Bullet Hole in Windshield?

[claviger]

International Skeptics Forum


bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139658&page=12

[mainframetech]

Since 6 witnesses saw the bullet hole through the windshield from close
up, the photo must out of focus or has been retouched.

Chris

[bigdog]

I'll bet you can't QUOTE six witnesses who said the bullet hole went all
the way through the windshield.

[Anthony Marsh]

Always the alterationist. When the physical evidence proves your
witnesses wrong you claim it was fake.
Show me what photos you think are fake.

> Chris
>
>
>

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Of course not! If folks say that there was a bullet hole in
the windshield, it is implied that it went all the way through, since
glass is rather thin. Even hear of a partial bullet hole in glass?
Kinda stupid, huh? If someone said they saw a crack in the windshield, we
would understand that an object struck without going through, but when
someone says there was a bullet hole, that means it went all the way
through. Think it through!

Chris

[claviger]

What penetrating bullet strikes on windshields look like:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/buickwshieldi6.jpg

https://www.sovereignman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Bullethole.jpg

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/car-bullet-holes-windshield-39099703.jpg

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/bullet-holes-car-windshield-14220246.jpg

https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-car-bullet-holes-windshield-image39099181

https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-bullet-hole-glass-crime-violence-image41982367

http://www.fox4news.com/news/2573348-story#

[claviger]

A bullet strike on a windshield looks like a snowball with a hole in the
middle. The white snowball around the hole is called "frothing" by
ballistic experts. No frothing in the JFK Limousine windshield. A lead
fragment made the crack, not a bullet.

[bigdog]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 4:43:20 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 5:21:33 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 8:13:46 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > International Skeptics Forum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo
> > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139658&page=12
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since 6 witnesses saw the bullet hole through the windshield from close
> > > up, the photo must out of focus or has been retouched.
> > >
> >
> > I'll bet you can't QUOTE six witnesses who said the bullet hole went all
> > the way through the windshield.
>
>
>
> WRONG! Of course not! If folks say that there was a bullet hole in
> the windshield, it is implied that it went all the way through, since
> glass is rather thin.

Oh, so if the damn witnesses didn't say what you wanted them to say you
just claim they implied what you wanted them to say. I guess you can get
any witness to imply just about anything you want using that methodology.

> Even hear of a partial bullet hole in glass?
> Kinda stupid, huh? If someone said they saw a crack in the windshield, we
> would understand that an object struck without going through, but when
> someone says there was a bullet hole, that means it went all the way
> through. Think it through!
>

What horseshit. A hole doesn't have to go all the way through an object to
be a hole. If it did a pothole would have to go all the way to China. My
car's windshield was once struck by a pebble thrown up be a truck going in
the opposite direction. It put a hole in the front surface of the
windshield but the rock didn't come through.

I guess we can just take this as a tacit admission on your part that only
three of the six people you cited actually said there was a hole THROUGH
the windshield.

[Ace Kefford]

Mmm ... frosting.

But seriously, good point. I would add too that a person seeing that
damage could very easily call it a "bullet hole" based on the general
assumption of people that damage caused by a shooting is caused by a
"bullet" and if a bullet hits something it goes through it making a
"hole". On the other hand, I do recall reading that one of the reporters
indicated that he or someone had put a pencil in (maybe through) the hole.
Is that accurate? (Too lazy to look it up myself.)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/2/2017 9:02 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 4:43:20 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 5:21:33 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 8:13:46 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>>> International Skeptics Forum
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo
>>>>> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139658&page=12
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since 6 witnesses saw the bullet hole through the windshield from close
>>>> up, the photo must out of focus or has been retouched.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll bet you can't QUOTE six witnesses who said the bullet hole went all
>>> the way through the windshield.
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Of course not! If folks say that there was a bullet hole in
>> the windshield, it is implied that it went all the way through, since
>> glass is rather thin.
>
> Oh, so if the damn witnesses didn't say what you wanted them to say you
> just claim they implied what you wanted them to say. I guess you can get
> any witness to imply just about anything you want using that methodology.
>

That's not his only trick. He also loves to misquote them.

[Anthony Marsh]

Could be. Can you prove that it was only one of the lead fragments and not
a jacket fragment? I suspect the lead core that was missing from the base
fragment.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 8:39:19 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:01:04 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > A bullet strike on a windshield looks like a snowball with a hole in the
> > middle. The white snowball around the hole is called "frothing" by
> > ballistic experts. No frothing in the JFK Limousine windshield. A lead
> > fragment made the crack, not a bullet.
>
> Mmm ... frosting.

Good description and foaming might work too.

> But seriously, good point. I would add too that a person seeing that
> damage could very easily call it a "bullet hole" based on the general
> assumption of people that damage caused by a shooting is caused by a
> "bullet" and if a bullet hits something it goes through it making a
> "hole". On the other hand, I do recall reading that one of the reporters
> indicated that he or someone had put a pencil in (maybe through) the hole.
> Is that accurate? (Too lazy to look it up myself.)

http://i.imgur.com/un96MOu.png

[claviger]

Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD
Started by Andy Walker, July 4, 2009
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/

BOARDS.IE
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057508258/3#100479495

Crack in the windshield
Started by Robin Unger, June 3, 2007
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/10152-crack-in-the-windshield/&page=3

JFK Murder Solved Forum
Analyses Of The Inside Of The JFK Limo.
http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?p=35705

JFK Limo Bullet Hole Close Up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmBL8WeXivs
Jack McFile

JFK Limo Windshield Bullet Hole? - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHnW7wabHg8
Jack McFile

Absolute Proof Of JFK Assassination Conspiracy: A Hit Fired From The Front
Saintly Oswald
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J4MZUd2l0s

[claviger]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 8:39:19 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:

I think a DPD officer did too or watched someone do it. If there wasn't a
hole before the pencil test there definitely was after. No officer or
witness should be allowed to tamper or poke at the windshield until
detectives arrive. The DPD was simply an extension of the Wild West
heritage of law enforcement in 1963. Brave men with no sense of how to
preserve a crime scene. The DPD is well aware of numerous mistakes from
top-to-bottom by the City COC during this national tragedy. Murphy's Law
was in control from start to finish. Great strides have been made since
then by professional leadership from several outstanding Dallas Police
Chiefs.

[deke]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:39:19 PM UTC-4, Ace Kefford wrote:

> Mmm ... frosting.
>
> But seriously, good point. I would add too that a person seeing that
> damage could very easily call it a "bullet hole" based on the general
> assumption of people that damage caused by a shooting is caused by a
> "bullet" and if a bullet hits something it goes through it making a
> "hole". On the other hand, I do recall reading that one of the reporters
> indicated that he or someone had put a pencil in (maybe through) the hole.
> Is that accurate? (Too lazy to look it up myself.)

Well, here it is.

http://jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-entrance-hole-in-windshield.html

It's worth noting that the third witness, Dr. Evalea Glanges, was an avid
gun buff from an early age. It's also worth noting that all of the
witnesses were professionals whose jobs involved being observant and
paying attention to details. The odds are very strong against all of them
getting it wrong. Unfortunately, there are many who still follow the WC
methodology which is that any witness who gives testimony, no matter how
well corroborated, that doesn't fit in with their assumed conclusion, must
be mistaken.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:39:19 PM UTC-4, Ace Kefford wrote:

The source of the pencil through the hole was Officer Stavis Ellis who 8
years later told an interviewer that you could have put a pencil through
it, not that anybody actually did. It's understandable that a false memory
would get created in such a circumstance. The knew JFK had been shot and
they saw a hole in the windshield so the natural assumption would be that
somebody had fired through the windshield and over time that impression
became a false memory. Same with the medical student who observed that
hole but she didn't tell her story until 1999. Those recollections are
offset first by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the glass and
saw that it was smooth indicating the projectile had not come through it.
That was a contemporaneous account. The most compelling reason for
dismissing the idea that there was a shot through the windshield is the
geometry. The hole in the glass was lower than JFK's head. That would mean
the shot would have to come from in front of and below the limo, i.e. down
the slope toward the underpass. That would put the shooter ON ELM ST.,
with the motorcade coming directly at him. Does anyone think that is
remotely possible, other than of course Chris/mainframetech.

[Anthony Marsh]

I would just add that many people would ASSuME that if a bullet hit the
windshield it MUST have gone through. Most people are not aware of a
bullet or fragment hitting a windshield and bouncing off. Because normally
a bullet will have too much force to just bounce off. I would hope that
you think just a fragment hit the inside of the glass. But then where did
it go? Can you diagram it?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/4/2017 6:10 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 8:39:19 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:01:04 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> A bullet strike on a windshield looks like a snowball with a hole in the
>>> middle. The white snowball around the hole is called "frothing" by
>>> ballistic experts. No frothing in the JFK Limousine windshield. A lead
>>> fragment made the crack, not a bullet.
>>
>> Mmm ... frosting.
>>
>> But seriously, good point. I would add too that a person seeing that
>> damage could very easily call it a "bullet hole" based on the general
>> assumption of people that damage caused by a shooting is caused by a
>> "bullet" and if a bullet hits something it goes through it making a
>> "hole". On the other hand, I do recall reading that one of the reporters
>> indicated that he or someone had put a pencil in (maybe through) the hole.
>> Is that accurate? (Too lazy to look it up myself.)
>
> I think a DPD officer did too or watched someone do it. If there wasn't a
> hole before the pencil test there definitely was after. No officer or

There was no pencil test. A dummy said that if she had tried to put a
pencil through the hole she could have. She never got close enough to do it.
f

> witness should be allowed to tamper or poke at the windshield until
> detectives arrive. The DPD was simply an extension of the Wild West

Detectives? WTF are you talking about? You mean like a real crime?
You've been watching too many TV shows. They did not have CSI: Dallas in
1963. How about the Secret Service washing out the limo and throwing
away evidence?

> heritage of law enforcement in 1963. Brave men with no sense of how to
> preserve a crime scene. The DPD is well aware of numerous mistakes from
> top-to-bottom by the City COC during this national tragedy. Murphy's Law
> was in control from start to finish. Great strides have been made since
> then by professional leadership from several outstanding Dallas Police
> Chiefs.
>
>
>
>

My question is why didn't the FBI take over the investigation
immediately? Did they think it was a third rate burglary?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/4/2017 5:57 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 7:37:30 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> International Skeptics Forum
>> bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo
>> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139658&page=12
>
> Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD
> Started by Andy Walker, July 4, 2009
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/
>

"thanks to Jerry Logan and John Hunt"

Ditto that.

"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."

That's a little naive. I'm sure that both the kooks and the WC defenders
could figure out some way to keep a SBT with a bullet hole through the
windshield. Obviously the easiest way it to claim that the windshield was
hit with the miss. That would force a SBT to have Kennedy and Connally
wounded.

We already have one kook include the windshield in his theory of a shot
from the front, maybe the head shot, maybe the throat shot.

I know a kook who could claim the bullet went through Kennedy, then
Connally and then the windshield.

Most WC defenders can dream any lie to have their SBT and a windshield
hole also. Maybe the bullet exiting JFK's head.

[mainframetech]

It would be stupid not to consider that there was a drain on the left
side of Elm Street past the underpass. It would make an excellent 'nest'
because it had a large tunnel leading away from the drain to an area
unseen from the road. Only a fool would ignore it as a possibility, since
there was clearly more than one shot from the front. Of course, being the
only person in the whole world that didn't see anything in the photo where
the bullet hole in JFK's forehead was, you have no input here.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Good point! And we can't forget the Ford plant manager that worked in
the glass lab and saw the limousine and the windshield and knew right away
from his experience that it was from a bullet from the OUTSIDE! Read Doug
Weldon's chapter in "Murder in Dealey Plaza".

Chris

[mainframetech]

It is seriously doubtful that a cop punched a hole through a windshield
with a pencil.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:57:10 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 7:37:30 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > International Skeptics Forum
> > bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo
> > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139658&page=12
>
> Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD
> Started by Andy Walker, July 4, 2009
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/
>

Truly amazing this story! While mentioning Fetzer and his "Murder in
Dealey Plaza", it completely ignored the chapter written by Doug Weldon,JD
that describes the experience of George Whitaker Sr. who worked for the
Ford company. He was called in early on a Monday to go to the glass lab
and help with a windshield that had to be replaced. As it turns out, the
whole presidential limousine was there to have the insides refurbished.
Whitaker saw the windshield and from experience he knew that there was a
through-and-through bullet hole in it from the OUTSIDE. The orders were
to replace the windshield and destroy the old windshield. It seems this
witness to the bullet hole in the windshield was left out altogether, and
the number of witnesses seems to be wrong. I suggest reading the
following article to get the truth and not some silly effort to disprove
the truth:

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



These other stories all seem to be just arguments on the subject of
the bullet hole that was clearly in the limo windshield.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The angle and position are possible, but the shot is not.

[Anthony Marsh]

Meaningless. Never rely on witnesses.

>

[bigdog]

You seem to be a cult of one suggesting a shot from the left side storm
drain beyond the underpass. I've never seen anyone offer that turd of a
theory. I will give you points for originality.

[deke]

Eyewitness testimony can often be unreliable, especially when it it not
corroborated - I get that. But here we have six credible witnesses
basically saying the same thing. That has to be taken seriously.

[deke]

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:10:35 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

The DPD was simply an extension of the Wild West
> heritage of law enforcement in 1963. Brave men with no sense of how to
> preserve a crime scene. The DPD is well aware of numerous mistakes from
> top-to-bottom by the City COC during this national tragedy. Murphy's Law
> was in control from start to finish. Great strides have been made since
> then by professional leadership from several outstanding Dallas Police
> Chiefs.

Andy and Barney could have done a better job than the DPD. This was a
crime in their jurisdiction. They should have sealed off the Limo and not
allowed the SS to wash out the inside of it. The Limo, which was part of
the crime scene, should never have been taken out of Dallas until an
investigation had taken place, just like Kennedy's body should not have
left the hospital until an autopsy had been performed. If the DPD had done
their job and not let the SS muscle in on their jurisdiction, there would
be many fewer unanswered questions.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not what he said. The cop said he COULD have put a pencil
through the hole. Do you have too much straw where you live or too much
wax in your ears? Try being a more sincere person.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/5/2017 7:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:

HIS experience? Prove what experience he had with bullet holes in
windshields. You just make up crap.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/5/2017 7:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:

There was a storm drain. So what? Show us YOUR storm drain and your angle.
What's the matter with Lifton's theory about the fake tree? Even you would
be naive enough to fall for that.

> side of Elm Street past the underpass. It would make an excellent 'nest'
> because it had a large tunnel leading away from the drain to an area

Why are you overlooking the hidden maintenance room under the overpass?

> unseen from the road. Only a fool would ignore it as a possibility, since

Only a fool would believe your theories.

> there was clearly more than one shot from the front. Of course, being the

JKF was shot only once in the head.
No shot from behind.

> only person in the whole world that didn't see anything in the photo where
> the bullet hole in JFK's forehead was, you have no input here.
>

He's not allowed to see the bullet hole.

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

You have to stop listening to Chris. Of the six witnesses, we know one is
a proven liar because the limo was not in Michigan on the date he claims
it was having work done that the Ford plant was not equipped to do. Both
the original customization work and the post assassination refurbishment
were done by the Hess and Eisenhardt Co. in Cincinnati because Ford didn't
do that kind of work. Of the remaining five, only two said the hole went
all the way through the windshield. The other three just said they saw a
hole. Nobody disputes there was in impact crater on the inside surface of
the windshield where it was hit by a fragment from the head shot. Cracks
radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
his had and discovered it was smooth.

[claviger]

Compare these two windshields:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CE350W.gif
https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DuwF.jpg


More
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136030/can-a-bullet-shot-through-a-glass-make-a-clean-hole
https://www.shutterstock.com/search/bullet+hole+glass

[claviger]

A man drives a car with bullet holes in the windshield in the eastern
Ukrainian city of Donetsk on June 3, 2014.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-news-photo/495433137?#man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-eastern-picture-id495433137


29: 9mm Bullets Through Car Windshield GTA 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yiaWO525qo

[mainframetech]

I suggest it as a possibility, as I said. And that's from the
evidence. But you wouldn't know about that, having not seen any.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 8:22:22 PM UTC-4, deke wrote:

> Eyewitness testimony can often be unreliable, especially when it is not

> corroborated - I get that. But here we have six credible witnesses
> basically saying the same thing. That has to be taken seriously.

Good thinking! Therefore LNs won't subscribe to it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Did Mayberry have a CSI? Back in 1963?
Only the FBI was able to find the evidence in the limo.

[mainframetech]

What's your point?

Chris

[mainframetech]

It would be nice if you stated what you were trying to prove with
those photos.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You've got one helluva nerve telling someone that. With the
number of WRONG statements you've made over time, I'm the last person YOU
should be saying that about. Let people make their own decisions and
don't be giving them your false information from the kooky LN sites that
you frequent.

Now, You've still failed miserably to answer the question of why would
George Whitaker, Sr. tell a lie? Of course, you have no answer, so that
alone says there is more to his story than meets the eye. Next, the Ford
plant DOES have the sops to do interior of vehicles, and particularly the
glass for the windshields and etc. How else would they keep their new
cars a secret and still finish them for showing and demo before locking
them into a the assembly line? Of course, you have no answer for that
either. All you have is your opinions, and they aren't too carefully
devised either.

