AnthonyMarsh wrote: > Doug Weldon wrote: > > > > Anthony Marsh wrote: > > > > > Doug Weldon wrote: > > > > > > > > Anthony Marsh wrote: > > > > > > > > > Doug Weldon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > jack white wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > AnthonyMarsh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new_user@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AnthonyMarsh wrote in message > > > > > <34DF9665.ACE7188C@pop.flash.net>... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Jim Ward wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Martin Shackelford wrote in message > > > > > > > <34DEA08E.C15F9BAD@concentric.net>... > > > > > > > > > >> >Tony: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > On the windshield, they may be relying on > > > Richard > > > > > > > Dudman's early > > > > > > > > > >> >account (recently reprinted in Assassination > Science) > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > there was a > > > > > > > > > >> >through-and-through hole in the windshield that > > > someone > > > > > put a > > > > > > > pencil > > > > > > > > > >> >through.) > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >Martin > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Excellent point, Martin. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Dudman went on to say that before he could get a > good > > > > > photo, he > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > pushed > > > > > > > > > >> away from the limo. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> JIm Ward > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Would you please explain how the excellent photo > would > > > show a > > > > > > > > > > > > hole when > > > > > > > > > >the photo taken at 1:30 AM back in Washington shows > only > > > a > > > > > crack. > > > > > > > Are > > > > > > > > > >you postulating a windshield switch? How about a > > > duplicate > > > > > > > limousine > > > > > > > > > >already prepared with fake evidence? Fake blood > spots? > > > > > Several > > > > > > > duplicate > > > > > > > > > >windshields, maybe? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Anthony Marsh > > > > > > > > > >The Puzzle Palace > http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Anthony, you're the self-proclaimed expert > here...you > > > > > explain > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read my other posts on the windshield and > JFK's > > > > > anterior > > > > > > > neck > > > > > > > > > wound? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim Ward > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of my continuing caveats is to remind people that > > > witness > > > > > > > testimony > > > > > > > > is unreliable and that simply because someone says he > saw > > > > > something > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > not proof of the fact. You need to go beyond that and > look > > > at > > > > > > > > photographic evidence and physical evidence. That is > what I > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > done. > > > > > > > > As I pointed out in my COPA paper a couple of years ago, > I > > > > > believe I > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > the first person to notice something which proves that > the > > > > > damage to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > windshield was only a crack caused by a bullet or > fragment > > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > > > rear, not a hole caused by a bullet from the front. If > you > > > look > > > > > > > > carefully at a blow-up of CE 350, you can see that the > back > > > of > > > > > th e > > > > > > > > rearview mirror was smashed in. That could only have > > > happened by > > > > > a > > > > > > > > fragment hitting the inside of the windshield and > > > ricochetting > > > > > back > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > strike the back of the rearview mirror. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IS IT SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE THAT A BULLET CAN STRIKE GLASS > > > > WITHOUT > > > > > > > > > > > > PENETRATING, > > > > > > > BUT BOUNCE OFF THE GLASS WITH ENOUGH FORCE TO DENT METAL? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one point of > > > > > > > > damage on the windshield. As it was caused by a strike > from > > > the > > > > > rear > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > I pointed out, it could not also be a hole from a bullet > > > > fired > > > > > from > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > front. > > > > > > > > You also missed some other sources of information which > > > would > > > > > > > bolster > > > > > > > > your argument. Look up the Dec. 30, 1963 issue of U.S. > News > > > & > > > > > World > > > > > > > > Report, pages 28-30, which relates some of the rumors, > > > including > > > > > a > > > > > > > shot > > > > > > > > from the front. Here are some pertinent quotes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was the President struck from in > > > > > > > > front as well as from the back? Were > > > > > > > > four shots fired, not three? Could there > > > > > > > > have been a second assassin? What ac- > > > > > > > > counts for the apparent bullet hole in > > > > > > > > the windshield of the late President's > > > > > > > > car? Was there a bullet hole in the floor > > > > > > > > of the car as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > CE 350 is not the windshield from the limousine. David > > > Lifton > > > > > > effectively raised the issue in a footnote in BEST EVIDENCE, > > > > Chapter > > > > > 14, > > > > > > p.370. The windshield was destroyed on November 25,1963. I > > > > have > > > > > shared > > > > > > copies of this information with a couple of authors. The > > > > > information > > > > > > source is impeccable. He desires anonymity and I have asked > > > > that it > > > > > be > > > > > > respected. However, I am aware of the need to have accurate > > > > > > information > > > > > > in order that this matter not be pursued on false premises. > > > Clint > > > > > > Bradford has asked if I would consider opening this > information > > > in a > > > > > > > > > > > respectful forum. I apologize if this reply appears > somewhat > > > > > nebulous > > > > > > and cryptic but it is necessary at this time. I have found > the > > > > > > discussions to be very interesting. