Gordon Gray Wrote:The above pitcture show is to prove what? That some thing, perhaps a bullet or a bullet fragment struck the windshield? Who contests that?
Mr Gray...
For those out there who do not have a detailed command of the evidence with photographic memory recall... some images will invariably help when trying to make sense of the conversation and topic...
If my posting images bothers you... ignore them. I'm a visual person and there are more than enough words in this case.
When the rest of us look at the FBI photos of the limo from that night... It APPEARS as if the windshield is already gone...
The only images of detail for the limo DO NOT attempt to show the windshield... exfept for one.
I'm building a case and finding corroborating evidence Mr. G.... if you'd like to weigh in on whether there is a windshield on the limo in this first image, have at it.... I don't see one.
The second image? very hard to tell.
The one at the bottom could be when they first pulled the limo into the DC garage....
and finally... I was playing with the Zframes to see if I could pick up the crack before and after it occurred... I can't be certain, but what I did enhance and pickup SEEMS to be in the right spot and have the right fracture marks...
thoughts?
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4914[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4915[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4916[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4917[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4918[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Pictures are great. Logic is better IMO. I would advise you to watch the movie BLOWUP, by Antonioni. To quote Edwin Black's article on the Chicago plot: "[size=12]Documenting anything in the
conspiracy to assassinate John F.
Kennedy is practically impossible.
Worse, theoretical, often false,
statements have a way of reinforcing
themselves and slowly transforming
into truth in the eyes of [/SIZE][size=12]investigators. [/SIZE][size=12]And I can't think of better advice for anyone looking into this case than to follow his guidelines:
[B][size=12][size=12]"The one single foremost guiding
principle we pursued in this investigation
was trust no source, trust no
document, trust no government
official, trust no eyewitness, trust
nothing until it had been so severely
challenged, it could not be discredited."
Gordon Gray Wrote:Pictures are great. Logic is better IMO. I would advise you to watch the movie BLOWUP, by Antonioni. To quote Edwin Black's article on the Chicago plot: "[size=12]Documenting anything in the
conspiracy to assassinate John F.
Kennedy is practically impossible.
Worse, theoretical, often false,
statements have a way of reinforcing
themselves and slowly transforming
into truth in the eyes of [/SIZE][size=12]investigators. [/SIZE][size=12]And I can't think of better advice for anyone looking into this case than to follow his guidelines:
[B][size=12][size=12]"The one single foremost guiding
principle we pursued in this investigation
was trust no source, trust no
document, trust no government
official, trust no eyewitness, trust
nothing until it had been so severely
challenged, it could not be discredited."
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/B]
that's pretty interesting Gordon... "Logic is better" BUT go watch a movie.... about photographs...
I agree completely that the evidence becomes unreliable once in our government's hands. Yet there is a weath of evidence that was NOT in their hands and NOT subject to their control, as well as in their hands yet somehow un-cleansed.
Any evidence that suggests Oswald's innocence of the crimes themselves WAS left in the record and should be viewed with understanding that most EVERYTHING ELSE was planted, altered, created, removed... (i.e. He changed his shirt and pants when he got home... what he was identified as wearing prior to that time cannot be paired with what he was wearing when arrested... Bledsoe, Whaley and a host of others wind up describing the "arrest shirt" as the shirt he was wearing when they see him, helps to identify which witnesses where "coached" much like planting the Lee HENRY Oswald in the 201 file to see where and who used this "tracking" name.)
Does our man from Dearborn strike you as an untrustworthy witness? A man who remained anonymous with knowledge of more duplicity. Has he been discredited in your eyes?
In this case specifically, the corroborated witness statements are much more indicative of what occurred than ANY physical evidence. As we have seen, the physical evidence of this case PROVES CONSPIRACY... and on purpose in my opinion... I don't think the "sponsors" even allowed the truth to hide in plain sight... amongst all the lies... for fear of discovery.
But in the end... SOMEONE did pull triggers... SOMEONE did insure protection of the guilty... what happened in DP must be the provenence of those who were there... not those who subsequently decided what happened.
