ISO missing JFK witnesses: flight crew for ‘death car’


Tireless JFK research Vince Palamara, who has done some of the best research into the Secret Service’s role in the events of November 1963, is looking for missing JFK witnesses: the men who accompanied the limousine in which President Kennedy was slain when it was flown back to Washington.

In blatant violation of standard law enforcement procedures, the limousine was washed immediately after the assassination and removed from the crime scene. The men on the plane might be able to shed light on the condition of the limousine on the day of the assassination.

Palamara writes

“If you were onboard that flight (tail # 12373) assigned to the 76th Transport Sqdn, Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina or have any information concerning that flight & the experiences of the crew please contact: JFK FactsBill Kelly, or Greg Burnham.

Thanks Vince, I’m glad to help in this endeavor.

I must add one correction: The YouTube video displays the old and now defunct email for JFK Facts. The correct email address is editor@jfkfacts.org.

Who was on the plane?

According to the flight manifest cited by Palamare, the crew on the C-130 plane included Wayne E. Schake, Vincent J. Gulllo Jr., Hershal R. Woolsey, David J. Corn, Stephen Bening, Frank E. Roberson, and Captain Roland H. Thompson, the pilot.

If you know or knew, or were related to any of these people, please contact JFK Facts,

All messages will be kept in strictest confidence.

 

39 comments

  1. If the author of that YouTube video is claiming the photo of the limo being loaded aboard the cargo plane was taken on 11/22/63, the YouTube uploader would be wrong. The license plate numbers are totally different. On November 22, the SS-100-X limousine was wearing plate number GG-300:

    http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-041.html

    http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-064.html

    • ADDENDUM:

      On May 7th, 2014, I learned from a person on another forum that I made a stupid mistake relating to my post above. The uploader of that YouTube video did, indeed, mention in the description of his YouTube video that the limo photo in question has an unknown origin.

      I missed seeing that part of the description, despite the fact I looked at that description in searching for that very type of information. (Duh.) I just flat-out missed seeing this portion of the uploader’s description:

      “A grateful salute to Bill Kelly, Vince Palamara & webmaster Robin Unger, who provided the unknown date & place JFK parade car C-130 upload photo. …. No known photos or film of JFK’s parade car being offloaded or uploaded at Love Field is known to exist at the present time.”

      My apologies.

  2. Jonathan says:

    Good luck finding anyone on the flight manifest. My guess, to paraphrase Jim Garrison, is that the individuals involved, apart from the SS agents, weren’t particularly good insurance risks.n

    I’ve come to the conclusion — it’s inescapable — that the Secret Service (1) facilitated the murder of JFK, and (2) played a central role in covering up the nature of his wounds.

    Taking the limo from Dallas was within the constitutional power of the federal government. The limo was federal property. Taking JFK’s remains contrary to Texas law was obstruction of justice, not that anyone cared.

    • Please tell me, Jonathan, how on Earth could the Secret Service have possibly played any role at all in “covering up the nature of [JFK’s] wounds”?

      The SS men weren’t the ones tending to President Kennedy’s wounds at Parkland. Nor did the Secret Service have anything at all to do with JFK’s autopsy later that night.

      • James Norwood says:

        Of course, the Secret Service agents were not physically altering the president’s wounds themselves in the Parkland trauma room. The important point is that the Secret Service played a broader role in deceiving the American public about the nature of the wounds and, above all, the direction of the gunshots.

        You should read with care the massive literature on the handling of the president’s body on November 22, 1963, in order to grasp the scope of Secret Service malfeasance. Your starting point should be the books of Lifton and Horne.

        For the purpose of this thread the major issue is the transportation of the limousine that eventually found its way from the C-130 transport plane in Dallas to Washington, D.C., and then over the weekend to the Ford automobile plant in Dearborn, Michigan, where the front window was replaced. This was necessary to destroy the evidence of a shot from the front through the windshield.

        Douglas Weldon’s impeccable research on this subject makes it clear that the Secret Service did indeed play a role in the obfuscation of the president’s wounds.

