The Presidential Limousine Windshield Bullet Hole and The "Hole is a
Hole" Theory
The Presidential Limousine Windshield Bullet Hole and The "Hole is a
Hole" Theory (repost)
We are told by a handful of researchers that a number of different
witnesses viewed a 'hole' in the windshield of the Presidential
Limousine Secret Service-100-X after the assassination and that
although at least three of them specify different locations, they are
all talking about the same spot. A hole in any location equals a hole
in the same location -- this is the "Hole is a Hole" theory.
We are told that the location of where these witnesses say they saw
witnesses viewed a 'hole' in the windshield of the Presidential
Limousine Secret Service-100-X after the assassination and that
although at least three of them specify different locations, they are
all talking about the same spot. A hole in any location equals a hole
in the same location -- this is the "Hole is a Hole" theory.
We are told that the location of where these witnesses say they saw
the 'hole' on the windshield is insignificant -- that what is
important, is that they saw a 'hole'! Anyone who questions the fact
that different locations were voluntarily specified is greeted with
condescending references to such things as the sun rising and setting
or the world being flat. That, we are told, is supposed to be that.
This is a simple issue -- an 'open and shut' case -- a 'case closed'.
In addition, one researcher has even managed to convince two of these
witnesses to change the location of the 'hole' they believe they saw.
What are the possible implications of this speculative concept that on
some levels comes across as little more than irresponsible
disinformation? What happens if we accept this 'logic'? And what
happens if we set it aside and start from scratch? Will one approach
prove more valuable than the other?
First, perhaps we should ask ourselves what we expect from someone who
is comfortable contributing a speculation as eccentric as this to the
community and then demanding that the community accept it. Do we
expect logic? Do we prefer suspension of disbelief if it means a good
story? Do we expect valid documentation, or will strategically chosen
pieces of information do? Do we expect to be given all relevant
information, or just the highlights?
We need also take into account the fact that the idea of a windshield
through-and-through bullet hole, whether myth or fact, has been a part
of the mystery of Secret Service-100-X since the assassination. We
need to determine to what extent a need for this to be true -- no
matter how it may stretch our credibility -- is more important than
anything else, because to some immature researchers, this proves a
conspiracy. Are they willing to suspend reason in order to prove this?
Are they willing to irresponsibly distort information in order to
'prove' this? Are they willing to pull pieces of information out of
context and wave them around, insisting that this 'proves' their
theory? Is the appropriate question 'just how far are they willing to
go' to 'prove' their theory? Or is there some geniune truth-seeking
going on? Keep this question in mind as we focus in on the question of
the windshield bullet hole and the 'hole is a hole' theory.
Who didn't see a 'hole' and should have?
Parkland Hospital
William Greer - Drove 100X in Dallas motorcade to Parkland Hospital
(only)(According to Nick Prencipe, Greer told him that evening that
bullets were flying at them from all directions; one came through the
windshield. This is in conflict with any documented statements Greer
made; described more fully in Nick Prencipe section).
Roy Kellerman - Sat next to Greer in front passenger seat 100X to
Parkland Hospital (only)
Love Field to the White House Garage
Sam Kinney - Drove 679-X, Queen Mary II, follow-up car, in Dallas
motorcade to Parkland Hospital; covered 100X at Parkland, probably
responsible for pail of water being used on the car. Drove 100X from
Parkland to Love Field, and from Andrews AFB to the White House
Garage. Sam Kinney was also interviewed extensively by Vince Palamara,
who adamantly believes in the 'hole is a hole' theory; and yet Vince
has not attributed any statement to that effect by Kinney. Wouldn't we
expect that the man who put the roof onto 100X at Parkland Hospital
would have seen a t&t bullet hole if there was one? And wouldn't a
professional such as Palamara been able to get him to admit that?
White House Garage
Robert Frazier and his FBI team of Orrin Bartlett, Courtland
Cunningham, Charles Killiam and Walter Thomas. Robert Frazier has
stated in his interview with me of November, 1999 when I asked him
about Taylor's statement that "Yes, it may have appeared to be a hole
but the inner layer of the glass was not broken."
Air Force Hercules Transport Plane C130 used to transport 100X and
679X from Love Field to Andrews Air Force Base.
