Bullet Hole in the windshield of JFK limo

[james lewis]

Dr. Perry and other medical personnel at Parkland observed an entrance
wound in the front of JFK's neck. Richard Dudman and other wittnesses
observed a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo outside the
Parkland ER entrance. I have conducted a test shot through the
windshield of a full sized stationwagon with a manikin in the far back
seat. The sharpshooter was 200+ yards away, shot through the
windshield and hit the manikin in the neck, providing demonstrated
proof that JFK's neck wound came from the front. There was no
deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The "single
bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory. Dr. Humes
knew before the autopsy that there was an entrance wound in the front
of President Kennedy's neck but was made to say otherwise. Arlen
Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other doctors and nurses at Parkland
Hospital had said they observed while trying to save the president.
There has been much controversy and speculation as to why the limo
driver SSA James Greer was braking on Elm Street. Could it be because
he had observed the shot through the windshield and knew they were
being fired upon from the front? He was never able to say because no
one in the government's cover it up investigation wanted the true
facts of the assassination to become public. It's still being done
today. See if you can find Jerry Bruno's AARB testimony anywhere.

[Jaykhill]

My understanding is that there was no bullet hole in the windshield of the
limousine. Where did you get informantin that there was a bullet hole?
Others are experts on this, whereas I am not. Perhaps we can become
enlightened together.

John in VA

[John Hill]

"james lewis" <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...

> Dr. Perry and other medical personnel at Parkland observed an entrance
> wound in the front of JFK's neck.

That was their impression of the wound.

> Richard Dudman and other wittnesses
> observed a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo outside the
> Parkland ER entrance.

There was NO hole through the windshield. There was a star-like crack in
the windshield (much as from a rock hitting a windshield), but it most
certainly did NOT penetrate.

> I have conducted a test shot through the
> windshield of a full sized stationwagon with a manikin in the far back
> seat. The sharpshooter was 200+ yards away, shot through the
> windshield and hit the manikin in the neck, providing demonstrated
> proof that JFK's neck wound came from the front.

This is NOT proof the shot came from the front. It's proof the shot COULD
have come from the front - not that it DID. Of course, there being NO hole
through the windshield.........

> There was no
> deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The "single
> bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory.

I agree with that, but not for the reasons you state above.

> Dr. Humes
> knew before the autopsy that there was an entrance wound in the front
> of President Kennedy's neck

Evidence for that, please.

> but was made to say otherwise.

Evidence for that, please.

> Arlen
> Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other doctors and nurses at Parkland
> Hospital had said they observed while trying to save the president.

Yes, he did.

> There has been much controversy and speculation as to why the limo
> driver SSA James Greer was braking on Elm Street. Could it be because
> he had observed the shot through the windshield and knew they were
> being fired upon from the front?

There was NO shot through the windshield. There was a crack in it but NO
hole THROUGH it.
--
John Hill (joisa)

[Kenneth A. Rahn]

John in VA,

That were several cracks and a big depression on the rear side, but no
hole.

Ken Rahn

"Jaykhill" <jayk...@aol.comJayKhill> wrote in message
news:20031101160923...@mb-m28.aol.com...

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

The Presidential Limousine Windshield Bullet Hole and The "Hole is a
Hole" Theory
The Presidential Limousine Windshield Bullet Hole and The "Hole is a
Hole" Theory (repost)

We are told by a handful of researchers that a number of different
witnesses viewed a 'hole' in the windshield of the Presidential
Limousine Secret Service-100-X after the assassination and that
although at least three of them specify different locations, they are
all talking about the same spot. A hole in any location equals a hole
in the same location -- this is the "Hole is a Hole" theory.

We are told that the location of where these witnesses say they saw
witnesses viewed a 'hole' in the windshield of the Presidential
Limousine Secret Service-100-X after the assassination and that
although at least three of them specify different locations, they are
all talking about the same spot. A hole in any location equals a hole
in the same location -- this is the "Hole is a Hole" theory.

We are told that the location of where these witnesses say they saw
the 'hole' on the windshield is insignificant -- that what is
important, is that they saw a 'hole'! Anyone who questions the fact
that different locations were voluntarily specified is greeted with
condescending references to such things as the sun rising and setting
or the world being flat. That, we are told, is supposed to be that.
This is a simple issue -- an 'open and shut' case -- a 'case closed'.
In addition, one researcher has even managed to convince two of these
witnesses to change the location of the 'hole' they believe they saw.

What are the possible implications of this speculative concept that on
some levels comes across as little more than irresponsible
disinformation? What happens if we accept this 'logic'? And what
happens if we set it aside and start from scratch? Will one approach
prove more valuable than the other?

First, perhaps we should ask ourselves what we expect from someone who
is comfortable contributing a speculation as eccentric as this to the
community and then demanding that the community accept it. Do we
expect logic? Do we prefer suspension of disbelief if it means a good
story? Do we expect valid documentation, or will strategically chosen
pieces of information do? Do we expect to be given all relevant
information, or just the highlights?

We need also take into account the fact that the idea of a windshield
through-and-through bullet hole, whether myth or fact, has been a part
of the mystery of Secret Service-100-X since the assassination. We
need to determine to what extent a need for this to be true -- no
matter how it may stretch our credibility -- is more important than
anything else, because to some immature researchers, this proves a
conspiracy. Are they willing to suspend reason in order to prove this?
Are they willing to irresponsibly distort information in order to
'prove' this? Are they willing to pull pieces of information out of
context and wave them around, insisting that this 'proves' their
theory? Is the appropriate question 'just how far are they willing to
go' to 'prove' their theory? Or is there some geniune truth-seeking
going on? Keep this question in mind as we focus in on the question of
the windshield bullet hole and the 'hole is a hole' theory.

Who didn't see a 'hole' and should have?

Parkland Hospital

William Greer - Drove 100X in Dallas motorcade to Parkland Hospital
(only)(According to Nick Prencipe, Greer told him that evening that
bullets were flying at them from all directions; one came through the
windshield. This is in conflict with any documented statements Greer
made; described more fully in Nick Prencipe section).

Roy Kellerman - Sat next to Greer in front passenger seat 100X to
Parkland Hospital (only)

Love Field to the White House Garage

Sam Kinney - Drove 679-X, Queen Mary II, follow-up car, in Dallas
motorcade to Parkland Hospital; covered 100X at Parkland, probably
responsible for pail of water being used on the car. Drove 100X from
Parkland to Love Field, and from Andrews AFB to the White House
Garage. Sam Kinney was also interviewed extensively by Vince Palamara,
who adamantly believes in the 'hole is a hole' theory; and yet Vince
has not attributed any statement to that effect by Kinney. Wouldn't we
expect that the man who put the roof onto 100X at Parkland Hospital
would have seen a t&t bullet hole if there was one? And wouldn't a
professional such as Palamara been able to get him to admit that?

White House Garage

Robert Frazier and his FBI team of Orrin Bartlett, Courtland
Cunningham, Charles Killiam and Walter Thomas. Robert Frazier has
stated in his interview with me of November, 1999 when I asked him
about Taylor's statement that "Yes, it may have appeared to be a hole
but the inner layer of the glass was not broken."

Air Force Hercules Transport Plane C130 used to transport 100X and
679X from Love Field to Andrews Air Force Base.

Researcher Doug DeSalle reports a member of the crew (who remains
nameless but whom DeSalle has verified to be on the manifest for the
Dallas trip) saw 100X while car was in the C130 on return trip to DC.
Said he saw the acknowledged defect, but no through-and-through
'hole'.
Who saw a 'hole' and Where?

Parkland Hospital

Stavis Ellis/Freeman - Two DPD motorcycle policemen. Ellis is on
record (_No More Silence_) as saying he saw a hole low on the
windshield; both have told interviewers they put a 'pencil' through
the hole; also are on record saying they 'could have' put a pencil
through the hole.

Evangelea Glanges - Nursing student at Parkland Hospital; did not
volunteer a location for the 'hole', and was not asked by interviewers
Weldon or Palamara; maintains that she leaned on 100X, noticed the
hole, commented on it and at that point an Secret Service agent drove
the car away. Also documented in "Conspiracy of Silence".

Richard Dudman - Highly respected reporter for St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. On record in "Assassination Science" as claiming their
was a 'hole' in the windshield in a newspaper article; location of
hole is referenced by colleague Livingston as being 'high' on the
windshield. This has not been corroborated by Dudman who, to date,
refuses to talk about the assassination.

White House Garage

Nick Prencipe - This US Park Policeman's statements are puzzling, to
say the least, and carry some serious conflicts that have not yet been
resolved. Nick insists that he spoke with Greer during the early
evening of 11/22/63, and that the conversation took place outside the
White House. To all reports, Greer stayed with the body of JFK during
the evening and was nowhere near the White House. Thus, Nick's
subsequent story is open to question. Nick claims that based on his
conversation with Greer, who said that bullets were coming at them
from all directions and one of them came through the windshield
(something Greer is not on record as saying to anyone else), Nick then
went to the 'Secret Service' garage to look at 100X. When I
interviewed Nick, he seemed to think this garage was closed down right
after the assassination. He claimed that he walked right into the
garage and there was no security around 100X. He cannot state at what
time this took place. He then lifted the tarp on the car, which was
sitting in the middle of the garage, and noted a small,
through-and-through bullet hole in the lower passenger-side of the
windshield. I asked him more than once if he saw any defect in the
area near the rear-view mirror, and he stated that he had not. (A
later interview with another researcher triggered his 'not being sure'
where the hole was he saw, though he was 100% positive he had seen a
hole. This is a good example of the 'hole-is-a-hole' theory.')
However, Nick called the White House Garage the "Secret Service"
Garage. So did Robert Frazier, whom we know led the team that examined
100X between 1-4:30 a.m. 11/23/63, so this fact adds to Nick's
credibility. He spoke of 'lifting a tarp'. The FBI bulky photos show a
tarp beside 100X, so this is another point of credibility. He also
spoke of being in communication with other DC Park Police as they
escorted 100X and 679X from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House
Garage. The Taylor/Geiglein report substantiates that it was the DC
Park Police who escorted the car; another point of credibility. Nick
states that the car was in the center of the garage, and not in its
bay; this adds some potential definition as to what time at night he
was there -- supposedly, 100X was examined at 9 p.m. by the Secret
Service, and at 10pm. a fragment of skull was supposedly retrieved
from the floor near the jumpseat by Admiral Burkley, CPO Martinelli
and Mills of Burkley's office. That means 100X was probably out of its
bay during those examinations. By 1 a.m., when the FBI exam began,
100X was back in its bay, covered with the tarp, roof up, and was
driven out into the garage by SA and FBI liaison Orrin Bartlett for
the exam. Nick does not recall seeing anyone around the car, nor did
he recognize anyone who was present; apparently he just walked right
in. While these things are not likely, considering the car was
supposedly under guard and all those without White House Garage
credentials (such as the FBI) had to log in; however, although
security was instituted at 9 p.m., the first entries into the logs
were not until 1 a.m., so it could have been that the logs had not
been started yet.

In actuality, 100X was the center of activity once it was driven to
the White House garage at 9pm 11/22/63. Two Secret Service men and a
White House policeman were assigned to guard the car; logs were set up
to record those without White House garage credentials coming to see
the car (the first entries were the FBI team at 1 a.m.). In addition,
the Secret Service was determined to scour the car, finding all
evidence themselves. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the car was
unattended at any time during the evening. In addition, Nick cannot
recall the names or faces of anyone who was there that night, nor give
any description of them. This calls the accuracy of the timeline of
his stated experience into question. Nick's statement does, perhaps,
present an insight into a theme common to all the windshield
bullet-hole witnesses -- each of them said they observed a small,
clean hole, that you could put a pencil through. Ellis and Freeman
were motorcycle officers, as was Nick; they had undoubtedly seen
bullet-holes through windshields on many occasions. The fact that this
hole was smaller than the size of a normal bullet (consistent perhaps
with a bb or pellet gun ammunition) and had no white frothing around
it, and no spider cracking emanating from it was not a concern to any
of them. There may be an explanation -- Nick alluded, in his interview
with me, to the fact that he thought the windshield was made of
bulletproof glass. If that were the conception of each of these
witnesses, they might not know what to expect, and perhaps the
inconsistency of this hole with those made from bullets impacting
two-ply safety glass would be understandable. However, the windshield
of 100X was a standard Lincoln windshield, available at any Lincoln
dealership or windshield replacement service. These witnesses didn't
know that.

Charles Taylor - Taylor's report is frequently taken out of context,
and usually only part of his statement is repeated, which was that he
saw a 'hole' in the windshield. Taylor was in 100X when it was driven
from AAFB to the White House Garage; he was also present during the
FBI exam of the limo and the statement in his report that he observed
"a small hole from which bullet fragments were removed" referred to
the acknowledged defect, from which the metal scrapings were made
during the exam that became CE 877. We can judge for ourselves from
the photo CE 350, also taken that night, what constituted the 'hole'
Taylor was referring to -- it is the round defect with (by this time)
small spider cracks emanating from it. Another interesting point is
that although Taylor was also present in 100X when it was driven from
Andrews AFB to the White House Garage that night; he makes no mention
specifically of anything that he observed during that ride. Did the
Taylor statement slip through the cracks of Secret Service
documentation, or was the knowledge of a 'hole' not necessarily a t&t
hole something of insignificance to the Secret Service?

The Lone-Mystery Witness -- The nameless 'Man from the Rouge'

This witness claims that 100X appeared at the Final Assembly (B)
Building at the Rouge River Complex of the Ford Motor Company on
11/25/63 for a windshield replacement. There is no explanation given
by this man or anyone else as to why this event would occur -- nearly
1,000 miles from the White House Garage -- or why this event would
occur outside of the critical timeline for 100X, which was between
12:30 11/22/63 and 4:30 pm 11/23/63, by which time the car had already
been examined by the Secret Service and FBI, diagrammed, photographed
and cleaned out, since the smell was becoming offensive. The location
for doing any repair work to 100X is suspect also; 100X was built at
the Ford Experimental Garage, about a mile away from the Rouge. Is
this researcher attempting to distract our attention from the actions
of the Secret Service and put emphasis on suposed wrongdoing of the
Ford Motor Company? With the sketchy details we are given, which we
are also told should be sufficient, it is difficult to tell, don't you
think? Could this be a hoax? You decide.

The Altgens 1-6 and 1-7

The famous Altgens 1-6, taken at Z255, shows a suspicious area to the
right of the rear-view mirror. To some, it looks like part of the
clothes of the woman standing directly behind 100X when this shot was
taken; but to others, this is the smoking gun of the assassination --
the ubiquitous 'spiral nebulae'. This 'spiral nebulae' which, even on
good copies of the Altgens 1-6, shows few if any of the
characteristics of a bullet going through safety glass (center hole
slightly larger than the bullet, white frothing, spider cracks
emanating from the hole to perhaps even the edges of the windshield)
has been the basis for a number of highly speculative theories about
the windshield through-and-through bullet hole. However, those who
yell that the Altgens 1-6 'spiral nebulae' alone tells the truth,
forget a very obvious contrasting photo -- the less famous Altgens
1-7, taken as 100X is nearly to the triple underpass; Jackie is on the
trunk of the car and Clint Hill is just climbing onto the car. A
closeup of the windshield in this photo, however, clearly shows that
there definitely is a defect near the rear-view mirror, but only a
small circle of white shows, indicating that there was no perforation.
Thus, the Altgens 1-7 contradicts the Altgens 1-6 and supports the
thesis that the 'spiral nebulae' area of the Altgens 1-6 windshield
does NOT represent a through-and-through bullet hole in the
windshield. One pro-spiral-nebulae researcher is now maintaining that
the 1-7 does show a hole, it just is not clear; or words to that
effect. That sort of specious logic can be countered by saying, for
example, that the 1-6 shows the windshield hit at the moment of
impact, and that it doesn't show a t&t hole either. Nevertheless, the
mystery of what is represented in the Altgens 1-6 is one of the
enduring questions of the assassination, and you will just have to
decide for yourself.

The Adamant "Hole is a Hole" Theorists

For some researchers, there "must" be a hole in the windshield. They
will seem to go to any extreme to attempt to prove it. They will say
that a 'hole' observed anywhere on the windshield can only mean the
one 'hole' to which they refer. They take documents out of context,
such as the Taylor/Geiglein report, and ignore everything that does
not fit their agenda, such as the FBI bulky photos, the Secret
Service/PRS photos, none of which show a t&t 'hole, even one FBI bulky
photo taken straight on. (All of these photos are available at
www.jfk100x.com). They don't care whether it makes sense or not --
they have the 'Hole is a hole" fever. The witnesses are equally
certain -- even those such as Dr Glanges who never volunteered exactly
where on the windshield the 'hole' was that she saw, and her
researchers never bothered to ask her. Dudman, Ellis and Nick Prencipe
(who has, since talking to a pro-spiral nebulae researcher now decided
he can't recall the location of the 'hole' but is 100% sure there was
one) have gone on record stating where the 'hole' was they believed
they saw, and each location is different. But they will agree that
"Yes, I saw a hole!".

A pro-spiral-nebulae researcher has repeatedly come up with a list of
supposedly-exclusive alternatives -- namely, that either these people
were lying or that there was only one hole, or logic to that effect.
However, are there not other possibilities, the first being that we do
not yet have all the answers? Can't we find these witnesses credible
without rushing to a 'hole is a hole' conclusion? Are we unable to
live with conflicting statements? Could one or all of these people
have been mistaken? Was there debris on the windshield that reflected
light? Were there additional pockmarked defects on the windshield that
reflected light? Might they have seen either instead or in addition a
'hole' on the bullet-proof windshield of the Queen Mary II? Or are
these even valid questions; should we just shut down and join the
'hole-is-a-hole' mementum?

