It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
by Douglas P. Horne
In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine that had been reported by six credible witnesses. I revisited that evidence today, and am more convinced than ever that the bullet hole in the limousine windshield is what I am looking at in those images. But the readers of this piece don't have to take my word for it – you can examine the images yourself, and make up your own minds. The evidence is contained in one of the banned, suppressed episodes of Nigel Turner's The Men Who Killed Kennedy – episode 7 in the series, called "The Smoking Guns," which was aired in 2003, and then removed from circulation by The History Channel in response to intense political pressure by former LBJ aides Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers.
I'll tell you about the stunning evidence I have found in that episode at the end of this article, but first we need to set the stage by reviewing the eyewitness testimony about the damage to the windshield observed the day of JFK's assassination, on Friday, November 22nd, 1963; as well as three days later, on Monday, November 25th, 1963.
Originally posted by mike dangerously
I just came across this article.The author has discovered a bullet hole in JFK's limo.An interesting read seems that the bullet came from the overpass in front of the limo.
Location: Everywhere Mood: Searching
Originally posted by mileysubet
The irony would be that nether your post or the link provides any photographic evidence...
Frazier later testified before the Warren Commission concerning his examination of the windshield:
Mr. Specter: Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of the Presidential limousine?
Mr. Frazier: Yes; I did.
Mr. Specter: What did the examination disclose?
Mr. Frazier: On the inside surface of the windshield there was a deposit of lead. The deposit was located then you look at the inside surface of the windshield, 13 ½ inches down from the top, 23 inches from the left-hand side or driver’s side of the windshield, and was immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield.
Mr. Dulles: What do you mean by “the outer layer of the laminated windshield?”
Mr. Frazier: The windshield is composed of two layers with a very thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface.
Mr. Dulles: And the outside surface was the surface away from where the occupants were sitting?
Mr. Frazier: That is correct; yes.
Mr. Dulles: And the inside surface was the surface nearest the occupants?
Mr. Frazier: Yes.
Mr. Specter: What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of the windshield was struck?
Mr. Frazier: It indicates that it could only have been struck on the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of the impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear on the outer surface.
Mr. Dulles: So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from the outside against the glass?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. Dulles: As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dulles: Not from outside against the glass — from the front against the glass.
Mr. Frazier: That is right. (5H68-69)
Charles Taylor has made clear that his use “of the word ‘hole’ to describe the flaw in the windshield was incorrect.”
It is not necessary to underline the lack of probative significance to be attached to the fragmentary reports of Freeman, Stavis and Glanges. Much of the windshield argument in the past has been based upon taking the absolute statements of casual observers like Freeman, Stavis and Glanges at face value and finding a contradiction between those statements and the reports of professional examiners. Of even less probative significance is the claim of a purported witness like Nick Principe who surfaces thirty-five years after the event on a conspiracy web site with a story contradicted by indisputable facts.
David Lifton first claimed in 1980 that there was some discrepancy between the report in Rowley’s letter that Special Officer Davis and SA Geis ran their hands over the outside of the windshield at the White House garage and found it “smooth and unbroken” and a March 1964 report from the FBI Lab that the windshield “contained no hole, only damage to the outside surface.” (Best Evidence, footnote, pp.369-370). Lifton goes on to point out that SA Roy Kellerman ran his hand over the outside surface on November 27, 1963 and also found it to be smooth. Lifton uses this to raise the question as to “whether the windshield on the limousine on November 22, 1963 was the same windshield sent to FBI Laboratory in March 1964.” (Ibid.) This “windshield switch theory” was then picked up by Fetzer in both Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza.
The simplest explanation for the alleged discrepancy is that the officers cited ran their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and felt it to be smooth, missing the relatively minor damage observed by Frazier in his examination of it early on November 23rd. Consider what this “damage on the outside surface” was. Frazier testified that there was “a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface.”. His contemporaneous note speaks of a “minute fragment missing from outside.”
Originally posted by Rising Against
Sorry to break it to you guys but a hole in the windshield is nothing new. In fact It's been a part of the case ever since there has been a case. Here's an image of the limousine after the assassination:
Hardly a "new discovery" here..edit on 5-6-2012 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)
The video and the photo you posted to not add up...
The person in the video says that it was through and through bullet hole, yet a 6.5x52MM would have left a window spiderwebed or shattered, even after passing through the target.