        • The limousine wasn’t whisked off to Dearborn in late November. And the windshield wasn’t replaced. And the windshield never had a hole in it. Those are myths. Nothing more.

          Robert Frazier’s testimony and the photos of the windshield verify there was only a crack in the glass (striking it from the INSIDE, where the lead smear was located).

          Let me guess—Bob Frazier was lying.

          The “Dearborn” witnesses are similar to the “Second Casket Arrival” witnesses at Bethesda. Just as the Bethesda witnesses could not possibly have seen a “JFK casket” enter the morgue TWICE on 11/22/63 (so the “shipping casket” obviously had to have contained a body OTHER than John F. Kennedy’s)….the Dearborn witnesses might have seen some vehicle resembling JFK’s limo, but it was certainly NOT SS-100-X.

          [See “Reclaiming History”; Endnotes; Pages 300-301.]

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            “See Reclaiming History”? David, read Reclaiming Parkland. It’s better documented and much more concise.

          • JSA says:

            von pita,

            Yes, the windshield had a bullet fragment or bullet damage, but from the photo I can’t tell if it’s a hole or a deep chip. It has some radial cracks coming from it.

            The car was covered up at Parkland to protect it, as it was a crime scene, but was washed with a bucket of water (back seat) by one of the SS agents. He either inadvertently or deliberately destroyed crime scene evidence by doing this. Then the car was whisked away and sequestered in the WH basement. The front windshield was taken out and replaced by Arlington Glass. Some photos were shot, but curiously not a full photographic record, then rather than save the car for the WC to look at, it was flown to Cleveland, OH and completely refitted.

            You really need to reexamine your biases regarding this important evidence.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bugliosi does know a little about mock trials.

            Since jeff signed this I guess it expresses some of his opinion about reclaiming history.
            http://www.ctka.net/bug_letters.html

            http://www.ctka.net/reclaim.html

          • david thurman says:

            In Re: David Von Pein May 4, 2014 “[See “Reclaiming History”; Endnotes; Pages 300-301.]”

            You must be kidding, using “Reclaiming History” as a serious source? I assume you are aware Mr. Bugliosi received a +$1 million fee in advance to write his tome.

        • JAMES NORWOOD SAID:

          Douglas Weldon’s impeccable research on this subject makes it clear that the Secret Service did indeed play a role in the obfuscation of the president’s wounds.

          DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

          Doug Weldon undoubtedly possessed a great deal of knowledge about the JFK assassination, but he also had some very strange and bizarre theories too. And the most bizarre one that I have ever come across was when Mr. Weldon said this at John Simkin’s Education Forum in November 2010:

          “The third person was removed from the front seat [of JFK’s limousine in Dallas on 11/22/63]. …. I believe this created the opportunity for a shot to be fired through the front of the windshield from the south knoll area to hit Kennedy in the front.” — Doug Weldon; Nov. 15, 2010 [original post below]

          http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16835&page=3#entry211913

          In other words, according to Weldon, the conspirators who were planning the assassination of President Kennedy actually WANTED to fire a shot through the windshield of the car, and they PLANNED IN ADVANCE for that to happen by eliminating the military aide who sometimes sat between the two Secret Service agents in the front seat of the limo during JFK’s motorcades.* (LOL.)

          The above theory that was embraced by Douglas Weldon just might be #1 on both the “hilarious” and “ridiculous” scales.

          * BTW, there was most certainly NOT always a third person sitting in the front seat of the car during all of Kennedy’s motorcades. A good example of a fairly lengthy motorcade drive with President Kennedy riding in that very same car (SS-100-X), with the top down, in which no third person was riding in the front seat can be found in the videotape footage of JFK’s trip to San Diego in June of 1963, which can be seen at the link below:

          http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2014/04/president-kennedy-in-san-diego-6-6-63.html

      • Jonathan says:

        David, I believe you are too great a scholar in this case to pose this question to me. Surely you have studied carefully and critically the statements of the persons who saw a hole in limo windshield. Surely you have studied Kellerman’s actions aimed at Earl Rose, M.D. Surely you have studied the testimony of John H. Ebersole, M.D., before the HSCA, regarding S.S. seizure of x-ray films he made and never saw again. Surely you’ve studied the transcripts of the AF-1 transmissions, in which Gerald Behn INSISTS the autopsy be conducted at Bethesda rather than Walter Reed. Surely you’ve studied Rowley’s handling (or mishandling) of the “magic bullet.

