THE HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD: www.JFKThe FrontShot.blogspot.com

[David Josephs]

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.)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc..._0433b.htm

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?

Been over a month now GG...

Any plans for holding yourself to the same standards you expect of others... and presenting YOUR results as we have... ??

Just sayin'

:coffee:

[Rob Caprio]

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.)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc..._0433b.htm

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?

Been over a month now GG...

Any plans for holding yourself to the same standards you expect of others... and presenting YOUR results as we have... ??

Just sayin'

:coffee:

The irony here is Kellerman claimed to see NO damage on the way to the hospital! How is that possible?

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any crack in the windshield as the President's automobile was being driven from the point of assassination to the hospital?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I did not.

There goes another official claim down the drain.

[David Josephs]

Greer is full of it... Says he never stopped either... and his head turn from 302-304 is normal....

[David Josephs]

So Rob.... Who gets Greer to stop?

[Gordon Gray]

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.)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc..._0433b.htm

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?

Been over a month now GG...

Any plans for holding yourself to the same standards you expect of others... and presenting YOUR results as we have... ??

Just sayin'

:coffee:

Are there any photo's that clearly show a through and through bullet hole in the windshield? Is there any conclusive evidence as to what direction what ever caused the defect in the windshield, came? I have no theories and I make no conclusions. I am just evaluating the evidence. There is a strong suggestion that there was a frontal shot through the windshield but the evidence is not conclusive in my opinion (certainly nothing you have presented is). So I choose not to regard it as a fact. It is impossible for a shot from the S. Knoll area to have struck Kennedy in the throat without striking Connally first, or at least whizzing past his ear, given the President's position in the far right rear seat at that time. It is possible that a shot from that area could have stuck him in the temple at 313, because he has shifted in his seat more to the center. I tend to doubt any shots from the S. Knoll area because there is only one witness to that as far as I know and that is Plumlee and I am not sure I find him credible.

[David Josephs]

Definitive proof - in THIS case? No Gordon, just the word of civilians over the governement investigators and conclusions... pick your poison.

If there was no hole in the windshield it would have been meticulously documented... ala CE399.

The jar with metal scrapings FROM the windshield is empty.. while initialed by the same three people who initialed CE399... AFTER it gets to FBILAB... the chain of evidence before that? Not so good.

But here are the key items: There was no reason whatsoever to remove McHugh from the center front seat of the limo.... and given that JC was hit, possibly twice, the chance that he would be in the way for that shot was a risk worth taking - or so it appeared.


11/29/63 - AFTER the autopsy report... AFTER it was decided there where three shots from the rear... the man in FRONT of JFK would have been in the way of the shot... have you seen the FBI 3-shot recreation I posted showing a shot at z345? The FBI got it very close to correct very early... but simply dropped anything from the front in their recreation.... done months later... STILL does not acknowledge the SBT or the Tague bullet...

JEH: No He wasn't hit by the second one
LBJ: I say, if Connally hadn't been in his way
JEH: Oh, yes..yes.. the President would have no doubt been hit.



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5090[/ATTACH]





[ATTACH=CONFIG]5091[/ATTACH]


There are no decent photos of the windshield (or the trunk, hood, front interior, or interior/exterior of the SS followup car which may have been sprayed with blood)
There are at least 6 witnesses to a thru and thru hole...
WHO says there was no hole ? The FBI? The Secret Service? (Greer says there wasn't even a crack)
Do you believe the Ford Plant story of making duplicate windshields so the SS could use them for "practice"

I'm sure you've encountered this with all the other evidence... if it's against Oswald it is well documented (false or otherwise) and shown front and center...

But a bullet hole in the windshield - which would have the same kind of close-up photos made as the rest of the evidence... Didn't.

I was able to make this enlargement/negative of the FBI garage photo... Have you ever tried matching that to CE351?

Was there a bullet hole Gordon - Well... when citizen witnesses say one thing and the government investigation tells us the opposite....


The proof of the crack is the same as the proof that Oswald bought C2766 - "take the FBI's word for it"....

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5088[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]5089[/ATTACH]

[Gordon Gray]

Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

[David Josephs]

Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

Amusing? ok.... I'm wondering... which assassiantion are YOU researching?
Your blanket statements betray your understanding of the situation. There are usually some truths within the lies... ours is to find out which is which...
and these are not MY CONCLUSIONS but the result of years of research by numerous people...

The experience of the Ford plant glass man (name escapes me) rings authentic and is very damaging to the "no hole" conclusion of the WCR.
As was the testimonies of the other people - at Parkland - who saw this hole.

but Conclusive Evidence?

The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters

Could you point to the "conclusive evidence" of multiple shooters please... I know it... You know it... we all KNOW it...

but that conclusion comes from the manner in which the crime was investigated and the evidence presented...

I've only seen circumstantial evidence backed by witness statements that there were multiple shooters...
If you look at the evidence it is not even conclusive there was a SINGLE shooter from behind, let alone more than one...