Researcher Doug DeSalle reports a member of the crew (who remains
nameless but whom DeSalle has verified to be on the manifest for the
Dallas trip) saw 100X while car was in the C130 on return trip to DC.
Said he saw the acknowledged defect, but no through-and-through
'hole'.
Who saw a 'hole' and Where?
Parkland Hospital
Stavis Ellis/Freeman - Two DPD motorcycle policemen. Ellis is on
record (_No More Silence_) as saying he saw a hole low on the
windshield; both have told interviewers they put a 'pencil' through
the hole; also are on record saying they 'could have' put a pencil
through the hole.
Evangelea Glanges - Nursing student at Parkland Hospital; did not
volunteer a location for the 'hole', and was not asked by interviewers
Weldon or Palamara; maintains that she leaned on 100X, noticed the
hole, commented on it and at that point an Secret Service agent drove
the car away. Also documented in "Conspiracy of Silence".
Richard Dudman - Highly respected reporter for St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. On record in "Assassination Science" as claiming their
was a 'hole' in the windshield in a newspaper article; location of
hole is referenced by colleague Livingston as being 'high' on the
windshield. This has not been corroborated by Dudman who, to date,
refuses to talk about the assassination.
White House Garage
Nick Prencipe - This US Park Policeman's statements are puzzling, to
say the least, and carry some serious conflicts that have not yet been
resolved. Nick insists that he spoke with Greer during the early
evening of 11/22/63, and that the conversation took place outside the
White House. To all reports, Greer stayed with the body of JFK during
the evening and was nowhere near the White House. Thus, Nick's
subsequent story is open to question. Nick claims that based on his
conversation with Greer, who said that bullets were coming at them
from all directions and one of them came through the windshield
(something Greer is not on record as saying to anyone else), Nick then
went to the 'Secret Service' garage to look at 100X. When I
interviewed Nick, he seemed to think this garage was closed down right
after the assassination. He claimed that he walked right into the
garage and there was no security around 100X. He cannot state at what
time this took place. He then lifted the tarp on the car, which was
sitting in the middle of the garage, and noted a small,
through-and-through bullet hole in the lower passenger-side of the
windshield. I asked him more than once if he saw any defect in the
area near the rear-view mirror, and he stated that he had not. (A
later interview with another researcher triggered his 'not being sure'
where the hole was he saw, though he was 100% positive he had seen a
hole. This is a good example of the 'hole-is-a-hole' theory.')
However, Nick called the White House Garage the "Secret Service"
Garage. So did Robert Frazier, whom we know led the team that examined
100X between 1-4:30 a.m. 11/23/63, so this fact adds to Nick's
credibility. He spoke of 'lifting a tarp'. The FBI bulky photos show a
tarp beside 100X, so this is another point of credibility. He also
spoke of being in communication with other DC Park Police as they
escorted 100X and 679X from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House
Garage. The Taylor/Geiglein report substantiates that it was the DC
Park Police who escorted the car; another point of credibility. Nick
states that the car was in the center of the garage, and not in its
bay; this adds some potential definition as to what time at night he
was there -- supposedly, 100X was examined at 9 p.m. by the Secret
Service, and at 10pm. a fragment of skull was supposedly retrieved
from the floor near the jumpseat by Admiral Burkley, CPO Martinelli
and Mills of Burkley's office. That means 100X was probably out of its
bay during those examinations. By 1 a.m., when the FBI exam began,
100X was back in its bay, covered with the tarp, roof up, and was
driven out into the garage by SA and FBI liaison Orrin Bartlett for
the exam. Nick does not recall seeing anyone around the car, nor did
he recognize anyone who was present; apparently he just walked right
in. While these things are not likely, considering the car was
supposedly under guard and all those without White House Garage
credentials (such as the FBI) had to log in; however, although
security was instituted at 9 p.m., the first entries into the logs
were not until 1 a.m., so it could have been that the logs had not
been started yet.
