It occurred to me that perhaps the lettering on the rear door had been painted over and somebody cleaned off the spray paint to verify the lettering prior to being crushed. That would explain why only the rear door was exposed and has that "wiped off" look.
JFK Pontiac ambulance up for auction
- Thread starter Tony Blair
- Start date
Hello, new member here. I have followed the story of this vehicle with interest, and I've enjoyed reading the many thoughtful posts in this thread. For me, it boils down to three issues:
1. The photos of the ambulance destroyed by the JFK library in 1986 had markings on the tailgate that matched the vehicle that transported the president the evening of his assassination. The destruction of the vehicle was obviously not widely known and the library made little to no effort to "advertise" the fact of its destruction. To suggest that the lettering on the tailgate was altered for the purpose of "staging" some photos that, if not for the recent BJ auction, might not even have seen the light of day all these years later, is silly. But of course that suggestion is the only way to raise doubt as to whether the library destroyed the correct car. They sure went through a lot of trouble to destroy a 1963 Superior-Bonneville ambulance, and unlike the recent BJ auction, there was no incentive to claim it was the actual vehicle that transported the president if it wasn't.
2. The BJ vehicle is without question the one offered by Central Valley Classics not too long ago, recently altered to appear more like the one that transported the president. The CVC car was not advertised as the ACTUAL vehicle that transported the president, and apparently was used in the production of a couple movies. Thus in order to beleive that it IS in fact the actual vehicle that transported the president, one would have to beleive that such information was only recently discovered and all previous owners were unaware of said fact. But a very recent owner "suspected" that it might be said vehicle and thus searched low and high for some way to prove it and then (low and behold!) found it.
3. The ONLY thing that ties the BJ vehicle to the actual vehicle that transported the president is a letter (and response to same) supposedly written by a then 2-years-retired admiral. Even if he was in a position to use the letterhead of an office he no longer held, the information requested (and recieved) would be of NO forensic value from a medical standpoint. The letter from Admiral Hogan is unquestionably bogus, and almost certainly the response to the letter from Superior is as well. It should be noted that these letters have no offered provenance (a cover letter and postmarked outer envelope from the "government office" that sent them would do).
To conclude, it is said that you can't prove a negative. In this case, that the BJ vehicle is NOT the actual vehicle that transported the president. For those of us who don't beleive it, why should we have to? The burden of proof SHOULD be on those who claim it was. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see any. What I do see is a bogus written dialog that PROVES an attempt to decieve.
(apologies for any spelling errors; it is late for me)
1. The photos of the ambulance destroyed by the JFK library in 1986 had markings on the tailgate that matched the vehicle that transported the president the evening of his assassination. The destruction of the vehicle was obviously not widely known and the library made little to no effort to "advertise" the fact of its destruction. To suggest that the lettering on the tailgate was altered for the purpose of "staging" some photos that, if not for the recent BJ auction, might not even have seen the light of day all these years later, is silly. But of course that suggestion is the only way to raise doubt as to whether the library destroyed the correct car. They sure went through a lot of trouble to destroy a 1963 Superior-Bonneville ambulance, and unlike the recent BJ auction, there was no incentive to claim it was the actual vehicle that transported the president if it wasn't.
2. The BJ vehicle is without question the one offered by Central Valley Classics not too long ago, recently altered to appear more like the one that transported the president. The CVC car was not advertised as the ACTUAL vehicle that transported the president, and apparently was used in the production of a couple movies. Thus in order to beleive that it IS in fact the actual vehicle that transported the president, one would have to beleive that such information was only recently discovered and all previous owners were unaware of said fact. But a very recent owner "suspected" that it might be said vehicle and thus searched low and high for some way to prove it and then (low and behold!) found it.
3. The ONLY thing that ties the BJ vehicle to the actual vehicle that transported the president is a letter (and response to same) supposedly written by a then 2-years-retired admiral. Even if he was in a position to use the letterhead of an office he no longer held, the information requested (and recieved) would be of NO forensic value from a medical standpoint. The letter from Admiral Hogan is unquestionably bogus, and almost certainly the response to the letter from Superior is as well. It should be noted that these letters have no offered provenance (a cover letter and postmarked outer envelope from the "government office" that sent them would do).