> Both
> the original customization work and the post assassination refurbishment
> were done by the Hess and Eisenhardt Co. in Cincinnati because Ford didn't
> do that kind of work.

WRONG! We're not talking about the original work, or the work to add
bullet proof glass, etc. That was indeed done by Hess & Eisendardt.
However, that work was not done on the day when the limousine was in
Michigan, and the garage log proves that the limo certainly wasn't
accessed by anyone on that date. The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day. But it DOES say that
the next day the limo was accessed by 4 workers to replace the windshield,
and Vaughn signed them in.

> Of the remaining five, only two said the hole went
> all the way through the windshield. The other three just said they saw a
> hole. Nobody disputes there was in impact crater on the inside surface of
> the windshield where it was hit by a fragment from the head shot.

WRONG! It's an amazing thing to watch you panicking that someone would
find out this info before you were able to cloud their mind with your
baloney. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. Id you want
them to go with your ideas from the WCR, then argue them like anyone else.
Don't be attacking people that don't think wacky things like you do.

> Cracks
> radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> his had and discovered it was smooth.

There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
windshield. you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane. If some
one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
through the pane.

Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
lie. Do you have an answer?

Chris

[bigdog]

Certainly not from you.

[Anthony Marsh]

We don't have to prove WHY. It could be a lie or it could be a mistake or
it could be a false memory or it could be dementia or some other mental
disorder or coaching. All we have to do is prove that it was physically
impossible. And we did that. The dates do not align and the Arlington crew
replaced the cracked windshield when you have it being seen by Whitaker.
Never rely on witnesses.

>
>
>> Both
>> the original customization work and the post assassination refurbishment
>> were done by the Hess and Eisenhardt Co. in Cincinnati because Ford didn't
>> do that kind of work.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! We're not talking about the original work, or the work to add
> bullet proof glass, etc. That was indeed done by Hess & Eisendardt.

You are confused again. Arlington Glass did not put in bullet proof
glass on November 25, 1963. It just an ordinary replacement safety
glass. They didn't even start the D-2 project until after December.

> However, that work was not done on the day when the limousine was in
> Michigan, and the garage log proves that the limo certainly wasn't
> accessed by anyone on that date. The date Whitaker saw the limousine and

Ferguson was working on the limo on that date. In Washington.

> the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day. But it DOES say that
> the next day the limo was accessed by 4 workers to replace the windshield,
> and Vaughn signed them in.
>

Ferguson was working on the limo on November 25, 1963.

>
>
>> Of the remaining five, only two said the hole went
>> all the way through the windshield. The other three just said they saw a
>> hole. Nobody disputes there was in impact crater on the inside surface of
>> the windshield where it was hit by a fragment from the head shot.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! It's an amazing thing to watch you panicking that someone would
> find out this info before you were able to cloud their mind with your
> baloney. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. Id you want
> them to go with your ideas from the WCR, then argue them like anyone else.
> Don't be attacking people that don't think wacky things like you do.
>
>

Don't look for any help from the WCR.

>
>> Cracks
>> radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
>> The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
>> refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
>> his had and discovered it was smooth.
>
>
> There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the

Just because YOU declare something to be a fact does not prove that it is.

> windshield. you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
> as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane. If some
> one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> through the pane.
>

No one said that. Again, have you ever heard of a bullet hitting a
windshield without going through it? Yes or no? Don't wait for the
translation.

> Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> lie. Do you have an answer?
>

Yes, the same as why you say things that you know are not true.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

What REAL bullet holes look like. Not cracks without a hole.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

That you don't know WTF you are talking about.



> Chris

>

[bigdog]

Says the guy who gets most of his misinformation from kooky conspiracy
websites.

> Now, You've still failed miserably to answer the question of why would
> George Whitaker, Sr. tell a lie?

I don't have to know why he lied. I know he did lie because his story make
no sense and it conflicts with other known facts. Only he knows why he
lied. I can guess if you would like but I don't see a lot of point in
that.

> Of course, you have no answer,

Because I don't know the answer and unlike a certain conspiracy hobbyist I
don't treat unknowns as an invitation to make assumptions. Of course I
could guess and say it is obvious.

> so that
> alone says there is more to his story than meets the eye.

It might say that to you. Not to logical people.

> Next, the Ford
> plant DOES have the sops to do interior of vehicles, and particularly the
> glass for the windshields and etc. How else would they keep their new
> cars a secret and still finish them for showing and demo before locking
> them into a the assembly line? Of course, you have no answer for that
> either. All you have is your opinions, and they aren't too carefully
> devised either.
>

You are confusing fabricating parts for new models with customization of
non-standard vehicles like a stretch limo. Two completely different
applications with different requirements. If Ford needed to fabricate
parts specifically for a stretch limo it would take them a lot more than
one day. In fact the individual parts aren't fabricate at the plant.

It took me a few google searches but I finally found an interesting
website describing the manufacturing processes for the Ford Motor Co.

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Automobile.html

"The automobile assembly plant represents only the final phase in the
process of manufacturing an automobile, for it is here that the components
supplied by more than 4,000 outside suppliers, including company-owned
parts suppliers, are brought together for assembly, usually by truck or
railroad. Those parts that will be used in the chassis are delivered to
one area, while those that will comprise the body are unloaded at
another."

So you see, Ford does not fabricate the individual components for their
automobiles at their main plant. Those various parts are manufactured
elsewhere, some at Ford owned plants and some through independent
companies. The main plant is simply the place were all those various
components get shipped so they can be assembled into a complete car on the
assembly line. Since they don't fabricate their standard parts at the
plant, there is no reason to think they would be able to do that for a
custom job either.

>
>
> > Both
> > the original customization work and the post assassination refurbishment
> > were done by the Hess and Eisenhardt Co. in Cincinnati because Ford didn't
> > do that kind of work.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! We're not talking about the original work, or the work to add
> bullet proof glass, etc. That was indeed done by Hess & Eisendardt.
> However, that work was not done on the day when the limousine was in
> Michigan, and the garage log proves that the limo certainly wasn't
> accessed by anyone on that date.

Just because the limo wasn't accessed doesn't mean it was shipped to
Michican. In fact I would think that had it been shipped to Michigan,
there would be a log entry indicating that. But as is your custom, you
treat every blank space as an invitation to fill it in to your liking.

> The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.

So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?

> But it DOES say that
> the next day the limo was accessed by 4 workers to replace the windshield,
> and Vaughn signed them in.
>

That's right. Those people came in to do a job you claim had been done in
Michigan the day before.

>
>
> > Of the remaining five, only two said the hole went
> > all the way through the windshield. The other three just said they saw a
> > hole. Nobody disputes there was in impact crater on the inside surface of
> > the windshield where it was hit by a fragment from the head shot.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! It's an amazing thing to watch you panicking that someone would
> find out this info before you were able to cloud their mind with your
> baloney. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. Id you want
> them to go with your ideas from the WCR, then argue them like anyone else.
> Don't be attacking people that don't think wacky things like you do.
>

I'm not clouding anybody's mind. The things I say are verifiable. I have
actually provided quotes from those people in the past and I've shown that
only two of those five stated the hole went clean through the windshield.

>
>
> > Cracks
> > radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> > The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> > refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> > his had and discovered it was smooth.
>
>
> There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
> windshield.

If there is no dispute, why are you disputing it.

> you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
> as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane.

We're not talking about a bullet. We are talking about a fragment of a
bullet that would have slowed considerably after striking JFK's skull.

> If some
> one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> through the pane.
>

That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
his hand.

> Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> lie. Do you have an answer?
>

OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
really don't know.

[claviger]

A puncture hole in a car windshield from a rifle. Several bullet holes is
a window from a 9mm handgun. Both did major damage to the windshield.
Not any caused a minor crack that looks like pea gravel off the road
propelled by a tire. That is what the Limousine window looked like, a
small particle of something hit the windshield, not a whole bullet.

[claviger]

What I see that totally escapes you is no resemblance to the crack in the
Limousine window compared to bullet holes made by rifle or 9mm handgun.
None. Out of 101 photos on the Shutterstock website I only saw 4 photos
that might compare but all those were referred to as a crack in the
windshield, not a bullet hole. A bullet HOLE allows the projectile to
pass through the window glass. A bullet CRACK does not. So either way
your theory fails.

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. What you have seen are REAL bullet holes made by REAL guns, not
his imaginary bullet holes made by imaginary guns. If you ever saw the
movie Dune they had a gun which could go though objects without leaving
a mark.

[Anthony Marsh]

But you have to be an expert to tell the difference between a bullet
strike and a pebble strike. And don't you know about the PEBBLE GUN
which uses a C02 cartidge?

[Anthony Marsh]

Possible if that is your theory. But which fragment from which bullet?
Certainly not CE 399. Why couldn't the WC diagram and prove this? Why
couldn't the WC even admit that a fragment hit the chrome topping. If only
you could diagram all these fragments from the head shot you might finally
have solved this case.

[mainframetech]

I completely agree that a photo of a crack in a windshield doesn't
match the sample bullet holes in glass that you've shown. Of course,
you've gone off and not understood anything I've been talking about for a
while now.

I'll start again. 6 people saw a bullet hole in the windshield of the
limousine, and some of them knew it was from the front of the limo that
the bullet had come from. This would completely ruin the whole 'lone nut'
murder theory if another shooter were proved to have fired at the limo.
It was necessary to get rid of the bullet hole, but people had seen it and
would then say there was cover up going on. Someone came up with a great
idea and they moved the limo to Rouge, Michigan after requesting help from
Ford.

The limo was moved to Michigan and had the windshield replaced and the
interior of the vehicle also replaced. It was fairly easy to copy the
interior that was already there, and to replace the windshield with a
stock windshield from the plant. The orders were to destroy the old
windshield wit the bullet hole in it, and the limo was returned to
Washington.

When the limo got back it now had a good clean windshield, but the
witnesses saw a windshield wit ha hole in it, so they put a crack in the
windshield and then called Arlington Glass to come and replace the cracked
windshield. They replaced the windshield and this time they saved the
cracked windshield to show to anyone that thought there had been a bullet
hole there.

Is that clear enough? It all supports the stupid 'lone nut' theory that
saved all the plotters from being hounded the rest of their lives.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! When the limo came back from Michigan, it had a good new
windshield, but they then cracked it so that they could say that a
fragment did it, and not a bullet. They could tell the 6 witnesses that
they made a mistake and the crack would back them up. They had the
cracked windshield replaced and saved it to show to anyone that said there
was a bullet hole in the windshield.

The original windshield was ordered to be destroyed in Michigan, which
got rid of that evidence. The whole charade was to get rid of the bullet
hole in the windshield, and have an excuse to tell to those that had seen
the bullet hole. Because if anyone believed there was a bullet hole
there, it would prove there was plot with more than one shooter, and the
game would be up.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You have no facts that disagree with Whitaker's story. And
just saying you KNOW he lied is just more of your opinions, which are
useless. That his story makes no sense TO YOU makes sense to me,
considering that you've been unable to understand many things discussed
here. The problem is not his story, but your lack of understanding. Go
back to the simple WCR.

> > Of course, you have no answer,
>
> Because I don't know the answer and unlike a certain conspiracy hobbyist I
> don't treat unknowns as an invitation to make assumptions. Of course I
> could guess and say it is obvious.
>

No, you couldn't guess. That just isn't in your tool box. You need
something like the WCR to tell you everything you should know.

> > so that
> > alone says there is more to his story than meets the eye.
>
> It might say that to you. Not to logical people.
>
> > Next, the Ford

> > plant DOES have the shops to do interior of vehicles, and particularly the

> > glass for the windshields and etc. How else would they keep their new
> > cars a secret and still finish them for showing and demo before locking

> > them into the assembly line? Of course, you have no answer for that

> > either. All you have is your opinions, and they aren't too carefully
> > devised either.
> >
>
> You are confusing fabricating parts for new models with customization of
> non-standard vehicles like a stretch limo. Two completely different
> applications with different requirements. If Ford needed to fabricate
> parts specifically for a stretch limo it would take them a lot more than
> one day. In fact the individual parts aren't fabricate at the plant.
>

WRONG! Oh, get off your little pedestal. I'm talking about the shops
that work on the new models each year. They need demos and they want to
keep them secret from everyone until time to unveil them. So they need
shops that handle upholstery. They don't offer custom work for just
anyone. They WOULD be glad to help an important client though, like the
W.H. SS.

> It took me a few google searches but I finally found an interesting
> website describing the manufacturing processes for the Ford Motor Co.
>
> http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Automobile.html
>
> "The automobile assembly plant represents only the final phase in the
> process of manufacturing an automobile, for it is here that the components
> supplied by more than 4,000 outside suppliers, including company-owned
> parts suppliers, are brought together for assembly, usually by truck or
> railroad. Those parts that will be used in the chassis are delivered to
> one area, while those that will comprise the body are unloaded at
> another."
>
> So you see, Ford does not fabricate the individual components for their
> automobiles at their main plant.

WRONG! You just haven't got the capacity to learn anything. First,
your example article is from a time much later than 1963 because they talk
of robots assembling much of the vehicles. There was a point where Ford
and the other makers changed to the assembly plant that took in parts from
all over the area and even other states. Second, That article speaks of
the cars AFTER the designing is done and the assembly line had bee planned
and is built. Third, there is NO discussion in that article of the
process of developing the first interior for a new vehicle, or the new
model for a new year. Not a word. Go back and start again. At least
your trying proper research. You'll get it after a while of trying.

> Those various parts are manufactured
> elsewhere, some at Ford owned plants and some through independent
> companies. The main plant is simply the place were all those various
> components get shipped so they can be assembled into a complete car on the
> assembly line. Since they don't fabricate their standard parts at the
> plant, there is no reason to think they would be able to do that for a
> custom job either.
>

WRONG! See above.

> >
> >
> > > Both
> > > the original customization work and the post assassination refurbishment
> > > were done by the Hess and Eisenhardt Co. in Cincinnati because Ford didn't
> > > do that kind of work.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! We're not talking about the original work, or the work to add
> > bullet proof glass, etc. That was indeed done by Hess & Eisendardt.
> > However, that work was not done on the day when the limousine was in
> > Michigan, and the garage log proves that the limo certainly wasn't
> > accessed by anyone on that date.
>
> Just because the limo wasn't accessed doesn't mean it was shipped to
> Michican. In fact I would think that had it been shipped to Michigan,
> there would be a log entry indicating that. But as is your custom, you
> treat every blank space as an invitation to fill it in to your liking.
>

WRONG! You'll just never learn. I try to instill logic and common
sense and you just keep screwing up! Thinking for yourself isn't your
thing. This was a secret operation, and they wouldn't want a record of it
anywhere. There won't be a record of the C-130 or other conveyance moving
the limo, and no other records. The Garage log doesn't even give anything
away, although it helps to know that Whitaker had his experience the day
that the limo was not accessed by anyone. It was certainly accessed every
other day.

> > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
>
> So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
>

Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
this.

> > But it DOES say that
> > the next day the limo was accessed by 4 workers to replace the windshield,

> > and Vaughn Fergusonsigned them in.

> >
>
> That's right. Those people came in to do a job you claim had been done in
> Michigan the day before.
>

WRONG! They had a specific job that the SS wanted of them. To
replace a cracked windshield, which the SS had cracked themselves in
secret earlier.

> >
> >
> > > Of the remaining five, only two said the hole went
> > > all the way through the windshield. The other three just said they saw a
> > > hole. Nobody disputes there was in impact crater on the inside surface of
> > > the windshield where it was hit by a fragment from the head shot.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! It's an amazing thing to watch you panicking that someone would
> > find out this info before you were able to cloud their mind with your

> > baloney. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. If you want

> > them to go with your ideas from the WCR, then argue them like anyone else.
> > Don't be attacking people that don't think wacky things like you do.
> >
>
> I'm not clouding anybody's mind. The things I say are verifiable. I have
> actually provided quotes from those people in the past and I've shown that
> only two of those five stated the hole went clean through the windshield.
>

What you say is NOT verifiable. You've said that the WCR is 99%
right, yet there are any other things wrong with what it says.

> > > Cracks
> > > radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> > > The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> > > refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> > > his had and discovered it was smooth.
> >
> >
> > There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> > windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
> > windshield.
>
> If there is no dispute, why are you disputing it.
>

I'm not disputing it because it's OBVIOUS that a bullet doesn't go
halfway through a pane of glass when someone says the bullet went through
the glass. That's a phony gimmick you tried to pretend was true when it's
never used by anyone...except you.

> > you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
> > as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane.
>
> We're not talking about a bullet. We are talking about a fragment of a
> bullet that would have slowed considerably after striking JFK's skull.
>

WRONG! YOU are talking about fragments, which are impossible when we
look at the directions they had to take. It was phony attempt to nitpick
again while you tried to figure out how the win an argument for a change.

> > If some
> > one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> > through the pane.
> >
>
> That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
> You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
> Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
> windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
> said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
> his hand.
>

WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.

> > Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> > lie. Do you have an answer?
> >
>
> OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
> was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
> he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
> really don't know.

WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
Whitaker's death.