        I give up. You know more about this case than I. You should answer your own question.

        • Jonathan says:

          Also David, I’m sure you’ve studied Homer McMahon’s testimony to the ARRB how he processed a version of the Z-film brought to him straight from Hawkeyeworks by S.S. agent “Bill Smith” on the assassination weekend.

          I’m especially interested to see your response to McMahon’s ARRB testimony.

          • It’s total bunk. Simple as that. Nothing you have said above, Jonathan, wipes out the vast array of evidence linking Oswald (and only Oswald) to the murders of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.

            And the business about Behn and the Air Force One tapes is especially humorous. The people on AF1 were literally flying by the seats of their collective pants during that trip back to Washington from Dallas. Things were changing every minute. Orders were being given and then changed and then changed again. That’s not “conspiracy”. That’s called “What should do we do next? We’ve never experienced this kind of thing on our watch before.”

            Chaos and confusion doesn’t spell “cover-up” or “plot”. In fact, given the circumstances of the President’s totally unexpected death, such confusion and disorganization is to be expected.

            But in the minds of certain conspiracy theorists, such perfectly ordinary indecisiveness and confusion is supposed to indicate the Government decided on Bethesda in order to “steer” the President’s body into the hands of covert surgeons named Humes and Boswell. (Silly beyond all possible belief.)

            And you’re going to have to include Jackie in that “plot” too if you think taking JFK to Bethesda was arranged by conspirators. And what rational person would attempt to do something that silly?

            Regards,
            DVP

            http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/04/aircraft-radio-transmissions-11-22-63.html

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to DVP:

            Why is Homer McMahon’s ARRB testimony total bunk? Because it conflicts with your theory of the case? Some other reason?

            You deny Behn insisted the autopsy be performed at Bethesda? If so, I say you’re wrong based on the AF-1 transcripts.

            This “vast array of evidence”? Please provide just one example of such “evidence” — you know, a physical item or witness testimony admitted into evidence by some trial court.

          • Vincent Bugliosi said the following (and he DOES know a LITTLE something about court trials and how evidence is usually admitted).

            […]

            “An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the “chain of custody [or possession]” of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law.

            […]

            “The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists…would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

            “Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

            “Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

            “I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to “the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility”.” — Vince Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in “Reclaiming History” (c.2007)

            RELATED LINK:
            http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

        • Jonathan says:

          Reply to DVP:

          A prosecutor’s case against Oswald, the whole theory of the Warren Commission, would flounder upon the attempt to admit C.E. 399, the “magic bullet”, into evidence. Recent study shows not merely a WEAK chain of custody for C.E. 399 but further A TOTAL ABSENCE of chain of custody. No one who handled the bullet recovered at Parkland by orderly Tomlinson has identified C.E. 3999 as that bullet.

          Here’s the pertinent Federal Rule of Evidence:

          “Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

          (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”

          In a criminal trial alleging the defendant fired one round that passed through JFK and JBC, the prosecution has to establish EACH ELEMENT of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution tries to prove C.E. 399 is the round in question, the prosecution can’t authenticate C.E. 399 as required by FRE 901(a), and the prosecution fails.

          Time to give it up, DVP. Use Bugliosi’s book as a door stop. That’s all it’s good for.

        • Michael Hogan says:

          Bugliosi’s opinions about the admissibility of evidence in a hypothetical trial mean little. Because he was murdered while in the custody of the Dallas police Lee Oswald never got a trial.

          He never even got a lawyer.