Where does this fervor come from? With the exception of the
Lone-mystery 'Man from the Rouge', each of these individuals was a
part of perhaps the single most devastating event in recent American
history. Each of them was affected by it in a personal way, much more
so than the rest of the country who could only watch in horror and
distress as events unfolded on TV. Each of these witnesses had reason
to be near the car -- Ellis and Freeman were DPD motorcycle officers,
Dudman a respected journalist, Glanges a nursing student at Parkland,
Prencipe a DC Park Police in contact with the squadren of police
accompanying 100X from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage.
They were a part of this traumatizing event, and they were a part of
the buzz. Someone started this idea. Which one said it first? Was this
idea implanted by a Secret Service man, for example, attempting to
draw attention away from the Queen Mary II, the car that was
sequestered with 100X and never photographed, the car that followed it
in the motorcade? Or was it started by an onlooker, or one of these
witnesses? There is no record of that. But by the time 100X had been
returned to Andrews AFB, all of the accompanying policmen were,
according to Prencipe, talking about the state of the car, and talking
about the windshield. Could they actually see the damage, in the dark
cool evening, as the car, covered in debris (according to Frazier) was
driven from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage? Did they even
need to see the damage?

Or were they reflecting, as have many of us since, that it is
impossible that such an earth-shattering event could take place in a
car that managed to survive with hardly a scratch? Could anger at that
indignity be at the root of the "Hole is a hole" fervor? If that were
so, the next logical jump would be to acknowledge that no lone-gun
assassin, shooting with an out-dated and unbalanced carbine could
possibly have done this crime at all -- much less alone? No damage to
the car? Those passengers were surrounded by the car; they should have
been protected by the car. An assassination without bullets and
bullet-holes in 100X was unthinkable. It was unreasonable, wasn't it?

This information is all that is available at the moment. It will
change, and more will be forthcoming. Although it may be possible to
try and tie up the loose ends of this information, for the sake of
expedience, perhaps it might also be a valid alternative to keep an
open mind and acknowledge the credibility of these people as well.
That is up to you.

@In Broad Daylight Research January, 2001
b
For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.

[Jaykhill]

>e shooter said he was aiming. The "single
>> bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory.

**********
Don't bad mouth theories. Special Relativity is ''just a theory."

Regarding your test--it is just a test. Since the experts have informed both
you and me that there was no bullet hole in the windshield, your test is
meaningless.

And although the fractures, dimples, whatever one wishes to call them do not
constitute a bulle whole, they are, to the best of my understanding, indicative
of causality from objects from the inside side of the vehicle, rather than from
out front.

I commend you, however, for finding a plausible reason for getting out of the
house, getting out your shooting iron and making holes in something.
" Well, sir, this is a test pertaining to the murder of President Kennedy,
dontcha know."

Great fun, nicht wahr?

John in VA

[Martin Shackelford]

James,
Your experiment is proof that JFK's neck wound COULD have come from
the front, not that it DID. I think it did, but this is only part of the
evidence.

Martin

[mark hoffman]

"Jaykhill" <jayk...@aol.comJayKhill> wrote in message
news:20031101160923...@mb-m28.aol.com...

I am reading a book right now, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION,
copyright 2002, and on page 217-218, it has the official version.....
about being driven from Parkland to Love Field, etc....

apparently, it was DRIVEN from Washington DC, to Dearborn, Michigan just
before Christmas, From Michigan, it was driven to Cinncinati, Ohio, where
on Christmas Eve, it was fitted with a bulletproof bubbletop.

Carl Renas, head of security for the Dearborn Division of Ford Motor
Company drove the car personally to Cincinati, and noticed a "through and
through bullet hole in the windshield"....... the Secret Service told him
to keep his mouth shut..... for full text, see PRESIDENTIAL LIMOSINE,
pages 217-218, with a pic of the stained backseat area.

---
*************************************
CHECK YOUR MAIL FROM ME, if this is HERE, AVG certifies it safe.....
NEVER open ATTACHMENTS on e-mail that is not certified.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.534 / Virus Database: 329 - Release Date: 10/31/03

[Denis Morissette]

"John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<3fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...

John, you speak as if you had seen the windshield in the minutes
following the assassination! Admit that it is pretty incredible that
Patrolmen Stavis and Freeman, and Dudman saw a hole that was not
there.

Denis

[james lewis]

"John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<3fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...

> "james lewis" <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > Dr. Perry and other medical personnel at Parkland observed an entrance
> > wound in the front of JFK's neck.
>
> That was their impression of the wound.

JL reply- The doctors and nurses had all seen gunshot wounds and could
tell the difference between "a small round, clean edged puncture wound
that is consistent with an entrance wound" and an exit wound. They
saw them frequently at Parkland ER. They saw what they saw and said
what they saw. Because that observation did not fit the "official
findings" if was denigrated by the investigators who had to make all
the shots come from the rear so the "patsy" set up would stay intact.
And why, do you suppose, we never hear about the rifle that was found
on the sixth floor right after the shooting that had "Mauser 7.3"
stamped on the barrel? Is it your impression that it did not exist?
Or is it another inconvenient fact that continues to make the official
version implausible or unbelievable? Please do not tell me you think
Arlen Spector's fantasy with a bullet to support his theory is fact.
Or is it your impression that this is also true because it came from
exhaustive, leave no stone unturned, all out investigation to "find
the facts of the assassination of John F. Kennedy" and he was giving
it his best effort to find the truth. So he just turned an entrance
wound into an exit wound although he could not resolve the disparity
and quite coincidentally this fit with the 3 shots all from behind all
from the 6th floor all fired by some crazy nut ex-marine who was on
the second floor at the time. The USG has used the single bullet
theory to fend off any and all attempts to get at the truth for the
last 40 years. If they gave a prize for longest running fiction the
SBT will win, hands down.

>
> > Richard Dudman and other wittnesses
> > observed a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo outside the
> > Parkland ER entrance.
>
> There was NO hole through the windshield. There was a star-like crack in
> the windshield (much as from a rock hitting a windshield), but it most
> certainly did NOT penetrate.

JL reply-John, you sound so sure about it. What are you basing your
impression of the no hole only a cracked windshield on? I hope not
the photographic "evidence" and testimoy of the people who were
criminally negligent before, during and after the assassination. The
same group of professionals that broke the most basic protocols of
protection and then offer "evidence" that will make us have the
impression that they are telling the truth. I was not there, you were
not there when the photos were taken. For all we know it could have
been a replaced windshield couldn't it? We just have their word on
it. For me, after all this time that's just not good enough.

>
> > I have conducted a test shot through the
> > windshield of a full sized stationwagon with a manikin in the far back
> > seat. The sharpshooter was 200+ yards away, shot through the
> > windshield and hit the manikin in the neck, providing demonstrated
> > proof that JFK's neck wound came from the front.
>
> This is NOT proof the shot came from the front. It's proof the shot COULD
> have come from the front - not that it DID. Of course, there being NO hole
> through the windshield.........
>
> > There was no
> > deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The "single
> > bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory.
>
> I agree with that, but not for the reasons you state above.
>
> > Dr. Humes
> > knew before the autopsy that there was an entrance wound in the front
> > of President Kennedy's neck
>
> Evidence for that, please.

JL reply- Look at the WC testimony of Dr. Perry being questioned by
Arlen Specter about when James Humes had called Dr. Perry and what Dr.
Humes wanted to know.
Dr. Perry: He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my
doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to you, during this
procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the
neck, etc, etc.

>
> > but was made to say otherwise.
>
> Evidence for that, please.

JL reply-Dr. Humes destroyed his original notes and the first draft of
the autopsy report. I do not believe he rewrote the autopsy report
because it had too many typos in it, do you?

>
> > Arlen
> > Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other doctors and nurses at Parkland
> > Hospital had said they observed while trying to save the president.
>
> Yes, he did.
>
> > There has been much controversy and speculation as to why the limo
> > driver SSA James Greer was braking on Elm Street. Could it be because
> > he had observed the shot through the windshield and knew they were
> > being fired upon from the front?
>
> There was NO shot through the windshield. There was a crack in it but NO
> hole THROUGH it.

JLreply-You don't know that for a fact, do you? That's just your
impression isn't it. There is testimony to the contrary by people
outside the official circle. Remember what Gerald Ford said, "I
didn't say we found no evidence of a consiracy I said we found no
credible evidence of a conspiracy." This is the same Gerald Ford who
wanted to change the description for the wound in the back to a wound
in the neck. Why? Because he thought the higher location would fit
better with the single bullet theory in at the back of the neck wound
and out at the front of neck wound. Never mind that the neck wound
started out as an entry wound in Dallas and wound up as an exit wound
at Bethesda. If Dr. Perry had not made the incision through the
entrance wound and had done the tracheostomy above or below the bullet
wound would Dr. Humes et.al have still been able to explain it away as
an exit wound? Not a chance!

[james lewis]

jayk...@aol.comJayKhill (Jaykhill) wrote in message news:<20031102000127...@mb-m15.aol.com>...

> >e shooter said he was aiming. The "single
> >> bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory.
>
> **********
> Don't bad mouth theories. Special Relativity is ''just a theory."

JL reply- John, you're reaching. Please don't say what I did not say.
I said the SBT is just a theory. I don't say anything about
relativity did I?

>
> Regarding your test--it is just a test. Since the experts have informed both
> you and me that there was no bullet hole in the windshield, your test is
> meaningless.

JL reply- what experts are you referring to. The Government sponsored
ones or the research community ones? I don't know if you've noticed
it but all the government backed experts agree with and support the
"official findings." You seem very impressed by them and are quite
taken with their expertise. I, unlike you, have not decided who is
telling the truth about this murder. The shot through the windshield
proved to me how easy it is to accurately hit a target with a shot
through a windshield at 200+ yards away.
By the way not one of your so called experts has tried a shot through
the windshield, have they? Probably not, because there was no reason
for them to do so. Or was there?

>
> And although the fractures, dimples, whatever one wishes to call them do not
> constitute a bulle whole, they are, to the best of my understanding, indicative
> of causality from objects from the inside side of the vehicle, rather than from
> out front.
>
> I commend you, however, for finding a plausible reason for getting out of the
> house, getting out your shooting iron and making holes in something.
> " Well, sir, this is a test pertaining to the murder of President Kennedy,
> dontcha know."

JL reply-I think some fresh air would do you good also. Clear your
thoughts. You might even find your objectivity out there somewhere
and maybe get a little more serious about who you believe and what you
say.

[John Hill]

james lewis <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...

> jayk...@aol.comJayKhill (Jaykhill) wrote in message
news:<20031102000127...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> > >e shooter said he was aiming. The "single
> > >> bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory.
> >
> > **********
> > Don't bad mouth theories. Special Relativity is ''just a theory."
> JL reply- John, you're reaching. Please don't say what I did not say.
> I said the SBT is just a theory. I don't say anything about
> relativity did I?
> >
> > Regarding your test--it is just a test. Since the experts have informed
both
> > you and me that there was no bullet hole in the windshield, your test is
> > meaningless.
> JL reply- what experts are you referring to. The Government sponsored
> ones or the research community ones?

How about none of them. How about the photos taken of the limo on that
very day in Dallas that CLEARLY show a star-like crack (like from a rock)
that does NOT penetrate the windshield at all. I'm expert enough to see
that. There was no hole through the windshield.

> I don't know if you've noticed
> it but all the government backed experts agree with and support the
> "official findings."

Have you considered the possibility that they do that because the
"official findings" might just be correct? That would be a good reason to
agree with them.

> You seem very impressed by them and are quite
> taken with their expertise.

Not always. They made mistakes too.

> I, unlike you, have not decided who is
> telling the truth about this murder. The shot through the windshield
> proved to me how easy it is to accurately hit a target with a shot
> through a windshield at 200+ yards away.

No question but that it's easy. But, as there was no hole through the
windshield, it's beside the point.

> By the way not one of your so called experts has tried a shot through
> the windshield, have they? Probably not, because there was no reason
> for them to do so. Or was there?

Nope, no reason. Why recreate something that didn't happen? What's the
point?

> > And although the fractures, dimples, whatever one wishes to call them do
not
> > constitute a bulle whole, they are, to the best of my understanding,
indicative
> > of causality from objects from the inside side of the vehicle, rather
than from
> > out front.
> >
> > I commend you, however, for finding a plausible reason for getting out
of the
> > house, getting out your shooting iron and making holes in something.
> > " Well, sir, this is a test pertaining to the murder of President
Kennedy,
> > dontcha know."
> JL reply-I think some fresh air would do you good also. Clear your
> thoughts. You might even find your objectivity out there somewhere
> and maybe get a little more serious about who you believe and what you
> say.

That may be true, but please look at the same day, Dallas photos and tell
me where the hole is.
--
John Hill (joisa)

[John Hill]

Denis Morissette <mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59b0d1e4.03110...@posting.google.com...

I've seen the photos of it taken in Dallas on 11/22/63. A good size
crack? Yes. A hole? No.

> Admit that it is pretty incredible that
> Patrolmen Stavis and Freeman, and Dudman saw a hole that was not
> there.

It certainly would be incredible for them to see something that wasn't
there.

Perhaps we should find out just how closely they examined the "hole."
Maybe they saw the radial spoked crack and thought it had a hole at its
center. The photos show otherwise.
--
John Hill (joisa)

[John Hill]

james lewis <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:<3fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > "james lewis" <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> > news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > Dr. Perry and other medical personnel at Parkland observed an entrance
> > > wound in the front of JFK's neck.
> >
> > That was their impression of the wound.
> JL reply- The doctors and nurses had all seen gunshot wounds and could
> tell the difference between "a small round, clean edged puncture wound
> that is consistent with an entrance wound" and an exit wound. They
> saw them frequently at Parkland ER. They saw what they saw and said
> what they saw.

And that's what I said. Their impression was that it was an entrance wound.

> Because that observation did not fit the "official
> findings" if was denigrated by the investigators who had to make all
> the shots come from the rear so the "patsy" set up would stay intact.

It's a possibility.

> And why, do you suppose, we never hear about the rifle that was found
> on the sixth floor right after the shooting that had "Mauser 7.3"
> stamped on the barrel

When did ANYONE ever say they SAW "Mauser 7.3" stamped on anything?

> Is it your impression that it did not exist?

First provide me a quote where someone who was there ever said that.

> Or is it another inconvenient fact that continues to make the official
> version implausible or unbelievable? Please do not tell me you think
> Arlen Spector's fantasy with a bullet to support his theory is fact.

OK, just to make you happy, I won't.
But, FWIW, I do NOT believe the SBT. Surprised?

> Or is it your impression that this is also true because it came from
> exhaustive, leave no stone unturned,

I NEVER said the investigation was exhaustive. I believe it was, all-in-all,
a rather poor investigation.

> all out investigation to "find
> the facts of the assassination of John F. Kennedy" and he

Who is "he"?

> was giving
> it his best effort to find the truth. So he just turned an entrance
> wound into an exit wound although he could not resolve the disparity
> and quite coincidentally this fit with the 3 shots all from behind all
> from the 6th floor all fired by some crazy nut ex-marine who was on
> the second floor at the time.

I would love for you to be able to prove that. There's actually a bit of
evidence that suggests he was on the FIRST floor.

> The USG has used the single bullet
> theory to fend off any and all attempts to get at the truth for the
> last 40 years.

The SBT is utterly pointless to BOTH sides.

> If they gave a prize for longest running fiction the
> SBT will win, hands down.

Nah, I'd sooner vote for Homer. The Illiad and the Odessy have been around
a LOT longer.

> > > Richard Dudman and other wittnesses
> > > observed a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo outside the
> > > Parkland ER entrance.
> >
> > There was NO hole through the windshield. There was a star-like crack in
> > the windshield (much as from a rock hitting a windshield), but it most
> > certainly did NOT penetrate.
> JL reply-John, you sound so sure about it. What are you basing your
> impression of the no hole only a cracked windshield on? I hope not
> the photographic "evidence"

Why not base it on same day in Dallas photos? Do you think "they" changed
the windshield in the emergency spot at Parkland?

> and testimoy of the people who were
> criminally negligent before, during and after the assassination.

Some were, but not all.

> The
> same group of professionals that broke the most basic protocols of
> protection

And the "most basic protocols of protection" they broke were.....?

> and then offer "evidence" that will make us have the
> impression that they are telling the truth. I was not there, you were
> not there when the photos were taken. For all we know it could have
> been a replaced windshield couldn't it?

In front of hundreds of people at the emergency entrance at Parkland??? Or
before that???

> We just have their word on
> it.

We have more than that.

THAT call took place on SATURDAY, 11/23, AFTER the autopsy.

> > > but was made to say otherwise.
> >
> > Evidence for that, please.
> JL reply-Dr. Humes destroyed his original notes and the first draft of
> the autopsy report. I do not believe he rewrote the autopsy report
> because it had too many typos in it, do you?

Nope. And he did not say that. He said it was because they had blood on
them. Whether or not that's true is another matter, but at least get his
"excuse" right.

> > > Arlen
> > > Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other doctors and nurses at Parkland
> > > Hospital had said they observed while trying to save the president.
> >
> > Yes, he did.
> >
> > > There has been much controversy and speculation as to why the limo
> > > driver SSA James Greer was braking on Elm Street. Could it be because
> > > he had observed the shot through the windshield and knew they were
> > > being fired upon from the front?
> >
> > There was NO shot through the windshield. There was a crack in it but NO
> > hole THROUGH it.
> JLreply-You don't know that for a fact, do you?

I believe I do.

> That's just your
> impression isn't it.

Not to the best of my knowledge.

> There is testimony to the contrary by people
> outside the official circle. Remember what Gerald Ford said, "I
> didn't say we found no evidence of a consiracy I said we found no
> credible evidence of a conspiracy."

That was basically the whole WC finding on everything. They never said
they'd PROVEN anything. In fact they rather clearly stated they could not
PROVE anything. They carefully said that their report was but their
CONCLUSIONS based on the evidence available to them.

> This is the same Gerald Ford who
> wanted to change the description for the wound in the back to a wound
> in the neck.

That would be him.

