Dillard photo at Love Field shows chrome topping undented
Anthony Marsh
was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the professional deniers can
clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet been dented. It also shows
some interesting details of the interior.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Dillard_lovefield_half_size.jpg
WhiskyJoe
> Hopefully even the professional deniers
> can clearly see that the chrome topping
> had not yet been dented.
I'm not so certain. Some of them may even
be able to see a bullet hole through the
windshield.
Actually, this is an excellent picture
that shows no preexisting chrome damage.
yeuhd
the door? A blanket?
David Von Pein
>>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
been dented." <<<
Sorry, Tony, but Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo does not even show
the area where the dent occurred.
Unfortunately, Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has the
limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
Commission Exhibit 349.
If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
that I'm right. That damn crossbar is blocking our view of the area of the
dent in Dillard's photo:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Dillard_lovefield_half_size.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm
David Von Pein
I've revised my above post regarding the Dillard picture and CE349.
Revised Version:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3e09778241ca3ef9
>>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
been dented." <<<
I'm not too sure that Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo even shows the
area where the dent occurred.
It looks to me as though Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has
the limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
Commission Exhibit 349.
If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
that it appears that the crossbar might be blocking the view of the exact
area of the dent in Dillard's photo:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm
However, my analysis on this matter could conceivably be faulty, because
I'm attempting to analze two different two-dimensional photographs (taken
from different viewpoints). So it's entirely possible that I am wrong and
that the area where the dent occurred is, indeed, visible in the Dillard
Love Field picture.
My basis for concluding that the dented area of the limo does not appear
in Dillard's Love Field photo is mainly by doing an "eyeball" measurement
comparison of the two visor support "rods" (for lack of a better term for
the pieces of metal that stick out from the two visors and snap into place
just above the rearview mirror; which are "metal rods" that are visible in
both the Dillard photo and CE349.
When doing an "eyeball measurement" of the distance between those two
visor rods and the dent in the chrome in CE349, and then toggling back to
the Dillard photo, it sure looks as though the limo's crossbar is blocking
the precise area where that dent can be seen in CE349.
However, there is definitely an additional part of the car's metal
windshield frame visible in the Dillard picture in an area that would
certainly appear to be ABOVE the place where we see the dent in CE349. The
flag pole on the left-front side of the car is being blocked by this
additional portion of the windshield frame in the Love Field photo.
It's hard to tell, but this "additional part of the frame" (again, for
lack of a more precise term for it) doesn't appear to have a noticeable
dent in it. However, there are some darker "lines" of some kind visible in
that part of the windshield frame that contrast against the
almost-totally-white look to that portion of the car that I suppose could
represent some sort of damage. But, again, it's really very hard to tell.
I'll try to purchase a "Windshield Frame And Visor Rod" dictionary in the
near future, so that maybe my next post concerning this topic isn't so
hard to understand. (I can understand exactly what I mean to convey, but
whether anybody else will be able to decipher it, I cannot say.) ;)
WhiskyJoe
David. Your study of the photograph was a
lot better than my brief glance. I would
say that if the damage was pre existing,
it just might partially appear in the
Dillard photograph but it just as easily
might be totally hidden. Obviously, we
need other pictures.
Since it was alleged this damage was a
year or two old, I would think there
would be lots of pictures at other
motorcades that would at least
eliminate the theory that this
was old damage.
jfk...@gmail.com
> >>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
>
> Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
> professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
> been dented." <<<
>
> Sorry, Tony, but Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo does not even show
> the area where the dent occurred.
>
> Unfortunately, Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has the
> limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
> precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
> Commission Exhibit 349.
>
> If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
> tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
> that I'm right. That damn crossbar is blocking our view of the area of the
> dent in Dillard's photo:
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
Vaughn Ferguson, the FMC employee who was prevented from accompanying 100X
to Dallas as he had to almost every other trip, would not have allowed the
car to be used if there were a dent in the chrome molding prior to its
leaving DC. Rowley was trying to make excuses for his not having written
a report on the limo in Dallas prior to the Ferguson memo. That this
would have been somehow 'overlooked' is a ludicrous suggestion.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 11, 7:46 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
>>
>> Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
>> professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
>> been dented."<<<
>>
>> Sorry, Tony, but Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo does not even show
>> the area where the dent occurred.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has the
>> limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
>> precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
>> Commission Exhibit 349.
>>
>> If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
>> tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
>> that I'm right. That damn crossbar is blocking our view of the area of the
>> dent in Dillard's photo:
>>
>> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Di...
