Was there a bullet hole in the windshield?

     I have seen various sloppy researchers claim that there was really a bullet hole in the windshield instead of a crack. They seem to require one for some bizarre shot from the front. Some have even gone so far as to say that the official evidence photo taken a few hours after the assassination,

CE 350
CE 350, does not show a crack or is a fake photo or a switched windshield.
Here is a blow-up of  CE 350 showing the crack:
Blow-up of CE 350 showing crack in windshield
But the few witnesses they cite, who did not examine the windshield closely or carefully, are no match for the FBI examination team, various Secret Service agents, a Ford repairman, a White House upholsterer,  glass repairmen, and so on who examined it very carefully, hands on, and up close. All of these witnesses were unanimous that there was no hole in the windshield, only a crack. In fact, a recently obtained Ford memorandum, which the promoters of the hole theory had not even known about, proves that there was no hole, just a crack on November 23, 1963 and that the original windshield was removed at the White House garage on November 25, 1963. So, then what can the proponents of the hole theory do? They resort to claiming that all of the later witnesses were liars, perjurers, and conspirators if they said it was only a crack. Notice that the promoters of the hole theory can get away with making this claim about the crack witnesses without any proof, yet we are not allowed to even suggest that their handful of witnesses might simply have been mistaken, even when they were told they were mistaken at the time they made their comments.
     Now Fetzer's cult has taken this debate to a new level. Based on poor quality prints, they are claiming that the hole is plainly visible in the Altgens 1-6 photo, taken at about Z-255, before the head shot. On page 144 of Assassination Science, Fetzer summarizes the theory of Roy Schaeffer who claims that the hole in the windshield appears like a "small spiral nebula." I do not want to blame Fetzer for Roy Schaeffer's simple mistake, but Fetzer claims to believe it himself. This should not be a major controversy. Josiah Thompson stated the facts way back in 1967 on page 114 of his book Six Seconds in Dallas, where he provided the following caption to blow-ups of the Altgens 1-6 and Altgens 1-7 photos:

         Photo taken by James Altgens just before the last shot
         (note undamaged windshield). Another photograph taken
         seconds after the final shot shows the cracks in the
I don't know why Fetzer has turned it into a major controversy. Six months ago I had told him about this simple error, even before I had read Assassination Science. There must be some hidden significance if Fetzer et al are willing to claim that all the photographic evidence is fake, claim that all the FBI agents and Secret Service agents are liars, perjurers, and conspirators. Fetzer went so far as to claim that because I did not simply accept his word that the "spiral nebula" was actually a bullet hole, therefore I was not interested in the truth and that I was part of the cover-up.
     Fetzer used this tactic before and lost. When I pointed out a simple mistake he had made in his caption of Appendix L, he blustered and threatened. He claimed that he had never made a mistake, that I was not "qualified" to even attempt to call to his attention any mistakes in his book, and he called my  article "slanderous." He threatened to sue me for slander for simply daring to point out a simple mistake which could have easily been corrected in an errata sheet, but he refuses to include one in his book. Only after Dr. Mantik informed him of his mistake did Fetzer admit his error and apologize. One would hope that Dr. Mantik would likewise step in and tell Fetzer that what he calls a hole is in fact not a hole. Or if Fetzer prefers, we could always take it to court. If that is what it takes, I will bring in every photographic expert in the world to testify that the Altgens 1-6 photo does not show a bullet hole. Fetzer has none. I prefer the court of public opinion. In Richard Trask's book, That Day in Dallas, on page 73 there is an excellent quality blow-up of the Altgens 1-6 photo which shows the area just above JFK's left shoulder where Fetzer et al claim that there is a bullet hole. If you, unbiased reader, can see a black dot in the windshield surrounded by white broken glass, please specify where it is. The dimensions of the blow-up are 620 by 620 pixels. If you can't see a hole there, please write and tell Fetzer that he is simply wrong.
Blow-up of Altgens 1-6 photo

     If you have picture software which lets you examine the color values of each pixel, you can compare the darkness of the "spiral nebula" to known objects. Use your eyedropper function to measure the color values in the "spiral nebula" area. The values lie in the 60 to 146 range. This represents a medium to light gray. Absolute black would be 0, while white would be 255. Now, compare that range to known whites such as JFK's white cuff, Jackie's white glove and the white dress in the background. The white cuff has a range of 152 to 218, very white. The white glove has a range of 145 to 222, very white. The white dress has a range of 143 to 221, very white. As an additional control, examine the values for the known black of JFK's sleeve. That has a range of 17 to 28, very black. This shows that the area where Fetzer et al claim there is white broken glass is actually a medium to light gray. It is the woman in the background, something she was wearing or carrying, possibly a dress or purse. You can even see the folds and shadows from the folds. If Mantik is correct in his observation that all it takes is one counter-example to disprove a theory, then my pointing out that the white broken glass is actually medium to light colored clothing in the background disproves Fetzer et al's claim that the Altgens 1-6 photo shows a bullet hole.