> Why? Because he thought the higher location would fit
> better with the single bullet theory in at the back of the neck wound
> and out at the front of neck wound.

Yep. That's why I think he did it.

> Never mind that the neck wound
> started out as an entry wound in Dallas and wound up as an exit wound
> at Bethesda. If Dr. Perry had not made the incision through the
> entrance wound and had done the tracheostomy above or below the bullet
> wound would Dr. Humes et.al have still been able to explain it away as
> an exit wound? Not a chance!

Perhaps not.
--
John Hill (joisa)

[Deb Bert]

On 11/3/03 8:48 PM, in article 3fa6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu, "John Hill"
<jo...@ev1.net> wrote:

> james lewis <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...
>> "John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:<3fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
>>> "james lewis" <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
>>> news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...

...

>
>> If they gave a prize for longest running fiction the
>> SBT will win, hands down.
>
> Nah, I'd sooner vote for Homer. The Illiad and the Odessy have been around
> a LOT longer.

I'd vote for Beowulf because dactylic hexameter gives me the hives.

And I like Grendel and the wyrm and anybody with enough imagination to name
a sword "Naegling." (Which I borrowed for the name of a character in one of
my plays.)

;-)

--Deb

p.s. I've heard convincing cases both ways re. the windshield. I wonder
why the limo had to be refurbished so quickly--thereby destroying all that
physical evidence. Hoover immediately convinced LBJ that LBJ needed a
bullet proof car (because Hoover had one) so I doubt that LBJ ever used the
limo after Dallas. Does anybody know if it was used again after Dallas?

[Ricky Tobias]

Yes I recall it being used but it was not used often. It was replace
with another within a few years as I recall. Pam would know the
details.
>

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.

[Chad Zimmerman]

Yeah, I saw something similar to this over at Lancer, but I thought it was
Al Carrier that did this. Maybe you were involved, too, I don't know. One
thing I noticed about that picture was how UNLIKE the wound to the
mannequin's neck was in comparison to the descriptions of the wound in
Kennedy's neck The mannequin wound was quite large, not to mention the
enormous hole in the windshield.

Do I have this correct or not?

Chad

"james lewis" <james...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:738ecf2.03110...@posting.google.com...

[james lewis]

John, Which same day Dallas photos of the limo windshield are you
referring to? Where are they located or posted that you say proves no
T&T hole only some cracking so I can see what you are referring to?
Can you put them in a GIF or jpeg format and e-mail them to me?
Thanks, Jim L.

[james lewis]

> That may be true, but please look at the same day, Dallas photos and tell
> me where the hole is.

John, which same day Dallas photos are you referring to, the unpublished
AP pics or what? Can you send me the GIF or jpeg images if you have them
in your files? I want to see what you are talking about.

Best Regards, Jim L

[John Hill]

Pamela,

You know more about the limo than anyone else I know.

Was there a hole THROUGH the windshield?

Thanks,
--
John Hill (joisa)

[Ricky Tobias]

On 12 Nov 2003 23:00:39 -0500, "John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote:

>Pamela,
>
>You know more about the limo than anyone else I know.
>
>Was there a hole THROUGH the windshield?
>
>Thanks,

According to a researcher who spoke at Lancer in 2000 who specialized
in the 112th MI Group it was a through and through hole. She was
permitted to examine it in the NA. They had attempted to move it and
decided it was to fragile as the cracks became longer. It is possible
that the through hole was a result of damage during removal and
transport. Pamela was denied access to it several years ago but she
was still trying to see it.

[John Hill]

Hi Ricky,

Thanks, as always, for the excellent info.
--
John Hill (joisa)

Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:p1f7rvcecp1imbhrp...@4ax.com...

[mccr...@gmail.com]

read Dr Crenshaw's book..."conspiracy of silence" and its related
reprint.."trauma room 1" it tells very clearly of what he and the nurses
and others saw... "a very small clean, entry wound to the neck of the
president" its over...its very clearly stated and he went to his grave
with this statement and his notes and that of EVERY doctor at
Parkland...the notes they made that very day about what they observed and
treated ...and did....indicated upon presentation...JFK had a very small
hole, no bigger than 3-5 centimeters in the front of his neck, thru which
they intubated him for breathing purposes to get his lungs filled with air
" this is in EVERY ONE of the doctors and nurses notes "a very small
clean hole" Dr. Crenshaw states very clear....given his huge trauma room
gunshot ER experience...it was no question in his mind..."it was a frontal
entry bullet wound..."

[Anthony Marsh]

Prove the 3-5 mm. Did everyone say that? Show me a 3 mm bullet.

> they intubated him for breathing purposes to get his lungs filled with air
> " this is in EVERY ONE of the doctors and nurses notes "a very small
> clean hole" Dr. Crenshaw states very clear....given his huge trauma room
> gunshot ER experience...it was no question in his mind..."it was a frontal
> entry bullet wound..."
>

Few of them had seen rifle bullet wounds.

[mainframetech]

Were you aware that bullet wounds can shrink and get smaller after the
bullet passes through? It's a variable. Let's listen to Vincent DiMaio:

go to:
http://tinyurl.com/lduc2jb

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

My point stands. Few of them had seen rifle bullet wounds.

[mainframetech]

One of the Parkland doctors said that they saw between 150-200 bullet
wounds in a year. Some of them had to be rifle wounds.

THERE WAS A BULLET HOLE IN THE WINDSHILED OF THE LIMO. It was seen by
at least 6 people who corroborated each other. The worst part of that is
that one person that saw the hole worked for Ford and saw the limo in
Rouge Michigan on Nov. 25th, when the W.H. garage log says no one came to
see the limo that day, because it wasn't there. Here's the information:

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

Also look for the name Doug Weldon in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, HANDGUN wounds.

> wounds in a year. Some of them had to be rifle wounds.

NO.

>
> THERE WAS A BULLET HOLE IN THE WINDSHILED OF THE LIMO. It was seen by

If you put everything in ALL CAPS we have to believe you. Is that the rule?

> at least 6 people who corroborated each other. The worst part of that is
> that one person that saw the hole worked for Ford and saw the limo in
> Rouge Michigan on Nov. 25th, when the W.H. garage log says no one came to
> see the limo that day, because it wasn't there. Here's the information:
>

False. Ferguson worked on the limo on the 25th.

> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> Also look for the name Doug Weldon in this video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo
>

Weldon was wrong.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

YES. See, I can do that too, without any backup or evidence.

>
>
> >
>
> > THERE WAS A BULLET HOLE IN THE WINDSHILED OF THE LIMO. It was seen by
>
>
>
> If you put everything in ALL CAPS we have to believe you. Is that the rule?
>

Nope. The purpose of the caps was to attract attention to offer an
article from a researcher that explains my contention that there was a
bullet hole in the limo windshield, and that the SS and others tried to
cover it yup because it came from the front of the limo.

>
>
> > at least 6 people who corroborated each other. The worst part of that is
>
> > that one person that saw the hole worked for Ford and saw the limo in
>
> > Rouge Michigan on Nov. 25th, when the W.H. garage log says no one came to
>
> > see the limo that day, because it wasn't there. Here's the information:

http://tinyurl.com/l92sd9q

>
> >
>
>
>
> False. Ferguson worked on the limo on the 25th.
>

You've been suckered like many folks because you didn't do your
homework. Go look at Ferguson's memo of Dec. 18th and note that he uses
the date of the 25th, but when you check it out, you find that it was not
the day he said it was, the 25th was a day when the garage log says there
were no visitors to the limo. He had Arlington Glass in to repair a
damaged windshield on the 26th based on the garage log. To corroborate
that intentional mistake, look at SS chief Rowley's response memo of
January to J Lee Rankin. There's the same exact mistake made for the
25th, as though they were both trying to cover up the limo being missing
because it was in Rouge Michigan being stripped and cleaned up and getting
all evidence removed, including the windshield with the bullet hole in it.

>
>
> > https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> >
>
> > Also look for the name Doug Weldon in this video:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo
>
> >
>
>
>
> Weldon was wrong.
>

Nope. Weldon was right. He was given the story of George Whitaker's
experience seeing the limo in his glass shop at Ford with a bullet hole in
the windshield. If you don't believe it, then prove it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Is this your first time on the Internet? Posting in ALL CAPS is yelling.
Yelling loudly does not make it a fact.

>>
>>
>>> at least 6 people who corroborated each other. The worst part of that is
>>
>>> that one person that saw the hole worked for Ford and saw the limo in
>>
>>> Rouge Michigan on Nov. 25th, when the W.H. garage log says no one came to
>>
>>> see the limo that day, because it wasn't there. Here's the information:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l92sd9q
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> False. Ferguson worked on the limo on the 25th.
>>
>
>
> You've been suckered like many folks because you didn't do your
> homework. Go look at Ferguson's memo of Dec. 18th and note that he uses
> the date of the 25th, but when you check it out, you find that it was not
> the day he said it was, the 25th was a day when the garage log says there
> were no visitors to the limo. He had Arlington Glass in to repair a

Ferguson was not a visitor. He worked there every day. He did not have
to sign in.

> damaged windshield on the 26th based on the garage log. To corroborate
> that intentional mistake, look at SS chief Rowley's response memo of
> January to J Lee Rankin. There's the same exact mistake made for the
> 25th, as though they were both trying to cover up the limo being missing
> because it was in Rouge Michigan being stripped and cleaned up and getting
> all evidence removed, including the windshield with the bullet hole in it.
>

You have an overactive imagination.

>
>>
>>
>>> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Also look for the name Doug Weldon in this video:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Weldon was wrong.
>>
>
> Nope. Weldon was right. He was given the story of George Whitaker's
> experience seeing the limo in his glass shop at Ford with a bullet hole in
> the windshield. If you don't believe it, then prove it.
>

That is not the way the burden of proof works. I have already proven
that there was only a crack.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Don't you read what is written right after the last comment about caps? Missing things is not good researcher technique.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> at least 6 people who corroborated each other. The worst part of that is
>
> >>
>
> >>> that one person that saw the hole worked for Ford and saw the limo in
>
> >>
>
> >>> Rouge Michigan on Nov. 25th, when the W.H. garage log says no one came to
>
> >>
>
> >>> see the limo that day, because it wasn't there. Here's the information:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/l92sd9q
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> False. Ferguson worked on the limo on the 25th.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You've been suckered like many folks because you didn't do your
>
> > homework. Go look at Ferguson's memo of Dec. 18th and note that he uses
>
> > the date of the 25th, but when you check it out, you find that it was not
>
> > the day he said it was, the 25th was a day when the garage log says there
>
> > were no visitors to the limo. He had Arlington Glass in to repair a
>
>
>
> Ferguson was not a visitor. He worked there every day. He did not have
>
> to sign in.

It doesn't matter if he was allowed to go into the garage and not sign in, though I've seen no proof that was the case. Do you have any?

The problem is with the wrong date in Ferguson's memo. It says the windshield was replaced on the 25th, yet the workers from Arlington Glass arrived at the garage on the 26th and did the work, as per the garage log. The limo wasn't there on the 25th, it was in Rouge, Michigan being stripped of all evidence and the windshield with the hole in it. Give me an email address and I'll send you a clip and enlargement of the garage log for the proper date. Take note...the Rowley memo made the exact same mistake:
http://ss100x.com/Rowley1.gif
http://ss100x.com/Rowley2.gif
http://ss100x.com/Rowley3.gif
http://ss100x.com/Rowley4.gif
http://ss100x.com/Rowley5.gif

>
>
> > damaged windshield on the 26th based on the garage log. To corroborate
>
> > that intentional mistake, look at SS chief Rowley's response memo of
>
> > January to J Lee Rankin. There's the same exact mistake made for the
>
> > 25th, as though they were both trying to cover up the limo being missing
>
> > because it was in Rouge Michigan being stripped and cleaned up and getting
>
> > all evidence removed, including the windshield with the bullet hole in it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You have an overactive imagination.
>

Sorry, conveys no information. Has been ignored.

>
> >>> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
>
> >>> Also look for the name Doug Weldon in this video:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo
>
> >>

>
> >> Weldon was wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Nope. Weldon was right. He was given the story of George Whitaker's
>
> > experience seeing the limo in his glass shop at Ford with a bullet hole in
>
> > the windshield. If you don't believe it, then prove it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> That is not the way the burden of proof works. I have already proven
>
> that there was only a crack.
>

Baloney. You haven't proved anything. But the 6 witnesses prove there
was a hole there and one of them says he knows how it was dealt with to
cover it up. You have no proof, and the Ferguson memo and the Rowley
memos were both in error in exactly the same way, by saying that the limo
had the windshield replaced on Nov. 25th, when it was actually the 26th.
For them both to make the same exact error is too much, and the Rowley
memo even used the correct date earlier in the text before the date error
referring to the work date to replace the windshield. The W.H. garage log
says so and lists the workmen that came in to do the job.

If you're so attached to the Ferguson memo, then take the date of the
25th and look it up on the internet with a date calculator and se what day
it was.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't find him signing in on any day because he didn't need to.
We've been over this several times. Try to pay attention.

> The problem is with the wrong date in Ferguson's memo. It says the windshield was replaced on the 25th, yet the workers from Arlington Glass arrived at the garage on the 26th and did the work, as per the garage log. The limo wasn't there on the 25th, it was in Rouge, Michigan being stripped of all evidence and the windshield with the hole in it. Give me an email address and I'll send you a clip and enlargement of the garage log for the proper date. Take note...the Rowley memo made the exact same mistake:
> http://ss100x.com/Rowley1.gif
> http://ss100x.com/Rowley2.gif
> http://ss100x.com/Rowley3.gif
> http://ss100x.com/Rowley4.gif
> http://ss100x.com/Rowley5.gif
>
>
>>
>>
>>> damaged windshield on the 26th based on the garage log. To corroborate
>>
>>> that intentional mistake, look at SS chief Rowley's response memo of
>>
>>> January to J Lee Rankin. There's the same exact mistake made for the
>>
>>> 25th, as though they were both trying to cover up the limo being missing
>>
>>> because it was in Rouge Michigan being stripped and cleaned up and getting
>>
>>> all evidence removed, including the windshield with the bullet hole in it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You have an overactive imagination.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, conveys no information. Has been ignored.
>
>
>>
>>>>> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>>
>>
>>>>> Also look for the name Doug Weldon in this video:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo
>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>>> Weldon was wrong.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Nope. Weldon was right. He was given the story of George Whitaker's
>>
>>> experience seeing the limo in his glass shop at Ford with a bullet hole in
>>
>>> the windshield. If you don't believe it, then prove it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That is not the way the burden of proof works. I have already proven
>>
>> that there was only a crack.
>>
>
> Baloney. You haven't proved anything. But the 6 witnesses prove there

My article proved it and you could not refute it.

> was a hole there and one of them says he knows how it was dealt with to
> cover it up. You have no proof, and the Ferguson memo and the Rowley

Witnesses are the least reliable form of evidence.
The photographs show only a crack, no hole.

[claviger]

On Saturday, November 1, 2003 1:28:23 PM UTC-6, james lewis wrote:
> Dr. Perry and other medical personnel at Parkland observed an entrance

> wound in the front of JFK's neck. Richard Dudman and other wittnesses

> observed a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo outside the

> Parkland ER entrance. I have conducted a test shot through the

> windshield of a full sized stationwagon with a manikin in the far back
> seat. The sharpshooter was 200+ yards away, shot through the
> windshield and hit the manikin in the neck, providing demonstrated

> proof that JFK's neck wound came from the front. There was no

> deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The "single

> bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory. Dr. Humes

> knew before the autopsy that there was an entrance wound in the front

> of President Kennedy's neck but was made to say otherwise. Arlen

> Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other doctors and nurses at Parkland
> Hospital had said they observed while trying to save the president.

> There has been much controversy and speculation as to why the limo
> driver SSA James Greer was braking on Elm Street. Could it be because
> he had observed the shot through the windshield and knew they were

> being fired upon from the front? He was never able to say because no
> one in the government's cover it up investigation wanted the true
> facts of the assassination to become public. It's still being done
> today. See if you can find Jerry Bruno's AARB testimony anywhere.

james,

You left out some important information. What was the trajectory of your
test shot? What was the angle of declination and what kind of bullet from
what kind of rifle?

What would be the location of this shot on Elm St during the motorcade to
match your test shot?

[mainframetech]

what article? I didn't see a link to it. Give me a link and I'll look
at it. However, you can try to dump on witnesses, but when the number of
them mounts up, you're in trouble. They corroborate each other that the
hole was there. Pictures can be made at different times other than the
right ones, and some of them look very much like there is a hole in the
center of all the cracks. One of the Altgens photos looks like it had a
hole in the middle of fuzzy cracks.

http://tinyurl.com/mhlurrs

Note how different the damage on the wondshield looks compared to some
of the garage photos and others. It looks more like this:

http://tinyurl.com/m7gcnws

Any cracked windshield you present AFTER the 25th of November is
useless if indeed, George Whitaker followed orders and put in another
windshield.

>
>
> > was a hole there and one of them says he knows how it was dealt with to
>
> > cover it up. You have no proof, and the Ferguson memo and the Rowley
>
>
>
> Witnesses are the least reliable form of evidence.
>
> The photographs show only a crack, no hole.
>

Nope, won't do. They weren't "Rowley witnesses", it was a memo from
Rowley to Rankin explaining the doings of the SS during the whole event,
including the limousine. The real amazing thing is the exact same mistake
on the exact same date, implying that the limo was being worked on the day
it sat in Rouge. And in the Rowley memo, he used the correct date just
above the mistake, making it even less likely that he made a natural
mistake.