Chris

[claviger]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 6:02:40 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > A man drives a car with bullet holes in the windshield in the eastern
> > > Ukrainian city of Donetsk on June 3, 2014.
> > > http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-news-photo/495433137?#man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-eastern-picture-id495433137
> > >
> > > 29: 9mm Bullets Through Car Windshield GTA 5
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yiaWO525qo
> >
> > What's your point?
> >
> > Chris

A puncture hole in a car windshield from a rifle. Several bullet holes in

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/10/2017 12:00 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 5:37:55 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 6:02:40 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>> A man drives a car with bullet holes in the windshield in the eastern
>>>> Ukrainian city of Donetsk on June 3, 2014.
>>>> http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-news-photo/495433137?#man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-eastern-picture-id495433137
>>>>
>>>> 29: 9mm Bullets Through Car Windshield GTA 5
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yiaWO525qo
>>>
>>> What's your point?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> A puncture hole in a car windshield from a rifle. Several bullet holes is
>> a window from a 9mm handgun. Both did major damage to the windshield.
>> Not any caused a minor crack that looks like pea gravel off the road
>> propelled by a tire. That is what the Limousine window looked like, a
>> small particle of something hit the windshield, not a whole bullet.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! When the limo came back from Michigan, it had a good new
> windshield, but they then cracked it so that they could say that a
> fragment did it, and not a bullet. They could tell the 6 witnesses that

So, how did your conspirator in Michigan crack it without causing ANY
hole? BB gun? Hammer? Pebble Gun? Please demonstrate in a video how they
make those specific cracks in a replacement windshield which perfectly
match the photos from 11/22/63. This could be a fun project.

How many 1960 Lincoln windshields will you have to go through to do it
perfectly? Maybe you could give the challenge to the new Mythbusters.

> they made a mistake and the crack would back them up. They had the
> cracked windshield replaced and saved it to show to anyone that said there
> was a bullet hole in the windshield.
>
> The original windshield was ordered to be destroyed in Michigan, which
> got rid of that evidence. The whole charade was to get rid of the bullet
> hole in the windshield, and have an excuse to tell to those that had seen

What about the dent of the chrome topping? Didn't they also have to
destroy that?

What about the hole in the floor?

> the bullet hole. Because if anyone believed there was a bullet hole
> there, it would prove there was plot with more than one shooter, and the
> game would be up.
>

No. Clever WC defenders could and will explain it away with their known
3 shots from the TSBD. Why not diagram the angle from the sniper's nest?

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think it is easy to duplicate the cracks we can see in the photos
taken on 11/22/63 an 11/23/63? Then DO IT and show us your video. Talk
is cheap. You can talk the talk, but you can't walk the walk.

> When the limo got back it now had a good clean windshield, but the
> witnesses saw a windshield wit ha hole in it, so they put a crack in the
> windshield and then called Arlington Glass to come and replace the cracked
> windshield. They replaced the windshield and this time they saved the
> cracked windshield to show to anyone that thought there had been a bullet
> hole there.
>

So, you have all this work done before 11/25/63?

> Is that clear enough? It all supports the stupid 'lone nut' theory that
> saved all the plotters from being hounded the rest of their lives.
>

Hounded? By whom? By the press?

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

The photo of the windshield of the limo was taken probably after it
had come back from Michigan and had a new windshield that was then
intentionally cracked to get the photos and to have a cracked windshield
to save for proof later. The original windshield with the bullet hole in
it was ordered destroyed in Michigan.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/10/2017 10:54 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 6:02:40 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>> A man drives a car with bullet holes in the windshield in the eastern
>>>> Ukrainian city of Donetsk on June 3, 2014.
>>>> http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-news-photo/495433137?#man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-eastern-picture-id495433137
>>>>
>>>> 29: 9mm Bullets Through Car Windshield GTA 5
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yiaWO525qo
>>>
>>> What's your point?
>>>
>>> Chris
>
> A puncture hole in a car windshield from a rifle. Several bullet holes in
> a window from a 9mm handgun. Both did major damage to the windshield.

But those are REAL bullet holes. You're not playing fair. He's talking
about fantasy bullet holes which can appear and disappear by magic.

> Not any caused a minor crack that looks like pea gravel off the road
> propelled by a tire. That is what the Limousine window looked like, a
> small particle of something hit the windshield, not a whole bullet.
>

Yes, but in this case from behind not from in front.
We don't know the size of the fragment, but I vote for the lead that was
squeezed out of the base fragment.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean the official FBI evidence photo which Frazier took at 1 AM on
11/23/63?


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/CE350.gif

[bigdog]

Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed to make arguments this silly?

[bigdog]

You mean other than the limo was never sent to Michigan and the work
Whitaker claimed was done there on the 25th was done elsewhere at other
times. The windshield was replaced in Washington on the 26th. The interior
replacement was along with other refurbishments were done by Hess and
Eisenhardt in Cincinnati beginning several weeks later.

> And
> just saying you KNOW he lied is just more of your opinions, which are
> useless. That his story makes no sense TO YOU makes sense to me,

It makes sense to me that a story that makes no sense to me would make
sense ot you.

> considering that you've been unable to understand many things discussed
> here. The problem is not his story, but your lack of understanding. Go
> back to the simple WCR.
>

I am not the least bit embarrassed to say I don't understand most of your
nonsense.

>
>
> > > Of course, you have no answer,
> >
> > Because I don't know the answer and unlike a certain conspiracy hobbyist I
> > don't treat unknowns as an invitation to make assumptions. Of course I
> > could guess and say it is obvious.
> >
>
>
> No, you couldn't guess. That just isn't in your tool box. You need
> something like the WCR to tell you everything you should know.
>

The WCR contains almost everything that anyone needs to know about the
assassination. Since it was published almost 53 years ago, very little
additional information of any substance has come to light. Lots of
disinformation, but nothing that anyone needs to know.

>
>
> > > so that
> > > alone says there is more to his story than meets the eye.
> >
> > It might say that to you. Not to logical people.
> >
> > > Next, the Ford
> > > plant DOES have the shops to do interior of vehicles, and particularly the
> > > glass for the windshields and etc. How else would they keep their new
> > > cars a secret and still finish them for showing and demo before locking
> > > them into the assembly line? Of course, you have no answer for that
> > > either. All you have is your opinions, and they aren't too carefully
> > > devised either.
> > >
> >
> > You are confusing fabricating parts for new models with customization of
> > non-standard vehicles like a stretch limo. Two completely different
> > applications with different requirements. If Ford needed to fabricate
> > parts specifically for a stretch limo it would take them a lot more than
> > one day. In fact the individual parts aren't fabricate at the plant.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Oh, get off your little pedestal. I'm talking about the shops
> that work on the new models each year. They need demos and they want to
> keep them secret from everyone until time to unveil them. So they need
> shops that handle upholstery. They don't offer custom work for just
> anyone. They WOULD be glad to help an important client though, like the
> W.H. SS.
>

Those shops aren't at the main plant so what you claimed happened in
Michigan would first require the Ford plant to take the measurements and
send that information to the upholstery shop. Then since the upholstery
shop wouldn't have non-standard parts in stock, they would have to
fabricate the various interior components from scratch. Once those were
completed, they would then have to ship those components back to the main
plant. The plant would then have to install those various interior
components and then ship the limo back to Washington in time to have the
newly installed windshield cracked and then replaced again by Arlington
Glass in the White House garage. And you think all of that could be done
in just one day's time.

Here's a little experiment for you to conduct. Tell that story to ten
people and tell us how many are able to keep a straight face through it
all. Their reaction might be very similar to what Anderson Cooper did when
interviewing Kelly Conway.

>
>
>
> > It took me a few google searches but I finally found an interesting
> > website describing the manufacturing processes for the Ford Motor Co.
> >
> > http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Automobile.html
> >
> > "The automobile assembly plant represents only the final phase in the
> > process of manufacturing an automobile, for it is here that the components
> > supplied by more than 4,000 outside suppliers, including company-owned
> > parts suppliers, are brought together for assembly, usually by truck or
> > railroad. Those parts that will be used in the chassis are delivered to
> > one area, while those that will comprise the body are unloaded at
> > another."
> >
> > So you see, Ford does not fabricate the individual components for their
> > automobiles at their main plant.
>
>
>
> WRONG! You just haven't got the capacity to learn anything. First,
> your example article is from a time much later than 1963 because they talk
> of robots assembling much of the vehicles. There was a point where Ford
> and the other makers changed to the assembly plant that took in parts from
> all over the area and even other states.

What year was that? 1910?

> Second, That article speaks of
> the cars AFTER the designing is done and the assembly line had bee planned
> and is built. Third, there is NO discussion in that article of the
> process of developing the first interior for a new vehicle, or the new
> model for a new year. Not a word. Go back and start again. At least
> your trying proper research. You'll get it after a while of trying.
>

So as is your custom, you just fill in the blanks to suit your narrative.

>
> > Those various parts are manufactured
> > elsewhere, some at Ford owned plants and some through independent
> > companies. The main plant is simply the place were all those various
> > components get shipped so they can be assembled into a complete car on the
> > assembly line. Since they don't fabricate their standard parts at the
> > plant, there is no reason to think they would be able to do that for a
> > custom job either.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! See above.
>

I know you are assuming Ford has facilities on site which you are unable
to document.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Both
> > > > the original customization work and the post assassination refurbishment
> > > > were done by the Hess and Eisenhardt Co. in Cincinnati because Ford didn't
> > > > do that kind of work.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! We're not talking about the original work, or the work to add
> > > bullet proof glass, etc. That was indeed done by Hess & Eisendardt.
> > > However, that work was not done on the day when the limousine was in
> > > Michigan, and the garage log proves that the limo certainly wasn't
> > > accessed by anyone on that date.
> >
> > Just because the limo wasn't accessed doesn't mean it was shipped to
> > Michican. In fact I would think that had it been shipped to Michigan,
> > there would be a log entry indicating that. But as is your custom, you
> > treat every blank space as an invitation to fill it in to your liking.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You'll just never learn. I try to instill logic and common
> sense and you just keep screwing up! Thinking for yourself isn't your
> thing. This was a secret operation, and they wouldn't want a record of it
> anywhere.

The dog ate your evidence again.

> There won't be a record of the C-130 or other conveyance moving
> the limo, and no other records. The Garage log doesn't even give anything
> away, although it helps to know that Whitaker had his experience the day
> that the limo was not accessed by anyone. It was certainly accessed every
> other day.
>

Bottom line is you have no evidence the limo ever left the White House
garage. You simply assume that to be true because you need that to be
true.

>
>
> > > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
> >
> > So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
> >
>
>
> Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
> windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
> this.
>

You just confirmed what I have been saying all along. Whitaker is your
sole source for this tall tale. Nothing to corroborate his story.

>
>
> > > But it DOES say that
> > > the next day the limo was accessed by 4 workers to replace the windshield,
> > > and Vaughn Fergusonsigned them in.
> > >
> >
> > That's right. Those people came in to do a job you claim had been done in
> > Michigan the day before.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! They had a specific job that the SS wanted of them. To
> replace a cracked windshield, which the SS had cracked themselves in
> secret earlier.
>

What I like about your stories they just keep getting funnier the more
times you tell them.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Of the remaining five, only two said the hole went
> > > > all the way through the windshield. The other three just said they saw a
> > > > hole. Nobody disputes there was in impact crater on the inside surface of
> > > > the windshield where it was hit by a fragment from the head shot.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! It's an amazing thing to watch you panicking that someone would
> > > find out this info before you were able to cloud their mind with your
> > > baloney. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. If you want
> > > them to go with your ideas from the WCR, then argue them like anyone else.
> > > Don't be attacking people that don't think wacky things like you do.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not clouding anybody's mind. The things I say are verifiable. I have
> > actually provided quotes from those people in the past and I've shown that
> > only two of those five stated the hole went clean through the windshield.
> >
>
>
> What you say is NOT verifiable. You've said that the WCR is 99%
> right, yet there are any other things wrong with what it says.
>

This has nothing to do with anything in the WCR. These are actual quotes
from a website which you yourself cited to support your claims and I have
shown that only two people who could have actually seen the limo said that

the hole went all the way through the windshield.

>
>

> > > > Cracks
> > > > radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> > > > The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> > > > refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> > > > his had and discovered it was smooth.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> > > windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
> > > windshield.
> >
> > If there is no dispute, why are you disputing it.
> >
>
>
>
> I'm not disputing it because it's OBVIOUS

There you go again.

> that a bullet doesn't go
> halfway through a pane of glass when someone says the bullet went through
> the glass. That's a phony gimmick you tried to pretend was true when it's
> never used by anyone...except you.
>

It wasn't a bullet. It was a fragment of a bullet.

>
>
> > > you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
> > > as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane.
> >
> > We're not talking about a bullet. We are talking about a fragment of a
> > bullet that would have slowed considerably after striking JFK's skull.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! YOU are talking about fragments, which are impossible when we
> look at the directions they had to take. It was phony attempt to nitpick
> again while you tried to figure out how the win an argument for a change.
>

So you think there was a path from the hole in the windshield to JFK's
right temple for a whole bullet fired from the front but you don't think
there was a path for a fragment exiting his temple to strike that very
same point on the windshield. Amazing geometry.

>
>
> > > If some
> > > one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> > > through the pane.
> > >
> >
> > That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
> > You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
> > Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
> > windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
> > said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
> > his hand.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
> bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
> the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.
>

Probably not a bullet but a fragment from a bullet which had already
struck another hard object could and it did.

>
>
> > > Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> > > lie. Do you have an answer?
> > >
> >
> > OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
> > was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
> > he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
> > really don't know.
>
>
>
> WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
> Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
> That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
> either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
> Whitaker's death.
>

Had I know that part of the story when you asked the question, I could
have also offered as a possibility that Whitaker didn't lie but that his
lawyer was the one who made up the story and just as Collum and Sample did
with Loy Factor, he waited until his source was dead and couldn't refute
him. It's quite possible his lawyer was the liar and Whitaker never told
him any such story. So we now have two possibilities. Whitaker made up the
story or his lawyer made up the story. Either way the story is bullshit.

[claviger]

A couple of problems with that theory. Witnesses saw it at the hospital.
Some said it was just a crack and somebody poked it with a pencil to see
if there was a hole. If the hole was that small then someone fired a BB
gun at the Limousine. The other problem is there are photos of the
windshield at the hospital that have been enhanced and studied. You
strike out again.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is completely false. No one poked the limo with a pencil. No one was
allowed to get that close to it.

> gun at the Limousine. The other problem is there are photos of the
> windshield at the hospital that have been enhanced and studied. You
> strike out again.
>

Uh yeah, by moi.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Ever hear of the Single Bullet Theory? Tell me the exact frame where the
WC said that happened. Tell me how the WC explained the dent of the chrome
topping. Do you even undestand that the internal WC reports were not
published in the WCR? Who found them? Not you. Kooky conspiracy
researchers found them and made them public.

[mainframetech]

I might have known you'd chime in with something foolish. Some at the
hospital (Evalea Glanges) saw that the bullet hole in the limo windshield
was through-and-through and knew that it had come from the front of the
limo. Here's her statement:

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

Now you produce the cites and links for the person that saw ONLY a
crack please.

Chris

[mainframetech]

So far you have no facts, only opinions. When do you present facts?
Prove that the same work was done at "other times" please. That means you
need facts to overcome the statements of Whitaker, and the other witnesses
to the bullet hole in the windshield. The one fact you just mentioned was
that the windshield was replaced by Arlington Glass on the 26th, which is
not the date that Rowley (SS chief) and Ferguson stated it was done. The
garage log testified to that.

> > And
> > just saying you KNOW he lied is just more of your opinions, which are
> > useless. That his story makes no sense TO YOU makes sense to me,
>
> It makes sense to me that a story that makes no sense to me would make
> sense ot you.
>
>
> > considering that you've been unable to understand many things discussed
> > here. The problem is not his story, but your lack of understanding. Go
> > back to the simple WCR.
> >
>
> I am not the least bit embarrassed to say I don't understand most of your
> nonsense.
>

OBVIOUSLY!

> > > > Of course, you have no answer,
> > >
> > > Because I don't know the answer and unlike a certain conspiracy hobbyist I
> > > don't treat unknowns as an invitation to make assumptions. Of course I
> > > could guess and say it is obvious.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No, you couldn't guess. That just isn't in your tool box. You need
> > something like the WCR to tell you everything you should know.
> >
>
> The WCR contains almost everything that anyone needs to know about the
> assassination. Since it was published almost 53 years ago, very little
> additional information of any substance has come to light. Lots of
> disinformation, but nothing that anyone needs to know.
>

The whole WCR is disinformation. It was selective in what went into
it, and all the evidence of more than one shooter was specifically left
out to cover up the conspiracy proofs.

