 PM12/12/16
to
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 6:07:06 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> Over the course of my independent research into the JFK assassination over
> the years, a couple things have struck me that have really stayed with me
> and made me reflect on some things.
>
> 1) The majority of Americans do not know or do not really care about what
> happened on Nov 22, 1963.

There may not be any greater significance than the fact that Kennedy was
killed that day. I`m sure that Oswald killing Tippit had more of a
shattering impact on Tippit`s family than Kennedy dying, its all a matter
of perspective.

> 2) Those that are somewhat interested in it are more often than not
> greatly misinformed about what happened on that day. You can blame a lot
> of different things for that.

Ignorance. Many probably thought that Kennedy`s motions after he was
shot in the head showed he was shot from the front.


> 3) Most people I have encountered, both Conspiracy Theorists and Lone Nut
> theory defenders, are so fervent in their beliefs,

I`m no more "fervent" in my belief that Oswald killed Kennedy than I am
in my belief that the sun is hot. It is just reality, nothing to get
worked up about.

> that they often get
> carried away trying to prove their points and succumb to resorting to ad
> hominem attacks, lack of open mindedness when debating, and fail to see
> that cooperation with each other is the key to finding out the truth.

The people who are right should join forces with the people who are
wrong? What can be gained?

And I`ve seen this before, people come in and act like they are hovering
above the conflict. They are more clear thinking and unbiased, they are
open more minded and objective than the unwashed heathens that post in
these newsgroups. Since they are operating on a higher plane they can pass
judgment on the rest.

> The one thing I have found, in my modest years of study, is that most of
> the people who argue for the Lone Nut theory and defend the Warren
> commisions findings, fail to see that it is the strongest theory defending
> LHO's innocence.
>
> Why?
>
> Because
> 1) The Warren Commision already had a predetermined outcome, (LHO MUST be
> found guilty)

And in your modest and independents studies you were completely and
utterly open minded and unbiased, is that it? But if you weren`t
suspicious at all you wouldn`t have looked deeply into this event at all,
would you?

> 2) The Warren commission was greatly skewed, and incomplete in that it did
> not pay attention to the overwhelming number of witnesses that gave evidence
> contrary to its bottom line of finding Oswald guilty.

Why do you say they didn`t pay attention to this information? Perhaps
they viewed the information in the correct context, fallible human beings
providing information. No scenario can satisfy the information all the
witnesses provided, some must be wrong. Conspiracy hobbyists chose to
stare slack jawed at the information provided from the ones that were
wrong, and this is what prevents them from figuring out this very simple
crime.

> 3) The Warren Commission failed to take into account certain important
> witnesses.

Witnesses who say things that conspiracy hobbyists like the sound of
always get the title "important" bestowed upon them.

> More often than not, it only took into account those witnesses
> that furthered its own conclusions that LHO was guilty and that he was a
> lone nut.

Overall, why do you suppose there were so many indications of Oswald`s
guilt coming in from all quarters? Is it reasonable to think this could
occur and Oswald be innocent? Once you are satisfied with his guilt, you
look for evidence of him being in cahoots with anyone. His personality
suggests he is just the kind of person who would take decisive action
independently (like he did when he defected and when he shot at Walker),
and no strong indications in sight, even after all these years of people
looking hard, of him working with anyone else.

> With that being said, it is important to realize that the Warren
> Commision, skewed, incomplete, and impartial as it was still lends some
> important facts to the case.

The parts useful to your ideas. All conspiracy hobbyists cherry pick
from the WC.

> But nevertheless, with the CIA coming out and covering up certain details
> of the investigation, and other dubious elements going on during the
> investigation, it is hard not to come up with the next questions one must
> ask when talking to lone nut theory defenders.

Asking questions admits you have no answers. With over fifty years of
this activity should I expect some answers soon?

> If the Warren Commission got it right, why is the government still
> covering it up 50 years after the fact?

And the fact that this is absurd doesn`t lead you to question your
premise.

> What does it have to hide? What is
> it afraid of? What does it not want people to see? And therein lies one of
> the greatest arguments for Oswald's innocence as I see it. If the Lone Nut
> theory was true, why is the government still covering it up?

Perhaps all the relevant information about this murder is on the table.
Perhaps there is nothing up those trees you are barking up, the ones you
think should be checked.

> Was Oswald a CIA asset? It's hard not to say yes. There are too many
> overwhelming things that don't add up. But only if the reasonable
> conspiracy theorists and lone nut advocates come together, will the truth
> be found. There is truth in both camps. But NO ONE on either side can deny
> this. Something is not right. Something is being hidden. HAS been hidden.
> I only ask for help from both camps to uncover the truth which I can not
> help but feel we are inching ever closer to.

Yes, better to think that than you`ve wasted a lot of time and
accomplished nothing.

charles wallace

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 1:36:24 PM12/13/16
to
For those interested in what really happened they can find posts
on my JFK murder page that explain it.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/JFKs-murder/681606495193460

Chosen Ten

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 7:08:51 PM12/13/16
to
So you deny that the CIA withheld evidence from the Warren commission? Or
that the warren commission was not already steered towards making sure
Oswald was found to be the lone nut shooter by Johnson, Hoover, and
others? And how about the limo? Poor handling of evidence. Would you not
agree?

Chosen Ten

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 7:09:06 PM12/13/16
to
Thank you for your input Chris. I will most certainly look into what you
have stated.

Chosen Ten

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 7:11:39 PM12/13/16
to
Forgive me if I seem too quick to judge but just from your retort, you
seem to be exactly the type of adamant defender I was referring to. There
is little point in me replying to each one of your comments (which were
quite heavily biased and impartial) if you are that set in your beliefs on
the matter. I do, however, salute you for being one of the few people who
probably is at least more informed on the Kennedy assassination than most
people are nowadays. I can only assume that is because you care about the
truth as much as I do. Unfortunately I can only assume on your character
(as I don't really know you) based on your comments. All the best.

Message has been deleted

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 9:24:07 AM12/14/16
to
On 12/12/2016 8:31 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> "CHOSEN TEN" SAID:
>
> If the Warren Commission got it right, why is the government still
> covering it up 50 years after the fact?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> What makes you think anybody is "covering up" anything to do with the
> assassination?
>
> I've seen no real evidence of any "cover up" at all. It's only deemed to
> be a "cover up" in the minds and imaginations of the conspiracy theorists
> (IMO).
>

Oh really? Is that because you refuse to look?
You claim that all the files have been released already? Then why aren't
they ALL available on YOUR web site? WHat are YOU covering up?

> CTers see imagined cover-ups *everywhere* --- in the testimony of
> witnesses, in the Warren Commission Executive Session transcripts, and in
> almost every FBI document. But it's *perceived* cover-up---not an actual
> one.
>

OK, so you've never seen a cover-up in your life. Unless you can claim
some that Liberals did.

You say that Nixon went on TV the day after the Watergate break-in and
explained WHY he did it? What channel was that on? Why isn't that video on
YOUR web site? What are you covering up?



mainframetech

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 4:25:57 PM12/14/16
to
An example of the clueless. Try counting the bullet strikes in Dealey
Plaza. A few more than 3.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 11:27:40 PM12/14/16
to
On 12/13/2016 10:24 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> Ozzie……. a one-man Rogue CIA dude. Too bad Marina didn't

False.

> give Ozzie just one more chance at their sham of a marriage. One more day
> of reconciliation = Kennedy lives. sigh. he did it. he really did it.
>
>


mainframetech

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 11:45:45 PM12/14/16
to
Chosen Ten, it's difficult to determine who you're replying to because
you have wiped out the prior conversation. If you reply at the bottom of
someone's post, it will carry the full conversation and it makes much of
this a good deal easier.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 11:46:02 PM12/14/16
to
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:24:17 PM UTC-5, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 5:40:59 AM UTC+1, Bud wrote:
> Ozzie……. a one-man Rogue CIA dude. Too bad Marina didn't
> give Ozzie just one more chance at their sham of a marriage. One more day
> of reconciliation = Kennedy lives. sigh. he did it. he really did it.




Naah.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 11:46:30 PM12/14/16
to
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 7:09:06 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> Thank you for your input Chris. I will most certainly look into what you
> have stated.


I might have forgotten to mention that some of that information was
drawn from the sworn testimony of an FBI agent named James Sibert, who
with his partner Frank O'Neill were assigned to observe the autopsy from
beginning to end. They made a report about their experience under a
document online called the Sibert and O'Neill report, which was for the
Warren Commission. More was obtained from them when the ARRB interviewed
them.

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 11:10:48 AM12/15/16
to
You think that just because some documents haven't been released indicates
there's an official "cover up" concerning who killed President Kennedy?
Come now, my good man. That's just silly.

There will probably ALWAYS be SOME documents (somewhere) that will always
remained "unreleased", with some CTer somewhere insisting those unreleased
items have SOME connection to the assassination of JFK. That situation
will likely always exist amongst JFK CTers.

I'd be willing to bet, however, that none of the documents scheduled to be
released in October 2017 that CTers are waiting so breathlessly for will
have any *major connection* in any way to the actual assassination of
President Kennedy at all. Those documents will all turn out to be
*peripheral* documents at best. IOW, they will be pretty much useless and
a waste of time.

Let's wait and see if I'm right.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 11:14:54 AM12/15/16
to
Since you have imaginary shooters why should we be surprised you have
imaginary bullet strikes.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 10:05:18 PM12/15/16
to
Logical error. The number of bullets does not have to match the number
of strikes.

Those kind of bullets can go through a person and hit something a mile
away.

> Chris
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 10:44:08 PM12/15/16
to
They did not write it FOR the WC. Stop making up crap.
It was a 302 report for the FBI during the autopsy. Before the WC even
existed.

>
> Chris
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 10:44:27 PM12/15/16
to
First time she's tried to use UseNet and she's probably just replying
with her cell phone which doesn't know how to quote. Not everyone uses
Google. And see how I was right about people should not use Yahoo?

> Chris
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 11:44:30 AM12/16/16
to
So, because you refuse to even look at the evidence in this case you can't
see the points of damage which I pointed out in evidence photos. Maybe you
should try the SS lie and claim that the dent to the chrome topping was
ALWAYS there. Maybe they built the car that way or something. You've got
to try harder. The cover-up is depending on you.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 3:09:36 PM12/16/16
to
Then why is the CIA continuing to cover them up? Still protecting
Castro? No longer any need to protect Castro. He died.

> *peripheral* documents at best. IOW, they will be pretty much useless and
> a waste of time.
>

I already found the smoking gun myself.
But it might help if the CIA just confessed.

Chosen Ten

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 3:12:48 PM12/16/16
to
Mr. Pein. Again I must reask you good sir since you deflected my question.
Do you deny that the CIA withheld evidence from the Warren commission? Or

that the warren commission was not already steered towards making sure
Oswald was found to be the lone nut shooter by Johnson, Hoover, and
others? And how about the limo? Poor handling of evidence. Would you not
agree? If nothing else, would you at least be able to agree that if the evidence was not blatantly covered up, that it was unbelievably poorly handled? Surely the fact the you believe Oswald was the lone nut does not blind you to the overwhelming evidence of poor handling of evidence by the authorities and downright coverup on the part of the CIA?

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 3:19:37 PM12/16/16
to
WRONG! The amount of your wrongs exceeds the hairs on your head. The
imagination is yours, since you have seen most of the evidence and proof
of all of the scams pulled on the LNs, who blithely fell into line upon
hearing the beloved WCR.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 3:20:17 PM12/16/16
to
You're probably right. By now any documents to be released have been
'cleaned' to where they will say nothing. But fortunately, there is
enough information in the ARRB files that we have proof of there being a
conspiracy, and the proof of the mechanisms of many of the scams pulled on
the public that day. The sworn testimonies of the Bethesda personnel tell
a large amount of the scams. The LNs of course, won't believe it, and
will think it's all fairy dust, as they have believed for 50 odd years.

Chris


claviger

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 4:49:50 PM12/17/16
to
Without fairy dust CTs would not have any fairytales to sell.






mainframetech

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 4:55:08 PM12/17/16
to
More than the CIA, there was 'mishandling' in many places. An example
is that when the body of JFK was laid out in the Bethesda morguwe, an
X-ray Technician saw a bullet fall from the back of JFK when he rasied the
body for an X-ray and it was quickly 'disappeared' by one of the
prosectors. Here's the sworn testimony of the Technician:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.

There were far more items of proof that occurred during the autopsy
that prove that it was a conspiracy, and that the autopsy was falsified.
Also they were able to prove that the back wound bullet never went through
JFK to come out of the throat wound, which effectively killed the stupid
'single bullet' theory.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 4:56:59 PM12/17/16
to
I have seen you point out things you imagine are evidence of additional
strikes. I have seen no actual evidence of additional strikes. You also
fail to grasp that one bullet can make multiple strikes, such as the
single bullet which struck both JFK and JBC and what was likely the
fragment of a bullet which struck the curb near Tague which would have
struck somewhere else first. So, yes, there were more than 3 strikes but
there were only 3 shots.

Jason Burke

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 5:00:04 PM12/17/16
to
Dang. This Chris dude actually thinks he's serious.

A sad state of affairs.


Jason Burke

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 5:01:55 PM12/17/16
to
It must suck being so paranoid that you think the whole world is out to
get you, eh, Chris?

Oh, yeah. There isn't squat that points to your direction in the ARRB,
Chris. *You* pretty much got fairy dust nailed...



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 10:41:57 PM12/17/16
to
Some of us know how to unclean them.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 10:43:29 PM12/17/16
to
On 12/16/2016 3:12 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> Mr. Pein. Again I must reask you good sir since you deflected my question.
> Do you deny that the CIA withheld evidence from the Warren commission? Or
>

Yes, Maragaria, he denies everything. He even denies that gravity
exists. He thinks it's a Chinese hoax.

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 18, 2016, 8:12:03 PM12/18/16
to
You forget what I've told you a few times in the past. I'm not putting
out information to prove something to you, since that's a lost cause
because you're so submerged in the WCR.

And in your silly comment you seem to have forgotten many of the
strikes. Try explaining the bullet hole through the windshield that came
from OUTSIDE the limousine (6 witnesses to that), and the solid proof that
the back wound bullet NEVER went past the body of JFK to hit Connally,
which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy! I see
you also forget to note the bullet strike on the right side curb of Elm
Street seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo. Much too hard to be a
ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
fail again.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 18, 2016, 8:12:25 PM12/18/16
to
So you're back to popping out opinions again? Try some proofs of your
beliefs.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 18, 2016, 8:16:10 PM12/18/16
to
When you lose an argument just call your opponent crazy.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 18, 2016, 8:25:03 PM12/18/16
to
That's right. When you look at the chrome topping you can't figure out
that it was hit by a bullet fragment. You think the car was made that
way. You can't even see that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed
in. You aren't allowed to, you're a WC defender.

> fail to grasp that one bullet can make multiple strikes, such as the
> single bullet which struck both JFK and JBC and what was likely the

Hey, you're just copying me.

> fragment of a bullet which struck the curb near Tague which would have
> struck somewhere else first. So, yes, there were more than 3 strikes but

Yes. Where? Which theory do you like this week?
1. Posner's Magic Twig?
2. Max Holland's Traffic Light?
3. Sturdivan's head shot?

> there were only 3 shots.
>

So where did YOUR miss go? The Moon?



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 18, 2016, 8:25:26 PM12/18/16
to
On 12/17/2016 4:55 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
>> Mr. Pein. Again I must reask you good sir since you deflected my question.
>> Do you deny that the CIA withheld evidence from the Warren commission? Or
>>
>> that the warren commission was not already steered towards making sure
>> Oswald was found to be the lone nut shooter by Johnson, Hoover, and
>> others? And how about the limo? Poor handling of evidence. Would you not
>> agree? If nothing else, would you at least be able to agree that if the evidence was not blatantly covered up, that it was unbelievably poorly handled? Surely the fact the you believe Oswald was the lone nut does not blind you to the overwhelming evidence of poor handling of evidence by the authorities and downright coverup on the part of the CIA?
>
>
>
> More than the CIA, there was 'mishandling' in many places. An example
> is that when the body of JFK was laid out in the Bethesda morguwe, an
> X-ray Technician saw a bullet fall from the back of JFK when he rasied the
> body for an X-ray and it was quickly 'disappeared' by one of the
> prosectors. Here's the sworn testimony of the Technician:
>

Not true. He didn't say bullet.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 19, 2016, 8:57:28 PM12/19/16
to
Whatever you say, Tony.

> And in your silly comment you seem to have forgotten many of the
> strikes. Try explaining the bullet hole through the windshield that came
> from OUTSIDE the limousine (6 witnesses to that),

I have no explanation for something that didn't happen.

> and the solid proof that
> the back wound bullet NEVER went past the body of JFK to hit Connally,

ditto

> which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy! I see
> you also forget to note the bullet strike on the right side curb of Elm
> Street seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis.

If that happened, it would have been Oswald's missed shot.

> Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.

Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
multiple strikes.

> Much too hard to be a
> ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
> fail again.
>

You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You
just arbitrarily assumed that. Your assumptions are not evidence of extra
shots.

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 20, 2016, 8:20:10 PM12/20/16
to
LOL! And you'll be laughed out of town, since there were 6 witnesses to
it. Lots od corroboration. They tried to cover it up when they got the
limo out of town on Monday, but it was seen by many, including a manager
in Michigan at the Ford glass plant who was familiar with bullet holes in
safety glass. His orders were to destroy the old windshield and replace
it wit ha new one. They even tried to cover up the movement of the limo
on that Monday. I imagine that your answer to the 6 witnesses is that
'They all lied'!



> > and the solid proof that
> > the back wound bullet NEVER went past the body of JFK to hit Connally,
>
> ditto
>


LOL! WRONG again, with corroborating witnesses who saw the proof that
the bullet never went past the pleura on JFK's body. And that was seen by
the whole autopsy team.



> > which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy! I see
> > you also forgot to note the bullet strike on the right side curb of Elm
> > Street seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis.
>
> If that happened, it would have been Oswald's missed shot.
>


Oh? I thought that was the solid strike over the windshield into the
chrome bar. Now that one is outstanding\ as a strike without an
explanation, except multiple shooters.



> > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
>
> Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> multiple strikes.
>


You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
"fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome. And
you're going to look pretty silly when we examine the supposed source of
the shots as the 6th floor window and say that the bullet traveling
downward hit somewhere (we don't know where) in the head and ricocheted
through the head and popped out of some wound or another and hit upward
into the chrome bar. Yep, a lot to explain there. And a very solid
strike at that!

And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor. Think it through.
They were probably the fragments left over from a solid direct strike on
the chrome over the windshield, which would have been a missed shot from
the MC rifle.



> > Much too hard to be a
> > ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
> > fail again.
> >
>
> You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
> was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You
> just arbitrarily assumed that. Your assumptions are not evidence of extra
> shots.


WRONG! My determination wasn't arbitrary, so you're wrong yet again.
By having fired rifles into various materials, and by looking carefully at
the damage over the windshield, it's clear that the solid circular strike
there was a primary strike and not a ricochet. A ricochet would have had
much less power to do the damage we can see.

Chris



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 21, 2016, 12:23:27 PM12/21/16
to
You are severely confused. You are replying to someone else, not me.

>> And in your silly comment you seem to have forgotten many of the
>> strikes. Try explaining the bullet hole through the windshield that came
>> from OUTSIDE the limousine (6 witnesses to that),
>
> I have no explanation for something that didn't happen.
>
>> and the solid proof that
>> the back wound bullet NEVER went past the body of JFK to hit Connally,
>
> ditto
>
>> which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy! I see
>> you also forget to note the bullet strike on the right side curb of Elm
>> Street seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis.
>
> If that happened, it would have been Oswald's missed shot.
>
>> Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
>> the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
>
> Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> multiple strikes.
>
>> Much too hard to be a
>> ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
>> fail again.
>>
>
> You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
> was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You

I like your theory that it was hit by a fragment. Can you prove it?
Can you show me which fragment?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 21, 2016, 9:19:02 PM12/21/16
to
It could not have been a direct strike of a a whole WCC bullet.
Garbage.

> Chris
>
>
>


bigdog

unread,
Dec 22, 2016, 11:56:55 AM12/22/16
to
The windshield was examined and photographed and it was determined that a
missile had hit it from the inside and not penetrated through. It's easy
to understand why people knowing JFK had been shot and then saw the
blemish on the windshield would leap to the conclusion that a bullet was
fired through the windshield. I'd love to see you draw a line from Either
of JFK's wounds through that "hole" in the windshield and tell us where it
is pointing. It should be quite humorous.

> They tried to cover it up when they got the
> limo out of town on Monday, but it was seen by many, including a manager
> in Michigan at the Ford glass plant who was familiar with bullet holes in
> safety glass. His orders were to destroy the old windshield and replace
> it wit ha new one. They even tried to cover up the movement of the limo
> on that Monday. I imagine that your answer to the 6 witnesses is that
> 'They all lied'!
>

If somebody was trying to cover up a shot from the front, why would they
have sent the limo to Ford with a bullet hole in the windshield? Why not
just remove the windshield and take it into evidence and then ship the
limo to Ford. You must think "they" were really, really stupid.

>
>
> > > and the solid proof that
> > > the back wound bullet NEVER went past the body of JFK to hit Connally,
> >
> > ditto
> >
>
>
> LOL! WRONG again, with corroborating witnesses who saw the proof that
> the bullet never went past the pleura on JFK's body. And that was seen by
> the whole autopsy team.
>

Everyone who is qualified to make such judgements including the original
autopsy team concluded that the bullet went through JFK's torso. You can
spin it all you want, that is the fact.

>
>
> > > which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy!

Pure bullshit.

> > > I see
> > > you also forgot to note the bullet strike on the right side curb of Elm
> > > Street seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis.
> >
> > If that happened, it would have been Oswald's missed shot.
> >
>
>
> Oh? I thought that was the solid strike over the windshield into the
> chrome bar.

You thought that. I never did.

> Now that one is outstanding\ as a strike without an
> explanation, except multiple shooters.
>

All the known bullet strikes can be accounted for with just three shots
from Oswald's rifle including ricochets or fragments.

>
>
> > > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
> >
> > Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> > later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> > multiple strikes.
> >
>
>
> You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
> "fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome.

I don't need to know precisely where that fragment exited from JFK's head.
Whether it was from the primary exit hole or it exited through the large
defect isn't known nor is it important. The fact remains a very reasonable
explanation exists for what caused dent in the windshield chrome. Yet you
will reject the reasonable one in favor of the bizarre.

> And
> you're going to look pretty silly when we examine the supposed source of
> the shots as the 6th floor window and say that the bullet traveling
> downward hit somewhere (we don't know where) in the head and ricocheted
> through the head and popped out of some wound or another and hit upward
> into the chrome bar. Yep, a lot to explain there. And a very solid
> strike at that!
>

No one said a bullet ricocheted off JFK's head. The bullet fragmented and
the various fragments would disperse and many vectors.

> And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.

Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.

> Think it through.
> They were probably the fragments left over from a solid direct strike on
> the chrome over the windshield, which would have been a missed shot from
> the MC rifle.
>

Amazingly np fragments found anywhere inside the limo that were from a
weapon other than Oswald's.

>
>
> > > Much too hard to be a
> > > ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
> > > fail again.
> > >
> >
> > You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
> > was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You
> > just arbitrarily assumed that. Your assumptions are not evidence of extra
> > shots.
>
>
> WRONG! My determination wasn't arbitrary, so you're wrong yet again.
> By having fired rifles into various materials, and by looking carefully at
> the damage over the windshield, it's clear that the solid circular strike
> there was a primary strike and not a ricochet. A ricochet would have had
> much less power to do the damage we can see.
>

Really. Tell us how many richochets you fired into other materials that
allowed you to determine that a ricochet couldn't cause the dent in the
windshield frame.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2016, 1:59:41 PM12/23/16
to
Excuse me, but I think some kooks have already claimed that is what they
actually did, took out the windshield with a hole in it and replaced it
with a windshield with only a crack.

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 23, 2016, 5:12:34 PM12/23/16
to
The windshield was photographed AFTER it came back from Michigan.
When it went, the hole was there and seen closeup by the witnesses. Many
of them were very specific that the hole was made from the front. The
manager at the Ford Glass plant that saw the windshield had experience
with bullet holes in safety glass and stated definitely the bullet hole
was from the front, and was through-and-through. same for the SS agent
that also saw it. And the doctor in training, and others. And the only
way it could have been photographed after it came back to Washington was
if they had intentionally struck the new windshield with a hammer or
something similar and caused the phony crack that was shown around to
everyone. Why would Ford send back a limo with a bullet hole in the
windshield? Especially when they had orders to destroy it.

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



It's easy
> to understand why people knowing JFK had been shot and then saw the
> blemish on the windshield would leap to the conclusion that a bullet was
> fired through the windshield. I'd love to see you draw a line from Either
> of JFK's wounds through that "hole" in the windshield and tell us where it
> is pointing. It should be quite humorous.
>



WRONG! Try not to be too stupid by jumping in before you get the info
on what's going on. As it turns out, witnesses saw the hole in the
windshield close up and didn't make ridiculous mistakes like you would.
See above for the manager.



> > They tried to cover it up when they got the
> > limo out of town on Monday, but it was seen by many, including a manager
> > in Michigan at the Ford glass plant who was familiar with bullet holes in
> > safety glass. His orders were to destroy the old windshield and replace
> > it with a new one. They even tried to cover up the movement of the limo
> > on that Monday. I imagine that your answer to the 6 witnesses is that
> > 'They all lied'!
> >
>
> If somebody was trying to cover up a shot from the front, why would they
> have sent the limo to Ford with a bullet hole in the windshield? Why not
> just remove the windshield and take it into evidence and then ship the
> limo to Ford. You must think "they" were really, really stupid.
>


WRONG! The idea here is to cover up evidence of multiple shooters,
and keep the focus on Oswald as the 'lone nut'. Better to get rid of the
limo and order the destruction of the windshield, and put in a new one
that could be damaged in the way that a crack from inside might cause.
When they did it though, they made a mistake! They hit it from the front
instead of the inside! and Kellerman in his sworn WC testimony tells
about the kind of hole it was, which was from the front!!



> >
> >
> > > > and the solid proof that
> > > > the back wound bullet NEVER went past the body of JFK to hit Connally,
> > >
> > > ditto
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL! WRONG again, with corroborating witnesses who saw the proof that
> > the bullet never went past the pleura on JFK's body. And that was seen by
> > the whole autopsy team.
> >
>
> Everyone who is qualified to make such judgements including the original
> autopsy team concluded that the bullet went through JFK's torso. You can
> spin it all you want, that is the fact.
>



WRONG! The autopsy team, ALL saw the proof that the bullet never went
through the body of JFK. They saw the bruise on the pleura and they saw
that there was NO PATH for a bullet to pass that pleura. We've argued
this many times, so don't try acting like you don't know any of this. It
doesn't what false info was put in the Autopsy Report (AR), that was shown
to be a lie, since the body gave the truth to the autopsy team. The only
way that AR was written was by Humes and he had to have had orders as to
what it was going to say.



> >
> >
> > > > which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy!
>
> Pure bullshit.
>



I've produced the qwuotes of them ALL saying it, and you're in such a
bad state that you're going to try to baldly get away with a phony
statement like that? Tut, tut!



> > > > I see
> > > > you also forgot to note the bullet strike on the right side curb of Elm
> > > > Street seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis.
> > >
> > > If that happened, it would have been Oswald's missed shot.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oh? I thought that was the solid strike over the windshield into the
> > chrome bar.
>
> You thought that. I never did.
>
> > Now that one is outstanding\ as a strike without an
> > explanation, except multiple shooters.
> >
>
> All the known bullet strikes can be accounted for with just three shots
> from Oswald's rifle including ricochets or fragments.
>


That's one helluva lot of ricochets. Which is total crap. The bullet
strikes were too far apart and from too many directions. And you've never
been able to point to the problem with each bullet strike that I've
pointed out.



> >
> >
> > > > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > > > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
> > >
> > > Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> > > later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> > > multiple strikes.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
> > "fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome.
>
> I don't need to know precisely where that fragment exited from JFK's head.
> Whether it was from the primary exit hole or it exited through the large
> defect isn't known nor is it important.


How quickly we dismiss evidence and importance! Tell me, what is the
'primary exit hole'? And what is the large defect? I can guess, but I'd
rather know what YOU think they are.



The fact remains a very reasonable
> explanation exists for what caused dent in the windshield chrome. Yet you
> will reject the reasonable one in favor of the bizarre.
>


It's easy to reject the talk that the damage was done by a fragment
that split off while in the head of JFK (ridiculous on its face), but also
because the damage is so OBVIOUSLY from a primary strike and not a
ricochet:

http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers_html_5175489.JPG



> > And
> > you're going to look pretty silly when we examine the supposed source of
> > the shots as the 6th floor window and say that the bullet traveling
> > downward hit somewhere (we don't know where) in the head and ricocheted
> > through the head and popped out of some wound or another and hit upward
> > into the chrome bar. Yep, a lot to explain there. And a very solid
> > strike at that!
> >
>
> No one said a bullet ricocheted off JFK's head. The bullet fragmented and
> the various fragments would disperse and many vectors.
>


WHOA! Wait a minute! The bullet "fragmented and
> the various fragments would disperse and many vectors"! Was it planed to fragment in midair? Or did it hit something, and if it hit something, what did it hit? And how many "vectors" do you figure it fragmented into? And where did they all go? Was that single shot responsible for EVERY ricochet in the plaza? That would be an amazing bullet!




> > And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> > come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.
>
> Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
> various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
> The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.
>


LOL! The fury that that bullet hit the chrome bar over the windshield
was far too hard for it to be a fragment, since it was a primary strike.
The 2 pieces of the mangled bullet fell to the front seat right below the
bullet strike point.



> > Think it through.
> > They were probably the fragments left over from a solid direct strike on
> > the chrome over the windshield, which would have been a missed shot from
> > the MC rifle.
> >
>
> Amazingly no fragments found anywhere inside the limo that were from a
> weapon other than Oswald's.
>

Not all that amazing, since if any other bullets were left, the visit
with Humes and Boswell in Bethesda would remove any of those. The bullet
that went through th skull was lead and left a path of lead particles as
it went through before blasting out a hole in the BOH.



> >
> >
> > > > Much too hard to be a
> > > > ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
> > > > fail again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
> > > was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You
> > > just arbitrarily assumed that. Your assumptions are not evidence of extra
> > > shots.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! My determination wasn't arbitrary, so you're wrong yet again.
> > By having fired rifles into various materials, and by looking carefully at
> > the damage over the windshield, it's clear that the solid circular strike
> > there was a primary strike and not a ricochet. A ricochet would have had
> > much less power to do the damage we can see.
> >
>
> Really. Tell us how many ricochets you fired into other materials that
> allowed you to determine that a ricochet couldn't cause the dent in the
> windshield frame.


I've had many ricochets over my shooting time. I don't see any of them
being like the chrome bar over the windshield, which is clearly a straight
on hard strike.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Dec 24, 2016, 1:33:42 PM12/24/16
to
So you really think that after they got the limo refurbished and returned
to Washington they made a new crack in it to make it look like the damage
was done from the inside. That would mean they would have to send it back
to get fixed again. Any record of that being done?

>
>
> It's easy
> > to understand why people knowing JFK had been shot and then saw the
> > blemish on the windshield would leap to the conclusion that a bullet was
> > fired through the windshield. I'd love to see you draw a line from Either
> > of JFK's wounds through that "hole" in the windshield and tell us where it
> > is pointing. It should be quite humorous.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Try not to be too stupid by jumping in before you get the info
> on what's going on. As it turns out, witnesses saw the hole in the
> windshield close up and didn't make ridiculous mistakes like you would.
> See above for the manager.
>

I'd love to see those quotes.
No point in continuing to comment on your fantasies.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy!
> >
> > Pure bullshit.
> >
>
>
>
> I've produced the qwuotes of them ALL saying it, and you're in such a
> bad state that you're going to try to baldly get away with a phony
> statement like that? Tut, tut!
>

I quoted their AR which reflects what they believed after they had
completed the fact finding process.

>
>
> > > > > I see
> > > > > you also forgot to note the bullet strike on the right side curb of Elm
> > > > > Street seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis.
> > > >
> > > > If that happened, it would have been Oswald's missed shot.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh? I thought that was the solid strike over the windshield into the
> > > chrome bar.
> >
> > You thought that. I never did.
> >
> > > Now that one is outstanding\ as a strike without an
> > > explanation, except multiple shooters.
> > >
> >
> > All the known bullet strikes can be accounted for with just three shots
> > from Oswald's rifle including ricochets or fragments.
> >
>
>
> That's one helluva lot of ricochets. Which is total crap. The bullet
> strikes were too far apart and from too many directions. And you've never
> been able to point to the problem with each bullet strike that I've
> pointed out.
>

I can tell you where the primary strike was for two of the three shots
from Oswlad's rifle. One hit JFK high on his back to the right of his
spine and the other hit him in the BOH just to the right of the
centerline. There was a missed shot and we have no definitive evidence as
to what the primary striking point was for that shot although it seems
everyone has a guess. All other strikes were secondary including the
single bullet. All the damage inside the limo was from fragments exiting
JFK's head. The curb in front of Tague was likely also caused by one of
those fragments although it can't be ruled out it was a ricochet from the
missed shot.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > > > > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
> > > >
> > > > Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> > > > later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> > > > multiple strikes.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
> > > "fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome.
> >
> > I don't need to know precisely where that fragment exited from JFK's head.
> > Whether it was from the primary exit hole or it exited through the large
> > defect isn't known nor is it important.
>
>
> How quickly we dismiss evidence and importance! Tell me, what is the
> 'primary exit hole'? And what is the large defect? I can guess, but I'd
> rather know what YOU think they are.
>

Where the AR said it was. I thought you had read it.