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
>
> Vaughn Ferguson, the FMC employee who was prevented from accompanying 100X
> to Dallas as he had to almost every other trip, would not have allowed the
This is something new I have never seen before. Do you have any documents
about Ferguson going on almost every other trip? I can understand that
Ford would rather have its own expert keeping the limo up to date and well
maintained, but I think I had seen others handling it and little about it
being Ferguson who personally went on almost every trip. I assume you did
download the pictures I put up of the installation of the communications
equipment.
> car to be used if there were a dent in the chrome molding prior to its
> leaving DC. Rowley was trying to make excuses for his not having written
> a report on the limo in Dallas prior to the Ferguson memo. That this
> would have been somehow 'overlooked' is a ludicrous suggestion.
>
I can't prove it, but I think it is a little more conspiratorial than
that. I think they couldn't fit the dent into the shooting sequence so
they tried to make the dent disappear verbally.
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Vaughn Ferguson...would not have allowed the car to be used if there
were a dent in the chrome molding prior to its leaving DC." <<<
LOL.
Oh, for Pete ("Pam") sake, why in the world not?
A small dent in the chrome was supposed to mean the limo was totally
unusable?
Ridiculous.
Anthony Marsh
>
> David. Your study of the photograph was a
> lot better than my brief glance. I would
> say that if the damage was pre existing,
> it just might partially appear in the
> Dillard photograph but it just as easily
> might be totally hidden. Obviously, we
> need other pictures.
>
Obviously I have shown other pictures and you have refused to look at them.
> Since it was alleged this damage was a
> year or two old, I would think there
> would be lots of pictures at other
> motorcades that would at least
> eliminate the theory that this
> was old damage.
>
Duh? Where have you been since 1995? Hiding under a rock?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
> Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
> professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
> been dented."<<<
>
>
> Sorry, Tony, but Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo does not even show
> the area where the dent occurred.
>
Thank you very much for once again confirming my point. The professional
deniers will deny even the simplest facts.
> Unfortunately, Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has the
> limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
> precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
> Commission Exhibit 349.
>
> If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
> tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
> that I'm right. That damn crossbar is blocking our view of the area of the
> dent in Dillard's photo:
>
>
>
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Dillard_lovefield_half_size.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm
>
>
Obviously you didn't read my original article.
Anthony Marsh
> What is that thing with the presidential seal on it, hanging inside
> the door? A blanket?
>
Yes, what they call a lap robe.
David Von Pein
>>> "Obviously you didn't read my original article." <<<
Nope, sure didn't.
You wrote an article, did you?? Well I'll be French-dipped.
timstter
> On 12/11/2009 8:46 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
> > Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
> > professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
> > been dented."<<<
>
> > Sorry, Tony, but Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo does not even show
> > the area where the dent occurred.
>
> Thank you very much for once again confirming my point. The professional
> deniers will deny even the simplest facts.
>
>
>
> > Unfortunately, Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has the
> > limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
> > precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
> > Commission Exhibit 349.
>
> > If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
> > tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
> > that I'm right. That damn crossbar is blocking our view of the area of the
> > dent in Dillard's photo:
>
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
>
> Obviously you didn't read my original article.
The photo doesn't support what you claim, Tony.
The area in question is obscured by the hand hold bar as Von Pein
said.
It's a great photo but it doesn't make your case re a dent in the
chrome. Maybe you should link again to your original article.
BTW, if you blow it up and look in the bottom R/H corner it is quite
spooky to see the familiar image of the crowd waiting at Gate 28
reflected in the limo's side window. The Confederate flag is quite
visible. Eerie...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/bestwitn.htm
Best Witness: JFK's Limousine
Anthony Marsh
2nd Annual COPA Conference
Omni Shoreham, Washington, DC
October 22, 1995
The best witness to the JFK assassination was the Presidential
limousine. As other researchers have pointed out, eyewitness testimony
can be unreliable. Witnesses can be confused, lie, misremember events,
or can be susceptible to suggestion. The damage to the limousine tells a
story of its own, an accurate and truthful account of the events in
Dealey Plaza.
One of the most important points of damage to the limousine was the dent
of the chrome topping above the windshield. Was it caused by a direct
hit of a bullet or a bullet fragment? In Six Seconds in Dallas, footnote
16 of chapter 5 quotes a letter from Chief of the Secret Service James
Rowley, who claimed that the dent was caused way back on November 1,
1961 by routine maintenance. The Warren Report was ambiguous about the
dent. It appears that the Warren Commission did not attempt to examine
any photographs to determine if the chrome topping was undented before
the assassination. There may have been several photographs they could
have examined which would have resolved the issue. There were many
photographs and films taken in Dealey Plaza before the shooting started.