          Besides, the larger question is to what extent the “vast array of evidence” would have withstood reasonable doubt in a courtroom, had it been admitted.

          As Oswald told his brother: “Don’t believe all the so-called evidence.”

          In a 2007 interview with a Seattle weekly Bugliosi was asked if he was “assisted by researchers in writing the book?(Reclaiming History)”

          Bugliosi’s reply: “No. Everything I wrote was my research.”

          In that same interview Bugliosi volunteered:

          “With the Kennedy case, I learned that there is absolutely no bottom to the pile. It’s a bottomless pit. While I’m talking to (you) right now, at least a hundred people are looking at some
          document from the National Archives, looking for some contradiction, inconsistency, discrepancy, some hint of conspiracy, working full-time on it, and probably another thousand working part-time. When you have intelligent people like this
          (I think that with respect to this case they’re certifiably psychotic), they can create a lot of mischief, which they have. They have succeeded in convincing 75 percent of Americans of this conspiracy.”

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I’m currently reading Joseph McBride’s Into the Nightmare. First time I’ve read about a SSA asking about an alternative exit from the ER in Parkland. He was shown a elevator in the ER that went to the basement and a “tunnel” out of the building. The possibility JFK’s body went out that way is considered. If so the SS fight in the hallway was to keep Dr. Rose from opening an empty casket. If this scenario is possible the SS would have been aiding in “covering up the nature of [JFK’s] wounds”.
        It’s based on the record of Parkland administrator Charles Jack Price in “an exhibit in one or the warren commission’s volumes”.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        The Secret Service destroyed their files on the assassination just before the ARRB could get their hands on them.

        The Nix film actually proves a discernible slowing down of the Presidential limousine to almost a stop (the follow up car was almost close to rear-ending it).

        A witness(es) said he could put a pencil through the windshield bullet strike (sorry, I can’t recall who).

        There are clear disparities in the observations of Bethesda staff about the official Kennedy entourage or casket arriving AFTER the autopsy or x-rays/photographs of the President’s corpse began.

        Jerrol Custer testified to the ARRB that Dr. Ebersole, after being briefed by the WH SS Chief, warned him not to discuss anything about what he said or asked him to do, including taping metal fragments to bone fragments at the back of the head. He also said that he made unusual observations or conclusive statements that defied logic.

        Also, your reference to Bugliosi wherein he states that chain of custody need not be ironclad or 100% may be true, but what if the evidence transforms 100% in appearance (pointed bullet to round nosed bullet, varying photos of the hulls) or is an additional item not originally documented (the 3rd hull issue) or another casket observation purportedly of the President?

        Your further reference by him that the courts will consider the weight of the evidence in determining admissibility must be examined too in light of this case. Surely CE399 or the other items or observations above are of probative value or significant evidentiary weight!

        Bugliosi too easily dismisses the notion that key evidence would not be admissible. Just because he says so, doesn’t mean he’s right. After all, he is pretending to be the prosecuting attorney.

        If he’s so right, he should take up Barry Krusch’s challenge.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Addendum: CE399 and perhaps other items of evidence in the JFK Assassination are like the glove in the OJ Trial (if it doesn’t fit, then you must acquit).

      • Paul Turner says:

        Greer and Kellerman were present at both locations.

  3. James Norwood says:

    In the youtube video above, one of the questions raised is “When and where did the C-130 land?”

    In response to this question, we have evidence in the form of an affidavit signed by Secret Service agent Samuel Kinney, dated November 30, 1963. Kinney was one of the listed passengers aboard the C-130.

    Kinney reports the following:

    “The cars were loaded and the plane secured, awaiting our orders to depart Love Field enroute to Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. The plane departed Love Field at 3:35 pm. We arrived AAFB, Md at 8:05 pm.”

    At least according to one passenger, the aircraft arrived at Andrews at 8:05pm, which was two hours after the arrival of Air Force One.

