Message #1

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

DISINFORMATION PAGE