There were several photos and films taken at Love Field which showed the
limousine in its pristine condition, such as this one by Tom Dillard
(Figure 1). Unfortunately, the hand hold bar blocks our view of the
chrome topping in this Dillard photo, but there must be other such
photos which do show it clearly. There may also be other photographs and
films from the motorcade which have not yet been made public. Just this
August, LIFE magazine published one photograph taken by Presidential
aide Dave Powers, who is believed to have taken several photos and a
film of the motorcade at Love Field and before the motorcade reached
Dealey Plaza ( Figure 2 ). Dave Powers' vantage point was especially
privileged, as he rode in the Secret Service follow-up car, where the
official White House photographer would normally ride, but didn't that day.
Cecil Stoughton, the official White House photgrapher, was stuck that
day riding several cars back, in one of the camera cars. In fact,
Stoughton was not even scheduled to go on the Texas trip, but had to
fill in for Robert Knudsen, who had some slivers in his eye which needed
to be removed [1]. Supposedly, Stoughton took only a couple of photos
near Dealey Plaza, one just before the motorcade reached the plaza, and
one of the grassy knoll about 30 seconds after he shooting. But, he did
take photos of the limousine the day before when the President visited
Kelly Air Force base in San Antonio. We can see in this photo that he
did occupy the normal position in the Secret Service follow-up car
(Figure 3). In the next photo we can see that the chrome topping was
undented (Figure 4). The HSCA was seemingly unaware of, or ignored, the
Stoughton photos, and did not address the issue of the dent of the
chrome topping. However, HSCA photographic consultant Robert Groden did
state at a conference at Emerson College a few years ago that he and a
HSCA staff member had examined the chrome topping at the National
Archives and that the nose of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet like CE 399
fit perfectly into the indentation in the chrome topping. And here is a
photograph taken by Robert Knudsen of an earlier motorcade in 1963 which
shows that the chrome topping was undented (Figure 5).
Incidentally, while looking through hundreds of photos at the JFK
Library, I found some which show the condition of the limousine during
previous motorcades. One bizarre theory which those photos disprove is
the notion that the rear seat was raised as the limousine went through
Dealey Plaza in order to make JFK an easier target. Those
non-researchers who have proposed those bizarre theories have obviously
never seen what the limousine looked like when the rear seat was
actually raised. Here is one example from another motorcade which shows
the rear seat raised about 5 inches (Figure 6). It is quite obvious from
all angles, but especially from the rear. Compare that to another
motorcade when the rear seat was not raised (Figure 7). In Mark North's
book, Act of Treason, is an even more dramatic example showing former
Chief of the Secret Service Baughman sitting on the fully raised rear
seat (Figure 8).
Update summer 2000: I recently found a photo of the limousine taken when
it was delivered to the White House in 1961 showing off the rear seat
raised to its highest position. This is Knudsen's KN-C18066 from the
Kennedy Library.
The most well-known point of damage to the limousine was the crack of
the windshield. We can see in the Altgens 1-6 photo, which equals
approximately Zapruder frame 255, that the windshield is undamaged, yet
in his next photo we can see that the windshield is cracked. Frazier's
CE 350 shows the condition of the windshield taken about 14 hours after
the assassination (Figure 9). Contrary to the opinion of a couple of
people, there was no hole in the windshield, only a crack. As we can see
in this blow-up of CE 350, it is a crack (Figure 10). I believe CE 350
depicts the same windshield which was on the limousine during the
assassination. The location and pattern of the crack, and presence of
blood spatters looks consistent from Dealey Plaza to CE 350.
Some people point to conflicting testimony about the roughness of the
area of the crack as an indication that there was a windshield switch or
that the windshield was struck on the outside. Secret Service agent Roy
Kellerman testified ( 2H89 ) that when he first felt the windshield a
few days after the assassination, the inside felt rough and that when he
examined it on the day of his testimony that it felt smooth. I believe
that the reason for the difference in roughness is that when the
windshield was first examined on November 23, 1963 the roughness on the
inside was due to the presence of minute bullet fragments ( CE 841)
which were completely removed for testing, so that any later examination
would feel only the smooth glass.
Some might also argue that the theory of how glass fractures on the
opposite side of the point of impact would seem to indicate that the
shot came from the front and caused a fracture on the inside. Then,
supposedly, the conspirators realized this mistake and switched
windshields so that the corrected windshield would exhibit fractures on
the outside to indicate that it was hit from the inside. But there are a
couple of problems with the theory. That is a fine theory in other
cases, with ordinary plate glass, but the windshield was composed of
laminated automobile glass, which consists of two layers of glass with a
layer of plastic between them. Thus it is quiote common that there may
be damage to the inside layer of the glass which does not extend to the
outside layer of the glass and vice versa. That is its design purpose. I
also doubt that anyone had the opportunity and capability to switch
windshields before it was examined and photographed by Frazier, and
certainly trying to resolve conflicting testimony by switching
windshields would require several switches.
