ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield? New article up.
Barb Junkkarinen
Thompson, titled:
"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
ALSO:
Here is the footnote that belongs at the end of this section:
"4. Witness Reports: From Parkland Hospital to the White House
garage."
(For some reason, it refuses to copy and paste with the rest of the
article...sigh):
"In addition to these witnesses, a U.S. Park policeman, Nick Principe,
claimed thirty-five years later to have seen the windshield at the
White House garage that night. Principe became both a friend and a
witness to some members of Rich DellaRosa�s jfkresearch group about
ten years ago. He told them that he had been on duty that night at a
command post near the White House on the night of the assassination.
He said that he had spoken to Secret Service agent William Greer on
the White House grounds shortly after the family returned from Dallas
that night and that Greer had told him they had been shot at from all
directions. Principe said he had heard motorcycle escort
transmissions about the limousine being brought to the White House
garage and had gone there himself. He said he lifted a tarp and saw a
through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield.
Principe�s claim has little probative significance not
only because it was first made thirty-five years after the event but
also because his claimed conversation with Greer could not have
occurred. Principe could not have talked to Greer that night since
Greer accompanied the body to Bethesda Hospital and stayed at Bethesda
throughout the autopsy and morticians� preparation, driving JFK�s body
home to the White House for the last time after 3:30 AM on Saturday,
November 23, 1963."
Aside to John ... you are welcome to add this to your site if you
would like.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>Thompson, titled:
>
>"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
Excellent article, Barb!
Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos), the article seems
solid to the core. It would be a worthy addition to .John's site
methinks. Now we will wait for reasonable rebuttals (if any are
forthcoming).
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>Thompson, titled:
>
>"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
>http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=82475&mesg_id=82475&page=
>
>
>Aside to John ... you are welcome to add this to your site if you
>would like.
>
Thanks!
I indeed would love to add it to my site.
I'm afraid I've been very busy lately (this past week it's been a
family vacation that was great, but no JFK stuff got done). But by
all means I'll use it -- and another one you are familiar with.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>> Thompson, titled:
>>
>> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>>
>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=82475&mesg_id=82475&page=
>>
>
>
> ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?
> Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan, Josiah Thompson
>
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> Certain issues concerning evidence in the JFK assassination research arena bubble to the surface again and again. The wheels on the bus go round and round, grinding out the same arguments, largely by the same people, with no real progress achieved. One would think after forty-five years that issues concerning basic facts of the assassination might have been resolved. For example, was or wasn't there a through-and-through hole in the limousine windshield? It certainly makes a huge difference in finding out what happened in Dealey Plaza. Yet arguments about this claim have come and gone on the internet for over a decade. It has been a topic discussed in books at least as far back as Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), and David Lifton devoted a lengthy footnote to the question in his Best Evidence (1980). More recently, this issue was discussed on the Ed Forum in 2007.
>
I had addressed this issue in my presentation Best Witness: JFK's
Limousine back in 1995:
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/bestwitn.htm
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.
> Springboarding off the recent, ?Moorman-in-the-Street?? discussions, which included the Altgen?s #6 photograph, the hole-in-the-windshield issue recently came up in discussion on the jfk-research Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/). James Fetzer took the lead for a group he copied on his posts. David Healy, Rich DellaRosa, Jack White and eventually David Lifton all weighed in. David Lifton and others presented ?proofs? that the windshield had a through-and-through hole. Others were more skeptical. What was exceptional about this discussion, however, was that the wheels of the bus actually moved forward.
>
I specifically addressed the Fetzer et al nonsense in 1998:
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/windshield.htm
If you have picture software which lets you examine the color values of
each pixel, you can compare the darkness of the "spiral nebula" to known
objects. Use your eyedropper function to measure the color values in the
"spiral nebula" area. The values lie in the 60 to 146 range. This
represents a medium to light gray. Absolute black would be 0, while white
would be 255. Now, compare that range to known whites such as JFK's white
cuff, Jackie's white glove and the white dress in the background. The
white cuff has a range of 152 to 218, very white. The white glove has a
range of 145 to 222, very white. The white dress has a range of 143 to
221, very white. As an additional control, examine the values for the
known black of JFK's sleeve. That has a range of 17 to 28, very black.
This shows that the area where Fetzer et al claim there is white broken
glass is actually a medium to light gray. It is the woman in the
background, something she was wearing or carrying, possibly a dress or
purse. You can even see the folds and shadows from the folds. If Mantik is
correct in his observation that all it takes is one counter-example to
disprove a theory, then my pointing out that the white broken glass is
actually medium to light colored clothing in the background disproves
Fetzer et al's claim that the Altgens 1-6 photo shows a bullet hole.
> For that reason, we have decided to share what we learned in that
discussion here on the Ed Forum. And, thanks to Jerry Logan and John Hunt,
we now have new documents from the Archives which advance our knowledge.
>
> Personally, we'd all be quite happy if a shot through the windshield
(from either direction) could be proved. It would be a definitive death
knell for the SBT. Clearly; the research terrain would be forever changed.
But such proof has to be based upon valid evidence and not second hand
reports. Here, as everywhere in this case, we have to make a judgment
between kinds of evidence ? photos and first-hand witness reports from
trained observers and quick or secondary judgments made by others. We must
take care to neither create nor promote myths and fables that only serve
to keep the wheels spinning in place ? over and over again. As John
Kennedy put it, "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie,
deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive
and unrealistic.?
>
> What does the evidence show? Was there a hole through the windshield?
Side note: Although your photos are excellent, the labeling can be a
little misleading. What you call FullFrameAltgens6 is not actually FULL
FRAME. It crops off a little of the right edge. And gee I wonder where you
got the extreme blow-up of the FBI evidence photo? But you did find the
Parkland photo which I had been looking for a long time. And not only does
it show the crack, not hole, in the windshield, but it also shows the dent
of the chrome topping. And the angle of view compares well to the
Stoughton photo from the day before which shows the chrome topping
undented. And in both photos the visors were up.
Side note: Although I often agree with John Hunt in his research, his
sloppy wording can sometimes leave a false impression, such as --
As Hunt points out, ?cracks don?t go away.? If cracks were present in the
windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the
windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not
present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two
different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity
in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two
windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer ?windshield switch
theory? is wrong. Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five
years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks
credibility. There is simply no evidence for it.
But in fact we know from the photographic evidence and workmen that the
crack got worse when they removed the windshield. And could have changed
while in storage. So the cracks are the same, but they may not APPEAR
identical when comparing 11/22/63 to later years.
Addendum 2009:
It is my contention, which I can prove experimentally, that there can not
be a bullet hole in a windshield without cracks although there can be
cracks without a hole. Fetzer et al claim a hole INSTEAD of cracks. This
alone invalidates their claim.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>> Thompson, titled:
>>
>> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
> Excellent article, Barb!
>
> Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos), the article seems
You would think they could have spelled Hunt's first name correctly! There
are only a couple of minor problems with the article. I was very pleased
to see the nice blow-up of the Parkland photo which shows not only the
cracked windshield, but also the dent in the chrome topping. Now, can
Fetzer et al argue that there was a windshield switch between Dealey Plaza
and Parkland??
> solid to the core. It would be a worthy addition to .John's site
> methinks. Now we will wait for reasonable rebuttals (if any are
> forthcoming).
>
Can someone please make it into a PDF also?
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
>
>>
>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=82475&mesg_id=82475&page=
>>
>> ALSO:
>>
>> Here is the footnote that belongs at the end of this section:
>>
>> "4. Witness Reports: From Parkland Hospital to the White House
>> garage."
>>
>> (For some reason, it refuses to copy and paste with the rest of the
>> article...sigh):
>>
>> "In addition to these witnesses, a U.S. Park policeman, Nick Principe,
>> claimed thirty-five years later to have seen the windshield at the
>> White House garage that night. Principe became both a friend and a
>> witness to some members of Rich DellaRosa?s jfkresearch group about
>> ten years ago. He told them that he had been on duty that night at a
>> command post near the White House on the night of the assassination.
>> He said that he had spoken to Secret Service agent William Greer on
>> the White House grounds shortly after the family returned from Dallas
>> that night and that Greer had told him they had been shot at from all
>> directions. Principe said he had heard motorcycle escort
>> transmissions about the limousine being brought to the White House
>> garage and had gone there himself. He said he lifted a tarp and saw a
>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield.
>> Principe?s claim has little probative significance not
>> only because it was first made thirty-five years after the event but
>> also because his claimed conversation with Greer could not have
>> occurred. Principe could not have talked to Greer that night since
>> Greer accompanied the body to Bethesda Hospital and stayed at Bethesda
>> throughout the autopsy and morticians? preparation, driving JFK?s body
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>>Thompson, titled:
>>
>>"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
>Excellent article, Barb!
Thanks, Peter ....
>
>Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos),
Where? (Aside from the name under the HSCA vs FBI photos where John
mistyped his own name as "Joh" ... which had any of us noticed, we
could have asked him to fix it. It's part of the graphic. Sigh.
> the article seems
>solid to the core. It would be a worthy addition to .John's site
>methinks. Now we will wait for reasonable rebuttals (if any are
>forthcoming).
:-)
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 7/5/2009 12:22 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>>> Thompson, titled:
>>>
>>> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>>
>> Excellent article, Barb!
>>
>> Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos), the article seems
>
>You would think they could have spelled Hunt's first name correctly!
One would think we could have noticed that John had mistyped his own
name in the graphic ... it's part of the graphic, and no one noticed,
then were were dealing with a url and not the pic ... sigh.
> There
>are only a couple of minor problems with the article. I was very pleased
>to see the nice blow-up of the Parkland photo which shows not only the
>cracked windshield, but also the dent in the chrome topping. Now, can
>Fetzer et al argue that there was a windshield switch between Dealey Plaza
>and Parkland??
Give 'em just a few minutes. :-)
>
>> solid to the core. It would be a worthy addition to .John's site
>> methinks. Now we will wait for reasonable rebuttals (if any are
>> forthcoming).
>>
>
>Can someone please make it into a PDF also?
Maybe. Why?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Great! I can't very well begrudge you a vacation now can I? <g>
Barb :-)
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:22:21 -0400, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>>>Thompson, titled:
>>>
>>>"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>>
>>Excellent article, Barb!
>
>Thanks, Peter ....
>>
>>Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos),
>
>Where?
Read these two sentences from the article:
"In Dealey Plaze, he was shooting at 1/1000th of a second at f11. His
shots are perhaps the highest resolution still photos taken in Dealey
Plaza."
Can you spot the error? The word appears twice but is misspelled
once.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:13:48 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:22:21 -0400, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>>>>Thompson, titled:
>>>>
>>>>"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>>>
>>>Excellent article, Barb!
>>
>>Thanks, Peter ....
>>>
>>>Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos),
>>
>>Where?
>
>Read these two sentences from the article:
>
>
>"In Dealey Plaze, he was shooting at 1/1000th of a second at f11. His
>shots are perhaps the highest resolution still photos taken in Dealey
>Plaza."
>
>Can you spot the error? The word appears twice but is misspelled
>once.
And here is another (although perhaps you have simply quoted the exact
spelling .... ah, misspelling from Pamela's site :-) )
<quote on>
"On Pamela McElwain-Brown�s web site, she is described as a �nursing
student at Parkland Hospita.�
<quote off>
Hospita?
Regards ... again
PF
Dave Yandell
> On 7/5/2009 2:28 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
> >> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
> >> Thompson, titled:
>
> >> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
>
> > ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?
> > Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan, Josiah Thompson
I look forward to reading Barb's article very much.
Tony's work on this is clearly first-rate and worthy of careful study.
Leaving aside the issue of which shot from the TSBD hit what when (I'm
not confident on this issue), the points about the laminated glass,
the back of the rearview mirror, etc., are highly important (even
decisive) against the already very weak and speculative "a guy who
didn't see it remembered after 35 years what the windshield had looked
like and told me there was a bullet hole with beveling showing which
direction it was hit from" case (I'm paraphrasing liberally) Della
Rossa was defending on behalf of Fetzer's people here recently.
With Barb's article, too, maybe the community can put to rest the
weird windshield-related arguments among those of whatever view who
want to follow the evidence!
(Obviously, those who believe that ALL photographic and physical
evidence has been replaced or altered won't be convinced, just like
people who refuse to believe there were dinosaurs can make up lunatic
theories about fossils being fake.)
Best,
Dave
Dave Yandell
wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:28:50 -0500, John McAdams
>
>
>
>
>
> <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
> ><barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
> >>Thompson, titled:
>
> >>"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
>
> >>Aside to John ... you are welcome to add this to your site if you
> >>would like.
>
> >Thanks!
>
> >I indeed would love to add it to my site.
>
> >I'm afraid I've been very busy lately (this past week it's been a
> >family vacation that was great, but no JFK stuff got done). But by
> >all means I'll use it -- and another one you are familiar with.
>
> Great! I can't very well begrudge you a vacation now can I? <g>
>
> Barb :-)
Barb:
The article you put together with Logan and Thompson is *excellent*. I
was saddened but unsurprised to see that my guess that some would
refuse to be persuaded has already been borne out at JFK Lancer.
Thanks for the careful work. Your comments on evidence and avoiding
myth-creation at the beginning should flash in giant red letters on
everyone's computer monitors whenever they start to write about JFK's
assassination (from any side of the issue).
Best,
Dave
Anthony Marsh
In fairness to Sarah Palin I need to point out that the kooks do not deny
that dinosaurs existed. They just claim that they lived at the same time
as humans. Sarah saw the human footprints next to the dinosaur footprints
as if they were hunting it. So humans hunted the dinosaurs to extinction
just as they have many other species.
And BTW some fossils are fakes. There is lots of money to be made selling
fakes on the black market. Also look up Piltdown Man.
In regards to the JFK photographic evidence we do have a couple of
examples of fakery and tampering.
> Best,
> Dave
>
Anthony Marsh
> On 5 Jul 2009 21:20:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/2009 12:22 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>>> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>>>> Thompson, titled:
>>>>
>>>> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>>>
>>> Excellent article, Barb!
>>>
>>> Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos), the article seems
>>
>> You would think they could have spelled Hunt's first name correctly!
>
> One would think we could have noticed that John had mistyped his own
> name in the graphic ... it's part of the graphic, and no one noticed,
> then were were dealing with a url and not the pic ... sigh.
>
Oh, so now John made the mistake?
And no one noticed?
