Message #4

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:39:58 -0500
From: Doug Weldon 
To: jfetzer
Subject: It goes on and on

Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Doug Weldon wrote:
> >
> >  Anthony:  I am forwarding this at Jim's request.
> >                                     Doug Weldon
> >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:35:49 -0500
> > > From: Doug Weldon 
> > > To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
> > > Subject: Re: for your interest
> > >
> > > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doug Weldon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > james fetzer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doug,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, two motorcycle patrolmen in addition to Richard
>
> > > > Dudman
> > > > > > 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
> > > > a
> > > > > > large
> > > > > > > arrow on p. 143, where I also mention that excellent
> prints of
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > Altgens
> > > > > > > photograph may be found in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (1970)
> and
> > >
> > > > in
> > > > > > 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
> > > > thinks
> > > > > > this is
> > > > > > > "research" or not, but it is doing something to present
> the
> > > > evidence
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > a rather significant instance in which the SS participated
> in
> > > > the
> > > > > > 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
> > > > did.
> > > > Please ask him to do so. I have examined the general area
> pointed to
> > >
> > > > by
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > 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
>
> > > > accuses
> > > > 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
> > > > the
> > > > 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
> > > > with
> > > > 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
> > > > there
> > > > was a HOLE AND a CRACK. NONE. Those witnesses who said it was a
> hole
> > >
> > > > are
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > .
> > > .
>
> Again, the fact that Fetzer is unwilling or unable to specify and
> indicate with precise measurements exactly where he believes this hole
>
> is does not inspire confidence in his scientific method. When he is
> vague, it gives him an easy out when I point to the area he is
> discussing. He can simply say that I am pointing to the wrong area. We
>
> could go through this 100 times and each time he can change the area
> he
> is talking about in order  to negate any argument I make.
> I am quite surprised that Fetzer would put into print a claim that
> this
> area where he thinks there is a hole is exactly the same location as
> the
> damage seen in CE 350.
> The best source for these photos is not a book. It is a copy
> internegative from the National Archives, which is what I have. Then
> someone can make his own blow-ups from those second-generation
> negatives, which I have.
> The only thing in the area being pointed to by the arrow is a white
> area, which is clearly in the background, someone's clothes. The
> bottom
> margin of this white area follows the contour of JFK's jacket exactly.
>
> The odds that a bullet hole would match the contour of JFK's jacket
> exactly are astronomical. The white background is being cut off by
> JFK's
> jacket in the foreground. Again, a little simple research would have
> cleared this up before it rose to the level of a theory.
> I have a couple of computer scans of these photos which I send to you
> separately so that you can see it for yourself.
> I really don't expect Fetzer to answer all my questions, but I put
> them
> out there so that you can see some of the problems with this theory.
> Fetzer has still not explained how there could apparently be a hole in
>
> the windshield which he sees in the Altgens 1-6, yet that is only a
> crack in Ce 350 which was taken only about 12 hours after the
> assassination and supposedly before any windshield switch took place.
> Is
> he then going to have to change his argument to include a windsheild
> switch while the limo was under guard at Parkland Hospital in order to
>
> counter my argument? That is one problem with these bizarre theories.
> They are not well thought out, so when further arguments are made, the
>
> originators have to scramble to think up new aspects of the theory.
> And again, Fetzer ignores any of my questions for which he does not
> have
> convenient answers. I pointed out that the FBI examination team
> clearly
> indicated at about 1AM on 11/23/63 that there was a crack in the
> windshield and they did not indicate that it was a hole or that there
> was additional damage to the windshield. How does Fetzer get around
> this? Does he claim that these professional crime scene investigators
> mistook the hole for a crack? Or does he claim that everyone who said
> it
> was a crack was part of a cover-up? How would they know so early on
> what
> to cover up and why? Did they create a fake CE 350? This is the
> problem
> with these bizarre theories. When evidence is presented which
> contradicts them, they have to start going down that slope of claiming
>
> that all the evidence is faked. Ok, so if they want to play that game,
> I
> could likewise claim that someone drew in a fake hole in Altgens 1-6.
> So, what evidence do I have? Well, I don't have second hand reports or
>
> optical illusions. I have the crime scene examination team notes. I
> have
> the photos taken shortly after the assassination. Negatives and
> blow-ups, not books. Fetzer does not seem to be able to deal with
> these.
>
> Anthony Marsh

   Jim:
          Apparently Anthony has pushed my assertion aside and now is
targeting your book.  I obviously am willing to state my position on its
own merits.  I am angered by Anthony's flippant disregard of such vital
information.  I will not waste any further time trying to persuade him.
I have filed some requests with the National Archives and I am
continuing to secure some interesting information that I will share with
you as it develops.  I may publish an article in the Lancer this year.
I am making a sincere effort to attempt to have these questions raised
in the interchange addressed by the gentleman  in my interview.  I
appreciate your support.

Truly,
                                                                    Doug
Weldon

DISINFORMATION PAGE