However, there does seem to be one apparent discrepancy which is
disturbing. When the windshield was photographed for the HSCA, it
appears that there is a massive stain on the driver's side which does
not appear in CE 350 (Figure 11). However, it is possible that this area
was just out of frame on the photo of CE 350. Moreover, it is not clear
that the stain seen in the HSCA photo has to be blood. I suppose that it
could have been some other liquid which dripped onto the windshield
while it was in storage at the National Archives. Maybe someone spilled
coffee on it. You would think that in this age of sophisticated blood
analysis that someone could determine if it is blood, and perhaps whose.
We might also need Dr. Henry Lee to do a blood spatter analysis. Many of
the blood spots are consistent with either JFK's or Connally's wounds,
but sometimes it looks to me as though the massive stain was caused by
someone pouring liquid from a cup. It might also tell us something
important, such as from which angles the splatter could have come, or
which angles could be ruled out by the possibility that Greer's head
would block such a path from a particular wound.
Is there any other damage which would tell us from which direction the
windshield was struck? I believe I am the first person to point out
something which no one else has noticed before. If you look carefully at
CE 350, you can see that the back of the rearview mirror was dented
(Figure 12). This could only have been caused by a bullet ricocheting
off the inside of the windshield, thus proving that that the glass was
struck on the inside by a shot from behind the limousine, and that there
was not a hole in the glass. If a bullet had gone through the
windshield, there would be nothing to ricochet back and strike the back
of the rearview mirror. What could a shot from behind have first struck
to produce a bullet fragment which would hit the inside of the
windshield and then ricochet to the right to hit the back of the
rearview mirror?
I think the bullet which caused the damage to the windshield, and most
likely also the chrome topping, was the last shot from the TSBD. It's
highly unlikely that this shot struck JFK after Z-313. He had already
been struck by a shot in the back from the TSBD at about Z-210. Connally
had already been struck in the back by a shot at about Z-230. That is
when Connally thought he was hit. But he did not remember being struck
in the wrist. Not only was the alinement of the two men incorrect for a
Single-Bullet Theory trajectory at either Z-190 or Z-210, Connally's
wrist was too high to have been struck by a bullet exiting his chest
just below his right nipple. I think the most likely scenario is that
the last shot from the TSBD hit Connally's wrist after Z-313, either
directly or indirectly, then broke up into many fragments which caused
all the damage to the limousine, Tague's cut, and the fragments in
Connally's thigh. I would suggest that a much more detailed examination
of the photographic record might pinpoint the time at which the
windshield, chrome topping and rearview mirror were struck.
We can determine a possible time for that last shot from the TSBD from
the acoustical evidence. The HSCA acoustical studies give us the
approximate spacing between shots. We then need to match up the timing
with the Zapruder frames. Contrary to the theories of some researchers
whose last names begin with the letter "L," the Zapruder film was not
altered. There are no missing frames, except for the well-known splice
of one LIFE copy at frames 208 to 211. It seems that whenever some piece
of physical evidence disproves a bizarre theory, the first thing the
bizarre theorist does is claim that the evidence must be fake. It is
time that all serious researchers accept the fact that the physical
evidence is genuine and authentic. The last two shots were separated by
about .744 of a second, or about 13.6 Zapruder frames. So, if the last
shot from the TSBD was after Z-313, we would expect to see no damage
before Z-327 and see damage within a few frames after that. I would
suggest that those who claim to have excellent copies of the
photographic evidence concentrate their focus on frames Z-326 to Z-330
in looking for changes in the condition of the limousine.
During last year's COPA conference I visited the National Archives and
in particular reviewed the newly released photos of the limousine. In
the same folder were what appeared to be photocopies of the original
worksheets by the agents who examined the limousine on November 23,
1963. I'm not sure who wrote the sheets and exactly when they were
written (the three agent names appear to be Frazier, Killiam, and
Cunningham), but the sheets record the observations of the examination
team that night.[ * ] They mark the exact locations of the fragments
recovered. Incidentally, these worksheets clear up one of the major
controversies about the limousine. Some people have speculated that the
white object seen in the photos was a white cloth hand puppet (which
they have affectionately dubbed Lambchop), which was given to Jackie at
Love Field. The worksheets note that the white object was actually a
bunch of chrysanthemums. Both major bullet fragments were found on the
right side of the limousine in the front compartment. It appears logical
to me that a ricocheting fragment landing on the right side of the front
seat must have come from the left side of the limousine. JFK was never
to the left of the midline, nor was Connally's trunk when he was hit in
the back. But Connally had slumped into his wife's lap after he was shot
and his wrist was to the left of the midline after Z-313. Thus, I
believe that the damage to the limousine suggests that Connally's wrist
was struck by a different bullet than the one which went through his
chest. And I believe that the photographic evidence will show that the
limousine was not damaged by a shot from the TSBD at Z-313, which would
prove by inference that the headshot at Z-313 must have been the grassy
knoll shot. In conclusion, I would urge all serious researchers to
continue to look for new evidence and strive to better understand the
evidence we already have, instead of devising bizarre theories to
counteract the evidence.