Proofreading is a lost art. Obviously a spell checker would not catch
errors in graphics. You did remember to use a spell checker, didn't you?
>> There
>> are only a couple of minor problems with the article. I was very pleased
>> to see the nice blow-up of the Parkland photo which shows not only the
>> cracked windshield, but also the dent in the chrome topping. Now, can
>> Fetzer et al argue that there was a windshield switch between Dealey Plaza
>> and Parkland??
>
> Give 'em just a few minutes. :-)
>>
>>> solid to the core. It would be a worthy addition to .John's site
>>> methinks. Now we will wait for reasonable rebuttals (if any are
>>> forthcoming).
>>>
>>
>> Can someone please make it into a PDF also?
>
> Maybe. Why?
>
1. It assures that all files are kept in one neat package.
2. Some people are able to add comments or notations with a PDF.
3. The text is searchable.
4. It may be faster to download just one file rather than many. Reduced
overhead.
BTW, for the original article I would recommend adding comments to the
photographs via MOUSEOVER.
http://www.web-source.net/html_mouseover_text.htm
PS. Any chance you will send me a negative of the Parkland photo? You
know it shows the dent of the chrome topping.
Dave Yandell
Tony:
You're right about many Young Earthers, but there is (was?) also a school
of them who hold that the dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to test
our faith (our faith in Bishop Ussher's calculating ability, I guess).
Piltdown Man is one of the all-time remarkable hoaxes.
I also once had the pleasure of attending an interdisciplinary science/
philosophy/religion conference at which, in between papers by luminaries
in several disciplines, I was seated next to two gentlemen discussing how
to best use the $250,000 someone had paid them to "prove that radiocarbon
dating is a fraud" in the interest of promoting a Young Earth view. They'd
have lots of supporters on the Ed Forum if they weren't on the
"undesirable" end of the religious spectrum.
At any rate, sure sometimes there are fake fossils, films, and photos,
but, as you know, there are some folks who rely on *everything* being
faked so that their theories aren't constrained by evidence. Like you, and
some others on several sides of the assassination debate, I just want
better evidence that something is faked than that it doesn't fit someone's
theory.
Best,
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
Thank you very much, Dave. The response on the Ed Forum has been even
more fascinating ... a cacophony of shrieks about everything but the
evidence presented .... umbrella man, the back wound, two Oswalds, the
throat wound, the Sixth Floor Museum, Gary Mack ... bizarre. Doesn't
speak well about the mindset of what is supposed to be a "research
community" imo. What does any of that have to do with whether or not
there was a through and through hole in the windshield?!
THe article carries "Eternal Return" in the title because this is one
of those topics that has been covered in some fashion over and over
through the years, yet still comes around on the conveyor belt with no
real progress made. Even a couple of people from this forum have
addressed it ...Tony Marsh presented on it as far back as 1995, and
from snippets he has posted here in the last couple of days, he did it
well. Pamela addresses it on her website but rather loosely and
unfortunately with no sources for some of her statements. Weldon
addressed it. And it has been the subject of countless debates on many
forums. MOST repeating the Taylor quote as printed by Lifton in BE,
who mistakenly thought Taylor was giving a first person account from
having been present at the FBI exam in the wee hours of November 23rd.
Now we know different, and we presented that.
The whole point was to present that new information along with all the
old information and witnesses regularly dragged into discussions and
have it all together in one piece.
Never mind that Ellis placed the "hole" he saw at the ***bottom*** of
the windshield, he is still being mentioned as one who proves there
was a hole through the windshield on the Ed Forum Go figure.<g>
Thanks again ... nice to see a few voices of reason in the turbulent
sea.<g>
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 7/6/2009 12:16 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2009 21:20:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/5/2009 12:22 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>>>> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>>>>> Thompson, titled:
>>>>>
>>>>> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>>>>
>>>> Excellent article, Barb!
>>>>
>>>> Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos), the article seems
>>>
>>> You would think they could have spelled Hunt's first name correctly!
>>
>> One would think we could have noticed that John had mistyped his own
>> name in the graphic ... it's part of the graphic, and no one noticed,
>> then were were dealing with a url and not the pic ... sigh.
>>
>
>Oh, so now John made the mistake?
On that, yes.
>And no one noticed?
Apparently not.
>Proofreading is a lost art. Obviously a spell checker would not catch
>errors in graphics. You did remember to use a spell checker, didn't you?
A couple of spelling errors. Get over it. Not good and I deplore them.
I did the best I can with my troubled eyes, two others did as well ...
a couple of things got missed.
Let's make a big freakin' deal out of it, shall we?
>
>
>>> There
>>> are only a couple of minor problems with the article. I was very pleased
>>> to see the nice blow-up of the Parkland photo which shows not only the
>>> cracked windshield, but also the dent in the chrome topping. Now, can
>>> Fetzer et al argue that there was a windshield switch between Dealey Plaza
>>> and Parkland??
>>
>> Give 'em just a few minutes. :-)
>>>
>>>> solid to the core. It would be a worthy addition to .John's site
>>>> methinks. Now we will wait for reasonable rebuttals (if any are
>>>> forthcoming).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can someone please make it into a PDF also?
>>
>> Maybe. Why?
>>
>
>1. It assures that all files are kept in one neat package.
>2. Some people are able to add comments or notations with a PDF.
>3. The text is searchable.
>4. It may be faster to download just one file rather than many. Reduced
>overhead.
>
>
>BTW, for the original article I would recommend adding comments to the
>photographs via MOUSEOVER.
>
>http://www.web-source.net/html_mouseover_text.htm
The article is up on two different forums where it will remain. If you
want to have it in another form for some reason or add mouseover
comments, I suggest you email the three of us about that. I don't know
that we need to do any of that. John may be interested in that for his
site, where it will also reside. Include him if you want to pursue it.
>
>
>PS. Any chance you will send me a negative of the Parkland photo? You
>know it shows the dent of the chrome topping.
I don't have a negative for the photo. I don't know anyone who does.
Yes, having pics that show no dent at Love Field and a dent at
Parkland is important.
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
Ya, no big deal, Barb.
Excellent article!
PF
Anthony Marsh
You may have heard that there have been problems in the past with
radiocarbon dating. But that usually was an error of a few million years
out of several million years. Let me give you a couple of examples where
radiocarbon dating may have given false results.
When they tested the Shroud of Turin they got dates in the range of 1260
to 1390, but they may have been testing the area of the cloth which had
been patched after the fire of 1532.
I have read somewhere that the scientists in Rhodesia simply lied about
their radiocarbon dating results for the Great Zimbabwe to make it
appear that they were built by 16th century explorers rather than being
native built before 1,000 A.D.
> At any rate, sure sometimes there are fake fossils, films, and photos,
> but, as you know, there are some folks who rely on *everything* being
> faked so that their theories aren't constrained by evidence. Like you, and
> some others on several sides of the assassination debate, I just want
> better evidence that something is faked than that it doesn't fit someone's
> theory.
>
And I know instantly that someone is a kook when I mention several
pieces of evidence and they never complain about those being fake, but
when I mention a specific piece of evidence which destroys their wacky
theory they suddenly claim that it is fake.
> Best,
> Dave
>
>
pamela
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
> >> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
> >> Thompson, titled:
>
> >> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
>
> read more »
Anthony,
If I remember correctly, the dark stain on the windshield was oil or
some auto liquid,. not blood. It was cleaned off the windshield.
This 'new' article is simply an appeal to authority and lacks
persuasiveness as a result. In addition, they fail to acknowledge
that they are beating a dead horse that you debunked years ago.
Anthony Marsh
No, I am not suggesting that I add comments. I am saying that whoever
wrote the HTML should have and still should consider using MOUSEOVER to
add comments identifying each photo. Maybe my suggestion just seems
strange because you had never even heard of MOUSEOVER before. Maybe that's
why I mentioned it, because it was obvious to me that none of the photos
used MOUSEOVER when clearly that would help.
I'm not even going to suggest that the photos should be in a format which
allows tags or embedded text. That would totally confuse you.
> that we need to do any of that. John may be interested in that for his
> site, where it will also reside. Include him if you want to pursue it.
McAdams? I don't think he handles the HTML.
>>
>>
>> PS. Any chance you will send me a negative of the Parkland photo? You
>> know it shows the dent of the chrome topping.
>
> I don't have a negative for the photo. I don't know anyone who does.
> Yes, having pics that show no dent at Love Field and a dent at
> Parkland is important.
To me personally it is the Rosetta Stone of the JFK assassination. Can you
guess what my license plate number is?
Anthony Marsh
My question is which wacky conspiracy theories rely on a hole through
the windshield and why? Why does it seem necessary to some people?
> THe article carries "Eternal Return" in the title because this is one
> of those topics that has been covered in some fashion over and over
> through the years, yet still comes around on the conveyor belt with no
> real progress made. Even a couple of people from this forum have
> addressed it ...Tony Marsh presented on it as far back as 1995, and
> from snippets he has posted here in the last couple of days, he did it
> well. Pamela addresses it on her website but rather loosely and
> unfortunately with no sources for some of her statements. Weldon
> addressed it. And it has been the subject of countless debates on many
> forums. MOST repeating the Taylor quote as printed by Lifton in BE,
> who mistakenly thought Taylor was giving a first person account from
> having been present at the FBI exam in the wee hours of November 23rd.
> Now we know different, and we presented that.
>
Again, it is always important to debunk little tidbits like that, even
if it is many years later.
> The whole point was to present that new information along with all the
> old information and witnesses regularly dragged into discussions and
> have it all together in one piece.
>
> Never mind that Ellis placed the "hole" he saw at the ***bottom*** of
> the windshield, he is still being mentioned as one who proves there
> was a hole through the windshield on the Ed Forum Go figure.<g>
>
> Thanks again ... nice to see a few voices of reason in the turbulent
> sea.<g>
>
I don't even mind seeing them from the WC defender side when they stick
to the facts.
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
>>
pamela
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:22:39 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
>
>
> <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 6 Jul 2009 19:54:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>On 7/6/2009 12:16 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >>> On 5 Jul 2009 21:20:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>> On 7/5/2009 12:22 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
> >>>>> <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
> >>>>>> Thompson, titled:
>
> >>>>>> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
> >>>>> Excellent article, Barb!
>
> >>>>> Except for a few spelling mistakes (or typos), the article seems
>
> >>>> You would think they could have spelled Hunt's first name correctly!
>
> >>> One would think we could have noticed that John had mistyped his own
> >>> name in the graphic ... it's part of the graphic, and no one noticed,
> >>> then were were dealing with a url and not the pic ... sigh.
>
> >>Oh, so now John made the mistake?
>
> >On that, yes.
>
> >>And no one noticed?
>
> >Apparently not.
>
> >>Proofreading is a lost art. Obviously a spell checker would not catch
> >>errors in graphics. You did remember to use a spell checker, didn't you?
>
> >A couple of spelling errors. Get over it. Not good and I deplore them.
> >I did the best I can with my troubled eyes, two others did as well ...
> >a couple of things got missed.
>
> Ya, no big deal, Barb.
>
> Excellent article!
>
> PF
>
For the most part, this is a rehash of work that Anthony did and I
followed up on about 10 years ago. It might fly in a LN environment such
as this, where people are used to being told what to think, but backfires
in actual CT environments because of the appeal to authority stance and
their snobby dismissal of the limo witnesses.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I have no idea why some think there HAS to have been a hole through
the windshield (and from the front) to preserve conspiracy. It's
nonsense. A throat entrance and umbrella man seem to be two driving
forces behind this mindset of some. Go figure.
>
>> THe article carries "Eternal Return" in the title because this is one
>> of those topics that has been covered in some fashion over and over
>> through the years, yet still comes around on the conveyor belt with no
>> real progress made. Even a couple of people from this forum have
>> addressed it ...Tony Marsh presented on it as far back as 1995, and
>> from snippets he has posted here in the last couple of days, he did it
>> well. Pamela addresses it on her website but rather loosely and
>> unfortunately with no sources for some of her statements. Weldon
>> addressed it. And it has been the subject of countless debates on many
>> forums. MOST repeating the Taylor quote as printed by Lifton in BE,
>> who mistakenly thought Taylor was giving a first person account from
>> having been present at the FBI exam in the wee hours of November 23rd.
>> Now we know different, and we presented that.
>>
>
>Again, it is always important to debunk little tidbits like that, even
>if it is many years later.
Yes it is. The more things we can support or debunk with information
the better ... at least to those interested in as accurate a record as
possible. Sacred cows seem more important to some.
>
>> The whole point was to present that new information along with all the
>> old information and witnesses regularly dragged into discussions and
>> have it all together in one piece.
>>
>> Never mind that Ellis placed the "hole" he saw at the ***bottom*** of
>> the windshield, he is still being mentioned as one who proves there
>> was a hole through the windshield on the Ed Forum Go figure.<g>
>>
>> Thanks again ... nice to see a few voices of reason in the turbulent
>> sea.<g>
>>
>
>I don't even mind seeing them from the WC defender side when they stick
>to the facts.
Sigh.
>
>> Bests,
>> Barb :-)
>>>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
ppppfffftttt. You're a riot.
You seem to just "not get" a lot that goes on, for some reason. There
is no "rehash" of Taylor not being at the limo exam. A long ago error,
carried forth for decades by those "free thinkers" who just latch onto
a quote and run with it without checking the entire document out for
themselves, let alone doing any research on it. New information and
documents were presented. And it put what is known about the evidence
regarding a hole in the windshield in one place. If you had done a
good job 10 years ago, it wouldn't have been necessary, now would it?
:-)
Did you see Martin's comment earlier today about those who do no
research but just carp at others??? :-)))
pamela
Anthony,
While it seems it was actually one of Fetzer's other acolytes who came up
with the 'spiral nebulae' idea, it is only Weldon whose theory requires
it. Weldon is published in one of Fetzer's books, so Fetzer has no choice
but to be enraged by any suggestion that there was no 'spiral nebulae' in
the first place or he has to acknowledge that his book has at least one
bogus chapter.
Anthony Marsh
But The Umbrella Man would be firing a gas driven flechette from the side,
not through the windshield.
A hole in the windshield does not line up well for a throat entrance wound
as we can see from the Altgens photo. There is no good shooting location
to produce such a trajectory.
Anthony Marsh
A friend told me that on a morning talk show at the time they were
moving the windshield from the old building to the new building it was
discussed and explained as debris from a water leak which dripped down.