>
>
> The fact remains a very reasonable
> > explanation exists for what caused dent in the windshield chrome. Yet you
> > will reject the reasonable one in favor of the bizarre.
> >
>
>
> It's easy to reject the talk that the damage was done by a fragment
> that split off while in the head of JFK (ridiculous on its face), but also
> because the damage is so OBVIOUSLY from a primary strike and not a
> ricochet:
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers_html_5175489.JPG
>

Oh, you said it was obvious. I guess no evidence is needed then.

>
>
> > > And
> > > you're going to look pretty silly when we examine the supposed source of
> > > the shots as the 6th floor window and say that the bullet traveling
> > > downward hit somewhere (we don't know where) in the head and ricocheted
> > > through the head and popped out of some wound or another and hit upward
> > > into the chrome bar. Yep, a lot to explain there. And a very solid
> > > strike at that!
> > >
> >
> > No one said a bullet ricocheted off JFK's head. The bullet fragmented and
> > the various fragments would disperse and many vectors.
> >
>
>
> WHOA! Wait a minute! The bullet "fragmented and
> > the various fragments would disperse and many vectors"! Was it planed to fragment in midair? Or did it hit something, and if it hit something, what did it hit?

JFK's melon.

> And how many "vectors" do you figure it fragmented into? And where did they all go? Was that single shot responsible for EVERY ricochet in the plaza? That would be an amazing bullet!
>

Now you are sounding like Marsh. That isn't intended to be a compliment.

>
>
>
> > > And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> > > come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.
> >
> > Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
> > various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
> > The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.
> >
>
>
> LOL! The fury that that bullet hit the chrome bar over the windshield
> was far too hard for it to be a fragment, since it was a primary strike.
> The 2 pieces of the mangled bullet fell to the front seat right below the
> bullet strike point.
>

You have offered nothing but your own guesses that the fragment exiting
JFK's skull could not have caused that dent.

>
>
> > > Think it through.
> > > They were probably the fragments left over from a solid direct strike on
> > > the chrome over the windshield, which would have been a missed shot from
> > > the MC rifle.
> > >
> >
> > Amazingly no fragments found anywhere inside the limo that were from a
> > weapon other than Oswald's.
> >
>
> Not all that amazing, since if any other bullets were left, the visit
> with Humes and Boswell in Bethesda would remove any of those. The bullet
> that went through th skull was lead and left a path of lead particles as
> it went through before blasting out a hole in the BOH.
>

So the short answer is you have no evidence to support your wild
assumptions.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Much too hard to be a
> > > > > ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
> > > > > fail again.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
> > > > was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You
> > > > just arbitrarily assumed that. Your assumptions are not evidence of extra
> > > > shots.
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! My determination wasn't arbitrary, so you're wrong yet again.
> > > By having fired rifles into various materials, and by looking carefully at
> > > the damage over the windshield, it's clear that the solid circular strike
> > > there was a primary strike and not a ricochet. A ricochet would have had
> > > much less power to do the damage we can see.
> > >
> >
> > Really. Tell us how many ricochets you fired into other materials that
> > allowed you to determine that a ricochet couldn't cause the dent in the
> > windshield frame.
>
>
> I've had many ricochets over my shooting time. I don't see any of them
> being like the chrome bar over the windshield, which is clearly a straight
> on hard strike.
>

How many of your ricochets hit a chrome bar over a windshield?

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 25, 2016, 9:09:30 PM12/25/16
to
Of course. If you check the White House garage log, you'll see where
they were visited by a company located in Washington to come and replace a
windshield...AFTER the limo had come back on the 26th. The repair men
signed in and out in the log under the auspices of Vaughn Ferguson, the
Ford Representative for the limousine. You really don't know much about
this case, eh?



> >
> >
> > It's easy
> > > to understand why people knowing JFK had been shot and then saw the
> > > blemish on the windshield would leap to the conclusion that a bullet was
> > > fired through the windshield. I'd love to see you draw a line from Either
> > > of JFK's wounds through that "hole" in the windshield and tell us where it
> > > is pointing. It should be quite humorous.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Try not to be too stupid by jumping in before you get the info
> > on what's going on. As it turns out, witnesses saw the hole in the
> > windshield close up and didn't make ridiculous mistakes like you would.
> > See above for the manager.
> >
>
> I'd love to see those quotes.
>


Sure thing. Here's one from Evalea Glanges:

"(3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern
Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told
attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: “It was a real clean hole.”
In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed episode 7 of Nigel
Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled “The Smoking
Guns,” she said: “…it was very clear, it was a
through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from
the front to the back…it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that
had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.” At the time
of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the
Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She
had been a firearms expert all her adult life."

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

Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:

"Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
“And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a
clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
back.”

From: Same as above.

Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:

“In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments
were removed.”
WRONG! No fantasies, since it's all in black and white as comments
heard by witnesses. And the logic of the orders for Humes are clear
without any doubt. The fantasies are in the tired old WCR.



> > > > > > which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy!
> > >
> > > Pure bullshit.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've produced the quotes of them ALL saying it, and you're in such a
> > bad state that you're going to try to baldly get away with a phony
> > statement like that? Tut, tut!
> >
>
> I quoted their AR which reflects what they believed after they had
> completed the fact finding process.
>


Bullshit! They completed the fact finding for each item on their list
as they went through the list. And they gave their conclusions at those
times. The final proof was really just verification of their original
conclusion.


The next day when Humes had gone home and written up his version of the
AR, he followed the orders he had from higher up and put in the phony
reasoning he had been told to use. That is logical since he saw the proof
of what REALLY happened to the bullet, and yet went and lied in the final
AR, so he had to have been ordered to say what he did. He would NEVER
falsify an AR without clear orders to do so.
WRONG! Talk about a totally funny attempt at trying to explain away
the bullet strikes all over Dealey Plaza! Since bullet strikes happened
all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
strike Seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
pointed back to the GK.

The wound in JFK's head were pointing to the right for the over the ear
wound, and at the BOH it was pointing mostly rearward. The small bullet
hole in the forehead was pointing forward and a bit to the right. So
absolutely NONE of your guesses will work for ANY of the bullets.



> > > > > > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > > > > > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> > > > > later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> > > > > multiple strikes.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
> > > > "fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome.
> > >
> > > I don't need to know precisely where that fragment exited from JFK's head.
> > > Whether it was from the primary exit hole or it exited through the large
> > > defect isn't known nor is it important.
> >
> >
> > How quickly we dismiss evidence and importance! Tell me, what is the
> > 'primary exit hole'? And what is the large defect? I can guess, but I'd
> > rather know what YOU think they are.
> >
>
> Where the AR said it was. I thought you had read it.
>


I read it, and I've made it clear that it was phony and I've supported
that belief with facts from the autopsy. However, I'd like to know where
YOU think that primary exit was, and where the large defect was, at least
as far as YOU believe. I don't see that wording in the AR. And I think
if you have the guts to come up with the description, it'll be in the
wrong place to allow for ricochet to any of the places where bullets
struck. Another fantasy of yours disposed of.



> >
> >
> > The fact remains a very reasonable
> > > explanation exists for what caused dent in the windshield chrome. Yet you
> > > will reject the reasonable one in favor of the bizarre.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It's easy to reject the talk that the damage was done by a fragment
> > that split off while in the head of JFK (ridiculous on its face), but also
> > because the damage is so OBVIOUSLY from a primary strike and not a
> > ricochet:
> >
> > http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers_html_5175489.JPG
> >
>
> Oh, you said it was obvious. I guess no evidence is needed then.
>


But a great deal of intelligence is though.



> >
> >
> > > > And
> > > > you're going to look pretty silly when we examine the supposed source of
> > > > the shots as the 6th floor window and say that the bullet traveling
> > > > downward hit somewhere (we don't know where) in the head and ricocheted
> > > > through the head and popped out of some wound or another and hit upward
> > > > into the chrome bar. Yep, a lot to explain there. And a very solid
> > > > strike at that!
> > > >
> > >
> > > No one said a bullet ricocheted off JFK's head. The bullet fragmented and
> > > the various fragments would disperse and many vectors.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WHOA! Wait a minute! The bullet "fragmented and
> > > the various fragments would disperse and many vectors"! Was it planned to fragment in midair? Or did it hit something, and if it hit something, what did it hit?
>
> JFK's melon.
>
> > And how many "vectors" do you figure it fragmented into? And where did they all go? Was that single shot responsible for EVERY ricochet in the plaza? That would be an amazing bullet!
> >
>
> Now you are sounding like Marsh. That isn't intended to be a compliment.
>


So you had no answer to the question. I see. You needed to try and
change the subject. I'm still waiting.



> >
> >
> >
> > > > And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> > > > come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.
> > >
> > > Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
> > > various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
> > > The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL! The fury that that bullet hit the chrome bar over the windshield
> > was far too hard for it to be a fragment, since it was a primary strike.
> > The 2 pieces of the mangled bullet fell to the front seat right below the
> > bullet strike point.
> >
>
> You have offered nothing but your own guesses that the fragment exiting
> JFK's skull could not have caused that dent.
>


WRONG! I have offered an educated guess based on the situation, which
you haven't done. As well as supplying the reasoning behind the educated
guess, based on the direction the wounds were pointing, and the direction
that bullets exiting could have gone.



> >
> >
> > > > Think it through.
> > > > They were probably the fragments left over from a solid direct strike on
> > > > the chrome over the windshield, which would have been a missed shot from
> > > > the MC rifle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Amazingly no fragments found anywhere inside the limo that were from a
> > > weapon other than Oswald's.
> > >
> >
> > Not all that amazing, since if any other bullets were left, the visit
> > with Humes and Boswell in Bethesda would remove any of those. The bullet
> > that went through the skull was lead and left a path of lead particles as
> > it went through before blasting out a hole in the BOH.
> >
>
> So the short answer is you have no evidence to support your wild
> assumptions.
>



WRONG! I supported them better than the WCR ever supported its theories.



> > > > > > Much too hard to be a
> > > > > > ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
> > > > > > fail again.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
> > > > > was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You
> > > > > just arbitrarily assumed that. Your assumptions are not evidence of extra
> > > > > shots.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! My determination wasn't arbitrary, so you're wrong yet again.
> > > > By having fired rifles into various materials, and by looking carefully at
> > > > the damage over the windshield, it's clear that the solid circular strike
> > > > there was a primary strike and not a ricochet. A ricochet would have had
> > > > much less power to do the damage we can see.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really. Tell us how many ricochets you fired into other materials that
> > > allowed you to determine that a ricochet couldn't cause the dent in the
> > > windshield frame.
> >
> >
> > I've had many ricochets over my shooting time. I don't see any of them
> > being like the chrome bar over the windshield, which is clearly a straight
> > on hard strike.
> >
>
> How many of your ricochets hit a chrome bar over a windshield?


You know the answer to that one, but there I learning form experience
that can be applied to other similar circumstances.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Dec 26, 2016, 1:58:08 PM12/26/16
to
Cites would be nice. Not that I would ever accuse you of exaggerating a
story to make a point.
You do love these witnesses who crawl out of the woodwork decades after
the assassination with stories tailored to whet the appetites of
conspiracy hobbyists.

> Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:
>
> "Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
> “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
> outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
> through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
> windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
> chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a
> clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
> back.”
>

1993? What year did the assassination occur?

> From: Same as above.
>
> Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
>
> “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments
> were removed.”
>

Bullet fragments were removed? That would be perfectly consistent with a
fragment from a bullet striking the windshield from the INSIDE.

What you apparently can't figure out is that for somebody to try to shoot
JFK through the windshield of the limo that shooter would have to be
directly in front of the limo. That would put him right in view of the two
SS agents in the front seat, the motorcycle escort, the agents in the
Queen Mary, etc. I guess you have no idea how stupid that would be.
Still no need to comment.

>
>
> > > > > > > which was known and stated by ALL the prosectors at the autopsy!
> > > >
> > > > Pure bullshit.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've produced the quotes of them ALL saying it, and you're in such a
> > > bad state that you're going to try to baldly get away with a phony
> > > statement like that? Tut, tut!
> > >
> >
> > I quoted their AR which reflects what they believed after they had
> > completed the fact finding process.
> >
>
>
> Bullshit! They completed the fact finding for each item on their list
> as they went through the list. And they gave their conclusions at those
> times. The final proof was really just verification of their original
> conclusion.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

>
> The next day when Humes had gone home and written up his version of the
> AR, he followed the orders he had from higher up and put in the phony
> reasoning he had been told to use. That is logical since he saw the proof
> of what REALLY happened to the bullet, and yet went and lied in the final
> AR, so he had to have been ordered to say what he did. He would NEVER
> falsify an AR without clear orders to do so.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
The weren't all over Dealey Plaza. We have multiple strikes inside the
limo. We have the strike near Tague. The missed shot hit somewhere In
Dealey Plaza but we don't know exactly where. That's the some total of
strikes for which there is solid evidence.

> Since bullet strikes happened
> all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
> angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
> Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
> the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
> one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
> these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
> attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
> strike Seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
> midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
> pointed back to the GK.
>

Poor assumptions lead to poor conclusion.

> The wound in JFK's head were pointing to the right for the over the ear
> wound, and at the BOH it was pointing mostly rearward. The small bullet
> hole in the forehead was pointing forward and a bit to the right. So
> absolutely NONE of your guesses will work for ANY of the bullets.
>

As I was saying...

>
>
> > > > > > > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > > > > > > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> > > > > > later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> > > > > > multiple strikes.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
> > > > > "fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need to know precisely where that fragment exited from JFK's head.
> > > > Whether it was from the primary exit hole or it exited through the large
> > > > defect isn't known nor is it important.
> > >
> > >
> > > How quickly we dismiss evidence and importance! Tell me, what is the
> > > 'primary exit hole'? And what is the large defect? I can guess, but I'd
> > > rather know what YOU think they are.
> > >
> >
> > Where the AR said it was. I thought you had read it.
> >
>
>
> I read it, and I've made it clear that it was phony and I've supported
> that belief with facts from the autopsy.

You've made it clear you BELIEVE it was phony which is irrelevant to what
actual is the case.

> However, I'd like to know where
> YOU think that primary exit was, and where the large defect was, at least
> as far as YOU believe. I don't see that wording in the AR. And I think
> if you have the guts to come up with the description, it'll be in the
> wrong place to allow for ricochet to any of the places where bullets
> struck. Another fantasy of yours disposed of.
>

From the AR:

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the
cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of
the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp."

Is that specific enough for you?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact remains a very reasonable
> > > > explanation exists for what caused dent in the windshield chrome. Yet you
> > > > will reject the reasonable one in favor of the bizarre.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's easy to reject the talk that the damage was done by a fragment
> > > that split off while in the head of JFK (ridiculous on its face), but also
> > > because the damage is so OBVIOUSLY from a primary strike and not a
> > > ricochet:
> > >
> > > http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers_html_5175489.JPG
> > >
> >
> > Oh, you said it was obvious. I guess no evidence is needed then.
> >
>
>
> But a great deal of intelligence is though.
>

You misspelled "imagination".

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > you're going to look pretty silly when we examine the supposed source of
> > > > > the shots as the 6th floor window and say that the bullet traveling
> > > > > downward hit somewhere (we don't know where) in the head and ricocheted
> > > > > through the head and popped out of some wound or another and hit upward
> > > > > into the chrome bar. Yep, a lot to explain there. And a very solid
> > > > > strike at that!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No one said a bullet ricocheted off JFK's head. The bullet fragmented and
> > > > the various fragments would disperse and many vectors.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WHOA! Wait a minute! The bullet "fragmented and
> > > > the various fragments would disperse and many vectors"! Was it planned to fragment in midair? Or did it hit something, and if it hit something, what did it hit?
> >
> > JFK's melon.
> >
> > > And how many "vectors" do you figure it fragmented into? And where did they all go? Was that single shot responsible for EVERY ricochet in the plaza? That would be an amazing bullet!
> > >
> >
> > Now you are sounding like Marsh. That isn't intended to be a compliment.
> >
>
>
> So you had no answer to the question. I see. You needed to try and
> change the subject. I'm still waiting.
>

You asked several questions which are preposterous. As if it would be
possible to ascertain the paths of each of the multiple fragments which
exited from JFK's head. That's as silly as Marsh demanding to see the
bullet from the missed shot.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> > > > > come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
> > > > various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
> > > > The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! The fury that that bullet hit the chrome bar over the windshield
> > > was far too hard for it to be a fragment, since it was a primary strike.
> > > The 2 pieces of the mangled bullet fell to the front seat right below the
> > > bullet strike point.
> > >
> >
> > You have offered nothing but your own guesses that the fragment exiting
> > JFK's skull could not have caused that dent.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I have offered an educated guess based on the situation, which
> you haven't done.

So I after I said you had offered noting but guesses you tell me I am
wrong and then admit that you made a guess. Brilliant!!!

> As well as supplying the reasoning behind the educated
> guess, based on the direction the wounds were pointing, and the direction
> that bullets exiting could have gone.
>

We were discussing specifically how you determined a fragment couldn't
have caused the dent in the chrome bar. Still nothing but your guesses on
that.


>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Think it through.
> > > > > They were probably the fragments left over from a solid direct strike on
> > > > > the chrome over the windshield, which would have been a missed shot from
> > > > > the MC rifle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Amazingly no fragments found anywhere inside the limo that were from a
> > > > weapon other than Oswald's.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not all that amazing, since if any other bullets were left, the visit
> > > with Humes and Boswell in Bethesda would remove any of those. The bullet
> > > that went through the skull was lead and left a path of lead particles as
> > > it went through before blasting out a hole in the BOH.
> > >
> >
> > So the short answer is you have no evidence to support your wild
> > assumptions.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I supported them better than the WCR ever supported its theories.
>

<chuckle>

>
>
> > > > > > > Much too hard to be a
> > > > > > > ricochet, and you just can't rack up all these hits to ricochets. So you
> > > > > > > fail again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've never offered anything which establishes the dent in the chrome bar
> > > > > > was a direct strike and not cause by a fragment from the head shot. You
> > > > > > just arbitrarily assumed that. Your assumptions are not evidence of extra
> > > > > > shots.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! My determination wasn't arbitrary, so you're wrong yet again.
> > > > > By having fired rifles into various materials, and by looking carefully at
> > > > > the damage over the windshield, it's clear that the solid circular strike
> > > > > there was a primary strike and not a ricochet. A ricochet would have had
> > > > > much less power to do the damage we can see.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really. Tell us how many ricochets you fired into other materials that
> > > > allowed you to determine that a ricochet couldn't cause the dent in the
> > > > windshield frame.
> > >
> > >
> > > I've had many ricochets over my shooting time. I don't see any of them
> > > being like the chrome bar over the windshield, which is clearly a straight
> > > on hard strike.
> > >
> >
> > How many of your ricochets hit a chrome bar over a windshield?
>
>
> You know the answer to that one, but there I learning form experience
> that can be applied to other similar circumstances.
>

Oh, I just bet you have. Please describe those similar circumstances.
Otherwise lurkers are liable to figure you just pulled that out of your
ass.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 26, 2016, 8:55:53 PM12/26/16
to
False. Ferguson worked on the limo on the days you claim it was out at
Detroit. You need to add Ferguson to your list of conspirators. And
everyone in the White House Garage. And everyone in the Secret Service.
Make sure you don't leave anyone out.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's easy
>>>> to understand why people knowing JFK had been shot and then saw the
>>>> blemish on the windshield would leap to the conclusion that a bullet was
>>>> fired through the windshield. I'd love to see you draw a line from Either
>>>> of JFK's wounds through that "hole" in the windshield and tell us where it
>>>> is pointing. It should be quite humorous.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG! Try not to be too stupid by jumping in before you get the info
>>> on what's going on. As it turns out, witnesses saw the hole in the
>>> windshield close up and didn't make ridiculous mistakes like you would.
>>> See above for the manager.
>>>
>>
>> I'd love to see those quotes.
>>
>
>
> Sure thing. Here's one from Evalea Glanges:
>
> "(3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern
> Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told
> attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: ???It was a real clean hole.???
> In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed episode 7 of Nigel
> Turner???s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled ???The Smoking
> Guns,??? she said: ??????it was very clear, it was a
> through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from
> the front to the back???it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that
> had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.??? At the time
> of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the
> Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She
> had been a firearms expert all her adult life."
>
> From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:
>
> "Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
> ???And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
> outside through???it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
> through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
> windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
> chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it???this had a
> clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
> back.???
>

Hoax.

> From: Same as above.
>
> Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
>
> ???In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments
> were removed.???

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 27, 2016, 9:50:03 PM12/27/16
to
WRONG! So you're unable to put "white house garage log" into Google?
Here's the log:

http://ss100x.com/whdoc1.gif

Note down a ways where the name "Ferguson" appears and there are 4 names
there. 3 of them have ditto marks on the name Ferguson. Those are the
workers that came and replaced the windshield while the limo was back in
the garage.

Here is a memo from Ferguson, who is responsible for the Limousine.
He was a Ford representative. The date he put in the memo is false, since
the garage log shows that the repair was made on the 26th, not the 25th.
The limousine went to Michigan on the 35th. The Garage log shows no
activity on that date.

http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif

There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
Michigan.
WRONG! Stuff it. The witness stated what she saw after the limo was
at Parkland. You love to try and discredit witnesses that make your
stupid WCR look like a dried up old piece of fish bait.



> > Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:
> >
> > "Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
> > “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
> > outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
> > through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
> > windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
> > chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a
> > clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
> > back.”
> >
>
> 1993? What year did the assassination occur?
>


WRONG! You know better. George Whitaker had told of his experience to
Weldon much earlier, but Weldon wrote it up and got info from Whitaker so
that he could put the story into a book of short articles "Murder in
Dealey Plaza". The specific article dealing with the limousine was called
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" by Douglas Weldon, J.D.



> > From: Same as above.
> >
> > Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
> >
> > “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> > center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments
> > were removed.”
> >
>
> Bullet fragments were removed? That would be perfectly consistent with a
> fragment from a bullet striking the windshield from the INSIDE.
>


WRONG! Not necessarily. Don't pretend to be a scientist now. You
have so many other roles you've pretended to play. The indications in the
safety glass were that the shot came from in front of the limo, so no
matter where the fragments were scraped off from, the hole was from
outside.



> What you apparently can't figure out is that for somebody to try to shoot
> JFK through the windshield of the limo that shooter would have to be
> directly in front of the limo. That would put him right in view of the two
> SS agents in the front seat, the motorcycle escort, the agents in the
> Queen Mary, etc. I guess you have no idea how stupid that would be.
>



WRONG! Please try not to be too foolish. We've discussed this to
death and if a shooter was in front of the limousine he could be in a few
different places. One of those places was on the LEFT side of Elm Street
in a drain similar to the one on the right. But the one on the left was
closed up and removed a couple weeks after the murder. As well, a person
could be located in the underpass at the other end staying close to the
wall. Both of those positions could allow for a shot through the limo
windshield that would hit JFK in the forehead/temple area, which was the
kill shot.
WRONG! Can't take the truth I see. Have to hide in sleep. It won't
help you. You've lost already. The phony sleep business is to allow you
to change the subject because you have no legitimate answer or reply.


> >
> > The next day when Humes had gone home and written up his version of the
> > AR, he followed the orders he had from higher up and put in the phony
> > reasoning he had been told to use. That is logical since he saw the proof
> > of what REALLY happened to the bullet, and yet went and lied in the final
> > AR, so he had to have been ordered to say what he did. He would NEVER
> > falsify an AR without clear orders to do so.
> >
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>


Ditto, see above. No response to my comment, and so must cover up.
WRONG! Tague was 2 streets over from Elm. One of the curb strikes was
on the right side of Elm street, seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Another 2
strikes seen by the Hartmans were in the 'infield'.



> > Since bullet strikes happened
> > all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
> > angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
> > Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
> > the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
> > one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
> > these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
> > attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
> > strike seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
> > midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
> > pointed back to the GK.
> >
>
> Poor assumptions lead to poor conclusion.
>


Which 'assumptions' are you speaking of? Or was that another one of
your gimmicks to avoid having to figure out what to say at that point?




> > The wound in JFK's head were pointing to the right for the over the ear
> > wound, and at the BOH it was pointing mostly rearward. The small bullet
> > hole in the forehead was pointing forward and a bit to the right. So
> > absolutely NONE of your guesses will work for ANY of the bullets.
> >
>
> As I was saying...
>



I see you had nothing to say.



> >
> >
> > > > > > > > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > > > > > > > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> > > > > > > later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> > > > > > > multiple strikes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
> > > > > > "fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't need to know precisely where that fragment exited from JFK's head.
> > > > > Whether it was from the primary exit hole or it exited through the large
> > > > > defect isn't known nor is it important.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How quickly we dismiss evidence and importance! Tell me, what is the
> > > > 'primary exit hole'? And what is the large defect? I can guess, but I'd
> > > > rather know what YOU think they are.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Where the AR said it was. I thought you had read it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I read it, and I've made it clear that it was phony and I've supported
> > that belief with facts from the autopsy.
>
> You've made it clear you BELIEVE it was phony which is irrelevant to what
> actual is the case.
>



If you need a specific statement, I KNOW that the AR was phony from the
evidence gained at the autopsy and from the autopsy team members. It made
no sense when matched to the facts, which were unknown to the WC at the
time.



> > However, I'd like to know where
> > YOU think that primary exit was, and where the large defect was, at least
> > as far as YOU believe. I don't see that wording in the AR. And I think
> > if you have the guts to come up with the description, it'll be in the
> > wrong place to allow for ricochet to any of the places where bullets
> > struck. Another fantasy of yours disposed of.
> >
>
> From the AR:
>
> "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
> external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the
> cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
> roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of
> the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
> carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp."
>
> Is that specific enough for you?
>


Yes, and it leaves out a couple wounds, doesn't it? It seems to have
left out the 'large hole' in the BOH to the right rear that was seen by
39+ witnesses.
WRONG! Still no answer! If the bullet hit JFK's head, was that one
spot where the bullet fragmented into so many bits that it went all over
the plaza?



> > > > > > And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> > > > > > come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
> > > > > various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
> > > > > The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL! The fury that that bullet hit the chrome bar over the windshield
> > > > was far too hard for it to be a fragment, since it was a primary strike.
> > > > The 2 pieces of the mangled bullet fell to the front seat right below the
> > > > bullet strike point.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have offered nothing but your own guesses that the fragment exiting
> > > JFK's skull could not have caused that dent.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I have offered an educated guess based on the situation, which
> > you haven't done.
>
> So I after I said you had offered noting but guesses you tell me I am
> wrong and then admit that you made a guess. Brilliant!!!
>
> > As well as supplying the reasoning behind the educated
> > guess, based on the direction the wounds were pointing, and the direction
> > that bullets exiting could have gone.
> >
>
> We were discussing specifically how you determined a fragment couldn't
> have caused the dent in the chrome bar. Still nothing but your guesses on
> that.
>


I've been very specific on that score. You have nothing to say in
opposition, since I've used the OBVIOUS directions available for
fragments.
> > You know the answer to that one, but there I'm learning from experience
> > that can be applied to other similar circumstances.
> >
>
> Oh, I just bet you have. Please describe those similar circumstances.
> Otherwise lurkers are liable to figure you just pulled that out of your
> ass.



Simple logic, and directions of fragments.


Chris

bigdog

unread,
Dec 28, 2016, 8:57:24 PM12/28/16
to
Very good. This is how you are supposed to back up your claims. You should
have done this from the start. Just one more piece of advice. When you
cite a document, you should cite one that supports your claim rather than
refuting it. Did you read Ferguson's letter or just assume it supported
what you are claiming. I can't cut and paste from this document but in the
last sentence of the first paragraph Ferguson wrote there was "NO
PERFORATION" (emphasis mine). That means there was no bullet hole going
through the windshield. There were cracks below the mirror radiating
outward. He stated his initial examination occurred on November 23. This
would be before the limo had been sent to Ford.

Further on in the letter he explains that the cracked windshield was
replaced by the Arlington Glass Company and the damaged windshield was
locked away. This was BEFORE the limo was sent to Ford to be refurbished
so that refutes anyone at the Ford plant who claims they saw a bullet hole
in the windshield.

> There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> Michigan.
>

Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
would conflict with a long held factoid.
Your cited is dated 2012. That's 49 years after the assassination by my
calculation.

>
>
> > > Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:
> > >
> > > "Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
> > > “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
> > > outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
> > > through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
> > > windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
> > > chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a
> > > clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
> > > back.”
> > >
> >
> > 1993? What year did the assassination occur?
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You know better. George Whitaker had told of his experience to
> Weldon much earlier, but Weldon wrote it up and got info from Whitaker so
> that he could put the story into a book of short articles "Murder in
> Dealey Plaza". The specific article dealing with the limousine was called
> "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" by Douglas Weldon, J.D.
>

OK, tell us what date he did tell his story to Weldon.

>
>
> > > From: Same as above.
> > >
> > > Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
> > >
> > > “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> > > center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments
> > > were removed.”
> > >
> >
> > Bullet fragments were removed? That would be perfectly consistent with a
> > fragment from a bullet striking the windshield from the INSIDE.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Not necessarily. Don't pretend to be a scientist now. You
> have so many other roles you've pretended to play. The indications in the
> safety glass were that the shot came from in front of the limo, so no
> matter where the fragments were scraped off from, the hole was from
> outside.
>

I can understand now why you are so reluctant to provide cites because
when you do they often refute what you are claiming rather than supporting
it as you have demonstrated twice in this post. Just what "indications" do
you have that the windshield was shot from the front. Ferguson's letter
which YOU cited said there was no perforation of the windshield. That
means a missile never passed through the windshield.

>
>
> > What you apparently can't figure out is that for somebody to try to shoot
> > JFK through the windshield of the limo that shooter would have to be
> > directly in front of the limo. That would put him right in view of the two
> > SS agents in the front seat, the motorcycle escort, the agents in the
> > Queen Mary, etc. I guess you have no idea how stupid that would be.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Please try not to be too foolish. We've discussed this to
> death and if a shooter was in front of the limousine he could be in a few
> different places. One of those places was on the LEFT side of Elm Street
> in a drain similar to the one on the right. But the one on the left was
> closed up and removed a couple weeks after the murder. As well, a person
> could be located in the underpass at the other end staying close to the
> wall. Both of those positions could allow for a shot through the limo
> windshield that would hit JFK in the forehead/temple area, which was the
> kill shot.
>

The Mother of All Magic Bullets. <chuckle>

I'd pay money to see Kevin Costner demonstrating that one.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

>
> > >
> > > The next day when Humes had gone home and written up his version of the
> > > AR, he followed the orders he had from higher up and put in the phony
> > > reasoning he had been told to use. That is logical since he saw the proof
> > > of what REALLY happened to the bullet, and yet went and lied in the final
> > > AR, so he had to have been ordered to say what he did. He would NEVER
> > > falsify an AR without clear orders to do so.
> > >
> >
> > ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> >
>
>
> Ditto, see above. No response to my comment, and so must cover up.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
That street is on the boundary of Dealey Plaza just as Elm St. is.

> One of the curb strikes was
> on the right side of Elm street, seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Another 2
> strikes seen by the Hartmans were in the 'infield'.
>

If Ellis saw a bullet strike there's no reason it could not have been
Oswald's missed shot. That doesn't require an additional shot to the three
Oswald fired.

>
>
> > > Since bullet strikes happened
> > > all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
> > > angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
> > > Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
> > > the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
> > > one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
> > > these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
> > > attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
> > > strike seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
> > > midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
> > > pointed back to the GK.
> > >
> >
> > Poor assumptions lead to poor conclusion.
> >
>
>
> Which 'assumptions' are you speaking of? Or was that another one of
> your gimmicks to avoid having to figure out what to say at that point?
>

Let's start with this one:

"Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head".

>
>
>
> > > The wound in JFK's head were pointing to the right for the over the ear
> > > wound, and at the BOH it was pointing mostly rearward. The small bullet
> > > hole in the forehead was pointing forward and a bit to the right. So
> > > absolutely NONE of your guesses will work for ANY of the bullets.
> > >
> >
> > As I was saying...
> >
>
>
>
> I see you had nothing to say.
>

Nothing needs to be said. Your claims fly in the face of the evidence.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Oh, and the OBVIOUS solid strike on
> > > > > > > > > the chrome bar above the windshield on the limo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Likely a fragment exiting from the head. Probably one of the large ones
> > > > > > > > later found on the floor. A fine example of a single bullet making
> > > > > > > > multiple strikes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have yet to guess at which hole in the head was made to let that
> > > > > > > "fragment" out that was in line with the limo windshield chrome.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't need to know precisely where that fragment exited from JFK's head.
> > > > > > Whether it was from the primary exit hole or it exited through the large
> > > > > > defect isn't known nor is it important.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How quickly we dismiss evidence and importance! Tell me, what is the
> > > > > 'primary exit hole'? And what is the large defect? I can guess, but I'd
> > > > > rather know what YOU think they are.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Where the AR said it was. I thought you had read it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I read it, and I've made it clear that it was phony and I've supported
> > > that belief with facts from the autopsy.
> >
> > You've made it clear you BELIEVE it was phony which is irrelevant to what
> > actual is the case.
> >
>
>
>
> If you need a specific statement, I KNOW that the AR was phony from the
> evidence gained at the autopsy and from the autopsy team members. It made
> no sense when matched to the facts, which were unknown to the WC at the
> time.
>

Funny how you can't find one competent medical examiner who agrees with
your assessment. But we should disregard ALL of them and trust your
findings instead.