In actuality, 100X was the center of activity once it was driven to
the White House garage at 9pm 11/22/63. Two Secret Service men and a
White House policeman were assigned to guard the car; logs were set up
to record those without White House garage credentials coming to see
the car (the first entries were the FBI team at 1 a.m.). In addition,
the Secret Service was determined to scour the car, finding all
evidence themselves. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the car was
unattended at any time during the evening. In addition, Nick cannot
recall the names or faces of anyone who was there that night, nor give
any description of them. This calls the accuracy of the timeline of
his stated experience into question. Nick's statement does, perhaps,
present an insight into a theme common to all the windshield
bullet-hole witnesses -- each of them said they observed a small,
clean hole, that you could put a pencil through. Ellis and Freeman
were motorcycle officers, as was Nick; they had undoubtedly seen
bullet-holes through windshields on many occasions. The fact that this
hole was smaller than the size of a normal bullet (consistent perhaps
with a bb or pellet gun ammunition) and had no white frothing around
it, and no spider cracking emanating from it was not a concern to any
of them. There may be an explanation -- Nick alluded, in his interview
with me, to the fact that he thought the windshield was made of
bulletproof glass. If that were the conception of each of these
witnesses, they might not know what to expect, and perhaps the
inconsistency of this hole with those made from bullets impacting
two-ply safety glass would be understandable. However, the windshield
of 100X was a standard Lincoln windshield, available at any Lincoln
dealership or windshield replacement service. These witnesses didn't
know that.
Charles Taylor - Taylor's report is frequently taken out of context,
and usually only part of his statement is repeated, which was that he
saw a 'hole' in the windshield. Taylor was in 100X when it was driven
from AAFB to the White House Garage; he was also present during the
FBI exam of the limo and the statement in his report that he observed
"a small hole from which bullet fragments were removed" referred to
the acknowledged defect, from which the metal scrapings were made
during the exam that became CE 877. We can judge for ourselves from
the photo CE 350, also taken that night, what constituted the 'hole'
Taylor was referring to -- it is the round defect with (by this time)
small spider cracks emanating from it. Another interesting point is
that although Taylor was also present in 100X when it was driven from
Andrews AFB to the White House Garage that night; he makes no mention
specifically of anything that he observed during that ride. Did the
Taylor statement slip through the cracks of Secret Service
documentation, or was the knowledge of a 'hole' not necessarily a t&t
hole something of insignificance to the Secret Service?
The Lone-Mystery Witness -- The nameless 'Man from the Rouge'
This witness claims that 100X appeared at the Final Assembly (B)
Building at the Rouge River Complex of the Ford Motor Company on
11/25/63 for a windshield replacement. There is no explanation given
by this man or anyone else as to why this event would occur -- nearly
1,000 miles from the White House Garage -- or why this event would
occur outside of the critical timeline for 100X, which was between
12:30 11/22/63 and 4:30 pm 11/23/63, by which time the car had already
been examined by the Secret Service and FBI, diagrammed, photographed
and cleaned out, since the smell was becoming offensive. The location
for doing any repair work to 100X is suspect also; 100X was built at
the Ford Experimental Garage, about a mile away from the Rouge. Is
this researcher attempting to distract our attention from the actions
of the Secret Service and put emphasis on suposed wrongdoing of the
Ford Motor Company? With the sketchy details we are given, which we
are also told should be sufficient, it is difficult to tell, don't you
think? Could this be a hoax? You decide.
The Altgens 1-6 and 1-7
The famous Altgens 1-6, taken at Z255, shows a suspicious area to the
right of the rear-view mirror. To some, it looks like part of the
clothes of the woman standing directly behind 100X when this shot was
taken; but to others, this is the smoking gun of the assassination --
the ubiquitous 'spiral nebulae'. This 'spiral nebulae' which, even on
good copies of the Altgens 1-6, shows few if any of the
characteristics of a bullet going through safety glass (center hole
slightly larger than the bullet, white frothing, spider cracks
emanating from the hole to perhaps even the edges of the windshield)
has been the basis for a number of highly speculative theories about
the windshield through-and-through bullet hole. However, those who
yell that the Altgens 1-6 'spiral nebulae' alone tells the truth,
forget a very obvious contrasting photo -- the less famous Altgens
1-7, taken as 100X is nearly to the triple underpass; Jackie is on the
trunk of the car and Clint Hill is just climbing onto the car. A
closeup of the windshield in this photo, however, clearly shows that
there definitely is a defect near the rear-view mirror, but only a
small circle of white shows, indicating that there was no perforation.