[1] John G. Morris, "Shooting the Presidents," Popular Photography,
August 1977, Volume 81, Number 2, 81.
* On page 258 of David Fisher's 1995 book, Hard Evidence, the three men
are identified as FBI agents Bob Frazier, Charles Killion and Cort
Cunningham.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 13, 3:10 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2009 8:46 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
>>> Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
>>> professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
>>> been dented."<<<
>>
>>> Sorry, Tony, but Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo does not even show
>>> the area where the dent occurred.
>>
>> Thank you very much for once again confirming my point. The professional
>> deniers will deny even the simplest facts.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately, Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has the
>>> limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
>>> precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
>>> Commission Exhibit 349.
>>
>>> If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
>>> tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
>>> that I'm right. That damn crossbar is blocking our view of the area of the
>>> dent in Dillard's photo:
>>
>>> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Di...
>>
>>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
>>
>> Obviously you didn't read my original article.
>
> The photo doesn't support what you claim, Tony.
>
Well, maybe you have trouble understanding what I wrote. Maybe because all
my messages are being censored I can't use the language which would make
it clearer. I had hoped that most people would be able to read through the
lines when I prefaced my remark by saying, "Hopefully even the
professional deniers . . ."
I am not allowed to make it any more explicit than that. If you have
trouble understanding what I mean perhaps you have a family member or
teacher who can explain it to you.
> The area in question is obscured by the hand hold bar as Von Pein
> said.
>
Yes, the specific area of the inside of the dent. But if you look
carefully there is a halo of distorted metal around the dent. I do not see
the same distortion on the Dillard photo. And I only linked to the lower
resolution photo. I have a much higher resolution photo. If you'd like to
see the original, buy the negative and make your own blow-up.
> It's a great photo but it doesn't make your case re a dent in the
> chrome. Maybe you should link again to your original article.
>
Maybe I should link to it 1,000 times every day, but certain people
would still refuse to look at it.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/bestwitn.htm
> BTW, if you blow it up and look in the bottom R/H corner it is quite
> spooky to see the familiar image of the crowd waiting at Gate 28
> reflected in the limo's side window. The Confederate flag is quite
> visible. Eerie...
>
I was also amazed at the detail of the interior. I was puzzled why they
put the seat raising switch on the left side when the President usually
sat on the right side. Maybe the telephone has priority and the seat
raising switch was not considered as important since it wasn't used as
often. Did you look at the photos I uploaded showing them installing the
communications equipment when the limo was delivered?
Robin Unger
This is the area i beleive to be Chrome Trim in the Dillard image.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/10748.jpg
Robin Unger
Close up color footage, of the Limo and follow up car, can be seen in
the George Reid film taken at Love Field around the same time as
Dillard snapped his photo.
http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1996.014.0004
Robin
David Von Pein
"Unfortunately, the hand hold bar blocks our view of the chrome
topping in this Dillard photo." -- Anthony Marsh; October 22, 1995
"Robin Ungar [sic] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not
yet been dented." -- Anthony Marsh; December 11, 2009
--------------
I'm confused, Tony. In 1995, you readily admitted the exact same thing
that I was talking about earlier in this thread when I said this:
"It looks to me as though Dillard's picture was taken at an
angle which has the limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally
blocking the view of the precise location above the rearview mirror
where the dent is seen in Commission Exhibit 349." -- DVP; 12/11/09
But now, in 2009, you seem to think that a clearer copy of Dillard's
Love Field photo suddenly DOES reveal the area where we see the dent
in CE349??? Is that correct, Tony?
Did the handhold bar of JFK's limo magically move out of the way in
this clearer version of Tom Dillard's photograph?:
Anthony Marsh
Thanks. I assume that you are an honest person and that you can clearly
see that the chrome topping is undented. Some here can't.
