How would one go about doing an analysis on what the size of the fragments would need to have been to create the damage to the windshield and chrome piece?
http://ss100x.com/ferg1.gif
There is a major issue with what Vaughn Ferguson report in this letter and there is no synergy between his statements and the crated windshield as evidence or the Altgens "7" photograph as evidence. If you note his statement he was called in to look solely at the windshield on the first day. The rest of the car was covered up with canvas and he was told to look at the windshield only. "Bubbletop"
?
1) What did this have to do with the subject heading of the report - RE: Changes in White House "Bubbletop"?
2) What was he called in to do on that very first day. Was it to note that there was no perforation in the windshield? Why was he specifically called upon to examine this? Was it a safelite repair?! If you need a windshield replaced, you obviously bring it to a place to get that done. You don't call someone in to examine it first and ask "what would you recommend for us to do with it"?
3) The other aspect is that coming back the next day, he removes dried blood from around buttons on the upholstery. Sounds like he is a windshield specialist/doctor lol!
To me, this all looks like someone brought him there to make sure that he could make a statement to the effect that "there was no hole in the windshield". This would be a nice counter measure to those who already had said they "saw" undeniably a hole in the windshield. Clearly, doesn't that make sense and be the purpose of this piece of paper? Real windshield was trashed and never to be seen!
Look at his statement and
I quote: "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating a couple of inches from the center of the windshield at a point directly beneath the mirror." So.....if he was called in to closely examine this windshield which the letter says:
"RE: Changes in White House "Bubbletop"" and it does not in anyway match the Altgens "7" photograph or windshield in crate evidence, who or what is the real evidence provided and why did he issue a contradictory statement? There is no synergy between his statement and the rest. It doesn't make sense either that the windshield specialist comes back the next day while the car is unguarded and proceeds to remove dried blood from around upholstery buttons that was missed by the SS!!! Did he have trouble locating the part number of the windshield so that it could be ordered in!?
{I can't believe people can't read this and not realize what was going on and what a coverup was in the process!!}