>
>
> > memos were both in error in exactly the same way, by saying that the limo
>
> > had the windshield replaced on Nov. 25th, when it was actually the 26th.
>
> > For them both to make the same exact error is too much, and the Rowley
>
> > memo even used the correct date earlier in the text before the date error
>
> > referring to the work date to replace the windshield. The W.H. garage log
>
> > says so and lists the workmen that came in to do the job.
>
> >
>
> > If you're so attached to the Ferguson memo, then take the date of the
>

> > 25th and look it up on the internet with a date calculator and see what day
>
> > it was.
>
> >
>
Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Every time you say that, I post the link and then you refuse to click on
it. So in addition to posting the link to the article, which I know you
will not read, I will cut and paste the article below. In your next
message complain that you couldn't see the photographs inline here.

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.

> at it. However, you can try to dump on witnesses, but when the number of
> them mounts up, you're in trouble. They corroborate each other that the
> hole was there. Pictures can be made at different times other than the
> right ones, and some of them look very much like there is a hole in the
> center of all the cracks. One of the Altgens photos looks like it had a
> hole in the middle of fuzzy cracks.
>

Ok, we see the problem. Your eyesight. No one else sees a hole.

> http://tinyurl.com/mhlurrs
>
> Note how different the damage on the wondshield looks compared to some
> of the garage photos and others. It looks more like this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m7gcnws
>
> Any cracked windshield you present AFTER the 25th of November is
> useless if indeed, George Whitaker followed orders and put in another
> windshield.
>

The windshield with the dent was photographed by FBI agent Robert Frazier
at about 1:44:32 on Saturday morning November 23, 1963 in the White House
garage. Explain how Whittaker and his Ford crew created the cracked
windshield and installed it before the SS and the FBI search team examined
it within hours of the assassination while is was under constant guard by
the SS.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why are you even taking the joker seriously?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

The PH witnesses thought they saw 'holes' in different places.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:42:55 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> The PH witnesses thought they saw 'holes' in different places.
>

Nope, won't do Pamela. You've been telling that story for a while now,
but when I asked for the cites, you left and had no comment. That means
to me that you either can't find them or they show what I saw myself,
which is that there is not nearly the disagreement that you said. Try
again.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh brother! You either post too little or too much. Or maybe you
didn't want to bother taking out the important (to you) parts of that
whole thing for us. First, I see that you don't want to answer the
comparison of the Altgens photo where the limo is hurrying away from
Dealey Plaza, to the bullet hole in a windshield I showed. The bullet
hole looks very different in that Altgens photo than in many other photos.
Many of the photos we don't know the date they were made, which is
critical for the repair work done by George Whitaker in Rouge Michigan.

Second, the constant error you have always made is repeated in the
article, invalidating it further. Our beloved Pamela Brown says (and I
agree) that the windshield was made of laminated safety glass and was a
standard windshield for a Lincoln limo for 1961. That type of glass will
show damage on the OPPOSITE side from the side that was hit, while the
side that was hit remains mostly smooth. Kellerman's testimony states
that the windshield that HE looked at was smooth on the outside and rough
and chipped on the inside, suggesting a strike from the outside front of
the limo.

Third, as to switching windshields, you mention Frazier, who I remind
you was in charge of much of the 'hard' evidence in the case. If he
chose, he could manipulate all kinds of items, such as the CE399 and other
evidence, including photos he took at some time. We know that a
windshield was switched on Nov. 26th by Arlington Glass, and was done in a
few hours, proving it can be done easily.

Fourth, I see you're determined to mention your dent in the back of the
mirror. For all we know, it was caused by a bullet coming the rough the
front of the windshield and blasting a piece of glass toward the mirror,
but in reality, I (and many others) don't see damage on the mirror. And I
know you don't like witnesses, so you need to disqualify yourself as a
witness to damage at that point.

Fifth, no matter what the science of the laminated safety glass is when
struck, you're determined to keep depending on a strike to the windshield
from inside the limo. You mention a bullet that broke up somewhere(!)
inside the limo and pieces of it hit things, like the windshield. What
did it break up on? What people did it hit, if any? How was it managed
since you probably think the bullet was fired from the 6th floor of the
TSBD? That's some angle to hit the upper left side of a glass that was
angled backward from the front of the vehicle.

Sixth, you mention that acoustic study, which has little or no bearing
on our discussion, but wasn't that evidence found to be invalid?

Seventh, you mention in the closing paragraph, that a ricocheting
fragment found on the right side of the limo was from the left side of the
vehicle. Naah. It could have come from anywhere, left, right, behind.
It would seem you left out a very logical possibility, that the bullet
that struck the chrome overhead beam broke into 2 big fragments and
dropped down to where they were found. If whoever fired the MC rifle out
the window at the limo was just making sure that some bullets from the
rifle were fired that day for evidence sake, then a miss like that seems
very possible. Some people would even be happy to have found proof that
at least one bullet from the MC rifle made it to the limo.

All in all, the article doesn't show of prove anything to me, and
possibly not to a few other folks either. We were discussing whether the
limo had been worked on Nov. 25th in the WH garage or not. And whether it
was worked on Nov. 25th in Michigan. Remember, the SS and FBI knew they
were covering up and pushing forward the wacky 'lone nut' theory.

So nothing so far has been able to discredit the George Whitaker
experience of seeing the limo stripped and with a bullet hole through the
windshield on the 25th. I note you didn't take me up on my willingness to
send you a copy of my enlargement of the garage log showing the pertinent
times.

Chris

[claviger]

On Saturday, November 1, 2003 1:28:23 PM UTC-6, james lewis wrote:

> I have conducted a test shot through the windshield of a full

> sized station wagon with a manikin in the far back seat. The

> sharpshooter was 200+ yards away, shot through the windshield
> and hit the manikin in the neck, providing demonstrated proof

> that JFK's neck wound came from the front. There was no

> deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The
> "single bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a
> theory.

From your description it sounds like your shooter was standing in the road
200 yards in front of the station wagon. If so your field test indicates
someone was standing inside the Triple Underpass tunnel on Elm Street as
the Limousine approached and fired a shot at the Limousine.

If a sniper fired from the RR tracks above, the trajectory would have been
a steep downward angle into the Limousine. No person was seen at street
level in the tunnel and photographs don't show anyone standing inside the
tunnel during the motorcade. There were 16 witnesses on RR trestle top of
this tunnel, two of them police officers. No one fired a weapon from up
there.

> Dr. Hume knew before the autopsy that there was an entrance
> wound in the front of President Kennedy's neck but was made
> to say otherwise. Arlen Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other

> doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital had said they observed
> while trying to save the president.

There were several doctors in the ER who saw wounds on the President and
described them in various ways. If the hole in the throat is an entrance
wound where is the exit wound? If no exit wound the bullet must be inside
the body. Why did it not show up on X-rays?

> There has been much controversy and speculation as to why the
> limo driver SSA James Greer was braking on Elm Street. Could
> it be because he had observed the shot through the windshield

> and knew they were being fired upon from the front? He was
> never able to say because no one in the government's cover it
> up investigation wanted the true facts of the assassination to
> become public. It's still being done today. See if you can
> find Jerry Bruno's AARB testimony anywhere.

SSA Greer made a required incident report to his superior and was
interviewed by the Warren Commission.

[OHLeeRedux]

through the windshield.........

> There was no
> deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The "single
> bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory.

Just like the THEORY of gravity and the THEORY of evolution. Placing the
word "just" in front of it is nothing more than a misguided attempt to
dismiss its importance.

All facts require the framework of a theory in which to interpret and make
sense of them. If the facts hold up within the theory, if they make sense
and remain consistent with all the evidence, as does the SB theory, then
the theory is a reasonable interpretation of what happened, unlike the
alternate theories, which contradict other evidence in the case.

[Robin Unger]

Stavis Ellis, a DPD motorcycle officer.

The day after interviewing Freeman, Gil Toff interviewed Ellis. According
to Toff, Ellis told him,

"There was a hole in the left front windshield... you could put a pencil
through it."

Ellis was also interviewed by Larry Sneed for No More Silence (1998).
According to Sneed, Ellis reported:

I walked by the limousine after they were taken in ...... Some of the
jockeys around the car were saying, 'Looky here!' What they were looking
at was the windshield.

To the right of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom
of the glass there appeared to be a bullet hole.

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1


Ellis places the hole to the right of the driver.

just above the metal near the bottom of the glass

[mainframetech]

LOL! The SBT doesn't hold up in any universe! Nor does the pretending
that CE399 did all the damage with hardly any effect to itself. The
bullet sits next to a test bullet (CE572) in the picture below, and they
have about the same slight bend, the same slight flattening and the same
loss of a bit of material at the tail end:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

It would have been an easy thing to substitute a test bullet from
Oswald's rifle to substitute in evidence, and make Oswald look more guilty
of the murder.

Note also the CE856 bullet at the right end. It was fired into a bone.
The CE399 was supposedly struck 2 people 7 times, including 2 strikes on
bone and comes away with no evidence of it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Why so many Single Bullet Theories? Why can't you guys ever agree on
anything? If it's The Truth there should be only one version.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/18/2014 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, November 1, 2003 1:28:23 PM UTC-6, james lewis wrote:
>
>> I have conducted a test shot through the windshield of a full
>> sized station wagon with a manikin in the far back seat. The
>> sharpshooter was 200+ yards away, shot through the windshield
>> and hit the manikin in the neck, providing demonstrated proof
>> that JFK's neck wound came from the front. There was no
>> deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The
>> "single bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a
>> theory.
>
> From your description it sounds like your shooter was standing in the road
> 200 yards in front of the station wagon. If so your field test indicates
> someone was standing inside the Triple Underpass tunnel on Elm Street as
> the Limousine approached and fired a shot at the Limousine.
>

Why are you trying to argue this seriously? The test was not designed to
be serious.

> If a sniper fired from the RR tracks above, the trajectory would have been
> a steep downward angle into the Limousine. No person was seen at street
> level in the tunnel and photographs don't show anyone standing inside the
> tunnel during the motorcade. There were 16 witnesses on RR trestle top of
> this tunnel, two of them police officers. No one fired a weapon from up
> there.
>

There are two possible shooter locations which have been proposed for the
triple overpass. Jack Brazil suggested from the storm drain on top of the
underpass through a break in the fence. Someone else suggested that there
was a shed under the overpass where someone could shoot from. Also if you
make a throat shot early enough either storm drain on Elm would give you a
possible location for a shooter, but the angles are not good.

>> Dr. Hume knew before the autopsy that there was an entrance
>> wound in the front of President Kennedy's neck but was made
>> to say otherwise. Arlen Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other
>> doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital had said they observed
>> while trying to save the president.
>
> There were several doctors in the ER who saw wounds on the President and
> described them in various ways. If the hole in the throat is an entrance
> wound where is the exit wound? If no exit wound the bullet must be inside
> the body. Why did it not show up on X-rays?
>

All false arguments. Why do you assume that there had to be any exit
wound? And you aren't even aware that Dr. Perry answered your concerns
by saying that the bullet entered the throat and then was deflected off
a vertebra and exited the back of the head.

There would be no need for your silly questions if you would just have
read the evidence in this case first.

[claviger]

Sounds like a fragment caused the defect and the guy with the pencil
caused the hole!

So would all the 'bullet-hole-in-the-windshield' believers please tell us
where did the bullet come from? Inside the tunnel at street level? The
railroad tracks above the tunnel? The Grassy Knoll? This bullet has to
be almost flat trajectory to hit the President in the throat. That
eliminates the RR tracks and GK. So therefore you're saying the sniper
was inside the tunnel?

[mainframetech]

That's not the only report of a hole THROUGH the windshield. Look here for the other 5 witnesses:
http://tinyurl.com/l92sd9q

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/18/2014 8:40 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:42:55 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The PH witnesses thought they saw 'holes' in different places.
>>
>
> Nope, won't do Pamela. You've been telling that story for a while now

Nope, won't do. No matter what anyone says you automatically say "Nope,
won't do" without pointing out any errors or providing any facts.

[mainframetech]

As it turns out, there was a wound in the upper back that might have
been the exit for the entrance in the throat. The shape was even slightly
oval. I can't be happy with a bullet hitting the vertabra and caroming
upward to make a hole the "size of an orange" as it was described by one
witness out of the 39+ witnesses that saw the BOH wound.

And then there was the detective that saw a guy that looked just like
Jack Ruby on the far side of the triple overpass running down the grass to
his car, putting a package into the car and driving away.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The bullet that made the hole in the windshield that 6 people stated
they saw did not have to be from the bullet that hit JFK in the throat,
though it seems possible. Given the height on the windshield of the hole,
it seems like it would be a downhill path to the throat of JFK. His seat
was not raised. We also don't know how far back the limo was on Elm
street when the bullet struck, which would change angles.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

False statement. The cites have been given to you more than once. You
just don't choose to acknowledge them. Dudman's statement is in
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 166. He said the hole was "HIGH up in the left
corner of the windshield."

Stavis Ellis's statement was in NO MORE SILENCE, p. 147. "To the right of
where the driver was, just above the metal near the BOTTOM of the glass

there appeared to be a bullet hole."

When are you going to do your homework, Chris? How many more times will
you ignore this information?

Pamela Brown
ss100x.wordpress.com

[jfk...@gmail.com]

LOL. There is such insanity about a t+t bullet hole. Weldon even tried
to get Ellis to "change" the position of the 'hole' he thought he saw.
Weldon was a prosecutor. He should have known better, imo.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

There are no 'other five witnesses', Chris. That is a false statement.
Two PH witnesses saw 'holes' in completely different locations.
Your buddy from the Rouge is not a witness because he has nothing to do
with the limo

Live with it.

How long are you going to continue to repeat this false statement? I am
giving you a lot of leeway for being a newbie who fell into a hole created
by others. However, if you are going to ignore the truth and continue to
spout false statements, why should I do that any longer?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

There are no 'six people', Chris. Why are you repeating a false
statement?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:37:38 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/18/2014 8:40 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:42:55 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> The PH witnesses thought they saw 'holes' in different places.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Nope, won't do Pamela. You've been telling that story for a while now
>
>
>
> Nope, won't do. No matter what anyone says you automatically say "Nope,
>
> won't do" without pointing out any errors or providing any facts.
>
>

Chris has been given the cites repeatedly. He keeps ignoring them and
repeating false statements.

[mainframetech]

It' about time you put SOME info out that backs up part of a statement
by you.

So now you have given us TWO people that saw a hole in the windshield.
For folks to see the rest of the witnesses, go here:

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

And for those that want to see a photo of the bullet hole in the
windshield, Horne has pointed to a CD that has it.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 21, 2014 12:21:03 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:14:10 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:40:49 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:42:55 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The PH witnesses thought they saw 'holes' in different places.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Nope, won't do Pamela. You've been telling that story for a while now,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > but when I asked for the cites, you left and had no comment. That means
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to me that you either can't find them or they show what I saw myself,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > which is that there is not nearly the disagreement that you said. Try
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > again.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > False statement. The cites have been given to you more than once. You
>
> >
>
> > just don't choose to acknowledge them. Dudman's statement is in
>
> >
>
> > ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 166. He said the hole was "HIGH up in the left
>
> >
>
> > corner of the windshield."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Stavis Ellis's statement was in NO MORE SILENCE, p. 147. "To the right of
>
> >
>
> > where the driver was, just above the metal near the BOTTOM of the glass
>
> >
>
> > there appeared to be a bullet hole."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When are you going to do your homework, Chris? How many more times will
>
> >
>
> > you ignore this information?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> It' about time you put SOME info out that backs up part of a statement
>
> by you.
>
>
>
> So now you have given us TWO people that saw a hole in the windshield.

Who knows what anyone saw? People thought they saw something in different
places.

> For folks to see the rest of the witnesses, go here:
>
>
>
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>

That article is full of false information, just what some naive newbies
want to hear.

>
> And for those that want to see a photo of the bullet hole in the
>
> windshield, Horne has pointed to a CD that has it.
>

It doesn't. Just another troll.

[mainframetech]

Another of your interesting 'facts' with no backup or cite.

>
>
> >
>
> > So would all the 'bullet-hole-in-the-windshield' believers please tell us
>
> >
>
> > where did the bullet come from? Inside the tunnel at street level? The
>
> >
>
> > railroad tracks above the tunnel? The Grassy Knoll? This bullet has to
>
> >
>
> > be almost flat trajectory to hit the President in the throat. That
>
> >
>
> > eliminates the RR tracks and GK. So therefore you're saying the sniper
>
> >
>
> > was inside the tunnel?

I don't know that the bullet that made the bullet hole that 6 people saw
was the one that hit JFK in the throat. But it was definitely a
through-and-through hole based on my discussions with Pamela Brown. Not
that she thinks there was a hole, but checking her out gave me the info I
needed to be reasonably sure of the George Whitaker experience. It turns
out that both Vaughn Ferguson and Rowley of the SS both made the exact
same error in their memos to J. Lee Rankin explaining things. They said
the limo had the windshield repaired on Nov. 25th, but that was incorrect,
it was on the 26th as per the WH garage log.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

You have it backward. I am providing information, cites and documentation
and you are ignoring them.

[mainframetech]

I've seen all the documentation you provide up to now. That's how I got
on to the error in the Ferguson and Rowley memos. The exact same date
error made by both of them saying that the limo was being worked on the
25th of November, which was false. Odd that they both made the same
error, especially when they picked the day that George Whitaker saw the
windshield with a bullet hole in it.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

This post is a good example of what happens to someone who falls into one
of Fetzer's potholes. They seem to be unable to reason through an issue.
They apparently refuse to acknowledge documentation that this is, indeed a
pothole. They continue to spout false statements and go around in a
circle, becoming defensive.