> > > > so that
> > > > alone says there is more to his story than meets the eye.
> > >
> > > It might say that to you. Not to logical people.
> > >
> > > > Next, the Ford
> > > > plant DOES have the shops to do interior of vehicles, and particularly the
> > > > glass for the windshields and etc. How else would they keep their new
> > > > cars a secret and still finish them for showing and demo before locking
> > > > them into the assembly line? Of course, you have no answer for that
> > > > either. All you have is your opinions, and they aren't too carefully
> > > > devised either.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are confusing fabricating parts for new models with customization of
> > > non-standard vehicles like a stretch limo. Two completely different
> > > applications with different requirements. If Ford needed to fabricate
> > > parts specifically for a stretch limo it would take them a lot more than
> > > one day. In fact the individual parts aren't fabricate at the plant.
> > >
> >
> >

> > WRONG! Get off your little pedestal. I'm talking about the shops

> > that work on the new models each year. They need demos and they want to
> > keep them secret from everyone until time to unveil them. So they need
> > shops that handle upholstery. They don't offer custom work for just
> > anyone. They WOULD be glad to help an important client though, like the
> > W.H. SS.
> >
>
> Those shops aren't at the main plant so what you claimed happened in
> Michigan would first require the Ford plant to take the measurements and
> send that information to the upholstery shop.

WRONG! The Rouge facility was one of the largest and most integrated
places in the automotive industry. Every element of auto building was
represented there. Including upholstery.

> Then since the upholstery
> shop wouldn't have non-standard parts in stock, they would have to
> fabricate the various interior components from scratch. Once those were
> completed, they would then have to ship those components back to the main
> plant.

WRONG! The work was already done in the limousine for the interior,
they simply had to copy what they saw with new material and replace the
old bloody stuff. Stop trying to make it a large task.

> The plant would then have to install those various interior
> components and then ship the limo back to Washington in time to have the
> newly installed windshield cracked and then replaced again by Arlington
> Glass in the White House garage. And you think all of that could be done
> in just one day's time.
>

Easily. Because it was.

> Here's a little experiment for you to conduct. Tell that story to ten
> people and tell us how many are able to keep a straight face through it
> all. Their reaction might be very similar to what Anderson Cooper did when
> interviewing Kelly Conway.
>

Well, that's a simple case that everyone would find ridiculous. The
Whitaker situation was with a witness, so it isn't so easy to dismiss like
you're trying to do to cover up for your foolish WCR.

> >
> >
> >
> > > It took me a few google searches but I finally found an interesting
> > > website describing the manufacturing processes for the Ford Motor Co.
> > >
> > > http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Automobile.html
> > >
> > > "The automobile assembly plant represents only the final phase in the
> > > process of manufacturing an automobile, for it is here that the components
> > > supplied by more than 4,000 outside suppliers, including company-owned
> > > parts suppliers, are brought together for assembly, usually by truck or
> > > railroad. Those parts that will be used in the chassis are delivered to
> > > one area, while those that will comprise the body are unloaded at
> > > another."
> > >
> > > So you see, Ford does not fabricate the individual components for their
> > > automobiles at their main plant.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You just haven't got the capacity to learn anything. First,
> > your example article is from a time much later than 1963 because they talk
> > of robots assembling much of the vehicles. There was a point where Ford
> > and the other makers changed to the assembly plant that took in parts from
> > all over the area and even other states.
>
> What year was that? 1910?
>
> > Second, That article speaks of

> > the cars AFTER the designing is done and the assembly line had been planned

> > and is built. Third, there is NO discussion in that article of the
> > process of developing the first interior for a new vehicle, or the new
> > model for a new year. Not a word. Go back and start again. At least
> > your trying proper research. You'll get it after a while of trying.
> >
>
> So as is your custom, you just fill in the blanks to suit your narrative.
>
>
> >
> > > Those various parts are manufactured
> > > elsewhere, some at Ford owned plants and some through independent
> > > companies. The main plant is simply the place were all those various
> > > components get shipped so they can be assembled into a complete car on the
> > > assembly line. Since they don't fabricate their standard parts at the
> > > plant, there is no reason to think they would be able to do that for a
> > > custom job either.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! See above.
> >
>
> I know you are assuming Ford has facilities on site which you are unable
> to document.
>

WRONG! Amazing what you think you know!

WRONG! I have witness that the limousine was in Rouge, Michigan on the
25th.

> >
> >
> > > > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > > > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > > > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
> > >
> > > So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
> > windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
> > this.
> >
>
> You just confirmed what I have been saying all along. Whitaker is your
> sole source for this tall tale. Nothing to corroborate his story.
>

WRONG! Parts of his story are corroborated, and I listed them for you
above.

> >
> >
> > > > But it DOES say that
> > > > the next day the limo was accessed by 4 workers to replace the windshield,

> > > > and Vaughn Ferguson signed them in.

> > > >
> > >
> > > That's right. Those people came in to do a job you claim had been done in
> > > Michigan the day before.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! They had a specific job that the SS wanted of them. To
> > replace a cracked windshield, which the SS had cracked themselves in
> > secret earlier.
> >
>
> What I like about your stories they just keep getting funnier the more
> times you tell them.
>

Deal with it.

> > > > > Of the remaining five, only two said the hole went
> > > > > all the way through the windshield. The other three just said they saw a
> > > > > hole. Nobody disputes there was in impact crater on the inside surface of
> > > > > the windshield where it was hit by a fragment from the head shot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! It's an amazing thing to watch you panicking that someone would
> > > > find out this info before you were able to cloud their mind with your
> > > > baloney. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. If you want
> > > > them to go with your ideas from the WCR, then argue them like anyone else.
> > > > Don't be attacking people that don't think wacky things like you do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not clouding anybody's mind. The things I say are verifiable. I have
> > > actually provided quotes from those people in the past and I've shown that
> > > only two of those five stated the hole went clean through the windshield.
> > >
> >
> >
> > What you say is NOT verifiable. You've said that the WCR is 99%

> > right, yet there are many other things wrong with what it says.

> >
>
> This has nothing to do with anything in the WCR. These are actual quotes
> from a website which you yourself cited to support your claims and I have
> shown that only two people who could have actually seen the limo said that
> the hole went all the way through the windshield.
>

FALSE! You've shown nothing. You've tried to pretend that people that
say there was a hole in the windshield are saying that it only went
halfway through, unless they say it went all the way through. That is
patently false. People don't talk like that when describing a bullet
going through a glass pane.

> > > > > Cracks
> > > > > radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> > > > > The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> > > > > refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> > > > > his had and discovered it was smooth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> > > > windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
> > > > windshield.
> > >
> > > If there is no dispute, why are you disputing it.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not disputing it because it's OBVIOUS
>
> There you go again.
>
> > that a bullet doesn't go
> > halfway through a pane of glass when someone says the bullet went through
> > the glass. That's a phony gimmick you tried to pretend was true when it's
> > never used by anyone...except you.
> >
>
> It wasn't a bullet. It was a fragment of a bullet.
>

You have absolutely NO proof of that. You just made it up to delay
while you hope something will save you from the corner you put yourself
in.

> >
> >
> > > > you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
> > > > as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane.
> > >
> > > We're not talking about a bullet. We are talking about a fragment of a
> > > bullet that would have slowed considerably after striking JFK's skull.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! YOU are talking about fragments, which are impossible when we
> > look at the directions they had to take. It was phony attempt to nitpick
> > again while you tried to figure out how the win an argument for a change.
> >
>
> So you think there was a path from the hole in the windshield to JFK's
> right temple for a whole bullet fired from the front but you don't think
> there was a path for a fragment exiting his temple to strike that very
> same point on the windshield. Amazing geometry.
>

WRONG! I can't picture any path that would allow a fragment to go from
the head of JFK through one of the wounds in the head toward the points
where bullets struck. Why don't you try to define such a path?

> >
> >
> > > > If some
> > > > one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> > > > through the pane.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
> > > You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
> > > Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
> > > windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
> > > said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
> > > his hand.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
> > bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
> > the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.
> >
>
> Probably not a bullet but a fragment from a bullet which had already
> struck another hard object could and it did.
>

If it were possible for a fragment to fly in that direction from the
head of JFK, I might consider it, but it's stupid otherwise. Especially
if you insist that the only kind of bullet to consider is the MC type.
They were FMJ and made to NOT fragment like you would like it to do.

> >
> >
> > > > Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> > > > lie. Do you have an answer?
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
> > > was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
> > > he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
> > > really don't know.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
> > Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
> > That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
> > either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
> > Whitaker's death.
> >
>
> Had I know that part of the story when you asked the question, I could
> have also offered as a possibility that Whitaker didn't lie but that his
> lawyer was the one who made up the story and just as Collum and Sample did
> with Loy Factor, he waited until his source was dead and couldn't refute
> him. It's quite possible his lawyer was the liar and Whitaker never told
> him any such story. So we now have two possibilities. Whitaker made up the
> story or his lawyer made up the story. Either way the story is bullshit.

The lawyer, Doug Weldon, JD has the story written out by hand from
Whitaker, and sound recorded on tape. I'm sure they can be checked
against Whitaker's examples from life. Though for normal people, it
wouldn't be necessary.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Not when it's the truth. Doesn't it bother you to have to answer so
much truth with so much baloney?

Chris

[bigdog]

Too easy. From Kellerman's WC testimony:

Mr. SPECTER. Now, at the time of your examination of the windshield in the
White House garage, did you feel the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. On the day that I visited the White House garage and
checked this car over for my own personal reasons, and this windshield
crack was pointed out to me, I did--

Mr. SPECTER. When you say it was pointed out to you, by whom?

Mr. KELLERMAN. There were other people in the garage, Mr. Specter, like
Mr. Kinney, I believe was there at the time, Special Agent Henry Rybka was
the other person.

Mr. SPECTER. Was it sufficiently prominent without having to have it
pointed out specially?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Oh, yes; very much. And I felt this windshield both
inwardly and outwardly to determine first if there was something that was
struck from the back of us or--and I was satisfied that it was.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say struck from in back of you, do you mean on the
inside or outside of the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Inside, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Inside of the car?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?

Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car.

[bigdog]

So they got the date wrong. BFD.

Cite? I've already produced a cite that indicates Ford has over 4000
satellite plants that produce the components which are used at the main
assembly plant.

>
>
>
> > Then since the upholstery
> > shop wouldn't have non-standard parts in stock, they would have to
> > fabricate the various interior components from scratch. Once those were
> > completed, they would then have to ship those components back to the main
> > plant.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! The work was already done in the limousine for the interior,
> they simply had to copy what they saw with new material and replace the
> old bloody stuff. Stop trying to make it a large task.
>

All in one day. <chuckle>

>
>
> > The plant would then have to install those various interior
> > components and then ship the limo back to Washington in time to have the
> > newly installed windshield cracked and then replaced again by Arlington
> > Glass in the White House garage. And you think all of that could be done
> > in just one day's time.
> >
>
>
> Easily. Because it was.
>

According to your silly theory.

>
>
> > Here's a little experiment for you to conduct. Tell that story to ten
> > people and tell us how many are able to keep a straight face through it
> > all. Their reaction might be very similar to what Anderson Cooper did when
> > interviewing Kelly Conway.
> >
>
>
>
> Well, that's a simple case that everyone would find ridiculous. The
> Whitaker situation was with a witness, so it isn't so easy to dismiss like
> you're trying to do to cover up for your foolish WCR.
>

There is nothing which corroborates Whitaker's story which might actually
be Weldon's story. Not sure which one of them made it up but it is a
certainty it was made up.

If I'm wrong, why can't you document your claim? Looking forward to your excuse.

You have ONE and it would be a stretch to call him a witness. He could
have made up his story or his lawyer could have made up the story and
attributed it to Whitaker. In any case, there are no corroborating
witnesses to the limo bein in Michigan on the 25th and no corroborating
evidence of any kind to support this story.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > > > > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > > > > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
> > > >
> > > > So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
> > > windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
> > > this.
> > >
> >
> > You just confirmed what I have been saying all along. Whitaker is your
> > sole source for this tall tale. Nothing to corroborate his story.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Parts of his story are corroborated, and I listed them for you
> above.
>

Nobody corroborates the claim the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.

No, I pointed at that three of the people DIDN'T say the hole went through
the windshield. They were silent on the question of whether the hole went
all the way through. It is disingenuous of you to claim they said it did
when they clearly said no such thing.

> unless they say it went all the way through. That is
> patently false. People don't talk like that when describing a bullet
> going through a glass pane.
>

One more baseless claim by you.

>
>
>
> > > > > > Cracks
> > > > > > radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> > > > > > The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> > > > > > refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> > > > > > his had and discovered it was smooth.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> > > > > windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
> > > > > windshield.
> > > >
> > > > If there is no dispute, why are you disputing it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not disputing it because it's OBVIOUS
> >
> > There you go again.
> >
> > > that a bullet doesn't go
> > > halfway through a pane of glass when someone says the bullet went through
> > > the glass. That's a phony gimmick you tried to pretend was true when it's
> > > never used by anyone...except you.
> > >
> >
> > It wasn't a bullet. It was a fragment of a bullet.
> >
>
>
> You have absolutely NO proof of that.

There were fragments on the floor of the limo. No whole bullets. The only
one of those recovered was found on a stretcher at Parkland.

> You just made it up to delay
> while you hope something will save you from the corner you put yourself
> in.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
> > > > > as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane.
> > > >
> > > > We're not talking about a bullet. We are talking about a fragment of a
> > > > bullet that would have slowed considerably after striking JFK's skull.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! YOU are talking about fragments, which are impossible when we
> > > look at the directions they had to take. It was phony attempt to nitpick
> > > again while you tried to figure out how the win an argument for a change.
> > >
> >
> > So you think there was a path from the hole in the windshield to JFK's
> > right temple for a whole bullet fired from the front but you don't think
> > there was a path for a fragment exiting his temple to strike that very
> > same point on the windshield. Amazing geometry.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I can't picture any path that would allow a fragment to go from
> the head of JFK through one of the wounds in the head toward the points
> where bullets struck. Why don't you try to define such a path?
>

So let me see if I understand you. You can't picture a path for a fragment
to go from the right side of JFK's head to the windshield but you can
picture a path for a hole bullet to go from the windshield to the right
side of JFK's head traveling in the opposite direction.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If some
> > > > > one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> > > > > through the pane.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
> > > > You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
> > > > Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
> > > > windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
> > > > said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
> > > > his hand.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
> > > bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
> > > the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.
> > >
> >
> > Probably not a bullet but a fragment from a bullet which had already
> > struck another hard object could and it did.
> >
>
>
>
> If it were possible for a fragment to fly in that direction from the
> head of JFK, I might consider it, but it's stupid otherwise. Especially
> if you insist that the only kind of bullet to consider is the MC type.
> They were FMJ and made to NOT fragment like you would like it to do.
>

A fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo which pretty
much shoots down that argument.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> > > > > lie. Do you have an answer?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
> > > > was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
> > > > he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
> > > > really don't know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
> > > Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
> > > That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
> > > either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
> > > Whitaker's death.
> > >
> >
> > Had I know that part of the story when you asked the question, I could
> > have also offered as a possibility that Whitaker didn't lie but that his
> > lawyer was the one who made up the story and just as Collum and Sample did
> > with Loy Factor, he waited until his source was dead and couldn't refute
> > him. It's quite possible his lawyer was the liar and Whitaker never told
> > him any such story. So we now have two possibilities. Whitaker made up the
> > story or his lawyer made up the story. Either way the story is bullshit.
>
>
>
> The lawyer, Doug Weldon, JD has the story written out by hand from
> Whitaker, and sound recorded on tape. I'm sure they can be checked
> against Whitaker's examples from life. Though for normal people, it
> wouldn't be necessary.
>

I don't know whether Whitaker lied to Weldon or Weldon lied to the rest of
use. I do know that one of them lied.

[claviger]

"Some of the jockeys around the car were saying, “Looky
here!” What they were looking at was the windshield. To the right
of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass
there appeared to be a bullet hole. I talked to a Secret Service man
about it, and he said, “Aw, that’s just a
fragment!” It looked like a clean hole in the windshield to me. In
fact, one of the motor jockeys, Harry Freeman, put a pencil through it, or
said he could."

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ellis.html

[Anthony Marsh]

No one said it came from the front. You guess something and then falsely
claim that a witness said it.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbLhlC9Lek
>
> Now you produce the cites and links for the person that saw ONLY a
> crack please.
>

Ferguson.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ferguson-1.gif


> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Yep, there's the corroboration. A DPD cop has stated that there was
what "appeared to be a bullet hole". He stated that it was a "clean
hole". He also said you could put a pencil through it, which means that
the hole was the size of a bullet, and NOT a BB as said above.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! They BOTH got the date wrong in exactly the same way. They
BOTH said it was the 25th that Arlington Glass was in the garage replacing
the windshield, when it actually was the 26th. The garage log tells the
truth and fits with Whitaker's story of the 25th being the day the limo
was in Michigan. And remember also, you can't think of a single reason
for Whitaker to lie.

> > > > And
> > > > just saying you KNOW he lied is just more of your opinions, which are
> > > > useless. That his story makes no sense TO YOU makes sense to me,
> > >
> > > It makes sense to me that a story that makes no sense to me would make

> > > sense to you.

That had to be after Ford decided to decentralize. Look in the upper
left of the page and note the "upholstery line" which was part of the
assembly line. There was also a shop for that sort of thing, for special
cases like upholstering demo and new models:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/328903579007626413/



The decentralization of the Rouge plant didn't begin until after 1980:

"In 1997 the Ford Motor Company began to modernize the Rouge plant.
Decentralization and outsourcing of supplies and operations in the 1980s
set the stage."

