We are told by a handful of researchers that a number of different witnesses viewed a 'hole' in the windshield of the Presidential Limousine Secret Service-100-X after the assassination and that although at least three of them specify different locations, they are all talking about the same spot. A hole in any location equals a hole in the same location -- this is the "Hole is a Hole" theory.

We are told that the location of where these witnesses say they saw the 'hole' on the windshield is insignificant -- that what is important, is that they saw a 'hole'! Anyone who questions the fact that different locations were voluntarily specified is greeted with condescending references to such things as the sun rising and setting or the world being flat. That, we are told, is supposed to be that. This is a simple issue -- an 'open and shut' case -- a 'case closed'. In addition, one researcher has even managed to convince two of these witnesses to change the location of the 'hole' they believe they saw.

What are the possible implications of this speculative concept that on some levels comes across as little more than irresponsible disinformation? What happens if we accept this 'logic'? And what happens if we set it aside and start from scratch? Will one approach prove more valuable than the other?

First, perhaps we should ask ourselves what we expect from someone who is comfortable contributing a speculation as eccentric as this to the community and then demanding that the community accept it. Do we expect logic? Do we prefer suspension of disbelief if it means a good story? Do we expect valid documentation, or will strategically chosen pieces of information do? Do we expect to be given all relevant information, or just the highlights?

We need also take into account the fact that the idea of a windshield through-and-through bullet hole, whether myth or fact, has been a part of the mystery of Secret Service-100-X since the assassination. We need to determine to what extent a need for this to be true -- no matter how it may stretch our credibility -- is more important than anything else, because to some immature researchers, this proves a conspiracy. Are they willing to suspend reason in order to prove this? Are they willing to irresponsibly distort information in order to 'prove' this? Are they willing to pull pieces of information out of context and wave them around, insisting that this 'proves' their theory? Is the appropriate question 'just how far are they willing to go' to 'prove' their theory? Or is there some geniune truth-seeking going on? Keep this question in mind as we focus in on the question of the windshield bullet hole and the 'hole is a hole' theory.

Who didn't see a 'hole' and should have?

Parkland Hospital

William Greer - Drove 100X in Dallas motorcade to Parkland Hospital (only)(According to Nick Prencipe, Greer told him that evening that bullets were flying at them from all directions; one came through the windshield. This is in conflict with any documented statements Greer made; described more fully in Nick Prencipe section).

Roy Kellerman - Sat next to Greer in front passenger seat 100X to Parkland Hospital (only)

Love Field to the White House Garage

Sam Kinney - Drove 679-X, Queen Mary II, follow-up car, in Dallas motorcade to Parkland Hospital; covered 100X at Parkland, probably responsible for pail of water being used on the car. Drove 100X from Parkland to Love Field, and from Andrews AFB to the White House Garage. Sam Kinney was also interviewed extensively by Vince Palamara, who adamantly believes in the 'hole is a hole' theory; and yet Vince has not attributed any statement to that effect by Kinney. Wouldn't we expect that the man who put the roof onto 100X at Parkland Hospital would have seen a t&t bullet hole if there was one? And wouldn't a professional such as Palamara been able to get him to admit that?

White House Garage

Robert Frazier and his FBI team of Orrin Bartlett, Courtland Cunningham, Charles Killiam and Walter Thomas. Robert Frazier has stated in his interview with me of November, 1999 when I asked him about Taylor's statement that "Yes, it may have appeared to be a hole but the inner layer of the glass was not broken."

Air Force Hercules Transport Plane C130 used to transport 100X and 679X from Love Field to Andrews Air Force Base.

Who saw a 'hole' and Where?

Parkland Hospital

Stavis Ellis/Freeman - Two DPD motorcycle policemen. Ellis is on record (_No More Silence_) as saying he saw a hole low on the windshield; both have told interviewers they put a 'pencil' through the hole; also are on record saying they 'could have' put a pencil through the hole.