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, some people believe in the windshield switch theory. But > we > > > are > > > > > talking about a photograph taken back in Washington at about > 1:30 > > > AM > > > > > 11/23/63, just hours after the assassination, not November 25, > > > > 1963. > > > > > YOU > > > > > are talking about the windshield being switched days later. > That > > > is > > > > > something else. If you have any evidence that proves that the > > > > > windshield > > > > > was switched before the photo CE 350 was taken, please send it > to > > > me: > > > > > > > > > > Anthony Marsh > > > > > 10 Webster Ave. Apt. 1-2 > > > > > Somerville, MA 02143 > > > > > > > > > > If you wish me to keep the information confidential, I will do > so. > > > > > > > > But don't you think that we can finally start revealing the > truth > > > > > after > > > > > 34 years? Do you really think that we should wait until the > year > > > 2031 > > > > > to > > > > > make all the information public? > > > > > > > > > > Anthony Marsh > > > > > The Puzzle Palace http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace/ > > > > > > > > Anthony: > > > > I agree with your reply. I have evidence that will > probably > > > never > > > > be available - in the year 2031 or any year. I have been an > > > attorney > > > > for almost 20 years and I have dedicated more time to the study > of > > > these > > > > events than I have to the study of the law. I am considering > > > > chronicling that search in the writing of a book, hopefully > within > > > the > > > > next year. > > > > In regards to the windshield, I have compelling evidence that > the > > > > limousine arrived in Detroit on Sunday, 11/24/63. Several years > ago > > > I > > > > taped an interview I conducted with > > > > a gentleman that was directly responsible for making a new > > > windshield, > > > > using the old windshield for a template. This occurred > on11/25/63 > > > in a > > > > locked room at the Ford Motor Plant. The three men in the room > were > > > > > > > under orders to destroy the old windshield upon completion of > the > > > > project. Such was done. This gentleman's career was in working > > > > with > > > > glass. He vividly described a bullet hole in the windshield > that > > > had to > > > > have entered from the front. I corroborated this information > with > > > his > > > > family who verified that he had described this event to them > since > > > > 1963. This gentleman has never been a student of the > assassination > > > and > > > > was surprised that this information was not now public. he was > > > > reluctant to speak with me and did not want the information or > his > > > > identity revealed to the public. His wife was actually > expressing > > > fear > > > > that he spoke with me. I am friends with his son but yet he > will > > > not > > > > speak with me further. I am now attempting to have his son > inquire > > > > whether any other windshields were subsequently made. In my 20 > > > years in > > > > the courtroom I have never seen a more compelling witness. > > > > I have also considered writing an article for Lancer on > this > > > > issue. Though there are times I have taken exception to some of > > > > your > > > > observations I have always been impressed with your diligent > > > > documentation and dedication in your research. Hopefully, I may > > > > share > > > > some further information with you in the near future. I would > ask > > > that > > > > you maintain the confidentiality of this information at this > time. > > > Keep > > > > up the good work!! > > > > > > > > Truly, > > > > > > > > Doug Weldon > > > > > > There are a couple of problems with that theory. First, the photos > > > > taken > > > of the limousine after the last shot and while it was still in > Dallas > > > do > > > not seem to show a hole and do not seem to show a pattern of > cracking > > > or > > > location of the crack different from the official story. Second, > the > > > examination and photos taken at about 1:00 AM on 11/23/63 clearly > > > indicate a crack and not a hole. Your source would be indicating > > > tampering with the evidence after that 11/23/63 examination in > > > Washington. Fine, but that does not affect the fact that the photo > > > > shows > > > that there was no hole, only a crack. And you'd have to get > several > > > FBI > > > agents who might not know why someone is asking them to lie and > about > > > what to lie just hours after the assassination. > > > As to whether there could have been a windshield switch later, I > am > > > open > > > to that idea, but it would have absolutely nothing to do with > whether > > > there was a hole or a crack. I would not be impressed with the > source > > > you have mentioned. There have been a lot of hangers-on who saw > > > something and did not understand it, got confused, and weaved it > into > > > some grand cover-up. Look