=========
SPONSORS -- Those with the authority and motive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitating agents and systems.
Among them in my opinion: the most powerful supra-national entities who were -- and are -- above Cold War and Clash of Civilization cosmetic differences. -- Drago/Evica
O'Connor claims that JCS Gen Curtis LeMay was in the gallery at the autopsy smoking a cigar.... as many have written, those that participated would want a momento... unaltered photos, films, etc...
and the general knowledge that killers/planners/sponsors want to see the result of their planning...
I wrote many, many years ago that IMO the military brass was at the top of this pyramid -
in 1963... can you name how many involved in the case from any and all sides who did NOT spend time in the military?
Anderson, Taylor, LeMay.... Anderson, LeMay.... LeMay. Was there anyone of anything that did not come under the control of these three men?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Mr. Gray, forgive the bold type. The people below saw a "hole" in the windshield. Not just a defect or a nick from a fragment. I don't think that is debatable.The question is really where did the shot come from that caused the "hole" in the windshield.
1) [/FONT]Secret Service agent Charles Taylor, Jr.,[/FONT] who wrote a report on November 27, 1963 in which he detailed his activities providing security for the limousine immediately after the car's return to Washington following the assassination. The JFK limousine and the Secret Service follow-up car known as the "Queen Mary" arrived at Andrews AFB aboard a C-130 propeller-driven cargo plane at about 8:00 PM on November 22, 1963. 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."
2)[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]Nick Prencipe, a former USPark Policeofficer in The White House Garage, Washington D.C.[/FONT], was on duty the night when the limousine returned from Dallas. He seems to be extremely credible and confirms that he clearly observed the through and through hole in the windshield, as did several other D.C. cops. Nick was a friend of Bill Greer and recounts a conversation they had where Greer described shots coming from all directions. - [/FONT]Rick S. Holtman[/FONT], JFK Assassination Discussion Board: Hole Through The Windshield?Pamela Brown, Education Forum post, May 29, 2009.[/FONT][/FONT]
3) ~ Mortician Tom Robinson noted three small holes on the right side of JFK's face, under the President's eye in the cheek area[/FONT]. He noticed them when the embalming fluid leaked in this area and had to seal them with wax. The x-rays show no fragments there and no apparent defect in the bone, which would seem to indicate that the damage was from the outside and caused by something non-metallic. Mr. Joseph West, in an interview with Mr. Tom Robinson, wrote in his investigative notes that Tom Robinson confirmed that there were "approximately two shrapnel wounds in the face" and that there was a back entry wound "five to six inches" below the shoulder and to the right of the President's back bone. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
"…he (Tom Robinson / Gawler Funeral Home) saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of a frontal photograph of the President)" Inside the AARB, Douglas Horne
[/FONT]
1) [/FONT]Dallas Police Officer [B]H. R. Freeman [/FONT][/B]will note: "I was right beside it. I could have touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was." [/FONT]
[/FONT] 2) [/FONT]Dallas Police Officer [B]Stavis Ellis [/FONT][/B]remarks, "You could put a pencil through it." A Secret Service agent tries to persuade Ellis that what he is seeing is a "fragment" and not a hole. Mr. Ellis is adamant: "It wasn't a damn fragment. It was a hole."[/FONT]
[/FONT] 3) [/FONT]Dr. Evalea Glanges[/FONT], a second year medical student at Southwestern, also sees the bullet hole in the windshield. When she calls attention to it, the limousine is quickly driven away. She will further describe the bullet hole as an entrance hole through the front of the windshield.[/FONT]
[/FONT] 4) [/FONT]St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman[/FONT] wrote an article published in The New Republic on December 21, 1963, in which he stated: "A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side."[/FONT] [/FONT] 5) [/FONT]Secret Service agent Charles Taylor, Jr.,[/FONT] who wrote a report on November 27, 1963 in which he detailed his activities providing security for the limousine immediately after the car's return to Washington following the assassination. The JFK limousine and the Secret Service follow-up car known as the "Queen Mary" arrived at Andrews AFB aboard a C-130 propeller-driven cargo plane at about 8:00 PM on November 22, 1963. 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."[/FONT]
[/FONT]
At your 11 above, your photo 1 shows blacking out of the upper portion of the windshield; alteration of the photo.