Evangelea Glanges - Nursing student at Parkland Hospital; did not volunteer a location for the 'hole', and was not asked by interviewers Weldon or Palamara; maintains that she leaned on 100X, noticed the hole, commented on it and at that point an Secret Service agent drove the car away. Also documented in "Conspiracy of Silence".

Richard Dudman - Highly respected reporter for St. Louis Post-Dispatch. On record in "Assassination Science" as claiming their was a 'hole' in the windshield in a newspaper article; location of hole is referenced by colleague Livingston as being 'high' on the windshield. This has not been corroborated by Dudman who, to date, refuses to talk about the assassination.

White House Garage

Nick Prencipe - This US Park Policeman's statements are puzzling, to say the least, and carry some serious conflicts that have not yet been resolved. Nick insists that he spoke with Greer during the early evening of 11/22/63, and that the conversation took place outside the White House. To all reports, Greer stayed with the body of JFK during the evening and was nowhere near the White House. Thus, Nick's subsequent story is open to question. Nick claims that based on his conversation with Greer, who said that bullets were coming at them from all directions and one of them came through the windshield (something Greer is not on record as saying to anyone else), Nick then went to the 'Secret Service' garage to look at 100X. When I interviewed Nick, he seemed to think this garage was closed down right after the assassination. He claimed that he walked right into the garage and there was no security around 100X. He cannot state at what time this took place. He then lifted the tarp on the car, which was sitting in the middle of the garage, and noted a small, through-and-through bullet hole in the lower passenger-side of the windshield. I asked him more than once if he saw any defect in the area near the rear-view mirror, and he stated that he had not. (A later interview with another researcher triggered his 'not being sure' where the hole was he saw, though he was 100% positive he had seen a hole. This is a good example of the 'hole-is-a-hole' theory.') However, Nick called the White House Garage the "Secret Service" Garage. So did Robert Frazier, whom we know led the team that examined 100X between 1-4:30 a.m. 11/23/63, so this fact adds to Nick's credibility. He spoke of 'lifting a tarp'. The FBI bulky photos show a tarp beside 100X, so this is another point of credibility. He also spoke of being in communication with other DC Park Police as they escorted 100X and 679X from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House Garage. The Taylor/Geiglein report substantiates that it was the DC Park Police who escorted the car; another point of credibility. Nick states that the car was in the center of the garage, and not in its bay; this adds some potential definition as to what time at night he was there -- supposedly, 100X was examined at 9 p.m. by the Secret Service, and at 10pm. a fragment of skull was supposedly retrieved from the floor near the jumpseat by Admiral Burkley, CPO Martinelli and Mills of Burkley's office. That means 100X was probably out of its bay during those examinations. By 1 a.m., when the FBI exam began, 100X was back in its bay, covered with the tarp, roof up, and was driven out into the garage by SA and FBI liaison Orrin Bartlett for the exam. Nick does not recall seeing anyone around the car, nor did he recognize anyone who was present; apparently he just walked right in. While these things are not likely, considering the car was supposedly under guard and all those without White House Garage credentials (such as the FBI) had to log in; however, although security was instituted at 9 p.m., the first entries into the logs were not until 1 a.m., so it could have been that the logs had not been started yet.

In actuality, 100X was the center of activity once it was driven to the White House garage at 9pm 11/22/63. Two Secret Service men and a White House policeman were assigned to guard the car; logs were set up to record those without White House garage credentials coming to see the car (the first entries were the FBI team at 1 a.m.). In addition, the Secret Service was determined to scour the car, finding all evidence themselves. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the car was unattended at any time during the evening. In addition, Nick cannot recall the names or faces of anyone who was there that night, nor give any description of them. This calls the accuracy of the timeline of his stated experience into question. Nick's statement does, perhaps, present an insight into a theme common to all the windshield bullet-hole witnesses -- each of them said they observed a small, clean hole, that you could put a pencil through. Ellis and Freeman were motorcycle officers, as was Nick; they had undoubtedly seen bullet-holes through windshields on many occasions. The fact that this hole was smaller than the size of a normal bullet (consistent perhaps with a bb or pellet gun ammunition) and had no white frothing around it, and no spider cracking emanating from it was not a concern to any of them. There may be an explanation -- Nick alluded, in his interview with me, to the fact that he thought the windshield was made of bulletproof glass. If that were the conception of each of these witnesses, they might not know what to expect, and perhaps the inconsistency of this hole with those made from bullets impacting two-ply safety glass would be understandable. However, the windshield of 100X was a standard Lincoln windshield, available at any Lincoln dealership or windshield replacement service. These witnesses didn't know that.