I did not see that show and could not find any write-up on it.
I can accept that explanation. I believe it is still there. I was denied
a chance to examine it myself.
> This 'new' article is simply an appeal to authority and lacks
> persuasiveness as a result. In addition, they fail to acknowledge
> that they are beating a dead horse that you debunked years ago.
>
Some dead horse seem to need to be beaten repeatedly as newbies keep
recycling old myths. I did not complain about their bringing it up again
and they did find one new photograph that I had been looking for a long
time.
curtjester1
> On 7/5/2009 2:28 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:45:16 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
> >> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
> >> Thompson, titled:
>
> >> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
addressed by Doug Weldon who has a complete chapter in Murder In
Dealey Plaza. Photographs, timelines, and many more witness
testimonies are considered.
There is also damage to the windshield at Zapruder 225 (Great Zapruder
Film Hoax pg. 21). Now that would be one magical bullet.
CJ
Rudy Lasparri
<718a204f-3992-4f3a...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
pamela <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote:
The spiral nebulae pre-dates Fetzer's entry into JFK research. It was
Groden who named it that decades ago.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Thank you, Anthony. The whole Eternal Return thing was lost on Pamela.
Indeed, we noted the very reason for the article was because it is
something that keeps coming up again and again ... and had recently.
But now we had new documents, never seen before ...and, as you note,
additional pics.
Most see the need for, and appreciate, having all that is now known
put in one piece and available ... especially with new info.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Damage at 225???
Are you sure you don't mean 255 ... Altgen's 6? That's the claim that
was addressed in the essay.
Barb :-)
>
>CJ
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Whatever he would have been firing, agreed ... it wouldn't have come
through the windshield.
>
>A hole in the windshield does not line up well for a throat entrance wound
>as we can see from the Altgens photo. There is no good shooting location
>to produce such a trajectory.
Exactly.
Gee, Anthony ... we agree on some things. ;-)
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
Congratulations, Barb and friends. Lots of good research in this
article, although to fully appreciate it, one should read some of the
bizarre reactions at another forum:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=fc6deb6ab22f0c0e5705196d53337d9d&showtopic=14532
One criticism: John Hunt's comparison diagram is very uselul, but it
seems apparent to me that he has item #6 mislocated in the photo on
the right.
Dave
On Jul 4, 9:45 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
> Thompson, titled:
>
> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>
> ALSO:
>
> Here is the footnote that belongs at the end of this section:
>
> "4. Witness Reports: From Parkland Hospital to the White House
> garage."
>
> (For some reason, it refuses to copy and paste with the rest of the
> article...sigh):
>
> "In addition to these witnesses, a U.S. Park policeman, Nick Principe,
> claimed thirty-five years later to have seen the windshield at the
> White House garage that night. Principe became both a friend and a
> witness to some members of Rich DellaRosa’s jfkresearch group about
> ten years ago. He told them that he had been on duty that night at a
> command post near the White House on the night of the assassination.
> He said that he had spoken to Secret Service agent William Greer on
> the White House grounds shortly after the family returned from Dallas
> that night and that Greer had told him they had been shot at from all
> directions. Principe said he had heard motorcycle escort
> transmissions about the limousine being brought to the White House
> garage and had gone there himself. He said he lifted a tarp and saw a
> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield.
> Principe’s claim has little probative significance not
> only because it was first made thirty-five years after the event but
> also because his claimed conversation with Greer could not have
> occurred. Principe could not have talked to Greer that night since
> Greer accompanied the body to Bethesda Hospital and stayed at Bethesda
> throughout the autopsy and morticians’ preparation, driving JFK’s body
> home to the White House for the last time after 3:30 AM on Saturday,
> November 23, 1963."
>
> Aside to John ... you are welcome to add this to your site if you
> would like.
>
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> Congratulations, Barb and friends. Lots of good research in this
> article, although to fully appreciate it, one should read some of the
> bizarre reactions at another forum:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=fc6deb6ab22f0c0e5705196d53337d9d&showtopic=14532
>
Thanks for the link. I wanted to add a few corrections over there, but
they do not accept new members. So I'll put them here and anyone
interested enough can cut and paste them for me.
Josiah Thompson wrote:
Since Frazier described a lead smear being removed from the interior
surface of the windshield, it is clear that the hit on the windshield came
from the rear was either from a totally lead bullet or a fragment from a
military jacketed round. Since a lead bullet hitting the interior surface
of the windshield would have penetrated it, we can be pretty sure we are
dealing with a fragment hit. As we all remember, two large fragments from
an M-C 6.5 mm bullet (firearms IDed as having been fired in Oswald's
rifle) were found in the front seat of the limousine. In all probability,
then, the windshield hit probably was incurred by one of those fragments.
________________________
I disagree. One of the fragments was the intact nose portion and I think
that would have left copper and not lead. And it seems more likely from
the appearance of the dent of the chrome topping that it was hit by the
rounded tip of the larger fragment. I do not think it was a direct hit,
but others do. I do not agree with Frazier's guess that a direct hit would
have torn through the chrome strip.
The other large fragment was only the copper jacket, so it could not be
what hit the windshield unless the lead core was sticking way out and then
squeezed out by the impact. But the front edge of the jacket on that
fragment is bent inwards so I think that rules out such a scenario. It
appears more likely to me that the bullet hit something else first and
broke into several pieces and in the process squeezed the lead core out of
the base. I believe it was this lead core from the base which then
ricocheted into the windshield, then off the back of the rearview mirror
and into the defroster vent.
Josiah Thompson also wrote:
Then we published for the first time Frazier's notes when he examined
the windshield starting a little after 1:00 AM on the morning of
November 23rd.
_________________
First time? I have been posting those notes in the newsgroups for
several years.
> One criticism: John Hunt's comparison diagram is very uselul, but it
> seems apparent to me that he has item #6 mislocated in the photo on
> the right.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Jul 4, 9:45 pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Here is a link to a new article by myself, Jerry Logan and Josiah
>> Thompson, titled:
>>
>> "ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?"
>>
>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>>
>> ALSO:
>>
>> Here is the footnote that belongs at the end of this section:
>>
>> "4. Witness Reports: From Parkland Hospital to the White House
>> garage."
>>
>> (For some reason, it refuses to copy and paste with the rest of the
>> article...sigh):
>>
>> "In addition to these witnesses, a U.S. Park policeman, Nick Principe,
>> claimed thirty-five years later to have seen the windshield at the
>> White House garage that night. Principe became both a friend and a
>> witness to some members of Rich DellaRosa?s jfkresearch group about
>> ten years ago. He told them that he had been on duty that night at a
>> command post near the White House on the night of the assassination.
>> He said that he had spoken to Secret Service agent William Greer on
>> the White House grounds shortly after the family returned from Dallas
>> that night and that Greer had told him they had been shot at from all
>> directions. Principe said he had heard motorcycle escort
>> transmissions about the limousine being brought to the White House
>> garage and had gone there himself. He said he lifted a tarp and saw a
>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield.
>> Principe?s claim has little probative significance not
>> only because it was first made thirty-five years after the event but
>> also because his claimed conversation with Greer could not have
>> occurred. Principe could not have talked to Greer that night since
>> Greer accompanied the body to Bethesda Hospital and stayed at Bethesda
>> throughout the autopsy and morticians? preparation, driving JFK?s body
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
And where would that be? I've had the diagram for years .... the other
pages of notes were nowhere that we could find ... John Hunt had them
from one of his trips to the Archives ... from the FBI Bulky files ...
and sent them to me along with a couple other things.
Anthony Marsh
Oh my, here we go again with the personal attacks. My articles have been
online for many years and the presentations came from the 1992-1995 time
frame. As I said in one of the presentations I had found the documents
when I saw the FBI bulky files in 1994 during one of the conferences. You
have anything pre-1994? No, I didn't think so. John Hunt is well aware of
my having these files because I showed them to him and he did not have
them and complained about the poor quality of the copy machine I used.
Hell, he even accused me of deliberately chopping off the right edge of
the documents, not realizing that it's a defect of that particular model
of Xerox copiers.
So, you wanna try again with some other type of personal attack? Ask John
Hunt what he was doing in 1994.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I didn't make any sort of attack, Anthony. And no need for you to
commence peeing on fire hydrants. Sigh. I told you what we found
omline, what we didn't ... and where we got what we posted. Don't get
your shorts in a bunch.
pamela
> On 7/13/2009 9:32 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Jul 2009 19:14:51 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> On 7/10/2009 12:09 PM, dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
> >>> TOP POST
>
> >>> Congratulations, Barb and friends. Lots of good research in this
> >>> article, although to fully appreciate it, one should read some of the
> >>> bizarre reactions at another forum:
>
It's really bizarre that everyone connected with this piece seems to
be blanking out over a decade of presented information and trying to
claim they have come up with something 'new' instead of just
'appropriated'. As the information has been in the public domain for
such a long time it it on the one hand good to see people picking it
up and running with it; but trying to do more than that can only cause
everyone to ask what they hope to accomplish.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
As usual, you just don't get it. The new information is the Taylor
affidavit. No one is forgetting anything ... what some of us know in
the present is that the issue of a hole in the windshield is one of
those things that keeps coming up, a mixed bag of rather changing
claims about witnesses and a constantly quoted Taylor report as if
Taylor was actually at the FBI exam. He wasn't. And that has now been
shown. What led to this was the issue coming up once again a couple
months ago on the yahoo group, with, predictably, Taylor being cited.
This isn't for your benefit, Pam, becuae you will never get it, you
don't want to get it, you just have to have something I am involved
with to carp about. Your agenda is quite transparent ... and fickle.
The limo is your topic for heaven's sake ... and that Tayalor afidavit
has been sitting at the Archives for years. Too bad in all your
extensive "research" on the limo, you never bothered to really get to
the bottom of what you wrote on a surface level about ... and even
then you didn't call a spade a spade, and you didn't cite sources for
all the statements you make on your website.
And talk about appropriating and running with other people's work ...
you have a faux pas on your site claiming Glanges was a nursing
student. Weldon says she was a medical student ... yet somehow you now
blame him for your error. Do some actual research ... about 5 minutes
on google and you can find where she went to school, when, and the
roles she played along the way in her career ... and it would be clear
she was no nursing student in 1963.
You're a fine one to whine about anyone else's motives or research.
Anthony Marsh
I don't mind John Hunt making his own scans of the documents at the
National Archives. Just ask him on which exact day he did so. I don't
think it was in 1994. I know John Hunt. I did some research with him. I
like him. My only complaint about him personally is when he does not
understand the evidence and interjects his own speculation, like the Dox
drawing of the head wound. Ask him where he got his map of Dealey Plaza.
But I will always object to Barb trying to score points with the WC
defenders by making personal attacks against you, me, Martin and the other
conspiracy researchers by misstating facts. Why do you think McAdams
selected her as a moderator?
Anthony Marsh
Yeah right. You personally attack me by making false claims about my
research. So why don't you ask John Hunt WHEN he scanned in those limo
exam documents at College Park. I don't think it was in 1994. Then be
honest and post his answer here for all to see.
pamela
Thank you, Anthony. The ad hominem attacks have been distracting; guess
that is the point of them. So much research has been blocked on this
forum as a result. McAdams definitely knew what he was doing in finding
someone who would shmooze all the newbies and then turn around and try to
take potshots at anyone moving things forward. Of course, all roads on
aaj are supposed to lead back to the WCR, and anyone opening doors instead
of shutting them is a threat.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Post the URL's to all the limo exam docs you have on your site.
This isn't a turf war, Anthony. If you had those same diagrams before,
it's a shame no one could find them on the net. John Hunt had them and
sent them to me.
Now ... the url's?
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Big of you to not mind someone else using the Archives and copying
documents, Tony.
I made no attack of any sort against you. In fact, in one of these
posts I COMPLIMENTED you on the limo work you had done.
Your nit seems to be who copied them first. Again, this isn't a turf
war. The point is that we were not able to find these handwritten
notes and drawings (except for the limo diagram which has been around
for years (perhaps thanks to you, I don't know) ... but John Hunt had
them and sent them to us.
NOW Pam claims they have been available on the net for years ... on
her site and that you had them too. They don't seem to be ANYwhere on
Pam's site ... and where are they on YOURS?
Since you guys seem to think this is some big freakin' deal, post the
urls to all of those documents on your sites.
Veddy simple, veddy easy.
Again, we could not find those docs (except the one limo exam doc
which I already had) anywhere online. If we had found them on one of
your sites, we certainly would have contacted you about copies. But we
got them from Hunt who copied them at the Archives....so that was
mentioned in the article. And he made them available to us to post
with our article.
Talk about missing the big picture and looking for a reason to pitch a
petty hissyfit. Anthony at least has expressed some positive comments
about the article and noted the need to resolve old nonsense. Pam just
does her usual whine and geez routine, poo-pooing it as long ago
handled bey her and you ... but she's also posted elsewehere that she
will be updating her website.
Good thing too ... she can get rid of Glanges being a nursing student,
and more importantly ... get rid of the nonsense about Taylor and Geis
having been AT the FBI limo exam! Did she come to that erroneous
conclusion from her own reading of the entire document ... or did she
just pick that up from Lifton et al and run with it?
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Anthony ... you have ONE limo worksheet on your site. It can be seen
here:
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/limoexam.gif
That is the one we already had ... I have had it for years, and the
copy in our article is clearly not the copy you made because ours
doesn't have the info in the upper right hand corner lopped off.
Where are the other drawings with notes Frazier made that you claim
you have pposted ... that Pamela claims have been on the net for years
...l including on your site and on hers?
There are NO limo exam drawings with noyes on Pam's website that I can
find. She has the FBI lab doc listing the evidence found with it's Q
numbers, that is all. She also has several photos taken in the WH
garage and the Taylor Report.
Her site is here:
The other hand drawn diagrams and notes that we received from John
Hunt and posted in our article are nowhere to be seen on either of
your sites as far as I can see.
You two are blowing petty smoke ... and sending up what appear to be
nothing but false smoke signals.
Why the crap?
The Taylor affidavit and information about it (Church Committee) is
completely new, the other limo exam drawings/notes do not appear to
have ever been posted anywhere else.
The salient point is that they are now out there for all.
The petty territorial pap doesn't speak very well about either of you,
in my opinion.
Anthony Marsh
> On 14 Jul 2009 18:53:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Anthony ... you have ONE limo worksheet on your site. It can be seen
> here:
>
Here we go again with the personal attacks.