Your photo 2 limo WINDSHIELD LARGE has the visors down--to block the closest view of the area we're addressing.
Attention is directed to pages 142-147 of Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963.
Weldon relates his interchange with the man we now know as Whitaker who ran the River Rouge Ford window plant. On the 25th a special project was undertaken to build a laminated replacement for the original with the hole.
Regarding the excellent BLOW UP, Antonioni, 1966, David Hemmings, we see the photographer blowing up an area of wooded park to reveal evidence of a clandestine murder.
His photographic evidence is stolen and he's left watching the mimes play tennis, agreeing to suspend disbelief long enough to return their "ball."
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4919[/ATTACH]
Again, the Secret Service preventing the closer inspection of the windshield at Parkland is equivalent to its armed robbery of the body.
And the case of the lone nut which should be so simple, is simply not.
I am happy to concede to any theory once it has been tested thusly: trust
nothing until it had been so severely
challenged, it could not be discredited I I don't believe anyone has held their evidence up to this standard.
Gordon Gray Wrote:I am happy to concede to any theory once it has been tested thusly: trust
nothing until it had been so severely
challenged, it could not be discredited I I don't believe anyone has held their evidence up to this standard.
Fair enough...
How does your... "No hole in the windshield" theory stand up to this test?
Are there photos showing no hole, only an impact?
Any documented tests done on the windshield?
They did macrophotography on CE399... no such luck with that windshield, huh?
Frazier did a complete exam of the limo late night, early 11/23 morning. there were only so many fragments found within the limo...
IF the crack was a result of a fragment from INSIDE (Bone or bullet?) which of the fragments does the FBI attribute to the cracked windshield?
(I don't see where BONE fragments are discussed... or identified within the LIMO schematics of fragments.... were there NO BONE FRAGMENTS found in the limo?
Any fragments have glass imbedded?
CE841 is supposedly the scrapings from the INSIDE of the windshield that contained lead. (looks alot like a closed version of ce840) So I guess we need to find where they actually determined this was lead and how.
(I am suspicious since we have a variety of "containers for evidence" with nothing inside them - like the Kleins microfilm.)
and as we read either Cunningham or Killion... neither mentions the windshield. CC makes a drawing of CE351 and adds some interesting comments
Plus, one would think if a single small fragment was able to create this on the windshield - does it not seem strange that no one else in the limo forward of JFK was struck by any of these fragments - enough to cause a windshield to crack or chrome to dent... do you not find it strange that there is no notation of BONE in the limo other than what is found on the plane trip back?
And Kinney goes so far in 1978 as to say that C3 "looked like it hit the {chrome}" but nothing related to the windshield....
SA Kinney gave him his seat and returned to the resar compartment. At this point he discovered in the Presidential limousine (1) a skull fragment under the jump seat where Connally had been seated, and (2) a bullet fragment in the front seat between the driver's and passenger's seat. He remarked that the bullet fragment "looked like it had hit the windshield frame above the windshield."
How do you plan on putting your theories and conclusions to the same test and set of standards Anthony has for his hole theory?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Gordon Gray Wrote:I have never put much stock in a front windshield shot. A bullet striking thick protective glass at an angle would have been significantly deflected, and most likely would not have struck Kennedy.
IF you believe only three shots were fired this would cause you concern, but if you are open to considering more than three shots were fired then who said all of them had to hit JFK?
Gordon Gray Wrote:There may or may not have been a bullet hole in the windshield, but such a bullet did not cause the throat wound unless it appeared other than Perry first describes. What evidence do we have as to the directionality of the alleged bullet hole, or that it struck anything else but the windshield, beyond conjecture? Here are a few more questions. What is the angle from Kennedy's position in the limo at Z189 and the N. corner of the S.Knoll and what or whom would such a line pass through? The same question for Kennedy at Z313.
The first question I would like to ask you is--do you believe only three shots were fired?