Charles Taylor - Taylor's report is frequently taken out of context, and usually only part of his statement is repeated, which was that he saw a 'hole' in the windshield. Taylor was in 100X when it was driven from AAFB to the White House Garage; he was also present during the FBI exam of the limo and the statement in his report that he observed "a small hole from which bullet fragments were removed" referred to the acknowledged defect, from which the metal scrapings were made during the exam that became CE 877. We can judge for ourselves from the photo CE 350, also taken that night, what constituted the 'hole' Taylor was referring to -- it is the round defect with (by this time) small spider cracks emanating from it. Another interesting point is that although Taylor was also present in 100X when it was driven from Andrews AFB to the White House Garage that night; he makes no mention specifically of anything that he observed during that ride. Did the Taylor statement slip through the cracks of Secret Service documentation, or was the knowledge of a 'hole' not necessarily a t&t hole something of insignificance to the Secret Service?

The Lone-Mystery Witness -- The nameless 'Man from the Rouge'

This witness claims that 100X appeared at the Final Assembly (B) Building at the Rouge River Complex of the Ford Motor Company on 11/25/63 for a windshield replacement. There is no explanation given by this man or anyone else as to why this event would occur -- nearly 1,000 miles from the White House Garage -- or why this event would occur outside of the critical timeline for 100X, which was between 12:30 11/22/63 and 4:30 pm 11/23/63, by which time the car had already been examined by the Secret Service and FBI, diagrammed, photographed and cleaned out, since the smell was becoming offensive. The location for doing any repair work to 100X is suspect also; 100X was built at the Ford Experimental Garage, about a mile away from the Rouge. Is this researcher attempting to distract our attention from the actions of the Secret Service and put emphasis on suposed wrongdoing of the Ford Motor Company? With the sketchy details we are given, which we are also told should be sufficient, it is difficult to tell, don't you think? Could this be a hoax? You decide.

The Altgens 1-6 and 1-7

The famous Altgens 1-6, taken at Z255, shows a suspicious area to the right of the rear-view mirror. To some, it looks like part of the clothes of the woman standing directly behind 100X when this shot was taken; but to others, this is the smoking gun of the assassination -- the ubiquitous 'spiral nebulae'. This 'spiral nebulae' which, even on good copies of the Altgens 1-6, shows few if any of the characteristics of a bullet going through safety glass (center hole slightly larger than the bullet, white frothing, spider cracks emanating from the hole to perhaps even the edges of the windshield) has been the basis for a number of highly speculative theories about the windshield through-and-through bullet hole. However, those who yell that the Altgens 1-6 'spiral nebulae' alone tells the truth, forget a very obvious contrasting photo -- the less famous Altgens 1-7, taken as 100X is nearly to the triple underpass; Jackie is on the trunk of the car and Clint Hill is just climbing onto the car. A closeup of the windshield in this photo, however, clearly shows that there definitely is a defect near the rear-view mirror, but only a small circle of white shows, indicating that there was no perforation. Thus, the Altgens 1-7 contradicts the Altgens 1-6 and supports the thesis that the 'spiral nebulae' area of the Altgens 1-6 windshield does NOT represent a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. One pro-spiral-nebulae researcher is now maintaining that the 1-7 does show a hole, it just is not clear; or words to that effect. That sort of specious logic can be countered by saying, for example, that the 1-6 shows the windshield hit at the moment of impact, and that it doesn't show a t&t hole either. Nevertheless, the mystery of what is represented in the Altgens 1-6 is one of the enduring questions of the assassination, and you will just have to decide for yourself.