[claviger]

Has anyone made a list of all known witnesses who saw a defect in the
front windshield? It seems like a bullet impact by a shot from in front
of the Limousine would cause a lot more fragmentation and spider webbing
than what we see in the photo. If a bullet made this "hole" where is the
glass powder that should be on the front seat below this puncture? The
most likely cause of this damage in the windshield is a fragment from the
disintegrating bullet caused by the head shot, which obviously came from
behind the Limousine based on the brain ejecta spewing forward as we see
in Z313.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:54:18 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> This post is a good example of what happens to someone who falls into one
>
> of Fetzer's potholes. They seem to be unable to reason through an issue.
>
> They apparently refuse to acknowledge documentation that this is, indeed a
>
> pothole. They continue to spout false statements and go around in a
>
> circle, becoming defensive.
>

More defensiveness from Pamela. All these arguments are what you
should be attending to instead of making up this baloney about other
people. makingup stories about others can result in it happening to you,
which is of no use to the JFK community. You're just going to have to
accept that you've helped others to believe evidence from other paths than
yours. You're just NOT the only guru of the limousine anymore, because
you are unable to unbend from your false assumptions and false memos you
call documentation.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:28:50 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:54:18 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > This post is a good example of what happens to someone who falls into one
>
> >
>
> > of Fetzer's potholes. They seem to be unable to reason through an issue.
>
> >
>
> > They apparently refuse to acknowledge documentation that this is, indeed a
>
> >
>
> > pothole. They continue to spout false statements and go around in a
>
> >
>
> > circle, becoming defensive.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> More defensiveness from Pamela.

More denial from you.

All these arguments are what you

>
> should be attending to instead of making up this baloney about other
>
> people.

This from one who has yet to produce a single piece of documentation to
support a wacky theory. :-0

makingup stories about others can result in it happening to you,
>
> which is of no use to the JFK community.

Wacky undocumented theories are a waste of time to the JFK community.

You're just going to have to
>
> accept that you've helped others to believe evidence from other paths than
>
> yours.

Swallowing a wacky theory whole is the opposite from thinking something
through for oneself.

You're just NOT the only guru of the limousine anymore, because
>
> you are unable to unbend from your false assumptions and false memos you
>
> call documentation.
>

An inability to acknowledge documentation is yet another clear indication
of someone who has fallen into a pit and can't get out.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:27:57 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> Has anyone made a list of all known witnesses who saw a defect in the
>
> front windshield?

Frazier, Ferguson and Taylor saw a defect in the same spot, not a t+t
hole. This is consistent with CE 350.

Those who thought they saw a t+t hole specified different locations, so
there is no way to know what they actually saw.

It seems like a bullet impact by a shot from in front
>
> of the Limousine would cause a lot more fragmentation and spider webbing
>
> than what we see in the photo.

If there were a t+t hole it would have left a hole larger than the size of
the bullet plus web-like cracking around it at the very least. This was
not a bulletproof windshield.

If a bullet made this "hole" where is the
>
> glass powder that should be on the front seat below this puncture? The
>
> most likely cause of this damage in the windshield is a fragment from the
>
> disintegrating bullet caused by the head shot, which obviously came from
>
> behind the Limousine based on the brain ejecta spewing forward as we see
>
> in Z313.

Makes sense to me.

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:01:45 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:28:50 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:54:18 AM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > This post is a good example of what happens to someone who falls into one
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of Fetzer's potholes. They seem to be unable to reason through an issue.
>

Fetzer sure keeps you running in circles. You're obsessed with him.

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > They apparently refuse to acknowledge documentation that this is, indeed a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > pothole. They continue to spout false statements and go around in a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > circle, becoming defensive.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > More defensiveness from Pamela.
>
>
>
> More denial from you.
>
>
>
>
>
> All these arguments are what you
>
>
>
> >
>
> > should be attending to instead of making up this baloney about other
>
> >
>
> > people.
>
>
>
> This from one who has yet to produce a single piece of documentation to
>
> support a wacky theory. :-0
>

Documentation has been presented, but you can't allow yourself to face
the fact that there are alternate and more probable scenarios than the
ones you've been spouting all these years.

>
>
>
>
> makingup stories about others can result in it happening to you,
>
> >
>
> > which is of no use to the JFK community.
>
>
>
> Wacky undocumented theories are a waste of time to the JFK community.
>

Then you need to stop pushing them.

>
>
> You're just going to have to
>
> >
>
> > accept that you've helped others to believe evidence from other paths than
>
> >
>
> > yours.
>
>
>
> Swallowing a wacky theory whole is the opposite from thinking something
>
> through for oneself.
>

Fortunately, I have gotten my information from you. Will you deny what
you yourself have presented to the JFK community?

>
>
> You're just NOT the only guru of the limousine anymore, because
>
> >
>
> > you are unable to unbend from your false assumptions and false memos you
>
> >
>
> > call documentation.
>
> >
>
>
>
> An inability to acknowledge documentation is yet another clear indication
>
> of someone who has fallen into a pit and can't get out.

Well, I'll be glad to offer you a hand up, if you just will listen to
reason and logic.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:02:23 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:27:57 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>
> > Has anyone made a list of all known witnesses who saw a defect in the
>
> >
>
> > front windshield?
>
>
>
> Frazier, Ferguson and Taylor saw a defect in the same spot, not a t+t
>
> hole. This is consistent with CE 350.
>
>
>
> Those who thought they saw a t+t hole specified different locations, so
>
> there is no way to know what they actually saw.
>

More false information. You've put out 2 names that saw slightly
different positions for the bullet hole in the windshield. Where are the
others? There are 6 people that saw the bullet hole in the windshield,
and 2 (at least) of them saw enough to know it came from outside and in
front of the limo. The documentation is their statements, agreeing with
each other.

>
>
> It seems like a bullet impact by a shot from in front
>
> >
>
> > of the Limousine would cause a lot more fragmentation and spider webbing
>
> >
>
> > than what we see in the photo.
>

"Seems like" is not evidence of anything.

>
>
> If there were a t+t hole it would have left a hole larger than the size of
>
> the bullet plus web-like cracking around it at the very least. This was
>
> not a bulletproof windshield.
>

Exactly. It was a laminated safety glass windshield. Look at the
Altgens photo as the limo is rushing away and see the webbing around where
the hole is. It looks a bit like a bird dropping:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pBXjAwR94KA/TZPWbqRpNiI/AAAAAAAATrY/D1cziFZmsc8/s801/Altgens%2B%2528Large%2529.jpg

Similar to this impact on a windshield:
http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/21/34/25/4572510/5/628x471.jpg

>
>
> If a bullet made this "hole" where is the
>
> >
>
> > glass powder that should be on the front seat below this puncture? The
>
> >
>
> > most likely cause of this damage in the windshield is a fragment from the
>
> >
>
> > disintegrating bullet caused by the head shot, which obviously came from
>
> >
>
> > behind the Limousine based on the brain ejecta spewing forward as we see
>
> >
>
> > in Z313.
>
>
>
> Makes sense to me.
>

Ridiculous! The missing amount of glass is miniscule and might easily
have been sprayed into nothing. To suggest that the head of JFK was
enough to fragment a bullet and send it into the windshield to cause a
through-and-through hole there is fanciful science fiction.

Brain "ejecta" spewing forward is easily caused by what Vincent DiMaio
calls 'tail splash'. When a bullet goes into the body there is a blowback
in the direction the bullet came from, and that's what is seen in Frame
313. DiMaio is a forensic pathologist and wound ballistics specialist,
well thought of throughout his profession. Here's what he says "As the
bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or backward hurling of
injured tissue. This material may be ejected from the entrance. The bullet
passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum
diameter is up to 11 to 12.5 times the diameter of the projectile.3 The
maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum
rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs."

http://www.e-reading.bz/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Chapter 3.

This makes the entrance in the right forehead, where a small hole was
seen of .25" in diameter. This explains the complete passage of a bullet
from the forehead to the rear of the head leaving the 'famed' 'large hole'
seen by 39+ people. DiMaio also describes the exit wound being blown out
by internal pressure much larger than the entrance wound.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 2/26/14 8:25 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> "Seems like" is not evidence of anything.

Funny, usually that's more than enough for you.

[claviger]

> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:25:51 PM UTC-6, mainframetech

> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:02:23 PM UTC-5,
> > jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:27:57 PM UTC-6, claviger
> > > wrote:
> To suggest that the head of JFK was enough to fragment a bullet
> and send it into the windshield to cause a through-and-through
> hole there is fanciful science fiction.

Actually, basic terminal ballistics on the human skull. The back of the
calvaria is the thickest part of the human cranium.

> Brain "ejecta" spewing forward is easily caused by what
> Vincent DiMaio calls 'tail splash'. When a bullet goes into the
> body there is a blowback in the direction the bullet came from,
> and that's what is seen in Frame 313. DiMaio is a forensic
> pathologist and wound ballistics specialist, well thought of
> throughout his profession. Here's what he says "As the bullet
> enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or backward hurling of
> injured tissue. This material may be ejected from the entrance.

"May be" being the key phrase. Nothing new to students of this case. In
past discussions some have speculated the curious tuft of hair causing the
appearance of a bulge in the area of the cowlick may have been caused by
"blowback" from this entrance wound.

> The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary
> cavity whose maximum diameter is up to 11 to 12.5 times the
> diameter of the projectile.3 The maximum diameter of the cavity
> occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic
> energy occurs."

Exactly where it did on President Kennedy when the top right part of the skull ruptured to release bursting cranial fluid and brain matter.

http://www.e-reading.bz/bookreader.php/13530/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

> Chapter 3.

> This makes the entrance in the right forehead, where a small
> hole was seen of .25" in diameter. This explains the complete
> passage of a bullet from the forehead to the rear of the head
> leaving the 'famed' 'large hole' seen by 39+ people.

So the .25" bullet entered the right side of the forehead and made a 90º
turn to the left and blew out a big hole in the right side of the
occipital region? Sounds like a magic bullet for sure!

> DiMaio also describes the exit wound being blown out by internal
> pressure much larger than the entrance wound.

Which is exactly what we see in Z313. No massive eruption from the
occipital region, only in the top front part of the skull.

Now we must consider your theory about the three major plumes of ejecta we
see in Z313. You believe they are actually three "tailsplash" blowbacks,
correct? According to your theory the tailsplash points in the direction
of the incoming trajectory, therefore there must have been three different
bullets fired simultaneously that converged of the top front part of the
head.

If the blowback ejecta point in the direction of the weapons, then all
three bullets were fired from somewhere above and in front of the
Limousine. That means three snipers on top of the Triple Underpass.
Somehow the 16 witnesses up there didn't notice. Instead they ran down to
the parking area behind the Wooden Fence. However, you just explained why
bullets could not have been fired from the GK if the three tailsplash
blowbacks identify the real direction of three snipers.

There were no helicopters following the motorcade that day so the only
location above the Limousine is the RR tracks on top of the Triple
Underpass. Actually not all three plumes point to the RR trestle as the
location. Two of them point above the Limousine. No flying saucer in the
sky above, so in all probability these plumes were caused by pressure from
exiting bullet fragments mixed in with the brain matter ejecta.

Do you now see how your atomistic approach has led you to the wrong
conclusion about the hole in the windshield? If not, can you give us a
holistic explanation how all this comes together as a rational explanation
of the ambush on Elm Street?

[Pamela Brown]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:25:51 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:02:23 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:27:57 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Has anyone made a list of all known witnesses who saw a defect in the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > front windshield?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Frazier, Ferguson and Taylor saw a defect in the same spot, not a t+t
>
> >
>
> > hole. This is consistent with CE 350.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Those who thought they saw a t+t hole specified different locations, so
>
> >
>
> > there is no way to know what they actually saw.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> More false information. You've put out 2 names that saw slightly
>
> different positions for the bullet hole in the windshield.

False. One saw a hole at the top of one side, the other at the bottom of
the other side. "Slightly"? You can't demonstrate what it is they saw.

> Where are the
>
> others? There are 6 people that saw the bullet hole in the windshield,
>
> and 2 (at least) of them saw enough to know it came from outside and in
>
> front of the limo. The documentation is their statements, agreeing with
>
> each other.
>

There are no 'others' who have any credentials connecting them to the
assassination. Your theory doesn't work with actual facts.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It seems like a bullet impact by a shot from in front
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of the Limousine would cause a lot more fragmentation and spider webbing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > than what we see in the photo.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> "Seems like" is not evidence of anything.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If there were a t+t hole it would have left a hole larger than the size of
>
> >
>
> > the bullet plus web-like cracking around it at the very least. This was
>
> >
>
> > not a bulletproof windshield.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Exactly. It was a laminated safety glass windshield. Look at the
>
> Altgens photo as the limo is rushing away and see the webbing around where
>
> the hole is. It looks a bit like a bird dropping:
>

What the Atlgens 1-7 shows is consistent with CE 350. There is no t+t
hole nor accompanying webbing.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:07:11 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:25:51 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:02:23 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:27:57 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Has anyone made a list of all known witnesses who saw a defect in the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > front windshield?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Frazier, Ferguson and Taylor saw a defect in the same spot, not a t+t
>
> >

Nope, won't do. Taylor saw a hole". Later they got him to say he was
mistaken, but that's the same old story for a number of witnesses.
Frazier is one of the suspected conspirators, and Ferguson would lie to
his mother if the SS asked him to. They were a client he was responsible
for. He would do anything they asked, including arrange a session in
Rouge to have the limo stripped and replace the interior and the
windshield. Ford would go along with him if he asked them to do it for
the client (the US Government). And he would lie to anyone, even a best
friend, if he had to, just to keep it all quiet.

>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > hole. This is consistent with CE 350.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Those who thought they saw a t+t hole specified different locations, so
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > there is no way to know what they actually saw.
>

So easily you take 2 people with differing views, and make that ALL
witnesses. Forget it...you won't be allowed to get away with it.

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > More false information. You've put out 2 names that saw slightly
>
> >
>
> > different positions for the bullet hole in the windshield.
>
>
>
> False. One saw a hole at the top of one side, the other at the bottom of
>
> the other side. "Slightly"? You can't demonstrate what it is they saw.
>

The difference "sides" may be explained as being from different views.
One for in front of the limo, and one from the driver's perspective. It
can make the hole seem to be on different sides when in actuality it is in
one place.

>
>
> > Where are the
>
> >
>
> > others? There are 6 people that saw the bullet hole in the windshield,
>
> >
>
> > and 2 (at least) of them saw enough to know it came from outside and in
>
> >
>
> > front of the limo. The documentation is their statements, agreeing with
>
> >
>
> > each other.
>
> >
>
>
>
> There are no 'others' who have any credentials connecting them to the
>
> assassination. Your theory doesn't work with actual facts.
>

Don't give me that 'credentials' business. YOU don't get to decide who
is a valid witness or who isn't. Those are chosen by who happened to be
in the right place to se something, not their 'credentials. Who ever
heard of such a thing!!

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It seems like a bullet impact by a shot from in front
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > of the Limousine would cause a lot more fragmentation and spider webbing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > than what we see in the photo.
>

Many of the photos were taken after the windshield was replaced in Rouge,
Michigan. They show only a cracked windshield and are intended to. But
they messed up when they created that windshield, because Roy Kellerman
(SS) testified that he felt that crack and it was smooth outside and rough
and cracked inside. He didn't know that it is an indication that it was
hit from outside the limo.

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "Seems like" is not evidence of anything.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If there were a t+t hole it would have left a hole larger than the size of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the bullet plus web-like cracking around it at the very least. This was
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > not a bulletproof windshield.
>

True. It was a laminated, or safety glass windshield. It could show a
hole no bigger than the bullet that hit it, and the damage would be on the
inside of the glass.

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Exactly. It was a laminated safety glass windshield. Look at the
>
> >
>
> > Altgens photo as the limo is rushing away and see the webbing around where
>
> >
>
> > the hole is. It looks a bit like a bird dropping:
>
> >
>
>
>
> What the Atlgens 1-7 shows is consistent with CE 350. There is no t+t
>
> hole nor accompanying webbing.
>

Go check the photo I pointed you to, then go check out the 6 witnesses
and show me how they each failed to see a hole they were right next to.

>
>
> >
>
> > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pBXjAwR94KA/TZPWbqRpNiI/AAAAAAAATrY/D1cziFZmsc8/s801/Altgens%2B%2528Large%2529.jpg
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Similar to this impact on a windshield:
>
> >
>
> > http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/21/34/25/4572510/5/628x471.jpg
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If a bullet made this "hole" where is the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > glass powder that should be on the front seat below this puncture? The
>
> >

You really have to check the documentation on this stuff. Here's a
statement from Rowley's memo to Rankin:

"The windshield, in the area around the damage, was spattered with
debris." From: http://ss100x.com/Rowley2.gif

>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > most likely cause of this damage in the windshield is a fragment from the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > disintegrating bullet caused by the head shot, which obviously came from
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > behind the Limousine based on the brain ejecta spewing forward as we see
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > in Z313.
>
> >

If the Z-film could be depended on, that Z313 spurt forward would be
'Tail splash' as per Vincent DiMaio. He says it happens with a high
powered bullet hits a person. There is a 'tail splash' from the wound
back toward the place where the shot came from.

Look it up here:
http://www.e-reading.bz/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf






>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Makes sense to me.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ridiculous! To suggest that the head of JFK was

[mainframetech]

Or the right rear of the skull burst out backwards from the built up
internal pressure. When the body left Parkland there was NO damage to the
top of the skull. That was done later by 2 of the prosectors seen by Tom
Robinson and Ed Reed. If a bullet had hit the top of the skull and
produced pressure, it would have blown out part of JFK's throat! Not the
top of his head...the pressure has to build up as the bullet moves along.
It doesn't cause a buildup of pressure at the entrance. When the
prosectors damaged the top of the head, they were seen doing it, and they
did it partially with a bone saw. That was corroborated between the 2
witnesses.

>
>
> http://www.e-reading.bz/bookreader.php/13530/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf
>
>
>
> > Chapter 3.
>
>
>
> > This makes the entrance in the right forehead, where a small
>
> > hole was seen of .25" in diameter. This explains the complete
>
> > passage of a bullet from the forehead to the rear of the head
>
> > leaving the 'famed' 'large hole' seen by 39+ people.
>
>
>
> So the .25" bullet entered the right side of the forehead and made a 90º
>
> turn to the left and blew out a big hole in the right side of the
>
> occipital region? Sounds like a magic bullet for sure!
>

Of course not! You have to think about what you're learning here. The
only way for that to happen is another bullet hitting JFK, or pressure
built up early in the passage of the bullet from the right forehead, which
is less likely. But certainly not the original bullet from ahead.