From: http://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/MI-01-WN134




> > > Then since the upholstery
> > > shop wouldn't have non-standard parts in stock, they would have to
> > > fabricate the various interior components from scratch. Once those were
> > > completed, they would then have to ship those components back to the main
> > > plant.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The work was already done in the limousine for the interior,
> > they simply had to copy what they saw with new material and replace the
> > old bloody stuff. Stop trying to make it a large task.
> >
> All in one day. <chuckle>
> >
> >
> > > The plant would then have to install those various interior
> > > components and then ship the limo back to Washington in time to have the
> > > newly installed windshield cracked and then replaced again by Arlington
> > > Glass in the White House garage. And you think all of that could be done
> > > in just one day's time.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Easily. Because it was.
> >
>
> According to your silly theory.
>

The evidence bears it out. Let me know when you're going to present
some.

> >
> >
> > > Here's a little experiment for you to conduct. Tell that story to ten
> > > people and tell us how many are able to keep a straight face through it
> > > all. Their reaction might be very similar to what Anderson Cooper did when
> > > interviewing Kelly Conway.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, that's a simple case that everyone would find ridiculous. The
> > Whitaker situation was with a witness, so it isn't so easy to dismiss like
> > you're trying to do to cover up for your foolish WCR.
> >
>
> There is nothing which corroborates Whitaker's story which might actually
> be Weldon's story. Not sure which one of them made it up but it is a
> certainty it was made up.
>

Oh? A "Certainty"? That can only mean that you have evidence of that
to call it a fact that way. What's that evidence?

> > > > > It took me a few google searches but I finally found an interesting
> > > > > website describing the manufacturing processes for the Ford Motor Co.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Automobile.html
> > > > >
> > > > > "The automobile assembly plant represents only the final phase in the
> > > > > process of manufacturing an automobile, for it is here that the components
> > > > > supplied by more than 4,000 outside suppliers, including company-owned
> > > > > parts suppliers, are brought together for assembly, usually by truck or
> > > > > railroad. Those parts that will be used in the chassis are delivered to
> > > > > one area, while those that will comprise the body are unloaded at
> > > > > another."
> > > > >
> > > > > So you see, Ford does not fabricate the individual components for their
> > > > > automobiles at their main plant.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You just haven't got the capacity to learn anything. First,
> > > > your example article is from a time much later than 1963 because they talk
> > > > of robots assembling much of the vehicles. There was a point where Ford
> > > > and the other makers changed to the assembly plant that took in parts from
> > > > all over the area and even other states.
> > >
> > > What year was that? 1910?

For the Rouge plant, the decentralization took place after 1980.

> > >
> > > > Second, That article speaks of
> > > > the cars AFTER the designing is done and the assembly line had been planned
> > > > and is built. Third, there is NO discussion in that article of the
> > > > process of developing the first interior for a new vehicle, or the new
> > > > model for a new year. Not a word. Go back and start again. At least
> > > > your trying proper research. You'll get it after a while of trying.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So as is your custom, you just fill in the blanks to suit your narrative.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Those various parts are manufactured
> > > > > elsewhere, some at Ford owned plants and some through independent
> > > > > companies. The main plant is simply the place were all those various
> > > > > components get shipped so they can be assembled into a complete car on the
> > > > > assembly line. Since they don't fabricate their standard parts at the
> > > > > plant, there is no reason to think they would be able to do that for a
> > > > > custom job either.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! See above.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know you are assuming Ford has facilities on site which you are unable
> > > to document.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Amazing what you think you know!
> >
> If I'm wrong, why can't you document your claim? Looking forward to your excuse.

See above for upholstery.

> > WRONG! I have a witness that the limousine was in Rouge, Michigan on the

> > 25th.
> >
>
> You have ONE and it would be a stretch to call him a witness. He could
> have made up his story or his lawyer could have made up the story and
> attributed it to Whitaker. In any case, there are no corroborating
> witnesses to the limo bein in Michigan on the 25th and no corroborating
> evidence of any kind to support this story.
>

WRONG! You have failed to come up with a reason for Whitaker to make
up his story. And Weldon showed the handwritten document written by
Whitaker and played the sound recording of his story, both of which were
OBVIOUSLY not his speaking or writing.

> > > > > > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > > > > > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > > > > > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
> > > > windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You just confirmed what I have been saying all along. Whitaker is your
> > > sole source for this tall tale. Nothing to corroborate his story.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Parts of his story are corroborated, and I listed them for you
> > above.
> >
>
> Nobody corroborates the claim the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.
>

Not that we know of, but it's corroborated that no one accessed the
limo on the 25th.

More of your ridiculous nitpicking because you have nothing to show to
make your point. No one talks like you are trying to pretend they talk.
When someone says there's a hole in the windshield, they mean a hole all
the way through. The windshield pane is so thin that no one would say the
bullet went halfway through. That would be stupid, and so's your wacky
theory.

> > unless they say it went all the way through. That is
> > patently false. People don't talk like that when describing a bullet
> > going through a glass pane.
> >
>
> One more baseless claim by you.
>

A statement that will make sense to all. Do you want to poll the
forum and see how many think your way or mine? You're welcome to try.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > Cracks
> > > > > > > radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> > > > > > > The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> > > > > > > refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> > > > > > > his had and discovered it was smooth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> > > > > > windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
> > > > > > windshield.
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is no dispute, why are you disputing it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not disputing it because it's OBVIOUS
> > >
> > > There you go again.
> > >
> > > > that a bullet doesn't go
> > > > halfway through a pane of glass when someone says the bullet went through
> > > > the glass. That's a phony gimmick you tried to pretend was true when it's
> > > > never used by anyone...except you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It wasn't a bullet. It was a fragment of a bullet.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You have absolutely NO proof of that.
>
> There were fragments on the floor of the limo. No whole bullets. The only
> one of those recovered was found on a stretcher at Parkland.
>

The 2 fragments in the front seat area were probably the remains of
the bullet that struck the chrome bar over the windshield. Note that the
FMJ bullet didn't fragment too much, even after slamming into a metal
object solidly.

> > You just made it up to delay
> > while you hope something will save you from the corner you put yourself
> > in.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > you're theory is ridiculous and most people would recognize it
> > > > > > as such. A bullet doesn't go 'part way' through a glass pane.
> > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about a bullet. We are talking about a fragment of a
> > > > > bullet that would have slowed considerably after striking JFK's skull.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! YOU are talking about fragments, which are impossible when we
> > > > look at the directions they had to take. It was phony attempt to nitpick
> > > > again while you tried to figure out how the win an argument for a change.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you think there was a path from the hole in the windshield to JFK's
> > > right temple for a whole bullet fired from the front but you don't think
> > > there was a path for a fragment exiting his temple to strike that very
> > > same point on the windshield. Amazing geometry.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I can't picture any path that would allow a fragment to go from
> > the head of JFK through one of the wounds in the head toward the points
> > where bullets struck. Why don't you try to define such a path?
> >
>
> So let me see if I understand you. You can't picture a path for a fragment
> to go from the right side of JFK's head to the windshield but you can
> picture a path for a hole bullet to go from the windshield to the right
> side of JFK's head traveling in the opposite direction.
>

Of course! The bullet that came in through the windshield (if it did)
would hit JFK in the forehead at the site of the bullet hole, which was an
entry, since it was so small and perfectly round. If it was from a bullet
that struck JFK in the BOH, and fragmented then, it would have made a
messy exit, and we would have a larger exit wound. No fragment that broke
up when a bullet hit the skull would leave the head without making a mess.
Never mind that no fragment ever left the head in that fashion. It would
be stupid.

> > > > > > If some
> > > > > > one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> > > > > > through the pane.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
> > > > > You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
> > > > > Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
> > > > > windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
> > > > > said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
> > > > > his hand.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
> > > > bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
> > > > the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Probably not a bullet but a fragment from a bullet which had already
> > > struck another hard object could and it did.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > If it were possible for a fragment to fly in that direction from the
> > head of JFK, I might consider it, but it's stupid otherwise. Especially
> > if you insist that the only kind of bullet to consider is the MC type.
> > They were FMJ and made to NOT fragment like you would like it to do.
> >
>
> A fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo which pretty
> much shoots down that argument.
>

WRONG! Those 2 fragments were FMJ for sure, BUT they had slammed into
a solid steel or Chrome bar over the windshield, so solid that even an FMJ
bullet was fragmented. But it broke into only 2 pieces for all that.
Hitting a skull is far softer than the solid steel of the chrome backing.

> > > > > > Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> > > > > > lie. Do you have an answer?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
> > > > > was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
> > > > > he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
> > > > > really don't know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
> > > > Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
> > > > That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
> > > > either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
> > > > Whitaker's death.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Had I know that part of the story when you asked the question, I could
> > > have also offered as a possibility that Whitaker didn't lie but that his
> > > lawyer was the one who made up the story and just as Collum and Sample did
> > > with Loy Factor, he waited until his source was dead and couldn't refute
> > > him. It's quite possible his lawyer was the liar and Whitaker never told
> > > him any such story. So we now have two possibilities. Whitaker made up the
> > > story or his lawyer made up the story. Either way the story is bullshit.

Welp, that whole line opinion is faulty. Now you've got 2 witness
stories that were crated by lawyers, but when anyone says the WCR theories
were created by lawyers, oh no, not that!


Your attempts are crude and silly.

> > The lawyer, Doug Weldon, JD has the story written out by hand from
> > Whitaker, and sound recorded on tape. I'm sure they can be checked
> > against Whitaker's examples from life. Though for normal people, it
> > wouldn't be necessary.
> >
>
> I don't know whether Whitaker lied to Weldon or Weldon lied to the rest of
> use. I do know that one of them lied.

Oh? How do you KNOW that? Are you hiding evidence? Or is that just
more of your opinions?

Chris

[mainframetech]

THANK YOU! You walked right into that one! Kellerman is one of the
suspected SS agents, but from his testimony we learn that something hit
the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!
So something hit the windshield from the outside. Could have been a
hammer or other tool wielded by an SS agent. After all, the new
windshield had to be cracked to look like that was the cause of the damage
that 6 witnesses said was a bullet hole.

Chris

[claviger]

HARRY FREEMAN Jr., Presidential D.P.D. Motorcycle Escortman
Started by Don Roberdeau, August 10, 2006
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/7644-harry-freeman-jr-presidential-dpd-motorcycle-escortman/

[claviger]

Question On The Limousine Windshield?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/question-on-the-limousine-windshield.155245/page-3

[claviger]

DPD Sgt. S Q Bellah
DPD J B Garrick
DPD Glen C McBride

DPD Sgt. Stavis Ellis
DPD E D "Buddy" Brewer
DPD Harold B Freeman
DPD Leon E Grey
DPD W G Lumpkin

DPD James N Chaney
DPD Robert Weldon "Bobby" Hargis
DPD Douglas L Jackson
DPD William Joseph "Billy Joe" Martin

[bigdog]

Ferguson examined the limo several days prior to calling the Arlington
Glass Co. on the 26th. In researching this I came across this interesting
timeline regarding the limo.

http://ss100x.com/

Below is in exerpt:

November 23, 1963 1:00 am EST DC Paterni arranges for FBI agents to
examine 100X for evidence. SA and ballistics expert Robert Frazier arrives
with Cunningham, Bartlett, Killiam and Thomas. They are signed into the
White House Garage logs. Bartlett drives 100X out from its bay. Exam
details. SA Taylor reports "small hole in the windshield of 100X from
which bullet fragments were removed."

3:10 am CST USAF #276 leaves Carswell AFB, arrives 6:30 am EST, returning
evidence from DPD to DC FBI along with Vince Drain.

10:00 am EST F Vaughn Ferguson of Ford Motor Company DC Branch inspects
the windshield for damage. The car is guarded and under a tarp, and he is
not allowed to examine any other part of it at that time.

4:00 pm EST Messrs. Jack Fox and Howard K Norton, of the Protective
Research Section photograph 100X (CE 352, CE 353)

4:30 pm EST SA Gonzales contacts SAIC Bouck and DC Paterni, requesting to
clean out inside of 100X because of the offensive odor. They are
instructed to obtain permission from the FBI, which is done. At that
point, flowers, torn pieces of paper, other "miscellaneous debris" is
removed from the floor of the rear of the limo and taken to the Washington
Field Office by White House Police Officer Hutch.

11/24/63 Ferguson returns to the White House Garage. 100X is no longer
under guard. He cleaned blood from the back seat upholstery buttons, but
did not try to clean the bloodstained back floor rug. The SS had already
cleaned out the car.

11/25/63 100X remained in the White House Garage; logs show two entries
for the day. Though both entries related to operations of the Garage
(rather than 100X), Army personnel were present from Ft. Meyer supervising
the Garage. (The specious statement that 100X was somehow 'beamed' to the
Rouge B Building at Dearborn is therefore unlikely.)

11/26/63 In response to Ferguson's call of 11/26/63, Arlington Glass
personnel arrive to replace the windshield. According to the White House
Logs, they first take five minutes to measure it, then return to install
it. Mr. Davis of the SS takes the windshield, which the men have pushed
out with their feet. Ferguson doesn't see the windshield again, but SA
Kellerman does. This is made into an issue by another researcher; facts
indicate that Ferguson had no reason to look at the old windshield again.
(Contradiction between Rowley and White House Logs). Carpet that Ferguson
has ordered by phone from Hess & Eisenhardt arrives at the White House
Garage. H&E records verify that carpet was ordered; Ford Motor Company
archives show that there was a question as to where to bill the cost of
the carpeting.

Note the passage from 11/23/63, 1:00 am:

"small hole in the windshield of 100X from which bullet fragments were
removed."

Note also that the passage for 11/25/63 notes the limo was still in the
garage and being guarded by Army personnel.

> BOTH said it was the 25th that Arlington Glass was in the garage replacing
> the windshield, when it actually was the 26th. The garage log tells the
> truth and fits with Whitaker's story of the 25th being the day the limo
> was in Michigan. And remember also, you can't think of a single reason
> for Whitaker to lie.

There is nothing in the garage log which supports Whitaker's bullshit
story that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. That's something you
simply imagined because you desperately want to believe it.

If the main plant had facilities to do the interior work on the limo why
would it have been sent to Hess and Eisenhardt for both the original
customization and the post assassination refurbishment. That makes no
sense.

Of course the biggest obstacle to Ford doing the interior work on site was
the fact the limo was in the White House garage being guarded by Army
personnel on the 25th.

>
>
>
> > > > Then since the upholstery
> > > > shop wouldn't have non-standard parts in stock, they would have to
> > > > fabricate the various interior components from scratch. Once those were
> > > > completed, they would then have to ship those components back to the main
> > > > plant.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The work was already done in the limousine for the interior,
> > > they simply had to copy what they saw with new material and replace the
> > > old bloody stuff. Stop trying to make it a large task.
> > >
> > All in one day. <chuckle>
> > >
> > >
> > > > The plant would then have to install those various interior
> > > > components and then ship the limo back to Washington in time to have the
> > > > newly installed windshield cracked and then replaced again by Arlington
> > > > Glass in the White House garage. And you think all of that could be done
> > > > in just one day's time.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Easily. Because it was.
> > >
> >
> > According to your silly theory.
> >
>
>
>
> The evidence bears it out. Let me know when you're going to present
> some.
>

No evidence. Just your assumptions. Zero documentation that the limo ever
left the White House garage from the time it arrived from Dallas until the
windshield was replaced on the 26th. It was closely guarded during that
time.

For stock automobiles. No mention of custom work being done.

I don't need to. He's your witness. You need to come up with a reason for
believing him other than that you want to.

> And Weldon showed the handwritten document written by
> Whitaker and played the sound recording of his story, both of which were
> OBVIOUSLY not his speaking or writing.
>

Which if authentic would indicate Whitaker lied to Weldon.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > > > > > > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > > > > > > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
> > > > > windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
> > > > > this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You just confirmed what I have been saying all along. Whitaker is your
> > > > sole source for this tall tale. Nothing to corroborate his story.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Parts of his story are corroborated, and I listed them for you
> > > above.
> > >
> >
> > Nobody corroborates the claim the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.
> >
>
>
> Not that we know of, but it's corroborated that no one accessed the
> limo on the 25th.
>

Oh, so imaginary unnamed witnesses are good enough to corroborate
Whitaker. The fact that no one accessed the limo in the garage on the 25th
does not support the claim it was in Michigan. It is all Whitaker's story
and nothing else.

It is hardly nitpicking to point out that three witnesses di NOT say what
you claimed they said.

> No one talks like you are trying to pretend they talk.
> When someone says there's a hole in the windshield, they mean a hole all
> the way through.

Is that so. So if someone said there was a hole in JFK's back that
establishes that the hole went all the way through him. That's according
to you definition of a hole.

> The windshield pane is so thin that no one would say the
> bullet went halfway through. That would be stupid, and so's your wacky
> theory.
>

Safety glass is not thin and a number of people indicated the hole did not
go through. FBI agent Frazier removed fragments from the hole from the
inside. Kellerman indicated the outer surface of the windshield remained
smooth because the fragment had not penetrated through the glass.