I have more than just that one limo worksheet on my Web site. But of
course you never paid attention so you don't know how to find the others
which I have linked to here many times.
> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/limoexam.gif
>
> That is the one we already had ... I have had it for years, and the
Oh really? You claim that you already had that one in 1994? Again, ask
John Hunt WHEN he scanned them in.
> copy in our article is clearly not the copy you made because ours
> doesn't have the info in the upper right hand corner lopped off.
>
I didn't say YOUR copy was the same as mine. John Hunt by then had
access to a much better copier. I was limited as to which copier I could
use back in 1994. Of course you as a researcher probably know that
already from your MANY trips to College Park.
What I did say was mine and your used without acknowledgement was the
blow-up of the Frazier photo showing the cracks on the windshield. You
have never addressed that.
> Where are the other drawings with notes Frazier made that you claim
> you have pposted ... that Pamela claims have been on the net for years
> ...l including on your site and on hers?
>
> There are NO limo exam drawings with noyes on Pam's website that I can
> find. She has the FBI lab doc listing the evidence found with it's Q
> numbers, that is all. She also has several photos taken in the WH
> garage and the Taylor Report.
>
> Her site is here:
>
> http://in-broad-daylight.com/
>
> The other hand drawn diagrams and notes that we received from John
> Hunt and posted in our article are nowhere to be seen on either of
> your sites as far as I can see.
>
Of course not. They are newer scans. Jeesh, again ask John WHEN he made
his scans. Prove to me that YOU yourself personally copied these
documents before 1994.
> You two are blowing petty smoke ... and sending up what appear to be
> nothing but false smoke signals.
>
> Why the crap?
>
> The Taylor affidavit and information about it (Church Committee) is
> completely new, the other limo exam drawings/notes do not appear to
> have ever been posted anywhere else.
>
Yes, that Taylor affidavit is new and quite helpful, although the
Fetzerites have a trait of never believing evidence.
> The salient point is that they are now out there for all.
>
> The petty territorial pap doesn't speak very well about either of you,
> in my opinion.
>
Your blatant misrepresentations do not speak well about YOUR research
method.
John McAdams
I've paid a little (recently, very little) attention to this thread,
and I just don't see what Tony's beef is.
Of *course* people copy documents. And they send them to other people
who ask. That ought to be routine.
I actually sent three documents to Joan Mellen during the run-up to
her book. All sorts of people have sent me documents.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pamela
> On 7/15/2009 12:42 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
> > On 14 Jul 2009 18:53:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Lift, lift, lift? :-0
Barb Junkkarinen
Exactly, John. And Tony has always been very generous with his
documents. But he didn't have the new docs we included in our article.
Pam's charges that we somehow appropriated other people's work and
added nothing new ... she says the docs have been on hers and Tony's
sites for 10 years... are false.
Actually, the docs in question that Tink was talking about ... the
handwritten Frazier notes and drawinds (BESIDES the one known to have
been around for several years) and theTaylor affidavit were NOwhere on
the net until our article. Pam's claims are demonstrably incorrect,
but it seels to have incited Tony to think otherwise.
None of those docs are on either of their websites. As is typical,
both have been asked to post the urls to them on their sites ...
several times now ... and ignore, but still keep making the charges.
I think one big beef for both of them is that the Frazier handwritten
stuff we got from John Hunt. They were part of quite a battle
discussion that involved Hunt re FBI evidence a few years ago ... and
have been bitter ever since. Te 55 pages of Church Committee docs ...
Lifton correspondence that set them off on investigating the Taylor
report and getting the affidavit. David read the report all those
years ago as Taylor having been present at the FBI exam ... a thorough
reading and you know otherwise. But he published that in Best Evidence
and some people picked it up and ran with it, repeating it, ever BE
came out in 1980.
Pam even states that Taylor was present at the wee hours FBI exam of
the limo on her website.
Pamela has NO handwritten Frazier notes or diagrams on her website.
Period. Not as of as late as last night anyway. :-) Anthony's site has
the one diagram that has been around for years ... possibly because
Tony copied it at the Archives in 1994 and made it available. My copy
came to me from John Hunt as far as I know ... Tony's copy has
information in the upper right corner lopped off ... the copy I had,
that we put in the article, does not. It doesn't matter ... it is not
what Tink was referring to about new never been published before docs
in our article. Pamela has been stirring the pot ever since. Hard to
figure why given that the docs in question don't exist on either of
their sites as she continues to claim. How obviously bizarre is that!
As I have said here and elsewhere ... this is so petty, there is no
turf war, and the salient point is that now a couple of long mistaken
notions have been resolved ... and all of these docs are now out and
available to all.
IF someone already had these docs out, we wanted to know it so we
could include that info in our article. They we NOwhere on line that
we could find. And still cannot.
This trumped up personal grudge stink by Pamela should have blown over
long before now ... sigh.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 7/15/2009 12:42 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> On 14 Jul 2009 18:53:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Anthony ... you have ONE limo worksheet on your site. It can be seen
>> here:
>>
Anthony,
This is my last response to you on this matter.
>Here we go again with the personal attacks.
I have not made any personal attack on you.
You have been attacking me quite personally for days.
>I have more than just that one limo worksheet on my Web site. But of
>course you never paid attention so you don't know how to find the others
>which I have linked to here many times.
If you have docs on your site that no one can find, that is your
problem, Tony.
As late as last night, the only limo worksheet on your webite is the
one I provided the link to below.
>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/limoexam.gif
This is the limo diagram we already had ... I already had it. I have
had it for several years, John Hunt is who sent it to me how ever many
years ago he copied it at the Archives. I have posted it in
discussions before, I believe he has as well.
And that diagram is NOT ... got that? ... NOT one that Tink referred
to as new never published on the net before info that we published in
our article.
THAT diagram is not at issue here.
>>
>> That is the one we already had ... I have had it for years, and the
>
>Oh really? You claim that you already had that one in 1994?
No, I didn't say that.
> Again, ask
>John Hunt WHEN he scanned them in.
It was just a few years ago ... and I don't care what year it was ...
it doesn't matter. Because, again, that document is not the issue
here. We already had it, and it has been published on the net before
... in discussions, and apparently on your site. You may be the first
one to have copied it and presented it ... if so, good for you. But
AGAIN ... THAT doc is NOT at issue here. It had been out and available
and in the hands of many for years.
The docs at issue are the OTHER ADDITIONAL handwritten diagrams and
notes Frazier made ... and the Taylor affidavit. Those did not come
from anywhere online ... we hunted, we looked ... AGAIN ... they are
nowhere online that we could find.
>
>> copy in our article is clearly not the copy you made because ours
>> doesn't have the info in the upper right hand corner lopped off.
>>
>
>
>I didn't say YOUR copy was the same as mine. John Hunt by then had
>access to a much better copier. I was limited as to which copier I could
>use back in 1994. Of course you as a researcher probably know that
>already from your MANY trips to College Park.
I never had any prob with the copiers I used on any of my trips to the
Archives. Hunt didn't use the copiers at the Archives.
>
>
>What I did say was mine and your used without acknowledgement was the
>blow-up of the Frazier photo showing the cracks on the windshield. You
>have never addressed that.
I don't know anything about that ... or where Tink or Jerry (I'm not
sure who) found those pics. You should take that up with one of them.
If you were due credit for some work you did ... then it was because
we did not know, it certainly was not a purposeful slight. And we
would be happy to give you mention if that is the case.
>
>> Where are the other drawings with notes Frazier made that you claim
>> you have pposted ... that Pamela claims have been on the net for years
>> ...l including on your site and on hers?
>>
>> There are NO limo exam drawings with noyes on Pam's website that I can
>> find. She has the FBI lab doc listing the evidence found with it's Q
>> numbers, that is all. She also has several photos taken in the WH
>> garage and the Taylor Report.
>>
>> Her site is here:
>>
>> http://in-broad-daylight.com/
>>
>> The other hand drawn diagrams and notes that we received from John
>> Hunt and posted in our article are nowhere to be seen on either of
>> your sites as far as I can see.
>>
>
>Of course not. They are newer scans. Jeesh, again ask John WHEN he made
>his scans. Prove to me that YOU yourself personally copied these
>documents before 1994.
Take a breath, Tony ... I don't give a monkey's behind when Hunt
copied them at the Archives, and I have certainly never claimed to
have copied them myself at all.
The point is that these other scans ... these OTHER handwritten
Frazier notes and diagrams are NOT on your website as Pam claims. Nor
are they on hers. They are NOwhere on the net that we could find. We
got lucky that John Hunt had them and sent them to us. Jerry was able
to track down the Taylor affidavit info ... and had the Archives send
it to him. It was never known to even exist and is not available
ANYwhere on the net.
>
>> You two are blowing petty smoke ... and sending up what appear to be
>> nothing but false smoke signals.
>>
>> Why the crap?
>>
>> The Taylor affidavit and information about it (Church Committee) is
>> completely new, the other limo exam drawings/notes do not appear to
>> have ever been posted anywhere else.
>>
>
>Yes, that Taylor affidavit is new and quite helpful, although the
>Fetzerites have a trait of never believing evidence.
Thank you. And true on the Fetzerites.
>
>> The salient point is that they are now out there for all.
>>
>> The petty territorial pap doesn't speak very well about either of you,
>> in my opinion.
>>
>
>Your blatant misrepresentations do not speak well about YOUR research
>method.
I've explained what went down, several time now, Tony ... I said this
would be my last response to you on this issue and I mean it ... going
over the same nonsense multiple times is useless.
I will, however, since you commented on feeling slighted about the
windshield blow up photo, copy and paste your comment and my response
to you on that from above into an email to Tink and Jerry. One of them
knows where each one came from, I do not.
The only reason we have paid any attention to Pamela's scurrilous
charges is that if someone else had these other things already out on
the net, we want to know it and give them the appropriate mention.
Pamela's charges have proven to be untrue.
You claim that close up is your work ... if so, you certainly deserve
credit for it. I will send that email now.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
Big of me? Another personal attack. I never complained about John Hunt
copying documents at the Archives. Maybe I complained about YOU never
copying documents at the Archives or claiming that you already had these
documents when I was the one who found them and scanned them in.
> I made no attack of any sort against you. In fact, in one of these
> posts I COMPLIMENTED you on the limo work you had done.
>
> Your nit seems to be who copied them first. Again, this isn't a turf
> war. The point is that we were not able to find these handwritten
> notes and drawings (except for the limo diagram which has been around
> for years (perhaps thanks to you, I don't know) ... but John Hunt had
> them and sent them to us.
>
Maybe you were not able to find these notes and drawings for years
because you have a program to attack and marginalize me.
> NOW Pam claims they have been available on the net for years ... on
> her site and that you had them too. They don't seem to be ANYwhere on
> Pam's site ... and where are they on YOURS?
>
On my site which has been shut down? That site had a LOT more storage
than my original Comcast site.
> Since you guys seem to think this is some big freakin' deal, post the
> urls to all of those documents on your sites.
>
URL to ALL my documents? I have already done that in many past messages,
but you never pay attention because you pretend that my research is not
worth reading.
> Veddy simple, veddy easy.
>
Pay attention.
> Again, we could not find those docs (except the one limo exam doc
> which I already had) anywhere online. If we had found them on one of
You already had? Exactly when did you have it? Why can't you answer
simple questions like that?
> your sites, we certainly would have contacted you about copies. But we
You would have contacted me? Did you contact me about using the blow-up
of the cracks? Of course not. No common courtesy. Only contempt and
misrepresentations.
> got them from Hunt who copied them at the Archives....so that was
> mentioned in the article. And he made them available to us to post
> with our article.
>
Ask John Hunt if he examined the documents I suggested.
You know, the ones which could blow the NAA out of the water.
Anthony Marsh
I have linked to many of them in the messages here over several years.
You did remember to click on the links and save them, didn't you?
Of course not, so you pretend that you never saw them.
As I said before, I am the ONLY one providing all these declassified
documents and WC defenders simply ignore them because they don't want to
deal with the evidence.
> This isn't a turf war, Anthony. If you had those same diagrams before,
> it's a shame no one could find them on the net. John Hunt had them and
> sent them to me.
>
Again, WHEN did John Hunt have them? In 1994?
pamela
> On 7/15/2009 12:14 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 Jul 2009 18:53:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Anthony,
Face it -- it's seems easier to try to re-invent the wheel than to
acknowledge the work that has gone before.
What would the reaction be if we were to cut and paste a bunch of stuff
from 6 Seconds in Dallas and then claim it was 'new'? Do you think we
would hear the hue and cry all the way to New Jersey?
Anthony Marsh
> On 15 Jul 2009 22:02:43 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/2009 12:42 AM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>>> On 14 Jul 2009 18:53:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anthony ... you have ONE limo worksheet on your site. It can be seen
>>> here:
>>>
> Anthony,
>
> This is my last response to you on this matter.
>
>> Here we go again with the personal attacks.
>
> I have not made any personal attack on you.
>
> You have been attacking me quite personally for days.
>
So, PeeWee Herman, I know you are, but what am I?
>> I have more than just that one limo worksheet on my Web site. But of
>> course you never paid attention so you don't know how to find the others
>> which I have linked to here many times.
>
> If you have docs on your site that no one can find, that is your
> problem, Tony.
>
> As late as last night, the only limo worksheet on your webite is the
> one I provided the link to below.
Yes, as I said before you have no way to find the other documents and
never bothered saving them when I uploaded them here before.
>>
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/limoexam.gif
>
> This is the limo diagram we already had ... I already had it. I have
> had it for several years, John Hunt is who sent it to me how ever many
Several years? More evasion. I asked you specifically WHEN. You won't
answer. You don't dare to answer. Because the honest answer would be
AFTER I posted them.
> years ago he copied it at the Archives. I have posted it in
> discussions before, I believe he has as well.
>
And you won't even tell us what YEAR it was that he sent them to you.
Not 1994, was it?
> And that diagram is NOT ... got that? ... NOT one that Tink referred
> to as new never published on the net before info that we published in
> our article.
>
He did not say never published "on the net." He said never published before.
Other documents were never published on the net before and some of the
photos were new to some researchers.
> THAT diagram is not at issue here.
>>>
>>> That is the one we already had ... I have had it for years, and the
>>
>> Oh really? You claim that you already had that one in 1994?
>
> No, I didn't say that.
You claimed that you had these documents before I found them in 1994.