I don't know if I have the correct terms to describe what I mean, but I
believe the chrome topping was beveled. The ridge where it is beveled is
where the dent was, just to the right of the midline. I believe we can see
that ridge on the Dillard photo. The area below it appears to be darker
and the area above it appears to be lighter. The mid point between the
dark and the light is the ridge. I see no dent on the ridge. I suppose one
or two people here think they can see a dent there, but I question their
objectivity.
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 12/12/2009 2:14 PM, jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:46 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Robin Ungar [sic; Unger] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
>
> >> Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
> >> professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not yet
> >> been dented."<<<
>
> >> Sorry, Tony, but Tom Dillard's Love Field limo photo does not even show
> >> the area where the dent occurred.
>
> >> Unfortunately, Dillard's picture was taken at an angle which has the
> >> limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally blocking the view of the
> >> precise location above the rearview mirror where the dent is seen in
> >> Commission Exhibit 349.
>
> >> If you open up each of the photos below in separate browser windows (or
> >> tabs) and then toggle back and forth between the two pictures, you'll see
> >> that I'm right. That damn crossbar is blocking our view of the area of the
> >> dent in Dillard's photo:
>
> >>http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Di...
>
> >>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
>
> > Vaughn Ferguson, the FMC employee who was prevented from accompanying 100X
> > to Dallas as he had to almost every other trip, would not have allowed the
>
> This is something new I have never seen before. Do you have any documents
> about Ferguson going on almost every other trip?
How can this be new? That was his job. Didn't I send you a copy of
CCC?
> I can understand that
> Ford would rather have its own expert keeping the limo up to date and well
> maintained, but I think I had seen others handling it and little about it
> being Ferguson who personally went on almost every trip.
He was the FMC liaison to the WHG and was responsible for 100X. The
Ferguson memo is so explosive because he wrote about what happened to
the limo after the assassination when nobody else did. When the
higher-ups realized what Ferguson had done Rowley was forced to write
his Jan. 6, 1964 letter.
> I assume you did
> download the pictures I put up of the installation of the communications
> equipment.
>
> > car to be used if there were a dent in the chrome molding prior to its
> > leaving DC. Rowley was trying to make excuses for his not having written
> > a report on the limo in Dallas prior to the Ferguson memo. That this
> > would have been somehow 'overlooked' is a ludicrous suggestion.
>
> I can't prove it, but I think it is a little more conspiratorial than
> that. I think they couldn't fit the dent into the shooting sequence so
> they tried to make the dent disappear verbally.
>
Rowley is certainly on my short-list of conspirators, so that makes
sense.
ShutterBun
> On 12/14/2009 10:22 AM, Robin Unger wrote:
>
> > Thanks Anthony.
>
> > This is the area i beleive to be Chrome Trim in the Dillard image.
>
>
> Thanks. I assume that you are an honest person and that you can clearly
> see that the chrome topping is undented. Some here can't.
>
> I don't know if I have the correct terms to describe what I mean, but I
> believe the chrome topping was beveled. The ridge where it is beveled is
> where the dent was, just to the right of the midline. I believe we can see
> that ridge on the Dillard photo. The area below it appears to be darker
> and the area above it appears to be lighter. The mid point between the
> dark and the light is the ridge. I see no dent on the ridge. I suppose one
> or two people here think they can see a dent there, but I question their
> objectivity.
I gotta side with DVP here. While I can certainly say "I don't see a
dent" in the Dillard photo, I can't say this photo (which is
outstanding, otherwise) concludes it definitively. Sure would be nice
if that crossbar wasn't in the way. Also, the nature of the dent was
apparently such that it wasn't as noticeable as one might think. In
the overcast sky (at the time of the Dillard photo) there wouldn't be
harsh shadows to embphasize it. Great photo, but it sure would be
nice if that crossbar weren't in that position.
jfk...@gmail.com
Vaughn Ferguson was a professional. Care to grab a clue?
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Pamela, Mr. Weldon believes he has found credible witnesses who saw a
hole in the windshield.
What is your opinion of Mr. Weldon's aggregation of evidence?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> "Unfortunately, the hand hold bar blocks our view of the chrome
> topping in this Dillard photo." -- Anthony Marsh; October 22, 1995
>
>
> "Robin Ungar [sic] has uploaded a much clearer copy of the
> Dillard photo which was taken at Love Field. Hopefully even the
> professional deniers can clearly see that the chrome topping had not
> yet been dented." -- Anthony Marsh; December 11, 2009
>
>
> --------------
>
> I'm confused, Tony. In 1995, you readily admitted the exact same thing
> that I was talking about earlier in this thread when I said this:
>
No, not the exact same thing. I said that the Dillard photo I uploaded and
showed for my article has the hand hold bar blocking our view of the
chrome topping. You can't see all of the area where the dent was. The much
higher resolution and clearer copy that Robin Ungar allows us to compare
the dented area to that part above the dent which we can now see clearly
in the Dillard photo. To me and to others it appears that there is no
rippling in the chrome above the ridge.