>
>
> > > unless they say it went all the way through. That is
> > > patently false. People don't talk like that when describing a bullet
> > > going through a glass pane.
> > >
> >
> > One more baseless claim by you.
> >
>
>
>
> A statement that will make sense to all. Do you want to poll the
> forum and see how many think your way or mine? You're welcome to try.
>

So by your definition of a hole, it has to go all the way through an
object in order for it to be a hole.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > Cracks
> > > > > > > > radiated out from that. What is in dispute is that the hole went through.
> > > > > > > > The two witnesses who said it went cleat through the windshield are
> > > > > > > > refuted by the SS agent who felt the outer surface of the windshield with
> > > > > > > > his had and discovered it was smooth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no dispute about whether a bullet went through a hole in the
> > > > > > > windshield, or if a bullet only went part way through a hole in the
> > > > > > > windshield.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there is no dispute, why are you disputing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not disputing it because it's OBVIOUS
> > > >
> > > > There you go again.
> > > >
> > > > > that a bullet doesn't go
> > > > > halfway through a pane of glass when someone says the bullet went through
> > > > > the glass. That's a phony gimmick you tried to pretend was true when it's
> > > > > never used by anyone...except you.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It wasn't a bullet. It was a fragment of a bullet.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You have absolutely NO proof of that.
> >
> > There were fragments on the floor of the limo. No whole bullets. The only
> > one of those recovered was found on a stretcher at Parkland.
> >
>
>
> The 2 fragments in the front seat area were probably the remains of
> the bullet that struck the chrome bar over the windshield. Note that the
> FMJ bullet didn't fragment too much, even after slamming into a metal
> object solidly.
>

There were numerous fragments from the bullet found inside the limo. There
were two that had enough material that they could be positively matched to
Oswald's rifle. In addition the total volume of fragments found in the
limo was less than a whole bullet which would indicate some fragments left
the limo.

There was one. We see it in the Z-film.

> No fragment that broke
> up when a bullet hit the skull would leave the head without making a mess.
> Never mind that no fragment ever left the head in that fashion. It would
> be stupid.
>

The Connally's were showered by the mess. JBC described bits of brain the
size of his thumb. But that is beside the point which you missed. If there
was a clear path between the JFK's head and the hole in the windshield,
that clear path would exist for a missile traveling in either direction.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > If some
> > > > > > > one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> > > > > > > through the pane.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
> > > > > > You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
> > > > > > Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
> > > > > > windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
> > > > > > said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
> > > > > > his hand.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
> > > > > bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
> > > > > the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Probably not a bullet but a fragment from a bullet which had already
> > > > struck another hard object could and it did.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If it were possible for a fragment to fly in that direction from the
> > > head of JFK, I might consider it, but it's stupid otherwise. Especially
> > > if you insist that the only kind of bullet to consider is the MC type.
> > > They were FMJ and made to NOT fragment like you would like it to do.
> > >
> >
> > A fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo which pretty
> > much shoots down that argument.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Those 2 fragments were FMJ for sure,

There were more than two.

> BUT they had slammed into
> a solid steel or Chrome bar over the windshield, so solid that even an FMJ
> bullet was fragmented.

You keep insisting that we prove bullets from the Carcano hit or hurt
anyone. So let me see your proof that a bullet from the Carcano hit the
chrome bar directly. Or is this another place where you will invoke one of
your double standards.

> But it broke into only 2 pieces for all that.

I don't know where you got the idea there were only two fragments.

> Hitting a skull is far softer than the solid steel of the chrome backing.
>

Which doesn't establish that a skull isn't hard enough to cause the bullet
to fragment.

>
>
> > > > > > > Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> > > > > > > lie. Do you have an answer?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
> > > > > > was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
> > > > > > he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
> > > > > > really don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
> > > > > Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
> > > > > That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
> > > > > either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
> > > > > Whitaker's death.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Had I know that part of the story when you asked the question, I could
> > > > have also offered as a possibility that Whitaker didn't lie but that his
> > > > lawyer was the one who made up the story and just as Collum and Sample did
> > > > with Loy Factor, he waited until his source was dead and couldn't refute
> > > > him. It's quite possible his lawyer was the liar and Whitaker never told
> > > > him any such story. So we now have two possibilities. Whitaker made up the
> > > > story or his lawyer made up the story. Either way the story is bullshit.
>
>
>
> Welp, that whole line opinion is faulty. Now you've got 2 witness
> stories that were crated by lawyers, but when anyone says the WCR theories
> were created by lawyers, oh no, not that!
>

I neither accept nor reject stories simply because they are presented by
lawyers. I accept or reject them based on whether there is credible
evidence to support them. You haven't once heard me dismiss a story simply
because it came from a lawyer. You on the other hand do that quite
frequently with the WCR.

>
> Your attempts are crude and silly.
>
>
>
> > > The lawyer, Doug Weldon, JD has the story written out by hand from
> > > Whitaker, and sound recorded on tape. I'm sure they can be checked
> > > against Whitaker's examples from life. Though for normal people, it
> > > wouldn't be necessary.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know whether Whitaker lied to Weldon or Weldon lied to the rest of
> > use. I do know that one of them lied.
>
>
>
> Oh? How do you KNOW that?

Because the story can't possibly be true. The limo was not in Michigan on
the 25th.

> Are you hiding evidence? Or is that just
> more of your opinions?
>

No, all the documentation indicates the limo remained in the White House
garage the entire weekend and the windshield was replaced on the 26th.

[bigdog]

Just because you suspect Kellerman does nothing to impeach his integrity.

> but from his testimony we learn that something hit
> the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!

Bullshit.

> So something hit the windshield from the outside.

More bullshit.

> Could have been a
> hammer or other tool wielded by an SS agent. After all, the new
> windshield had to be cracked to look like that was the cause of the damage
> that 6 witnesses said was a bullet hole.
>

Completely off the wall bullshit.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:47:37 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:



I'm done with this swamp post. Start another if you want to talk
about the limo over and over.

I'm familiar with Pamela Brown's story. She and I had a long
discussion about it. She was not convincing about the Whitaker witnessing
and Rouge, MI. Note her comment about the army to make it seem unlikely,
which was added after she and I talked.

Note that the info repeats that there was a HOLE in the windshield.

> > BOTH said it was the 25th that Arlington Glass was in the garage replacing
> > the windshield, when it actually was the 26th. The garage log tells the
> > truth and fits with Whitaker's story of the 25th being the day the limo
> > was in Michigan. And remember also, you can't think of a single reason
> > for Whitaker to lie.
>
> There is nothing in the garage log which supports Whitaker's bullshit
> story that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. That's something you
> simply imagined because you desperately want to believe it.
>

WRONG! I've imagined nothing. The garage log makes it clear that the
limo wasn't accessed on that day, that Whitaker saw the limo in Rouge, MI.

WRONG! That was all explained to you, so now you're just wasting time
while you try to think of something to support your crazy theories. The
original work was always done by an outside company. The original limo
design was, and later, when they wanted to make changes to the bullet
proofing and other hardening steps, H & E also go the limo to do the
original work. But the simple work of replacing the interior material
with material that wasn't bloody, was a simple task,. Now doesn't that
sound familiar? Or is your sick memory losing things again?

> Of course the biggest obstacle to Ford doing the interior work on site was
> the fact the limo was in the White House garage being guarded by Army
> personnel on the 25th.
>

WRONG! You mean you have some proof of that? And you have army
personnel saying they saw the limo there too? Cites and links please. I
don't believe it. You see, I remember my long arguments with Pamela
Brown, and the Army didn't get mentioned back then in those discussions.
So let's see your proof, or it didn't happen. There was no reason to
assign Army personnel to guard the limo, the SS were responsible for that.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Then since the upholstery
> > > > > shop wouldn't have non-standard parts in stock, they would have to
> > > > > fabricate the various interior components from scratch. Once those were
> > > > > completed, they would then have to ship those components back to the main
> > > > > plant.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! The work was already done in the limousine for the interior,
> > > > they simply had to copy what they saw with new material and replace the
> > > > old bloody stuff. Stop trying to make it a large task.
> > > >
> > > All in one day. <chuckle>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The plant would then have to install those various interior
> > > > > components and then ship the limo back to Washington in time to have the
> > > > > newly installed windshield cracked and then replaced again by Arlington
> > > > > Glass in the White House garage. And you think all of that could be done
> > > > > in just one day's time.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Easily. Because it was.
> > > >
> > >
> > > According to your silly theory.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > The evidence bears it out. Let me know when you're going to present
> > some.
> >
>
> No evidence. Just your assumptions. Zero documentation that the limo ever
> left the White House garage from the time it arrived from Dallas until the
> windshield was replaced on the 26th. It was closely guarded during that
> time.
>

Of course! It was a secret! Why would they want to document a
secret operation? That would be stupid.

> > > > > Here's a little experiment for you to conduct. Tell that story to ten
> > > > > people and tell us how many are able to keep a straight face through it
> > > > > all. Their reaction might be very similar to what Anderson Cooper did when
> > > > > interviewing Kelly Conway.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's a simple case that everyone would find ridiculous. The
> > > > Whitaker situation was with a witness, so it isn't so easy to dismiss like
> > > > you're trying to do to cover up for your foolish WCR.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is nothing which corroborates Whitaker's story which might actually
> > > be Weldon's story. Not sure which one of them made it up but it is a
> > > certainty it was made up.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh? A "Certainty"? That can only mean that you have evidence of that
> > to call it a fact that way. What's that evidence?
> >

I see no evidence listed here after my question, so I must assume
there is none and you were just blowing off the usual baloney.

That's been discussed and explained to you.

I have done that for all witnesses that have no reason to lie. Most
people want to tell the truth and give honest statements. You have to
find something wrong with them to think they lie a lot, like Trump.

> > And Weldon showed the handwritten document written by
> > Whitaker and played the sound recording of his story, both of which were
> > OBVIOUSLY not his speaking or writing.
> >
>
> Which if authentic would indicate Whitaker lied to Weldon.
>

WRONG! They would prove the Whitaker story.

> > > > > > > > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > > > > > > > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > > > > > > > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
> > > > > > windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You just confirmed what I have been saying all along. Whitaker is your
> > > > > sole source for this tall tale. Nothing to corroborate his story.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Parts of his story are corroborated, and I listed them for you
> > > > above.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nobody corroborates the claim the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not that we know of, but it's corroborated that no one accessed the
> > limo on the 25th.
> >
>
> Oh, so imaginary unnamed witnesses are good enough to corroborate
> Whitaker. The fact that no one accessed the limo in the garage on the 25th
> does not support the claim it was in Michigan. It is all Whitaker's story
> and nothing else.
>

Weell, you forget that I also take an overview, and the Limo off to
Michigan fits with what they were willing to do to make the 'lone nut'
scenario look real. Since we KNOW that there was a hole through the
windshield, and it appeared to come from forward of the limo, it had to be
covered up, and suddenly the limo has ONLY a cracked windshield, and there
is a report from a man in Michigan that he saw the limo and the windshield
on the very same day it was also not accessed at the garage.

WRONG! We've been over that. They said there was a hole in the
windshield, and that means to normal human people that it was a hole that
went all the way through the glass.

> > No one talks like you are trying to pretend they talk.
> > When someone says there's a hole in the windshield, they mean a hole all
> > the way through.
>
> Is that so. So if someone said there was a hole in JFK's back that
> establishes that the hole went all the way through him. That's according
> to you definition of a hole.
>
> > The windshield pane is so thin that no one would say the
> > bullet went halfway through. That would be stupid, and so's your wacky
> > theory.
> >
>
> Safety glass is not thin and a number of people indicated the hole did not
> go through. FBI agent Frazier removed fragments from the hole from the
> inside. Kellerman indicated the outer surface of the windshield remained
> smooth because the fragment had not penetrated through the glass.
>

Removing fragments of a bullet that hit the glass sounds possible to
me. Are you claiming something to do with that? Sounds like your
statement suggests there was indeed a hole there. If a 'hole' did not go
through, then it's a crack or a 'ding', not a 'hole'.

> >
> >
> > > > unless they say it went all the way through. That is
> > > > patently false. People don't talk like that when describing a bullet
> > > > going through a glass pane.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One more baseless claim by you.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > A statement that will make sense to all. Do you want to poll the
> > forum and see how many think your way or mine? You're welcome to try.
> >
>
> So by your definition of a hole, it has to go all the way through an
> object in order for it to be a hole.
>

FALSE! You're attempting to redefine 'hole' and it won't work.
We're speaking of a 'hole' in a windshield. A windshield is far thinner
than the length of a bullet, by the time the bullet was not even halfway
through the glass, it's already on the other side.

The fragments left in the limo besides the 2 fragments in the front
seat may have been from the bullet that struck over the windshield. They
may not have checked, but there would almost certainly be some bullet
material in the hole blasted by the bullet over the windshield.

The Z-film won't tell you anything at the key frame (313), since it
was altered at that point among others.

> > No fragment that broke
> > up when a bullet hit the skull would leave the head without making a mess.
> > Never mind that no fragment ever left the head in that fashion. It would
> > be stupid.
> >
>
> The Connally's were showered by the mess. JBC described bits of brain the
> size of his thumb. But that is beside the point which you missed. If there
> was a clear path between the JFK's head and the hole in the windshield,
> that clear path would exist for a missile traveling in either direction.
>

You need to study Vincent DiMaio's book "Gunshot Wounds". He mentions
that rifle bullets will causes a blowback called 'tailsplash' from the
wound and it goes back toward where the bullet came from. The kill shot
that hit the forehead/temple area was just right for that kind of event.
As well, there was at least one bullet that hit Connally and possibly 2.

> > > > > > > > If some
> > > > > > > > one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
> > > > > > > > through the pane.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
> > > > > > > You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
> > > > > > > Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
> > > > > > > windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
> > > > > > > said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
> > > > > > > his hand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
> > > > > > bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
> > > > > > the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably not a bullet but a fragment from a bullet which had already
> > > > > struck another hard object could and it did.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If it were possible for a fragment to fly in that direction from the
> > > > head of JFK, I might consider it, but it's stupid otherwise. Especially
> > > > if you insist that the only kind of bullet to consider is the MC type.
> > > > They were FMJ and made to NOT fragment like you would like it to do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo which pretty
> > > much shoots down that argument.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Those 2 fragments were FMJ for sure,
>
> There were more than two.
>

YOU know the 2 I'm speaking of. Those 2 can be almost guaranteed to
come from the same bullet.

> > BUT they had slammed into
> > a solid steel or Chrome bar over the windshield, so solid that even an FMJ
> > bullet was fragmented.
>
> You keep insisting that we prove bullets from the Carcano hit or hurt
> anyone. So let me see your proof that a bullet from the Carcano hit the
> chrome bar directly. Or is this another place where you will invoke one of
> your double standards.
>

I invoke common sense and intelligence. By looking at the damaged
area on the limo up close, it's easy to see that it was the primary strike
and it was the end of the bullet that hit there. It's also fairly sure
that the 2 fragments in the front seat were from the bullet that hit
there.

> > But it broke into only 2 pieces for all that.
>
> I don't know where you got the idea there were only two fragments.
>

Naturally, there may be smaller fragments around, but it was an FMJ
bullet, so there should be very few.

> > Hitting a skull is far softer than the solid steel of the chrome backing.
> >
>
> Which doesn't establish that a skull isn't hard enough to cause the bullet
> to fragment.
>

Well, I point you to the bullet that was used to hit a cadaver wrist,
which only mashed in the front end of the bullet:

http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif

> >
> >
> > > > > > > > Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
> > > > > > > > lie. Do you have an answer?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
> > > > > > > was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
> > > > > > > he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
> > > > > > > really don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
> > > > > > Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
> > > > > > That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
> > > > > > either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
> > > > > > Whitaker's death.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Had I know that part of the story when you asked the question, I could
> > > > > have also offered as a possibility that Whitaker didn't lie but that his
> > > > > lawyer was the one who made up the story and just as Collum and Sample did
> > > > > with Loy Factor, he waited until his source was dead and couldn't refute
> > > > > him. It's quite possible his lawyer was the liar and Whitaker never told
> > > > > him any such story. So we now have two possibilities. Whitaker made up the
> > > > > story or his lawyer made up the story. Either way the story is bullshit.
> >
> >
> >
> > Welp, that whole line opinion is faulty. Now you've got 2 witness

> > stories that were created by lawyers, but when anyone says the WCR theories

> > were created by lawyers, oh no, not that!
> >
>
> I neither accept nor reject stories simply because they are presented by
> lawyers. I accept or reject them based on whether there is credible
> evidence to support them. You haven't once heard me dismiss a story simply
> because it came from a lawyer. You on the other hand do that quite
> frequently with the WCR.
>
> >
> > Your attempts are crude and silly.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > The lawyer, Doug Weldon, JD has the story written out by hand from
> > > > Whitaker, and sound recorded on tape. I'm sure they can be checked
> > > > against Whitaker's examples from life. Though for normal people, it
> > > > wouldn't be necessary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know whether Whitaker lied to Weldon or Weldon lied to the rest of
> > > use. I do know that one of them lied.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh? How do you KNOW that?
>
> Because the story can't possibly be true. The limo was not in Michigan on
> the 25th.
>
> > Are you hiding evidence? Or is that just
> > more of your opinions?
> >
>
> No, all the documentation indicates the limo remained in the White House
> garage the entire weekend and the windshield was replaced on the 26th.