To conclude, it is said that you can't prove a negative. In this case, that the BJ vehicle is NOT the actual vehicle that transported the president. For those of us who don't beleive it, why should we have to? The burden of proof SHOULD be on those who claim it was. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see any. What I do see is a bogus written dialog that PROVES an attempt to decieve.
(apologies for any spelling errors; it is late for me)
A final thought: some of the things that I have learned here and accepted as facts above (such as the vehicle being the CVC car, or the Hogan letter being a fake) I beleive WILL be proven so. Proof (in the form of a data plate or pics of one) that the JFK library did destroy the correct car may not come to pass. In the mind of some then, it will ALWAYS be at least possible that the library destroyed the wrong vehicle (eithr intentionally or through some error on the Navy's part), and that the BJ vehicle might still actually be the one that transported the president (despite the recent deception), even if there is no credible evidence for either belief.
Well, a couple points: First: The markings on the two cars don't "match."
Just as further proof, here's a close-up look:
Ambulance door comparison
Second, maybe I missed it, but who suggested the lettering was altered for any nefarious purpose. If you've inferred that from me, you're very much mistaken. I'm just interested in this--as I've said repeatedly. I don't care how it turns out, but what I do know is that people on both sides of this debate have hardened their positions and started seeing evidence as they want to see it. That's my only issue with the door. Personally, I am with you that the BJ car is the CVC car, is a movie car, and that its documentation was "faked."
However, none of that changes the fact that as of this moment, I've seen no proof that the Kennedy Library crushed the right car. If it was me crushing it, I'd have a picture of the data plate in the car, a picture of the VIN tag on the car, and then I'd have removed them both and kept them. It's probably simple incompetence that they didn't, but if there's that level of incompetence in the process then it isn't entirely implausible to me that there's some chance they got the wrong car.
That is all I'm saying here. I don't for a moment suspect any devious intent in actions on the part of the library. One thing that is obvious to me from the paint on that door is that it had been there a long time. My guess is that door just got renumbered whenever "Medical department" got added, and the overwhelming likelihood is that the library crushed the right car.
It's just that that door has been repainted, does not "match" the Andrews car and for that reason, is not proof that they did.
Mike Adams
Respectfully, your methodology is unconvincing (comparison of "?"th generation images taken at different angles, from different distances, with different lenses, printed in potentially different aspect ratios, likely scanned / digitalized with different devices / software and of a vehicle that suffered a dent at a crucial location at some point in its "life" which may have caused distortion). Apologies in advance, but I do think that such amateur forensic efforts represent a devolution of the discussion. That and what I have already written is pretty much all I have to offer on the matter, so with my "newbie status" in mind, I will refrain from further justification of my point of view. I'd also like to thank the site admins for allowing interested parties like myself who have no particular knowledge of professional cars to join and offer opinion.
Allow me to clear up some facts that we do know. (1) The library acquired the car from the Navy, and it was the Navy that determined the car to send. Having said this, it would take a conspiracy on the part of the Navy to swap one car for another, renumber the car, and then send it onto the Kennedy Library. (2) If the Navy did this, then you have to look to the reason that this was done. If it were to preserve the original vehicle, then I doubt that the Navy would have disposed of it in a surplus sale. There is a good possibility that it was sent to the Kennedy Library at the same time that the other cars were being sold off, and that is why the numbers were painted over on the sides. One would need to see pictures of how these cars are "decommissioned" to know that for certain. (3) Knowing how the military works, this would have had to have been done on a very high level, and would have required numerous people to be involved, and that is where the problems exist. If anyone were caught doing this, then it would be a career end for them. I doubt that any high level Navy officer would take the chance, and a low level Navy person probably wouldn't be involved either. (4) The local GSA warehouse was storing the vehicle for the Kennedy Library, and it was in GSA possession until the day that it was removed for destruction. The people at the Kennedy Library witnessed the destruction and photographed it, but they are not automotive historians, and as such, they wouldn't have even thought to consider removing anything from the car in advance. The dash plate is missing on the day of destruction, and possibly it was removed by the GSA. Only further investigation will reveal this. As for the horn cap being missing, who knows why? Lots of possibilities.