<chuckle>

>
>
> > > However, I'd like to know where
> > > YOU think that primary exit was, and where the large defect was, at least
> > > as far as YOU believe. I don't see that wording in the AR. And I think
> > > if you have the guts to come up with the description, it'll be in the
> > > wrong place to allow for ricochet to any of the places where bullets
> > > struck. Another fantasy of yours disposed of.
> > >
> >
> > From the AR:
> >
> > "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
> > external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the
> > cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
> > roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of
> > the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
> > carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp."
> >
> > Is that specific enough for you?
> >
>
>
> Yes, and it leaves out a couple wounds, doesn't it? It seems to have
> left out the 'large hole' in the BOH to the right rear that was seen by
> 39+ witnesses.
>

You only asked for a cite regarding the exit wound. Elsewhere in the AR it
describes the full extent of the defect. It was much larger and extended
much more forward than the personnel at Parkland ever realized. Had they
examined the head wound they would have come to that same realization but
there was no point in doing so because it was obvious to them when he
arrived that JFK was in the express check out lane.
Yes the head strike is what caused the bullet to fragment. Since there
were particles dispersed inside the cranium it seems likely it broke apart
upon entering the BOH. The AR identified the primary exit wound and the
likelihood is the other fragments exited through the blowout along the
upper right side of the head. Those fragments would disperse in a random
fashion, some striking inside the limo and others going outside of it,
either over the windshield or the right side of the limo.

>
>
> > > > > > > And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> > > > > > > come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
> > > > > > various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
> > > > > > The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL! The fury that that bullet hit the chrome bar over the windshield
> > > > > was far too hard for it to be a fragment, since it was a primary strike.
> > > > > The 2 pieces of the mangled bullet fell to the front seat right below the
> > > > > bullet strike point.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have offered nothing but your own guesses that the fragment exiting
> > > > JFK's skull could not have caused that dent.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I have offered an educated guess based on the situation, which
> > > you haven't done.
> >
> > So I after I said you had offered noting but guesses you tell me I am
> > wrong and then admit that you made a guess. Brilliant!!!
> >
> > > As well as supplying the reasoning behind the educated
> > > guess, based on the direction the wounds were pointing, and the direction
> > > that bullets exiting could have gone.
> > >
> >
> > We were discussing specifically how you determined a fragment couldn't
> > have caused the dent in the chrome bar. Still nothing but your guesses on
> > that.
> >
>
>
> I've been very specific on that score.

You've guessed. You have offered nothing to support your guess.

> You have nothing to say in
> opposition, since I've used the OBVIOUS directions available for
> fragments.
>

Am I supposed to swing at a phantom pitch.
I'm sure the lurkers will be very impressed by that argument. <chuckle>

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 30, 2016, 11:03:32 AM12/30/16
to
> > The limousine went to Michigan on the 25th. The Garage log shows no
> > activity on that date.
> >
> > http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif
> >
>
> Very good. This is how you are supposed to back up your claims. You should
> have done this from the start. Just one more piece of advice. When you
> cite a document, you should cite one that supports your claim rather than
> refuting it. Did you read Ferguson's letter or just assume it supported
> what you are claiming. I can't cut and paste from this document but in the
> last sentence of the first paragraph Ferguson wrote there was "NO
> PERFORATION" (emphasis mine). That means there was no bullet hole going
> through the windshield. There were cracks below the mirror radiating
> outward. He stated his initial examination occurred on November 23. This
> would be before the limo had been sent to Ford.
>



I not only read the Ferguson memo, but I read the Rowley memo too, that has the same exact error in it. Since the limo was in Michigan on the 25th, that is wrong in both memos, but it covered up the movement of the limo to Michigan. You need to think it through before blatting out your accusations and weird ideas. Ferguson depended on the W.H. SS staff being happy with Ford and his work. You can be sure that if someone asked him to help with making a memo have the wrong date, he would be happy to comply. Note the date on the Ferguson memo. Dec. 18th, so anything could have happened or been discussed before that date.

The memos were sent to the WC lawyers reporting on events with the limo.

Since the memos were using the same wrong date, which was the date the limo was in Michigan, which was kept quiet, I suspect that they wanted to make it appear the limo had been in the garage on that date. But the garage log shows only that on the 25th, there were 2 entries, both for a person checking the garage.


> Further on in the letter he explains that the cracked windshield was
> replaced by the Arlington Glass Company and the damaged windshield was
> locked away. This was BEFORE the limo was sent to Ford to be refurbished
> so that refutes anyone at the Ford plant who claims they saw a bullet hole
> in the windshield.
>



WRONG! And WRONG again! You'll never learn. Trying to get through all this info quickly so you don't pay attention to what's going on around you. First, the letter you're trying to use was written Dec. 18th, nowhere near the dates we're concerned with. They could contain anything referring back to the past. I mentioned that above, but you seem to have missed it. If you ENLARGED the garage log I showed you, you'd see that Arlington Glass came on the 26th, NOT the 25th as Ferguson would have you believe! But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.




> > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > Michigan.
> >
>
> Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> would conflict with a long held factoid.
>


WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
WRONG! You're being ridiculous again, try to get control of it. The date was the date of the article talking about all these things. You misquoted the portion I copied for you, which mentioned a date of 1999.



> >
> >
> > > > Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:
> > > >
> > > > "Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
> > > > “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
> > > > outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
> > > > through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
> > > > windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
> > > > chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a
> > > > clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
> > > > back.”
> > > >
> > >
> > > 1993? What year did the assassination occur?
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You know better. George Whitaker had told of his experience to
> > Weldon much earlier, but Weldon wrote it up and got info from Whitaker so
> > that he could put the story into a book of short articles "Murder in
> > Dealey Plaza". The specific article dealing with the limousine was called
> > "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" by Douglas Weldon, J.D.
> >
>
> OK, tell us what date he did tell his story to Weldon.
>


Offhand, I'd have to say not too long after it happened. Weldon was a lawyer in the area. And don't play the your old game of saying every single person that stated something after 1964 was memory impaired. It won't wash.



> >
> >
> > > > From: Same as above.
> > > >
> > > > Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
> > > >
> > > > “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> > > > center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bullet fragments were removed? That would be perfectly consistent with a
> > > fragment from a bullet striking the windshield from the INSIDE.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Not necessarily. Don't pretend to be a scientist now. You
> > have so many other roles you've pretended to play. The indications in the
> > safety glass were that the shot came from in front of the limo, so no
> > matter where the fragments were scraped off from, the hole was from
> > outside.
> >
>
> I can understand now why you are so reluctant to provide cites because
> when you do they often refute what you are claiming rather than supporting
> it as you have demonstrated twice in this post. Just what "indications" do
> you have that the windshield was shot from the front. Ferguson's letter
> which YOU cited said there was no perforation of the windshield. That
> means a missile never passed through the windshield.
>


You can take that and stuff it! You know very well that I produce cited and links for everything I'm asked to produce. And when I first bring out data, I automatically supply the cite and link for it. You KNOW THAT, so saying what you just did is a slimy little ploy because you lose so many arguments that you can't help giving yourself an edge if you can.
Ditto, see my comment above. You have no reply.



> >
> > > >
> > > > The next day when Humes had gone home and written up his version of the
> > > > AR, he followed the orders he had from higher up and put in the phony
> > > > reasoning he had been told to use. That is logical since he saw the proof
> > > > of what REALLY happened to the bullet, and yet went and lied in the final
> > > > AR, so he had to have been ordered to say what he did. He would NEVER
> > > > falsify an AR without clear orders to do so.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ditto, see above. No response to my comment, and so must cover up.
> >
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>


More cover up, and still no reply, just trying to escape the point.
WRONG! I don't care if it's miles away, it's still 2 streets over from Elm where the head was that you are pretending was where the bullet fragmented into so many pieces that it went to all parts of the plaza! Just ridiculous!



> > One of the curb strikes was
> > on the right side of Elm street, seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Another 2
> > strikes seen by the Hartmans were in the 'infield'.
> >
>
> If Ellis saw a bullet strike there's no reason it could not have been
> Oswald's missed shot. That doesn't require an additional shot to the three
> Oswald fired.
>


You're going to wear out that "missed shot". I think you're going to have to consider my belief that the "missed shot" was the one that hit the chrome bar over the windshield. It is a solid round strike and was hard, and below it were 2 fragments of the bullet shown to be from the MC rifle. So what hit the curb in front of 'Steve' Ellis, the cop?



> >
> >
> > > > Since bullet strikes happened
> > > > all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
> > > > angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
> > > > Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
> > > > the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
> > > > one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
> > > > these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
> > > > attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
> > > > strike seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
> > > > midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
> > > > pointed back to the GK.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Poor assumptions lead to poor conclusion.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Which 'assumptions' are you speaking of? Or was that another one of
> > your gimmicks to avoid having to figure out what to say at that point?
> >
>
> Let's start with this one:
>
> "Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head".
>


WRONG! The statement depends on the average person realizing that it would be hard for any fragments to be created at the skull of JFK, and then escaping from the skull, since there were few openings to go through, few of which were pointing in the right direction.



> >
> >
> >
> > > > The wound in JFK's head were pointing to the right for the over the ear
> > > > wound, and at the BOH it was pointing mostly rearward. The small bullet
> > > > hole in the forehead was pointing forward and a bit to the right. So
> > > > absolutely NONE of your guesses will work for ANY of the bullets.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As I was saying...
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I see you had nothing to say.
> >
>
> Nothing needs to be said. Your claims fly in the face of the evidence.
>


Then why start out with "As I was saying..." and then go blank? Senior moment?
WRONG! I didn't look for one, so that explains that. I am relying on average intelligence of those reading to understand what I'm saying.

<belly laugh>


> >
> >
> > > > However, I'd like to know where
> > > > YOU think that primary exit was, and where the large defect was, at least
> > > > as far as YOU believe. I don't see that wording in the AR. And I think
> > > > if you have the guts to come up with the description, it'll be in the
> > > > wrong place to allow for ricochet to any of the places where bullets
> > > > struck. Another fantasy of yours disposed of.
> > > >
> > >
> > > From the AR:
> > >
> > > "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
> > > external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the
> > > cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
> > > roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of
> > > the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
> > > carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp."
> > >
> > > Is that specific enough for you?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, and it leaves out a couple wounds, doesn't it? It seems to have
> > left out the 'large hole' in the BOH to the right rear that was seen by
> > 39+ witnesses.
> >
>
> You only asked for a cite regarding the exit wound. Elsewhere in the AR it
> describes the full extent of the defect. It was much larger and extended
> much more forward than the personnel at Parkland ever realized. Had they
> examined the head wound they would have come to that same realization but
> there was no point in doing so because it was obvious to them when he
> arrived that JFK was in the express check out lane.
>


WRONG! And BULLSHIT! We've been over that. The body had clandestine work done on it at 6:35pm at Bethesda, and Humes and Boswell expanded the 'large hole' at the BOH around the right side and a bit on top. Otherwise those wounds would be strictly at the BOH (right rear). As well, we've discussed the opportunity that Nurse Bowron had when she washed the body including the head and hair and dried it. There is no way she could miss any other damage to the skull other than the wound she saw in the BOH. Cites and links on request.
Naah! The tiny particles were in a path through the skull, they weren't bunched in one place. So when you say "seems likely" you're guessing. So now you're saying that when you were stating things earlier as if they were fact. So now since you're guessing the bullet fragmented when it hit the skull (probably at the rear, right?), how does a fragment get over to the left by Tague? How does one of them get to the point over the windshield, or make gouges in the earth in midfield, which is to the left of the limo and JFK? Seems like there isn't a path for many of the bullets to get to their destinations from the skull of JFK.



The AR identified the primary exit wound and the
> likelihood is the other fragments exited through the blowout along the
> upper right side of the head. Those fragments would disperse in a random
> fashion, some striking inside the limo and others going outside of it,
> either over the windshield or the right side of the limo.
>


Naah. You're not picturing that correctly. For the sake of argument, let's take the AR version of the wounds, and that has a large wound on the right side of the head, which is also the "primary exit wound", by having those fragments "disperse" randomly, doesn't explain how they got to the many places in Dealey Plaza when the front of the head was intact, and the rear was intact, as well as the left side. Fragments have to get to Tague far to the left, and over the windshield, and to the left in midfield making 2 gouges. All those wounds are to the left or forward, and there wasn't any wound in those positions in the head for fragments to exit from to get to their destinations.


> >
> >
> > > > > > > > And the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limo could not have
> > > > > > > > come from the head and THEN dropped to the floor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nobody said they went directly from the head to the floor. They struck in
> > > > > > > various places inside the limo and likely some went over the windshield.
> > > > > > > The ones that struck inside would have fallen. It's called gravity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL! The fury that that bullet hit the chrome bar over the windshield
> > > > > > was far too hard for it to be a fragment, since it was a primary strike.
> > > > > > The 2 pieces of the mangled bullet fell to the front seat right below the
> > > > > > bullet strike point.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You have offered nothing but your own guesses that the fragment exiting
> > > > > JFK's skull could not have caused that dent.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! I have offered an educated guess based on the situation, which
> > > > you haven't done.
> > >
> > > So I after I said you had offered noting but guesses you tell me I am
> > > wrong and then admit that you made a guess. Brilliant!!!
> > >
> > > > As well as supplying the reasoning behind the educated
> > > > guess, based on the direction the wounds were pointing, and the direction
> > > > that bullets exiting could have gone.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We were discussing specifically how you determined a fragment couldn't
> > > have caused the dent in the chrome bar. Still nothing but your guesses on
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've been very specific on that score.
>
> You've guessed. You have offered nothing to support your guess.
>


It was an educated guess.
Well I know you were...<belly laugh>

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Dec 31, 2016, 11:58:53 AM12/31/16
to
<chuckle>

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that the Ferguson and Rowley
letters were correct and the error was in whatever source told you the
limo was in Michigan on the 25th. Typical conspiracy hobbyist thinking.
You think it is far more likely that Ferguson and Rowley would make
exactly the same error regarding the dates rather than you source could be
wrong. This is way conspiracy hobbyists are doomed to continue to go
around in circles and never be able to figure out such a simple murder
case.

> You need to think it through before blatting out your accusations and weird ideas. Ferguson depended on the W.H. SS staff being happy with Ford and his work. You can be sure that if someone asked him to help with making a memo have the wrong date, he would be happy to comply. Note the date on the Ferguson memo. Dec. 18th, so anything could have happened or been discussed before that date.
>

This is why I continue to converse with you. The explanations you are
forced to dream up rather than deal with inconvenient evidence never cease
to amuse. Any excuse for Rowley's mistake?

> The memos were sent to the WC lawyers reporting on events with the limo.
>
> Since the memos were using the same wrong date, which was the date the limo was in Michigan, which was kept quiet, I suspect that they wanted to make it appear the limo had been in the garage on that date. But the garage log shows only that on the 25th, there were 2 entries, both for a person checking the garage.
>

Just how did you determine the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. I'm sure
it is from a highly reliable source and not some kook website. <chuckle>

>
> > Further on in the letter he explains that the cracked windshield was
> > replaced by the Arlington Glass Company and the damaged windshield was
> > locked away. This was BEFORE the limo was sent to Ford to be refurbished
> > so that refutes anyone at the Ford plant who claims they saw a bullet hole
> > in the windshield.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! And WRONG again! You'll never learn. Trying to get through all this info quickly so you don't pay attention to what's going on around you. First, the letter you're trying to use was written Dec. 18th, nowhere near the dates we're concerned with. They could contain anything referring back to the past. I mentioned that above, but you seem to have missed it. If you ENLARGED the garage log I showed you, you'd see that Arlington Glass came on the 26th, NOT the 25th as Ferguson would have you believe!

Which indicates the limo was still in Washington on that date.

> But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.
>

They must have made an error because what they wrote doesn't fit with your
beliefs. Par for the course.

>
>
>
> > > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > > Michigan.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> > suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> > would conflict with a long held factoid.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
>

Still waiting for you to tell us how you determined the date "they
spirited the limo away to Michigan".
Oh, 1999. That's a whole lot different. It was ONLY 36 years after the
assassination. <chuckle>

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
> > > > > “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
> > > > > outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
> > > > > through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
> > > > > windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
> > > > > chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a
> > > > > clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
> > > > > back.”
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1993? What year did the assassination occur?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You know better. George Whitaker had told of his experience to
> > > Weldon much earlier, but Weldon wrote it up and got info from Whitaker so
> > > that he could put the story into a book of short articles "Murder in
> > > Dealey Plaza". The specific article dealing with the limousine was called
> > > "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" by Douglas Weldon, J.D.
> > >
> >
> > OK, tell us what date he did tell his story to Weldon.
> >
>
>
> Offhand, I'd have to say not too long after it happened. Weldon was a lawyer in the area. And don't play the your old game of saying every single person that stated something after 1964 was memory impaired. It won't wash.
>

Offhand? You really nailed it down, didn't you. Even by your standards
this post contains so many funny excuses.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > From: Same as above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
> > > > >
> > > > > “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> > > > > center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bullet fragments were removed? That would be perfectly consistent with a
> > > > fragment from a bullet striking the windshield from the INSIDE.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Not necessarily. Don't pretend to be a scientist now. You
> > > have so many other roles you've pretended to play. The indications in the
> > > safety glass were that the shot came from in front of the limo, so no
> > > matter where the fragments were scraped off from, the hole was from
> > > outside.
> > >
> >
> > I can understand now why you are so reluctant to provide cites because
> > when you do they often refute what you are claiming rather than supporting
> > it as you have demonstrated twice in this post. Just what "indications" do
> > you have that the windshield was shot from the front. Ferguson's letter
> > which YOU cited said there was no perforation of the windshield. That
> > means a missile never passed through the windshield.
> >
>
>
> You can take that and stuff it! You know very well that I produce cited and links for everything I'm asked to produce. And when I first bring out data, I automatically supply the cite and link for it. You KNOW THAT, so saying what you just did is a slimy little ploy because you lose so many arguments that you can't help giving yourself an edge if you can.
>

Ferguson said there was no damage on the outside of the windshield. That
doesn't help your cause. In fact it pretty much flattens this sandcastle.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The next day when Humes had gone home and written up his version of the
> > > > > AR, he followed the orders he had from higher up and put in the phony
> > > > > reasoning he had been told to use. That is logical since he saw the proof
> > > > > of what REALLY happened to the bullet, and yet went and lied in the final
> > > > > AR, so he had to have been ordered to say what he did. He would NEVER
> > > > > falsify an AR without clear orders to do so.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ditto, see above. No response to my comment, and so must cover up.
> > >
> >
> > ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> >
>
>
> More cover up, and still no reply, just trying to escape the point.
>
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
At the west end of Dealy Plaza, Commerce, Main, and Elm pinch together so
all three can go under one underpass. That puts Tague's location pretty
much on a direct line with the limo and the sniper's nest.

>
>
> > > One of the curb strikes was
> > > on the right side of Elm street, seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Another 2
> > > strikes seen by the Hartmans were in the 'infield'.
> > >
> >
> > If Ellis saw a bullet strike there's no reason it could not have been
> > Oswald's missed shot. That doesn't require an additional shot to the three
> > Oswald fired.
> >
>
>
> You're going to wear out that "missed shot". I think you're going to have to consider my belief that the "missed shot" was the one that hit the chrome bar over the windshield.

No, I don't have to do that at all. That would be silly.

> It is a solid round strike and was hard, and below it were 2 fragments of the bullet shown to be from the MC rifle. So what hit the curb in front of 'Steve' Ellis, the cop?
>

Most likely the missed shot if indeed Ellis did observe a bullet strike.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Since bullet strikes happened
> > > > > all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
> > > > > angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
> > > > > Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
> > > > > the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
> > > > > one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
> > > > > these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
> > > > > attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
> > > > > strike seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
> > > > > midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
> > > > > pointed back to the GK.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Poor assumptions lead to poor conclusion.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Which 'assumptions' are you speaking of? Or was that another one of
> > > your gimmicks to avoid having to figure out what to say at that point?
> > >
> >
> > Let's start with this one:
> >
> > "Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head".
> >
>
>
> WRONG! The statement depends on the average person realizing that it would be hard for any fragments to be created at the skull of JFK, and then escaping from the skull, since there were few openings to go through, few of which were pointing in the right direction.
>

Right. How could those fragments escape just because JFK had a massive
hole in the upper right side of his head.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The wound in JFK's head were pointing to the right for the over the ear
> > > > > wound, and at the BOH it was pointing mostly rearward. The small bullet
> > > > > hole in the forehead was pointing forward and a bit to the right. So
> > > > > absolutely NONE of your guesses will work for ANY of the bullets.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As I was saying...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I see you had nothing to say.
> > >
> >
> > Nothing needs to be said. Your claims fly in the face of the evidence.
> >
>
>
> Then why start out with "As I was saying..." and then go blank? Senior moment?
>

You have to ask?
Of course you didn't. You knew no competent medical examiner would ever
agree with your assessment of the medical evidence.

> I am relying on average intelligence of those reading to understand what I'm saying.
>
> <belly laugh>
>

If average intelligence was all that was necessary to judge medical
evidence it wouldn't be necessary to have people gather years of training
and experience to do it properly. It's laughable that you think you are
competent to render judgements about the medical evidence. Do you really
think anyone is going to take you seriously when you take ridiculous
positions like that?

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > However, I'd like to know where
> > > > > YOU think that primary exit was, and where the large defect was, at least
> > > > > as far as YOU believe. I don't see that wording in the AR. And I think
> > > > > if you have the guts to come up with the description, it'll be in the
> > > > > wrong place to allow for ricochet to any of the places where bullets
> > > > > struck. Another fantasy of yours disposed of.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > From the AR:
> > > >
> > > > "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
> > > > external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the
> > > > cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
> > > > roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of
> > > > the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
> > > > carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp."
> > > >
> > > > Is that specific enough for you?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, and it leaves out a couple wounds, doesn't it? It seems to have
> > > left out the 'large hole' in the BOH to the right rear that was seen by
> > > 39+ witnesses.
> > >

The large hole was not confined to the BOH. As the AR said, it was chiefly
parietal but extended somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions.

> >
> > You only asked for a cite regarding the exit wound. Elsewhere in the AR it
> > describes the full extent of the defect. It was much larger and extended
> > much more forward than the personnel at Parkland ever realized. Had they
> > examined the head wound they would have come to that same realization but
> > there was no point in doing so because it was obvious to them when he
> > arrived that JFK was in the express check out lane.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! And BULLSHIT! We've been over that. The body had clandestine work done on it at 6:35pm at Bethesda, and Humes and Boswell expanded the 'large hole' at the BOH around the right side and a bit on top. Otherwise those wounds would be strictly at the BOH (right rear). As well, we've discussed the opportunity that Nurse Bowron had when she washed the body including the head and hair and dried it. There is no way she could miss any other damage to the skull other than the wound she saw in the BOH. Cites and links on request.
>

Nobody cares about these fantasies of yours. They are completely without
merit.
Yes, I'm guessing. But since my guesses agree with the conclusions of all
the competent people, I'd say my guesses are a lot better than yours.

> So now you're saying that when you were stating things earlier as if they were fact. So now since you're guessing the bullet fragmented when it hit the skull (probably at the rear, right?), how does a fragment get over to the left by Tague? How does one of them get to the point over the windshield, or make gouges in the earth in midfield, which is to the left of the limo and JFK? Seems like there isn't a path for many of the bullets to get to their destinations from the skull of JFK.
>

A fragment would still be traveling in the same general direction for it
to strike near Tague. There is no reason to expect on the fragments to
disperse on the same vector. All that was necessary for one fragment to
pass over the windshield and continue on toward Tague. Gravity would cause
it to arc down ward toward the curb. Since one fragment struck the top of
the windshield frame, it is hardly far fetched to believe another could
have gone a few inches higher and passed over the windshield.

>
>
> The AR identified the primary exit wound and the
> > likelihood is the other fragments exited through the blowout along the
> > upper right side of the head. Those fragments would disperse in a random
> > fashion, some striking inside the limo and others going outside of it,
> > either over the windshield or the right side of the limo.
> >
>
>
> Naah. You're not picturing that correctly. For the sake of argument, let's take the AR version of the wounds, and that has a large wound on the right side of the head, which is also the "primary exit wound", by having those fragments "disperse" randomly, doesn't explain how they got to the many places in Dealey Plaza when the front of the head was intact, and the rear was intact, as well as the left side.

Seriously. The upper right side of his head blew out. From that blowout
fragments would only need to disperse slightly upward and forward to pass
over the windshield.

> Fragments have to get to Tague far to the left, and over the windshield, and to the left in midfield making 2 gouges.

Bullshit. Tague's location was not far left of the line of fire. It was
pretty close to being right on it.

> All those wounds are to the left or forward, and there wasn't any wound in those positions in the head for fragments to exit from to get to their destinations.
>

Of course there was. The fragments could fly forward and upward. It's
comical that the same guy who believes a bullet fired from the front left
of the limo through the windshield could strike JFK in the front right
part of his head and exit the back can't conceive of a fragment passing
over the windshield and striking the curb near Tague. I will gladly put
that trajectory up against your magic bullet theory.

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 1, 2017, 2:55:49 PM1/1/17
to
WRONG! Did it ever occur how dense you can be? The garage log was
signed by 5 people doing repairs on the windshield of the limo on the
26th, and NOT on the 25th. That is corroboration that no work was done on
the windshield on the 25th, including Ferguson himself who signed them
into the garage! Think it through! As well, there was then the George
Whitaker statement that the limo and the windshield with the bullet hole
was in Michigan on the 25th. More corroboration. It all fits together,
while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.



> You think it is far more likely that Ferguson and Rowley would make
> exactly the same error regarding the dates rather than you source could be
> wrong. This is way conspiracy hobbyists are doomed to continue to go
> around in circles and never be able to figure out such a simple murder
> case.
>


Since you also are a conspiracy hobbyist, simply in reverse, you might
want to hold back on insulting yourself. See above for all kinds of
corroboration. You lack the ability to follow the evidence and stick with
it.



> > You need to think it through before blatting out your accusations and weird ideas. Ferguson depended on the W.H. SS staff being happy with Ford and his work. You can be sure that if someone asked him to help with making a memo have the wrong date, he would be happy to comply. Note the date on the Ferguson memo. Dec. 18th, so anything could have happened or been discussed before that date.
> >
>
> This is why I continue to converse with you. The explanations you are
> forced to dream up rather than deal with inconvenient evidence never cease
> to amuse. Any excuse for Rowley's mistake?
>


WRONG! No explanations were dreamed up, they were repeated to you from
the evidence. They are a part of history. And I believe that Rowley was
part of the cover up and needed the limo to appear to be in the garage and
not on the road to Michigan. Although it's possible they used the C-130
to transport the limo to Michigan that day (25th). It would have been
much faster. There was nowhere else it was needed since LBJ was staying
at home.



> > The memos were sent to the WC lawyers reporting on events with the limo.
> >
> > Since the memos were using the same wrong date, which was the date the limo was in Michigan, which was kept quiet, I suspect that they wanted to make it appear the limo had been in the garage on that date. But the garage log shows only that on the 25th, there were 2 entries, both for a person checking the garage.
> >
>
> Just how did you determine the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. I'm sure
> it is from a highly reliable source and not some kook website. <chuckle>
>



First, George Whitaker told the lawyer it was that date, and the
garage log corroborates that by having entries for other dates were the
limo had to be present, but nothing on the 25th.



> >
> > > Further on in the letter he explains that the cracked windshield was
> > > replaced by the Arlington Glass Company and the damaged windshield was
> > > locked away. This was BEFORE the limo was sent to Ford to be refurbished
> > > so that refutes anyone at the Ford plant who claims they saw a bullet hole
> > > in the windshield.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! And WRONG again! You'll never learn. Trying to get through all this info quickly so you don't pay attention to what's going on around you. First, the letter you're trying to use was written Dec. 18th, nowhere near the dates we're concerned with. They could contain anything referring back to the past. I mentioned that above, but you seem to have missed it. If you ENLARGED the garage log I showed you, you'd see that Arlington Glass came on the 26th, NOT the 25th as Ferguson would have you believe!
>
> Which indicates the limo was still in Washington on that date.
>



It indicates nothing or the sort. All the evidence told to you above
proves that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th, and it was being
refurbished, including the forward windshield, which had a bullet hole and
was ordered to be destroyed. Arlington Glass was signed into the garage
on the 26th by Ferguson himself, and signed by the 4 men who did the work.
The limo came back from a complete refurbishment and yet they had to
replace the windshield. Why would it be sent back with a cracked
windshield when the windshield was replaced in Michigan? They cracked it
themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.



> > But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.
> >
>
> They must have made an error because what they wrote doesn't fit with your
> beliefs. Par for the course.
>


WRONG! We have the statement from Michigan that the limo was there and
that there was a bullet hole in the windshield, and we have the witnesses
there and in Washington DC. It's a complete story corroborated and set.
The problem rests with you and your beloved WCR.



> >
> >
> >
> > > > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > > > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > > > Michigan.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> > > suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> > > would conflict with a long held factoid.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
> >
>
> Still waiting for you to tell us how you determined the date "they
> spirited the limo away to Michigan".
>



WRONG! That was given to you above. George Whitaker stated it to the
lawyer he spoke with in Michigan (Doug Weldon, JD), but the garage log
backed him up, along with the Arlington Glass workers.
WRONG! Keep trying. It won't work. If I went back and researched it
again, I might have a date for you, but it just isn't worth it, and the
evidence remains solid. If I remembered every little fact I ever read, I
would be in a different line than I am.



> > > > > > From: Same as above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> > > > > > center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullet fragments were removed? That would be perfectly consistent with a
> > > > > fragment from a bullet striking the windshield from the INSIDE.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Not necessarily. Don't pretend to be a scientist now. You
> > > > have so many other roles you've pretended to play. The indications in the
> > > > safety glass were that the shot came from in front of the limo, so no
> > > > matter where the fragments were scraped off from, the hole was from
> > > > outside.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can understand now why you are so reluctant to provide cites because
> > > when you do they often refute what you are claiming rather than supporting
> > > it as you have demonstrated twice in this post. Just what "indications" do
> > > you have that the windshield was shot from the front. Ferguson's letter
> > > which YOU cited said there was no perforation of the windshield. That
> > > means a missile never passed through the windshield.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You can take that and stuff it! You know very well that I produce cited and links for everything I'm asked to produce. And when I first bring out data, I automatically supply the cite and link for it. You KNOW THAT, so saying what you just did is a slimy little ploy because you lose so many arguments that you can't help giving yourself an edge if you can.
> >
>
> Ferguson said there was no damage on the outside of the windshield. That
> doesn't help your cause. In fact it pretty much flattens this sandcastle.
>


WRONG! Geez, at .05 cents per WRONG answer I could be rich right now!
Ferguson was not an expert on safety glass and how it breaks. And he was
beholden to the SS for his bread and butter from Ford. Ferguson also
wrote an incorrect memo about an issue involved with the killing of the
POTUS, not as simple error. Many other witnesses and facts show Ferguson
to be not trustworthy. You have to check out your witnesses.
WRONG! Go look at your map again. There are 3 entrances in the
underpass. The 3 streets are separated at that point.



> >
> >
> > > > One of the curb strikes was
> > > > on the right side of Elm street, seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Another 2
> > > > strikes seen by the Hartmans were in the 'infield'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If Ellis saw a bullet strike there's no reason it could not have been
> > > Oswald's missed shot. That doesn't require an additional shot to the three
> > > Oswald fired.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You're going to wear out that "missed shot". I think you're going to have to consider my belief that the "missed shot" was the one that hit the chrome bar over the windshield.
>
> No, I don't have to do that at all. That would be silly.
>



Well, you've done many silly things, why not this one?



> > It is a solid round strike and was hard, and below it were 2 fragments of the bullet shown to be from the MC rifle. So what hit the curb in front of 'Steve' Ellis, the cop?
> >
>
> Most likely the missed shot if indeed Ellis did observe a bullet strike.
>


LOL! It's getting amusing watching you try to juggle all these strikes
with a single point on the wrong side of the skull of JFK. There are at
least 8 or more bullet strikes, and you've said that most of them were
ricochets. Ridiculous and laughable!



> > > > > > Since bullet strikes happened
> > > > > > all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
> > > > > > angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
> > > > > > Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
> > > > > > the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
> > > > > > one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
> > > > > > these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
> > > > > > attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
> > > > > > strike seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
> > > > > > midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
> > > > > > pointed back to the GK.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Poor assumptions lead to poor conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which 'assumptions' are you speaking of? Or was that another one of
> > > > your gimmicks to avoid having to figure out what to say at that point?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let's start with this one:
> > >
> > > "Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head".
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The statement depends on the average person realizing that it would be hard for any fragments to be created at the skull of JFK, and then escaping from the skull, since there were few openings to go through, few of which were pointing in the right direction.
> >
>
> Right. How could those fragments escape just because JFK had a massive
> hole in the upper right side of his head.
>



WRONG! My point was that the opening (which wasn't that large at the
time of the shooting) was pointing in the wrong direction for fragments
from the bullet to exit and get to their final destination. Think it
through. The Tague bullet was on the side of the head of JFK that was in
good shape (left) and the bullet strike over the windshield was also in a
position where no fragment from the exit wound in the head could reach it.
As well, the 2 gouges in the midfield were on the left side of JFK, so
again bullet fragments that broke up inside the skull of JFK from a strike
in the rear, could not just fly over to the midfield out of the large
wound on the right side of the head. It's all completely ridiculous, and
just what can be expected from the fantasyland of the LNs.
WRONG! Your foolish attempts to pretend you know what I think are
amusing, but useless for our purposes. I know very well that any M.E.
that sees the evidence of the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area will
immediately consider that an important wound and probably the kill shot,
knowing of the rest of JFK's wounds and autopsy.



> > I am relying on average intelligence of those reading to understand what I'm saying.
> >
> > <belly laugh>
> >
>
> If average intelligence was all that was necessary to judge medical
> evidence it wouldn't be necessary to have people gather years of training
> and experience to do it properly. It's laughable that you think you are
> competent to render judgements about the medical evidence. Do you really
> think anyone is going to take you seriously when you take ridiculous
> positions like that?
>


WRONG! They already have. As you know, I've shown the bullet hole to
many people, and they are all pretty much average, and they all
immediately come to the conclusion that it was the kill shot. Without my
hinting anything. That's just for your knowledge, since it's not evidence
so far.
WRONG! More opinion! I'm showing evidence from a witness and you
oppose it with some foolish little opinion...ridiculous! When you have
evidence come se me, I'll be here.