>
>
> > DiMaio also describes the exit wound being blown out by internal
>
> > pressure much larger than the entrance wound.
>
>
>
> Which is exactly what we see in Z313. No massive eruption from the
>
> occipital region, only in the top front part of the skull.
>

Amazing what even the badly done film alteration has done for the easily
fooled to set them off the reservation making all sorts of deductions
based on a phony film sequence...:) I suggest reading Douglas Horne's 4th
volume of his ARRB work. He spends a lot of time on the Z-film and its
alteration.

>
>
> Now we must consider your theory about the three major plumes of ejecta we
>
> see in Z313. You believe they are actually three "tailsplash" blowbacks,
>
> correct? According to your theory the tailsplash points in the direction
>
> of the incoming trajectory, therefore there must have been three different
>
> bullets fired simultaneously that converged of the top front part of the
>
> head.
>

I said NOTHING about THREE 'tail splashes'. I described 'tail splash'
as per DiMaio, but the Z-film has been altered and many have enumerated
many of the errors found in the film. I don't know how you can keep
depending on it, unless you're determined to cling to the WC wacky
theories. I note that if you see splash back it could be caused by 'tail
splash', not that I am one of those that fell for the alteration.

>
>
> If the blowback ejecta point in the direction of the weapons, then all
>
> three bullets were fired from somewhere above and in front of the
>
> Limousine. That means three snipers on top of the Triple Underpass.
>
> Somehow the 16 witnesses up there didn't notice. Instead they ran down to
>
> the parking area behind the Wooden Fence. However, you just explained why
>
> bullets could not have been fired from the GK if the three tailsplash
>
> blowbacks identify the real direction of three snipers.
>

Nope. Won't do. YOU assumed that I saw 3 splashes, but I didn't. The
Z-film is not anything you can count on. It's obvious why they modified
it, look at the machinations you're into with it...:)

>
>
> There were no helicopters following the motorcade that day so the only
>
> location above the Limousine is the RR tracks on top of the Triple
>
> Underpass. Actually not all three plumes point to the RR trestle as the
>
> location. Two of them point above the Limousine. No flying saucer in the
>
> sky above, so in all probability these plumes were caused by pressure from
>
> exiting bullet fragments mixed in with the brain matter ejecta.
>
>
>
> Do you now see how your atomistic approach has led you to the wrong
>
> conclusion about the hole in the windshield? If not, can you give us a
>
> holistic explanation how all this comes together as a rational explanation
>
> of the ambush on Elm Street?

I did that in a previous thread. Weren't you keeping up?

I suggest you look at the murder from an overview and you should see
what a conspiracy it was, and the efforts to cover it up that were made.
THEN delve into the detail.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Where did you get your 90 degree turn? Just pulled it out of your ass?
You don't even know the geometry of Dealey Plaza.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ridiculous. Frazier took the photos of the windshield the same night.

[Pamela Brown]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:11:29 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:07:11 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:25:51 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:02:23 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:27:57 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Has anyone made a list of all known witnesses who saw a defect in the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > front windshield?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Frazier, Ferguson and Taylor saw a defect in the same spot, not a t+t
>
> >
>
> > >
>
>
>
> Nope, won't do. Taylor saw a hole". Later they got him to say he was
>
> mistaken, but that's the same old story for a number of witnesses.

No. First he didn't give detail. Later he did.

>
> Frazier is one of the suspected conspirators, and Ferguson would lie to
>
> his mother if the SS asked him to.

That's ridiculous. Have you spoken with him? I have.

They were a client he was responsible
>
> for. He would do anything they asked, including arrange a session in
>
> Rouge to have the limo stripped and replace the interior and the
>
> windshield. Ford would go along with him if he asked them to do it for
>
> the client (the US Government). And he would lie to anyone, even a best
>
> friend, if he had to, just to keep it all quiet.
>

Nobody in their right mind would do something ridiculous like that.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > hole. This is consistent with CE 350.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Those who thought they saw a t+t hole specified different locations, so
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > there is no way to know what they actually saw.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> So easily you take 2 people with differing views, and make that ALL
>
> witnesses. Forget it...you won't be allowed to get away with it.
>

There is no consensus. Live with it.

>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > More false information. You've put out 2 names that saw slightly
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > different positions for the bullet hole in the windshield.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > False. One saw a hole at the top of one side, the other at the bottom of
>
> >
>
> > the other side. "Slightly"? You can't demonstrate what it is they saw.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> The difference "sides" may be explained as being from different views.
>
> One for in front of the limo, and one from the driver's perspective. It
>
> can make the hole seem to be on different sides when in actuality it is in
>
> one place.
>

They were both outside of the limo. Not gonna work.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Where are the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > others? There are 6 people that saw the bullet hole in the windshield,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and 2 (at least) of them saw enough to know it came from outside and in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > front of the limo. The documentation is their statements, agreeing with
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > each other.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > There are no 'others' who have any credentials connecting them to the
>
> >
>
> > assassination. Your theory doesn't work with actual facts.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't give me that 'credentials' business. YOU don't get to decide who
>
> is a valid witness or who isn't.

I certainly do, and so do all the other people here who bring forth actual
documentation before spouting off on an issue.

Those are chosen by who happened to be
>
> in the right place to se something, not their 'credentials. Who ever
>
> heard of such a thing!!
>

That is how an historian talks. Nobody gets to just pop in and make
claims unless they can demonstrate they were there. Very simple.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > It seems like a bullet impact by a shot from in front
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > of the Limousine would cause a lot more fragmentation and spider webbing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > than what we see in the photo.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Many of the photos were taken after the windshield was replaced in Rouge,
>
> Michigan.

Since that never happened, and you keep talking about it without
presenting the slightest bit of evidence, just what do you hope to
accomplish by repeating such silly statements?

They show only a cracked windshield and are intended to. But
>
> they messed up when they created that windshield, because Roy Kellerman
>
> (SS) testified that he felt that crack and it was smooth outside and rough
>
> and cracked inside. He didn't know that it is an indication that it was
>
> hit from outside the limo.
>

I don't see how anyone could possibly follow such convoluted logic.
Kellerman was not a glass expert and should not have been touching it at
all.

[claviger]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:13:26 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

Why no backsplash blowback from the triangular bullet wound in the temple
seen on film? What is the advantage of these triangle bullets?

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 10:48:37 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:11:29 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:07:11 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:25:51 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:02:23 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:27:57 PM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Has anyone made a list of all known witnesses who saw a defect in the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > front windshield?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Frazier, Ferguson and Taylor saw a defect in the same spot, not a t+t
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Nope, won't do. Taylor saw a hole". Later they got him to say he was
>
> >
>
> > mistaken, but that's the same old story for a number of witnesses.
>
>
>
> No. First he didn't give detail. Later he did.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Frazier is one of the suspected conspirators, and Ferguson would lie to
>
> >
>
> > his mother if the SS asked him to.
>
>
>
> That's ridiculous. Have you spoken with him? I have.
>

I don't need to, you did. And I heard just what I expected.

>
>
> They were a client he was responsible
>
> >
>
> > for. He would do anything they asked, including arrange a session in
>
> >
>
> > Rouge to have the limo stripped and replace the interior and the
>
> >
>
> > windshield. Ford would go along with him if he asked them to do it for
>
> >
>
> > the client (the US Government). And he would lie to anyone, even a best
>
> >
>
> > friend, if he had to, just to keep it all quiet.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Nobody in their right mind would do something ridiculous like that.
>

That comment carries no logic or common sense, or even any reasoning.
Ignored.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > hole. This is consistent with CE 350.
>

My hand is consistent with my foot. It has 5 digits and is at the end of a limb. So what?

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Those who thought they saw a t+t hole specified different locations, so
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > there is no way to know what they actually saw.
>

Of course there's a way. By listening to them. There were too many of them to ignore, as your trying to do.

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So easily you take 2 people with differing views, and make that ALL
>
> >
>
> > witnesses. Forget it...you won't be allowed to get away with it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> There is no consensus. Live with it.
>

I'm not looking for 'consensus', I'm looking for witness evidence, and
we've found it in the corroboration of a bullet hole seen in the
windshield of the limousine. No attempt to shut it up will be allowed.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > More false information. You've put out 2 names that saw slightly
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > different positions for the bullet hole in the windshield.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > False. One saw a hole at the top of one side, the other at the bottom of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the other side. "Slightly"? You can't demonstrate what it is they saw.
>
> >

If one of them was speaking from the driver's point of view, yes. Deal
with it.

>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The difference "sides" may be explained as being from different views.
>
> >
>
> > One for in front of the limo, and one from the driver's perspective. It
>
> >
>
> > can make the hole seem to be on different sides when in actuality it is in
>
> >
>
> > one place.
>
> >
>
>
>
> They were both outside of the limo. Not gonna work.
>

The onlookers being on the outside of the limo when speaking doesn't
mean one of them was not using the driver's perspective. Deal with it.
And then tell us all about all the other witnesses that saw the hole in
the windshield.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Where are the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > others? There are 6 people that saw the bullet hole in the windshield,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > and 2 (at least) of them saw enough to know it came from outside and in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > front of the limo. The documentation is their statements, agreeing with
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > each other.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There are no 'others' who have any credentials connecting them to the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > assassination. Your theory doesn't work with actual facts.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Don't give me that 'credentials' business. YOU don't get to decide who
>
> >
>
> > is a valid witness or who isn't.
>
>
>
> I certainly do, and so do all the other people here who bring forth actual
>
> documentation before spouting off on an issue.
>

Look at all the "spouting off" you've done, including calling others
"liars" after they died and can't protect themselves! The bashing that you
admitted to, and the going on about your articles, that we know now are
full of errors that you admitted to and refuse to fix. And you actually
put forward the erroneous memos of Ferguson and Rowley and quietly
expected them to be simply taken at face value and not reviewed for error,
which was found! Those errors were the keystone helping to validate
Whitaker's story, so I have to thank you for that.

>
>
> Those are chosen by who happened to be
>
> >
>
> > in the right place to se something, not their 'credentials. Who ever
>
> >
>
> > heard of such a thing!!
>
> >
>
>
>
> That is how an historian talks. Nobody gets to just pop in and make
>
> claims unless they can demonstrate they were there. Very simple.
>

Baloney. A witness is just that, a witness. If there are others there
too, that strengthens the statements, but the loner is still a witness.
You can pretend all you like that you're a historian, but so far you've
admitted to putting our erroneous history, and have refused to fix it. An
objective historian would put out both sides of a disagreement, not try to
defend one side with memos full of errors. Don't adorn yourself with
medals you didn't earn.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > It seems like a bullet impact by a shot from in front
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > of the Limousine would cause a lot more fragmentation and spider webbing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > than what we see in the photo.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Many of the photos were taken after the windshield was replaced in Rouge,
>
> >
>
> > Michigan.
>
>
>
> Since that never happened, and you keep talking about it without
>
> presenting the slightest bit of evidence, just what do you hope to
>
> accomplish by repeating such silly statements?
>

You have just said that something "never happened" and yet you provide
NO evidence of that. You've tried to show a memo from Ferguson, and later
Rowley, but they both made the same error with the very item that you
needed for evidence, taking away your evidence, meaning that you have none
for your claims.

>
>
>
>
> They show only a cracked windshield and are intended to. But
>
> >
>
> > they messed up when they created that windshield, because Roy Kellerman
>
> >
>
> > (SS) testified that he felt that crack and it was smooth outside and rough
>
> >
>
> > and cracked inside. He didn't know that it is an indication that it was
>
> >
>
> > hit from outside the limo.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I don't see how anyone could possibly follow such convoluted logic.
>
> Kellerman was not a glass expert and should not have been touching it at
>
> all.
>

However, he DID touch it and gave his statement on the record. It
showed the whole bunch of them up, but at the time no one knew it. He
proved that the crack that was in the windshield was made from the
outside, an odd circumstance for sure. It could be surmised that it was
put there to make a good, clean windshield look like one that had been
struck from inside by a fragment flying around. But folks that think
about these things thought what would make a strike on the glass from
outside that hard, and coincidentally right at the time of the murder,
with bullets flying all around Dealey Plaza...what could do that? Or
maybe the story of a hole through the windshield was true!

And stop with the "disintegrating bullet" stuff making the hole in the
windshield. Since the hole was made from the outside, you can't get very
far with that stuff.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Makes sense to me.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Ridiculous! To suggest that the head of JFK was
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > enough to fragment a bullet and send it into the windshield to cause a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > through-and-through hole there is fanciful science fiction.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Brain "ejecta" spewing forward is easily caused by what Vincent DiMaio
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > calls 'tail splash'. When a bullet goes into the body there is a blowback
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > in the direction the bullet came from, and that's what is seen in Frame
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 313. DiMaio is a forensic pathologist and wound ballistics specialist,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > well thought of throughout his profession. Here's what he says "As the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or backward hurling of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > injured tissue. This material may be ejected from the entrance. The bullet
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > diameter is up to 11 to 12.5 times the diameter of the projectile.3 The
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs."
>
> >

That information details what happened to the BOH of JFK when the pressure built up and the cavity formed and the pressure burst out the rear of his head causing the 'large hole' seen by 39+ people.

>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://www.e-reading.bz/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Chapter 3.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > This makes the entrance in the right forehead, where a small hole was
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > seen of .25" in diameter. This explains the complete passage of a bullet
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > from the forehead to the rear of the head leaving the 'famed' 'large hole'
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > seen by 39+ people. DiMaio also describes the exit wound being blown out
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > > by internal pressure much larger than the entrance wound, which the 'large hole' in the BOH was, for sure.

[mainframetech]

You need to curb your natural tendency to profanity. It gets one
ignored in the finest places, haven't you noticed? Also it brings on my
need to lecture you again, so please try to control your negative
urges...thanks! Now, what's your problem this time? I know Dealey Plaza
as much as I need to. Try being more informative, or are you just looking
for attention?

[mainframetech]

Now you're asking silly questions. Why do you automatically assume that
the triangular wound is from a bullet? Couldn't internal pressure cause
it too? We don't have anything that would help identify what caused it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not a TRIANGULAR wound.

[claviger]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:37:38 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:55:45 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:13:26 PM UTC-6, mainframetech
> > wrote:
>
> > Why no backsplash blowback from the triangular bullet wound in > > the temple seen on film? What is the advantage of these
> > triangle bullets?
>
> Now you're asking silly questions. Why do you automatically
> assume that the triangular wound is from a bullet?

I thought you insinuated it was an entrance wound. Basic Logic: If round
bullets make round holes, then ___________ bullets make triangular holes?
Fill in the blank.

> Couldn't internal pressure cause it too?

Yes, in which case it has to be an exit wound.

> We don't have anything that would help identify what caused it.

We have the Zapruder film and an autopsy. We also have a shooter behind
the Limousine. No shooter in front of or to the side of the Limousine.

Now, one more question, where is the backsplash from this small entrance
wound on the forehead and what caused the mass of brain ejecta to go
forward?

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> So the .25" bullet entered the right side of the forehead and made a 90?

>>
>>> turn to the left and blew out a big hole in the right side of the
>>
>>> occipital region? Sounds like a magic bullet for sure!
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Where did you get your 90 degree turn? Just pulled it out of your ass?
>> You don't even know the geometry of Dealey Plaza.
>>
>
>
> You need to curb your natural tendency to profanity. It gets one
> ignored in the finest places, haven't you noticed? Also it brings on my
> need to lecture you again, so please try to control your negative
> urges...thanks! Now, what's your problem this time? I know Dealey Plaza
> as much as I need to. Try being more informative, or are you just looking
> for attention?
>

You lecturing me about profanity? Please. I tones down my response so that
the message would get past the censor. You don't even have a map of Dealey
Plaza. I have the most accurate map of Dealey Plaza and I have plotted all
the angles. You? Nothing but cheap shots. Never any actual research.

[Anthony Marsh]

Triangular bullets are better at yawing and tumbling in flight and thus
creating more devastating tearing wounds.

[mainframetech]

It would be easy to postulate the 'tailsplash' seen in the Z-film as
being representative of the entry wound on the forehead. But since the
Z-film has been altered, especially in the Frame 313 area, I won't do
that.

Let me help you with what I think is your problem. The triangular hole
in the right temple, drawn by Robinson, was NOT the small .25" wound
described also by Robinson, which I believe is the entry for the 'large
hole' exit. I believe from the evidence that the 'large hole' is not only
an exit from that bullet, but also caused by the internal pressure built
up by that bullet. When you see the test firings into gel, you see the
pattern where the bullet hits the gel and makes a tiny hole, which then
expands out to a large area of pressure right about where the rear of the
skull would be encountered. You can see such a test gel shot in DiMaio's
"Gunshot Wounds" in chapter 3 here at figure 3.1:

http://tinyurl.com/l2or3fx

As to the cause of the triangular wound in the right temple, I don't
know, but perhaps there was another bullet flying around, or more internal
pressure.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Up, not forward. So you must think the bullet came from below.

>
>

[claviger]

If there was a bullet that penetrated the windshield and hit the President
in the throat then it had to come from below, somewhere inside the Triple
Underpass. This is the reality mainframetech either doesn't understand or
simply can't cope with. Researcher David Mantic realized this was the
case. With a doctorate in physics he was compelled to deal with ballistic
science by speculating where it came from. Do you know where he placed
this sniper?