>
>> Again, ask
>> John Hunt WHEN he scanned them in.
>
> It was just a few years ago ... and I don't care what year it was ...
Of course you don't care what year it was, because it proves my point.
It certainly wasn't in 1994. That's not just a few years ago. Maybe 2005
would be just a few years ago.
> it doesn't matter. Because, again, that document is not the issue
> here. We already had it, and it has been published on the net before
> ... in discussions, and apparently on your site. You may be the first
> one to have copied it and presented it ... if so, good for you. But
> AGAIN ... THAT doc is NOT at issue here. It had been out and available
> and in the hands of many for years.
>
I think that is the reason why I upload documents to my Web site, to make
them out and available to many. Now, show me who else had those documents
BEFORE 1994 and ask why he did not scan them in and make them available.
Maybe no access to a scanner?
> The docs at issue are the OTHER ADDITIONAL handwritten diagrams and
> notes Frazier made ... and the Taylor affidavit. Those did not come
> from anywhere online ... we hunted, we looked ... AGAIN ... they are
> nowhere online that we could find.
>
Oh really? Very thorough search eh? But start by NEVER looking at my Web
site or trying to figure out how to use Google Groups search to find URLs
from my Web site. Too complicated for you, don't ask.
>
>>
>>> copy in our article is clearly not the copy you made because ours
>>> doesn't have the info in the upper right hand corner lopped off.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't say YOUR copy was the same as mine. John Hunt by then had
>> access to a much better copier. I was limited as to which copier I could
>> use back in 1994. Of course you as a researcher probably know that
>> already from your MANY trips to College Park.
>
> I never had any prob with the copiers I used on any of my trips to the
> Archives. Hunt didn't use the copiers at the Archives.
>>
>>
>> What I did say was mine and your used without acknowledgement was the
>> blow-up of the Frazier photo showing the cracks on the windshield. You
>> have never addressed that.
>
> I don't know anything about that ... or where Tink or Jerry (I'm not
> sure who) found those pics. You should take that up with one of them.
> If you were due credit for some work you did ... then it was because
> we did not know, it certainly was not a purposeful slight. And we
> would be happy to give you mention if that is the case.
Fine, so tell me who else wrote an article specifically about the
limousine damage before I presented my paper at the conference in 1995.
>>
>>> Where are the other drawings with notes Frazier made that you claim
>>> you have pposted ... that Pamela claims have been on the net for years
>>> ...l including on your site and on hers?
>>>
>>> There are NO limo exam drawings with noyes on Pam's website that I can
>>> find. She has the FBI lab doc listing the evidence found with it's Q
>>> numbers, that is all. She also has several photos taken in the WH
>>> garage and the Taylor Report.
>>>
>>> Her site is here:
>>>
>>> http://in-broad-daylight.com/
>>>
>>> The other hand drawn diagrams and notes that we received from John
>>> Hunt and posted in our article are nowhere to be seen on either of
>>> your sites as far as I can see.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. They are newer scans. Jeesh, again ask John WHEN he made
>> his scans. Prove to me that YOU yourself personally copied these
>> documents before 1994.
>
> Take a breath, Tony ... I don't give a monkey's behind when Hunt
> copied them at the Archives, and I have certainly never claimed to
> have copied them myself at all.
>
Tell us WHICH documents you did personally copy.
I don't remember seeing John Hunt at College Park copying documents back
in 1994. I don't give a monkey's behind which year Hunt copied which
documents at the Archives, but I am sure it was not before I did.
> The point is that these other scans ... these OTHER handwritten
> Frazier notes and diagrams are NOT on your website as Pam claims. Nor
Are or were?
> are they on hers. They are NOwhere on the net that we could find. We
> got lucky that John Hunt had them and sent them to us. Jerry was able
You got lucky because you refused to look on my Web site.
> to track down the Taylor affidavit info ... and had the Archives send
> it to him. It was never known to even exist and is not available
> ANYwhere on the net.
Just as an aside, it took me several years of visits to the Kennedy
Library before they finally released some important documents I was
looking for.
There is a computer program which can automatically compare graphics and
determine if they are exactly the same file.
Anthony Marsh
Be careful to specify WHICH documents you mean. Specifically the Taylor
affidavit which is new and quite helpful.
> Pam's charges that we somehow appropriated other people's work and
> added nothing new ... she says the docs have been on hers and Tony's
> sites for 10 years... are false.
>
You are not telling the truth. I had those documents on my web site before
your article came out. The only difference is that John Hunt was allowed
to use a much better copy machine, actually the scanner instead of the old
Xerox copier.
> Actually, the docs in question that Tink was talking about ... the
> handwritten Frazier notes and drawinds (BESIDES the one known to have
> been around for several years) and theTaylor affidavit were NOwhere on
> the net until our article. Pam's claims are demonstrably incorrect,
> but it seels to have incited Tony to think otherwise.
>
I had all the Frazier notes and drawings on my old Web site. The Taylor
affidavit is new.
Here are some of the thousands of documents I've put on my Web site. Note
the date on the top of some of the limo exam scans. 10/7/1994 which was
the first day of the COPA conference. I don't remember seeing John Hunt
there. A bunch of us took a bus out to College Park and were treated to
seeing and copying NEWLY released documents, such as the FBI BULKY files.
I do remember seeing John Hunt at the 1995 conference in Rhode Island
because he's from that area. I do not remember seeing you at either
conference. It must have been one of the Mid-Western conferences.
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/limoexam.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_3.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/436461A.gif
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI43646.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI-exam.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI-CE351.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI28243.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI_3452.tif
> None of those docs are on either of their websites. As is typical,
> both have been asked to post the urls to them on their sites ...
> several times now ... and ignore, but still keep making the charges.
>
If you had gathered up your courage and looked for them on my Web site I
wouldn't have to repost them just for you. But you do love wasting time
as long as it's some else's time.
> I think one big beef for both of them is that the Frazier handwritten
> stuff we got from John Hunt. They were part of quite a battle
> discussion that involved Hunt re FBI evidence a few years ago ... and
> have been bitter ever since. Te 55 pages of Church Committee docs ...
> Lifton correspondence that set them off on investigating the Taylor
> report and getting the affidavit. David read the report all those
> years ago as Taylor having been present at the FBI exam ... a thorough
> reading and you know otherwise. But he published that in Best Evidence
> and some people picked it up and ran with it, repeating it, ever BE
> came out in 1980.
>
> Pam even states that Taylor was present at the wee hours FBI exam of
> the limo on her website.
>
> Pamela has NO handwritten Frazier notes or diagrams on her website.
> Period. Not as of as late as last night anyway. :-) Anthony's site has
> the one diagram that has been around for years ... possibly because
> Tony copied it at the Archives in 1994 and made it available. My copy
> came to me from John Hunt as far as I know ... Tony's copy has
> information in the upper right corner lopped off ... the copy I had,
> that we put in the article, does not. It doesn't matter ... it is not
> what Tink was referring to about new never been published before docs
Seems to me that the text has already been rewritten. Here is what it says
now.
Although Frazier and his team found no evidence of a whole bullet impact,
they did find two possible fragment impacts. First, they noted a dent in
the rear-facing chrome strip above the windshield (Commission Exhibit
349). Second, they noted an impact area and lead smear on the inside of
the windshield on the driver?s side (Commission Exhibit 350). Frazier took
notes as he examined the limousine early on the morning of November 23rd.
John Hunt has been kind enough to provide copies of these notes obtained
while doing research in the Archives. The first summarizes what Frazier
and his team found in their examination of the limousine:
Here is the document he is talking about, which I copied in 1994.
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI28243.jpg
Note the date at the top of the copy. 10/7/94.
Can you figure out all by yourself that the "94" means 1994?
Here is the document which John Hunt scanned in. Note the date upside down
at the bottom of the scan. Is that 4-11-03? Do you suppose the "03" means
2003? Can you figure out all by yourself that 2003 comes after 1994? Or
maybe you'll argue your way out of this faux pas by saying it predates
mine because it's 1903!
http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/JosiahThompson/Windshield/Fraziernote-windshield.jpg
> in our article. Pamela has been stirring the pot ever since. Hard to
> figure why given that the docs in question don't exist on either of
> their sites as she continues to claim. How obviously bizarre is that!
>
> As I have said here and elsewhere ... this is so petty, there is no
> turf war, and the salient point is that now a couple of long mistaken
> notions have been resolved ... and all of these docs are now out and
> available to all.
>
> IF someone already had these docs out, we wanted to know it so we
> could include that info in our article. They we NOwhere on line that
> we could find. And still cannot.
>
No, you did not.
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> On 7 Jul 2009 21:53:39 -0400, pamela <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >For the most part, this is a rehash of work that Anthony did and I
> >followed up on about 10 years ago. �It might fly in a LN environment such
> >as this, where people are used to being told what to think, but backfires
> >in actual CT environments because of the appeal to authority stance and
> >their snobby dismissal of the limo witnesses.
>
> ppppfffftttt. You're a riot.
>
> You seem to just "not get" a lot that goes on, for some reason. There
> is no "rehash" of Taylor not being at the limo exam. A long ago error,
> carried forth for decades by those "free thinkers" who just latch onto
> a quote and run with it without checking the entire document out for
> themselves, let alone doing any research on it. New information and
> documents were presented. And it put what is known about the evidence
> regarding a hole in the windshield in one place. If you had done a
> good job 10 years ago, it wouldn't have been necessary, now would it?
> :-)
>
> Did you see Martin's comment earlier today about those who do no
> research but just carp at others??? :-)))
It seems that the CT community is divided between those who insist
your article is pointless and irrelevant and those who insist they
deserve credit for it.
Dave
Jerry Logan
I'm very pleased that you took up posting on Lancer about the windshield
issues - your comments there have made some very interesting points and
you've filled some gaps in the record that needed filling. Moreover,
anyone interested in the presidential limousine needs to go directly to
your 1995 essay/presentation http://home.comcast.net/
~the_puzzle_palace/bestwitn.htm. It's invaluable and a real contribution
to everyone's understanding.
Unfortunately, I fear Pamala has muddied the waters while stirring up a
controversy that just doesn't exist. For example, this is what we wrote
(not what Pamala imagined or has implied we wrote) about the limousine
examination notes:
"Frazier took notes as he examined the limousine early on the morning of
November 23rd. John Hunt has been kind enough to provide copies of
these notes obtained while doing research in the Archives."
I'm sure you'll recognize that a) we did NOT claim to have discovered or
scanned the notes ourselves and b) we did NOT say that John Hunt was the
first or the only researcher to obtain copies of the notes. We DID say
that we obtained the notes from John Hunt which is the absolute and
complete truth. I (and I assume Barb and Josiah) have no idea if you or
John Hunt were first to copy the notes - I do know for an absolute
certainty that we got our copies from Hunt and that's exactly what we
wrote, no more and no less.
Second, there's the issue of the windshield photograph and the
enlargement. Pamala has been particularly clever here, implying that the
information was "lift, lift" lifted from your website. I find her
criticism ironic since the same photos seem to appear on her website
without any credit to you. Apparently, "lifting" is in the eye of the
beholder.
The truth is that I (and I can't speak for Barb or Tink here) had no
idea that you were the source of the photo scan and enlargement until
your post on Lancer. Of course I had seen the photos on your website -
but there is absolutely no indication on your site that the photos
originated with you. Since you did not claim them there was no way of
knowing that they were yours. And I also want to assure you that the
copies we used were not copied by us from your site or archives.
It's a measure of your contribution to research on the assassination
that much of your work has simply become unacknowledged background
information. I've seen copies of those images literally hundreds if not
thousands of times and I've never seen you credited for them (not even
by Pamala). I'm glad to have the chance to thank you for all your
contributions.
In this regard, you and Tink share much the same fate. Of course he'd
complain if someone just xeroxed parts of Six Seconds and claimed it as
their own. Yet I've also seen his analysis repeated countless times
without a word of acknowledgement. Tink had the Moorman photograph
copied in 1967 at his own expense and I've seen thousands of copies and
crops of his work - and there haven't been many acknowledgements or
thanks for that effort and expense.
So Mr. Marsh, I am more than happy to recognize your contributions and
give credit where credit is long due. Thank you.
My very best regards to you,
Jerry Logan
pamela
> Hello Mr.Marsh,
>
> I'm very pleased that you took up posting on Lancer about the windshield
> issues - your comments there have made some very interesting points and
> you've filled some gaps in the record that needed filling. Moreover,
> anyone interested in the presidential limousine needs to go directly to
At least Jerry has been able to acknowledge the work that Anthony Marsh
has done on this subject. Hopefully his piece will be updated to reflect
just a bit of that appreciation.
My website did indeed give credit to Anthony for providing the first photo
of the second windshield until it was mistakenly deleted in a recent edit.
That credit will be added again in the next update.
The comments about 6 Seconds are well taken. Perhaps this analogy will
give Jarry some insight into what it feels like to bring information to
the community in order to move things forward and then find that it is,
instead, being used for a weak appeal to authority that is intended to
stop research in that area. By the way, feel free to lift any of these
ideas and claim them as 'new'.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
The handwriten drawings/notes of Frazier (aside from the one limo exam
doc) were the ones we did not find anywhere on the net, Anthony. That
is the truth. We also looked all over the net for the Taylor affidavit
... it is nowehere to be found either.
>
>> Pam's charges that we somehow appropriated other people's work and
>> added nothing new ... she says the docs have been on hers and Tony's
>> sites for 10 years... are false.
>>
>
>You are not telling the truth. I had those documents on my web site before
>your article came out.
You may have, Anthony. If people go to your website, click on the FBI
docs, and find only the limo exam doc already in hand ... how on earth
is anyone supposed to know or be able to find anything else you have
hidden from view and access?
Going to your website, as normal people do, does NOT turn up those
docs.
>The only difference is that John Hunt was allowed
>to use a much better copy machine, actually the scanner instead of the old
>Xerox copier.
John Hunt took his own scanner, and later camera, to copy documents.
>
>> Actually, the docs in question that Tink was talking about ... the
>> handwritten Frazier notes and drawinds (BESIDES the one known to have
>> been around for several years) and theTaylor affidavit were NOwhere on
>> the net until our article. Pam's claims are demonstrably incorrect,
>> but it seels to have incited Tony to think otherwise.
>>
>
>I had all the Frazier notes and drawings on my old Web site. The Taylor
>affidavit is new.
If they don't show as there, they do no one any good... and you really
have no legitimate cause to then complain about it.