> "It looks to me as though Dillard's picture was taken at an
> angle which has the limousine's crossbar/(handhold bar) totally
> blocking the view of the precise location above the rearview mirror
> where the dent is seen in Commission Exhibit 349." -- DVP; 12/11/09
>
> But now, in 2009, you seem to think that a clearer copy of Dillard's
> Love Field photo suddenly DOES reveal the area where we see the dent
> in CE349??? Is that correct, Tony?
>
Not the dent itself. The area above the dent.
Think of it as an eye and an eyebrow. We still can't see the eye, but
now we can see where the eyebrow would be.
> Did the handhold bar of JFK's limo magically move out of the way in
> this clearer version of Tom Dillard's photograph?:
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/022a.+LIMOUSINE+AT+LOVE+FIELD+ON+11-22-63?gda=X3SG8lsAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQbl3Co_XnUimBntYDHVj04qIFl7W22pCJDLs79VKWEILJajXn2PF2BSGkRGDE0XnpFoUOEw-dNkI0V1EUe2V6IQZF2vdCvKU-TDZpFtcP-AU&gsc=JOzzBQsAAAA84sWG7cSb_c62uiR4U8Hg
>
The image got a lot clearer and brighter than the copy I had used for my
article. I have several photos like that where I am looking for the best
quality possible. Gary Mack is the main impediment, withholding the best
copies of some photos and films. To maintain the cover-up.
Anthony Marsh
Thanks, but I didn't see anything in that particular film which helps.
And again the problem is that it is Gary Mack who controls the evidence.
>
> Robin
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 14, 12:24 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2009 10:22 AM, Robin Unger wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Anthony.
>>
>>> This is the area i beleive to be Chrome Trim in the Dillard image.
>>
>>> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/10...
>>
>> Thanks. I assume that you are an honest person and that you can clearly
>> see that the chrome topping is undented. Some here can't.
>>
>> I don't know if I have the correct terms to describe what I mean, but I
>> believe the chrome topping was beveled. The ridge where it is beveled is
>> where the dent was, just to the right of the midline. I believe we can see
>> that ridge on the Dillard photo. The area below it appears to be darker
>> and the area above it appears to be lighter. The mid point between the
>> dark and the light is the ridge. I see no dent on the ridge. I suppose one
>> or two people here think they can see a dent there, but I question their
>> objectivity.
>
> I gotta side with DVP here. While I can certainly say "I don't see a
Why am I not surprised to see the professional deniers in lockstep?
> dent" in the Dillard photo, I can't say this photo (which is
> outstanding, otherwise) concludes it definitively. Sure would be nice
> if that crossbar wasn't in the way. Also, the nature of the dent was
> apparently such that it wasn't as noticeable as one might think. In
Great idea. So according to you the dent might go unnoticed. It would take
an expert to find it.
So, please look at the photo in the link and tell everyone that YOU can
not see the dent. Everyone look at the dent and how many will tell me that
they can't see the dent? Let's have show of hands. Ok, that's 10 people
who can't see the dent, all die-hard WC defenders. As opposed to
5,999,999,990 others who can see the dent.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CE349.gif
They can even see the dent on Regulus Prime.
David Von Pein
>>> "Vaughn Ferguson was a professional." <<<
I don't care. It's still ridiculous.
Anthony Marsh
We've discussed that before. Many of us think his theories are illogical
and his source is a hoaxster.
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Tony, I didn't know you were Pamela too!
>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
PF
>
timstter
Hi Robin,
Thanks. Interesting footage!
Robin Unger
Thanks Tim.
My main interest in refering to this film is because it shows Dillard
standing next to the Limo.
The Timeline appears to be very similar to the actual Dillard photo
posted by Anthony.
Cheers.
Robin.
Anthony Marsh
Pamela and I agree on MANY things, but we do have some disagreements.
ShutterBun
Ahem...I said that I can't see a dent in the improved Dillard photo. Are
you suggesting that I should be able to? Also, I pointed out that I was
not entirely satisfied to conclusively say there was no dent (based on
that photo) for the following reasons:
1. Crossbar blocking most of the area in question
2. Overcast skies/ lack of harsh shadows make distinquishing a dent
more difficult, even with an unobstructed view.