> > > > > > > > The fact remains a very reasonable
> > > > > > > > > explanation exists for what caused dent in the windshield chrome. Yet you
> > > > > > > > > will reject the reasonable one in favor of the bizarre.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's easy to reject the talk that the damage was done by a fragment
> > > > > > > > that split off while in the head of JFK (ridiculous on its face), but also
> > > > > > > > because the damage is so OBVIOUSLY from a primary strike and not a
> > > > > > > > ricochet:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers_html_5175489.JPG

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 2, 2017, 2:37:40 PM1/2/17
to
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:55:49 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:58:53 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:32 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > I not only read the Ferguson memo, but I read the Rowley memo too, that has the same exact error in it. Since the limo was in Michigan on the 25th, that is wrong in both memos, but it covered up the movement of the limo to Michigan.
> >
> > <chuckle>
> >
> > I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that the Ferguson and Rowley
> > letters were correct and the error was in whatever source told you the
> > limo was in Michigan on the 25th. Typical conspiracy hobbyist thinking.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! Did it ever occur how dense you can be?

You should stand in front of a mirror when you ask that question.

> The garage log was
> signed by 5 people doing repairs on the windshield of the limo on the
> 26th, and NOT on the 25th. That is corroboration that no work was done on
> the windshield on the 25th, including Ferguson himself who signed them
> into the garage!

The key points are that Ferguson examined the limo on the 23rd and
determined the damage was on the inside of the windshield and even if he
was off by one day regarding the day the windshield was replaced, that is
still before it was sent to Ford to be refurbished. As is your custom,
whenever you come across a discrepancy or some other anomaly, you
automatically assume and explanation that points to a conspiracy rather
than to try to gather the information that would clear up the discrepancy.

> Think it through! As well, there was then the George
> Whitaker statement that the limo and the windshield with the bullet hole
> was in Michigan on the 25th. More corroboration.

No, that's another discrepancy that needs to be resolved.

> It all fits together,
> while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
>

No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
nature of the damage to the windshield.

>
>
> > You think it is far more likely that Ferguson and Rowley would make
> > exactly the same error regarding the dates rather than you source could be
> > wrong. This is way conspiracy hobbyists are doomed to continue to go
> > around in circles and never be able to figure out such a simple murder
> > case.
> >
>
>
> Since you also are a conspiracy hobbyist, simply in reverse, you might
> want to hold back on insulting yourself. See above for all kinds of
> corroboration. You lack the ability to follow the evidence and stick with
> it.
>
>
>
> > > You need to think it through before blatting out your accusations and weird ideas. Ferguson depended on the W.H. SS staff being happy with Ford and his work. You can be sure that if someone asked him to help with making a memo have the wrong date, he would be happy to comply. Note the date on the Ferguson memo. Dec. 18th, so anything could have happened or been discussed before that date.
> > >
> >
> > This is why I continue to converse with you. The explanations you are
> > forced to dream up rather than deal with inconvenient evidence never cease
> > to amuse. Any excuse for Rowley's mistake?
> >
>
>
> WRONG! No explanations were dreamed up, they were repeated to you from
> the evidence. They are a part of history. And I believe that Rowley was
> part of the cover up and needed the limo to appear to be in the garage and
> not on the road to Michigan. Although it's possible they used the C-130
> to transport the limo to Michigan that day (25th). It would have been
> much faster. There was nowhere else it was needed since LBJ was staying
> at home.
>

So you have just added two more characters to your little conspiracy,
Ferguson and Rowley. Your problem is the evidence is all against you and
in order for you to explain why any particular piece of evidence is
against you, you are forced to claim somebody doctored the evidence which
means you keep having to add more and more people to the cover up. Imagine
the luck of the conspirators. Every time they needed some piece of
evidence covered up, the person responsible for that piece of evidence
went along with the cover up. Not one person refused to do what was
necessary and blow the whistle on the cover up. What an amazing place
Conspiracyland must be.

>
>
> > > The memos were sent to the WC lawyers reporting on events with the limo.
> > >
> > > Since the memos were using the same wrong date, which was the date the limo was in Michigan, which was kept quiet, I suspect that they wanted to make it appear the limo had been in the garage on that date. But the garage log shows only that on the 25th, there were 2 entries, both for a person checking the garage.
> > >
> >
> > Just how did you determine the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. I'm sure
> > it is from a highly reliable source and not some kook website. <chuckle>
> >
>
>
>
> First, George Whitaker told the lawyer it was that date, and the
> garage log corroborates that by having entries for other dates were the
> limo had to be present, but nothing on the 25th.
>

I don't suppose you considered it could be Whitaker who got the date
wrong. So according to your wacky tale, the limo was not in the White
House garage on the 25th. According to you they transported the limo to
the Ford plant in Michigan, refurbished it, and then transported it back
to Washington so the windshield on the newly refurbished limo could be
replaced by the local glass company. I suppose you think this makes
sense.

>
>
> > >
> > > > Further on in the letter he explains that the cracked windshield was
> > > > replaced by the Arlington Glass Company and the damaged windshield was
> > > > locked away. This was BEFORE the limo was sent to Ford to be refurbished
> > > > so that refutes anyone at the Ford plant who claims they saw a bullet hole
> > > > in the windshield.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! And WRONG again! You'll never learn. Trying to get through all this info quickly so you don't pay attention to what's going on around you. First, the letter you're trying to use was written Dec. 18th, nowhere near the dates we're concerned with. They could contain anything referring back to the past. I mentioned that above, but you seem to have missed it. If you ENLARGED the garage log I showed you, you'd see that Arlington Glass came on the 26th, NOT the 25th as Ferguson would have you believe!
> >
> > Which indicates the limo was still in Washington on that date.
> >
>
>
>
> It indicates nothing or the sort. All the evidence told to you above
> proves that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th,

No, you cited one guy who said the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.

> and it was being
> refurbished, including the forward windshield, which had a bullet hole and
> was ordered to be destroyed.

Ordered. And of course you have evidence such an order was given. You
wouldn't just make up a story that somebody issued an order to destroy
evidence.

> Arlington Glass was signed into the garage
> on the 26th by Ferguson himself, and signed by the 4 men who did the work.
> The limo came back from a complete refurbishment and yet they had to
> replace the windshield. Why would it be sent back with a cracked
> windshield when the windshield was replaced in Michigan?

Makes no sense to me but it seems to be a necessary element for your story.

> They cracked it
> themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
>
Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>

The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.

>
>
> > > But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.
> > >
> >
> > They must have made an error because what they wrote doesn't fit with your
> > beliefs. Par for the course.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! We have the statement from Michigan that the limo was there and
> that there was a bullet hole in the windshield, and we have the witnesses
> there and in Washington DC. It's a complete story corroborated and set.
> The problem rests with you and your beloved WCR.
>

You have an uncorroborated statement by Whitaker which you refuse to
consider could be the error which created the conflict in the dates.

Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
the windshield.

http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car

First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati. This was the company that did the
original modifications to the Lincoln which turned it into a stretch limo
with all the bells and whistles. After they got done with it, it was sent
to the Ford plant in Dearborn for further modifications. Here is a summary
of all that was done to the limo:

"Reportedly, the $500,000 overhaul replaced 80 percent of the vehicle.
According to a 1964 Associated Press dispatch, the customizers added 1,600
pounds of metal and other materials to the car, reinforcing the body
with armor plate and replacing its glass with special panes that
reportedly were capable of withstanding a direct hit from a 30-caliber
rifle round.  The interchangeable roofs were replaced with a
bulletproof hardtop and a 1,500-pound rear window that, at the time, was
the largest piece of curved bullet-resistant glass ever fabricated,
according to Popular Mechanics. Additionally, large metal handgrips were
installed on each side of the back trunk so that, if needed, Secret
Service agents could jump onto the vehicle while it rolled down the
street.  Special puncture-proof tires were mounted on the
wheels. Finally, the rear compartment was refurbished, to eliminate any
damage from JFK's killing."

The limo was almost completely rebuilt. You would have us believe that all
that work was done in two cities and then the limo was returned to the
White House garage by November 26 so that Arlington Glass could replace a
windshield on a car that just received a $500,000 overhaul. Preposterous.
You really ought to vet your sources. It seems someone has been telling
you tall tales.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > > > > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > > > > Michigan.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> > > > suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> > > > would conflict with a long held factoid.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
> > >
> >
> > Still waiting for you to tell us how you determined the date "they
> > spirited the limo away to Michigan".
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! That was given to you above. George Whitaker stated it to the
> lawyer he spoke with in Michigan (Doug Weldon, JD), but the garage log
> backed him up, along with the Arlington Glass workers.
>

Let's see you reconcile Whitaker's account with the work done to refurbish
the limo and the replacement of the windshield by Arlington Glass on
November 26.
I love your excuses. They are worth the price of admission.
So you resort to the "They all lied" excuse. That's how you characterize
it whenever I dispute what a witness has said.
It is one underpass. That's why it is called the triple underpass.
Somebody figured out it would be more economical to build one big
underpass rather than 3 little ones. That's why Commerce, Main, and Elm
all pinch together to go under the railroad tracks. The are side by side
with just a concrete abutment separating them.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > One of the curb strikes was
> > > > > on the right side of Elm street, seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Another 2
> > > > > strikes seen by the Hartmans were in the 'infield'.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If Ellis saw a bullet strike there's no reason it could not have been
> > > > Oswald's missed shot. That doesn't require an additional shot to the three
> > > > Oswald fired.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You're going to wear out that "missed shot". I think you're going to have to consider my belief that the "missed shot" was the one that hit the chrome bar over the windshield.
> >
> > No, I don't have to do that at all. That would be silly.
> >
>
>
>
> Well, you've done many silly things, why not this one?
>

You're right. That would be a silly thing to do.

>
>
> > > It is a solid round strike and was hard, and below it were 2 fragments of the bullet shown to be from the MC rifle. So what hit the curb in front of 'Steve' Ellis, the cop?
> > >
> >
> > Most likely the missed shot if indeed Ellis did observe a bullet strike.
> >
>
>
> LOL! It's getting amusing watching you try to juggle all these strikes
> with a single point on the wrong side of the skull of JFK. There are at
> least 8 or more bullet strikes, and you've said that most of them were
> ricochets. Ridiculous and laughable!
>

A bullet can and often does make multiple strikes because the object it
first strikes often doesn't stop the bullet.

>
>
> > > > > > > Since bullet strikes happened
> > > > > > > all over Dealey Plaza, the bullets had to go to their destinations in many
> > > > > > > angles, yet they all came from almost the same place in the head of JFK!
> > > > > > > Ridiculous! Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head, since
> > > > > > > the only wounds there were one that was over the right ear, and one large
> > > > > > > one at the BOH, and a small one at the forehead/temple area. None of
> > > > > > > these wounds were pointing in the right direction to support your silly
> > > > > > > attempt to explain the Tague strike, the strike over the windshield, the
> > > > > > > strike seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who saw 2 bullet gouges in the
> > > > > > > midfield, and were told by a cop they were bullet gouges. the gouges
> > > > > > > pointed back to the GK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Poor assumptions lead to poor conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Which 'assumptions' are you speaking of? Or was that another one of
> > > > > your gimmicks to avoid having to figure out what to say at that point?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's start with this one:
> > > >
> > > > "Fragments would have had trouble exiting JFK's head".
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The statement depends on the average person realizing that it would be hard for any fragments to be created at the skull of JFK, and then escaping from the skull, since there were few openings to go through, few of which were pointing in the right direction.
> > >
> >
> > Right. How could those fragments escape just because JFK had a massive
> > hole in the upper right side of his head.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! My point was that the opening (which wasn't that large at the
> time of the shooting)

About a millisecond after the bullet hit the back of JFK's head it was
that big.

> was pointing in the wrong direction for fragments
> from the bullet to exit and get to their final destination.

No, the hole on the top right of JFK's head was big large enough to also
the fragments to continue forward and/or upward, some striking the
windshield and some going over it.

> Think it
> through. The Tague bullet was on the side of the head of JFK that was in
> good shape (left) and the bullet strike over the windshield was also in a
> position where no fragment from the exit wound in the head could reach it.

Tague was directly in the line of fire for a shot from the sniper's nest.
This view shows that the Commerce St. portion of the underpass is directly
in line of a shot fired at the limo from the sniper's nest.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=view+from+sniper%27s+nest+texas+book+depository&view=detailv2&&id=FC96E4F4CFD93968951969CC1DF35E3494FBC2AB&selectedIndex=0&ccid=bkdqj6CC&simid=608054142185374196&thid=OIP.M6e476a8fa08241ad45da2dc2bb66cb45H0&ajaxhist=0


> As well, the 2 gouges in the midfield were on the left side of JFK, so
> again bullet fragments that broke up inside the skull of JFK from a strike
> in the rear, could not just fly over to the midfield out of the large
> wound on the right side of the head. It's all completely ridiculous, and
> just what can be expected from the fantasyland of the LNs.
>

There is no evidence those were bullet strikes. Just silly assumptions.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 2, 2017, 2:45:54 PM1/2/17
to
Did you ever bother reading Ferguson's memo?
Maybe not.


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ferguson1.gif

The limo could not have been out at Detroit because Ferguson was working
on it three days straight: November 23, 24 and 25.
Pick another day and they had already kicked out the old windshield and
replaced it with a new windshield. Then you'd need your secret crew to
create and destroy a windshield with a bullet hole in it just to match
your bullshit story.

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 3, 2017, 3:42:42 PM1/3/17
to
On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 2:37:40 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:55:49 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:58:53 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:03:32 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I not only read the Ferguson memo, but I read the Rowley memo too, that has the same exact error in it. Since the limo was in Michigan on the 25th, that is wrong in both memos, but it covered up the movement of the limo to Michigan.
> > >
> > > <chuckle>
> > >
> > > I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that the Ferguson and Rowley
> > > letters were correct and the error was in whatever source told you the
> > > limo was in Michigan on the 25th. Typical conspiracy hobbyist thinking.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Did it ever occur how dense you can be?
>
> You should stand in front of a mirror when you ask that question.
>
> > The garage log was
> > signed by 5 people doing repairs on the windshield of the limo on the
> > 26th, and NOT on the 25th. That is corroboration that no work was done on
> > the windshield on the 25th, including Ferguson himself who signed them
> > into the garage!
>
> The key points are that Ferguson examined the limo on the 23rd and
> determined the damage was on the inside of the windshield and even if he
> was off by one day regarding the day the windshield was replaced, that is
> still before it was sent to Ford to be refurbished.



The examination by Ferguson of the windshield on the 23rd did NOT
determine that the cracks were on the inside. Here's his memo, which you
seem to have forgotten:

https://ss100x.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/slide00071.jpg?w=908

Since the windshield was examined on the 25th by a manager of the Glass
plant in Michigan who had experience with bullets and safety glass, I'd
say his opinion is far more cogent than Ferguson, who was more a sales and
customer service person, and that person saw a bullet hole from the
outside. But you're forgetting that Ferguson owed much to the SS people
and would probably go with whatever they wanted of him. They got him to
arrange a secret visit to the Ford plant to refurbish the limo and erase
any and all evidence that might be there with it, so I'd say he was
helping the SS agents, probably Rowley, the boss.




As is your custom,
> whenever you come across a discrepancy or some other anomaly, you
> automatically assume and explanation that points to a conspiracy rather
> than to try to gather the information that would clear up the discrepancy.
>


WRONG! Check the info above and see where you've screwed up again.



> > Think it through! As well, there was then the George
> > Whitaker statement that the limo and the windshield with the bullet hole
> > was in Michigan on the 25th. More corroboration.
>
> No, that's another discrepancy that needs to be resolved.
>


I don't see you resolving anything. let me know if you're going to try.



> > It all fits together,
> > while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> > standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
> >
>
> No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
> conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
> you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
> cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
> nature of the damage to the windshield.
>


WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
WRONG! I did not add anyone to the list of plotters that I originally
guessed at. Rowley was a manager and was part of the original plot, and
Ferguson was a dupe that did as he was told, maybe with some excuse, but
he was not in on the main plot.



Imagine
> the luck of the conspirators. Every time they needed some piece of
> evidence covered up, the person responsible for that piece of evidence
> went along with the cover up. Not one person refused to do what was
> necessary and blow the whistle on the cover up. What an amazing place
> Conspiracyland must be.
>


WRONG! Looks like you've lost it again, seeing conspiracies
everywhere. Some evidence was covered up or manufactured, but some was
not.



> >
> >
> > > > The memos were sent to the WC lawyers reporting on events with the limo.
> > > >
> > > > Since the memos were using the same wrong date, which was the date the limo was in Michigan, which was kept quiet, I suspect that they wanted to make it appear the limo had been in the garage on that date. But the garage log shows only that on the 25th, there were 2 entries, both for a person checking the garage.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just how did you determine the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. I'm sure
> > > it is from a highly reliable source and not some kook website. <chuckle>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > First, George Whitaker told the lawyer it was that date, and the
> > garage log corroborates that by having entries for other dates where the
> > limo had to be present, but nothing on the 25th.
> >
>
> I don't suppose you considered it could be Whitaker who got the date
> wrong.



WRONG! Not when the garage log fit with the Whitaker statement. The
25th was the ONLY date possible that the limousine was not noted to be in
the garage.



So according to your wacky tale, the limo was not in the White
> House garage on the 25th. According to you they transported the limo to
> the Ford plant in Michigan, refurbished it, and then transported it back
> to Washington so the windshield on the newly refurbished limo could be
> replaced by the local glass company. I suppose you think this makes
> sense.
>


WRONG! It makes perfect sense, but may be a bit beyond your ability to
follow. It is not according to me, it's according to George Whitaker and
the garage log and the 4 men and Ferguson who signed off the log when they
came in on the 26th to change the windshield, which corroborates each
other.



> > > > > Further on in the letter he explains that the cracked windshield was
> > > > > replaced by the Arlington Glass Company and the damaged windshield was
> > > > > locked away. This was BEFORE the limo was sent to Ford to be refurbished
> > > > > so that refutes anyone at the Ford plant who claims they saw a bullet hole
> > > > > in the windshield.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! And WRONG again! You'll never learn. Trying to get through all this info quickly so you don't pay attention to what's going on around you. First, the letter you're trying to use was written Dec. 18th, nowhere near the dates we're concerned with. They could contain anything referring back to the past. I mentioned that above, but you seem to have missed it. If you ENLARGED the garage log I showed you, you'd see that Arlington Glass came on the 26th, NOT the 25th as Ferguson would have you believe!
> > >
> > > Which indicates the limo was still in Washington on that date.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > It indicates nothing or the sort. All the evidence told to you above
> > proves that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th,
>
> No, you cited one guy who said the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.
>



WRIONG! I cited George Whitaker AND the garage log, both of which
agree that it was the 25th. The men from Arlington Glass also agree that
the repair was made on the 26th, and not the 25th.



> > and it was being
> > refurbished, including the forward windshield, which had a bullet hole and
> > was ordered to be destroyed.
>
> Ordered. And of course you have evidence such an order was given. You
> wouldn't just make up a story that somebody issued an order to destroy
> evidence.
>


WRONG! Whitaker gave as part of his story, that the workers he saw in
the Glass plant told him the orders came down from above that the
windshield was to be destroyed. So that is part of his statement. Since
the old windshield was nowhere to be found, it's easy to assume the order
was followed.



> > Arlington Glass was signed into the garage
> > on the 26th by Ferguson himself, and signed by the 4 men who did the work.
> > The limo came back from a complete refurbishment and yet they had to
> > replace the windshield. Why would it be sent back with a cracked
> > windshield when the windshield was replaced in Michigan?
>
> Makes no sense to me but it seems to be a necessary element for your story.
>



RIGHT for a change. It made no sense, unless there was a reason that
they had to have a windshield that was only cracked and not wit ha hole
through it. Oh, BTW, when Ferguson said in his memo that he went to the
limo on the 23rd and saw the crack in the windshield, it was after SS
agent Charles Taylor Jr. saw the HOLE through the windshield and made a
note about it:

" In his report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage
during the vehicle’s inspection, he wrote: “In addition,
of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the
windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were
removed.”

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



> > They cracked it
> > themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> > crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> > plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> > Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> > evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
> >
> Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>
>



WRONG! The date problem was resolved by evidence from the garage log
and from George Whitaker! <belly laugh>




> The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
> windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.
>


WRONG! Strange that you should pretend you know that. What's your
proof for that? I've shown my proof for that being false.




> >
> >
> > > > But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They must have made an error because what they wrote doesn't fit with your
> > > beliefs. Par for the course.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! We have the statement from Michigan that the limo was there and
> > that there was a bullet hole in the windshield, and we have the witnesses
> > there and in Washington DC. It's a complete story corroborated and set.
> > The problem rests with you and your beloved WCR.
> >
>
> You have an uncorroborated statement by Whitaker which you refuse to
> consider could be the error which created the conflict in the dates.
>



WRONG! I've pointed out the corroboration for Whitaker's statement
above. He was corroborated by the W.H. garage log, which had only one
possible date for the limo to be missing from the garage, the 25th. Keep
squirming, it's my amusement now as you try every phony trick to get out
of the facts in the forensic evidence (garage log).



> Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
> the windshield.
>
> http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car
>



WRONG! There is no date on that article, but the work to make the limo
more resistant to attack was done later than the November 25th refurb,
that's for sure. That info was in Whitaker's statement (corroborated) and
had to be doe to cover up any evidence that may still be therein the
vehicle.



> First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
> Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati. This was the company that did the
> original modifications to the Lincoln which turned it into a stretch limo
> with all the bells and whistles. After they got done with it, it was sent
> to the Ford plant in Dearborn for further modifications. Here is a summary
> of all that was done to the limo:
>


WRONG! You're describing the original work to make the limo ready to
carry presidents. NOT what happened after the nurder.


> "Reportedly, the $500,000 overhaul replaced 80 percent of the vehicle.
> According to a 1964 Associated Press dispatch, the customizers added 1,600
> pounds of metal and other materials to the car, reinforcing the body
> with armor plate and replacing its glass with special panes that
> reportedly were capable of withstanding a direct hit from a 30-caliber
> rifle round.  The interchangeable roofs were replaced with a
> bulletproof hardtop and a 1,500-pound rear window that, at the time, was
> the largest piece of curved bullet-resistant glass ever fabricated,
> according to Popular Mechanics. Additionally, large metal handgrips were
> installed on each side of the back trunk so that, if needed, Secret
> Service agents could jump onto the vehicle while it rolled down the
> street.  Special puncture-proof tires were mounted on the
> wheels. Finally, the rear compartment was refurbished, to eliminate any
> damage from JFK's killing."
>



All that info was in the article linked to above, and it was all done
BEFORE the murder to carry presidents in the future. Show the dates of
that work.



> The limo was almost completely rebuilt. You would have us believe that all
> that work was done in two cities and then the limo was returned to the
> White House garage by November 26 so that Arlington Glass could replace a
> windshield on a car that just received a $500,000 overhaul. Preposterous.
> You really ought to vet your sources. It seems someone has been telling
> you tall tales.
>



ABSOLUTELY WRONG! The biggest phony scam of all your efforts! ALL of
that work described the story of the creation of the limo and were thing
that happened long BEFORE any murder. It described the ORIGINAL work on
the limo to be the presidential vehicle. The work AFTER the murder was
just an internal refurbishing of the interior and replace the windshield.
The length was already added to and all the other work was done long
before.



> > > > > > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > > > > > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > > > > > Michigan.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> > > > > suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> > > > > would conflict with a long held factoid.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Still waiting for you to tell us how you determined the date "they
> > > spirited the limo away to Michigan".
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! That was given to you above. George Whitaker stated it to the
> > lawyer he spoke with in Michigan (Doug Weldon, JD), but the garage log
> > backed him up, along with the Arlington Glass workers.
> >
>
> Let's see you reconcile Whitaker's account with the work done to refurbish
> the limo and the replacement of the windshield by Arlington Glass on
> November 26.
>


WRONG! That was done above. Stop repeating it all. You lost the
argument based on the evidence. The work you tried to pretend was done
all on the same day (26th) had really been done when the limo was created.
AFTER the murder only an internal refurb was needed and a replacement of
the windshield and destruction of the old one with the bullet hole in it.
No major change to the structure of the limo was done at that time. The
protective steps were done later after the WC came back with their report
including the limitations of the limo.
Good! Pay up! $10 per session.



> >
> >
> > > > > > > > From: Same as above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
> > > > > > > > center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bullet fragments were removed? That would be perfectly consistent with a
> > > > > > > fragment from a bullet striking the windshield from the INSIDE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! Not necessarily. Don't pretend to be a scientist now. You
> > > > > > have so many other roles you've pretended to play. The indications in the
> > > > > > safety glass were that the shot came from in front of the limo, so no
> > > > > > matter where the fragments were scraped off from, the hole was from
> > > > > > outside.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I can understand now why you are so reluctant to provide cites because
> > > > > when you do they often refute what you are claiming rather than supporting
> > > > > it as you have demonstrated twice in this post. Just what "indications" do
> > > > > you have that the windshield was shot from the front. Ferguson's letter
> > > > > which YOU cited said there was no perforation of the windshield. That
> > > > > means a missile never passed through the windshield.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can take that and stuff it! You know very well that I produce cited and links for everything I'm asked to produce. And when I first bring out data, I automatically supply the cite and link for it. You KNOW THAT, so saying what you just did is a slimy little ploy because you lose so many arguments that you can't help giving yourself an edge if you can.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ferguson said there was no damage on the outside of the windshield. That
> > > doesn't help your cause. In fact it pretty much flattens this sandcastle.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Geez, at .05 cents per WRONG answer I could be rich right now!
> > Ferguson was not an expert on safety glass and how it breaks. And he was
> > beholden to the SS for his bread and butter from Ford. Ferguson also
> > wrote an incorrect memo about an issue involved with the killing of the
> > POTUS, not a simple error. Many other witnesses and facts show Ferguson
> > to be not trustworthy. You have to check out your witnesses.
> >
>
> So you resort to the "They all lied" excuse. That's how you characterize
> it whenever I dispute what a witness has said.
>


WRONG! I use that phrase when you are busy trying to say that a group
of people lied. Not a single person. But there are more facts here in
this case, and more reason for Ferguson to lie in his memo, which
duplicated the exact same date error of Rowley's. It was to their
advantage to say that the limo was in the garage on the 25th, so that
there was no time when it could be elsewhere having the windshield
changed.
Yep, they are separated from each other. Like I said. Note the street
names on top of them. Elm, Main, Commerce. The whole thing is a very
wide place for there to be ricochets from one side to the other.



> > > > > > One of the curb strikes was
> > > > > > on the right side of Elm street, seen by DPD cop 'Steve' Ellis. Another 2
> > > > > > strikes seen by the Hartmans were in the 'infield'.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If Ellis saw a bullet strike there's no reason it could not have been
> > > > > Oswald's missed shot. That doesn't require an additional shot to the three
> > > > > Oswald fired.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're going to wear out that "missed shot". I think you're going to have to consider my belief that the "missed shot" was the one that hit the chrome bar over the windshield.
> > >
> > > No, I don't have to do that at all. That would be silly.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, you've done many silly things, why not this one?
> >
>
> You're right. That would be a silly thing to do.
>
> >
> >
> > > > It is a solid round strike and was hard, and below it were 2 fragments of the bullet shown to be from the MC rifle. So what hit the curb in front of 'Steve' Ellis, the cop?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Most likely the missed shot if indeed Ellis did observe a bullet strike.
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL! It's getting amusing watching you try to juggle all these strikes
> > with a single point on the wrong side of the skull of JFK. There are at
> > least 8 or more bullet strikes, and you've said that most of them were
> > ricochets. Ridiculous and laughable!
> >
>
> A bullet can and often does make multiple strikes because the object it
> first strikes often doesn't stop the bullet.
>



Ah! You think that JFK's skull was able to stop the bullet? This is
the MC type ammunition, goes through 4 feet of pine boards without damage
to the bullet! Zoom, right through, no deflections no fragmentation, just
one big whopper of a bullet speeding through! Yeah! Ridiculous!
WRONG! That's all bullshit, since the opening in the skull was on the
right side, and there were many bullet destinations to the left. You
still haven't resolved any of those. I've listed them above. They
corroborate proof that after the shooting and before the body left
Parkland, the larger hole in the head was in the right rear of the BOH.
Don't try to change that unless you want to admit to the clandestine work
of Humes and Boswell, who expanded the hole in the BOH to go around the
side and a bit of the top.



> > Think it
> > through. The Tague bullet was on the side of the head of JFK that was in
> > good shape (left) and the bullet strike over the windshield was also in a
> > position where no fragment from the exit wound in the head could reach it.
>
> Tague was directly in the line of fire for a shot from the sniper's nest.
> This view shows that the Commerce St. portion of the underpass is directly
> in line of a shot fired at the limo from the sniper's nest.
>
> https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=view+from+sniper%27s+nest+texas+book+depository&view=detailv2&&id=FC96E4F4CFD93968951969CC1DF35E3494FBC2AB&selectedIndex=0&ccid=bkdqj6CC&simid=608054142185374196&thid=OIP.M6e476a8fa08241ad45da2dc2bb66cb45H0&ajaxhist=0
>


WAIT A MINUTE! You've used up all your missing bullets of the 3 shots.
Now you're making another one? If you're saying that a bullet was fired
from that window into the head of JFK at the BOH, and a fragment somehow
twisted around and came out the right side and then popped over to Tague,
the same problem still exists. There is no path for a fragment to go from
the fragment point to the curb next to Tague. Same problem.



>
> > As well, the 2 gouges in the midfield were on the left side of JFK, so
> > again bullet fragments that broke up inside the skull of JFK from a strike
> > in the rear, could not just fly over to the midfield out of the large
> > wound on the right side of the head. It's all completely ridiculous, and
> > just what can be expected from the fantasyland of the LNs.
> >
>
> There is no evidence those were bullet strikes. Just silly assumptions.


So a DPD cop doesn't know a bullet gouge when he sees one? The
Hartmans (Wayne and Edna) told a cop about the gouges, and he said they
were bullet gouges.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 4, 2017, 11:29:29 AM1/4/17
to
Did you miss the part where he said there was no perforation of the
windshield. That means a bullet didn't go through it.

> Since the windshield was examined on the 25th by a manager of the Glass
> plant in Michigan who had experience with bullets and safety glass, I'd
> say his opinion is far more cogent than Ferguson, who was more a sales and
> customer service person, and that person saw a bullet hole from the
> outside. But you're forgetting that Ferguson owed much to the SS people
> and would probably go with whatever they wanted of him. They got him to
> arrange a secret visit to the Ford plant to refurbish the limo and erase
> any and all evidence that might be there with it, so I'd say he was
> helping the SS agents, probably Rowley, the boss.
>

There is no way he could have seen the limo on the 25th because it was
still in Washington. The Arlington Glass Company replaced the windshield
whether you want to believe that occurred on the 25th or the 26th. The
limo was almost completely rebuilt and that was done by two companies in
separate cities. It first went to the customizing shop in Cincinnati and
then back to the Ford plant for addition of armor, bullet proof glass,
puncture proof tires, etc. There is no way all that work could have been
done in a few days and the limo returned to Washington so the Arlington
Company could replace the windshield. That had to have been done BEFORE
the limo was sent out to be rebuilt. If anyone said the limo was in
Michigan on the 26th they had to be seriously mistaken. Of course we only
have your word that such a thing was said because you won't QUOTE your
source.

>
>
>
> As is your custom,
> > whenever you come across a discrepancy or some other anomaly, you
> > automatically assume and explanation that points to a conspiracy rather
> > than to try to gather the information that would clear up the discrepancy.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Check the info above and see where you've screwed up again.
>

I checked it and it is physically impossible for all that work to have
been done and the limo returned to Washington by the 26th. It didn't
happen. One more example of your inability to weigh evidence. You found a
source somewhere which claimed the limo was in Michigan on the 25th and
you automatically assumed that to be true without even bothering to
determine if that was remotely possible. It wasn't.

>
>
> > > Think it through! As well, there was then the George
> > > Whitaker statement that the limo and the windshield with the bullet hole
> > > was in Michigan on the 25th. More corroboration.
> >
> > No, that's another discrepancy that needs to be resolved.
> >
>
>
> I don't see you resolving anything. let me know if you're going to try.
>

I just showed you how it can easily be established that Whitaker's claim
that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th isn't possible if it was
returned to Washington by the 26th. There is no way that is possible given
the extensive work that was done to rebuild the limo. Of course we don't
know if the error is Whitaker's or yours since you refuse to quote him.

>
>
> > > It all fits together,
> > > while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> > > standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
> > >
> >
> > No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
> > conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
> > you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
> > cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
> > nature of the damage to the windshield.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
> nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
>

It is a square peg and you are trying to drive it into a round hole. It
doesn't fit at all. The only thing it fits are your silly beliefs and that
is good enough for you.
Amazing!!! Truly amazing!!!

>
>
> Imagine
> > the luck of the conspirators. Every time they needed some piece of
> > evidence covered up, the person responsible for that piece of evidence
> > went along with the cover up. Not one person refused to do what was
> > necessary and blow the whistle on the cover up. What an amazing place
> > Conspiracyland must be.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Looks like you've lost it again, seeing conspiracies
> everywhere. Some evidence was covered up or manufactured, but some was
> not.
>

It all points to Oswald and no one else. That's why you are ALWAYS
inventing new excuses to dismiss it.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The memos were sent to the WC lawyers reporting on events with the limo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the memos were using the same wrong date, which was the date the limo was in Michigan, which was kept quiet, I suspect that they wanted to make it appear the limo had been in the garage on that date. But the garage log shows only that on the 25th, there were 2 entries, both for a person checking the garage.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just how did you determine the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. I'm sure
> > > > it is from a highly reliable source and not some kook website. <chuckle>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > First, George Whitaker told the lawyer it was that date, and the
> > > garage log corroborates that by having entries for other dates where the
> > > limo had to be present, but nothing on the 25th.
> > >
> >
> > I don't suppose you considered it could be Whitaker who got the date
> > wrong.
>
>
>
> WRONG! Not when the garage log fit with the Whitaker statement. The
> 25th was the ONLY date possible that the limousine was not noted to be in
> the garage.
>

The garage log said Arlington replaced the windshield on the 26th. There
is no way that the limo could possibly have been rebuilt and return to
Washington by the 26th. The rebuild of the limo could only have been done
after the windshield was replaced and that didn't happen until the 26th.
The first stop was in Cincinnati for the cosmetic work and then Michigan
for the adding of armor and bullet proof glass. The work that was done
would have taken weeks to complete.