[mainframetech]

Please use your head, and read what is right before you. I have said
more than once that the Z-film is altered. The splash has been faked. I
say the 'tail splash' for the sake of humor, because everyone is so
attached to the film, just because they think they SEE the REAL happening!
It ain't real folks. Read Douglas Horne's 4th volume of 5 volumes on the
ARRB revelations if you have the guts. He goes into an awful lot of
detail of the Z-film and what devices were available back then to the CIA
'Hawkeye Works' in Rochester, NY and what shows that the film made a
detour to that 'workshop' to be altered. It wasn't even a good job.
Horne also cleans up the errors made by Rollie Zavada as well.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/5/2014 12:28 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:32:41 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/4/2014 12:07 AM, claviger wrote:
>
>>> Now, one more question, where is the backsplash from this
>>> small entrance wound on the forehead and what caused the mass > > of brain ejecta to go forward?
>>
>> Up, not forward. So you must think the bullet came from below.
>
> If there was a bullet that penetrated the windshield and hit the President
> in the throat then it had to come from below, somewhere inside the Triple
> Underpass. This is the reality mainframetech either doesn't understand or
> simply can't cope with. Researcher David Mantic realized this was the

You are on the right track. Please diagram this to better explain it to
him. He knows nothing about Dealey Plaza.
Someone wrote a theory about a shooter in a maintenance shed under the
overpass.

> case. With a doctorate in physics he was compelled to deal with ballistic
> science by speculating where it came from. Do you know where he placed
> this sniper?
>

I think you underestimate the ability of the alterationists to argue
their way out of an obviously stupid theory. Find an error and they can
explain it away. Maybe they can say the shot came from the overpass and
was deflected by going through the windshield.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Don't forget about the OTHER Windshield bullet. That one created a huge
hole in the windshield FRAME above the rear view mirror. That was a shot
from behind. One can look at that in Groden's TKOAP on Pg. 41.

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:28:41 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/9/2014 6:08 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Don't forget about the OTHER Windshield bullet. That one created a huge
> hole in the windshield FRAME above the rear view mirror. That was a shot
> from behind. One can look at that in Groden's TKOAP on Pg. 41.
>

Dent, not hole. Lifton says that all the shots came from the front. So how
does he explain the dent of the chrome topping? He can't. Neither could
the Secret Service so they lied and said the dent was there for years
before Dealey Plaza.

[mainframetech]

Please use your head when trying to figure out these things. No one
guaranteed that the bullet hole in the windshield was the shot that hit
JFK in the throat. A possibility? Yes. And the angles aren't what you
would think. The head was straight up from waving but looking ahead at
the moment he reacted to the throat bullet. The angle suggests someone
shooting from the other side of Dealey Plaza or under the overpass or in
that area. It's ridiculous to guess that the shooter was under the car
and other silly LN thoughts.

Though there was indeed a bullet hole in the windshield after the
limousine got to Parkland and was seen by many witnesses, the bullet
didn't have to hit anything in the limo. If it were fired from the right
side of the limo in front, the bullet might have gone through the left
window next to the driver. It might have gone straight through the window
and through the limo and off to the rear. A number of possibilities.
Since the bullet hole was covered up as soon as possible, no one was
looking to check angles in the windshield, so that info was lost.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, March 10, 2014 9:33:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/9/2014 6:08 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Don't forget about the OTHER Windshield bullet. That one created a huge
>
> > hole in the windshield FRAME above the rear view mirror. That was a shot
>
> > from behind. One can look at that in Groden's TKOAP on Pg. 41.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Dent, not hole. Lifton says that all the shots came from the front. So how
>
> does he explain the dent of the chrome topping? He can't. Neither could
>
> the Secret Service so they lied and said the dent was there for years
>
> before Dealey Plaza.
>
>

Look at the pic from the book and page I told you to look at. The 'dent'
is quite a crater. It had to be caused by the blunt impact of a bullet.
Forget Lifton. Why depend on one man's view when there are so many CT's
that believe different?

>
> >
>
> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:28:41 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> >> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:32:41 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 3/4/2014 12:07 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Now, one more question, where is the backsplash from this
>
> >>
>
> >>>> small entrance wound on the forehead and what caused the mass > > of brain ejecta to go forward?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Up, not forward. So you must think the bullet came from below.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> If there was a bullet that penetrated the windshield and hit the President
>
> >>
>
> >> in the throat then it had to come from below, somewhere inside the Triple
>
> >>
>
> >> Underpass. This is the reality mainframetech either doesn't understand or
>
> >>
>
> >> simply can't cope with. Researcher David Mantic realized this was the
>
> >>
>
> >> case. With a doctorate in physics he was compelled to deal with ballistic
>
> >>
>
> >> science by speculating where it came from. Do you know where he placed
>
> >>
>
> >> this sniper?

> ...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/10/2014 11:18 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 10, 2014 9:33:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/9/2014 6:08 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Don't forget about the OTHER Windshield bullet. That one created a huge
>>
>>> hole in the windshield FRAME above the rear view mirror. That was a shot
>>
>>> from behind. One can look at that in Groden's TKOAP on Pg. 41.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dent, not hole. Lifton says that all the shots came from the front. So how
>>
>> does he explain the dent of the chrome topping? He can't. Neither could
>>
>> the Secret Service so they lied and said the dent was there for years
>>
>> before Dealey Plaza.
>>
>>
>
> Look at the pic from the book and page I told you to look at. The 'dent'
> is quite a crater. It had to be caused by the blunt impact of a bullet.
> Forget Lifton. Why depend on one man's view when there are so many CT's
> that believe different?
>

I don't need that book. Mortal Error has an excellent print. I have the
copy negative from the National Archives. I have written about this
extensively. You start taking the wrong path as Palamara did when make up
your own definitions. It's a DENT, not a hole. So prove which bullet
caused that dent. Maybe it was never found.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:14:12 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/10/2014 11:18 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 10, 2014 9:33:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 3/9/2014 6:08 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Don't forget about the OTHER Windshield bullet. That one created a huge
>
> >>
>
> >>> hole in the windshield FRAME above the rear view mirror. That was a shot
>
> >>
>
> >>> from behind. One can look at that in Groden's TKOAP on Pg. 41.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Dent, not hole. Lifton says that all the shots came from the front. So how
>
> >>
>
> >> does he explain the dent of the chrome topping? He can't. Neither could
>
> >>
>
> >> the Secret Service so they lied and said the dent was there for years
>
> >>
>
> >> before Dealey Plaza.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Look at the pic from the book and page I told you to look at. The 'dent'
>
> > is quite a crater. It had to be caused by the blunt impact of a bullet.
>
> > Forget Lifton. Why depend on one man's view when there are so many CT's
>
> > that believe different?
>
> >
>
>
>
> I don't need that book. Mortal Error has an excellent print. I have the
>
> copy negative from the National Archives. I have written about this
>
> extensively. You start taking the wrong path as Palamara did when make up
>
> your own definitions. It's a DENT, not a hole. So prove which bullet
>
> caused that dent. Maybe it was never found.
>
>

You need something, because a dent is not doing that justice. This is a
CAVE that has a roof of about one inch, and the middle looks perfectly
cylinder-like. I call that something like a bullet or a hammer would do.
I don't care about bullet finds since the whole vehicle was cleaned out
immediately and the evidence so tampered with, no trail would be effective
in even talking about. Maybe you can tell us when the picture was shot if
you know so much?

[Anthony Marsh]

If you are not happy with the word dent then you can call it an
indentation. But it did not perforate so you can't call it a hole. You
could even call it an impact crater.

1:52 AM EST 11/23/63.

[yona...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 1, 2003 3:28:23 PM UTC-4, james lewis wrote:
> Dr. Perry and other medical personnel at Parkland observed an entrance
> wound in the front of JFK's neck. Richard Dudman and other wittnesses
> observed a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo outside the
> Parkland ER entrance. I have conducted a test shot through the
> windshield of a full sized stationwagon with a manikin in the far back
> seat. The sharpshooter was 200+ yards away, shot through the
> windshield and hit the manikin in the neck, providing demonstrated
> proof that JFK's neck wound came from the front. There was no
> deflection from where the shooter said he was aiming. The "single
> bullet theory" is just what it says it is. Just a theory. Dr. Humes
> knew before the autopsy that there was an entrance wound in the front
> of President Kennedy's neck but was made to say otherwise. Arlen
> Specter knew what Dr. Perry and other doctors and nurses at Parkland
> Hospital had said they observed while trying to save the president.
> There has been much controversy and speculation as to why the limo
> driver SSA James Greer was braking on Elm Street. Could it be because
> he had observed the shot through the windshield and knew they were
> being fired upon from the front? He was never able to say because no
> one in the government's cover it up investigation wanted the true
> facts of the assassination to become public. It's still being done
> today. See if you can find Jerry Bruno's AARB testimony anywhere.

Anyone know where one can find Life Magazine windshield photo on line?

[Anthony Marsh]

Which issue and page? There is no picture in LIFE of a hole.
The crack is seen in the WC exhibit 350:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CE350.gif

You can barely see the crack in Altgens 7:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/ALTGENS7.GIF

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Which issue and page? There is no picture in LIFE of a hole.
> The crack is seen in the WC exhibit 350:
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CE350.gif

This photo places the crack in the windshield between the driver and rear
view mirror. That means a sniper wound have to be at angle from the south
side of Elm Street and south side of the tunnel the motorcade was about to
enter. No one was seen in that area, so this is not a bullet hole from
anywhere in front of the Limousine. In this photo no hole is visible.

[yona...@gmail.com]

Thank you. It's not that I don't trust the WC but there has been a lot of
tampering with evidence. When I was in high school I spent a lot of time
in the library and Life had an issue within the first couple weeks showing
the windshield. I also recall reading that the person who had viewed the
Zapruder film more than anyone was the film editor of Time-Life who felt
that there was a "simultaneous double-head shot". As I recall it showed a
hole and of course there were several eye witnesses at Parkland that have
attested to it also. I also am not convinced that the fatal shot came from
the "grassy knoll" on the right, not that there wasn't somebody up there,
but from somewhere on the left. Any one else of that persuasion?

[Anthony Marsh]

Have to? In order to accomplish what?

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:12:20 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>
>
> > Which issue and page? There is no picture in LIFE of a hole.
>
> > The crack is seen in the WC exhibit 350:
>
> > http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CE350.gif
>
>
>
> This photo places the crack in the windshield between the driver and rear
>
> view mirror. That means a sniper wound have to be at angle from the south
>
> side of Elm Street and south side of the tunnel the motorcade was about to
>
> enter. No one was seen in that area, so this is not a bullet hole from
>
> anywhere in front of the Limousine. In this photo no hole is visible.


Well, I couldn't say there's no hole in the picture, but it doesn't matter anyway. When was the picture taken and where? It looks like the WH garage, in which case it might be after the repair in Rouge Michigan was done, and the fake crack was made, from the outside, based on Kellerman's testimony.

As to angles, a bullet hole in safety glass can go in at an angle and in our case, it could be from even the other GK. A bullet could go through the windshield and out the back of the limo, or out the sides too. It could even be the bullet that hit JFK in the throat, which was an entry wound. The hole in the windshield showed evidence of having been fired from in front of the limo, which evidence was seen by at least 2 people, possibly more.

Chris

[yona...@gmail.com]

http://theshotsindealeyplaza.com/?page_id=12
http://ourgreenwich.com/2009/05/kennedy-assassination-discovery-the-death-bullet-on-film/#comment-26779

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:15:49 AM UTC-4, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you. It's not that I don't trust the WC but there has been a lot of
>
> tampering with evidence. When I was in high school I spent a lot of time
>
> in the library and Life had an issue within the first couple weeks showing
>
> the windshield. I also recall reading that the person who had viewed the
>
> Zapruder film more than anyone was the film editor of Time-Life who felt
>
> that there was a "simultaneous double-head shot". As I recall it showed a
>
> hole and of course there were several eye witnesses at Parkland that have
>
> attested to it also. I also am not convinced that the fatal shot came from
>
> the "grassy knoll" on the right, not that there wasn't somebody up there,
>
> but from somewhere on the left. Any one else of that persuasion?



Since bullets were raining down all over on Dealey Plaza that day, it
seems possible that a shooter was stationed on the south knoll. I'm not
convinced that the kill shot that hit JFK in the head came from that side
though. the entry wound, which was a small .25" diameter hole in the
right forehead, was not in a good position for a shot from the left side
of the limo.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:15:49 AM UTC-4, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you. It's not that I don't trust the WC but there has been a lot of
>
> tampering with evidence. When I was in high school I spent a lot of time
>
> in the library and Life had an issue within the first couple weeks showing
>
> the windshield. I also recall reading that the person who had viewed the
>
> Zapruder film more than anyone was the film editor of Time-Life who felt
>
> that there was a "simultaneous double-head shot". As I recall it showed a
>
> hole and of course there were several eye witnesses at Parkland that have
>
> attested to it also. I also am not convinced that the fatal shot came from
>
> the "grassy knoll" on the right, not that there wasn't somebody up there,
>
> but from somewhere on the left. Any one else of that persuasion?

As an addendum to your note of the 'hole' in the head of JFK, there were
39+ people that saw the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK.
There is another thread that I made up that names the 39+ people, and
links to where they said it. I also offered a challenge that was never
taken up, for anyone to come forward with clear information that ANY
witness claimed to see ONLY a small hole in the back of head of JFK except
2 of the prosectors. I haven't been approached with anything yet in
months.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2014 1:16 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:12:20 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> Anthony,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Which issue and page? There is no picture in LIFE of a hole.
>>
>>> The crack is seen in the WC exhibit 350:
>>
>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CE350.gif
>>
>>
>>
>> This photo places the crack in the windshield between the driver and rear
>>
>> view mirror. That means a sniper wound have to be at angle from the south
>>
>> side of Elm Street and south side of the tunnel the motorcade was about to
>>
>> enter. No one was seen in that area, so this is not a bullet hole from
>>
>> anywhere in front of the Limousine. In this photo no hole is visible.
>
>
> Well, I couldn't say there's no hole in the picture, but it doesn't matter anyway. When was the picture taken and where? It looks like the WH garage, in which case it might be after the repair in Rouge Michigan was done, and the fake crack was made, from the outside, based on Kellerman's testimony.
>

We've been over this thousands of times and you are still clueless.
Frazier took it at 12:43 AM on 11/23/63 in the White House Garage.

> As to angles, a bullet hole in safety glass can go in at an angle and in our case, it could be from even the other GK. A bullet could go through the windshield and out the back of the limo, or out the sides too. It could even be the bullet that hit JFK in the throat, which was an entry wound. The hole in the windshield showed evidence of having been fired from in front of the limo, which evidence was seen by at least 2 people, possibly more.
>

Silly. There was no hole.

> Chris
>

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Quit making false statements. The limo never went to the Rouge...

[yona...@gmail.com]

I guess I was mistaken, the photo wasn't in Life which I found on line. It
must have been in Look that I haven't been able to find. Fifty years plays
tricks. At any rate it was taken outside of Parkland - not in a garage.
Did anyone bother to ask what they did with that windshield?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2014 10:20 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:15:49 AM UTC-4, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thank you. It's not that I don't trust the WC but there has been a lot of
>>
>> tampering with evidence. When I was in high school I spent a lot of time
>>
>> in the library and Life had an issue within the first couple weeks showing
>>
>> the windshield. I also recall reading that the person who had viewed the
>>
>> Zapruder film more than anyone was the film editor of Time-Life who felt
>>
>> that there was a "simultaneous double-head shot". As I recall it showed a
>>
>> hole and of course there were several eye witnesses at Parkland that have
>>
>> attested to it also. I also am not convinced that the fatal shot came from
>>
>> the "grassy knoll" on the right, not that there wasn't somebody up there,
>>
>> but from somewhere on the left. Any one else of that persuasion?
>
>
> As an addendum to your note of the 'hole' in the head of JFK, there were
> 39+ people that saw the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK.

No, there weren't.

> There is another thread that I made up that names the 39+ people, and
> links to where they said it. I also offered a challenge that was never
> taken up, for anyone to come forward with clear information that ANY
> witness claimed to see ONLY a small hole in the back of head of JFK except
> 2 of the prosectors. I haven't been approached with anything yet in
> months.
>

Silly challenge.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2014 8:30 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:15:49 AM UTC-4, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thank you. It's not that I don't trust the WC but there has been a lot of
>>
>> tampering with evidence. When I was in high school I spent a lot of time
>>
>> in the library and Life had an issue within the first couple weeks showing
>>
>> the windshield. I also recall reading that the person who had viewed the
>>
>> Zapruder film more than anyone was the film editor of Time-Life who felt
>>
>> that there was a "simultaneous double-head shot". As I recall it showed a
>>
>> hole and of course there were several eye witnesses at Parkland that have
>>
>> attested to it also. I also am not convinced that the fatal shot came from
>>
>> the "grassy knoll" on the right, not that there wasn't somebody up there,
>>
>> but from somewhere on the left. Any one else of that persuasion?
>
>
>
> Since bullets were raining down all over on Dealey Plaza that day, it

No.

> seems possible that a shooter was stationed on the south knoll. I'm not
> convinced that the kill shot that hit JFK in the head came from that side
> though. the entry wound, which was a small .25" diameter hole in the
> right forehead, was not in a good position for a shot from the left side
> of the limo.
>

Ok. Except the JFK's head was tilted to the left. SHOW me the trajectory.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:27:51 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Quit making false statements. The limo never went to the Rouge...
>

All your documentation with its errors and 'facts' point to it. Stop
misleading folks just because you told them a story for years that is
still wrong. Have you corrected your various articles yet to put in the
truth, or are they still misleading folks about the 'unknown' witness in
rouge?

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- show quoted text -

Since bullets were raining down all over on Dealey Plaza that day, it

seems possible that a shooter was stationed on the south knoll. I'm not
convinced that the kill shot that hit JFK in the head came from that side
though. the entry wound, which was a small .25" diameter hole in the
right forehead, was not in a good position for a shot from the left side
of the limo.

Chris




Bullets "raining down"?

Oh brother. This is a perfect example of the ridiculous conspiracy
mindset. Reminds me of the McCarthy witch hunts. Instead of communists,
they hunt Dealey Plaza shooters. "One behind every tree" is their motto.