Well just to note, you've offered two opinions there. The first being your opinion as to my time and effort being of use to the discussion, the second being that my efforts are "amateur."
I'll let readers judge for themselves the value of my contributions. However I will note that since you don't know me, you really have no idea whether my efforts are "amateur" or not.
Beyond that, with all apologies to you, what does offend me about your reply and others like it is that while all the issues you listed are indeed present, they're also irrelevant to the results I got. Sorry, but I'm far from an amateur in the field of digital imaging. I know the limitations of the processes, and as I've said repeately, I've accounted for them.
The fact is, there's more than enough information present in the two images I used to validate or invalidate the lettering on the two doors as the same. Saying there isn't due to a laundry list of possible problems without defining how those problems would specifically invalidate images I've presented and conclusions I've drawn is, to me, something less than helpful to advancing the discussion.
Paul,
Actually, I'm sure you're right. One thing that I've probably lost a little sight of is that the original issue was the documentation of the BJ car vs. the junkyard car. As just about everyone else here, I'm convinced the documentation of the BJ car is forged--letters, and data plate. So since there's no longer a car with what I feel is a valid competing claim, there's less reason to wonder about the library car.
Again, and as I've said, over, and over, and over...all I'm doing is making comparisons of the lettering on the door. Which, as I've thought of it would actually be pretty cool if the two images did line up. As I said, despite wishful thinking by anyone else to the contrary, there's enough information in those two images to prove or disprove the lettering as the same. If it was the same, that's the result I would have gotten, and that would have put proof positive to the junkyard car, which I then could have forwarded to Steve Davis, Craig Jackson and the current owner of the car.
That would have actually been pretty cool.
Mike Adams
Last edited by a moderator:
Your bonafides aside, I cannot resist offering my further skepticism that ANYONE can take into acount all possible sources of distortion. I know for example that aspect ratio changes can distort a 2 dimensional image in a way that is not at all unform in either direction, i.e the "stretch" can vary depending on the distance from center. This becomes even more crucial when the image is not being presented "straight on" but rather at an angle, and when "landmarks" are absent (true there are the door seams, but little or nothing in between). Its kind of a crucial point, and one I find it difficult to take on faith that this and other possible sources of distortion have been (or can be) completely accounted for.
I actually am NOT saying that I am certain the "US NAVY 94-49196" text on the rear door was not re-lettered at some time in the vehicle's "life" (i.e. perhaps when the "Medical Department" lettering was added). What I am saying is I do not think you have at all proven that it had been.
I actually am NOT saying that I am certain the "US NAVY 94-49196" text on the rear door was not re-lettered at some time in the vehicle's "life" (i.e. perhaps when the "Medical Department" lettering was added). What I am saying is I do not think you have at all proven that it had been.
Last edited:
Fair enough.
I've proven it to myself. You are, of course, free to have your own opinion. As is everyone else.
I've proven it to myself. You are, of course, free to have your own opinion. As is everyone else.
I have great respect for all that has been done on the research on these ambulances.
Mike et al, I can't say that the back door of the ambulance hadn't been repainted at some point - it probably had. This was, for a time, a working vehicle, and things do get repainted or otherwise changed slightly over the years.
Either way, there are bigger issues to deal with on this, which we've already established. So arguing over the little things is of little value.
Evidence is more important than theory and opinion here. Everyone has an opinion.....
On the matter of documentation, Ed asked if the signer from Superior was working there at the time. I did check that a while ago, and yes, John H. Shields was President of Superior at the time. But I have not seen any other document with his signature on it to compare it to, to see if it's a legitimate signature. Also, I don't know if that letterhead was or wasn't the current letterhead in use in 1963. Those would be interesting to know if anyone has this.
I will still be pursuing the question of where the actual data plate may have gone, and tracking the Library's ambulance's whereabouts back through the years. In the e-mail from Mr. Goodrich, who was a Libary curator at the time, he assured me that the Library staff didn't removed the plate or any items during the destruction. The missing items almost certainly disappeared before the Library was directly involved, probably while it was in storage.