If you dispute the claim I just made, why don't you provide a timeline for
where the limo went, the work that was done, and the dates it was
completed. You would have better luck packing 10 lbs. of shit into a 5
lbs. bag.
Source?

> Since
> the old windshield was nowhere to be found, it's easy to assume the order
> was followed.
>

Assuming is pretty much all you do.

>
>
> > > Arlington Glass was signed into the garage
> > > on the 26th by Ferguson himself, and signed by the 4 men who did the work.
> > > The limo came back from a complete refurbishment and yet they had to
> > > replace the windshield. Why would it be sent back with a cracked
> > > windshield when the windshield was replaced in Michigan?
> >
> > Makes no sense to me but it seems to be a necessary element for your story.
> >
>
>
>
> RIGHT for a change. It made no sense, unless there was a reason that
> they had to have a windshield that was only cracked and not wit ha hole
> through it. Oh, BTW, when Ferguson said in his memo that he went to the
> limo on the 23rd and saw the crack in the windshield, it was after SS
> agent Charles Taylor Jr. saw the HOLE through the windshield and made a
> note about it:
>
> " In his report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage
> during the vehicle’s inspection, he wrote: “In addition,
> of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the
> windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were
> removed.”
>
> From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>

Yup. Fragments from the head shot. You did note in Ferguson's letter that
he said the windshield had not been perforated. Do you know what that
means?

>
>
> > > They cracked it
> > > themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> > > crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> > > plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> > > Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> > > evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
> > >
> > Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! The date problem was resolved by evidence from the garage log
> and from George Whitaker! <belly laugh>
>
>
>
>
> > The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
> > windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Strange that you should pretend you know that. What's your
> proof for that? I've shown my proof for that being false.
>

That was stated in the last line of the Ferguson letter which you posted the
link to. Too bad you didn't bother to read your own source. It stated Mr.
Davis from the SS took possession of the windshield and locked it away.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They must have made an error because what they wrote doesn't fit with your
> > > > beliefs. Par for the course.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! We have the statement from Michigan that the limo was there and
> > > that there was a bullet hole in the windshield, and we have the witnesses
> > > there and in Washington DC. It's a complete story corroborated and set.
> > > The problem rests with you and your beloved WCR.
> > >
> >
> > You have an uncorroborated statement by Whitaker which you refuse to
> > consider could be the error which created the conflict in the dates.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I've pointed out the corroboration for Whitaker's statement
> above. He was corroborated by the W.H. garage log, which had only one
> possible date for the limo to be missing from the garage, the 25th. Keep
> squirming, it's my amusement now as you try every phony trick to get out
> of the facts in the forensic evidence (garage log).
>

The White House log only indicates the windshield was replaced on the
26th. That does nothing to corroborate that the limo was in Michigan on
the 25th. In fact it refutes it given the extensive work that was done on
the limo. There's no way that work could have been completed on the 25th
and the limo returned to Washington on the 26th.

>
>
> > Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
> > the windshield.
> >
> > http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! There is no date on that article, but the work to make the limo
> more resistant to attack was done later than the November 25th refurb,
> that's for sure. That info was in Whitaker's statement (corroborated) and
> had to be doe to cover up any evidence that may still be therein the
> vehicle.
>

Oh, so now you have the limo being refurbished twice. A quickie on the
25th and the big one later on. After they did all this work did they
teleport the limo back to Washington. You do know this was 1963 when
little of the interstate highway system had been built which means it
would have been transported over the old highway system for much of it's
journey which means going through lots of cities and towns. A minimum of
one day travel time in that era. The harder you work to try to save these
ridiculous stories of yours the funnier they get.

>
>
> > First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
> > Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati. This was the company that did the
> > original modifications to the Lincoln which turned it into a stretch limo
> > with all the bells and whistles. After they got done with it, it was sent
> > to the Ford plant in Dearborn for further modifications. Here is a summary
> > of all that was done to the limo:
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You're describing the original work to make the limo ready to
> carry presidents. NOT what happened after the nurder.
>

I'd love to see you document that the limo got refurbished twice. I'd love
to see it but I also know there is no chance that I will.

>
> > "Reportedly, the $500,000 overhaul replaced 80 percent of the vehicle.
> > According to a 1964 Associated Press dispatch, the customizers added 1,600
> > pounds of metal and other materials to the car, reinforcing the body
> > with armor plate and replacing its glass with special panes that
> > reportedly were capable of withstanding a direct hit from a 30-caliber
> > rifle round.  The interchangeable roofs were replaced with a
> > bulletproof hardtop and a 1,500-pound rear window that, at the time, was
> > the largest piece of curved bullet-resistant glass ever fabricated,
> > according to Popular Mechanics. Additionally, large metal handgrips were
> > installed on each side of the back trunk so that, if needed, Secret
> > Service agents could jump onto the vehicle while it rolled down the
> > street.  Special puncture-proof tires were mounted on the
> > wheels. Finally, the rear compartment was refurbished, to eliminate any
> > damage from JFK's killing."
> >
>
>
>
> All that info was in the article linked to above, and it was all done
> BEFORE the murder to carry presidents in the future. Show the dates of
> that work.
>

WHAT!!!??? Are you really going to tell us all that armor and bullet proof
glass was added to the limo BEFORE the assassination. If that is what you
are really saying that is the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous things
you have ever said? Did you read the part where it said a PERMANENT hard
top was put on the limo. How could that have been done before the
assassination? Did you read the part about all the bullet proof glass that
was installed? What does that do for your claim that somebody shot JFK
through the windshield?

>
>
> > The limo was almost completely rebuilt. You would have us believe that all
> > that work was done in two cities and then the limo was returned to the
> > White House garage by November 26 so that Arlington Glass could replace a
> > windshield on a car that just received a $500,000 overhaul. Preposterous.
> > You really ought to vet your sources. It seems someone has been telling
> > you tall tales.
> >
>
>
>
> ABSOLUTELY WRONG! The biggest phony scam of all your efforts! ALL of
> that work described the story of the creation of the limo and were thing
> that happened long BEFORE any murder. It described the ORIGINAL work on
> the limo to be the presidential vehicle. The work AFTER the murder was
> just an internal refurbishing of the interior and replace the windshield.
> The length was already added to and all the other work was done long
> before.
>

You better hope there are no lurkers reading this because if there are
they are all rolling on the floor laughing their asses off. You better
hope that I'm the only one who is reading this nonsense of yours. I
already know about the ridiculous things you claim. You can pretty much
count on Marsh reading it too. He is going to be more than happy to point
out how preposterous this latest claim of yours is.

I suppose I could highlight this by opening a new thread but I will spare
you. Doing so would just be piling on.

>
>
> > > > > > > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > > > > > > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > > > > > > Michigan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> > > > > > suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> > > > > > would conflict with a long held factoid.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Still waiting for you to tell us how you determined the date "they
> > > > spirited the limo away to Michigan".
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! That was given to you above. George Whitaker stated it to the
> > > lawyer he spoke with in Michigan (Doug Weldon, JD), but the garage log
> > > backed him up, along with the Arlington Glass workers.
> > >
> >
> > Let's see you reconcile Whitaker's account with the work done to refurbish
> > the limo and the replacement of the windshield by Arlington Glass on
> > November 26.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! That was done above. Stop repeating it all. You lost the
> argument based on the evidence. The work you tried to pretend was done
> all on the same day (26th) had really been done when the limo was created.

Then why didn't JFK have a hardtop on the limo in Dallas since a PERMANENT
hardtop was one of the major modifications done?


> AFTER the murder only an internal refurb was needed and a replacement of
> the windshield and destruction of the old one with the bullet hole in it.
> No major change to the structure of the limo was done at that time. The
> protective steps were done later after the WC came back with their report
> including the limitations of the limo.
>

So the hardtop was added to the limo before the assassination?

You have really left the rails this time.
This has to be the deepest hole you have ever dug for yourself.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 5, 2017, 9:23:41 AM1/5/17
to
Maybe it was one of them thar Magic Bullets like they had in the movie
Dune.

>> Since the windshield was examined on the 25th by a manager of the Glass
>> plant in Michigan who had experience with bullets and safety glass, I'd
>> say his opinion is far more cogent than Ferguson, who was more a sales and
>> customer service person, and that person saw a bullet hole from the
>> outside. But you're forgetting that Ferguson owed much to the SS people
>> and would probably go with whatever they wanted of him. They got him to
>> arrange a secret visit to the Ford plant to refurbish the limo and erase
>> any and all evidence that might be there with it, so I'd say he was
>> helping the SS agents, probably Rowley, the boss.
>>
>
> There is no way he could have seen the limo on the 25th because it was
> still in Washington. The Arlington Glass Company replaced the windshield
> whether you want to believe that occurred on the 25th or the 26th. The
> limo was almost completely rebuilt and that was done by two companies in
> separate cities. It first went to the customizing shop in Cincinnati and
> then back to the Ford plant for addition of armor, bullet proof glass,
> puncture proof tires, etc. There is no way all that work could have been
> done in a few days and the limo returned to Washington so the Arlington
> Company could replace the windshield. That had to have been done BEFORE
> the limo was sent out to be rebuilt. If anyone said the limo was in
> Michigan on the 26th they had to be seriously mistaken. Of course we only
> have your word that such a thing was said because you won't QUOTE your
> source.
>

It's called the Quick Fix. Have you ever examined the original Quick Fix
documents at the JFK Library? No, you can't afford to fly to Boston just
to look at a few pages. Then what are you going to do? You certainly can't
find those documents on a WC defender web site.

You need to rely on some conspiracy kook who actually went to the JFK
Library himself and copied and scanned in those documents and put them on
his web site for you. Know anybody like that?

>>
>>
>>
>> As is your custom,
>>> whenever you come across a discrepancy or some other anomaly, you
>>> automatically assume and explanation that points to a conspiracy rather
>>> than to try to gather the information that would clear up the discrepancy.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Check the info above and see where you've screwed up again.
>>
>
> I checked it and it is physically impossible for all that work to have
> been done and the limo returned to Washington by the 26th. It didn't

Exactly, but you can't prove exactly how many days it took and what work
was done. Got to keep that Top Secret SCI or else Russia will launch its
nuclear missiles. Never let the public see the truth.

> happen. One more example of your inability to weigh evidence. You found a

What evidence? You don't have any damn evidence. You destroyed it.
You have opinions and guesses.

> source somewhere which claimed the limo was in Michigan on the 25th and
> you automatically assumed that to be true without even bothering to
> determine if that was remotely possible. It wasn't.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Think it through! As well, there was then the George
>>>> Whitaker statement that the limo and the windshield with the bullet hole
>>>> was in Michigan on the 25th. More corroboration.
>>>
>>> No, that's another discrepancy that needs to be resolved.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see you resolving anything. let me know if you're going to try.
>>
>
> I just showed you how it can easily be established that Whitaker's claim
> that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th isn't possible if it was
> returned to Washington by the 26th. There is no way that is possible given
> the extensive work that was done to rebuild the limo. Of course we don't
> know if the error is Whitaker's or yours since you refuse to quote him.
>

You are so limited in your thinking. It is not an either/or question.
It is BOTH.

One person is wrong and the other person just lies all the time.


>>
>>
>>>> It all fits together,
>>>> while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
>>>> standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
>>> conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
>>> you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
>>> cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
>>> nature of the damage to the windshield.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
>> nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
>>
>
> It is a square peg and you are trying to drive it into a round hole. It

But that's so much fun when you have the right tool.
Rowley lied, but that doesn't make him a shooter.

>>
>>
>> Imagine
>>> the luck of the conspirators. Every time they needed some piece of
>>> evidence covered up, the person responsible for that piece of evidence
>>> went along with the cover up. Not one person refused to do what was
>>> necessary and blow the whistle on the cover up. What an amazing place
>>> Conspiracyland must be.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Looks like you've lost it again, seeing conspiracies
>> everywhere. Some evidence was covered up or manufactured, but some was
>> not.
>>
>
> It all points to Oswald and no one else. That's why you are ALWAYS
> inventing new excuses to dismiss it.
>

Ok, so how did Oswald fire the shot from the grassy knoll?

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The memos were sent to the WC lawyers reporting on events with the limo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the memos were using the same wrong date, which was the date the limo was in Michigan, which was kept quiet, I suspect that they wanted to make it appear the limo had been in the garage on that date. But the garage log shows only that on the 25th, there were 2 entries, both for a person checking the garage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just how did you determine the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. I'm sure
>>>>> it is from a highly reliable source and not some kook website. <chuckle>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, George Whitaker told the lawyer it was that date, and the
>>>> garage log corroborates that by having entries for other dates where the
>>>> limo had to be present, but nothing on the 25th.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't suppose you considered it could be Whitaker who got the date
>>> wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Not when the garage log fit with the Whitaker statement. The
>> 25th was the ONLY date possible that the limousine was not noted to be in
>> the garage.
>>
>
> The garage log said Arlington replaced the windshield on the 26th. There
> is no way that the limo could possibly have been rebuilt and return to
> Washington by the 26th. The rebuild of the limo could only have been done
> after the windshield was replaced and that didn't happen until the 26th.
> The first stop was in Cincinnati for the cosmetic work and then Michigan
> for the adding of armor and bullet proof glass. The work that was done
> would have taken weeks to complete.
>

Exactly. Now prove it and document it. You can GUESS just as easily as
the kook, but just like the kook you can never prove anything.
>> during the vehicle???s inspection, he wrote: ???In addition,
>> of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the
>> windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were
>> removed.???
>>
>> From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>>
>
> Yup. Fragments from the head shot. You did note in Ferguson's letter that

Which fragments? Show me. How do you know it was the head shot?
You're just ASSuMING the way the kook does.
Do you know what happens when you ASSuME?

> he said the windshield had not been perforated. Do you know what that
> means?
>

No, stop using big words.
Sure, you know that and I know that, but the kook can't figure that out.

>>
>>
>>> Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
>>> the windshield.
>>>
>>> http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! There is no date on that article, but the work to make the limo
>> more resistant to attack was done later than the November 25th refurb,
>> that's for sure. That info was in Whitaker's statement (corroborated) and
>> had to be doe to cover up any evidence that may still be therein the
>> vehicle.
>>
>
> Oh, so now you have the limo being refurbished twice. A quickie on the
> 25th and the big one later on. After they did all this work did they
> teleport the limo back to Washington. You do know this was 1963 when

Jeez, you're not thinking kooky enough. Maybe they replaced the
windshield with the hole in it on the 25th with a cracked windshield and
sent it back a couple of hours later. Yeah, that's it!
But again, what did they used to creat the crack? A ball peen hammer or
a bullet. Lead? How much antimony to match Oswald's bullets?
How could they know the correct antimony levels without doing some NAA?
In 1963?

> little of the interstate highway system had been built which means it
> would have been transported over the old highway system for much of it's
> journey which means going through lots of cities and towns. A minimum of
> one day travel time in that era. The harder you work to try to save these
> ridiculous stories of yours the funnier they get.
>

You're on the right track, but maybe not thinking kooky enough. They can
send the limo with a bullet hole in it to Detroit, then on the way back on
the interstate with a new windshield some kook with lead bullets made from
Oswald's ammo lead cores is waiting to get revenge on the evil limo and
shoots it from behind. That could work.

>>
>>
>>> First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
>>> Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati. This was the company that did the
>>> original modifications to the Lincoln which turned it into a stretch limo
>>> with all the bells and whistles. After they got done with it, it was sent
>>> to the Ford plant in Dearborn for further modifications. Here is a summary
>>> of all that was done to the limo:
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! You're describing the original work to make the limo ready to
>> carry presidents. NOT what happened after the nurder.
>>
>
> I'd love to see you document that the limo got refurbished twice. I'd love
> to see it but I also know there is no chance that I will.
>

Quick Fix II, the Sequel?
Is there any chance in Hell that you guys will ever read the original
documents?

You know, like actual real research?

>>
>>
>>> The limo was almost completely rebuilt. You would have us believe that all
>>> that work was done in two cities and then the limo was returned to the
>>> White House garage by November 26 so that Arlington Glass could replace a
>>> windshield on a car that just received a $500,000 overhaul. Preposterous.
>>> You really ought to vet your sources. It seems someone has been telling
>>> you tall tales.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ABSOLUTELY WRONG! The biggest phony scam of all your efforts! ALL of
>> that work described the story of the creation of the limo and were thing
>> that happened long BEFORE any murder. It described the ORIGINAL work on
>> the limo to be the presidential vehicle. The work AFTER the murder was
>> just an internal refurbishing of the interior and replace the windshield.
>> The length was already added to and all the other work was done long
>> before.
>>
>
> You better hope there are no lurkers reading this because if there are
> they are all rolling on the floor laughing their asses off. You better


If the lurkers have the original documents, why don't they post them?

> hope that I'm the only one who is reading this nonsense of yours. I

Oh please, you know that I have to monitor all of his nonsense.
Sometimes I have to print out his nonsense because my friends can't
believe such a person really exists. They've heard rumors of such a
mythological character, but never seen one live.
What? The hard top was in the trunk and put on the limo at Parkland.

> You have really left the rails this time.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to understand why people knowing JFK had been shot and then saw the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blemish on the windshield would leap to the conclusion that a bullet was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fired through the windshield. I'd love to see you draw a line from Either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of JFK's wounds through that "hole" in the windshield and tell us where it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is pointing. It should be quite humorous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG! Try not to be too stupid by jumping in before you get the info
>>>>>>>>>>>> on what's going on. As it turns out, witnesses saw the hole in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> windshield close up and didn't make ridiculous mistakes like you would.
>>>>>>>>>>>> See above for the manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd love to see those quotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure thing. Here's one from Evalea Glanges:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "(3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern
>>>>>>>>>> Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told
>>>>>>>>>> attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: ???It was a real clean hole.???
>>>>>>>>>> In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed episode 7 of Nigel
>>>>>>>>>> Turner???s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled ???The Smoking
>>>>>>>>>> Guns,??? she said: ??????it was very clear, it was a
>>>>>>>>>> through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from
>>>>>>>>>> the front to the back???it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that
>>>>>>>>>> had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.??? At the time
>>>>>>>>>> of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the
>>>>>>>>>> Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She
>>>>>>>>>> had been a firearms expert all her adult life."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do love these witnesses who crawl out of the woodwork decades after
>>>>>>>>> the assassination with stories tailored to whet the appetites of
>>>>>>>>> conspiracy hobbyists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG! Stuff it. The witness stated what she saw after the limo was
>>>>>>>> at Parkland. You love to try and discredit witnesses that make your
>>>>>>>> stupid WCR look like a dried up old piece of fish bait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your cited is dated 2012. That's 49 years after the assassination by my
>>>>>>> calculation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG! You're being ridiculous again, try to get control of it. The date was the date of the article talking about all these things. You misquoted the portion I copied for you, which mentioned a date of 1999.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, 1999. That's a whole lot different. It was ONLY 36 years after the
>>>>> assassination. <chuckle>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's another one from the Ford plant manager:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview):
>>>>>>>>>> ???And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the
>>>>>>>>>> outside through???it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight
>>>>>>>>>> through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the
>>>>>>>>>> windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back
>>>>>>>>>> chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it???this had a
>>>>>>>>>> clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the
>>>>>>>>>> back.???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1993? What year did the assassination occur?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG! You know better. George Whitaker had told of his experience to
>>>>>>>> Weldon much earlier, but Weldon wrote it up and got info from Whitaker so
>>>>>>>> that he could put the story into a book of short articles "Murder in
>>>>>>>> Dealey Plaza". The specific article dealing with the limousine was called
>>>>>>>> "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" by Douglas Weldon, J.D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, tell us what date he did tell his story to Weldon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Offhand, I'd have to say not too long after it happened. Weldon was a lawyer in the area. And don't play the your old game of saying every single person that stated something after 1964 was memory impaired. It won't wash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Offhand? You really nailed it down, didn't you. Even by your standards
>>>>> this post contains so many funny excuses.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG! Keep trying. It won't work. If I went back and researched it
>>>> again, I might have a date for you, but it just isn't worth it, and the
>>>> evidence remains solid. If I remembered every little fact I ever read, I
>>>> would be in a different line than I am.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I love your excuses. They are worth the price of admission.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Good! Pay up! $10 per session.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Same as above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's another from Secret Service agent Charles Taylor Jr:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ???In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of
>>>>>>>>>> center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.???
He's still digging. Next stop China.




mainframetech

unread,
Jan 6, 2017, 6:34:25 PM1/6/17
to
The work to "rebuilt" the limo wasn't done until later.



> >
> >
> > > > It all fits together,
> > > > while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> > > > standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
> > > conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
> > > you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
> > > cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
> > > nature of the damage to the windshield.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
> > nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
> >
>
> It is a square peg and you are trying to drive it into a round hole. It
> doesn't fit at all. The only thing it fits are your silly beliefs and that
> is good enough for you.
>


Try using evidence and stop trying to make everything fit into a WCR
shaped hole.
Thank you! ::: bowing :::
WRONG! The rebuild for bullet proofing was done later AFTER the WCR
spoke of the things not being done safely for the prez.



> If you dispute the claim I just made, why don't you provide a timeline for
> where the limo went, the work that was done, and the dates it was
> completed. You would have better luck packing 10 lbs. of shit into a 5
> lbs. bag.
>



Nope. You just want me to work for nothing. I've told you what was
done on Monday the 25th, only internal refurbishing. The changes for
bullet proof glass and any welding of the frame was done later after
things settled down.



> >
> >
> > So according to your wacky tale, the limo was not in the White
> > > House garage on the 25th.




WRONG! That is not according to me, it's according to the evidence,
including the statement of George Whitaker.



According to you they transported the limo to
> > > the Ford plant in Michigan, refurbished it, and then transported it back
> > > to Washington so the windshield on the newly refurbished limo could be
> > > replaced by the local glass company. I suppose you think this makes
> > > sense.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! It makes perfect sense, but may be a bit beyond your ability to
> > follow. It is not according to me, it's according to George Whitaker and
> > the garage log and the 4 men and Ferguson who signed off the log when they
> > came in on the 26th to change the windshield, which corroborates each
> > other.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > Further on in the letter he explains that the cracked windshield was
> > > > > > > replaced by the Arlington Glass Company and the damaged windshield was
> > > > > > > locked away. This was BEFORE the limo was sent to Ford to be refurbished
> > > > > > > so that refutes anyone at the Ford plant who claims they saw a bullet hole
> > > > > > > in the windshield.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! And WRONG again! You'll never learn. Trying to get through all this info quickly so you don't pay attention to what's going on around you. First, the letter you're trying to use was written Dec. 18th, nowhere near the dates we're concerned with. They could contain anything referring back to the past. I mentioned that above, but you seem to have missed it. If you ENLARGED the garage log I showed you, you'd see that Arlington Glass came on the 26th, NOT the 25th as Ferguson would have you believe!
> > > > >
> > > > > Which indicates the limo was still in Washington on that date.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It indicates nothing or the sort. All the evidence told to you above
> > > > proves that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th,
> > >
> > > No, you cited one guy who said the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I cited George Whitaker AND the garage log, both of which
> > agree that it was the 25th. The men from Arlington Glass also agree that
> > the repair was made on the 26th, and not the 25th.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > and it was being
> > > > refurbished, including the forward windshield, which had a bullet hole and
> > > > was ordered to be destroyed.
> > >
> > > Ordered. And of course you have evidence such an order was given. You
> > > wouldn't just make up a story that somebody issued an order to destroy
> > > evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Whitaker gave as part of his story, that the workers he saw in
> > the Glass plant told him the orders came down from above that the
> > windshield was to be destroyed. So that is part of his statement.
>
> Source?
>



The statement was from George Whitaker as you've been told. He stated
as it says above that he was told by his workers that the order had come
down from higher up in the plant's hierarchy.
Yes, that Ferguson was helping out Rowley by lying for him. His job
depended on Rowley and what Rowley thought of Ferguson.



> > > > They cracked it
> > > > themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> > > > crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> > > > plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> > > > Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> > > > evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
> > > >
> > > Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The date problem was resolved by evidence from the garage log
> > and from George Whitaker! <belly laugh>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
> > > windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Strange that you should pretend you know that. What's your
> > proof for that? I've shown my proof for that being false.
> >
>
> That was stated in the last line of the Ferguson letter which you posted the
> link to. Too bad you didn't bother to read your own source. It stated Mr.
> Davis from the SS took possession of the windshield and locked it away.
>



That really happened, but what he took was the good windshield that
they intentionally cracked when it came back from Michigan. The bullet
hole windshield was replaced in Michigan with a good windshield which they
cracked purposefully when the limo got back from the refurb.



> > > > > > But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They must have made an error because what they wrote doesn't fit with your
> > > > > beliefs. Par for the course.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! We have the statement from Michigan that the limo was there and
> > > > that there was a bullet hole in the windshield, and we have the witnesses
> > > > there and in Washington DC. It's a complete story corroborated and set.
> > > > The problem rests with you and your beloved WCR.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have an uncorroborated statement by Whitaker which you refuse to
> > > consider could be the error which created the conflict in the dates.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I've pointed out the corroboration for Whitaker's statement
> > above. He was corroborated by the W.H. garage log, which had only one
> > possible date for the limo to be missing from the garage, the 25th. Keep
> > squirming, it's my amusement now as you try every phony trick to get out
> > of the facts in the forensic evidence (garage log).
> >
>
> The White House log only indicates the windshield was replaced on the
> 26th. That does nothing to corroborate that the limo was in Michigan on
> the 25th. In fact it refutes it given the extensive work that was done on
> the limo. There's no way that work could have been completed on the 25th
> and the limo returned to Washington on the 26th.
>



You tried that baloney before and were answered. All the work you
would like to have had done all at the same time was NOT done. Only the
internal refurbishment was done in Michigan just after the murder.



> >
> >
> > > Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
> > > the windshield.
> > >
> > > http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! There is no date on that article, but the work to make the limo
> > more resistant to attack was done later than the November 25th refurb,
> > that's for sure. That info was in Whitaker's statement (corroborated) and
> > had to be done to cover up any evidence that may still be there in the
> > vehicle.
> >
>
> Oh, so now you have the limo being refurbished twice. A quickie on the
> 25th and the big one later on. After they did all this work did they
> teleport the limo back to Washington.




I haven't changed a thing. You have been running around making
mistakes all over the place as usual.



You do know this was 1963 when
> little of the interstate highway system had been built which means it
> would have been transported over the old highway system for much of it's
> journey which means going through lots of cities and towns. A minimum of
> one day travel time in that era. The harder you work to try to save these
> ridiculous stories of yours the funnier they get.
>



WRONG! The harder you work to try and pretend the work that was done
was not done, the sillier you get. It is possible they used the C-130 to
move the limo to Michigan. It wasn't stated clearly. Whitaker knew when
and what was done, but not about the transportation.



> >
> >
> > > First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
> > > Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati.



ABSOLUTELY FALSE! That came later. First the limo went to Rouge
Michigan plant to be refurbished, including the removal of all internal
padding and other internal removables.



This was the company that did the
> > > original modifications to the Lincoln which turned it into a stretch limo
> > > with all the bells and whistles. After they got done with it, it was sent
> > > to the Ford plant in Dearborn for further modifications. Here is a summary
> > > of all that was done to the limo:
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You're describing the original work to make the limo ready to
> > carry presidents. NOT what happened after the murder.
> >
>
> I'd love to see you document that the limo got refurbished twice. I'd love
> to see it but I also know there is no chance that I will.
>
> >
> > > "Reportedly, the $500,000 overhaul replaced 80 percent of the vehicle.
> > > According to a 1964 Associated Press dispatch, the customizers added 1,600
> > > pounds of metal and other materials to the car, reinforcing the body
> > > with armor plate and replacing its glass with special panes that
> > > reportedly were capable of withstanding a direct hit from a 30-caliber
> > > rifle round.  The interchangeable roofs were replaced with a
> > > bulletproof hardtop and a 1,500-pound rear window that, at the time, was
> > > the largest piece of curved bullet-resistant glass ever fabricated,
> > > according to Popular Mechanics. Additionally, large metal handgrips were
> > > installed on each side of the back trunk so that, if needed, Secret
> > > Service agents could jump onto the vehicle while it rolled down the
> > > street.  Special puncture-proof tires were mounted on the
> > > wheels. Finally, the rear compartment was refurbished, to eliminate any
> > > damage from JFK's killing."
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > All that info was in the article linked to above, and it was all done
> > BEFORE the murder to carry presidents in the future. Show the dates of
> > that work.
> >
>
> WHAT!!!??? Are you really going to tell us all that armor and bullet proof
> glass was added to the limo BEFORE the assassination. If that is what you
> are really saying that is the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous things
> you have ever said. Did you read the part where it said a PERMANENT hard
> top was put on the limo. How could that have been done before the
> assassination? Did you read the part about all the bullet proof glass that
> was installed? What does that do for your claim that somebody shot JFK
> through the windshield?
>
> >
> >
> > > The limo was almost completely rebuilt. You would have us believe that all
> > > that work was done in two cities and then the limo was returned to the
> > > White House garage by November 26 so that Arlington Glass could replace a
> > > windshield on a car that just received a $500,000 overhaul. Preposterous.
> > > You really ought to vet your sources. It seems someone has been telling
> > > you tall tales.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY WRONG! The biggest phony scam of all your efforts! ALL of
> > that work described the story of the creation of the limo and were thing
> > that happened long BEFORE any murder. It described the ORIGINAL work on
> > the limo to be the presidential vehicle. The work AFTER the murder was
> > just an internal refurbishing of the interior and replace the windshield.
> > The length was already added to and all the other work was done long
> > before.
> >
>
> You better hope there are no lurkers reading this because if there are
> they are all rolling on the floor laughing their asses off. You better
> hope that I'm the only one who is reading this nonsense of yours. I
> already know about the ridiculous things you claim. You can pretty much
> count on Marsh reading it too. He is going to be more than happy to point
> out how preposterous this latest claim of yours is.
>



Don't give me that crap. The complication is coming from you, who in
your inability to understand what is being told to you is mucking up the
works.

Now here it is from start to finish in order of the work done. First,
the limo was planned and created, with a bubble top and with 3 feet added
to the middle to lengthen it.

Then the limo was used to conduct JFK around Dallas and the shots rang
out and got JFK and killed him. The limo was then sent to Michigan to
have an internal refurbishment and replace the windshield which had a
bullet hole in it. It came back to the W.H. garage and was logged as
being there before and after the 25th, which is the day it was in
Michigan. Later when the WC made their report and included info about the
safety of the limo for the president, the limo was planned to be modified
with bullet proof glass and other safety steps, and the limo was sent to
have those changes made to it. That is the sequence of the work that was
done.



> I suppose I could highlight this by opening a new thread but I will spare
> you. Doing so would just be piling on.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > > > > > > > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > > > > > > > Michigan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> > > > > > > suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> > > > > > > would conflict with a long held factoid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Still waiting for you to tell us how you determined the date "they
> > > > > spirited the limo away to Michigan".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! That was given to you above. George Whitaker stated it to the
> > > > lawyer he spoke with in Michigan (Doug Weldon, JD), but the garage log
> > > > backed him up, along with the Arlington Glass workers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let's see you reconcile Whitaker's account with the work done to refurbish
> > > the limo and the replacement of the windshield by Arlington Glass on
> > > November 26.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! That was done above. Stop repeating it all. You lost the
> > argument based on the evidence. The work you tried to pretend was done
> > all on the same day (26th) had really been done when the limo was created.
>
> Then why didn't JFK have a hardtop on the limo in Dallas since a PERMANENT
> hardtop was one of the major modifications done?
>


Because the permanent hardtop was done later after the WC report about
the limo safety. In Dallas the limo had a bubble top in the trunk.



>
> > AFTER the murder only an internal refurb was needed and a replacement of
> > the windshield and destruction of the old one with the bullet hole in it.
> > No major change to the structure of the limo was done at that time. The
> > protective steps were done later after the WC came back with their report
> > including the limitations of the limo.
> >
>
> So the hardtop was added to the limo before the assassination?
>
> You have really left the rails this time.
>


The permanent hard top HAD to be put ion AFTER the murder! The murder
occurred with the bubble top in the trunk. The limo had to be open for
the shots to get through to JFK and Connally. Think it through.
WRONG! You might think you're being clever saying such a ridiculous
thing, but the issues wer made clear above. You've lost again. You just
don't do any careful research and wind up looking stupid because of it.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 7, 2017, 4:36:34 PM1/7/17
to
Oh, so now you have changed your story. Just yesterday you were telling us
it had been done BEFORE the assassination. I guess when I pointed out to
you that a permanent hardtop had been installed, even you realized how
ludicrous a suggestion that is so now you are claiming there were two
separate refurbishments done AFTER the assassination. And of course you
can document that. You wouldn't just pull something like that out of your
ass to try to save another of your silly stories.

It's always entertaining to see the mental gyrations you have to go
through to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > It all fits together,
> > > > > while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> > > > > standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
> > > > conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
> > > > you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
> > > > cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
> > > > nature of the damage to the windshield.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
> > > nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
> > >
> >
> > It is a square peg and you are trying to drive it into a round hole. It
> > doesn't fit at all. The only thing it fits are your silly beliefs and that
> > is good enough for you.
> >
>
>
> Try using evidence and stop trying to make everything fit into a WCR
> shaped hole.
>
OK, let's try using evidence. Where is your evidence that there were TWO separate refurbishments to the limo after the assassination.
Cite?
>
>
> > If you dispute the claim I just made, why don't you provide a timeline for
> > where the limo went, the work that was done, and the dates it was
> > completed. You would have better luck packing 10 lbs. of shit into a 5
> > lbs. bag.
> >
>
>
>
> Nope. You just want me to work for nothing.