You have no cause to complain about it in any event ... as anyone is
free to go to the Archives, copy documents ... and use them. They
don't have to run around the net and see if they are posted anywhere.
But we DID look ... and, again ... did not find them anywhere.
>
>Here are some of the thousands of documents I've put on my Web site. Note
>the date on the top of some of the limo exam scans. 10/7/1994 which was
>the first day of the COPA conference. I don't remember seeing John Hunt
>there. A bunch of us took a bus out to College Park and were treated to
>seeing and copying NEWLY released documents, such as the FBI BULKY files.
>I do remember seeing John Hunt at the 1995 conference in Rhode Island
>because he's from that area. I do not remember seeing you at either
>conference. It must have been one of the Mid-Western conferences.
I was at COPA in '94 and '95.
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/limoexam.gif
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_1.jpg
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_2.jpg
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_3.jpg
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/436461A.gif
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI43646.jpg
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI-exam.jpg
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI-CE351.jpg
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI28243.jpg
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI_3452.tif
To this very moment ... I just checked, the only one of these docs
that is LISTED ON your webiste, so someone could find it, is the limo
exam jpg, the one we already had.
Here is your site:
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace
If one click's on "FBI"
This is what they see:
QUOTE
FBI DOCUMENTS
FBI-3452.gif FBI report on NAA of and destruction of bullet
fragment samples.
FBI43646.gif FBI lab report on bullet and fragments recovered.
limoexam.gif FBI worksheet from examination of limousine on
11/23/63 at 1 AM.
END QUOTE
They appear as links. This page can be seen at:
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/docs-fbi.htm
If someone went to your site looking for these documents, they would
have no idea they were there, nor any way to find them.
That's the problem with the Judyth items you have there, and you have
been told a bejillion times ... and you finally said you would work on
it. Nothing has changed.
Unless each item is linked to from a page ON your website, then John
Q. Public cannot access them. They may be in your online storage
space, but unless you provide a link to them ON your website, no one
can just go to your site and find them. Technically, except for the
one old already known limo diagram, the documents you link to above,
are not technically ON your website. You have them hosted in the same
directories as your webpage, but if they are not linked to FROM the
website, then they are not published publically.
>
>
>> None of those docs are on either of their websites. As is typical,
>> both have been asked to post the urls to them on their sites ...
>> several times now ... and ignore, but still keep making the charges.
>>
>
>If you had gathered up your courage and looked for them on my Web site I
>wouldn't have to repost them just for you. But you do love wasting time
>as long as it's some else's time.
You are continuing to waste people's time over this nonsense. People
go to a website, they see what is available ... if they don't see what
they are looking for, gee, I wonder why they move on.
Can you figure it out?
You seem to have this idea that people are responsible for knowing and
recording the information and links for anything you have ever done
and ever posted.
That's nonsense, Tony. Get real.
If you want people to use your site ... and be able to acknowledge you
in their work ... then make your site useable so people can see what
all is really there. And if you want recognition for any blowups or
special jps you put together, include your name and the date soit is
part of the jpg ... like Hunt did on the comparison jpg he did. Tink
Thompson as scads of the limo photo files ... that he did at the
Archives in 1967. Yes, Tony ... 1967. So quit your bitchin'.
That's the original text as published in our article.
>
>Here is the document he is talking about, which I copied in 1994.
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI28243.jpg
That was ONE of the diagrams/notes ... that is the one we already had,
Tony ... and our copy came to me from John Hunt several years ago. The
other notes/drawings are what John sent to us for our article.
>
>Note the date at the top of the copy. 10/7/94.
>Can you figure out all by yourself that the "94" means 1994?
No one has ever disputed that you copied this doc in 1994 or that you
had it on your website, Tony. We, however, did not use the copy from
your website.
>
>
>
>Here is the document which John Hunt scanned in. Note the date upside down
>at the bottom of the scan. Is that 4-11-03? Do you suppose the "03" means
>2003? Can you figure out all by yourself that 2003 comes after 1994? Or
>maybe you'll argue your way out of this faux pas by saying it predates
>mine because it's 1903!
Deal with your own straw. I know John coped all his documents in trips
to the Archives that occurred this decade ... I don't recall what he
copied on which trip. Why would anyone care? Except you, of course.
>
>http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/JosiahThompson/Windshield/Fraziernote-windshield.jpg
>
>
>> in our article. Pamela has been stirring the pot ever since. Hard to
>> figure why given that the docs in question don't exist on either of
>> their sites as she continues to claim. How obviously bizarre is that!
>>
>> As I have said here and elsewhere ... this is so petty, there is no
>> turf war, and the salient point is that now a couple of long mistaken
>> notions have been resolved ... and all of these docs are now out and
>> available to all.
>>
>> IF someone already had these docs out, we wanted to know it so we
>> could include that info in our article. They were NOwhere on line that
>> we could find. And still cannot.
>>
>
>No, you did not.
That's right ... we did not find them available anywhere on the net.
El Fin. Amen.
Anthony Marsh
I think he did take out the wording about "first published." That was my
primary complaint. My main complaint HERE was Barb's continual
misrepresentations.
> My website did indeed give credit to Anthony for providing the first photo
> of the second windshield until it was mistakenly deleted in a recent edit.
> That credit will be added again in the next update.
>
Thanks. It's also important because some people might ask WHY we can see
the cracks so vividly in that blow-up when we can't see them in the WC
published photo. It is because I intentionally tweaked the contrast
specifically to make the cracks more visible. Not just for John Hunt's
comparison, but many years before. But I do appreciate Hunt's efforts to
demonstrate that the crack locations are the same.
> The comments about 6 Seconds are well taken. Perhaps this analogy will
> give Jarry some insight into what it feels like to bring information to
> the community in order to move things forward and then find that it is,
> instead, being used for a weak appeal to authority that is intended to
> stop research in that area. By the way, feel free to lift any of these
> ideas and claim them as 'new'.
>
I would also suggest that there may be more to learn from the windshield.
If the shot came from behind and sprayed blood and brain matter forward as
the WC defenders claim, then why is NONE of that on the windshield? I
think there are only about three tiny drops of blood on the windshield and
I think they came from Governor Connally. Of course the DOJ would never
actually test them because it might prove conspiracy.
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Side note: I am heartened to notice that at least a couple of people have
noticed in that article things which I pointed out a long time ago, such
as the damage to the back of the rearview mirror. Even Bob Groden doubted
it and thought it might be a trick of the lighting.
Anthony Marsh
> Hello Mr.Marsh,
>
> I'm very pleased that you took up posting on Lancer about the windshield
> issues - your comments there have made some very interesting points and
> you've filled some gaps in the record that needed filling. Moreover,
> anyone interested in the presidential limousine needs to go directly to
> your 1995 essay/presentation http://home.comcast.net/
> ~the_puzzle_palace/bestwitn.htm. It's invaluable and a real contribution
> to everyone's understanding.
>
I hadn't posted there for several years, but felt it important to
correct some things when the article was pointed out here.
> Unfortunately, I fear Pamala has muddied the waters while stirring up a
> controversy that just doesn't exist. For example, this is what we wrote
> (not what Pamala imagined or has implied we wrote) about the limousine
> examination notes:
>
> "Frazier took notes as he examined the limousine early on the morning of
> November 23rd. John Hunt has been kind enough to provide copies of
> these notes obtained while doing research in the Archives."
>
There was originally some wording in the article about these documents
being published for the first time. That is the ONLY thing I was
objecting to. The new wording is fine.
> I'm sure you'll recognize that a) we did NOT claim to have discovered or
Maybe not "we" as in all three of you. But Barb did try to claim that
SHE and maybe also you had these documents all the time and that I was
not the first person to post them.
> scanned the notes ourselves and b) we did NOT say that John Hunt was the
> first or the only researcher to obtain copies of the notes. We DID say
> that we obtained the notes from John Hunt which is the absolute and
> complete truth. I (and I assume Barb and Josiah) have no idea if you or
> John Hunt were first to copy the notes - I do know for an absolute
> certainty that we got our copies from Hunt and that's exactly what we
> wrote, no more and no less.
>
You have NO IDEA? Maybe because you did not bothering to yet read my reply
to Barb.
Compare the dates of these two visits to the National Archives to copy the
same document. Mine is 10/7/94. Hunt's is 4/11/03. Now can you tell which
was earlier? Seems Barb can't figure it out. Maybe you need to help her
with a calendar or something.
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI28243.jpg
http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/JosiahThompson/Windshield/Fraziernote-windshield.jpg
> Second, there's the issue of the windshield photograph and the
> enlargement. Pamala has been particularly clever here, implying that the
> information was "lift, lift" lifted from your website. I find her
> criticism ironic since the same photos seem to appear on her website
> without any credit to you. Apparently, "lifting" is in the eye of the
> beholder.
>
She explained that she had originally given me credit for that blow-up,
but it got lost in a recent edit. Now is the time for me to bring up a
suggestion since I finally have you here instead of Barb and I doubt that
she had the common courtesy to pass it along to you. One thing that you
should and can do is add a feature to your graphics called MOUSEOVER.
Using that you can include extra information about each picture to explain
where it came from, such as Warren Commission, or National Archives, or
Blow-up courtesy of Anthony Marsh.
> The truth is that I (and I can't speak for Barb or Tink here) had no
> idea that you were the source of the photo scan and enlargement until
> your post on Lancer. Of course I had seen the photos on your website -
I think that is one reason why I started posting on JFK Lancer again. I
noticed a couple of people confused about some things and could offer
some help.
> but there is absolutely no indication on your site that the photos
> originated with you. Since you did not claim them there was no way of
> knowing that they were yours. And I also want to assure you that the
> copies we used were not copied by us from your site or archives.
>
As I explained to Barb, there are computer programs which allow you to
compare photo files and see if they are identical.
> It's a measure of your contribution to research on the assassination
> that much of your work has simply become unacknowledged background
> information. I've seen copies of those images literally hundreds if not
> thousands of times and I've never seen you credited for them (not even
> by Pamala). I'm glad to have the chance to thank you for all your
> contributions.
>
As I explained a long time ago at a conference presentation, one of our
goals should be to make such computer files widely available. You will see
only one file where I put a copyright on it. And that was quickly stolen
and the thief claims he created it.
> In this regard, you and Tink share much the same fate. Of course he'd
> complain if someone just xeroxed parts of Six Seconds and claimed it as
> their own. Yet I've also seen his analysis repeated countless times
> without a word of acknowledgement. Tink had the Moorman photograph
> copied in 1967 at his own expense and I've seen thousands of copies and
> crops of his work - and there haven't been many acknowledgements or
> thanks for that effort and expense.
>
Well, Tink does not own the Moorman photo as far as I know, but when I
have discussed it I often make sure to specify if my information is based
on Six Seconds in Dallas or something else. I cite him often. Don't tell
him, but there is a little hero worshiping involved. I'm happy to see that
he has finally come around on some issues. But no matter who he is, I can
still correct him if I think he is wrong.
> So Mr. Marsh, I am more than happy to recognize your contributions and
> give credit where credit is long due. Thank you.
>
I am always happy to help a fellow researcher. I might even have a few
thousand other photos which might interest you. For example, Bob Groden
was not even aware of the second set of reinterment photos until I talked
to him on the phone last month.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 8, 1:50???pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2009 21:53:39 -0400, pamela<jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For the most part, this is a rehash of work that Anthony did and I
>>> as this, where people are used to being told what to think, but backfires
>>> in actual CT environments because of the appeal to authority stance and
>>> their snobby dismissal of the limo witnesses.
>>
>> ppppfffftttt. You're a riot.
>>
>> You seem to just "not get" a lot that goes on, for some reason. There
>> is no "rehash" of Taylor not being at the limo exam. A long ago error,
>> carried forth for decades by those "free thinkers" who just latch onto
>> a quote and run with it without checking the entire document out for
>> themselves, let alone doing any research on it. New information and
>> documents were presented. And it put what is known about the evidence
>> regarding a hole in the windshield in one place. If you had done a
>> good job 10 years ago, it wouldn't have been necessary, now would it?
>> :-)
>>
>> Did you see Martin's comment earlier today about those who do no
>> research but just carp at others??? :-)))
>
>
> It seems that the CT community is divided between those who insist
> your article is pointless and irrelevant and those who insist they
> deserve credit for it.
>
> Dave
>
Is this another one of your mindless attacks on me? Yes, I deserve credit
for the seminal research on the limousine. No one else had done it before
I did. But I don't mind their rehash at all because they did come up with
some exciting new things. BTW, in case you have not yet read the newest
messages here, Jerry Logan replied to me explaining that he was not aware
of my earlier research, but now that he is, thanks me and gives me credit.
I believe they also rewrote the article after I complained.
Anthony Marsh
Because you refused to look at my web site.
>>
>>> Pam's charges that we somehow appropriated other people's work and
>>> added nothing new ... she says the docs have been on hers and Tony's
>>> sites for 10 years... are false.
>>>
>>
>> You are not telling the truth. I had those documents on my web site before
>> your article came out.
>
> You may have, Anthony. If people go to your website, click on the FBI
> docs, and find only the limo exam doc already in hand ... how on earth
> is anyone supposed to know or be able to find anything else you have
> hidden from view and access?
Hidden from view? Nothing is hidden.
If you read all the articles on my Web site do you see them also listed
under DOCUMENTS? No. As I said before, I posted all those documents here
at various times. I have thousands more documents that I have not posted
here, probably because I am still writing the articles.
>
> Going to your website, as normal people do, does NOT turn up those
> docs.
>
Normal people? Normal people click on a link in a message and then save
the file. Not you.
>> The only difference is that John Hunt was allowed
>> to use a much better copy machine, actually the scanner instead of the old
>> Xerox copier.
>
> John Hunt took his own scanner, and later camera, to copy documents.
Sure, in 2003. I copied those in 1994. Slightly different conditions.
>>
>>> Actually, the docs in question that Tink was talking about ... the
>>> handwritten Frazier notes and drawinds (BESIDES the one known to have
>>> been around for several years) and theTaylor affidavit were NOwhere on
>>> the net until our article. Pam's claims are demonstrably incorrect,
>>> but it seels to have incited Tony to think otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> I had all the Frazier notes and drawings on my old Web site. The Taylor
>> affidavit is new.
>
> If they don't show as there, they do no one any good... and you really
> have no legitimate cause to then complain about it.
>
If you had paid attention the first time you would have saved them.