Thus, the Altgens 1-7 contradicts the Altgens 1-6 and supports the
thesis that the 'spiral nebulae' area of the Altgens 1-6 windshield
does NOT represent a through-and-through bullet hole in the
windshield. One pro-spiral-nebulae researcher is now maintaining that
the 1-7 does show a hole, it just is not clear; or words to that
effect. That sort of specious logic can be countered by saying, for
example, that the 1-6 shows the windshield hit at the moment of
impact, and that it doesn't show a t&t hole either. Nevertheless, the
mystery of what is represented in the Altgens 1-6 is one of the
enduring questions of the assassination, and you will just have to
decide for yourself.
The Adamant "Hole is a Hole" Theorists
For some researchers, there "must" be a hole in the windshield. They
will seem to go to any extreme to attempt to prove it. They will say
that a 'hole' observed anywhere on the windshield can only mean the
one 'hole' to which they refer. They take documents out of context,
such as the Taylor/Geiglein report, and ignore everything that does
not fit their agenda, such as the FBI bulky photos, the Secret
Service/PRS photos, none of which show a t&t 'hole, even one FBI bulky
photo taken straight on. (All of these photos are available at
www.jfk100x.com). They don't care whether it makes sense or not --
they have the 'Hole is a hole" fever. The witnesses are equally
certain -- even those such as Dr Glanges who never volunteered exactly
where on the windshield the 'hole' was that she saw, and her
researchers never bothered to ask her. Dudman, Ellis and Nick Prencipe
(who has, since talking to a pro-spiral nebulae researcher now decided
he can't recall the location of the 'hole' but is 100% sure there was
one) have gone on record stating where the 'hole' was they believed
they saw, and each location is different. But they will agree that
"Yes, I saw a hole!".
A pro-spiral-nebulae researcher has repeatedly come up with a list of
supposedly-exclusive alternatives -- namely, that either these people
were lying or that there was only one hole, or logic to that effect.
However, are there not other possibilities, the first being that we do
not yet have all the answers? Can't we find these witnesses credible
without rushing to a 'hole is a hole' conclusion? Are we unable to
live with conflicting statements? Could one or all of these people
have been mistaken? Was there debris on the windshield that reflected
light? Were there additional pockmarked defects on the windshield that
reflected light? Might they have seen either instead or in addition a
'hole' on the bullet-proof windshield of the Queen Mary II? Or are
these even valid questions; should we just shut down and join the
'hole-is-a-hole' mementum?
Where does this fervor come from? With the exception of the
Lone-mystery 'Man from the Rouge', each of these individuals was a
part of perhaps the single most devastating event in recent American
history. Each of them was affected by it in a personal way, much more
so than the rest of the country who could only watch in horror and
distress as events unfolded on TV. Each of these witnesses had reason
to be near the car -- Ellis and Freeman were DPD motorcycle officers,
Dudman a respected journalist, Glanges a nursing student at Parkland,
Prencipe a DC Park Police in contact with the squadren of police
accompanying 100X from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage.
They were a part of this traumatizing event, and they were a part of
the buzz. Someone started this idea. Which one said it first? Was this
idea implanted by a Secret Service man, for example, attempting to
draw attention away from the Queen Mary II, the car that was
sequestered with 100X and never photographed, the car that followed it
in the motorcade? Or was it started by an onlooker, or one of these
witnesses? There is no record of that. But by the time 100X had been
returned to Andrews AFB, all of the accompanying policmen were,
according to Prencipe, talking about the state of the car, and talking
about the windshield. Could they actually see the damage, in the dark
cool evening, as the car, covered in debris (according to Frazier) was
driven from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage? Did they even
need to see the damage?
Or were they reflecting, as have many of us since, that it is
impossible that such an earth-shattering event could take place in a
car that managed to survive with hardly a scratch? Could anger at that
indignity be at the root of the "Hole is a hole" fervor? If that were
so, the next logical jump would be to acknowledge that no lone-gun
assassin, shooting with an out-dated and unbalanced carbine could
possibly have done this crime at all -- much less alone? No damage to
the car? Those passengers were surrounded by the car; they should have
been protected by the car. An assassination without bullets and
bullet-holes in 100X was unthinkable. It was unreasonable, wasn't it?
This information is all that is available at the moment. It will
change, and more will be forthcoming. Although it may be possible to
try and tie up the loose ends of this information, for the sake of
expedience, perhaps it might also be a valid alternative to keep an
open mind and acknowledge the credibility of these people as well.
That is up to you.
@In Broad Daylight Research January, 2001
b
For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