That's the problem GG... the Evidence IS the conspiracy... so again... what authenticated EVIDENCE is CONCLUSIVE of multiple shooters?

[Gordon Gray]

Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

Amusing? ok.... I'm wondering... which assassiantion are YOU researching?
Your blanket statements betray your understanding of the situation. There are usually some truths within the lies... ours is to find out which is which...
and these are not MY CONCLUSIONS but the result of years of research by numerous people...

The experience of the Ford plant glass man (name escapes me) rings authentic and is very damaging to the "no hole" conclusion of the WCR.
As was the testimonies of the other people - at Parkland - who saw this hole.

but Conclusive Evidence?

The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters

Could you point to the "conclusive evidence" of multiple shooters please... I know it... You know it... we all KNOW it...

but that conclusion comes from the manner in which the crime was investigated and the evidence presented...

I've only seen circumstantial evidence backed by witness statements that there were multiple shooters...
If you look at the evidence it is not even conclusive there was a SINGLE shooter from behind, let alone more than one...

That's the problem GG... the Evidence IS the conspiracy... so again... what authenticated EVIDENCE is CONCLUSIVE of multiple shooters?

I don't think you understand the difference between circumstantial and conclusive. It is quite possible to have enough circumstantial evidence to reach a conclusion. But the fact that Connally's wounds had to have been caused by a FMJ bullet, and Kennedy's head wound is not consistent with a FMJ bullet, is indicative of two different types of ammunition. Add to that the location of bullet hole in the shirt, and the Tague wounding, and you have enough evidence to dismiss the SBT, and therefore have to have at least two shooters.

[David Josephs]

Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

Amusing? ok.... I'm wondering... which assassiantion are YOU researching?
Your blanket statements betray your understanding of the situation. There are usually some truths within the lies... ours is to find out which is which...
and these are not MY CONCLUSIONS but the result of years of research by numerous people...

The experience of the Ford plant glass man (name escapes me) rings authentic and is very damaging to the "no hole" conclusion of the WCR.
As was the testimonies of the other people - at Parkland - who saw this hole.

but Conclusive Evidence?

The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters

Could you point to the "conclusive evidence" of multiple shooters please... I know it... You know it... we all KNOW it...

but that conclusion comes from the manner in which the crime was investigated and the evidence presented...

I've only seen circumstantial evidence backed by witness statements that there were multiple shooters...
If you look at the evidence it is not even conclusive there was a SINGLE shooter from behind, let alone more than one...

That's the problem GG... the Evidence IS the conspiracy... so again... what authenticated EVIDENCE is CONCLUSIVE of multiple shooters?

I don't think you understand the difference between circumstantial and conclusive. It is quite possible to have enough circumstantial evidence to reach a conclusion. But the fact that Connally's wounds had to have been caused by a FMJ bullet, and Kennedy's head wound is not consistent with a FMJ bullet, is indicative of two different types of ammunition. Add to that the location of bullet hole in the shirt, and the Tague wounding, and you have enough evidence to dismiss the SBT, and therefore have to have at least two shooters.

This is your presentation of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE GG?

#1) Connally's injury was most certainly NOT caused by a FMJ bullet since a bullet of that type would not have any surface area that would leave LEAD CORE fragments unless it completely fragmented which is the very opposite of the purpose of a FMJ to begin with....

#2) The holes in the shirt FRONT? - I assume you are talking about - has already been shown to be the result of a scapel and not a bullet... there was no lead or Copper found in that hole... Furthermore GG, the ENTRY hole was ABOVE the shirt and tie... look it up please... it's Allen Dulles' question that confirms it....

#3) "Not consistent with" equates to CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE in your world ?

#4) The Tague wounding was produced by lead... no Coppor was found there... please prove that Tague was not hit with a fragment from one of several shots that either hit or missed their targets....

#5) Yes GG, there is enough circumstantial evidence supported by testimony to dismiss the SBT... (among 50 other reasons it was wrong) is that CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of multiple shooters?
Not in any world that goes by the rule of law:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...l+Evidence
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. That which cannot be contradicted by any other evidence,; for example, a record, unless impeached for fraud, is conclusive evidence between the parties. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3061-62.

Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferredsimply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.


Please do not tell us that what you offer as "CONCLUSIVE" cannot be contradicted... CONCLUSIVE would have been the dissection of the neck/upper back/throat and determining the PATH of a bullet ENTERING the throat...
The reason Galloway/Burkley would NOT allow that area to be dissected.... The throat was not opened at all....

Gordon... thanks for the discussion. I can't agree with your definition of CONCLUSIVE when as I said, the Evidence itself IS the Conspiracy. Don't get me wrong - the CONCLUSION is the same - but if you're looking for CONCLSUIVE EVIDENCE in any aspect of this case - I'm afraid you will be terribly disappointed.


Read what was written about JC's wounds... please post any mention of COPPER in any of them... you know, to support the CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE and your FACTS about Connally being hit with a FMJ bullet.

Thanks
DJ