> You have no cause to complain about it in any event ... as anyone is
> free to go to the Archives, copy documents ... and use them. They
> don't have to run around the net and see if they are posted anywhere.
> But we DID look ... and, again ... did not find them anywhere.
What if the only place they are posted is MY web site? Someone needs to
download them and then pass them around. How else could you have found
the blow-up of the cracks? You didn't have the common decency to ask me.
>>
>> Here are some of the thousands of documents I've put on my Web site. Note
>> the date on the top of some of the limo exam scans. 10/7/1994 which was
>> the first day of the COPA conference. I don't remember seeing John Hunt
>> there. A bunch of us took a bus out to College Park and were treated to
>> seeing and copying NEWLY released documents, such as the FBI BULKY files.
>> I do remember seeing John Hunt at the 1995 conference in Rhode Island
>> because he's from that area. I do not remember seeing you at either
>> conference. It must have been one of the Mid-Western conferences.
>
> I was at COPA in '94 and '95.
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/limoexam.gif
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_1.jpg
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_2.jpg
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/t-gcd80_3.jpg
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/436461A.gif
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI43646.jpg
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI-exam.jpg
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI-CE351.jpg
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI28243.jpg
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/FBI_3452.tif
>
> To this very moment ... I just checked, the only one of these docs
> that is LISTED ON your webiste, so someone could find it, is the limo
> exam jpg, the one we already had.
>
Listed so you could find it? You are not paying attention. I just said
that not every document is listed. Some used in articles are never
listed. All you have to do is pay attention and this time click on the
above links and save each file. Too difficult for you?
> Here is your site:
> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace
>
> If one click's on "FBI"
>
> This is what they see:
> QUOTE
> FBI DOCUMENTS
>
> FBI-3452.gif FBI report on NAA of and destruction of bullet
> fragment samples.
> FBI43646.gif FBI lab report on bullet and fragments recovered.
> limoexam.gif FBI worksheet from examination of limousine on
> 11/23/63 at 1 AM.
>
> END QUOTE
>
> They appear as links. This page can be seen at:
> http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/docs-fbi.htm
>
> If someone went to your site looking for these documents, they would
> have no idea they were there, nor any way to find them.
>
Well, why don't you complain to COMCAST about their lack of a web site
SEARCH function. I complained to my old web site host about people not
being able to do an anonymous FTP to view all the files on the web site
and they didn't care. Don't even ask about how to do FTP. Too difficult
for you and you might break a nail.
> That's the problem with the Judyth items you have there, and you have
> been told a bejillion times ... and you finally said you would work on
> it. Nothing has changed.
>
You want to volunteer your time to uploading and cataloging all my
files? Check out all the files I sent to Ken Rahn. Did I try to catalog
them?
> Unless each item is linked to from a page ON your website, then John
> Q. Public cannot access them. They may be in your online storage
Not true. You know little about the Internet. As I explained a few
thousand times before, all you have to do is start by typing in the base
address of my web site, then add a "/" and then the name of the file you
want. Some people also know how to use FTP or Google. Some people have
even figured out how to search all the old messages on the newsgroup and
find links to the files that way.
> space, but unless you provide a link to them ON your website, no one
> can just go to your site and find them. Technically, except for the
> one old already known limo diagram, the documents you link to above,
> are not technically ON your website. You have them hosted in the same
Technically as anyone who runs a Web site knows, those files ARE on my
Web site.
> directories as your webpage, but if they are not linked to FROM the
> website, then they are not published publically.
Silly. I may have thousands of files on my Web site which I have never
discussed here before. But if I discuss them here and post a link to the
URL on my Web site then they are on my Web site.
I discussed the second set of reinterment photos here, but have never
written an article about them for my Web site. So you won't see them
all. But I explained how to figure out how to download them each by
"playing the numbers game" of substituting the next number in the
sequence into the filename.
>>
>>
>>> None of those docs are on either of their websites. As is typical,
>>> both have been asked to post the urls to them on their sites ...
>>> several times now ... and ignore, but still keep making the charges.
>>>
>>
>> If you had gathered up your courage and looked for them on my Web site I
>> wouldn't have to repost them just for you. But you do love wasting time
>> as long as it's some else's time.
>
> You are continuing to waste people's time over this nonsense. People
> go to a website, they see what is available ... if they don't see what
> they are looking for, gee, I wonder why they move on.
>
Move on if you like. You didn't even have the common decency to ask me.
> Can you figure it out?
>
> You seem to have this idea that people are responsible for knowing and
> recording the information and links for anything you have ever done
> and ever posted.
>
Yes.
> That's nonsense, Tony. Get real.
>
Pay attention.
> If you want people to use your site ... and be able to acknowledge you
> in their work ... then make your site useable so people can see what
I can't make my site usable because the the ISP is incompetent.
> all is really there. And if you want recognition for any blowups or
> special jps you put together, include your name and the date soit is
> part of the jpg ... like Hunt did on the comparison jpg he did. Tink
No, and don't tell me how to handle my files. I don't defile a document
or photo by pasting my name on it the way Corbis does. I still have some
morals left. I did explain how to add TAGS and identifiers in a file,
but that is way beyond you.
> Thompson as scads of the limo photo files ... that he did at the
> Archives in 1967. Yes, Tony ... 1967. So quit your bitchin'.
Wonderful. And where is the LIST of his files? Please post that URL for
the benefit of all researchers.
Was Tink the first person to post the photos of the limo having the
communications equipment installed? Can you guess who was? But why
haven't I written any article about that for my Web site? Because only a
couple of us care about that.
You said you had these documents before I found and copied them. Busted!
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the document which John Hunt scanned in. Note the date upside down
>> at the bottom of the scan. Is that 4-11-03? Do you suppose the "03" means
>> 2003? Can you figure out all by yourself that 2003 comes after 1994? Or
>> maybe you'll argue your way out of this faux pas by saying it predates
>> mine because it's 1903!
>
> Deal with your own straw. I know John coped all his documents in trips
> to the Archives that occurred this decade ... I don't recall what he
> copied on which trip. Why would anyone care? Except you, of course.
I don't care if he copied OTHER documents in the previous decade. I know
he scanned in the documents we are talking about in April 2003.
You still haven't figure out that 2003 comes after 1994?
>>
>> http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/JosiahThompson/Windshield/Fraziernote-windshield.jpg
>>
>>
>>> in our article. Pamela has been stirring the pot ever since. Hard to
>>> figure why given that the docs in question don't exist on either of
>>> their sites as she continues to claim. How obviously bizarre is that!
>>>
>>> As I have said here and elsewhere ... this is so petty, there is no
>>> turf war, and the salient point is that now a couple of long mistaken
>>> notions have been resolved ... and all of these docs are now out and
>>> available to all.
>>>
>>> IF someone already had these docs out, we wanted to know it so we
>>> could include that info in our article. They were NOwhere on line that
>>> we could find. And still cannot.
>>>
>>
>> No, you did not.
>
> That's right ... we did not find them available anywhere on the net.
>
> El Fin. Amen.
Busted again.
pamela
At lease things seem to be moving forward in a positive manner. I
hope that will include at least formally acknowledging your work in
their updated piece.
It is good to know that you are finding things of value in the piece
too. I was initially so put off by the arrogance and cut + paste
areas that I have not been able to go back to it. The use of the
Taylor affadavit is interesting, though it is kinda going back in time
just to define an area that most people will not see relevance in.
And of course the Fetzerites will simply say Taylor was pressured into
recanting.
I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the gore on the
windshield because the limo was driven both from PH to Love Field and
from AAFB to the WHG. They must have cleaned the windshield enough to
be able to see to drive.
I too have had admiration for Thompson because of 6 Seconds, which was
awesome when it came out. I am finding that tempered with some new
questions, though; such as whether or not he is just looking for
another big kill as opposed to simply moving research forward. I hope
I am wrong. At the same time, he is about the only one with enough
clout to have an effect on Fetzer, so perhaps he is simply engaged in
tilting with windmills, thoroughly believing in his imo unrealistic
quest.
Barb Junkkarinen
Jerry addressed your issue about the pics .. and told you we took NONE
from your website.
You can protest all you want, but if you think everyone reads ... or
even sees ... all your posts and thinks to harvest every link you
post, you are in a quite heady dream world.
When people remember something has been posted on a site, or remembers
someone has done work on a subject, they expect to be able to go to
the site and find things. How on earth is anyone supposed to be able
to guess at your document titles. Nonsense.
Bask in Tink's glow. This is over.
On 19 Jul 2009 00:05:54 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
No, I think we can draw very specific conclusions from the windshield and
I intend to demonstrate that. There was not a lot of gore. There were only
two or three small blood droplets. It seems to me that there should have
been a lot more if the shot came from behind. You can see in the photos of
the limo on route to the hospital and at the hospital that the windshield
was not covered with gore. And no one bothered to clean off the few blood
droplets which were on windshield when it was examined by the FBI.
pamela
The SS compromised the limo as evidence by driving it away from PH.
Whatever may have been on the winsdhield was certainly altered, if not
destroyed by the fact that they needed at least a somewhat clean
windshield in order to drive, so a lack of evidence on the windshield
itself does not necessarily mean anything. On the other hand, we don't
have photos of anyone cleaning the windshield either.
.It seems to me that there should have
Anthony Marsh
> This is over, Anthony.
>
> Jerry addressed your issue about the pics .. and told you we took NONE
> from your website.
>
Of course you did not take any of the pics from my Web site. Because you
didn't even have the common courtesy to ask or to look. You got my photo
of the blow-up of the cracks because someone else had previously
downloaded it from my Web site. Someone else, not you, did and then you
got it from him. You don't care where you got it from.
> You can protest all you want, but if you think everyone reads ... or
> even sees ... all your posts and thinks to harvest every link you
> post, you are in a quite heady dream world.
>
It's how a newsgroup works.
> When people remember something has been posted on a site, or remembers
> someone has done work on a subject, they expect to be able to go to
> the site and find things. How on earth is anyone supposed to be able
> to guess at your document titles. Nonsense.
>
By reading the damn articles, which you refused to do.
Anthony Marsh
You are wrong. The Frazier photo shows that they did not try to do
anything about the couple of blood drops on the windshield. Obviously
they could not do anything about the crack. The limo did not stop for
them to wash off the windshield on its way to the hospital. You can see
that the windshield is clean at the hospital. No one was ordered or
tried to clean the windshield.
Maybe it's new to you, but my point is that I think the windshield being
so clean means the shot to the head did not come from behind. I plan to
demonstrate that.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Whatever direction the bullet came from ... the victim whose head
exploded was IN the car ... and gore went every which way ...
including onto the backs of Greer and Kellerman.
pamela
How do you know those were drops of blood? Are they visible at PH?
Didn't RF say they were oil or something else? Why would the SS drive
the limo anywhere without making sure they could see to drive? You
are making a good point, but could use some more definition.
Anthony Marsh
Silly, they were drops of blood. Nothing else. I don't say that you can
see the drops of blood in any photo taken at the hospital. I say that
you can see that the windshield was not covered with gore.
> Didn't RF say they were oil or something else? Why would the SS drive
No, he didn't.
> the limo anywhere without making sure they could see to drive? You
> are making a good point, but could use some more definition.
>
The crack and the drops of blood did not impair driving the limo. They
sped at high speed to Parkland with that damage to the windshield.
Anthony Marsh
Have you ever seen a case where the conclusions are reversed by a
reexamination of the blood spatter patterns? Ever hear of a guy named
Henry Lee?
pamela
>
> read more »
Just who is being silly here? You are planning to put this idea out to
the LNers, yet you seem unable to even acknowledge the pitfalls of it.
And yes, RF or someone said the drops were not blood but oil or something
else. Even if that had not been said, the limo traveled 1600 miles, was
driven for some of them and may have been put under a tarp prior to the
forensic exam. How can its condition then be considered pristine?
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I've talked to him on the phone. No blood spatter analysis was done in
this case. Your point is ... pointless. Just as silly as your comment
I replied to in the first place. Head burst open in the top, front
side and rear. People in front of JFK were splattered with gore,
people behind JFK were splattered with gore. Analyze that and maybe
you can figure out why.
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
You've spent a bejillion years studying the limo and you don't know
what Frazier testified to ablout there being gore from the hood
ornament all the way back to great amounts on the trunk lid?
How bizarre.
pamela
Based on Jerry's statements in this thread on the Ed Forum he doesn't
seem to be interested in revising the article enough to include giving
credit to you. Hope that changes.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14532&st=75&gopid=170195&#entry170195
Anthony Marsh
That is irrelevant. We are only discussing what was on the windshield. How
can there be blood all over the hood and only a couple of drops on the
windshield? Part of the answer is that it was partially shielded by the SS
agents bodies.
But again my contention is that it was Connally's body drops, not
Kennedy's.
> How bizarre.
Anthony Marsh
No, that is exactly the point that I was making, that they did not do
any blood spatter analysis.
> I replied to in the first place. Head burst open in the top, front
> side and rear. People in front of JFK were splattered with gore,
> people behind JFK were splattered with gore. Analyze that and maybe
> you can figure out why.
But there were only a couple of drops of blood on the windshield. And I
doubt that would be the case if the shot came from behind. The pattern of
head burst would be the same for a bullet from the front. But the blood
spatter pattern would be different.
>>
>>
Anthony Marsh
>
> Just who is being silly here? You are planning to put this idea out to
> the LNers, yet you seem unable to even acknowledge the pitfalls of it.
>
What do you mean put the idea out to the LNers? The idea is out there for
all to see. My idea is quite dangerous to the LNers, because it would
prove the head shot did not come from behind. Your false story that the
windshield was covered with blood serves their interest in confirming that
the head shot came from behind.
There are pitfalls in my questioning that the blood was Connally's instead
of Kennedy's. I accept that. There is no pitfall in simply stating the
fact that the only thing on the windshield was the crack and a couple of
drops of blood.
> And yes, RF or someone said the drops were not blood but oil or something
No, no one said that. You are perhaps thinking about the large drip which
happened during storage and was not there when the FBI examined the limo.
That supposedly was debris from a roof leak.
> else. Even if that had not been said, the limo traveled 1600 miles, was
> driven for some of them and may have been put under a tarp prior to the
> forensic exam. How can its condition then be considered pristine?