    The Samuel Kinney memorandum may be accessed at:

    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/sa-kinne.htm

    • Thomas Joseph says:

      You are ignoring that the video also states the C-130 is not logged into the 1254th ATW [Air Transport Wing] Command Post logbook. The video’s author references in his comments section a Bill Kelly blog entry for that info. Care to explain? Are you inferring that because a person is a secret service agent they never lie? Some researchers believe the C-130 flew JFK’s parade car to the Ford company. Researcher Pamela Brown covers that on her blog.
      At the video author’s YouTube page he explains the photo used in the video comes from an unknown date & place & that there are no known photos or film of the JFK touring car being either offloaded or uploaded onto the C-130 at Love Field known to exist. It appears Vince Palamara linked the video to his blog & erroneously gives it the date of 22 Nov 1963.

      • James Norwood says:

        Please provide primary sources to support your points.

        Such references as youtube videos, Pamela Brown’s blog, and Bill Kelly’s posts are insubstantial in offering anything of value about the C-130 transport plane

        I’ve already provided a primary source in the memorandum of 11/30/63.

        Your post is filled with fluff.

        • Thomas Joseph says:

          The YouTube page for the video’s author is here:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOy3BwMSRds

          Look over to the left under where it says after ‘date published’ ‘show more’ & click on ‘show more’. The author’s comments about his video are posted there as well as 2 sources:

          The Bill Kelly logbook info link is here (conspicuously missing is the arrival time of the C-130 22-24 Nov 1963):

          http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/20

          The original Vince Palamera research that includes the Samuel Kinney Secret Service statement of 30 Nov 1963 & the persons aboard the C-130 is here:

          https://groups.google.com/forum/#!top

          Vince Palamara’s blog that linked to the video is here:

          http://vincepalamara.com/

          Pamela Brown’s blog is here:

          http://ss100x.wordpress.com/

          On any YouTube video that has been linked to, there is an option at the lower right (next to ‘full scrren’) to ‘watch on youtube’. By clicking that ‘watch on youtube’ option a reader will be transported to the YouTube page the video is originally posted at.

          Now that the ‘fluff’ has been removed, I’d like to hear your explanation of why the C-130 is not logged into the 1254th ATW Command Post, Andrews Air Force Base logbook when Kinney claimed in his statement of 30 Nov 1963 that the aircraft did land at Andrews. Who is more believable, Kinney or the logbook? Perhaps one can see from this the importance of finding persons connected with the C-130 crew & its passengers plus Andrews AFB still living that can answer questions about the flight brought up in the video. The video directs such persons to Jeff Morley & a few of his peers.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        “Are you inferring that because a person is a SSA they would never lie?” Thanks, I need a good laugh. Anybody that reads Survivor’s Guilt and reaches that conclusion really needs to get their head out of the sand.

  4. kennedy63 says:

    To add weight to James Norwood’s May 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm posting referencing Secret Service malfeasance: FBI agents Sibert and O’Neil, present at the autopsy on 11/22/63, filed a report Nov. 26, 1963. In an interview years later (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-22-jfk-assassination-anniversary_N.htm), Sibert, then 91, made some very revealing statements about what he saw at the autopsy. Specifically, another shoulder/back wound, in addition to the wound that matches the hole in JFK suit jacket. Sibert says “I don’t buy the single-bullet theory, I won’t go as far as to say there was no conspiracy.” If you read further in the article, retired agent Sibert was very objective and rational, and appears consistent over the years about what he saw and reported. Neither agent Sibert, or report co-author agent O’Neil, were called to testify by the august Warren Omission. Seems the FBI report did not fit the lone gunman fabrication.
    Not all agents in the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, or Military, participated in a cover up. I think enough top level players made decisions that paved the way for a concerted “official” story to be foisted upon the American people. Johnson, Hoover, Katzenbach, Secret Service hierarchy, some Dallas police and Sheriff Decker (following the Oswald murder), and most of those present at Oswald’s interrogation, seem complicit in their intent to “frame” Oswald as the ‘lone assassin of JFK’. President Kennedy’s wounds, as depicted by Sibert, were gruesome. The original Zapruder film clearly shows things no longer in the public version. What the film does show is a human being, who was our sitting president, being executed in an open limousine beside his horrified and shocked wife, while his protectors (Secret Service)sat by and watched him die.