You're the one making these fantastic claims. I can understand that you
would not be able to back them up.

> I've told you what was
> done on Monday the 25th, only internal refurbishing.

So I should believe that just because you say so even though you can't
document it. The internal refurbishing was done by Hess & Eisenhardt
Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. So how could Whitaker have seen the limo if
it was being refurbished in Cincinnati?

> The changes for
> bullet proof glass and any welding of the frame was done later after
> things settled down.
>

Yes they were. It was several months later according to this New York
Daily News article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/jfk-lincoln-limo-served-long-fateful-day-dallas-article-1.1523429

An interesting tidbit from this story:

"The car’s original windshield, including damage from bullets,
remains in the National Archives in Washington, DC."

This conflicts with your claim that the windshield with the perforating
bullet hole had been destroyed.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > So according to your wacky tale, the limo was not in the White
> > > > House garage on the 25th.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! That is not according to me, it's according to the evidence,
> including the statement of George Whitaker.
>

That is the only evidence you have offered. Nothing to corroborate it.

Since you refused to corroborate Whitaker I did a little digging of my own
and learned more about Whitaker's story. I came across this:

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

"Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor
Company’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and
professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape
recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November
25th, he discovered the JFK limousine — a unique, one-of-a-kind
item that he unequivocally identified — in the Rouge
Plant’s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the
process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then
contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he
worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After
knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in
by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of
the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been
told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it
in shape — and to then get the new windshield back to the B
building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly
being rebuilt."

So even according to Whitaker's bullshit story, he had to fabricate a new
windshield using the old windshield as a template. Do you have any idea
how long that would take just to make that windshield. Then of course it
would have to be installed. In addition this story says the interior had
been completely stripped. So they would have had to install a brand new
interiors as well. They would have had to do all that work and then
transport the limo back to Washington by the 26th for your story to hold
water. Preposterous.
The source was George Whitaker. He was the one who claimed these orders
were given. As with everything else in his dubious story, there is nothing
to corroborate it. Just a guy beating his gums with a fantastic tale 30
years after the assassination. Just the kind of witness you love to go all
in with.
Oh, Ferguson and Rowley were lying. You never considered the possibility
that Whitaker was the one telling the tall tales.

>
>
> > > > > They cracked it
> > > > > themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> > > > > crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> > > > > plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> > > > > Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> > > > > evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
> > > > >
> > > > Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The date problem was resolved by evidence from the garage log
> > > and from George Whitaker! <belly laugh>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
> > > > windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Strange that you should pretend you know that. What's your
> > > proof for that? I've shown my proof for that being false.
> > >
> >
> > That was stated in the last line of the Ferguson letter which you posted the
> > link to. Too bad you didn't bother to read your own source. It stated Mr.
> > Davis from the SS took possession of the windshield and locked it away.
> >
>
>
>
> That really happened, but what he took was the good windshield that
> they intentionally cracked when it came back from Michigan.

I'd love to see your source for that fantastic claim. But I know I never
will.

> The bullet
> hole windshield was replaced in Michigan with a good windshield which they
> cracked purposefully when the limo got back from the refurb.

The things you dream up. <chuckle>

>
>
>
> > > > > > > But you had to go off without looking at what was going on, and screwed up again! Ferguson and Rowley BOTH made the same error in their memos of saying it was the 25th that the Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield, but it was the 26th. On the 25th, the limo wasn't in the garage, it was in Michigan being refurbished.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They must have made an error because what they wrote doesn't fit with your
> > > > > > beliefs. Par for the course.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! We have the statement from Michigan that the limo was there and
> > > > > that there was a bullet hole in the windshield, and we have the witnesses
> > > > > there and in Washington DC. It's a complete story corroborated and set.
> > > > > The problem rests with you and your beloved WCR.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have an uncorroborated statement by Whitaker which you refuse to
> > > > consider could be the error which created the conflict in the dates.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I've pointed out the corroboration for Whitaker's statement
> > > above. He was corroborated by the W.H. garage log, which had only one
> > > possible date for the limo to be missing from the garage, the 25th. Keep
> > > squirming, it's my amusement now as you try every phony trick to get out
> > > of the facts in the forensic evidence (garage log).
> > >
> >
> > The White House log only indicates the windshield was replaced on the
> > 26th. That does nothing to corroborate that the limo was in Michigan on
> > the 25th. In fact it refutes it given the extensive work that was done on
> > the limo. There's no way that work could have been completed on the 25th
> > and the limo returned to Washington on the 26th.
> >
>
>
>
> You tried that baloney before and were answered. All the work you
> would like to have had done all at the same time was NOT done. Only the
> internal refurbishment was done in Michigan just after the murder.
>

I'm aware you've had to invent a second refurbishment of the limo to your
bullshit story to try to hold it together. Of course there is no way you
could document that there were two such refurbishments in the aftermath of
the assassination.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
> > > > the windshield.
> > > >
> > > > http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! There is no date on that article, but the work to make the limo
> > > more resistant to attack was done later than the November 25th refurb,
> > > that's for sure. That info was in Whitaker's statement (corroborated) and
> > > had to be done to cover up any evidence that may still be there in the
> > > vehicle.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, so now you have the limo being refurbished twice. A quickie on the
> > 25th and the big one later on. After they did all this work did they
> > teleport the limo back to Washington.
>
>
>
>
> I haven't changed a thing. You have been running around making
> mistakes all over the place as usual.
>

Actually you have. Earlier you told us the major modifications were done
before the assassination. I guess even you could see how ludicrous that
was so now you've moved the major rebuilt until after the assassination.

>
>
> You do know this was 1963 when
> > little of the interstate highway system had been built which means it
> > would have been transported over the old highway system for much of it's
> > journey which means going through lots of cities and towns. A minimum of
> > one day travel time in that era. The harder you work to try to save these
> > ridiculous stories of yours the funnier they get.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! The harder you work to try and pretend the work that was done
> was not done, the sillier you get. It is possible they used the C-130 to
> move the limo to Michigan. It wasn't stated clearly. Whitaker knew when
> and what was done, but not about the transportation.
>

So in the finest conspiracy hobbyist tradition, if something isn't known
you get to assume a scenario that fits your beliefs. Why would they bother
going to the expense of flying the limo to Michigan. The limo is flown by
cargo plane so it will be there for the President when he arrives. That
wouldn't be necessary for a rebuilding of the limo.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
> > > > Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati.
>
>
>
> ABSOLUTELY FALSE! That came later. First the limo went to Rouge
> Michigan plant to be refurbished, including the removal of all internal
> padding and other internal removables.
>

So says George Whitaker. Anything to back that up?
I have produced two separate stories which indicate that Hess & Eisenhardt
of Cincinnati, Ohio was involved in both the original customization of the
limo as well as the post assassination rebuild. You haven't provided one
source that indicates there were two separate refurbishments following the
assassination. You simply made that up to save your ludicrous story.

>
>
> > I suppose I could highlight this by opening a new thread but I will spare
> > you. Doing so would just be piling on.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > There is a similar memo from Rowley, head of the SS, giving the same
> > > > > > > > > wrong date, which was the date the limo was in the Ford Rouge plant in
> > > > > > > > > Michigan.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh, they both gave the same wrong date. What a coincidence. I don't
> > > > > > > > suppose you stopped to consider it was the right date. Of course not. That
> > > > > > > > would conflict with a long held factoid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WRONG! You'll just never get it! The garage log shows that both memos were wrong! Whether by accident or intent we can't prove, but it's suspicious that the date they spirited the limo away to Michigan they also made a date mistake for that date. Arlington Glass came and replaced the windshield on the 26th and the old windshield was put away locked up. Photos were taken of it. But of course, the ORIGINAL windshield with the bullet hole in it seen by 6 witnesses was NOT saved, it was ordered destroyed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still waiting for you to tell us how you determined the date "they
> > > > > > spirited the limo away to Michigan".
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! That was given to you above. George Whitaker stated it to the
> > > > > lawyer he spoke with in Michigan (Doug Weldon, JD), but the garage log
> > > > > backed him up, along with the Arlington Glass workers.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's see you reconcile Whitaker's account with the work done to refurbish
> > > > the limo and the replacement of the windshield by Arlington Glass on
> > > > November 26.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! That was done above. Stop repeating it all. You lost the
> > > argument based on the evidence. The work you tried to pretend was done
> > > all on the same day (26th) had really been done when the limo was created.
> >
> > Then why didn't JFK have a hardtop on the limo in Dallas since a PERMANENT
> > hardtop was one of the major modifications done?
> >
>
>
> Because the permanent hardtop was done later after the WC report about
> the limo safety. In Dallas the limo had a bubble top in the trunk.
>

I'd love to see you document that this modification was done after the WCR
was published.

>
>
> >
> > > AFTER the murder only an internal refurb was needed and a replacement of
> > > the windshield and destruction of the old one with the bullet hole in it.
> > > No major change to the structure of the limo was done at that time. The
> > > protective steps were done later after the WC came back with their report
> > > including the limitations of the limo.
> > >
> >
> > So the hardtop was added to the limo before the assassination?
> >
> > You have really left the rails this time.
> >
>
>
> The permanent hard top HAD to be put ion AFTER the murder! The murder
> occurred with the bubble top in the trunk. The limo had to be open for
> the shots to get through to JFK and Connally. Think it through.
>

I knew that. I was pointing out the fallacies in your story.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 8, 2017, 1:58:48 PM1/8/17
to
Well it is a little complicated and people are mixing things up. The
windshield was replaced a couple of days later, but it was just a
regular windshield, but bulletproof. It took a study group a couple of
weeks to decide what to do. Hess and Esiehardt could do the interior,
but The motor and chassis improvements had to come from Ford.
I suggest that you read the original documents on the Quick Fix,'Where
do you think you can find them? WC, McAdams, DVP, Myers, Steve Barber?


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau1.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau2.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau3.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods1.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods2.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods3.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods4.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods5.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods6.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods7.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods8.jpg
Google.
https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-resources/popular-topics/kennedy-limo/


>>
>>
>>>
>>>> AFTER the murder only an internal refurb was needed and a replacement of
>>>> the windshield and destruction of the old one with the bullet hole in it.
>>>> No major change to the structure of the limo was done at that time. The
>>>> protective steps were done later after the WC came back with their report
>>>> including the limitations of the limo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the hardtop was added to the limo before the assassination?
>>>
>>> You have really left the rails this time.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The permanent hard top HAD to be put ion AFTER the murder! The murder
>> occurred with the bubble top in the trunk. The limo had to be open for
>> the shots to get through to JFK and Connally. Think it through.
>>
>
> I knew that. I was pointing out the fallacies in your story.
>

Some come just from not researching it.

>


mainframetech

unread,
Jan 8, 2017, 10:24:43 PM1/8/17
to
> > The work to "rebuild" the limo wasn't done until later.
> >
>
> Oh, so now you have changed your story. Just yesterday you were telling us
> it had been done BEFORE the assassination. I guess when I pointed out to
> you that a permanent hardtop had been installed, even you realized how
> ludicrous a suggestion that is so now you are claiming there were two
> separate refurbishments done AFTER the assassination. And of course you
> can document that. You wouldn't just pull something like that out of your
> ass to try to save another of your silly stories.
>


WRONG! You have managed to completely screw up the whole sequence
because of your terrible logic problem. It's the only excuse for you I
can find. I have laid down the complete sequence of all these things in
one of these threads and it was simple.



> It's always entertaining to see the mental gyrations you have to go
> through to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.
>


I made the sequence of these things simple just for you, but you
managed to screw it up anyway. I don't have to go through gyrations, I
simply lay out the sequence from the files and record. The official
record told you that the limo was designed and built for the presidency
BEFORE any murder. That included putting 3 feet of metal in to lengthen
the limo for the jump seats. When the murder was done on a Friday, the
limo had a bullet hole in the left windshield as per 6 witnesses. The SS
decided to send out the limo to Rouge, Michigan to have it refurbished,
supposedly because LBJ said he wanted it soon for the funeral. They sent
it out on Monday the 25th with orders to redo the internals and replace
the windshield and destroy the old windshield.

Whitaker then saw the limo on the 25th in his shops and saw the bullet
hole, thus becoming the 6th witness to it. The limo was returned to the
W.H. garage on the 25th with a new windshield. Then they must have
cracked that windshield because on the 26th Arlington Glass came in and
signed in to the garage and replaced the windshield. Much later the WCR
made mention of the safety limitations of the limo and they took that to
heart and planned some changes to the limo based on the WCR and sent the
limo out to have the work done, which included bullet proof glass.

Now that is the true sequence based on the evidence and the records.
Please copy it down so you don't screw it up again and embarrass yourself
again.




> > > > > > It all fits together,
> > > > > > while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> > > > > > standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
> > > > > conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
> > > > > you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
> > > > > cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
> > > > > nature of the damage to the windshield.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
> > > > nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is a square peg and you are trying to drive it into a round hole. It
> > > doesn't fit at all. The only thing it fits are your silly beliefs and that
> > > is good enough for you.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Try using evidence and stop trying to make everything fit into a WCR
> > shaped hole.
> >
> OK, let's try using evidence. Where is your evidence that there were TWO separate refurbishments to the limo after the assassination.


See above. The sequence is there. And the second changes to the limo
were based on the WCR, which hadn't come out until 1964. The first
changes were only a refurbishment to cover up the evidence and the blood
from the murder.


If you want to be strictly correct about changes to the limo, there
were really 3 of them. ?The first was when the limo was planned in about
1961, and the plans were executed and the limo was then ready for use by
the presidents. Then the second change was after the murder, when the
limo was sent to Michigan for internal refurbishment, which covered up any
evidence and caused the windshield to be replaced, and the old one
destroyed. Then later around December, safety faults in the limo were
noted, and they planned changes and sent the limo out to make those
changes, and it came back around May, 1964.

Simple. No telling why you get so screwed up over this info. It's
pretty straightforward.
"The White House approved a plan for a revamp of the X-100 around
December 12, 1963. Work was completed May 1, 1964 and extensive testing
was performed in Cincinnati, Ohio and Dearborn, Michigan before the car
was delivered to the White House in June."

From: https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-resources/popular-topics/kennedy-limo/



> >
> >
> > > If you dispute the claim I just made, why don't you provide a timeline for
> > > where the limo went, the work that was done, and the dates it was
> > > completed. You would have better luck packing 10 lbs. of shit into a 5
> > > lbs. bag.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nope. You just want me to work for nothing.
>
> You're the one making these fantastic claims. I can understand that you
> would not be able to back them up.
>
> > I've told you what was
> > done on Monday the 25th, only internal refurbishing.
>
> So I should believe that just because you say so even though you can't
> document it. The internal refurbishing was done by Hess & Eisenhardt
> Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. So how could Whitaker have seen the limo if
> it was being refurbished in Cincinnati?
>


WRONG yet again! You're not listening, and your faulty logic is
screwing you up. Hess & Eisenhardt returned the limo in 1964 from the
last planned changes. The documentation for that is above. No connection
to the changes of November 25th. You've been shown the documentation for
the change on the 25th, which was the one that covered up evidence.
You've seen the statements of various witnesses as to the bullet hole, and
the garage log and the statement of Whitaker proving that the limo was
worked on in Rouge, Michigan. Also above is the documentation for the 3rd
set of changes to the limo which were done by Hess & Eisenhardt.



You're welcome to research it yourself, but I don't think you do much
of that these days. I've laid out the sequence of events related to the
limo above today. Also the sequence of the changes to the limo.

> > The changes for
> > bullet proof glass and any welding of the frame was done later after
> > things settled down.
> >
>
> Yes they were. It was several months later according to this New York
> Daily News article.
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/jfk-lincoln-limo-served-long-fateful-day-dallas-article-1.1523429
>
> An interesting tidbit from this story:
>
> "The car’s original windshield, including damage from bullets,
> remains in the National Archives in Washington, DC."
>
> This conflicts with your claim that the windshield with the perforating
> bullet hole had been destroyed.
>


WRONG! Not at all. Remember, there was a scam that was executed.
When the limo came back from Michigan with a new windshield and the old
one with the bullet hole was destroyed, they had to crack that windshield
with something, a hammer or whatever, and then Arlington Glass came in on
the 26th and replaced that cracked windshield, which is the one that was
saved under lock and key, and it also the one saved in the National
Archives. Simple.



> > > > So according to your wacky tale, the limo was not in the White
> > > > > House garage on the 25th.



WRONG! According to the Garage log and George Whitaker and Douglas
Weldon.



> > WRONG! That is not according to me, it's according to the evidence,
> > including the statement of George Whitaker.
> >
>
> That is the only evidence you have offered. Nothing to corroborate it.
>



LOL! Having trouble with this part of the case? Whitaker and the
garage log corroborate each other.



> Since you refused to corroborate Whitaker I did a little digging of my own
> and learned more about Whitaker's story. I came across this:
>
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> "Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor
> Company’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and
> professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape
> recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November
> 25th, he discovered the JFK limousine — a unique, one-of-a-kind
> item that he unequivocally identified — in the Rouge
> Plant’s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the
> process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then
> contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he
> worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After
> knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in
> by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of
> the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been
> told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it
> in shape — and to then get the new windshield back to the B
> building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly
> being rebuilt."
>
> So even according to Whitaker's bullshit story, he had to fabricate a new
> windshield using the old windshield as a template. Do you have any idea
> how long that would take just to make that windshield. Then of course it
> would have to be installed.



WRONG! As usual you've screwed up again. Did it occur to you that the
limo was off the assembly line and the windshield was a standard item?
They merely had to go to spares and pull the right windshield. The order
to use the old one as a template was just the kind of thinking from the SS
or from the higher ups in the Ford company who probably didn't know about
spares and standard size windshields. And while they were fitting a new
windshield and seeing to the destruction of the old one, the internals
were being worked on by a different crew in a different part of the plant.



In addition this story says the interior had
> been completely stripped. So they would have had to install a brand new
> interiors as well. They would have had to do all that work and then
> transport the limo back to Washington by the 26th for your story to hold
> water. Preposterous.
>



When the White House commands, Ford complies. It was done on that
date, and you can play with everything you want to, you won't change the
data, and you won't win any arguments over it either.
WRONG! The key item of his story was the bullet hole in the windshield,
and he had 5 other witnesses that corroborated his sighting of that bullet
hole. As well, Ferguson made it clear that the limo smelled like blood
and such, and was not fit to use in that condition, so it would have to be
redone as to the internal appointments. It's not an exact case, but I've
watched them make seat covers in minutes for cars on TV. Gas Money has a
lady that does it very quickly. You can watch the process when they also
refurbish cars for someone as a prize. Though they change the engine and
everything.
WRONG! You keep forgetting the key information. Whitaker had 5 other
witnesses to corroborate his story of the bullet hole in the windshield.
And Ferguson and Rowley were wrong with their date of the 25th that the
limo was worked on. When they gave faulty info it's suspicious. Think it
through.



> >
> >
> > > > > > They cracked it
> > > > > > themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> > > > > > crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> > > > > > plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> > > > > > Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> > > > > > evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! The date problem was resolved by evidence from the garage log
> > > > and from George Whitaker! <belly laugh>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
> > > > > windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Strange that you should pretend you know that. What's your
> > > > proof for that? I've shown my proof for that being false.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That was stated in the last line of the Ferguson letter which you posted the
> > > link to. Too bad you didn't bother to read your own source. It stated Mr.
> > > Davis from the SS took possession of the windshield and locked it away.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > That really happened, but what he took was the good windshield that
> > they intentionally cracked when it came back from Michigan.
>
> I'd love to see your source for that fantastic claim. But I know I never
> will.
>


WRONG! If you followed what I've told you, then you've seen the
documentation and proof that the windshield had a bullet hole in it, and
was destroyed. The limo could ONLY come back to the garage with a good
windshield, yet there was something cracked when Arlington Glass came to
replace it. So the only possibility was that the SS cracked it with
something, like a hammer. THEN it was replaced. Simple.



> > The bullet
> > hole windshield was replaced in Michigan with a good windshield which they
> > cracked purposefully when the limo got back from the refurb.
>
> The things you dream up. <chuckle>
>


WRONG! The things that the evidence proves out. <belly laugh>
BULLSHIT! WRONG again! See above at the full sequence of events. And
the record bears it out, and you've seen that too. There were 3 sets of
changes to the limo, and the second one was the refurbishment to replace
the windshield and the internal seat covers and etc.



> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
> > > > > the windshield.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! There is no date on that article, but the work to make the limo
> > > > more resistant to attack was done later than the November 25th refurb,
> > > > that's for sure. That info was in Whitaker's statement (corroborated) and
> > > > had to be done to cover up any evidence that may still be there in the
> > > > vehicle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, so now you have the limo being refurbished twice. A quickie on the
> > > 25th and the big one later on. After they did all this work did they
> > > teleport the limo back to Washington.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I haven't changed a thing. You have been running around making
> > mistakes all over the place as usual.
> >
>
> Actually you have. Earlier you told us the major modifications were done
> before the assassination. I guess even you could see how ludicrous that
> was so now you've moved the major rebuilt until after the assassination.
>


WRONG! I said nothing of the kind. There were many changes made to
create the limousine, but that was during the creation of the limo, and it
was before the murder. Just after the murder was the refurb and
replacement of the windshield, and later there was major changes to the
limo for safety, like bullet proof glass.



> > You do know this was 1963 when
> > > little of the interstate highway system had been built which means it
> > > would have been transported over the old highway system for much of it's
> > > journey which means going through lots of cities and towns. A minimum of
> > > one day travel time in that era. The harder you work to try to save these
> > > ridiculous stories of yours the funnier they get.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The harder you work to try and pretend the work that was done
> > was not done, the sillier you get. It is possible they used the C-130 to
> > move the limo to Michigan. It wasn't stated clearly. Whitaker knew when
> > and what was done, but not about the transportation.
> >
>
> So in the finest conspiracy hobbyist tradition, if something isn't known
> you get to assume a scenario that fits your beliefs. Why would they bother
> going to the expense of flying the limo to Michigan. The limo is flown by
> cargo plane so it will be there for the President when he arrives. That
> wouldn't be necessary for a rebuilding of the limo.
>



WRONG! It just doesn't dawn on you that the work that had to be done to
cover up things in the limo had to be done and they weren't too concerned
about cost. They had to mover the limo fast and get the windshield
replaced and did it away from Washington.



> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
> > > > > Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati.
> >
> >
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY FALSE! That came later. First the limo went to Rouge
> > Michigan plant to be refurbished, including the removal of all internal
> > padding and other internal removables.
> >
>
> So says George Whitaker. Anything to back that up?
>


Don't give me that crap. You've just about lost this argument and are
now hunting for the silly things. The work was done and if it hadn't been
done it would have been noticed because as Ferguson said the limo smelled
of blood and such. But if none of that were done, we know the windshield
was replaced, because Arlington Glass came in and replaced a windshield
with only a crack in it, and the original windshield had a bullet hole in
it after the witnesses saw it.
There were 3 changes to the limo, and I've laid them out above.
You're just repeating in hopes that something will change which is
foolish.
I'm not sure I can. The major changes came back done From Hess &
Eisenhardt in May, 1964 but the WCR came out in September. Either way,
they planned changes AFTER the murder, and sent the limo out AFTER
December 12th. That had nothing to do with the sending out for replacing
the windshield and internal appointments.



> >
> >
> > >
> > > > AFTER the murder only an internal refurb was needed and a replacement of
> > > > the windshield and destruction of the old one with the bullet hole in it.
> > > > No major change to the structure of the limo was done at that time. The
> > > > protective steps were done later after the WC came back with their report
> > > > including the limitations of the limo.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So the hardtop was added to the limo before the assassination?
> > >
> > > You have really left the rails this time.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The permanent hard top HAD to be put on AFTER the murder! The murder
> > occurred with the bubble top in the trunk. The limo had to be open for
> > the shots to get through to JFK and Connally. Think it through.
> >
>
> I knew that. I was pointing out the fallacies in your story.


There are none, only in your mind.

Chris

OHLeeRedux

unread,
Jan 8, 2017, 11:07:34 PM1/8/17
to

10:58 AMAnthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Well it is a little complicated and people are mixing things up. The
windshield was replaced a couple of days later, but it was just a regular
windshield, but bulletproof. It took a study group a couple of weeks to
decide what to do. Hess and Esiehardt could do the interior, but The motor
and chassis improvements had to come from Ford. I suggest that you read
the original documents on the Quick Fix,'Where do you think you can find
them? WC, McAdams, DVP, Myers, Steve Barber?


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau1.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau2.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Boudreau3.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods1.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods2.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods3.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods4.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods5.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods6.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods7.jpg

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/D-2mods8.jpg
- show quoted text -
Google.
https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-resources/popular-topics/kennedy-limo/


>>
>>
>>>
>>>> AFTER the murder only an internal refurb was needed and a replacement of
>>>> the windshield and destruction of the old one with the bullet hole in it.
>>>> No major change to the structure of the limo was done at that time. The
>>>> protective steps were done later after the WC came back with their report
>>>> including the limitations of the limo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the hardtop was added to the limo before the assassination?
>>>
>>> You have really left the rails this time.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The permanent hard top HAD to be put ion AFTER the murder! The murder
>> occurred with the bubble top in the trunk. The limo had to be open for
>> the shots to get through to JFK and Connally. Think it through.
>>
>
> I knew that. I was pointing out the fallacies in your story.
>

Some come just from not researching it.



Another copy/paste special from Anthony Anthony.

bigdog

unread,
Jan 9, 2017, 2:44:24 PM1/9/17
to
I am doing nothing more than repeating the things you have written
previously. Do I need to go back and point out to you where you wrote the
major renovations were done to the limo BEFORE the murders? You even
capitalized BEFORE for emphasis.

>
>
> > It's always entertaining to see the mental gyrations you have to go
> > through to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.
> >
>
>
> I made the sequence of these things simple just for you, but you
> managed to screw it up anyway.

And you got it all wrong.

> I don't have to go through gyrations, I
> simply lay out the sequence from the files and record. The official
> record told you that the limo was designed and built for the presidency
> BEFORE any murder.

Your problem is what you told me doesn't square with the historical record.

> That included putting 3 feet of metal in to lengthen
> the limo for the jump seats.

That was part of the original customization of the limo from a stock 1961
Lincoln.

> When the murder was done on a Friday, the
> limo had a bullet hole in the left windshield as per 6 witnesses.

There was no hole. That story surfaced (i.e. made up) decades later to
feed the appetites of the conspiracy hobbyists by people seeking
attention. All of the contemporary descriptions of the damage to the
windshield indicated it had been cracked from the inside.

> The SS
> decided to send out the limo to Rouge, Michigan to have it refurbished,
> supposedly because LBJ said he wanted it soon for the funeral. They sent
> it out on Monday the 25th with orders to redo the internals and replace
> the windshield and destroy the old windshield.
>

Where do you get this crap? The funeral was on Monday. LBJ WALKED behind
the casket with he rest of the world leaders. The limo was sent out for a
complete rebuild in December after the SS made major design modifications.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=photos+lbj+walking+behind+jfk%27s+casket&view=detailv2&id=3FE1A4D2FC6DE1B6B565CEE694BE59AA27EFD3B4&selectedindex=1&ccid=g5TX7RE9&simid=608038890773676313&thid=OIP.M8394d7ed113dfbddf9603ab9438fc4d6o0&mode=overlay&first=1

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=photos+lbj+walking+behind+jfk%27s+casket&view=detailv2&&id=44C679C8234E46B887601E86BBB4AE5388AEE7E7&selectedIndex=0&ccid=kNo4H%2bI9&simid=608032070365545750&thid=OIP.M90da381fe23d7ea44df075e7f28c2822o0&ajaxhist=0

> Whitaker then saw the limo on the 25th in his shops and saw the bullet
> hole, thus becoming the 6th witness to it.

Complete bullshit. Whitaker gave that interview in 1993. Either his memory
had become fogged over time or he was lying his ass off to get attention.

> The limo was returned to the
> W.H. garage on the 25th with a new windshield. Then they must have
> cracked that windshield because on the 26th Arlington Glass came in and
> signed in to the garage and replaced the windshield. Much later the WCR
> made mention of the safety limitations of the limo and they took that to
> heart and planned some changes to the limo based on the WCR and sent the
> limo out to have the work done, which included bullet proof glass.
>

There is no way possible, even with the limited work Whitaker claims were
done that the fixes could have been made and the limo returned by the next
day. Whitaker's own bullshit story said he was supposed to fabricate a new
windshield from the measurements of the windshield that had been removed.
In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
it for the funeral.


> Now that is the true sequence based on the evidence and the records.
> Please copy it down so you don't screw it up again and embarrass yourself
> again.
>

You haven't pointed to any records. All you have done is cite one
interview which Whitaker gave three decades later and you think that
trumps all the documentation regarding the work done on the limo.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > It all fits together,
> > > > > > > while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> > > > > > > standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
> > > > > > conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
> > > > > > you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
> > > > > > cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
> > > > > > nature of the damage to the windshield.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
> > > > > nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is a square peg and you are trying to drive it into a round hole. It
> > > > doesn't fit at all. The only thing it fits are your silly beliefs and that
> > > > is good enough for you.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Try using evidence and stop trying to make everything fit into a WCR
> > > shaped hole.
> > >
> > OK, let's try using evidence. Where is your evidence that there were TWO separate refurbishments to the limo after the assassination.
>
>
> See above. The sequence is there. And the second changes to the limo
> were based on the WCR, which hadn't come out until 1964. The first
> changes were only a refurbishment to cover up the evidence and the blood
> from the murder.
>

I asked for evidence, not your unsupported claims. The only thing you have
done is cite an interview by one guy.

>
> If you want to be strictly correct about changes to the limo, there
> were really 3 of them. ?The first was when the limo was planned in about
> 1961, and the plans were executed and the limo was then ready for use by
> the presidents. Then the second change was after the murder, when the
> limo was sent to Michigan for internal refurbishment, which covered up any
> evidence and caused the windshield to be replaced, and the old one
> destroyed. Then later around December, safety faults in the limo were
> noted, and they planned changes and sent the limo out to make those
> changes, and it came back around May, 1964.
>

You can't document the second change because it didn't happen. It is based
entirely on Whitaker's decades old story. Not one contemporary document
indicates the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.

> Simple. No telling why you get so screwed up over this info. It's
> pretty straightforward.
>

So simple even a cave man could figure out how silly this story of yours
is.
Yes, that is the source I pointed out to you. The work was completed in
May 1964. The WCR was released in September of 1964. Your claim was, "The
rebuild for bullet proofing was done later AFTER the WCR spoke of the
things not being done safely for the prez" when in fact the rebuild was
begun the month after the assassination and completed before the WCR came
out. You really do seem to have a difficult time understanding sequence of
events.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you dispute the claim I just made, why don't you provide a timeline for
> > > > where the limo went, the work that was done, and the dates it was
> > > > completed. You would have better luck packing 10 lbs. of shit into a 5
> > > > lbs. bag.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. You just want me to work for nothing.
> >
> > You're the one making these fantastic claims. I can understand that you
> > would not be able to back them up.
> >
> > > I've told you what was
> > > done on Monday the 25th, only internal refurbishing.
> >
> > So I should believe that just because you say so even though you can't
> > document it. The internal refurbishing was done by Hess & Eisenhardt
> > Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. So how could Whitaker have seen the limo if
> > it was being refurbished in Cincinnati?
> >
>
>
> WRONG yet again! You're not listening, and your faulty logic is
> screwing you up. Hess & Eisenhardt returned the limo in 1964 from the
> last planned changes. The documentation for that is above. No connection
> to the changes of November 25th.

You have been unable to document any changes were done on the 25th other
than point to Whitaker's bullshit story. You have pointed to nothing that
backs up Whitaker.

> You've been shown the documentation for
> the change on the 25th, which was the one that covered up evidence.

There is no documentation because it didn't happen.


> You've seen the statements of various witnesses as to the bullet hole, and
> the garage log and the statement of Whitaker proving that the limo was
> worked on in Rouge, Michigan. Also above is the documentation for the 3rd
> set of changes to the limo which were done by Hess & Eisenhardt.
>

That was the second renovation of the car. The third was done in 1967.
Another was done at Nixon's request. Show me one document that indicates
the limo was being worked on in Michigan on the 25th of November. Can't do
it? Didn't think so.

>
>
> You're welcome to research it yourself, but I don't think you do much
> of that these days. I've laid out the sequence of events related to the
> limo above today. Also the sequence of the changes to the limo.
>

All you have done is regurgitate documentation I have pointed out to you
and it doesn't support your bullshit story. There is nothing one the Henry
Ford Museum website which indicates there was any work done on the car at
the Ford plant on 11/25/63 which is what your whole silly story hinges on.
You can't back up Whitaker's claim.

> > > The changes for
> > > bullet proof glass and any welding of the frame was done later after
> > > things settled down.
> > >
> >
> > Yes they were. It was several months later according to this New York
> > Daily News article.
> >
> > http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/jfk-lincoln-limo-served-long-fateful-day-dallas-article-1.1523429
> >
> > An interesting tidbit from this story:
> >
> > "The car’s original windshield, including damage from bullets,
> > remains in the National Archives in Washington, DC."
> >
> > This conflicts with your claim that the windshield with the perforating
> > bullet hole had been destroyed.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Not at all. Remember, there was a scam that was executed.

Right. You believe everybody got together to perpetrate a scam rather than
believe Whitaker made up the story. Everybody else lied and Whitaker was
the only one telling the truth. And you determined that the same way you
do everything else. You WANT to believe Whitaker so you do which forces
you to claim everyone else lied.


> When the limo came back from Michigan with a new windshield and the old
> one with the bullet hole was destroyed, they had to crack that windshield
> with something, a hammer or whatever, and then Arlington Glass came in on
> the 26th and replaced that cracked windshield, which is the one that was
> saved under lock and key, and it also the one saved in the National
> Archives. Simple.
>

That's the part you made up entirely on your own. You don't even have
Whitaker's bullshit story to support your bullshit story.