There is no documentation showing that, but there is proof that the
windshield was replaced on the 26th.

Chris

[mainframetech]

That adds more witnesses to the list of them that saw the
through-and-through hole in the windshield of the limo.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Cute, but they have the bullet path wrong.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

OMG! You actually did some research. How did you ever find that document?
Doesn't look like a government web site. It looks like Pamela Brown to me.
So our resident Troll needs to attack you for merely downloading things
you found on the Web. Don't tell him that some of it came from me.

This is an editorial comment which should be in brackets[]. Is that
Pamela's or yours? Why are you ruling out teleportation?

> 11/26/63 In response to Ferguson's call of 11/26/63, Arlington Glass
> personnel arrive to replace the windshield. According to the White House
> Logs, they first take five minutes to measure it, then return to install
> it. Mr. Davis of the SS takes the windshield, which the men have pushed
> out with their feet. Ferguson doesn't see the windshield again, but SA
> Kellerman does. This is made into an issue by another researcher; facts
> indicate that Ferguson had no reason to look at the old windshield again.
> (Contradiction between Rowley and White House Logs). Carpet that Ferguson
> has ordered by phone from Hess & Eisenhardt arrives at the White House
> Garage. H&E records verify that carpet was ordered; Ford Motor Company
> archives show that there was a question as to where to bill the cost of
> the carpeting.
>
> Note the passage from 11/23/63, 1:00 am:
>
> "small hole in the windshield of 100X from which bullet fragments were
> removed."
>
> Note also that the passage for 11/25/63 notes the limo was still in the
> garage and being guarded by Army personnel.
>

But the kook doesn't have to accept the official documents as proof. He
can just claim that they were made up to cover up the imaginary hole.

Yes, exactly. So on a golf course each hole goes all the way to China.
That explains why so many golfers keep losing golf balls.

Copper jacket.
Some kooks don't even know that you can identify the brand just from the
copper jacket. The WCC bullet has an unusually thick jacket.
And the base fragment has the cannelure intact so we can measure its
location, width and striations which are unique to the one tim
production of WCC ammo for the CIA.

Show me.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> If some
>>>>>>>> one says the bullet went through the glass windshield, it went ALL THE WAY
>>>>>>>> through the pane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That statement assumes witnesses always get details like that correct.
>>>>>>> You've never understood that witnesses don't get all the details correct.
>>>>>>> Just because two witnesses said there was a hole all the way through the
>>>>>>> windshield doesn't establish that as a fact. We have another witness who
>>>>>>> said the outer surface of the glass was still smooth and he felt it with
>>>>>>> his hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG! Now you're talking about a 'crack' in the windshield, not a
>>>>>> bullet hole. When people say a bullet went through the glass, it went all
>>>>>> the way through. No bullet would stop halfway, that's just plain stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not a bullet but a fragment from a bullet which had already
>>>>> struck another hard object could and it did.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it were possible for a fragment to fly in that direction from the
>>>> head of JFK, I might consider it, but it's stupid otherwise. Especially
>>>> if you insist that the only kind of bullet to consider is the MC type.
>>>> They were FMJ and made to NOT fragment like you would like it to do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo which pretty
>>> much shoots down that argument.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Those 2 fragments were FMJ for sure,
>
> There were more than two.
>

Well, you have a hard time proving which bullet the tiniest fragments
came from, but at least we know they were unhardened lead in the same
range as the WCC ammo.

>> BUT they had slammed into
>> a solid steel or Chrome bar over the windshield, so solid that even an FMJ
>> bullet was fragmented.
>
> You keep insisting that we prove bullets from the Carcano hit or hurt
> anyone. So let me see your proof that a bullet from the Carcano hit the
> chrome bar directly. Or is this another place where you will invoke one of
> your double standards.
>

The WC didn't even try. The SS said the chrome topping was already dent
years before. The HSCA was too cowardly to address the issue.

>> But it broke into only 2 pieces for all that.
>
> I don't know where you got the idea there were only two fragments.
>

The two largest fragments they found. Where did the other fragments go?

>> Hitting a skull is far softer than the solid steel of the chrome backing.
>>
>
> Which doesn't establish that a skull isn't hard enough to cause the bullet
> to fragment.

Exactly. So you can show us some examples.
How many cases have we had of a skull hit by a copper jacketed bullet
like the WCC ammo?

>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Now once again, I ask why you think that George Whitaker, Sr. would
>>>>>>>> lie. Do you have an answer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, since you asked me what I think as opposed to what I know, I think he
>>>>>>> was just seeking attention. I have no way of knowing if that is the reason
>>>>>>> he lied, but it is my best guess. Since he didn't tell me why he lied, I
>>>>>>> really don't know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG! Turns out your best guess is pure baloney. As it turns out,
>>>>>> Whitaker told his lawyer he didn't want to be known until after his death.
>>>>>> That's not the request of some one looking for attention...or money
>>>>>> either. His lawyer kept the promise and only let out the story after
>>>>>> Whitaker's death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Had I know that part of the story when you asked the question, I could
>>>>> have also offered as a possibility that Whitaker didn't lie but that his
>>>>> lawyer was the one who made up the story and just as Collum and Sample did
>>>>> with Loy Factor, he waited until his source was dead and couldn't refute
>>>>> him. It's quite possible his lawyer was the liar and Whitaker never told
>>>>> him any such story. So we now have two possibilities. Whitaker made up the
>>>>> story or his lawyer made up the story. Either way the story is bullshit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Welp, that whole line opinion is faulty. Now you've got 2 witness
>> stories that were crated by lawyers, but when anyone says the WCR theories
>> were created by lawyers, oh no, not that!
>>
>
> I neither accept nor reject stories simply because they are presented by
> lawyers. I accept or reject them based on whether there is credible

Now, wait a minute. Shouldn't you be more suspicious of a story
concocted by a lawyer?

> evidence to support them. You haven't once heard me dismiss a story simply
> because it came from a lawyer. You on the other hand do that quite
> frequently with the WCR.
>

Is it because it came from a lawyer or because it came from a
politician? Politicians ALWAYS lie. We know Ford did.

>>
>> Your attempts are crude and silly.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The lawyer, Doug Weldon, JD has the story written out by hand from
>>>> Whitaker, and sound recorded on tape. I'm sure they can be checked
>>>> against Whitaker's examples from life. Though for normal people, it
>>>> wouldn't be necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know whether Whitaker lied to Weldon or Weldon lied to the rest of
>>> use. I do know that one of them lied.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh? How do you KNOW that?
>
> Because the story can't possibly be true. The limo was not in Michigan on
> the 25th.
>

Maybe they used teleportation. Yeah, that's it!

>> Are you hiding evidence? Or is that just
>> more of your opinions?
>>
>
> No, all the documentation indicates the limo remained in the White House
> garage the entire weekend and the windshield was replaced on the 26th.
>

But he says ALL the evidence is fake. The only thing that matters is his
imagination.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nice pictures. Kinda small, but crisp.
I like Robin Ungar's animated GIF. They couldn't explain what it is
showing in enough detail, but it shows that the hole would be in a
different location than the crack. So maybe our resident kook should
claim that there was both a crack AND a hole.

[mainframetech]

LOL! Oh, I believe him when he says that he felt the outside of the
cracked windshield and it was smooth. That proves that the strike was
from the outside!

> > but from his testimony we learn that something hit
> > the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!
>
> Bullshit.
>

Ah, you've decided to use your intelligent arguments.

> > So something hit the windshield from the outside.
>
> More bullshit.
>

All this cussing, and yet you have no proofs to offer to back up your
comment. I guess the cussing replaces the intelligent comments.

> > Could have been a
> > hammer or other tool wielded by an SS agent. After all, the new
> > windshield had to be cracked to look like that was the cause of the damage
> > that 6 witnesses said was a bullet hole.
> >
>
> Completely off the wall bullshit.

There you go again, expressing your opinions, which are useless. I
guess you have no decent answer for that one.

Chris

[claviger]

The Secret Service man was right because he was authorized to approach the
vehicle and look at it up close.

> It looked like a clean hole in the windshield to me.

From how close? What we do know the SSA didn't want anyone close to the
Limousine. It was their job to guard it and keep people away from it.

> In fact, one of the motor jockeys, Harry Freeman, put a pencil through it, or said he could."

Which is it? Did he actually put a pencil through it? I doubt it, the
SSA were in no mood to allow anyone around the bloody Limousine. It was a
crime scene and the SSA should not allow anyone to touch anything on it.
The "or said he could" is a clue he didn't actually stick a pencil through
it. At that point in time the SSA might go berserk if anyone attempted to
do something like that, including the DPD. One SS Agent decked an FBI
Agent who was trying to enter the ER area. Hoover was furious about this
incident. Some claim that murder of the top Federal Employee in the US
Government riding in Federal Property on official business was not a
Federal crime, so therefore the Dallas Police and Sheriff Department had
jurisdiction over this local murder case and therefore the SSA should back
off and let them do their job. Neither the SSA nor FBI had the slightest
inclination to allow that to happen.

> http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ellis.html

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:25:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:47:37 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm done with this swamp post. Start another if you want to talk
> about the limo over and over.
>

I really don't. I just enjoy poking holes in your silly proclamations.

Pamela Brown is a rare breed. A rational CT. She has a low tolerance for
kookiness.

And that there were fragments in that hole. That would indicate the missile didn't pass through.

>
>
> > > BOTH said it was the 25th that Arlington Glass was in the garage replacing
> > > the windshield, when it actually was the 26th. The garage log tells the
> > > truth and fits with Whitaker's story of the 25th being the day the limo
> > > was in Michigan. And remember also, you can't think of a single reason
> > > for Whitaker to lie.
> >
> > There is nothing in the garage log which supports Whitaker's bullshit
> > story that the limo was in Michigan on the 25th. That's something you
> > simply imagined because you desperately want to believe it.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I've imagined nothing. The garage log makes it clear that the
> limo wasn't accessed on that day, that Whitaker saw the limo in Rouge, MI.
>

Explain how the fact the limo wasn't accessed establishes that it was in
Michigan.

Your explanation made no sense. It may have been that in 1963 Ford had
onsight facilities to fabricate STANDARD interior components. They weren't
in the business of doing custom work. That was outsourced to H&S.

> The original work was always done by an outside company.

BINGO!!! That should tell you something but for some unexplicable reason
it doesn't.

> The original limo
> design was, and later, when they wanted to make changes to the bullet
> proofing and other hardening steps, H & E also go the limo to do the
> original work. But the simple work of replacing the interior material
> with material that wasn't bloody, was a simple task,. Now doesn't that
> sound familiar? Or is your sick memory losing things again?
>

If they had the facilities to create replacement interior components why
wouldn't they have used those same facilities to create the original
interior components? Why pay an outside company if they were set up to do
the work in house?

>
>
> > Of course the biggest obstacle to Ford doing the interior work on site was
> > the fact the limo was in the White House garage being guarded by Army
> > personnel on the 25th.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You mean you have some proof of that? And you have army
> personnel saying they saw the limo there too? Cites and links please. I
> don't believe it. You see, I remember my long arguments with Pamela
> Brown, and the Army didn't get mentioned back then in those discussions.
> So let's see your proof, or it didn't happen. There was no reason to
> assign Army personnel to guard the limo, the SS were responsible for that.
>

The Army could provide something the SS couldn't. Lots of boots on the
ground. Besides the 25th was the date of the state funeral with lots of
foreign heads of states in Washington. I think the SS had more pressing
matters than standing watch over a bloody limousine.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Then since the upholstery
> > > > > > shop wouldn't have non-standard parts in stock, they would have to
> > > > > > fabricate the various interior components from scratch. Once those were
> > > > > > completed, they would then have to ship those components back to the main
> > > > > > plant.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! The work was already done in the limousine for the interior,
> > > > > they simply had to copy what they saw with new material and replace the
> > > > > old bloody stuff. Stop trying to make it a large task.
> > > > >
> > > > All in one day. <chuckle>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The plant would then have to install those various interior
> > > > > > components and then ship the limo back to Washington in time to have the
> > > > > > newly installed windshield cracked and then replaced again by Arlington
> > > > > > Glass in the White House garage. And you think all of that could be done
> > > > > > in just one day's time.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Easily. Because it was.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > According to your silly theory.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The evidence bears it out. Let me know when you're going to present
> > > some.
> > >
> >
> > No evidence. Just your assumptions. Zero documentation that the limo ever
> > left the White House garage from the time it arrived from Dallas until the
> > windshield was replaced on the 26th. It was closely guarded during that
> > time.
> >
>
>
> Of course! It was a secret! Why would they want to document a
> secret operation? That would be stupid.
>

Oh, it was a secret. And because one schmuck 30 years later claimed the
limo was in Michigan, that's good enough for you.

>
>
>
> > > > > > Here's a little experiment for you to conduct. Tell that story to ten
> > > > > > people and tell us how many are able to keep a straight face through it
> > > > > > all. Their reaction might be very similar to what Anderson Cooper did when
> > > > > > interviewing Kelly Conway.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that's a simple case that everyone would find ridiculous. The
> > > > > Whitaker situation was with a witness, so it isn't so easy to dismiss like
> > > > > you're trying to do to cover up for your foolish WCR.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing which corroborates Whitaker's story which might actually
> > > > be Weldon's story. Not sure which one of them made it up but it is a
> > > > certainty it was made up.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh? A "Certainty"? That can only mean that you have evidence of that
> > > to call it a fact that way. What's that evidence?
> > >
>
>
>
> I see no evidence listed here after my question, so I must assume
> there is none and you were just blowing off the usual baloney.
>

The reasons why the story can't be true have been listed for you numerous
times and you know it. All you do is invent excuses to dismiss those
reasons. It is pointless to go down that road again.

Badly.

As far as you are concerned, if you can't think of a reason for a witness
to lie, that establishes their credibility. Of course I don't think you
try very hard to think of a reason because you really want to believe them
so if a reason doesn't pop into your head within two seconds, the witness
must be telling the truth.

> Most
> people want to tell the truth and give honest statements. You have to
> find something wrong with them to think they lie a lot, like Trump.
>

Try to stay focused on the subject at hand.

>
>
> > > And Weldon showed the handwritten document written by
> > > Whitaker and played the sound recording of his story, both of which were
> > > OBVIOUSLY not his speaking or writing.
> > >
> >
> > Which if authentic would indicate Whitaker lied to Weldon.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! They would prove the Whitaker story.
>

Oh, because Weldon repeated what Whitaker said, that proves to you what
Whitaker said is the truth. That says a lot.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > The date Whitaker saw the limousine and
> > > > > > > > > the windshield with the bullet hole in it was Monday, 11/25/63. The
> > > > > > > > > garage log says NO ONE accessed the limo that day.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So why does that lead you to believe it was in Michigan?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because Whitaker stated that he saw it there, and saw also the
> > > > > > > windshield with the bullet hole in it from the front. We've been over all
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You just confirmed what I have been saying all along. Whitaker is your
> > > > > > sole source for this tall tale. Nothing to corroborate his story.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Parts of his story are corroborated, and I listed them for you
> > > > > above.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nobody corroborates the claim the limo was in Michigan on the 25th.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not that we know of, but it's corroborated that no one accessed the
> > > limo on the 25th.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, so imaginary unnamed witnesses are good enough to corroborate
> > Whitaker. The fact that no one accessed the limo in the garage on the 25th
> > does not support the claim it was in Michigan. It is all Whitaker's story
> > and nothing else.
> >
>
>
>
> Weell, you forget that I also take an overview, and the Limo off to
> Michigan fits with what they were willing to do to make the 'lone nut'
> scenario look real.

So you use one assumption to support another. WTG.

> Since we KNOW that there was a hole through the
> windshield,

Who's we? Have you got a mouse in your pocket?

> and it appeared to come from forward of the limo,

Appeared that way to you. Not to people who look objectively at the
evidence.

> it had to be
> covered up, and suddenly the limo has ONLY a cracked windshield, and there
> is a report from a man in Michigan that he saw the limo and the windshield
> on the very same day it was also not accessed at the garage.
>

Back to trying to prove one assumption with another.

Yes they did. They said nothing about it going all the way through.

> and that means to normal human people that it was a hole that
> went all the way through the glass.
>

You don't speak for normal human people. That's a good thing.

>
>
> > > No one talks like you are trying to pretend they talk.
> > > When someone says there's a hole in the windshield, they mean a hole all
> > > the way through.
> >
> > Is that so. So if someone said there was a hole in JFK's back that
> > establishes that the hole went all the way through him. That's according
> > to you definition of a hole.
> >
> > > The windshield pane is so thin that no one would say the
> > > bullet went halfway through. That would be stupid, and so's your wacky
> > > theory.
> > >
> >
> > Safety glass is not thin and a number of people indicated the hole did not
> > go through. FBI agent Frazier removed fragments from the hole from the
> > inside. Kellerman indicated the outer surface of the windshield remained
> > smooth because the fragment had not penetrated through the glass.
> >
>
>
>
> Removing fragments of a bullet that hit the glass sounds possible to
> me. Are you claiming something to do with that? Sounds like your
> statement suggests there was indeed a hole there. If a 'hole' did not go
> through, then it's a crack or a 'ding', not a 'hole'.
>

Yes there was. It just didn't penetrate to the outside of the glass.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > unless they say it went all the way through. That is
> > > > > patently false. People don't talk like that when describing a bullet
> > > > > going through a glass pane.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One more baseless claim by you.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A statement that will make sense to all. Do you want to poll the
> > > forum and see how many think your way or mine? You're welcome to try.
> > >
> >
> > So by your definition of a hole, it has to go all the way through an
> > object in order for it to be a hole.
> >
>
>
>
> FALSE! You're attempting to redefine 'hole' and it won't work.