Incidentally, why is this even a topic of debate? Are WC defenders
supposed to somehow be afraid that the dent might have been caused by a
bullet fragment? I have no problem with that notion whatsoever.
WhiskyJoe
Anthony
> So, please look at the photo in the
> link and tell everyone that YOU can
> not see the dent.
I cannot see the dent. Nor can a see a
non dent. I can only see the crossbar.
That is because, as David pointed out,
the crossbar blocks the view of the area
of interest. David's picture from the
Warren Commission shows me right where
the dent should be and as soon as I saw
that, I could tell that the Dillard
photograph does not help solve this
riddle.
You claim that LNers don't admit to
seeing no damage because they don't
want to admit there was no damage.
But I know of no LNer who doesn't
believe the dent was likely caused
by a fragment from the head shot.
I have no problem with the theory that
there was no dent. I believe, over 95%
certain, there was no dent at Love Field.
I am quite confident that the dent was
caused by a fragment from the head shot.
Two places of damage were found, the
chrome frame and the windshield.
Two bullet fragments were found.
I would be very surprise if a photograph
surfaced which showed the damage to the
frame was present at Love Field.
But none of that changes the fact that
the Dillard photograph does not answer
the question on whether the dent was
there or not. The crossbar is in the
way and you seem to be the only one
who can not see that.
Anthony Marsh
Good God, no. If you can't see the grassy knoll shooter and you can't see
Black Dog Man then I don't expect you to see anything.
I don't see the dent in the Dillard photo either. I thought I made that
clear when I gave my presentation.
I hope I made it clear that the much clearer Dillard photo that Robin
Ungar kindly uploaded confirms that the chrome topping was NOT dented when
the limo was out at Love Field. Now, I will grant you that you can have a
theory that Greer hit it with a ball peen hammer on the way to Dealey
Plaza. I have not argued against that.
> not entirely satisfied to conclusively say there was no dent (based on
> that photo) for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Crossbar blocking most of the area in question
Most is the key word. Specifically the bottom half. We can see the top
half which is smooth.
> 2. Overcast skies/ lack of harsh shadows make distinquishing a dent
> more difficult, even with an unobstructed view.
>
Yes, I don't see a dent there.
> Incidentally, why is this even a topic of debate? Are WC defenders
> supposed to somehow be afraid that the dent might have been caused by a
> bullet fragment? I have no problem with that notion whatsoever.
>
I can't figure out why Rowley was so scared of that dent that he had to
lie. I guess he couldn't fit it into any shooting sequence. Maybe he was
afraid it indicated another shot. They only had three shots, three hits
then. The WC accepted his word without investigating it. The HSCA didn't
even bother looking into it. Only one person looked for the proof.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Anthony
>
>> So, please look at the photo in the
>> link and tell everyone that YOU can
>> not see the dent.
>
> I cannot see the dent. Nor can a see a
> non dent. I can only see the crossbar.
> That is because, as David pointed out,
> the crossbar blocks the view of the area
> of interest. David's picture from the
Thanks for confirming my point. You can't see the chrome topping.
Everyone else in the universe can see the top half of the chrome topping
above the parade bar. But you can't. That explains a lot.
> Warren Commission shows me right where
Whose picture from the WC? Show it to me. The WC didn't even investigate
this issue.
> the dent should be and as soon as I saw
> that, I could tell that the Dillard
> photograph does not help solve this
> riddle.
>
> You claim that LNers don't admit to
> seeing no damage because they don't
> want to admit there was no damage.
> But I know of no LNer who doesn't
> believe the dent was likely caused
> by a fragment from the head shot.
>
The WC accepted Rowley's lie. Don't you want to be a WC defender and
also accept Rowley's lie? What's wrong with you? Are you one of those
dissenters?
> I have no problem with the theory that
> there was no dent. I believe, over 95%
> certain, there was no dent at Love Field.
95% is fine, but I decided to prove it 100%.
> I am quite confident that the dent was
> caused by a fragment from the head shot.
If you believe the head shot came from behind you HAVE to do something
with that exiting bullet. It has to hit something somewhere.
> Two places of damage were found, the
> chrome frame and the windshield.
> Two bullet fragments were found.
Neither of the fragments could have hit the windshield. But there was
the lead core of the base fragment which might have hit the windshield.
Three fragments, not just two.
> I would be very surprise if a photograph
> surfaced which showed the damage to the
> frame was present at Love Field.
>
You wouldn't be the person to find it.
> But none of that changes the fact that
> the Dillard photograph does not answer
> the question on whether the dent was
> there or not. The crossbar is in the
> way and you seem to be the only one
> who can not see that.
I thought I made it clear in my article that this is why I found the
Stoughton photo.
>