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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by dekePost by Anthony MarshPost by dekePost by Ace KeffordMmm ... 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.
Meaningless. Never rely on witnesses.
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.
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.
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.
Says the guy who gets most of his misinformation from kooky conspiracy
websites.
Post by mainframetechNow, 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.
WRONG! You have no facts that disagree with Whitaker's story.
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.
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.
So they got the date wrong. BFD.
WRONG! They BOTH got the date wrong in exactly the same way.
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/
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.
Post by bigdogNovember 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.
"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.
Note that the info repeats that there was a HOLE in the windshield.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechBOTH 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd
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.
Post by mainframetechconsidering 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!
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechOf 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechso that
alone says there is more to his story than meets the eye.
It might say that to you. Not to logical people.
Post by mainframetechNext, 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.
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.
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
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/328903579007626413/
"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
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.
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?
Post by bigdogOf 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogThen 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>
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogThe 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogHere'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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogIt 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechSecond, 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.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogThose 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.
For stock automobiles. No mention of custom work being done.
That's been discussed and explained to you.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogBoth
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.
Post by mainframetechThere 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.
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.
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.
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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechBut 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogOf 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,
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.
More of your ridiculous nitpicking because you have nothing to show to
make your point.
It is hardly nitpicking to point out that three witnesses di NOT say what
you claimed they said.
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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechNo 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.
Post by mainframetechThe 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'.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechunless 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogCracks
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.
Post by mainframetechthat 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.
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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechYou just made it up to delay
while you hope something will save you from the corner you put yourself
in.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechyou'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.
There was one. We see it in the Z-film.
The Z-film won't tell you anything at the key frame (313), since it
was altered at that point among others.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechNo 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechIf 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechBUT 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechBut 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.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechHitting 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:
Loading Image...
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechNow 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.
Post by mainframetechYour attempts are crude and silly.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe 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.
Post by mainframetechAre 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
