Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:35:49 -0500
From: Doug Weldon
Subject: Re: for your interest
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Doug Weldon wrote:
> > james fetzer wrote:
> > > Doug,
> > >
> > > Furthermore, two motorcycle patrolmen in addition to Richard
> > > obser-
> > > ved what they regarded as a through-and-through bullet hole in the
> > > wind-
> > > shield. With your significant testimony from a participant in the
> > > recon-
> > > struction of the windshield, I don't understand what is left for
> > > dispute.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, james fetzer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doug,
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what Marsh means when he says I have not
> > > identified the
> > > > location of the hole in the windshield. It appears marked with
> > > large
> > > > arrow on p. 143, where I also mention that excellent prints of
> > > Altgens
> > > > photograph may be found in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (1970) and
> > > Groden's
> > > > THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993). He should also take a look
> at p.
> > > 36 of
> > > > Groden's book, where, as I point out on p. 144, photos of the
> > > windshields
> > > > appear side-by-side. I was reporting an observation made by Roy
> > > Schaeffer
> > > > and providing supporting evidence. I don't care whether he
> > > this is
> > > > "research" or not, but it is doing something to present the
> > > about
> > > > a rather significant instance in which the SS participated in
> > > cover-up.
> > > > >From Marsh's remarks, I don't think he has actually read what I
> > > have said.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Your are welcome to forward any of this as you think
> > > appropriate.
> An arrow pointing to a general area is not what I would call being
> specific. If there were any scientific validity to Fetzer's argument
> then he would not be afraid to specify the location of this supposed
> hole by giving exact measurements, the way the FBI examination team
> Please ask him to do so. I have examined the general area pointed to
> the arrow and there is no hole there. No damage whatsoever.
This is silly! The arrow on the upper photograph on p. 143 of ASSASSIN-
ATION SCIENCE points to the spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center,
precisely as I describe it on p. 144 of the book. Immediately below this
photograph, of course, is a photo of the windshield the Secret Service
produced. The best prints of the Altgens can be found in COMPUTERS AND
AUTOMATION (May 1970), pp. 44-45, and THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993),
pp. 30-31. The two also appear side-by-side in Groden's book on p. 36.
The arrow does NOT point to a general area but to the hole's location.
> The problem with these theories is that when I try to nail them down
> point out that there is nothing there, they can easily claim that they
> really were talking about another area, and so it goes time and again.
I am not talking about a "theory" but photographic evidence that is plain
to see. Your words here are what is "bizarre", though I suspect that you
have looked at this photograph so long without seeing what I am talking
about that you are unable to perceive something that should be obvious.
Remember, I am talking about a phenomenon that appears on the surface of
the windshield exactly where the President's left ear would be if it were
visible as I also explain in ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES (Summer 1997), p. 5.
> I have run into these bizarre theories many times and every time I ask
> for specific information, the person becomes quite defensive and
> me of something. Please, just provide information when I request it.
> That's all. If someone's theory is valid, then he should be able to
> defend it.
I really think that you ought to ask someone who does not already "know"
that it is not there whether they can see a small, white, spiral nebula
with a dark spot in the center at the exact location where the President's
left ear would be if his left ear were visible (since it is obscured by
this phenomenon), which occurs just to the right and slightly above the
upper right corner of the rear-view mirror, slightly to the left of the
crack location in the SS photo. It's in the foreground, not background.
> At least Fetzer should be willing to concede that I am correct in my
> observation that the area where his arrow points is NOT the same as
> area where CE350 shows a crack. So he is talking about a hole in
> addition to the crack. Or he is claiming that every photograph showing
> the windshield damage is a fake and that all the people associated
> the limousine lied except for his handful of people who claimed that
> there was a hole.
I really don't know what you is talking about. I have produced the photo
and indicated where you can find better copies. Which copies are you ex-
amining? The evidence is there, plain as day. And to suggest that I am
playing games with you or with anyone else is insulting and offensive.
He has absolutely NO WITNESS who ever said that
> was a HOLE AND a CRACK. NONE. Those witnesses who said it was a hole
> talking about the one location being either a hole or a crack, not two
> separate locations.
> Can you get Fetzer to at least admit that the hole he is talking about
> is in another location than the crack seen in CE350?
> Anthony Marsh
This is quite ridiculous. The location is the same. I am certainly NOT
maintaining that there were BOTH a through-and-through hole in the wind-
shield AND a crack in the windshield AT THE SAME TIME. I AM maintaining
that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield in a photo-
graph that was taken AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION, but which was no
longer present WHEN THE SECRET SERVICE LATER produced a windshield. My
position is completely consistent and supported by several kinds of evi-
dence, including the Altgens photograph and at least three eyewitness
reports, including two motocycle patrolment and a reporter for the ST.
LOUIS POST DISPATCH, who subsequently pubished an account of his exper-
ience, which is reprinted on p. 167. It is also supported by the guy
who changed the windshield for Ford. What evidence supports your view?
James H. Fetzer
. Jim: With your permission I forwarded your reply. We have a witness
.but obviously Mr. Marsh will not remove his blinders. As you observed I
.only provided him with a small amount of information but rather than
.wanting to see more he has become entrenched in denial. It is
.unfortunate because Mr. Marsh has done some meticulous research.