>
>
> > > > > So according to your wacky tale, the limo was not in the White
> > > > > > House garage on the 25th.
>
>
>
> WRONG! According to the Garage log and George Whitaker and Douglas
> Weldon.
>

The garage log indicates who entered the garage. It does nothing to
indicate the whereabouts of the limo. Try again.

>
>
> > > WRONG! That is not according to me, it's according to the evidence,
> > > including the statement of George Whitaker.
> > >
> >
> > That is the only evidence you have offered. Nothing to corroborate it.
> >
>
>
>
> LOL! Having trouble with this part of the case? Whitaker and the
> garage log corroborate each other.
>

No they don't as I just explained above.
Then why did Whitaker say he was told to use the old windshield as a
template? Of course they should have been able to use a stock windshield
unless the original modifications had created a non-standard windshield
frame. This is just one more reason to doubt Whitaker's story.

> They merely had to go to spares and pull the right windshield.

So now you are forced to claim Whitaker lied. There would have been no
reason to use the old windshield as a template if they were going to use a
stock windshield.

> The order
> to use the old one as a template was just the kind of thinking from the SS
> or from the higher ups in the Ford company who probably didn't know about
> spares and standard size windshields.

Really? That's the best explanation you could come up with? <chuckle>

> And while they were fitting a new
> windshield and seeing to the destruction of the old one, the internals
> were being worked on by a different crew in a different part of the plant.
>

And where is the documentation that supports any of this nonsense. Here's
where you claim you have already provided that documentation when in fact
all you have done is cite Whitaker's story and your own silly figuring.

I repeat. You have not produced a single piece of documentation which
indicates the limo was in Michigan being refurbished on the 25th. All you
have is Whitaker's bullshit story.

>
>
> In addition this story says the interior had
> > been completely stripped. So they would have had to install a brand new
> > interiors as well. They would have had to do all that work and then
> > transport the limo back to Washington by the 26th for your story to hold
> > water. Preposterous.
> >
>
>
>
> When the White House commands, Ford complies.

So you think they could perform miracles on the White House commands.

> It was done on that
> date, and you can play with everything you want to, you won't change the
> data, and you won't win any arguments over it either.
>

You have produced no date. Just one old man's bullshit story.
The other 5 witnesses either don't support Whitaker's story or like
Whitaker came forward decades later.

> As well, Ferguson made it clear that the limo smelled like blood
> and such, and was not fit to use in that condition, so it would have to be
> redone as to the internal appointments.

They wouldn't need to send the limo back to the Ford plant to clean it up.

> It's not an exact case, but I've
> watched them make seat covers in minutes for cars on TV. Gas Money has a
> lady that does it very quickly. You can watch the process when they also
> refurbish cars for someone as a prize. Though they change the engine and
> everything.
>

According to Whitaker's bullshit story, the interior had been completely
stripped.

>
>
All of these other witnesses came forward years after the fact. The only
one of them who gave a contemporaneous account was St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reporter Richard Dudman who wrote on December 21, 1963, "A few of us noted
the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the
emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could
not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which
indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.".

By his own admission he could not tell from which direction the windshield
had been struck. He also indicates he could not get a close look at the
windshield.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > They cracked it
> > > > > > > themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> > > > > > > crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> > > > > > > plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> > > > > > > Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> > > > > > > evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! The date problem was resolved by evidence from the garage log
> > > > > and from George Whitaker! <belly laugh>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
> > > > > > windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Strange that you should pretend you know that. What's your
> > > > > proof for that? I've shown my proof for that being false.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That was stated in the last line of the Ferguson letter which you posted the
> > > > link to. Too bad you didn't bother to read your own source. It stated Mr.
> > > > Davis from the SS took possession of the windshield and locked it away.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That really happened, but what he took was the good windshield that
> > > they intentionally cracked when it came back from Michigan.
> >
> > I'd love to see your source for that fantastic claim. But I know I never
> > will.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! If you followed what I've told you, then you've seen the
> documentation and proof that the windshield had a bullet hole in it, and
> was destroyed.

We have a photo of it and there was no hole and it was not destroyed. It
is in the national archives. Everything else is made up.


> The limo could ONLY come back to the garage with a good
> windshield, yet there was something cracked when Arlington Glass came to
> replace it. So the only possibility was that the SS cracked it with
> something, like a hammer. THEN it was replaced. Simple.
>

The limo did not come back with a good windshield because it had never
been sent out at that point.

>
>
> > > The bullet
> > > hole windshield was replaced in Michigan with a good windshield which they
> > > cracked purposefully when the limo got back from the refurb.
> >
> > The things you dream up. <chuckle>
> >
>
>
> WRONG! The things that the evidence proves out. <belly laugh>
>

You have provided no evidence. Just bullshit stories.
I've seen above. There is no documentation for the alleged November 25th
refurbishment.

> And
> the record bears it out, and you've seen that too. There were 3 sets of
> changes to the limo, and the second one was the refurbishment to replace
> the windshield and the internal seat covers and etc.
>

There were more than three but none was done in the days immediately after
the assassination. That is the fictitious one for which you can provide no
documentation.

>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here's a story regarding what was done to the limo after the removal of
> > > > > > the windshield.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2013/11/22/strange-saga-jfk-assassination-car
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! There is no date on that article, but the work to make the limo
> > > > > more resistant to attack was done later than the November 25th refurb,
> > > > > that's for sure. That info was in Whitaker's statement (corroborated) and
> > > > > had to be done to cover up any evidence that may still be there in the
> > > > > vehicle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so now you have the limo being refurbished twice. A quickie on the
> > > > 25th and the big one later on. After they did all this work did they
> > > > teleport the limo back to Washington.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I haven't changed a thing. You have been running around making
> > > mistakes all over the place as usual.
> > >
> >
> > Actually you have. Earlier you told us the major modifications were done
> > before the assassination. I guess even you could see how ludicrous that
> > was so now you've moved the major rebuilt until after the assassination.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I said nothing of the kind. There were many changes made to
> create the limousine, but that was during the creation of the limo, and it
> was before the murder. Just after the murder was the refurb and
> replacement of the windshield, and later there was major changes to the
> limo for safety, like bullet proof glass.
>

When you can document that second one, get back to us.

>
>
> > > You do know this was 1963 when
> > > > little of the interstate highway system had been built which means it
> > > > would have been transported over the old highway system for much of it's
> > > > journey which means going through lots of cities and towns. A minimum of
> > > > one day travel time in that era. The harder you work to try to save these
> > > > ridiculous stories of yours the funnier they get.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The harder you work to try and pretend the work that was done
> > > was not done, the sillier you get. It is possible they used the C-130 to
> > > move the limo to Michigan. It wasn't stated clearly. Whitaker knew when
> > > and what was done, but not about the transportation.
> > >
> >
> > So in the finest conspiracy hobbyist tradition, if something isn't known
> > you get to assume a scenario that fits your beliefs. Why would they bother
> > going to the expense of flying the limo to Michigan. The limo is flown by
> > cargo plane so it will be there for the President when he arrives. That
> > wouldn't be necessary for a rebuilding of the limo.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! It just doesn't dawn on you that the work that had to be done to
> cover up things in the limo had to be done and they weren't too concerned
> about cost. They had to mover the limo fast and get the windshield
> replaced and did it away from Washington.
>

Of course it didn't dawn on me. That would be ludicrous. Only a silly
conspiracy hobbyist would dream up something like that.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > First of all it was not shipped back to Ford immediately. It was sent to
> > > > > > Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ABSOLUTELY FALSE! That came later. First the limo went to Rouge
> > > Michigan plant to be refurbished, including the removal of all internal
> > > padding and other internal removables.
> > >
> >
> > So says George Whitaker. Anything to back that up?
> >
>
>
> Don't give me that crap. You've just about lost this argument and are
> now hunting for the silly things. The work was done and if it hadn't been
> done it would have been noticed because as Ferguson said the limo smelled
> of blood and such. But if none of that were done, we know the windshield
> was replaced, because Arlington Glass came in and replaced a windshield
> with only a crack in it, and the original windshield had a bullet hole in
> it after the witnesses saw it.
>

OK, so you don't have anything to back up Whitaker. I was pretty sure you
didn't.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 9, 2017, 5:17:54 PM1/9/17
to
I am the one who went to the JFK Library and found these documents.
No WC defender could.
BTW, you are so lame in your subject line.
You call the Lone Nut solution just a theory.
Grow a backbone.


mainframetech

unread,
Jan 10, 2017, 4:08:06 PM1/10/17
to
WRONG! You are repeating small bits of info in all the wrong
sequences. That screws it up and makes it far harder for your troubled
logic to follow it. If you check the clear sequence that I laid out for
you, you'll see that there was major work done on the limo to CREATE it,
and that HAD TO BE BEFORE the murder, since it was 1961. There was NO
MAJOR work done other than that BEFORE the murder. When the murder
occurred the limo was taken away to be refurbed and remove the smell of
blood and replace the windshield on the 25th of November. On Dec. 12th
they came up with plans to further enhance the safety of the limo in
various ways, and they rook the limo away to have those plans executed.



> > > It's always entertaining to see the mental gyrations you have to go
> > > through to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I made the sequence of these things simple just for you, but you
> > managed to screw it up anyway.
>
> And you got it all wrong.
>


WRONG! I got it right, but your failing logic sense has screwed it up
for you.



> > I don't have to go through gyrations, I
> > simply lay out the sequence from the files and record. The official
> > record told you that the limo was designed and built for the presidency
> > BEFORE any murder.
>
> Your problem is what you told me doesn't square with the historical record.
>


FALSE! Prove it!.



> > That included putting 3 feet of metal in to lengthen
> > the limo for the jump seats.
>
> That was part of the original customization of the limo from a stock 1961
> Lincoln.
>


Correct for a change.



> > When the murder was done on a Friday, the
> > limo had a bullet hole in the left windshield as per 6 witnesses.
>
> There was no hole. That story surfaced (i.e. made up) decades later to
> feed the appetites of the conspiracy hobbyists by people seeking
> attention. All of the contemporary descriptions of the damage to the
> windshield indicated it had been cracked from the inside.
>



WRONG! So speaking of the 6 witnesses that saw the bullet hole in the
windshield you're comment seems to be "They all lied"! :) Those people
that knew the difference of how safety glass is damaged, pointed out that
the strike on the glass from the bullet was from the OUTSIDE! Here's an
example of one of the witnesses, a doctor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbLhlC9Lek



> > The SS
> > decided to send out the limo to Rouge, Michigan to have it refurbished,
> > supposedly because LBJ said he wanted it soon for the funeral. They sent
> > it out on Monday the 25th with orders to redo the internals and replace
> > the windshield and destroy the old windshield.
> >
>
> Where do you get this crap? The funeral was on Monday. LBJ WALKED behind
> the casket with he rest of the world leaders. The limo was sent out for a
> complete rebuild in December after the SS made major design modifications.
>



That was the excuse that was given, but they weren't able to get the
work done in time for that.
Oh? Where's your proof of your contention? I've shown mine. But
there's more. Whitaker wrote down the events of the 25th and kept it at
home, and when he died, it became known and went to the lawyer Douglas
Weldon, JD. As well there was a point when they recorded Whitaker's
story. Your usual the 'witness lied' doesn't work this time.



> > The limo was returned to the
> > W.H. garage on the 25th with a new windshield. Then they must have
> > cracked that windshield because on the 26th Arlington Glass came in and
> > signed in to the garage and replaced the windshield. Much later the WCR
> > made mention of the safety limitations of the limo and they took that to
> > heart and planned some changes to the limo based on the WCR and sent the
> > limo out to have the work done, which included bullet proof glass.
> >
>
> There is no way possible, even with the limited work Whitaker claims were
> done that the fixes could have been made and the limo returned by the next
> day. Whitaker's own bullshit story said he was supposed to fabricate a new
> windshield from the measurements of the windshield that had been removed.



WRONG! Higher ups usually don't know too much of the assembly line,
but the limousine was a standard limo with some changes but the windshield
was a standard Lincoln windshield and probably was right there in spares
in the glass shop. There were multiple crews working on the limo in
different shops around the plant.



> In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> it for the funeral.
>


I've watched seats being made and interior webbing being placed in a
car on TV. Shows like Gas monkey garage and the one where they makeover a
complete car in a week for the owner secretly. In that case, they replace
the engine and much of the car. It an be done, especially when the W.H.
wants it.



>
> > Now that is the true sequence based on the evidence and the records.
> > Please copy it down so you don't screw it up again and embarrass yourself
> > again.
> >
>
> You haven't pointed to any records. All you have done is cite one
> interview which Whitaker gave three decades later and you think that
> trumps all the documentation regarding the work done on the limo.
>


WRONG! Throughout this argument I've pasted bits of evidence from
various places. The statement about the limo being crated, which gives an
origin date, and you know the dates for the refurb to replace the
windshield, and you found the Dec. 12th and May 1964 dates yourself.
Face it, you've lost again!



> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > It all fits together,
> > > > > > > > while your comments don't fit at all, but what can be expected from an LN
> > > > > > > > standing around hugging the WCR to his chest.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No it doesn't fit together at all and instead of trying to resolve the
> > > > > > > conflicts, you assume to is indication of a cover up. Of course every time
> > > > > > > you make one of these assumptions you need to add someone else to the
> > > > > > > cover up. Now you have Ferguson lying regarding dates as well as the
> > > > > > > nature of the damage to the windshield.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! I have resolved any conflicts you tried to create. It all fits
> > > > > > nicely now, once your thinking was removed.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is a square peg and you are trying to drive it into a round hole. It
> > > > > doesn't fit at all. The only thing it fits are your silly beliefs and that
> > > > > is good enough for you.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Try using evidence and stop trying to make everything fit into a WCR
> > > > shaped hole.
> > > >
> > > OK, let's try using evidence. Where is your evidence that there were TWO separate refurbishments to the limo after the assassination.
> >
> >
> > See above. The sequence is there. And the second changes to the limo
> > were based on the WCR, which hadn't come out until 1964. The first
> > changes were only a refurbishment to cover up the evidence and the blood
> > from the murder.
> >
>
> I asked for evidence, not your unsupported claims. The only thing you have
> done is cite an interview by one guy.
>


There is a lot more above. Check it out. You're just ticked off
because it looks like you screwed up again.



> >
> > If you want to be strictly correct about changes to the limo, there
> > were really 3 of them. ?The first was when the limo was planned in about
> > 1961, and the plans were executed and the limo was then ready for use by
> > the presidents. Then the second change was after the murder, when the
> > limo was sent to Michigan for internal refurbishment, which covered up any
> > evidence and caused the windshield to be replaced, and the old one
> > destroyed. Then later around December, safety faults in the limo were
> > noted, and they planned changes and sent the limo out to make those
> > changes, and it came back around May, 1964.
> >
>
> You can't document the second change because it didn't happen. It is based
> entirely on Whitaker's decades old story. Not one contemporary document
> indicates the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.
>


WRONG! Whitaker is a witness to the work that was done at Rouge
Michigan. He also wrote it up and recorded his story for Douglas Weldon,
JD. The garage log agrees with Whitaker's story, and he had no way to
know what date the limo was going to be free in the garage log.



> > Simple. No telling why you get so screwed up over this info. It's
> > pretty straightforward.
> >
>
> So simple even a cave man could figure out how silly this story of yours
> is.
>



WRONG! That's your opinion and carries no weight. It can't even argue
against the Whitaker's story.
WRONG! While you're right about the dates, they were indeed in the
right sequence by being AFTER the murder. Just like I said.



> > > > > If you dispute the claim I just made, why don't you provide a timeline for
> > > > > where the limo went, the work that was done, and the dates it was
> > > > > completed. You would have better luck packing 10 lbs. of shit into a 5
> > > > > lbs. bag.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope. You just want me to work for nothing.
> > >
> > > You're the one making these fantastic claims. I can understand that you
> > > would not be able to back them up.
> > >
> > > > I've told you what was
> > > > done on Monday the 25th, only internal refurbishing.
> > >
> > > So I should believe that just because you say so even though you can't
> > > document it. The internal refurbishing was done by Hess & Eisenhardt
> > > Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. So how could Whitaker have seen the limo if
> > > it was being refurbished in Cincinnati?
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG yet again! You're not listening, and your faulty logic is
> > screwing you up. Hess & Eisenhardt returned the limo in 1964 from the
> > last planned changes. The documentation for that is above. No connection
> > to the changes of November 25th.
>
> You have been unable to document any changes were done on the 25th other
> than point to Whitaker's bullshit story. You have pointed to nothing that
> backs up Whitaker.
>



WRONG! There is no "bullshit story". You have not proven that and
shouldn't use the term until you can prove something. Whitaker is a
witness to the windshield being shot through and the repair and the
destroying of the old bullet holed windshield. And the garage log backs
up Whitaker, since there is no way he could know what days the limo would
NOT be accessed. The garage log shows only that day as having no one
accessing the limo.



> > You've been shown the documentation for
> > the change on the 25th, which was the one that covered up evidence.
>
> There is no documentation because it didn't happen.
>


Prove it. I've shown my proof, you've shown nothing but your opinion,
which is worthless.



>
> > You've seen the statements of various witnesses as to the bullet hole, and
> > the garage log and the statement of Whitaker proving that the limo was
> > worked on in Rouge, Michigan. Also above is the documentation for the 3rd
> > set of changes to the limo which were done by Hess & Eisenhardt.
> >
>
> That was the second renovation of the car. The third was done in 1967.
> Another was done at Nixon's request. Show me one document that indicates
> the limo was being worked on in Michigan on the 25th of November. Can't do
> it? Didn't think so.
>


WRONG! Try not to be so stupid. Do you think they were going to
telegraph the bullet hole in the windshield to everyone? It was
absolutely critical that no one know there was any proof at all that there
was another shooter, or the whole plot would come unraveled. So they kept
it under wraps and sent the limo while everyone was at the funeral.



> >
> >
> > You're welcome to research it yourself, but I don't think you do much
> > of that these days. I've laid out the sequence of events related to the
> > limo above today. Also the sequence of the changes to the limo.
> >
>
> All you have done is regurgitate documentation I have pointed out to you
> and it doesn't support your bullshit story. There is nothing one the Henry
> Ford Museum website which indicates there was any work done on the car at
> the Ford plant on 11/25/63 which is what your whole silly story hinges on.
> You can't back up Whitaker's claim.
>



WRONG! There was not supposed to be any record of the changes they did
to replace the windshield and remove the smell of blood in the interior.
Think it through. The bullet hole couldn't be come known to people or
they might realize there was another shooter. It would stop fooling the
stupid suckers that fell for the "lone nut" theory.



> > > > The changes for
> > > > bullet proof glass and any welding of the frame was done later after
> > > > things settled down.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes they were. It was several months later according to this New York
> > > Daily News article.
> > >
> > > http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/jfk-lincoln-limo-served-long-fateful-day-dallas-article-1.1523429
> > >
> > > An interesting tidbit from this story:
> > >
> > > "The car’s original windshield, including damage from bullets,
> > > remains in the National Archives in Washington, DC."
> > >
> > > This conflicts with your claim that the windshield with the perforating
> > > bullet hole had been destroyed.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Not at all. Remember, there was a scam that was executed.
>
> Right. You believe everybody got together to perpetrate a scam rather than
> believe Whitaker made up the story. Everybody else lied and Whitaker was
> the only one telling the truth. And you determined that the same way you
> do everything else. You WANT to believe Whitaker so you do which forces
> you to claim everyone else lied.
>


WRONG! What "everybody"? You keep trying to forget that 6 witnesses
saw the bullet hole in the windshield. Don't be too tedious. We've been
over this ground and you gained nothing the last time.



>
> > When the limo came back from Michigan with a new windshield and the old
> > one with the bullet hole was destroyed, they had to crack that windshield
> > with something, a hammer or whatever, and then Arlington Glass came in on
> > the 26th and replaced that cracked windshield, which is the one that was
> > saved under lock and key, and it also was the one saved in the National
> > Archives. Simple.
> >
>
> That's the part you made up entirely on your own. You don't even have
> Whitaker's bullshit story to support your bullshit story.
>


WRONG! As usual you're not thinking. Just jumping. The windshield
with a crack in it was saved under lock and key. The windshield with the
bullet hole that was seen by 6 witnesses was nowhere to be found, meaning
that it had to have been removed. Whitaker told his story and had no way
to know the garage log was going to corroborate him as that being the one
day the limo wasn't accessed by anyone, mainly because it wasn't there.

There is no reason for a manager in Rouge, Michigan to come up with such
a wild story just because he heard that JFK was killed. And yet his story
fit perfectly with the garage log, which Whitaker had no knowledge of.




> >
> >
> > > > > > So according to your wacky tale, the limo was not in the White
> > > > > > > House garage on the 25th.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! According to the Garage log and George Whitaker and Douglas
> > Weldon.
> >
>
> The garage log indicates who entered the garage. It does nothing to
> indicate the whereabouts of the limo. Try again.
>


WRONG! The garage log notes what anyone was doing to or with the limo.
And since no one had accessed the limo, that fit perfectly with the story
of George Whitaker.



> >
> >
> > > > WRONG! That is not according to me, it's according to the evidence,
> > > > including the statement of George Whitaker.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is the only evidence you have offered. Nothing to corroborate it.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > LOL! Having trouble with this part of the case? Whitaker and the
> > garage log corroborate each other.
> >
>
> No they don't as I just explained above.
>


Yes, they do, as I explained above. But if we added up proofs, I would
still be ahead of you, who has said it's all bullshit but had no backup
for that statement.
WRONG! Whitaker didn't say he was told that. He said his people told
him that was the order from higher ups.



Of course they should have been able to use a stock windshield
> unless the original modifications had created a non-standard windshield
> frame. This is just one more reason to doubt Whitaker's story.
>


WRONG! There was no new plan for the structure of the limo. It was the
old windshield from a standard assembly line.



> > They merely had to go to spares and pull the right windshield.
>
> So now you are forced to claim Whitaker lied. There would have been no
> reason to use the old windshield as a template if they were going to use a
> stock windshield.
>


WRONG! Oh please don't go crazy on me now. We're getting to the end
of this argument and you've thoroughly lost. Don't ruin it for me.
Whitaker heard from his people that the order was to sue the old
windshield as a template. That doesn't man the higher ups knew what they
were talking about. For all I know they were telling the W.H. that they
had to make a template and all that just to get more profit out of it.
Using a standard windshield would save much money.



> > The order
> > to use the old one as a template was just the kind of thinking from the SS
> > or from the higher ups in the Ford company who probably didn't know about
> > spares and standard size windshields.
>
> Really? That's the best explanation you could come up with? <chuckle>
>


Yup <belly laugh>



> > And while they were fitting a new
> > windshield and seeing to the destruction of the old one, the internals
> > were being worked on by a different crew in a different part of the plant.
> >
>
> And where is the documentation that supports any of this nonsense. Here's
> where you claim you have already provided that documentation when in fact
> all you have done is cite Whitaker's story and your own silly figuring.
>


The last thing they wanted was a document of this work. It was
critical to the safety of the plotters that no one realize that there was
more than one shooter. Think it through.



> I repeat. You have not produced a single piece of documentation which
> indicates the limo was in Michigan being refurbished on the 25th. All you
> have is Whitaker's bullshit story.
>



WRONG! I do not have Whitaker's "bullshit:" story. I have his
recorded and documented story of the limo being in his shop on the 25th,
which matches with the garage log back in Washington.



> >
> >
> > In addition this story says the interior had
> > > been completely stripped. So they would have had to install a brand new
> > > interiors as well. They would have had to do all that work and then
> > > transport the limo back to Washington by the 26th for your story to hold
> > > water. Preposterous.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > When the White House commands, Ford complies.
>
> So you think they could perform miracles on the White House commands.
>


With the work crews they had at their beck and call, I doubt they had
any problem doing it. Especially if they were told price is no object.



> > It was done on that
> > date, and you can play with everything you want to, you won't change the
> > data, and you won't win any arguments over it either.
> >
>
> You have produced no date. Just one old man's bullshit story.
>



WRONG! Still living on your worthless opinion , I see. When will you
realize that's nothing next to the statement of a witness, or even 6
witnesses?
Oh? Prove it. And we've be through your phony attempts to discredit
witnesses due to time passing. Time is not an excuse that means bad
memory.



> > As well, Ferguson made it clear that the limo smelled like blood
> > and such, and was not fit to use in that condition, so it would have to be
> > redone as to the internal appointments.
>
> They wouldn't need to send the limo back to the Ford plant to clean it up.
>



WRONG! Ferguson himself tried to clean it up, but he couldn't get the
smell of blood out of it. He knew it would take a lot more to clean it
up.



> > It's not an exact case, but I've
> > watched them make seat covers in minutes for cars on TV. Gas Money has a
> > lady that does it very quickly. You can watch the process when they also
> > refurbish cars for someone as a prize. Though they change the engine and
> > everything.
> >
>
> According to Whitaker's bullshit story, the interior had been completely
> stripped.
>


You got it! Excellent!
WRONG As usual! SS agent Charles Taylor Jr. wrote up his report right
about that same day, and he pointed out the hole in the windshield too.
Where do you get this stuff about how they ALL remembered so many years
after? Don't be making up evidence.



> > > > > > > > They cracked it
> > > > > > > > themselves to make it look like the windshield only had a single little
> > > > > > > > crack instead of a bullet hole, which would have given away that it was a
> > > > > > > > plot and not a 'lone nut'. And that windshield was replaced by Arlington
> > > > > > > > Glass and it was saved under lock and key. Of course, the original
> > > > > > > > evidence of the windshield with the bullet hole in it was NOT saved.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of all the ways you could have resolved the discrepancies in the dates, this is what you came up with. <chuckle>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! The date problem was resolved by evidence from the garage log
> > > > > > and from George Whitaker! <belly laugh>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The windshield Arlington Glass replaced was locked away but it was the
> > > > > > > windshield that was in the limo during the assassination.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! Strange that you should pretend you know that. What's your
> > > > > > proof for that? I've shown my proof for that being false.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That was stated in the last line of the Ferguson letter which you posted the
> > > > > link to. Too bad you didn't bother to read your own source. It stated Mr.
> > > > > Davis from the SS took possession of the windshield and locked it away.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That really happened, but what he took was the good windshield that
> > > > they intentionally cracked when it came back from Michigan.
> > >
> > > I'd love to see your source for that fantastic claim. But I know I never
> > > will.
> > >
> >
> >


Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 11, 2017, 6:13:22 PM1/11/17
to
When I pointed out to you all the work that had been done in the aftermath
of the assassination including the addition of the permanent hardtop, you
replied by saying that was all done BEFORE the assassination for future
presidents. Now you are back peddling.

>
>
> > > > It's always entertaining to see the mental gyrations you have to go
> > > > through to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I made the sequence of these things simple just for you, but you
> > > managed to screw it up anyway.
> >
> > And you got it all wrong.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I got it right, but your failing logic sense has screwed it up
> for you.
>

Are you going to force me to embarrass you again by going into the
archives and finding the post where you said all of this?

>
>
> > > I don't have to go through gyrations, I
> > > simply lay out the sequence from the files and record. The official
> > > record told you that the limo was designed and built for the presidency
> > > BEFORE any murder.
> >
> > Your problem is what you told me doesn't square with the historical record.
> >
>
>
> FALSE! Prove it!.
>
>
>
> > > That included putting 3 feet of metal in to lengthen
> > > the limo for the jump seats.
> >
> > That was part of the original customization of the limo from a stock 1961
> > Lincoln.
> >
>
>
> Correct for a change.
>
>
>
> > > When the murder was done on a Friday, the
> > > limo had a bullet hole in the left windshield as per 6 witnesses.
> >
> > There was no hole. That story surfaced (i.e. made up) decades later to
> > feed the appetites of the conspiracy hobbyists by people seeking
> > attention. All of the contemporary descriptions of the damage to the
> > windshield indicated it had been cracked from the inside.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! So speaking of the 6 witnesses that saw the bullet hole in the
> windshield you're comment seems to be "They all lied"! :) Those people
> that knew the difference of how safety glass is damaged, pointed out that
> the strike on the glass from the bullet was from the OUTSIDE! Here's an
> example of one of the witnesses, a doctor:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbLhlC9Lek
>

Point to one contemporaneous document or witness who said the there was a
bullet hole that went through the windshield. Can't do it? Didn't think
so.


>
>
> > > The SS
> > > decided to send out the limo to Rouge, Michigan to have it refurbished,
> > > supposedly because LBJ said he wanted it soon for the funeral. They sent
> > > it out on Monday the 25th with orders to redo the internals and replace
> > > the windshield and destroy the old windshield.
> > >
> >
> > Where do you get this crap? The funeral was on Monday. LBJ WALKED behind
> > the casket with he rest of the world leaders. The limo was sent out for a
> > complete rebuild in December after the SS made major design modifications.
> >
>
>
>
> That was the excuse that was given, but they weren't able to get the
> work done in time for that.
>

Oh, that was the reason LBJ and all the other world leaders walked behind
the casket. LBJ didn't get his wheels back in time. Why didn't he just
call a cab?<chuckle>

bigdog

unread,
Jan 11, 2017, 6:15:51 PM1/11/17
to
I have provided two separate sources which list modifications done to
SS-100-X and not one of them mentions the November 25 work which you
insist happened.
You've shown nothing but Whitaker's claim.

> But
> there's more. Whitaker wrote down the events of the 25th and kept it at
> home, and when he died, it became known and went to the lawyer Douglas
> Weldon, JD. As well there was a point when they recorded Whitaker's
> story. Your usual the 'witness lied' doesn't work this time.
>
So he wrote down his bullshit story. BFD.
>
>
> > > The limo was returned to the
> > > W.H. garage on the 25th with a new windshield. Then they must have
> > > cracked that windshield because on the 26th Arlington Glass came in and
> > > signed in to the garage and replaced the windshield. Much later the WCR
> > > made mention of the safety limitations of the limo and they took that to
> > > heart and planned some changes to the limo based on the WCR and sent the
> > > limo out to have the work done, which included bullet proof glass.
> > >
> >
> > There is no way possible, even with the limited work Whitaker claims were
> > done that the fixes could have been made and the limo returned by the next
> > day. Whitaker's own bullshit story said he was supposed to fabricate a new
> > windshield from the measurements of the windshield that had been removed.
>
>
>
> WRONG! Higher ups usually don't know too much of the assembly line,
> but the limousine was a standard limo with some changes but the windshield
> was a standard Lincoln windshield and probably was right there in spares
> in the glass shop. There were multiple crews working on the limo in
> different shops around the plant.
>

Where does Whitaker say they used a stock windshield. All he tells us is
he was told the use the original as a template. Nowhere does he say that
he didn't need to do that. That was your contribution to try to save his
bullshit story.
The-dog-ate-my-evidence excuse. So everyone involved in sending the car to
Michigan was part of the plot. My how your little conspiracy keeps growing
and growing.

>
>
> > I repeat. You have not produced a single piece of documentation which
> > indicates the limo was in Michigan being refurbished on the 25th. All you
> > have is Whitaker's bullshit story.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I do not have Whitaker's "bullshit:" story. I have his
> recorded and documented story of the limo being in his shop on the 25th,
> which matches with the garage log back in Washington.
>

All you have is Whitaker's bullshit story. If you dispute that, make the
case that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th without using Whitaker's
story. It'll will become quite obvious that there is nothing else that
supports Whitaker's story.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > In addition this story says the interior had
> > > > been completely stripped. So they would have had to install a brand new
> > > > interiors as well. They would have had to do all that work and then
> > > > transport the limo back to Washington by the 26th for your story to hold
> > > > water. Preposterous.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When the White House commands, Ford complies.
> >
> > So you think they could perform miracles on the White House commands.
> >
>
>
> With the work crews they had at their beck and call, I doubt they had
> any problem doing it. Especially if they were told price is no object.
>

You do think they could perform miracles.

>
>
> > > It was done on that
> > > date, and you can play with everything you want to, you won't change the
> > > data, and you won't win any arguments over it either.
> > >
> >
> > You have produced no date. Just one old man's bullshit story.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Still living on your worthless opinion , I see. When will you
> realize that's nothing next to the statement of a witness, or even 6
> witnesses?
>

When will you produce something other than Whitaker's story that indicates

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 12, 2017, 4:15:10 PM1/12/17
to
Slacker. Why do you always give the kook a way out? He can claim that they
were just planning on the 25th? Or maybe making modifications that you as
a mere mortal can not see. Can you see through the hood to see the motor?
No, then you lose.
Not true. He also has his imagination.
Think it through.
Why would whitaker just use a regular windshield at all?
Just to change it from a hole to a crack?
How would he know about all the shots so soon?
>>>>> "The car???s original windshield, including damage from bullets,
>>>>> Company???s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and
>>>>> professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape
>>>>> recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November
>>>>> 25th, he discovered the JFK limousine ??? a unique, one-of-a-kind
>>>>> item that he unequivocally identified ??? in the Rouge
>>>>> Plant???s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the
>>>>> process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then
>>>>> contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he
>>>>> worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After
>>>>> knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in
>>>>> by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of
>>>>> the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been
>>>>> told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it
>>>>> in shape ??? and to then get the new windshield back to the B

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 9:33:28 AM1/13/17
to
Did you see me say that Whitaker said they used a spare from stores?
No. It is a Glass plant where they make the windshields for all the cars
made in that plant. Of course they had spares.
Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 9:34:33 AM1/13/17
to
WRONG! You are managing to screw up many of the events and getting them all out of order. Check into the sequence I made. THAT is the way of it from the record. The 2 major periods of work were the original creation of the vehicle, and the safety work AFTER the murder that began in Dec. 12th and ended in May 1964. In between a couple days after the murder the work was done to replace the windshield in Rouge, Michigan.