at all the wild speculation from > Bethesda > > > personnel. And your source appears to be hearsay twice removed. > Not > > > very > > > reassuring. > > > I have heard dozens of stories like this and they usually boil > down to > > > > > > someone reading something in a book and then pretending that they > were > > > > > > actually there and witnessed it. For example, a friend told me > that > > > she > > > has a cousin who has a neighbor who worked with a CIA guy who once > > > > bragged that the CIA had killed JFK. What he actually said was > that > > > someone had claimed that the CIA had killed JFK. > > > Anyway, if you ever get anything more concrete please write up an > > > article and perhaps others could follow up. > > > > > > Anthony Marsh > > > > Anthony: Thanks for your reply. I do want to clarify a couple of > > points. My source was not one of hearsay. He was the primary > source > > explaining in detail exactly what HE did. His family corroborated > that > > he had shared this information only with them since 1963 and that it > > > remained consistent. That is not hearsay. The information was not > > shared with anyone other than the family. Before I would accept the > > > validity of any information I attempt to find independent > > corroboration. Not only is there Dudman's observation at Parkland > > hospital but there is also Fetzer's publication of the Altgen's > > photograph that appears to show the same. There are some > trajectory > > questions I hope to resolve in Dallas this year. I have personally > > shared this tape with Harold Weisberg and others who have all been > > impressed with its contentions. Your points are obviously valid > ones > > that I , too, have struggled with. Your skepticism is well > received. > > Again, Altgen's and Dudman do provide a consistent pattern from the > > motorcade to Parkland to Detroit. Obviously the photos taken in the > > > early morning hours of 11/23/63 are confusing. I do not know how we > > > verify the legitimacy of those photos being taken at that date and > time > > and authenticate them. Their clarity is also of a nature that does > not > > eliminate the possibility of a hole. My initial impression of my > > witness was that it was a small piece of the puzzle. However, I now > > > believe it has the implications tantamount to the small holes in the > > > Titanic. The questions arise such as to those who had the power to > > control the vehicle, why it would have been sent to Detroit 3 days > > earlier than testified to,etc. I intend to raise the multitude of > > issues. My interview also reflected the cooperation of a vice > president > > at Ford. > > I respect your questions and I remain open to ideas. It is > > important that all of us who have dedicated so much time maintain > that > > openness and receptiveness to information. All of us have > experienced > > that frustration of being enveloped in a labyrinth. > > I am a former assistant prosecuting attorney and I have been a > > court hearing official for the past 13 years. My livelihood is > > predicated on weighing credibility. Though I am certain that I have > > > been wrong at times this gentleman has passed any litmus test I can > > conceive of. This was a common citizen whose job responsibilities > > placed him in a unique situation in1963. It is clear from the tape > and > > some small details of the assasssination that he has not studied it. > > > This ,in fact, enhances his credibility. He did not want to talk to > > > me. It took me a year to set up a meeting. He has not shared this > with > > anyone outside his family and he does not want this publicized. > Again, > > I appreciate your work and response. > > What Fetzer did was not research. If you examine the Altgens 1-6 photo > > very carefully for yourself, you will see that there is no hole in the > > windshield and no crack. It was taken at about Z-255, well before the > head shot. In his next photo, Altgens 1-7 we can clearly see the > crack. > And we know exactly where it is. The location of the crack in Altgens > 1-7 is totally consistent with the location of the crack in the photo > taken at about 1Am n 11/23/63 before the supposed windshield switch. > That photo became CE350. and if you carefully examine it you can see > for > yourself that there is no hole, only a crack. The location where > Fetzer > does not clearly identify the location and size of a hole is in a > DIFFERENT location than the crack seen in both the Altgens 1-7 photo > and > CE350. So at least Fetzer is talking about a hole BEFORE and DIFFERENT > > from the crack. Unfortunately Fetzer is only guessing and has not > shown > clearly exactly what he is talking about. I would be willing to bet > that > what HE sees and thinks is a hole is merely an optical illusion. Any > of > his adherents have exhibited the same problem in seeing things that > weren't there. > There were a few people who claimed that there was a hole in the > windshield. In one case the guy was standing by the limo along with a > couple of cops. He said, "Look, there's a hole in the windshield." Was > > that the end of the story? No. One of the cops who was standing right > next to him and could see exactly what he was seeing said, "You're an > idiot. That isn't a hole; that's a crack." Out of all the people who > saw > the limousine only a few said that it was a hole. And they were all > talking about it being either a hole or a crack. The same location. > Either or. As opposed to Fetzer's additional damage prior to the head > shot. > There is nothing to this issue about a hole in the windshield other > than > misunderstanding and lack of research. > > Anthony Marsh
![]() |
![]() |