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