The Adamant "Hole is a Hole" Theorists

For some researchers, there "must" be a hole in the windshield. They will seem to go to any extreme to attempt to prove it. They will say that a 'hole' observed anywhere on the windshield can only mean the one 'hole' to which they refer. They take documents out of context, such as the Taylor/Geiglein report, and ignore everything that does not fit their agenda, such as the FBI bulky photos, the Secret Service/PRS photos, none of which show a t&t 'hole, even one FBI bulky photo taken straight on. (All of these photos are available at www.jfk100x.com). They don't care whether it makes sense or not -- they have the 'Hole is a hole" fever. The witnesses are equally certain -- even those such as Dr Glanges who never volunteered exactly where on the windshield the 'hole' was that she saw, and her researchers never bothered to ask her. Dudman, Ellis and Nick Prencipe (who has, since talking to a pro-spiral nebulae researcher now decided he can't recall the location of the 'hole' but is 100% sure there was one) have gone on record stating where the 'hole' was they believed they saw, and each location is different. But they will agree that "Yes, I saw a hole!".

A pro-spiral-nebulae researcher has repeatedly come up with a list of supposedly-exclusive alternatives -- namely, that either these people were lying or that there was only one hole, or logic to that effect. However, are there not other possibilities, the first being that we do not yet have all the answers? Can't we find these witnesses credible without rushing to a 'hole is a hole' conclusion? Are we unable to live with conflicting statements? Could one or all of these people have been mistaken? Was there debris on the windshield that reflected light? Were there additional pockmarked defects on the windshield that reflected light? Might they have seen either instead or in addition a 'hole' on the bullet-proof windshield of the Queen Mary II? Or are these even valid questions; should we just shut down and join the 'hole-is-a-hole' mementum?

Where does this fervor come from? With the exception of the Lone-mystery 'Man from the Rouge', each of these individuals was a part of perhaps the single most devastating event in recent American history. Each of them was affected by it in a personal way, much more so than the rest of the country who could only watch in horror and distress as events unfolded on TV. Each of these witnesses had reason to be near the car -- Ellis and Freeman were DPD motorcycle officers, Dudman a respected journalist, Glanges a nursing student at Parkland, Prencipe a DC Park Police in contact with the squadren of police accompanying 100X from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage. They were a part of this traumatizing event, and they were a part of the buzz. Someone started this idea. Which one said it first? Was this idea implanted by a Secret Service man, for example, attempting to draw attention away from the Queen Mary II, the car that was sequestered with 100X and never photographed, the car that followed it in the motorcade? Or was it started by an onlooker, or one of these witnesses? There is no record of that. But by the time 100X had been returned to Andrews AFB, all of the accompanying policmen were, according to Prencipe, talking about the state of the car, and talking about the windshield. Could they actually see the damage, in the dark cool evening, as the car, covered in debris (according to Frazier) was driven from Andrews AFB back to the White House garage? Did they even need to see the damage?

Or were they reflecting, as have many of us since, that it is impossible that such an earth-shattering event could take place in a car that managed to survive with hardly a scratch? Could anger at that indignity be at the root of the "Hole is a hole" fervor? If that were so, the next logical jump would be to acknowledge that no lone-gun assassin, shooting with an out-dated and unbalanced carbine could possibly have done this crime at all -- much less alone? No damage to the car? Those passengers were surrounded by the car; they should have been protected by the car. An assassination without bullets and bullet-holes in 100X was unthinkable. It was unreasonable, wasn't it?

This information is all that is available at the moment. It will change, and more will be forthcoming. Although it may be possible to try and tie up the loose ends of this information, for the sake of expedience, perhaps it might also be a valid alternative to keep an open mind and acknowledge the credibility of these people as well. That is up to you.

@In Broad Daylight Research January, 2001