    • Jonathan says:

      Earl Warren’s Commission ignored many witnesses who would have said things inconsistent with the Commission’s pre-conceived conclusion. Good for Earl Warren. He goes down in history as a mixed bag. As the author of the Brown v. Board opinion on the one hand. And I’ll throw in Mapp v. Ohio (1960) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). But he misplayed his hand as head of the Warren Commission.

  5. TLR says:

    It should be pointed out, before a WC defender does, that the limo was not washed out at Parkland. The exterior may have been cleaned a little (that shouldn’t have happened), but the interior was clearly still a mess as seen in photos taken in Washington.

  6. Charles Beyer says:

    For me, what’s missing from this discussion is something the video author refers to briefly: absence of media & law enforcement at Love Field when the JFK/LBJ entourage left Parkland for Love Field. This is also glossed over in the several TV documentaries that brag what a outstanding job the media did in covering JFK’s murder in Dallas. What should be focused on is why the media & law enforcement dropped the ball between Parkland & Love Field IMO. Who was calling the shots that instructed the same media that welcomed JFK to Love Field in the morning of 22 Nov 1963 to abandon him & LBJ’s entourage just a short time later? Where was the interest in the JFK ‘death car’ & the swearing in of LBJ? Why wasn’t the media reporting that JFK’s body was being illegally removed from Dallas? What entity is powerful enough to bark orders that both the Dallas police & media obeyed?

    • leslie sharp says:

      Charles, you pose a number of interesting questions. Texas media moguls including Wm. Hobby (whose enterprise has been named as collaborating with the agency and whose daughter would go on to marry GHW Bush close friend and confidant, Ambassador Henry Catto) and Ted Dealey of the Belo Corp. (red-baiter, supporter of Joseph McCarthy and infamous for his charge that Texas and the Southwest thought Kennedy was riding Caroline’s tricycle rather than leading the nation on horseback) would hardly take orders from anyone outside their own ‘inner circle.’ On a national level, the Dan Rather’s of the day were young and impressionable, and hardly prepared to challenge their bosses whose boards included America’s most powerful former military brass and industrial leaders. Then there were the Chandlers, owners of the LA Times (Norman sat on the board of Neil Mallon’s Dresser Industries and connects to Mallon’s Dallas World Affairs Council) and Henry Luce of Time/Life. No one here needs reminding of his wife’s hi-profile friendship with DCI Allen Dulles, Henry and Claire’s early hardline anti-communism and their close relationship with William Pawley (see PD Scott’s brilliant essay: http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/12/william-pawley-the-kennedy-assassination-and-watergate-tilt-and-the-phase-three-story-of-clare-boothe-luce-2/)

      Anyone or all of those individuals together could have ordered a stand-down between Parkland and Love Field; there will be no paper trail. All we could hope for is that brave and aging former media people might avail themselves of the Security Drop program.

      If there was a cover-up, there was a conspiracy, and I contend that both converged in men with the power to authorize the assassination. In the words or Dan Hardway on this site last year, if it was considered a “necessary act,” (paraphrasing) I speculate that none of these individuals would have the slightest compunction to become involved with little more than a wink and a nod.

  7. Mrfrisky says:

    Sargent Stavis Ellis (motorcycle patrolmen supervisor who was leading the motorcade) 1971 interview by Fred Newcomb for his book Murder from Within

    Whitney: Did you look, get a look at the car at all once it got to the hospital?
    Ellis: The car?
    Whitney: Once it was empty?
    Ellis: Yes sir I sure did, it was a mass blood in the back seat, and a piece of the skull bone, and there was a hole in the left front windshield..ah (17:30)
    Whitney: You know how it got there by any chance?
    Ellis: I would say from a shot, one of the shots that was shot at the President, one of them there that, I don’t know I believe it was the first shot, I saw it hit the street right behind us,
    threw up a flash of dust where it hit the concrete curb, and I saw a bunch of people fall and I thought….
    Whitney: You sure it was a hole? ’cause we were just thinking it was a crack…
    Ellis: It was a hole, you could put a pencil through it (18:04) I showed it to Officer Chaney out there at the hospital…