I'm just trying to get you to give your definition of a hole. It seems to
be rather nebulas.

> We're speaking of a 'hole' in a windshield. A windshield is far thinner
> than the length of a bullet, by the time the bullet was not even halfway
> through the glass, it's already on the other side.
>

You keep assuming it was a bullet and not a fragment of a bullet.

Or more likely, one of those fragments did strike over the windshield.

> They
> may not have checked, but there would almost certainly be some bullet
> material in the hole blasted by the bullet over the windshield.
>

Because you say so.

That's your lame excuse for dismissing one of the most important pieces of
evidence in this case. You don't want to accept what the Z-film shows
because it refutes almost everything you claim.

>
>
>
> > > No fragment that broke
> > > up when a bullet hit the skull would leave the head without making a mess.
> > > Never mind that no fragment ever left the head in that fashion. It would
> > > be stupid.
> > >
> >
> > The Connally's were showered by the mess. JBC described bits of brain the
> > size of his thumb. But that is beside the point which you missed. If there
> > was a clear path between the JFK's head and the hole in the windshield,
> > that clear path would exist for a missile traveling in either direction.
> >
>
>
> You need to study Vincent DiMaio's book "Gunshot Wounds". He mentions
> that rifle bullets will causes a blowback called 'tailsplash' from the
> wound and it goes back toward where the bullet came from. The kill shot
> that hit the forehead/temple area was just right for that kind of event.
> As well, there was at least one bullet that hit Connally and possibly 2.
>

Vincent DiMaio thinks your beliefs are FUBAR. He has glowingly endorse
Larry Sturdivan's book which shoots down many of the popular conspiracy
hobbyist myths including some that you subscribe to.

[bigdog]

??????????????????? That explanation calls for a little clarification,
Sherlock.

>
>
> > > but from his testimony we learn that something hit
> > > the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
>
>
> Ah, you've decided to use your intelligent arguments.
>

No need to waste those on your nonsense.

>
>
> > > So something hit the windshield from the outside.
> >
> > More bullshit.
> >
>
>
> All this cussing, and yet you have no proofs to offer to back up your
> comment. I guess the cussing replaces the intelligent comments.
>

Kellerman felt the outside of the windshield and the glass was smooth. In
addition we have photos of the windshield showing only a crack, not hold
through it.

>
>
>
> > > Could have been a
> > > hammer or other tool wielded by an SS agent. After all, the new
> > > windshield had to be cracked to look like that was the cause of the damage
> > > that 6 witnesses said was a bullet hole.
> > >
> >
> > Completely off the wall bullshit.
>
>
>
> There you go again, expressing your opinions, which are useless. I
> guess you have no decent answer for that one.
>

When you make statements supported by evidence rather than your silly
assumptions, you will get the good stuff from me.

[claviger]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 1:09:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:30:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:33:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:40:17 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:15:00 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:35:07 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 6:02:40 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > A man drives a car with bullet holes in the windshield in the eastern
> > > > > > > > > > > Ukrainian city of Donetsk on June 3, 2014.
> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-news-photo/495433137?#man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-eastern-picture-id495433137
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 29: 9mm Bullets Through Car Windshield GTA 5
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yiaWO525qo
> > > > > > > > > > What's your point?
> > > > > > > > > > Chris

Only you would ask that question after seeing photos of real bullet holes in windshields.

If it was smooth to the touch then no hole in the glass.

> That proves that the strike was from the outside!

Why can't you read plain English? Kellerman confirms the crack was caused
by a fragment from inside the car.

> > > but from his testimony we learn that something hit
> > > the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!
> > Bullshit.
> Ah, you've decided to use your intelligent arguments.
> > > So something hit the windshield from the outside.

Not according to Kellerman. Since you are an expert on windshields and
bullets that damage them, why don't you analyze the trajectory that caused
the crack and use it as a vector that connects to the weapon that launched
it? It will tell us where the sniper was that fired it. Think of this as
a high school project for a Geometry class or Trig if that's your gig.
Maybe a Triangulation calculation that reveals the location of the rifle
barrel the projectile came from.

[bigdog]

The question of jurisdiction is an interesting one. Murder is not a
federal crime unless it is committed on federal property. The victim was
on federal property (the limo). The perpetrator was not. So was the crime
committed in the limo or the TSBD? I'm no lawyer but it would seem to me
the crime was committed in the TSBD when Oswald took aim and fired the
rifle. The question of jurisdiction became moot when Ruby killed the
perp.

[mainframetech]

Here's the statement of a SS agent who rode in the limousine:

" Agent Taylor rode in the Presidential limousine as it was driven from
Andrews AFB to the White House garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W. In his
report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage during the
vehicle’s inspection, he wrote: “In addition, of
particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield
from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”

From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
> > It looked like a clean hole in the windshield to me.
>
>

Taylor was sitting in the front seat, so he was as close as you can
get to the bullet hole in the limo windshield. And it wasn't just a few
seconds.

> From how close? What we do know the SSA didn't want anyone close to the
> Limousine. It was their job to guard it and keep people away from it.
>

That does not mean they were successful every moment. Glanges
(witness) was leaning on the fender when they drove the limo out from
under her. She was as close as you can get in that position, and she saw
a bullet hole.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I guarantee you're no lawyer. The limo is property and owned by
the federal government, but not real estate like the streets of Dallas.
Any lawyer will tell you that what counts is the property the limousine
rests on. It is suspended above Dallas property.

The crimes were committed on Dallas property.

Chris

[mainframetech]

He confirmed nothing of the sort. He THOUGHT he did, but he did not.
When safety or laminated glass is struck, it shows on the opposite side
from the strike. There will be cupping or a cone removed from the
opposite side. Kellerman made the common mistake and said he felt it was
smooth on the outside, but that said that the crack was made by hitting
the windshield on the outside. Remember, this was when the limousine had
come back from Michigan with a new windshield, which had to have a crack
put into it.

The SS agents made the crack by hitting the outside of the windshield
mistakenly, so that people would think it was a fragment from inside that
made the crack. But they were fooled and didn't know that they were
proving that it was hit from the outside!

>
> > > > but from his testimony we learn that something hit
> > > > the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!
> > > Bullshit.
> > Ah, you've decided to use your intelligent arguments.
> > > > So something hit the windshield from the outside.
>
> Not according to Kellerman. Since you are an expert on windshields and
> bullets that damage them, why don't you analyze the trajectory that caused
> the crack and use it as a vector that connects to the weapon that launched
> it? It will tell us where the sniper was that fired it. Think of this as
> a high school project for a Geometry class or Trig if that's your gig.
> Maybe a Triangulation calculation that reveals the location of the rifle
> barrel the projectile came from.

Don't be so foolish! If there was a crack in the windshield, the
limo was already back from getting a new windshield and having an agent
make the crack. It's too late to check any trajectory, since the crack
was no doubt made right there in the garage with some tool or other.
Think it through.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG Watson! It has been explained to you far too many times. I
think Your Alzheimer's is kicking in again. Better get it looked at soon!
Does it sound familiar me sending you to various articles speaking about
the laminated glass (safety glass) that does not show a strike on the
outside where it was hit, but shows it on the inside where the cupping or
a cone shaped dug out place shows?

> >
> >
> > > > but from his testimony we learn that something hit
> > > > the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!
> > >
> > > Bullshit.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ah, you've decided to use your intelligent arguments.
> >
>
> No need to waste those on your nonsense.
>

Or perhaps you have none. So far, it's only been opinions. Useless.

> >
> >
> > > > So something hit the windshield from the outside.
> > >
> > > More bullshit.
> > >
> >
> >
> > All this cussing, and yet you have no proofs to offer to back up your
> > comment. I guess the cussing replaces the intelligent comments.
> >
>
> Kellerman felt the outside of the windshield and the glass was smooth. In
> addition we have photos of the windshield showing only a crack, not hold
> through it.
>

WRONG! That's all been explained to you and you're entering your
repetitious phase, meaning that you'll waste out time repeating everything
about this that has already been discussed. When safety or laminated
glass is struck it shows less effect on the place where it was struck, but
on the opposite of the pane, there is cupping from the strike. However,
in the case of Kellerman, that was after the limousine came back from
Michigan with a new windshield, that the SS agents had to strike to make
it look like it had only been cracked and not shot through and through.
It was all to cover for the 'lone nut' theory, to make it look more
probable. If the bullet hole had ben seen and shown to people when they
mentioned it, there would have been clear proof that there was another
shooter, an the 'lone nut' theory would be finished.

> > > > Could have been a
> > > > hammer or other tool wielded by an SS agent. After all, the new
> > > > windshield had to be cracked to look like that was the cause of the damage
> > > > that 6 witnesses said was a bullet hole.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Completely off the wall bullshit.
> >
> >
> >
> > There you go again, expressing your opinions, which are useless. I
> > guess you have no decent answer for that one.
> >
>
> When you make statements supported by evidence rather than your silly
> assumptions, you will get the good stuff from me.

I've already sent you off to se articles about striking laminated or
safety glass. And since I've done the right thing by you, now it's time
for you to go find the info I sent you to this time.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:22:33 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:25:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:47:37 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm done with this swamp post. Start another if you want to talk
> > about the limo over and over.
> >
> I really don't. I just enjoy poking holes in your silly proclamations.
> >

You've failed so far. But keep trying, it serves my purposes...:)
And try another thread.

[claviger]

Was this a definition in 1963 or today?

> The victim was on federal property (the limo). The perpetrator was not.
> So was the crime committed in the limo or the TSBD? I'm no lawyer but
> it would seem to me the crime was committed in the TSBD when Oswald
> took aim and fired the rifle.

Interesting point of law. If LHO shot the President coming down the steps
of Air Force One or from a public street in DC as the President was
strolling the White House lawn we have the same question. Who would have
investigational jurisdiction? When LHO aimed the rifle and pulled the
trigger he was on private property inside the City limits, County
boundaries, and State borders. All three of those government entities
would obviously have investigatory jurisdiction.*

Murder is a crime defined by Texas Law but usually investigated by local
authorities and prosecuted in county courts. The Texas Rangers are
sometimes requested to capture fugitives and gather evidence. Attorney
General of Texas Waggoner Carr initiated an investigation of this crime.
Why not the US Attorney General?

If the bullet missed and impacted on City property but passed through
Federal property does this create a co-jurisdiction situation?

If the bullet struck a Federal employee on Federal property would this
create a multi-jurisdictional situation? Obviously it would for State,
County, and City jurisdiction. Why not Federal as well?



* A Dallas Municipal Judge ruled the City of Dallas Legal Department
failed to present convincing evidence that Dealey Plaza was municipal
property owned, operated, and maintained by City of Dallas therefore the
Dallas Police Department had no jurisdiction to enforce city statutes on
the zone inside city limits referred to as Dealey Plaza. This ruling was
upheld by a Dallas Appellate Judge. If true, DPD Detectives had no
jurisdiction to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy. A
criminal defense attorney would immediately file a motion to have the DPD
investigation declared tainted and quashed, requiring a reinvestigation by
proper authority, the Dallas County Sheriff Department. A very aggressive
defense attorney would move to have this case declared so tainted and
prejudicial against his client there is no way for a fair trial and have
this case dismissed due to gross misconduct by the City of Dallas.

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> "Some of the jockeys around the car were saying, ???Looky
>>> here!??? What they were looking at was the windshield. To the right

>>> of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass
>>> there appeared to be a bullet hole. I talked to a Secret Service man

>>> about it, and he said, ???Aw, that???s just a fragment!???

>>
>> The Secret Service man was right because he was authorized to approach the
>> vehicle and look at it up close.
>>
>>> It looked like a clean hole in the windshield to me.
>>
>>
>> From how close? What we do know the SSA didn't want anyone close to the
>> Limousine. It was their job to guard it and keep people away from it.
>>
>>> In fact, one of the motor jockeys, Harry Freeman, put a pencil through it, or said he could."
>>
>> Which is it? Did he actually put a pencil through it? I doubt it, the
>> SSA were in no mood to allow anyone around the bloody Limousine. It was a
>> crime scene and the SSA should not allow anyone to touch anything on it.
>> The "or said he could" is a clue he didn't actually stick a pencil through
>> it. At that point in time the SSA might go berserk if anyone attempted to
>> do something like that, including the DPD. One SS Agent decked an FBI
>> Agent who was trying to enter the ER area. Hoover was furious about this
>> incident. Some claim that murder of the top Federal Employee in the US
>> Government riding in Federal Property on official business was not a
>> Federal crime, so therefore the Dallas Police and Sheriff Department had
>> jurisdiction over this local murder case and therefore the SSA should back
>> off and let them do their job. Neither the SSA nor FBI had the slightest
>> inclination to allow that to happen.
>>
>>> http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ellis.html
>
> The question of jurisdiction is an interesting one. Murder is not a
> federal crime unless it is committed on federal property. The victim was
> on federal property (the limo). The perpetrator was not. So was the crime

Good try, but they might argue that the limo was owned by Ford and only
leased out to the federal government.

> committed in the limo or the TSBD? I'm no lawyer but it would seem to me

Well, I know one kook who claims the fatal shot was fired from INSIDE
the limo. You can't presume anything until you've solved the case and to
do that you need to preserve the evidence. Not destoy it.

> the crime was committed in the TSBD when Oswald took aim and fired the
> rifle. The question of jurisdiction became moot when Ruby killed the
> perp.
>

And the conspiracy became moot once Ruby killed Oswald. That was the
intent.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/19/2017 1:23 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 1:09:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:30:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:33:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:40:17 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:15:00 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:35:07 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:37:55 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 6:02:40 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A man drives a car with bullet holes in the windshield in the eastern
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ukrainian city of Donetsk on June 3, 2014.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-news-photo/495433137?#man-drives-a-car-with-bullet-holes-in-the-windshield-in-the-eastern-picture-id495433137
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 29: 9mm Bullets Through Car Windshield GTA 5
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yiaWO525qo
>>>>>>>>>>> What's your point?
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris
>
> Only you would ask that question after seeing photos of real bullet holes in windshields.

You're not trying hard enough. He could just claim they're fakes. He's
never seen real bullet holes in real windshields, not even on TV.

You mean the weapon was fired from inside the car?
I think you meant from behind, not from inside.

>
>>>> but from his testimony we learn that something hit
>>>> the outside of the windshield causing the pitted result on the inside!!!
>>> Bullshit.
>> Ah, you've decided to use your intelligent arguments.
>>>> So something hit the windshield from the outside.
>
> Not according to Kellerman. Since you are an expert on windshields and
> bullets that damage them, why don't you analyze the trajectory that caused
> the crack and use it as a vector that connects to the weapon that launched
> it? It will tell us where the sniper was that fired it. Think of this as
> a high school project for a Geometry class or Trig if that's your gig.
> Maybe a Triangulation calculation that reveals the location of the rifle
> barrel the projectile came from.
>
>

He doesn't have a good map of Dealey Plaza. Only real researchers do.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No shit. I once pranked one of those alterationists by suggesting that
Greer hit the chrome topping with a ball peen hammer!

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly, which is why I love her so much.
Ask her about the privacy window.

Stop giving the kooks a way out. That can point to the difference of 3
years. Or once they did it once they knew who to do it again.

>>
>>
>>> Of course the biggest obstacle to Ford doing the interior work on site was
>>> the fact the limo was in the White House garage being guarded by Army
>>> personnel on the 25th.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! You mean you have some proof of that? And you have army
>> personnel saying they saw the limo there too? Cites and links please. I
>> don't believe it. You see, I remember my long arguments with Pamela
>> Brown, and the Army didn't get mentioned back then in those discussions.
>> So let's see your proof, or it didn't happen. There was no reason to
>> assign Army personnel to guard the limo, the SS were responsible for that.
>>
>
> The Army could provide something the SS couldn't. Lots of boots on the
> ground. Besides the 25th was the date of the state funeral with lots of
> foreign heads of states in Washington. I think the SS had more pressing
> matters than standing watch over a bloody limousine.
>

You mean we were stretched so thin we couldn't even guard the White
House garage?

How many does it take? 2,00? 4,000?

How did they know that early that it had to be a secret? Did Vaughn
Ferguson keep his work secret? Or didn't he get the memo?

No. You're thinking of Harris. The dog ate his mouse to keep him from
posting.

DiMaio is Fubar, He says that a bullet does not have enough power to
move any part of a human body.

When he was younger and honest he demonstrated how the Carcano can hit a
block of ballistic gel and sending it up off the table and forward, away
from the rifle.

> Larry Sturdivan's book which shoots down many of the popular conspiracy
> hobbyist myths including some that you subscribe to.
>

And I shot down Sturdivan's book, right here. Look in the Archives.