>
I never said it was pristine, but the couple of blood drops are pristine
and no smearing anywhere by the time the FBI exam team saw it. Side
question: Are the blood drops still there today and if so could they
reveal DNA?
pamela
> On 7/23/2009 3:04 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
Since the drops were not treated as blood, you have a few hoops to go
through on that one.
Another factor may be the length of the stretch section.
pamela
her saying RF claimed there were 'chunks of gore' all over the limo.
Barb Junkkarinen
>I'm sure Barb will be happy to pony up the cite she's referencing for
>her saying RF claimed there were 'chunks of gore' all over the limo.
Have posted it many times. And am always happy to post quotes/cites
for things I claim as fact.
You should try it. :-)
As the limo "expert" one has to wonder why you are unasware of his
comment ... which, by the way, I did not reference as "chunks."
I said he reported gore from the hood ornament all the way back
including the trunk lid.
Robt Frazier, Shaw trial testimony:
QUOTE
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, other than the windshield of the automobile,
could you tell us what particular examinations were conducted with
other parts of this vehicle?
A: Yes, sir. The first examination which was made was of the exterior
portions of the vehicle. We examined the outer surface of the hood,
the grille area, both front fender areas, all the metal work on the
outside of the automobile. The examination was for two purposes, to
determine whether there were any bullets or other projectile impact
areas on the outside of the car and also to note the presence of the
foreign material deposited on it. We found blood and tissue all over
the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the
complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on
the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior
portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the
car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the
trunk lid area. We found however, no bullet holes or projectile marks.
END QUOTE
Again, I did not say "chunks" ... neither did Frazier.
Will you even acknowledge this to me?
Course not. :-)
Jerry Logan
@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jfk...@gmail.com says...
> On Jul 18, 7:03?pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 7/18/2009 11:03 AM, pamela wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Hello Mr.Marsh,
> >
> > >> I'm very pleased that you took up posting on Lancer about the windshield
> > >> issues - your comments there have made some very interesting points and
> > >> you've filled some gaps in the record that needed filling. Moreover,
> > >> anyone interested in the presidential limousine needs to go directly to
> > >> your 1995 essay/presentationhttp://home.comcast.net/
> > >> ~the_puzzle_palace/bestwitn.htm. It's invaluable and a real contribution
> > >> to everyone's understanding.
> >
> > >> Unfortunately, I fear Pamala has muddied the waters while stirring up a
> > >> controversy that just doesn't exist. For example, this is what we wrote
> > >> (not what Pamala imagined or has implied we wrote) about the limousine
> > >> examination notes:
> >
> > >> "Frazier took notes as he examined the limousine early on the morning of
> > >> these notes obtained while doing research in the Archives."
> >
> > >> I'm sure you'll recognize that a) we did NOT claim to have discovered or
> > >> scanned the notes ourselves and b) we did NOT say that John Hunt was the
> > >> that we obtained the notes from John Hunt which is the absolute and
> > >> complete truth. I (and I assume Barb and Josiah) have no idea if you or
> > >> John Hunt were first to copy the notes - I do know for an absolute
> > >> certainty that we got our copies from Hunt and that's exactly what we
> > >> wrote, no more and no less.
> >
> > >> Second, there's the issue of the windshield photograph and the
> > >> enlargement. Pamala has been particularly clever here, implying that the
> > >> information was "lift, lift" lifted from your website. I find her
> > >> criticism ironic since the same photos seem to appear on her website
> > >> without any credit to you. Apparently, "lifting" is in the eye of the
> > >> beholder.
> >
> > >> The truth is that I (and I can't speak for Barb or Tink here) had no
> > >> idea that you were the source of the photo scan and enlargement until
> > >> but there is absolutely no indication on your site that the photos
> > >> knowing that they were yours. ?And I also want to assure you that the
> > >> copies we used were not copied by us from your site or archives.
> >
> > >> It's a measure of your contribution to research on the assassination
> > >> that much of your work has simply become unacknowledged background
> > >> thousands of times and I've never seen you credited for them (not even
> > >> by Pamala). I'm glad to have the chance to thank you for all your
> > >> contributions.
> >
> > >> In this regard, you and Tink share much the same fate. Of course he'd
> > >> complain if someone just xeroxed parts of Six Seconds and claimed it as
> > >> without a word of acknowledgement. Tink had the Moorman photograph
> > >> copied in 1967 at his own expense and I've seen thousands of copies and
> > >> crops of his work - and there haven't been many acknowledgements or
> > >> thanks for that effort and expense.
> >
> > >> So Mr. Marsh, I am more than happy to recognize your contributions and
> > >> give credit where credit is long due. Thank you.
> >
> > >> My very best regards to you,
> > >> Jerry Logan
> >
> > > At least Jerry has been able to acknowledge the work that Anthony Marsh
> > > just a bit of that appreciation.
> >
> > I think he did take out the wording about "first published." That was my
> > primary complaint. My main complaint HERE was Barb's continual
> > misrepresentations.
> >
> > > My website did indeed give credit to Anthony for providing the first photo
> > > of the second windshield until it was mistakenly deleted in a recent edit.
> > > That credit will be added again in the next update.
> >
> > Thanks. It's also important because some people might ask WHY we can see
> > the cracks so vividly in that blow-up when we can't see them in the WC
> > published photo. It is because I intentionally tweaked the contrast
> > specifically to make the cracks more visible. Not just for John Hunt's
> > comparison, but many years before. But I do appreciate Hunt's efforts to
> > demonstrate that the crack locations are the same.
> >
> > > give Jarry some insight into what it feels like to bring information to
> > > the community in order to move things forward and then find that it is,
> > > instead, being used for a weak appeal to authority that is intended to
> > > ideas and claim them as 'new'.
> >
> > I would also suggest that there may be more to learn from the windshield.
> > If the shot came from behind and sprayed blood and brain matter forward as
> > the WC defenders claim, then why is NONE of that on the windshield? I
> > think there are only about three tiny drops of blood on the windshield and
> > I think they came from Governor Connally. Of course the DOJ would never
> > actually test them because it might prove conspiracy.
> >
> > > Pamela McElwain-Brown
> > >www.in-broad-daylight.com
> >
> > Side note: I am heartened to notice that at least a couple of people have
> > noticed in that article things which I pointed out a long time ago, such
> > as the damage to the back of the rearview mirror. Even Bob Groden doubted
> > it and thought it might be a trick of the lighting.
>
> Based on Jerry's statements in this thread on the Ed Forum he doesn't
> seem to be interested in revising the article enough to include giving
> credit to you. Hope that changes.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14532&st=75&gopid=170195&#entry170195
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Since Pamela seems to have a problem with reading comprehension it would
simply be outstanding if she took a few moments for quiet reflection
before broadcasting her false and misleading conclusions to the rest of
the world.
a) There will be a revised PDF version and there will be rollover photo
information as per Mr. Marsh's excellent suggestion.
b) The article will refer readers to Mr. Marsh's web site.
c) Mr. Marsh will be acknowledged for his copy and enlargement of the
windshield and window damage in CE350.
d) The article will state that we obtained our copy of the limousine
diagrams from John Hunt - it doesn't and it won't make any claims about
who first discovered or copied the diagrams.
e) John Hunt has conclusively demonstrated to us that neither of the
images in the FBI/HSCA comparison originated with Mr. Marsh. Hunt
personally scanned the photos himself while in the Archives and he used
crops from those scans - not from Mr. Marsh's images - to create the
comparison graphic. Accordingly, since the comparison graphic is entirely
Mr. Hunt's work, we will credit Mr. Hunt.
How anyone could conclude from this that "he doesn't seem to be interested
in revising the article enough to include giving credit to you" is nearly
beyond comprehension. The revised article will give Mr. Marsh full credit
for his efforts with CE350 - something that Pamela's web site still hasn't
accomplished and that hasn't appeared on her website since at least 2005,
if ever.
Pamela should read more closely and refrain from tossing stones in her
glass house.
pamela
"You've spent a bejillion years studying the limo and you don't know what
Frazier testified to ablout there being gore from the hood ornament all
the way back to great amounts on the trunk lid?
That was a bit overstating what RF was saying, don't you think?
In addition, just how much debris would reasonably still be attached to
the car after it had traveled about 1600 miles and had been driven over 50
miles from AAFB to the WHG in a fine evening mist?
RF may have found something, but 'gore' on the exterior of the limo does
not seem reasonable.
Why are you treating the condition of the limo as if it were the same at
the WHG as it was 12 hours earlier at PH? If there had been 'gore' on the
exterior of the limo it certainly should have been visible there, don't
you think?
pamela
This is hilarious. I missed something in first reading of Barb's
delightful response. Is she now claiming RF's Shaw statements are 'new'
to the community? Or that I was unaware of the quote she would likely
provide?
Does one not dare to ask her for a source for her curious claim of 'gore'
being on the outside of the limo without being subjected to a third
degree?
LOL.
Anthony Marsh
Why didn't Frazier say that they found blood splatter on the INSIDE of
the windshield? Why only on the outside?
Can you see from the blow up I did that the two blood drops are on the
outside of the windshield?
Anthony Marsh
> I'm sure Barb will be happy to pony up the cite she's referencing for
> her saying RF claimed there were 'chunks of gore' all over the limo.
>
>
I think the "chunks of gore" is Barb's expression, not Frazier's.
Jerry Logan
@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jfk...@gmail.com says...
>
> Based on Jerry's statements in this thread on the Ed Forum he doesn't
> seem to be interested in revising the article enough to include giving
> credit to you. Hope that changes.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14532&st=75&gopid=170195&#entry170195
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
Since Pamela seems to have a problem with reading comprehension it would
Anthony Marsh
Not treated as blood? I don't know what that means/ You think they didn't
see them? Obviously they did not test them and still will not test them.
Did they collect and test any of the other blood? No.
pamela
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=226813
To give everyone some historical perspective.
Barb Junkkarinen
>You said "gore":
Do you have a better name for blood and tissue that has been exploded
off of/out of a person's head? :-)
>
>"You've spent a bejillion years studying the limo and you don't know what
>Frazier testified to ablout there being gore from the hood ornament all
>the way back to great amounts on the trunk lid?
>
>That was a bit overstating what RF was saying, don't you think?
No, I don't think I overstated it in the least.
Again, since you must have missed them, here are Frazier's words from
his Shaw trial testimony: [this time limiting the quote to just the
part where he describes where all on the car they found gore ... uh
... blood and tissue .... so you can't miss it again:
"We found blood and tissue all over
the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the
complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on
the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior
portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the
car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the
trunk lid area."
>
>In addition, just how much debris would reasonably still be attached to
>the car after it had traveled about 1600 miles and had been driven over 50
>miles from AAFB to the WHG in a fine evening mist?
You make it sound like it had to be big chunks. And however much was
left by the time he examined the car in the wee hours of 11-23, that's
what he described. I would expect that it was all spatter and trace
amounts.
>
>RF may have found something, but 'gore' on the exterior of the limo does
>not seem reasonable.
You'll have to take it up with him. Maybe you can "help" him with his
memory like you did on whatever that other issue was when you spoke to
him several years ago. :-)
Why didn't you know about this testimony, Ms Limo?
AND, a better question is why you are now challenging the very idea
when you yourself reported such in your 1998 presentation/article!
On page 20, you note:
" .... He [Frazier] reported that, 'blood and particles of flesh were
scattered all over the hood, windshield, the front seat, the rear
floor rugs, the jumpseats and rear seats, down both sides of the side
rails or tops of the doors to the car."
You go on to say that he has since stated that he made no notice of
any debris on the trunk. But clearly, as quoted, he testified
otherwise at the Shaw trial.
So now gore on the exterior of the limo is not only a surprise to you,
but does not seem reasonable ... yet, as quoted, you noted it as a
quote from Frazier in your article.
Here's the link to your article, as you posted it on the Ed Forum
today:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4886&relPageId=18
Wonderful timing ... thank you. :-)
>
>Why are you treating the condition of the limo as if it were the same at
>the WHG as it was 12 hours earlier at PH? If there had been 'gore' on the
>exterior of the limo it certainly should have been visible there, don't
>you think?
Why are you pretending I am doing any such thing? I reported what
Frazer testified to. And now I am also reporting what YOU quoted from
Frazier in YOUR article! ROTFL.
He wasn't AT Parkland.
>
Anthony Marsh
I have no problem with Jerry. My problem is with Barb. Her constant
personal attacks, sucking up to the WC defenders, and misrepresenting
facts.
Barb Junkkarinen
>
>This is hilarious. I missed something in first reading of Barb's
>delightful response. Is she now claiming RF's Shaw statements are 'new'
>to the community? Or that I was unaware of the quote she would likely
>provide?
Here's what I said:
"As the limo 'expert' one has to wonder why you are unasware of his
comment ... which, by the way, I did not reference as 'chunks'."
What's hilarious is that you say you went back and read it again ...
and then, even after that, you post THIS??? Hoping I wouldn't respond
with a quote or no one would bother to look, perhaps.
Oy.
>
>Does one not dare to ask her for a source for her curious claim of 'gore'
>being on the outside of the limo without being subjected to a third
>degree?
>
>LOL.
I would be embarrassed for you, but it's just too funny to watch. By
all means ... carry on! ROTFL.
If you would stop your incessant quest to gore me ... you could save
yourself from all the wounds you get tripping on your own sword all
over the place. Really, Pamela. This is silly.
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
He did, Tony ... it's in the 4th sentence after he says, "Yes, sir."
above ... here is the sentence:
"We found blood and tissue all over
the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the
complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield,
also on the inside surface of the windshield, ... "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Can you see from the blow up I did that the two blood drops are on the
>outside of the windshield?
I wouldn't trust my eyes, maybe someone else can say what they see.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Exactly right, Tony, except I didn't say "chunks" ... that was Pam's
little addition.
I did say "gore."
And Frazier's description sounds gory to me, how about you?
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
Indeed. I just replied to a couple of her posts where she cracked a
few more of her own windows. :-)
Thanks for laying this out so clearly and point by point, Jerry.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>An Examination of the Presidential Limousine in the White House Garage
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=226813
Yes, I've already referenced it and quoted from it in a reply to you
just awhile ago.
And, my bad .. I think I said '98 somewhere in my post. Oops.
Thanks again for posting this!
pamela
describe, perhaps she might then want to add some corroboration for
these statements with, say, firsthand accounts from the witnesses at
PH? Surely someone else saw the 'gore' on the outside of the limo?
And lets not forget the photos of the limo at PH. Wouldn't 'gore'
also show up in them?