  8. Preston Newe says:

    To give Jeff Morley’s readers a rough idea of the amount of people involved in a routine military flight I would like to offer the following:

    Any routine military aircraft flight generates what can be a huge paper trail while the plane is in the air, long before it lands at any given military base. Persons involved in the paper trail would include the airfield manager, maintenance, communications, fuels distribution, air traffic control, the squadron, base or wing commanders. Logistics supply distribution may be involved in providing parts or cargo to be shipped off the base via the aircraft arriving (once it’s cargo has been offloaded). Special air missions such as that one with the C-130 carrying the JFK touring car & the SS follow-up car would have involved the base security police & Intel operatives. All of that is right there on the installation receiving the aircraft; outside entities are often involved (FBI, National Guard, State Troopers or Rangers) & additional paperwork generated. It takes people to create the paper trail. Depending on the usage of the aircraft upon landing & before departure, additional paperwork can be generated by other entities within & outside the military installation. For instance, if the aircraft had been ordered to transport an Army squad of infantry soldiers somewhere, the base’s Mobility unit would be involved, generating their own paper trail.

    All of that information should have been turned over to the ARRB. If it wasn’t turned over, members of the ARRB dropped the ball & let it slip through its collective fingers. The flight manifest is just a small portion of all the people involved in the C-130 departing Love Field with its special cargo & landing somewhere; the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

    No aircraft lands at a military runway without triggering some or all of the aforementioned. For the C-130 not to be logged in as arriving is a extremely good indication the aircraft did not land at Andrews Air Force Base & instructions for it to land elsewhere are not on the AF-1 audio tapes.

    The more people that were involved in that C-130 flight, the more opportunity exists to learn its stories from Love Field to wherever it landed 22 Nov 1963.

    • Preston Newe says:

      I forgot to add a couple more possibilities for additional paperwork to have been generated by the C-130 flight out of Dallas to wherever it landed 22 Nov 1963:
      Lodging & Air Freight Terminal support: If the pilots, crew or passengers were temporarily housed on or off the receiving military base that would have generated paperwork for each person housed for a brief time. Meals: the facility that fed the C-130 entourage on or off the military installation is another source of paperwork. If the aircraft required the assistance of the Air Freight terminal in off-loading the cargo it carried from Love Field or whatever new cargo the plane accepted after its special cargo was off-loaded, would have generated additional paperwork. The paperwork repeats each place the aircraft lands & departs & lands again.

      By knowing just the tail number of the C-130 & the unit it was assigned to can help investigators/researchers learn the history of all the flights that aircraft was involved in & for what purposes. A word of caution: the military routinely destroys records after a certain time period.

      • Jonathan says:

        The absence of the paper trail you describe, which coincides with my military experience, confirms for me the military (the high reaches) had a hand in the assassination and the cover-up.

        What you say is important. Total absence of routine official documents signifies suspicion.

  9. Mariano says:

    There were many eyewitness accounts to a “bullet hole” on the front widscreen, some of whom included Stavis Ellis (motorcycle policeman), Harold R.Freeman, Nick Precipe (patrolman), Carl Rena (Ford Motor), and a Parkland medical student Evalea Glanges who said “there was a hole in the windshield through and through from front to back”.

    SS sources claimed the bullet hole was only a crack.

    Did this bullet hole arrive from the front?

    The FBI found bullet fragments in the bullet hole. What was the result of any analysis of these?

    Also, what of the dint on the inner side of the chrome frame of the windscreen?

    The FBI did conduct a investigation of the vehicle shortly after the assassination, but this doesn’t explain why the vehicle was cleaned up, windscreen replaced, and refitted so soon after. This amounted to a destruction of evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.