[yona...@gmail.com]

Did the windshield wind up in the National Archives all doctored up? The
lack of police work and "creative forensics" is just mind-boggling. I even
saw something recently that showed that the crack was due to a bone
fragment. We may never know the truth for absolute certain except that the
WC lied through their teeth and that the Dallas Police, FBI, Mafia, CIA,
LBJ and several other "unindicted co-conspirators(including Tricky Nixon
who couldn't remember where he was when he heard the news)", the Bush
family and probably the Catholic Church were all involved.

[yona...@gmail.com]

I think Oliver Stone has it as close as we're going to get in JFK.
Incidentally, that movie was pulled from the market several years ago. A
little too much truth.

[Walt]

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:15:49 PM UTC-5, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you. It's not that I don't trust the WC but there has been a lot of
>
> tampering with evidence. When I was in high school I spent a lot of time
>
> in the library and Life had an issue within the first couple weeks showing
>
> the windshield. I also recall reading that the person who had viewed the
>
> Zapruder film more than anyone was the film editor of Time-Life who felt
>
> that there was a "simultaneous double-head shot". As I recall it showed a
>
> hole and of course there were several eye witnesses at Parkland that have
>
> attested to it also.

I've seen NOTHING to indicate a hole in the glass of the windsheild. I
believe that some folks saw the asterisk like damage to the windshield
from a distance and thought it was a hole. I have seen bullet holes in
windshields and if there had been such a hole believe me we wouldn't be
arguing about it. They are very easy to see and not just two or three
people would have noticed it.

I also am not convinced that the fatal shot came from
>
> the "grassy knoll" on the right, not that there wasn't somebody up there,
>
> but from somewhere on the left. Any one else of that persuasion?

I believe two shots struck John's head almost simultaneously, one from he
front and one from the rear, so who can say which was the fatal bullet?

[mainframetech]

The windshield that was replaced in Rouge, Michigan by George Whitaker
and his workers was destroyed, as per the instructions they had gotten
from the executives. When the limo got back to the W.H. garage, they
bashed it with something to make it look like it had only bee dinged, and
that the 6 witnesses were wrong, but they mistakenly did the bashing from
the outside, and made it obvious that they did it. That second windshield
with the 'ding' in it was removed on Nov. 26th by Hess & Eisenhardt of
Cincinnati, Ohio and was stored in the back of the garage in a locked
room.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2014 7:45 PM, Walt wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:15:49 PM UTC-5, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thank you. It's not that I don't trust the WC but there has been a lot of
>>
>> tampering with evidence. When I was in high school I spent a lot of time
>>
>> in the library and Life had an issue within the first couple weeks showing
>>
>> the windshield. I also recall reading that the person who had viewed the
>>
>> Zapruder film more than anyone was the film editor of Time-Life who felt
>>
>> that there was a "simultaneous double-head shot". As I recall it showed a
>>
>> hole and of course there were several eye witnesses at Parkland that have
>>
>> attested to it also.
>
> I've seen NOTHING to indicate a hole in the glass of the windsheild. I
> believe that some folks saw the asterisk like damage to the windshield
> from a distance and thought it was a hole. I have seen bullet holes in

Some people saw it up close, like 10 feet away, and were sure it was a
hole. Others around them told them they were crazy at the time.

> windshields and if there had been such a hole believe me we wouldn't be
> arguing about it. They are very easy to see and not just two or three
> people would have noticed it.
>
>

But what caliber were the bullets which made those holes?
There was no hole, but people can imagine different types of bullets.

>
>
> I also am not convinced that the fatal shot came from
>>
>> the "grassy knoll" on the right, not that there wasn't somebody up there,
>>
>> but from somewhere on the left. Any one else of that persuasion?
>
> I believe two shots struck John's head almost simultaneously, one from he
> front and one from the rear, so who can say which was the fatal bullet?
>

I can. The one from the grassy knoll.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which market? It is still being shown on TV and sold on DVD.
Oh you mean it's not still in theaters? The only movie which is still
being shown all the time in theaters is Rocky Horror Show.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2014 6:48 PM, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> Did the windshield wind up in the National Archives all doctored up? The
> lack of police work and "creative forensics" is just mind-boggling. I even

The windshield ended up in the National Archives damaged during handling.

> saw something recently that showed that the crack was due to a bone

I doubt that a bone fragment would do it.

> fragment. We may never know the truth for absolute certain except that the
> WC lied through their teeth and that the Dallas Police, FBI, Mafia, CIA,
> LBJ and several other "unindicted co-conspirators(including Tricky Nixon
> who couldn't remember where he was when he heard the news)", the Bush
> family and probably the Catholic Church were all involved.
>

Why don't you blame the Mossad as long as you are going through the
phone book?

[Jason Burke]

Let's see.
The main action of the movie took place on a Friday in November 1963.
The main setting was Dallas, Texas.
The president was assassinated.

What else do you think was true in that movie?

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, try to keep up, will ya? David Lifton had a theory about a shooter
IN a tree.

[Anthony Marsh]

I have Look also. There is no photo showing a hole.
Your imagination plays tricks.
The windshield is stored in the National Archives at College Park.
But you are not allowed to see it unless you can prove that you are a WC
defender.
BTW, several of the photos of the limo outside Parkland were taken by
White House photographer Cecil Stoughton. You can search for them using
his name as a search keyword. I have most of them on my Web site and try
to name them starting with ST.

[yona...@gmail.com]

That's what Blockbuster told me, "by the producers", about 5 years ago
when I was looking. I ordered mine on Amazon.

[yona...@gmail.com]

As my 50 year memory recalls - the photo taken from outside Parkland was
from the INSIDE of the limo - until I see that photo the WC photo I have
to believe is fake.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 4, 2014 5:50:15 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> mainframetech
>
> - show quoted text -
>
> Since bullets were raining down all over on Dealey Plaza that day, it
>
> seems possible that a shooter was stationed on the south knoll. I'm not
>
> convinced that the kill shot that hit JFK in the head came from that side
>
> though. the entry wound, which was a small .25" diameter hole in the
>
> right forehead, was not in a good position for a shot from the left side
>
> of the limo.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bullets "raining down"?
>
>
>
> Oh brother. This is a perfect example of the ridiculous conspiracy
>
> mindset. Reminds me of the McCarthy witch hunts. Instead of communists,

d>

> they hunt Dealey Plaza shooters. "One behind every tree" is their motto.

Lost again I see. Let me try to help you out of your quandary. I'll
list some of the bullet strikes and we'll see how many shooters there
might have been. Lessee, we've got the bullet that struck the curb near
James Tague, then the bullet strike on a manhole cover on the left side of
the limo making a spark, a strike on Kennedy's back, one on Kennedy's head
killing him, The one in the throat of JFK, a strike on Connally (one
bullet hitting 2 people doesn't make it for me), and don't forget the
strike on the chrome overhead on the limo. So far that's 7 bullets, and
at least 2 shooters, more likely 3 shooters. I don't see the supposed 3
shells in the SN as fulfilling all bullet strikes, do you? Even with the
wacky single bullet theory, it wouldn't work.

Glad I could help.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I seriously doubt that a bone fragment could make a bullet hole in the
windshield of the limousine. And where would it come from? The wound on
the right side of the head with the triangular flap was still attached to
JFK, and the only place where there was any damage to the skeleton of JFK
was the 'large hole' in the back of the head. Nurse Bowron was clear
about that as she went out to the limo in the Parkland ER parking lot.
Difficult picturing a piece of skull coming from the back of the head all
the way around to the front and dinging the windshield of safety glass.

Chris

[yona...@gmail.com]

Seems like some people are interested in disinfo.

[Walt]

On Friday, April 4, 2014 9:59:27 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Some people saw it up close, like 10 feet away, and were sure it was a
hole. Others around them told them they were crazy at the time.

"Others around them told them they were crazy"....Nuff said.

[yona...@gmail.com]

Ridiculous isn't it. Along with the driver shot him. Here's another
eye-witness account you've probably seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

[yona...@gmail.com]

Kennedy was also leaning down and to the left so it wouldn't be a problem
with the bullet taking off the right side of his head and forcing a recoil
back to the left in the direction of the shot. I count at least 6 shots
fired - maybe 8 as the link I provided demonstrates.

[yona...@gmail.com]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

[mainframetech]

You can always read this article for another view of the windshield
bullet hole. 6 witnesses saw it up close, and a lot of effort was gone to
in trying to wipe out those witnesses:

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

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2014 3:23 PM, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> Seems like some people are interested in disinfo.
>

So you can't debate anything?

[Anthony Marsh]

JFK was leaning forward when he was shot in the head.

[Anthony Marsh]

No one took photos from inside the limo.
What is your point?
It doesn't matter WHAT you see. You will always claim that the evidence
is fake.

[yona...@gmail.com]

My point(s) are

1) I know what I saw - I think it was a bullet hole - but am not 100%
certain - until I see that photo again.

2) Several others say they saw one too - but have been discredited by the
establishment conspirators(that have been lying for 50 years), the same as
all those who ran up the GK saying they also saw something.

3) The case is not closed

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:14:26 PM UTC-4, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM


Seeing the full video is more informative, especially as to the bullet
hole in the windshield. There were 6 witnesses to the bullet hole up
close, but the most important was George Whitaker, a manager in the Ford
plant at Rouge, Michigan, where the limousine was spirited away to have
the interior and the windshield replaced.

Here's a fuller video. Skip forward to 13:15 to see the windshield
bullet hole story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkH2ILChHo

Chris

[yona...@gmail.com]

The Men Who Killed Kennedy was pulled by the History Channel and
unavailable on Amazon. However https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgMUmb-pWTo

[Walt]

You're right the case is not closed.....But arguing about a non existant
bullet hole in the windshield will not only gain NOTHING....It's a
distraction.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:41:35 PM UTC-4, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Men Who Killed Kennedy was pulled by the History Channel and
>
> unavailable on Amazon. However https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgMUmb-pWTo

Did you notice the post just before yours that links to the same video?

Chris

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 2:14:35 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, April 4, 2014 5:50:15 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> > mainframetech
>
> >
>
> > - show quoted text -
>
> >
>
> > Since bullets were raining down all over on Dealey Plaza that day, it
>
> >
>
> > seems possible that a shooter was stationed on the south knoll. I'm not
>
> >
>
> > convinced that the kill shot that hit JFK in the head came from that side
>
> >
>
> > though. the entry wound, which was a small .25" diameter hole in the
>
> >
>
> > right forehead, was not in a good position for a shot from the left side
>
> >
>
> > of the limo.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Chris
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bullets "raining down"?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Oh brother. This is a perfect example of the ridiculous conspiracy
>
> >
>
> > mindset. Reminds me of the McCarthy witch hunts. Instead of communists,
>
> d>
>
> > they hunt Dealey Plaza shooters. "One behind every tree" is their motto.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lost again I see. Let me try to help you out of your quandary. I'll
>
> list some of the bullet strikes and we'll see how many shooters there
>
> might have been. Lessee, we've got the bullet that struck the curb near
>
> James Tague, then the bullet strike on a manhole cover on the left side of
>
> the limo making a spark, a strike on Kennedy's back, one on Kennedy's head
>
> killing him, The one in the throat of JFK, a strike on Connally (one
>
> bullet hitting 2 people doesn't make it for me), and don't forget the
>
> strike on the chrome overhead on the limo. So far that's 7 bullets,

If silly hobbyist figuring counted for anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's all they are. Stories. Not facts. How come you never show us facts?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/6/2014 9:03 AM, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> My point(s) are
>
> 1) I know what I saw - I think it was a bullet hole - but am not 100%
> certain - until I see that photo again.
>

There is no photo. You have a false memory.
You have done absolutely nothing to try to find such a photo.

> 2) Several others say they saw one too - but have been discredited by the
> establishment conspirators(that have been lying for 50 years), the same as
> all those who ran up the GK saying they also saw something.
>

We have no idea what your rant is supposed to mean.
Who lied? What people ran up the grassy knoll and what did they say?

> 3) The case is not closed
>

The case was official closed by the Justice Department (William Weld).
So now it is just a search for the truth. There will never be any
prosecutions.

Try re-opening the Lincoln Assassination.

[yona...@gmail.com]

Well it shouldn't be a distraction to those who's minds are made up. It's
very easy to ignore.

[yona...@gmail.com]

If the case was closed by Justice - why is Anthony here making false
accusations? Trying to make sure it doesn't get reopened?

[Walt]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 8:33:04 PM UTC-5, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well it shouldn't be a distraction to those who's minds are made up. It's
>
> very easy to ignore.

I was suggesting that you focus on something that might be more
productive....

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/6/2014 11:07 PM, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> If the case was closed by Justice - why is Anthony here making false
> accusations? Trying to make sure it doesn't get reopened?
>
>

I was the one who worked to get it reopened. While you were picking your
nose in kindergarten.

[yona...@gmail.com]

Thanks for your concern - since this thread is such a distraction - I
suggest you follow your own advice.

[yona...@gmail.com]

And go some place that you consider more productive.

[mainframetech]

Hmm. How did you determine that there was no bullet hole after hearing
the 6 witnesses say they saw it up close, including 2 cops and a Secret
Service agent who wrote it into his report?

Chris

[yona...@gmail.com]

The world owes Anthony a debt of gratitude for working to reopen the case
that solved nothing.

[Walt]

By using my eyes and knowledge of what a bullet hole looks like.....

[PLATO]

On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> The world owes Anthony a debt of gratitude for working to reopen the case
>
> that solved nothing.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0040a.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Never rely on eyewitnesses. Look at the photographic evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/7/2014 6:40 PM, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> And go some place that you consider more productive.
>
>

You first.

[mainframetech]

The 6 witnesses corroborated each other, who corroborates your sighting?

Chris

[yona...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:58:44 PM UTC-4, HERBERT PHILBRICK wrote:


Thank you for the WC report of the photo taken 11/23/63

[Walt]

Iris and Retina support my statement......

[mainframetech]

> Iris and Retina support my statement......

Welp, that's about it then...:)

[yona...@gmail.com]

Well, obviously I was in error about the location of the photo I saw.
I'm semi-disabled, so it's not easy to get around, but I went to our
library the other day and went through those old magazines. All I'm sure
of is that the photo I remember was not the WC one taken a day later. I
suppose it doesn't matter because there is plenty of evidence that there
were more than three shots and a hole in the windshield would prove the
conspiracy. Nevertheless all the evidence points to LBJ as having had the
means and the motive to engineer the deed and to suppress and tamper with
the material evidence to alter history for his personal lust for power.
Once they had JFK lured to Texas he had the power to affect law
enforcement both in Texas and the Federal levels along with his personal
acquaintances in the shadows that are good at making people disappear.

[Walt]

Rational reasoning.....That's refreshing....and a rarity in this forum.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/12/2014 12:15 PM, yona...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, obviously I was in error about the location of the photo I saw.
> I'm semi-disabled, so it's not easy to get around, but I went to our
> library the other day and went through those old magazines. All I'm sure
> of is that the photo I remember was not the WC one taken a day later. I
> suppose it doesn't matter because there is plenty of evidence that there
> were more than three shots and a hole in the windshield would prove the
> conspiracy. Nevertheless all the evidence points to LBJ as having had the

Excuse me, but how does a hole in the windshield PROVE conspiracy? A hole
in the windshield could be the exit from a headshot from behind. You seem
to think that you need to prove conspiracy by some type of backdoor proof.
That's what the alterationists do.

They think that if they can prove that someone altered the Zapruder film
that alone proves conspiracy. Very weak logic. Concentrate on the hard
evidence.

> means and the motive to engineer the deed and to suppress and tamper with
> the material evidence to alter history for his personal lust for power.
> Once they had JFK lured to Texas he had the power to affect law
> enforcement both in Texas and the Federal levels along with his personal
> acquaintances in the shadows that are good at making people disappear.
>

Something like that. But in fact there can be different conspirators for
each component each with different agendas.

[mainframetech]

Sounds like your on to something.

Chris

[yona...@gmail.com]

Or on something.

[Walt]

That's true Anthony ..... Let's assume that the DPD had many officers who
in addition to being high rank officers at the DPD were also high ranking
officer in the KKK so their goal might be exactly the same as some
disgruntled former CIA agents who had been fired by JFK. And some of the
Cuban exiles who had lost sons brothers and beloved family members because
of the BOP fiasco might have had exactly the same agenda. BUT BUT NONE of
them could have effected the cover up...

What was needed was a "coordinator" who could capitalize on the various
plots and encourage the plotters. Enter J. Edgar hoover.......

[cmikes]

And yet none of these thousands of people have ever talked in the last 50
years. Amazing. And Dallas was a Republican area, why would the Democrat
KKK have a foothold in the city?

[Anthony Marsh]

No "to." Just ON something.

[Anthony Marsh]

For many years the southern racists were almost always Democrats. LBJ
lost the Democrats to the Republicans.

[janju...@gmail.com]

I'm no one special...my statement doesn't have proofs...my intention is
just to give insights

If you look closely to the tape of pres. JFK being shot

Pay attention to the guy who leaned back to the president

1:i think he knows that the president is going to die(A;either he got
lucky to dodge the bullet B;Or he knew where the bullet is coming from

2:i think he shot the president(A;the gunshot wound doesn't make any sense
as seen in the footage (the president) he is facing down...lets go back to
the gunshot wound (i know little of how physics work but basically he is
shot from the front,as the bullet dig from the forehead it creates a
spinning force that progresses to the back of his head making the back of
his head explode and not the front...therefore he is shot from the
front)he's facing down right...soo if the sniper is shooting from a 200+
yards on the rooftop of the building the projectile must have dig trought
his spine and not the back of his head(now back to "my suspect"...as seen
he is doing something...or holding something.........

[claviger]

Rocks vs bullets: A look at window damage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JACjvhPj-Q

[Anthony Marsh]

Where do you have the shooter? 200 yards in FRONT of JFK?
What building are you thinking about?
That would be one Hell of a shot for the best snipers in the world.
And barely enough room for the bullet to get over the windshield.
Can you diagram it?