Give me a break! When he examines the cracks in the windshield for an hour, he is looking at it from all viewpoints and you come up with a conclusion that his statement says directly below a mirror means he is looking at it from a fender perspective and just gave it a chance glance.
I didn't say his description came from him looking from the front grille; I said it was a result of his perspective when he walked up along the side to get a proper look.
You are out of your mind! You are stating that it is skewed over to a side and he is incorrectly stating what he saw and told to report this after looking at it for an hour. I call BS on that. Directly below the mirror is from the vantage point of the front so that you have a point of reference!
I think he would have described it from the more optimal close-up view. Either way, it's still "a couple of inches from the center of the windshield".
In your view, He just can't seem to describe the axis of the car and has no point of reference to his statements - BS! In reality, he may have never even seen the windshield and the car and was told what to write up his report is more like is as this statement came out on December 18 -nearly a month later. Remember he was called in to look specifically at the windshield, the rest of the car was covered and he was there for that purpose only. I think anyone brought in to describe what they saw would have to figure out a frame of reference when asked to observe - not from a fender perspective or at some obscure/obtuse undescribable angle.
That's an idealistic dramatization. We're living in a world where they have to ink-mark what leg to operate on so the surgical team don't mix it up.
You might then also say that this guy was so dumb
No. I wouldn't say that guy was so dumb.
that he couldn't tell the difference between a crack and a perforation because he only was allowed to view it from the outside since the entire car was canvassed in and he would not have seen any glass shards on the inside! Obviously his statement was required to point evidence in a certain direction, otherwise why not use in situ photographs rather than his written report as the only basis to dismiss a hole in the windshield? There is no need to have him come in if there were real investigators coming in, taking place and trying to figure out exactly what took place at the crime scene.
Obviously, Ferguson provides 2 pieces of evidence in this report that the public is meant to see and that he observes for the record. Firstly, there was no perforation ie. hole in the windshield. Secondly, he examined the right car the following night as he knifed off dried blood from upholstery buttons - blood which was missed by the cleanup crew. This is proof of just how thorough and intricate an examination he took. Never mind he can't seem to describe a point of reference in your opinion Gerry. He is therefor a worthy expert!! He examined the right car and discovered no hole in the windshield is what conclusion and that is the only conclusion you are meant to derive from his observation. That is why his report is important and squelches the fact that there really was other eyewitnesses out there that actually saw a hole in the windshield - which again, MUST NOT be reported at all costs. The rest really is just filler for the report! I mean really look at the subject line "bubble top" and try to imagine why Ferguson's was called to go there the very first night and why the secret service called him again the second night (implied as he seemed to have authorization to go there a second night -seemingly could let himself in as there were no guards). Is he a bullet hole examiner expert sent by Ford Motor Company? The secret service certainly didn't call for a group of detectives to swarm over the crime scene and gather evidence did they? Why call Ferguson unless you are requiring a statement from him?
Why would a no name secret service agent call for him to come over to have a look at the windshield in the first place? The report keeps it anonymous so there is no further paper trail as to which individual would want to have him come there to examine the windshield!!!! It certainly is not an important detail to name that individual or individuals who authorized his arrival at this would be crime scene. Does it not make sense that your are trying to disclaim that a hole in the windshield exists? This is just a stock windshield for a Lincoln! Do you think someone really needs to call safelite repair / safelite replace and have a custom fitted Lincoln windshield fitted. Did they needed verification that the windshield doctor could just fill in the crack and rather save the cost of replacement in this case? Or would you suggest that this is bulletproof plate glass specifically made and tempered to protect a President - a one of a kind with no design specs for replacement that a knife wielding windshield expert comes to inspec on the first night and then proceeds to using his own knife to clean up upholstery buttons on a second night in the course of his escapades and investigation!
Of course Mr. Ferguson is not only a glass expert but also a knife wielding upholstery button cleaner. LOL!! LOL!!! Then, he claims the guards the first night are not even aware of why he has been sent onto the scene there and the next night the whole car is wide open for inspection without even a guard present! I guess the cleanup crew shampooed the rugs and everything was left ready for the next POTUS to climb in and go for a drive! This statement involving having guards present was there to be sure that no one was even allowed to get close to tamper with evidence and yet all the evidence disappears without even a photograph by investigators independent of the FBI, CIA and SS!
As the safelite repair expert, he proceeds to scrape dried blood from upholstery buttons just to verify that he actually is looking at the right car - just to make sure there is no doubt that the report wasn't just invented for obvious purposes. Take it one step further, he can likely smell that it was the President's blood on those buttons and vouch for it!!!! It was so necessary for his report that they couldn't accompany the claim with forensic photographs to back it up or have a cameraman with him to back up his statements. Yes, smash a windshield, crate it and claim that it was from the President's car is about all you can really say. Real investigators even in the 1960s used cameras to back up crime scenes. The investigation was all provided from within an internal ring with no outside help. This crime scene was backed up by nothing but pieces of paper observation! Normal investigation means taking pictures of everything at the scene as it is evidence - especially when we are talking the POTUS! IF however you want to make sure it is dismissed as not being a Coup D'etat, you hide it all and only release scanty details so that the public draws a very specific conclusion to dismiss that fact!
Wow give your head a shake! You know why he is there! He is there to report that there are no perforations to the windshield and called upon to make that statement so that it refutes the evidence that people actually saw holes in the windshield and made statements to that effect. It doesn't take a rocket science to see evidence being invented as necessary to squelch any disapproval to only shots fired from a sniper's nest and the real Coup d'etat which actually did take place.
When you begin to see this and its corruption, you will then understand how Twin Towers go down in their own footprints on 9/11 and a 3rd Tower not hit by an airplane implodes and falls within itself - even though it was never even hit by an airplane like the other two! If you can believe that, yes I guess you can believe that JFK was killed by a lone nutty crackshot gunman at 300 yards in a moving car, all by himself with no help! The nice thing is that he dies before confessing or allowed to defend himself! Police custody failed to preserve his life as he is killed by a patriotic strip club owner inside a police station who loves his country so much that he takes justice into his own hands and helps the nation out by ridding them of the truth.
Well, I'm glad you had a chance to vent. Feel better? You sound like a 9-11 Truther.
Regarding the "300 yards". Would it improve the LN case if that figure could be reduced by 2/3rds?