I will request a copy of the photo of the door jamb and VIN plate from the Library. They have informed me that, since the urgency has passed, further requests will be placed in line and may take a couple weeks to handle.
Oh, and they also will be charging for the $ervice.....
Mike et al, I can't say that the back door of the ambulance hadn't been repainted at some point - it probably had. This was, for a time, a working vehicle, and things do get repainted or otherwise changed slightly over the years.
Either way, there are bigger issues to deal with on this, which we've already established. So arguing over the little things is of little value.
Evidence is more important than theory and opinion here. Everyone has an opinion.....
On the matter of documentation, Ed asked if the signer from Superior was working there at the time. I did check that a while ago, and yes, John H. Shields was President of Superior at the time. But I have not seen any other document with his signature on it to compare it to, to see if it's a legitimate signature. Also, I don't know if that letterhead was or wasn't the current letterhead in use in 1963. Those would be interesting to know if anyone has this.
I will still be pursuing the question of where the actual data plate may have gone, and tracking the Library's ambulance's whereabouts back through the years. In the e-mail from Mr. Goodrich, who was a Libary curator at the time, he assured me that the Library staff didn't removed the plate or any items during the destruction. The missing items almost certainly disappeared before the Library was directly involved, probably while it was in storage.
I will request a copy of the photo of the door jamb and VIN plate from the Library. They have informed me that, since the urgency has passed, further requests will be placed in line and may take a couple weeks to handle.
Oh, and they also will be charging for the $ervice.....
got to make money any Ida what the charge is? as for the re lettering of the door. In this, we all have stated your most likely right mike. I for one would be vary surprised if it had not been. it was however re lettered in the correct size and style and printed the vary same. with the med dept added unlike the BJ car. the pictures of the 64s that were posted show that the added words were most likely done a number of years after 63. the only dead on rear shot of the car is the one in life mag of it carrying the body to the white house.
so Mr Shields was the president of superior in 63. now to find a mid 60s letter head and we can see if they changed that. Anyone have one of the fliers that may have his signature? all I have are cb ones. strange they used the Admirals name and not the current one. could it be that the surgeon gen of the navy in 63 is still alive?
so Mr Shields was the president of superior in 63. now to find a mid 60s letter head and we can see if they changed that. Anyone have one of the fliers that may have his signature? all I have are cb ones. strange they used the Admirals name and not the current one. could it be that the surgeon gen of the navy in 63 is still alive?
If I may offer something of possible interest, in 1951 and though 1958 at least, Superior was using a logo in their advertising and parts books that matched the letterhead used in the BJ "Shields" letter:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cadi...QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiteratureQQxZ27QQyZ5
http://cgi.ebay.com/1950s-Trip-L-Sa...512?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4cf48590a0
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1957...QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiteratureQQxZ42QQyZ4
However as early as 1960, they were using a different logo in their advertising and parts books (which begs the question, why wouldn't the letterhead match by late 1963?):
http://www.autolit.com/Store/product.php?productid=112603&cat=1248&page=1
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1960...QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiteratureQQxZ43QQyZ2
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Supe...20705930984QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiterature
I even found a video (film transfer) of the logo dated 1963 (I think they were kinda proud of it):
http://www.archive.org/details/Superior1963?start=9.5
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cadi...QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiteratureQQxZ27QQyZ5
http://cgi.ebay.com/1950s-Trip-L-Sa...512?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4cf48590a0
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1957...QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiteratureQQxZ42QQyZ4
However as early as 1960, they were using a different logo in their advertising and parts books (which begs the question, why wouldn't the letterhead match by late 1963?):
http://www.autolit.com/Store/product.php?productid=112603&cat=1248&page=1
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1960...QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiteratureQQxZ43QQyZ2
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Supe...20705930984QQptZMotorsQ5fManualsQ5fLiterature
I even found a video (film transfer) of the logo dated 1963 (I think they were kinda proud of it):
http://www.archive.org/details/Superior1963?start=9.5
Last edited:
While searching for the terms "superior+coach+paperwork", I stumbled upon this post (while I am not a member of the site and thus cannot browse the forums, I was able to obtain this "cached version"; would be curious to see other posts by this forum member:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ild-sheet/+"superior+coach"+paperwork&ct=clnk
ON EDIT: I was able to register and did find jensen's other posts. Somewhat interesting reading, not sure it would be appropriate to cut and paste them here...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ild-sheet/+"superior+coach"+paperwork&ct=clnk
ON EDIT: I was able to register and did find jensen's other posts. Somewhat interesting reading, not sure it would be appropriate to cut and paste them here...