> >
> >
> > > > > It's always entertaining to see the mental gyrations you have to go
> > > > > through to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I made the sequence of these things simple just for you, but you
> > > > managed to screw it up anyway.
> > >
> > > And you got it all wrong.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I got it right, but your failing logic sense has screwed it up
> > for you.
> >
>
> Are you going to force me to embarrass you again by going into the
> archives and finding the post where you said all of this?
>



WRONG! You can find anything you like, I have been consistent about
the order of the repairs to the vehicle. Sounds like you didn't
understand something when you popped out some silly comment.
WRONG! Of course I can do that. Here's a report by Charles Taylor
Jr. An SS agent who rode in the limousine after the murder and saw in
front of him not 2 feet, a hole THROUGH the windshield:

"ALSO: TAYLOR., IN HIS REPORT TO WFO SAIC HARRY W. GEIGLEIN [CD80],
NOTES THAT HE SAW A SMALL HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD OF SS-100-X (TAYLOR
WAS THERE FROM 9:00 P.M. UNTIL 12 MID)"

From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/ssrosters.html

hat was from a Secret Service duty roster.
> > the engine and much of the car. It can be done, especially when the W.H.
> > wants it.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Now that is the true sequence based on the evidence and the records.
> > > > Please copy it down so you don't screw it up again and embarrass yourself
> > > > again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You haven't pointed to any records. All you have done is cite one
> > > interview which Whitaker gave three decades later and you think that
> > > trumps all the documentation regarding the work done on the limo.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Throughout this argument I've pasted bits of evidence from
> > various places. The statement about the limo being created, which gives an
> > Whitaker heard from his people that the order was to use the old
> > windshield as a template. That doesn't mean the higher ups knew what they
> > were talking about. For all I know they were telling the W.H. that they
> > had to make a template and all that just to get more profit out of it.
> > Using a standard windshield would save much money.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > The order
> > > > to use the old one as a template was just the kind of thinking from the SS
> > > > or from the higher ups in the Ford company who probably didn't know about
> > > > spares and standard size windshields.
> > >
> > > Really? That's the best explanation you could come up with? <chuckle>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yup <belly laugh>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > And while they were fitting a new
> > > > windshield and seeing to the destruction of the old one, the internals
> > > > were being worked on by a different crew in a different part of the plant.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And where is the documentation that supports any of this nonsense. Here's
> > > where you claim you have already provided that documentation when in fact
> > > all you have done is cite Whitaker's story and your own silly figuring.
> > >
> >
> >

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 10:03:16 PM1/13/17
to
Please explain what the difference is between a stock windshield which is
the term I used or a spare windshield which is the term you used. Nobody
is disputing that if they weren't going to go with a bullet proof
windshield that they could use a standard windshield for a 1961 Lincoln
Continental.

What you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from the fact that
Whitaker's story was that he was told to fabricate a new windshield based
on the measurements of the old windshield which makes no sense. Nowhere in
Whitaker's story does he say he knew he didn't need to do that because he
could use a standard windshield which of course he could have unless the
damaged windshield was non-standard. This is just one more reason
Whitaker's story makes no sense.

bigdog

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 10:06:33 PM1/13/17
to
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 9:34:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 4:08:06 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> > >
> > > WRONG! You are repeating small bits of info in all the wrong
> > > sequences. That screws it up and makes it far harder for your troubled
> > > logic to follow it. If you check the clear sequence that I laid out for
> > > you, you'll see that there was major work done on the limo to CREATE it,
> > > and that HAD TO BE BEFORE the murder, since it was 1961. There was NO
> > > MAJOR work done other than that BEFORE the murder. When the murder
> > > occurred the limo was taken away to be refurbed and remove the smell of
> > > blood and replace the windshield on the 25th of November. On Dec. 12th
> > > they came up with plans to further enhance the safety of the limo in
> > > various ways, and they rook the limo away to have those plans executed.
> > >
> >
> > When I pointed out to you all the work that had been done in the aftermath
> > of the assassination including the addition of the permanent hardtop, you
> > replied by saying that was all done BEFORE the assassination for future
> > presidents. Now you are back peddling.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You are managing to screw up many of the events and getting them all out of order. Check into the sequence I made. THAT is the way of it from the record. The 2 major periods of work were the original creation of the vehicle, and the safety work AFTER the murder that began in Dec. 12th and ended in May 1964. In between a couple days after the murder the work was done to replace the windshield in Rouge, Michigan.
>

Their is no documentation anywhere to support your claim of work done in
between the two customizations which I pointed out to you. That is
something you are claiming based entirely on George Whitaker's story which
he told 30 years after the assassination. There is no documentation that
such work was ever done or that the limo was in Michigan on 11/25/63.
Complete fabrication.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > It's always entertaining to see the mental gyrations you have to go
> > > > > > through to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I made the sequence of these things simple just for you, but you
> > > > > managed to screw it up anyway.
> > > >
> > > > And you got it all wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I got it right, but your failing logic sense has screwed it up
> > > for you.
> > >
> >
> > Are you going to force me to embarrass you again by going into the
> > archives and finding the post where you said all of this?
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You can find anything you like, I have been consistent about
> the order of the repairs to the vehicle. Sounds like you didn't
> understand something when you popped out some silly comment.
>

You have been consistently wrong.
Your problem is that you aren't quoting Taylor, you are quoting someone
(Palmara) who is paraphrasing (i.e. spinning) what Taylor said. That is
your SOP when asked to cite witnesses. You tell us what somebody else said
they said. Taylor never said the hole went through the windshield. He said
metal fragments were removed from the hole.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 14, 2017, 11:45:39 AM1/14/17
to
WHO told you that? I thought you didn't believe in official documents.
Whenever I cite official documents you claim they are fakes. Tell us the
name of the person who fed you that story in person or on the phone.
>>>>>> "The car???s original windshield, including damage from bullets,
>>>>>> Company???s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and
>>>>>> professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape
>>>>>> recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November
>>>>>> 25th, he discovered the JFK limousine ??? a unique, one-of-a-kind
>>>>>> item that he unequivocally identified ??? in the Rouge
>>>>>> Plant???s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the
>>>>>> process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then
>>>>>> contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he
>>>>>> worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After
>>>>>> knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in
>>>>>> by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of
>>>>>> the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been
>>>>>> told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it
>>>>>> in shape ??? and to then get the new windshield back to the B

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 15, 2017, 2:01:59 PM1/15/17
to
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:06:33 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 9:34:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 4:08:06 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You are repeating small bits of info in all the wrong
> > > > sequences. That screws it up and makes it far harder for your troubled
> > > > logic to follow it. If you check the clear sequence that I laid out for
> > > > you, you'll see that there was major work done on the limo to CREATE it,
> > > > and that HAD TO BE BEFORE the murder, since it was 1961. There was NO
> > > > MAJOR work done other than that BEFORE the murder. When the murder
> > > > occurred the limo was taken away to be refurbed and remove the smell of
> > > > blood and replace the windshield on the 25th of November. On Dec. 12th
> > > > they came up with plans to further enhance the safety of the limo in
> > > > various ways, and they rook the limo away to have those plans executed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When I pointed out to you all the work that had been done in the aftermath
> > > of the assassination including the addition of the permanent hardtop, you
> > > replied by saying that was all done BEFORE the assassination for future
> > > presidents. Now you are back peddling.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You are managing to screw up many of the events and getting them all out of order. Check into the sequence I made. THAT is the way of it from the record. The 2 major periods of work were the original creation of the vehicle, and the safety work AFTER the murder that began in Dec. 12th and ended in May 1964. In between a couple days after the murder the work was done to replace the windshield in Rouge, Michigan.
> >
>
> Their is no documentation anywhere to support your claim of work done in
> between the two customizations which I pointed out to you.




WRONG! Is that one of your silly rules you try to force on others?
Forget it. You've been told that the work that had to be done needed to
be done in secret, so that nothing would be found in documents.



That is
> something you are claiming based entirely on George Whitaker's story which
> he told 30 years after the assassination. There is no documentation that
> such work was ever done or that the limo was in Michigan on 11/25/63.
> Complete fabrication.
>



Prove it. I've supplied the evidence from a group of witnesses and a
Michigan factory witness, and the result of the limo when it returned and
needed a replacement windshield, which points out the windshield was
replaced in Rouge, Michigan. Think it through. All you've supplied is
your opinion. Doesn't count for anything.
WRONG! One of your favorite words 'spinning'! Everyone that you
think is wrong is 'spinning'. What baloney! The report you looked at was
the direct words from Taylor himself. The other one was probably
palamara.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 15, 2017, 2:03:07 PM1/15/17
to
WRONG! There was nothing to do with any bullet proof windshield at the
time we're talking about. When the limo was in Rouge, Michigan on the
25th, it was there to have the interior redone and to have the safety
glass windshield replaced and the old on with the bullet hole destroyed.
Spares are kept in stock. And stock windshields can be kept in spares.



> What you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from the fact that
> Whitaker's story was that he was told to fabricate a new windshield based
> on the measurements of the old windshield which makes no sense. Nowhere in
> Whitaker's story does he say he knew he didn't need to do that because he
> could use a standard windshield which of course he could have unless the
> damaged windshield was non-standard. This is just one more reason
> Whitaker's story makes no sense.
>



WRONG! What makes no sense is your silly problems with his story. He
knew he didn't have to make a template and etc. And he went and did his
job without a long story.



> > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > it for the funeral.



WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 15, 2017, 9:00:46 PM1/15/17
to
You tell me I'm wrong when I stated that there is no documentation of work
done to the limo on the 25th and then turn around and say it was done in
secret and that is why there is no documentation. If it was done in
secret, how do you know it was done.

>
>
> That is
> > something you are claiming based entirely on George Whitaker's story which
> > he told 30 years after the assassination. There is no documentation that
> > such work was ever done or that the limo was in Michigan on 11/25/63.
> > Complete fabrication.
> >
>
>
>
> Prove it. I've supplied the evidence from a group of witnesses and a
> Michigan factory witness,

You've only supplied one witness that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th
and no documentation to support that.

> and the result of the limo when it returned and
> needed a replacement windshield, which points out the windshield was
> replaced in Rouge, Michigan. Think it through. All you've supplied is
> your opinion. Doesn't count for anything.

So your story is that the reason Arlington Glass needed to replace the
windshield on the 26th is because the windshield had been replaced in
Michigan on the 25th? And that story makes sense to you?
You did not quote Taylor. The quote you provided speaks about Taylor in
the third person. It is not a quote from Taylor. It is a quote about
Taylor. Do you not understand the difference?

bigdog

unread,
Jan 15, 2017, 9:02:03 PM1/15/17
to
Bottom line is you have no witnesses and no documentation that supports
Whitaker's story that the limo was worked on in Michigan on the 25th.
There are lots of reasons to doubt Whitaker's story including the fact
that the work he claims was done in Michigan on the 25th was done by
Arlington Glass in Washington on the 26th and we do have documentation for
that.

>
>
> > > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > > it for the funeral.
>
>
>
> WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
> OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
>

Which shoots down your earlier argument that they rushed the work so that
LBJ would have the limo for the funeral. Please don't force me to dig up
that quote embarrass you further by denying that you wrote that.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 16, 2017, 11:42:12 AM1/16/17
to
Arlington Glass kept spares and used on to replace the damaged windshield.
So your phony story would be that your windshield with the hole was
replaced in Michigan the the limo drive back to Washington in a few hours
so that Arlington Glass could replace the new windshield with another new
windshield and then send it back to Michigan to get a bullet proof
windshield. You need to have someone in Michigan crack the replacement
windhield PERFECTLY to match the photos in Dealey Plaza and the FBI
evidence photos. I say that is impossible.

I'll give you 100,000 tries to duplicate it perfectly.
>>>>>>>> "The car???s original windshield, including damage from bullets,

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 16, 2017, 11:42:42 AM1/16/17
to
PHOTOS. You also have to claim that all the photos are fakes. And all the
documents are fake. And the entire world is fake. The easier solution is
that YOU are fake.

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 16, 2017, 5:11:48 PM1/16/17
to
WRONG! There is partial documentation in the garage log, which backs
up Whitaker's story. Further backup is in the statements of the 5
witnesses that saw a clear bullet hole in the windshield, and the part of
Whitaker's story that the orders that came down from above at Ford was
that the windshield was to be replaced, which says that there was damage
to it, and when the orders were to have the old windshield destroyed, it
was further proof that there was something to do with the windshield that
was to be hidden, explaining the bullet hole. As well, Whitaker wrote up
his story in longhand, so we have that document too.



> >
> >
> > > > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > > > it for the funeral.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
> > OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
> >
>
> Which shoots down your earlier argument that they rushed the work so that
> LBJ would have the limo for the funeral. Please don't force me to dig up
> that quote embarrass you further by denying that you wrote that.

It wasn't an argument. During reading the story that excuse came up
as one that explained away the limo having to be move to Michigan, though
it wasn't in time to do anything. Don't get yourself all hung up on it,
it isn't any part of proof of anything.

Chris




mainframetech

unread,
Jan 16, 2017, 5:13:33 PM1/16/17
to
WROMG again! You decided to suspend thinking again. There is
documentation in the garage log and in the written version of George
Whitaker's story that he put in long hand. However, I'm sure you're
foolishly thinking that somewhere there should be a paper with the story
documented giving times and names and everything. It was not the intent
of the plotters to have such a document show itself. As to knowing that
it was done, we have the garage log which verifies that George Whitaker, a
humble man with no intention to fool people telling a story that fits
perfectly with the witnesses (5) that saw the bullet hole in the
windshield.

And this is yet another weird way the LNs try to prove their case, by
just plain ignoring 6 witnesses to an event, or pretending it never
happened so they can tell themselves nothing has happened for 52 years.
Really weird!



> >
> >
> > That is
> > > something you are claiming based entirely on George Whitaker's story which
> > > he told 30 years after the assassination. There is no documentation that
> > > such work was ever done or that the limo was in Michigan on 11/25/63.
> > > Complete fabrication.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Prove it. I've supplied the evidence from a group of witnesses and a
> > Michigan factory witness,
>
> You've only supplied one witness that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th
> and no documentation to support that.
>


And 6 witnesses that there was a bullet hole in the windshield of the
limo. Deal with it. And supporting documentation was the garage log as
you've had it explained to you. Please don't pretend it didn't exist.



> > and the result of the limo when it returned and
> > needed a replacement windshield, which points out the windshield was
> > replaced in Rouge, Michigan. Think it through. All you've supplied is
> > your opinion. Doesn't count for anything.
>
> So your story is that the reason Arlington Glass needed to replace the
> windshield on the 26th is because the windshield had been replaced in
> Michigan on the 25th? And that story makes sense to you?
>


WRONG! No, it makes sense when you tell it like I told it to you, not
the way you just tried to make it look wrong. We know without a doubt
that there was a bullet hole in the windshield because of 6 witnesses.
If Arlington Glass had replaced the windshield on the 26th and the limo
had never been to Michigan, then the saved windshield they locked up would
have a bullet hole in it. But that wasn't the case, proving that the
windshield was replaced somewhere around the 25th. And there is
Whitaker's statement that the windshield was replaced in Rouge, Michigan.
Problem solved, because now there was a new windshield in the limo, and
they just needed to crack it with a hammer or something, and call
Arlington Glass to replace the cracked windshield, which was then locked
up and saved, leaving evidence proving that the windshield never had a
hole in it from the front. A critically important fact.

If it had been allowed to show there was a bullet hole in the
windshield, then it would be OBVIOUS that there were multi0ple shooters,
and it would ruin the nice little alibi for the plotters. When you go
through this story you learn how drastically important it was to keep that
alibi going and get rid of anything that said that Oswal;d wasn't a 'lone
nut'.
Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 17, 2017, 2:28:11 PM1/17/17
to
Nonsense. There is nothing in the garage log which indicates the limo was
in Michigan being refurbished on the 25th. There is nothing that even
indicates the limo had left the garage on that date. There is nothing that
supports Whitaker's story. If there was you would have posted it by now.

> Further backup is in the statements of the 5
> witnesses that saw a clear bullet hole in the windshield, and the part of
> Whitaker's story that the orders that came down from above at Ford was
> that the windshield was to be replaced, which says that there was damage
> to it, and when the orders were to have the old windshield destroyed, it
> was further proof that there was something to do with the windshield that
> was to be hidden, explaining the bullet hole. As well, Whitaker wrote up
> his story in longhand, so we have that document too.
>

Nobody disputes the windshield was damaged and needed to be replaced. What
is in dispute is where the windshield did get replaced. The documentation
supports it having been replaced by the Arlington Glass Company on the
26th. There is nothing which supports the limo even being in Michigan on
the 25th nor that it was getting the windshield replaced. None of the
other five witnesses said anything which supports Whitaker's story. His
story is not only not supported by any documentation, it is refuted by the
documentation.

> > > > > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > > > > it for the funeral.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
> > > OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
> > >
> >
> > Which shoots down your earlier argument that they rushed the work so that
> > LBJ would have the limo for the funeral. Please don't force me to dig up
> > that quote embarrass you further by denying that you wrote that.
>
> It wasn't an argument. During reading the story that excuse came up
> as one that explained away the limo having to be move to Michigan, though
> it wasn't in time to do anything. Don't get yourself all hung up on it,
> it isn't any part of proof of anything.
>

It's nice to see you admit you are making excuses.

bigdog

unread,
Jan 17, 2017, 2:31:36 PM1/17/17
to
There is nothing in the garage log that indicates the limo was in Michigan
being refurbished. So you only have Whitaker's written words to support
his spoken words. There's some powerful corroboration. <chuckle>

> However, I'm sure you're
> foolishly thinking that somewhere there should be a paper with the story
> documented giving times and names and everything.

The garage log as well as Ferguson's letter both document that the
windshield was replaced by the Arlington Glass Company in Washington.
There is no documentation supporting Whitaker's story.

> It was not the intent
> of the plotters to have such a document show itself.

The dog ate your evidence.

> As to knowing that
> it was done, we have the garage log which verifies that George Whitaker, a
> humble man with no intention to fool people telling a story that fits
> perfectly with the witnesses (5) that saw the bullet hole in the
> windshield.
>

You keep insisting that the garage log supports Whitaker's story which is
total nonsense because it doesn't support one word of his bullshit story.
The White House log indicates employees of the Arlington Glass Company
entered the garage on the 26th to replace the windshield. That isn't
corroboration for Whitaker's story. It is a refutation of it.

> And this is yet another weird way the LNs try to prove their case, by
> just plain ignoring 6 witnesses to an event, or pretending it never
> happened so they can tell themselves nothing has happened for 52 years.
> Really weird!
>

Two of those witnesses said nothing about a bullet hole that went THROUGH
the windshield. The others all told their stories years later.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > That is
> > > > something you are claiming based entirely on George Whitaker's story which
> > > > he told 30 years after the assassination. There is no documentation that
> > > > such work was ever done or that the limo was in Michigan on 11/25/63.
> > > > Complete fabrication.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Prove it. I've supplied the evidence from a group of witnesses and a
> > > Michigan factory witness,
> >
> > You've only supplied one witness that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th
> > and no documentation to support that.
> >
>
>
> And 6 witnesses that there was a bullet hole in the windshield of the
> limo. Deal with it. And supporting documentation was the garage log as
> you've had it explained to you. Please don't pretend it didn't exist.
>

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter said he never got close enough to see
which side the windshield had been struck on and he never said the hole
went through the windshield. Neither did the SS agent who simply observed
that metal fragments were removed from the hole. All the others told their
stories years later. I'll go with the contemporaneous accounts which said
the missile did not perforate the windshield which is supported by the
photos.


>
>
> > > and the result of the limo when it returned and
> > > needed a replacement windshield, which points out the windshield was
> > > replaced in Rouge, Michigan. Think it through. All you've supplied is
> > > your opinion. Doesn't count for anything.
> >
> > So your story is that the reason Arlington Glass needed to replace the
> > windshield on the 26th is because the windshield had been replaced in
> > Michigan on the 25th? And that story makes sense to you?
> >
>
>
> WRONG! No, it makes sense when you tell it like I told it to you, not
> the way you just tried to make it look wrong. We know without a doubt
> that there was a bullet hole in the windshield because of 6 witnesses.

Four witness and they all told that story years later based on memories.
There are no contemporaneous witness to a hole through the windshield, no
documentation that indicates that, and no photos of such a hole. The
photos show a cracked windshield, not on that had been perforated by a
missile.

> If Arlington Glass had replaced the windshield on the 26th and the limo
> had never been to Michigan, then the saved windshield they locked up would
> have a bullet hole in it.But that wasn't the case, proving that the
> windshield was replaced somewhere around the 25th.

So you are using your premise to support your premise. Real logical.

> And there is
> Whitaker's statement that the windshield was replaced in Rouge, Michigan.

Whitaker's statement is all you have to support your cockamamie story.

> Problem solved, because now there was a new windshield in the limo, and
> they just needed to crack it with a hammer or something, and call
> Arlington Glass to replace the cracked windshield, which was then locked
> up and saved, leaving evidence proving that the windshield never had a
> hole in it from the front. A critically important fact.
>

This idea that they sent the limo all the way to Michigan to have the
windshield replaced and then the next day they cracked it with a hammer
just so they could replace it again is absolutely hilarious.

> If it had been allowed to show there was a bullet hole in the
> windshield, then it would be OBVIOUS that there were multi0ple shooters,
> and it would ruin the nice little alibi for the plotters. When you go
> through this story you learn how drastically important it was to keep that
> alibi going and get rid of anything that said that Oswal;d wasn't a 'lone
> nut'.
>

What I learn is how desperate you are to deny Oswald's guilt.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jan 17, 2017, 11:28:30 PM1/17/17
to
Sorta like the WC, eh?

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 18, 2017, 12:13:04 PM1/18/17
to
WRONG yet again! I've described how the garage log helps to back up
Whitaker. If you didn't copy it down that's your error. But Whitaker's
story is also backed up by the other 5 witnesses that saw the same thing
that Whitaker saw, which is the clear bullet hole in the windshield. So
that's a second aid to his statement. Keep in mind that corroboration is
nice to have, but is not critically necessary every time.




> > Further backup is in the statements of the 5
> > witnesses that saw a clear bullet hole in the windshield, and the part of
> > Whitaker's story that the orders that came down from above at Ford was
> > that the windshield was to be replaced, which says that there was damage
> > to it, and when the orders were to have the old windshield destroyed, it
> > was further proof that there was something to do with the windshield that
> > was to be hidden, explaining the bullet hole. As well, Whitaker wrote up
> > his story in longhand, so we have that document too.
> >
>
> Nobody disputes the windshield was damaged and needed to be replaced. What
> is in dispute is where the windshield did get replaced. The documentation
> supports it having been replaced by the Arlington Glass Company on the
> 26th. There is nothing which supports the limo even being in Michigan on
> the 25th nor that it was getting the windshield replaced. None of the
> other five witnesses said anything which supports Whitaker's story. His
> story is not only not supported by any documentation, it is refuted by the
> documentation.
>


WRONG! The other 5 witnesses saw the bullet hole through the
windshield, so they back up that part of Whitaker's statement. No
documentation says that Whitaker was lying, or twisting the story. His
story fit perfectly into the general story of the limo and what happened
to it on the 25th.



> > > > > > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > > > > > it for the funeral.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
> > > > OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which shoots down your earlier argument that they rushed the work so that
> > > LBJ would have the limo for the funeral. Please don't force me to dig up
> > > that quote embarrass you further by denying that you wrote that.
> >
> > It wasn't an argument. During reading the story that excuse came up
> > as one that explained away the limo having to be moved to Michigan, though
> > it wasn't in time to do anything. Don't get yourself all hung up on it,
> > it isn't any part of proof of anything.
> >
>
> It's nice to see you admit you are making excuses.



WRONG! I'm not making excuses, I came across it during reading up on
this part of the case.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 18, 2017, 10:00:46 PM1/18/17
to
Yes you did and it was a pretty silly description, but then most of your
descriptions are. There is nothing in the garage log which indicates the
limo was in Michigan on the 25th or that it was being worked on. In fact
there is nothing in the log that even indicates the limo left the garage
on that date.

> If you didn't copy it down that's your error.

I'm not in the habit of copying nonsense.

> But Whitaker's
> story is also backed up by the other 5 witnesses that saw the same thing
> that Whitaker saw, which is the clear bullet hole in the windshield. So
> that's a second aid to his statement. Keep in mind that corroboration is
> nice to have, but is not critically necessary every time.
>

Even if 5 other witnesses had seen a bullet hole, that would do nothing to
establish Whitaker's claim that the limo was being worked on in Michigan
on the 25th.

>
>
>
> > > Further backup is in the statements of the 5
> > > witnesses that saw a clear bullet hole in the windshield, and the part of
> > > Whitaker's story that the orders that came down from above at Ford was
> > > that the windshield was to be replaced, which says that there was damage
> > > to it, and when the orders were to have the old windshield destroyed, it
> > > was further proof that there was something to do with the windshield that
> > > was to be hidden, explaining the bullet hole. As well, Whitaker wrote up
> > > his story in longhand, so we have that document too.
> > >
> >
> > Nobody disputes the windshield was damaged and needed to be replaced. What
> > is in dispute is where the windshield did get replaced. The documentation
> > supports it having been replaced by the Arlington Glass Company on the
> > 26th. There is nothing which supports the limo even being in Michigan on
> > the 25th nor that it was getting the windshield replaced. None of the
> > other five witnesses said anything which supports Whitaker's story. His
> > story is not only not supported by any documentation, it is refuted by the
> > documentation.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! The other 5 witnesses saw the bullet hole through the
> windshield, so they back up that part of Whitaker's statement.

Too bad they do nothing that established the limo was in Michigan on the
25th.

> No
> documentation says that Whitaker was lying, or twisting the story. His
> story fit perfectly into the general story of the limo and what happened
> to it on the 25th.
>

His story fits your myth? I'm not surprised.

>
>
> > > > > > > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > > > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > > > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > > > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > > > > > > it for the funeral.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
> > > > > OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which shoots down your earlier argument that they rushed the work so that
> > > > LBJ would have the limo for the funeral. Please don't force me to dig up
> > > > that quote embarrass you further by denying that you wrote that.
> > >
> > > It wasn't an argument. During reading the story that excuse came up
> > > as one that explained away the limo having to be moved to Michigan, though
> > > it wasn't in time to do anything. Don't get yourself all hung up on it,
> > > it isn't any part of proof of anything.
> > >
> >
> > It's nice to see you admit you are making excuses.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I'm not making excuses, I came across it during reading up on
> this part of the case.
>

So somebody else made up the excuse.

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 19, 2017, 5:37:49 PM1/19/17
to
True, except if you put it together with the statement of George
Whitaker. Other than the evidence I've pointed out, you seem to have
nothing but opinion to oppose it. Over and over you throw out opinions as
if they were evidence, when they're nothing.




> > If you didn't copy it down that's your error.
>
> I'm not in the habit of copying nonsense.
>


More opinion.



> > But Whitaker's
> > story is also backed up by the other 5 witnesses that saw the same thing
> > that Whitaker saw, which is the clear bullet hole in the windshield. So
> > that's a second aid to his statement. Keep in mind that corroboration is
> > nice to have, but is not critically necessary every time.
> >
>
> Even if 5 other witnesses had seen a bullet hole, that would do nothing to
> establish Whitaker's claim that the limo was being worked on in Michigan
> on the 25th.
>



WRONG! Other witnesses DID see a hole, 5 of them altogether. That
corroborates Whitaker's seeing the bullet hole in the same exact location.
And how would Whitaker know that without seeing the windshield?



> >
> >
> >
> > > > Further backup is in the statements of the 5
> > > > witnesses that saw a clear bullet hole in the windshield, and the part of
> > > > Whitaker's story that the orders that came down from above at Ford was
> > > > that the windshield was to be replaced, which says that there was damage
> > > > to it, and when the orders were to have the old windshield destroyed, it
> > > > was further proof that there was something to do with the windshield that
> > > > was to be hidden, explaining the bullet hole. As well, Whitaker wrote up
> > > > his story in longhand, so we have that document too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nobody disputes the windshield was damaged and needed to be replaced. What
> > > is in dispute is where the windshield did get replaced. The documentation
> > > supports it having been replaced by the Arlington Glass Company on the
> > > 26th. There is nothing which supports the limo even being in Michigan on
> > > the 25th nor that it was getting the windshield replaced. None of the
> > > other five witnesses said anything which supports Whitaker's story. His
> > > story is not only not supported by any documentation, it is refuted by the
> > > documentation.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The other 5 witnesses saw the bullet hole through the
> > windshield, so they back up that part of Whitaker's statement.
>
> Too bad they do nothing that established the limo was in Michigan on the
> 25th.
>


Can you establish that Whitaker was in Washington on the 25th? His
knowledge of the bullet hole was from seeing the actual windshield, and
the limo was attached to it.



> > No
> > documentation says that Whitaker was lying, or twisting the story. His
> > story fit perfectly into the general story of the limo and what happened
> > to it on the 25th.
> >
>
> His story fits your myth? I'm not surprised.
>


Again with your opinions...try evidence.

His story fits your myth? I'm not surprised.

>
>
> > > > > > > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > > > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > > > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > > > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > > > > > > it for the funeral.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
> > > > > OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which shoots down your earlier argument that they rushed the work so that
> > > > LBJ would have the limo for the funeral. Please don't force me to dig up
> > > > that quote embarrass you further by denying that you wrote that.
> > >
> > > It wasn't an argument. During reading the story that excuse came up
> > > as one that explained away the limo having to be moved to Michigan, though
> > > it wasn't in time to do anything. Don't get yourself all hung up on it,
> > > it isn't any part of proof of anything.
> > >
> >
> > It's nice to see you admit you are making excuses.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I'm not making excuses, I came across it during reading up on
> this part of the case.
>

So somebody else made up the excuse.


Naah.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 20, 2017, 6:04:49 PM1/20/17
to
If you put it together with Whitaker's story, you still only have Whitaker
indicating the limo was in Michigan on the 26th.


> Other than the evidence I've pointed out, you seem to have
> nothing but opinion to oppose it. Over and over you throw out opinions as
> if they were evidence, when they're nothing.
>

The only thing you've pointed out that indicates the limo was sent to
Michigan on the 25th is Whitaker's statement. It remains uncorroborated.
There are no other witnesses who say that happened. There is no
documentation to indicate that happened.

>
>
>
> > > If you didn't copy it down that's your error.
> >
> > I'm not in the habit of copying nonsense.
> >
>
>
> More opinion.
>

No, that's a fact.

>
>
> > > But Whitaker's
> > > story is also backed up by the other 5 witnesses that saw the same thing
> > > that Whitaker saw, which is the clear bullet hole in the windshield. So
> > > that's a second aid to his statement. Keep in mind that corroboration is
> > > nice to have, but is not critically necessary every time.
> > >
> >
> > Even if 5 other witnesses had seen a bullet hole, that would do nothing to
> > establish Whitaker's claim that the limo was being worked on in Michigan
> > on the 25th.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Other witnesses DID see a hole, 5 of them altogether. That
> corroborates Whitaker's seeing the bullet hole in the same exact location.
> And how would Whitaker know that without seeing the windshield?
>

He didn't need to see it. All he had to do was read the claims others made
and then make up a story to fit theirs.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Further backup is in the statements of the 5
> > > > > witnesses that saw a clear bullet hole in the windshield, and the part of
> > > > > Whitaker's story that the orders that came down from above at Ford was
> > > > > that the windshield was to be replaced, which says that there was damage
> > > > > to it, and when the orders were to have the old windshield destroyed, it
> > > > > was further proof that there was something to do with the windshield that
> > > > > was to be hidden, explaining the bullet hole. As well, Whitaker wrote up
> > > > > his story in longhand, so we have that document too.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nobody disputes the windshield was damaged and needed to be replaced. What
> > > > is in dispute is where the windshield did get replaced. The documentation
> > > > supports it having been replaced by the Arlington Glass Company on the
> > > > 26th. There is nothing which supports the limo even being in Michigan on
> > > > the 25th nor that it was getting the windshield replaced. None of the
> > > > other five witnesses said anything which supports Whitaker's story. His
> > > > story is not only not supported by any documentation, it is refuted by the
> > > > documentation.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The other 5 witnesses saw the bullet hole through the
> > > windshield, so they back up that part of Whitaker's statement.
> >
> > Too bad they do nothing that established the limo was in Michigan on the
> > 25th.
> >
>
>
> Can you establish that Whitaker was in Washington on the 25th?

Of course not. I have no reason to believe he was.

> His
> knowledge of the bullet hole was from seeing the actual windshield, and
> the limo was attached to it.
>

You really are gullible.

>
>
> > > No
> > > documentation says that Whitaker was lying, or twisting the story. His
> > > story fit perfectly into the general story of the limo and what happened
> > > to it on the 25th.
> > >
> >
> > His story fits your myth? I'm not surprised.
> >
>
>
> Again with your opinions...try evidence.
>
> His story fits your myth? I'm not surprised.
>

You have produced no evidence which supports Whitaker's story.

> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > In addition the entire interior had been stripped. Are we supposed to
> > > > > > > > > > > believe all that work was done and the limo transported back to Washington
> > > > > > > > > > > in one day. All this of course was supposedly going on the day JFK was
> > > > > > > > > > > buried which kind of shoots down your claim it was done so LBJ could have
> > > > > > > > > > > it for the funeral.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! Don't be stupid. It was an excuse to have the limo redone, but
> > > > > > OBVIOUSLY they didn't have it for the funeral.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Which shoots down your earlier argument that they rushed the work so that
> > > > > LBJ would have the limo for the funeral. Please don't force me to dig up
> > > > > that quote embarrass you further by denying that you wrote that.
> > > >
> > > > It wasn't an argument. During reading the story that excuse came up
> > > > as one that explained away the limo having to be moved to Michigan, though
> > > > it wasn't in time to do anything. Don't get yourself all hung up on it,
> > > > it isn't any part of proof of anything.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's nice to see you admit you are making excuses.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I'm not making excuses, I came across it during reading up on
> > this part of the case.
> >
>
> So somebody else made up the excuse.
>
>
> Naah.
>

One of your more articulate responses.

0 new messages