Last edited:
Jeremy D. Ledford
PCS Volunteer Chapter President
This is from a post dated 1/24/2011 on page 37 post number 369 (go here to see my letterhead scan) where I posted a scan of an original Superior Coach letterhead from my personal collection that was dated in 1951. The thing I found od was the Sheilds letter was on pretty much the same exact letterhead in 1963 with no reflection of the current Superior logo or advertising style of the early 60's. The letterhead that they had from Sheilds at BJ just looked "dated" for the time to me from the get go!
Yes, Jeremy, I recall your pointing out that it looked dated earlier in this thread, and that prompted my search. I apologize if the info. I posted is old news to most; my point was mostly to show that the logo clearly changed by 1960.
Jeremy D. Ledford
PCS Volunteer Chapter President
Not a problem! Just wanted to post where I had those letters posted so it would be easier to find for refereance for your self and others who would like to review them.
Also found some references to the vehicle being displayed at the 35th annual MVPA convention in Topeka, KS in July 2010:
Found pics of the car at the event:
http://image71.webshots.com/171/5/66/29/2625566290031780957EfSzLg_ph.jpg
http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/ignorant_blanket/MVPA 2010/?action=view¤t=DSCN0932.jpg
And someone who saw the car there (took the second photo above) and "overheard a guy talking about how they had found it in storage and pull it out to restore it" (last post on the page):
http://forums.fighting118th.com/showthread.php?p=62895
Found pics of the car at the event:
http://image71.webshots.com/171/5/66/29/2625566290031780957EfSzLg_ph.jpg
http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/ignorant_blanket/MVPA 2010/?action=view¤t=DSCN0932.jpg
And someone who saw the car there (took the second photo above) and "overheard a guy talking about how they had found it in storage and pull it out to restore it" (last post on the page):
http://forums.fighting118th.com/showthread.php?p=62895
Last edited:
Rick Franklin
PCS Member
With all due respect to everyone that has helped to unravel this mystery, I think all we are doing right now is beating this dead hearse ( i mean horse) to death. We have already substantially determined tha the B-J car is not what it is claimed to be. All that appears to be happening now is rehashing previous points made and some people seem to be getting "testy". I liked this discussion better when the tone was more civil.
OK, one last ppost for the day, I found a cached version of the other thread Jensen participated in on the professionalcar org site:
http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache...3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=7rG6ot4LX1behuccifGmUQ--
I think its interesting for a few reasons, one being that it helps set a timeline for the appearance of the Hogan-Shields letters (i.e. after August 5, 2010), as well showing Jensen being aware of (and dismissive of) the story about the vehicle having been destroyed due to a poor reporting job by THIS website:
http://www.hauntedvehicles.com/jfkhearse.html
The other thread on that site I linked to (i which Jensen was seaking info. on SUperior Coach paperwork) was in late October of last year.
http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache...3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=7rG6ot4LX1behuccifGmUQ--
I think its interesting for a few reasons, one being that it helps set a timeline for the appearance of the Hogan-Shields letters (i.e. after August 5, 2010), as well showing Jensen being aware of (and dismissive of) the story about the vehicle having been destroyed due to a poor reporting job by THIS website:
http://www.hauntedvehicles.com/jfkhearse.html
The other thread on that site I linked to (i which Jensen was seaking info. on SUperior Coach paperwork) was in late October of last year.
what I get for not paying any attention to the old site any more. only so may hr in the day. to bad Dr J did not drop by here we could have steared him to the libary. I would have thought Dean would have remember that.