Gary Marlow

[dankbaar]

Anthony, For the throat wound, where's the bullet, and where is the exit wound? Here it is again, my old post: I am saying - defying the ruling consensus in the JFK research community - that the throat wound was NOT an entry wound , but an EXIT wound caused by a fragment from the explosive bullet that hit JFK in the head from the grassy knoll. I have always believed it was caused by a complete bullet from the front, until Thom Robinson freed me from that dream. Here are some thoughts I posted a few months ago: Question: you are doctor with experience on bullet wounds, you see a tiny neat little round hole in a throat. What would you think first? 1) This is an entry wound of a small caliber bullet 2) This is an exit wound from a fragment of an explosive bullet that hit in the head. Mind you, the doctors didn't know about about an explosive bullet, let alone a mercury bullet. No, I don't blame the doctors at all. If it looks like duck, if it walks like a duck, if it sounds like duck, you're going to say it's a duck. JFK was NOT shot in the throat. I too have believed for a long time that he was shot in the throat. But it didn't happen. The only time that JFK COULD have been shot in the throat, was very early in the game, at the beginning of the Zapruder film. Why? Because after that, he slumps forward and his throat is not exposed anymore. It doesn't make sense for ANY shooter, not even a trigger happy one, to shoot from the front that early, if the plan was to frame a patsy from BEHIND. Moreover, it would be an EXTREMELY risky shot right thru the windshield (glass breaks the line of vision, and could also deflect the bullet path). The bullet hole, crack or whatever it was in the windshield, was the result from a missed bullet from behind over JFK's head. Just as the nick in the chrome lining was. Additionally, his head and throat would be exposed for only a very short time, with no time to follow and aim. And the other passengers were in the way, JFK was the most rear passenger in the limo, hence an additional risk to hit someone else in the car. Finally, there was no wound of exit, neither a bullet found, found for such a shot. The throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment , maybe even a drop of mercury from JF's mercury exploosive bullet. The tiny perforations in JFK's face, as observed by embalmer Thom Robinson, were also the result of mercury drops. Lastly, what you don't know is that I have an interview with Thom Robinson, wherein he states that the gaping hole in JFK's skull was probed with a tiny probe and that one of those probes from INSIDE the skull came out at the throat wound ! That's why he told me that he has always been very quiet about this, but that he has chuckled for all those years at the conspiracy buffs who claim JFK was shot in the throat from the front. He knew better since 1963. And I know better since I spoke to him. I should have known better earlier by listening to Jimmy, instead of to the JFK research community, and what they have brainwashed themselves with. I too was a victim of what I wanted to believe, and looked so self-evident. James Files was right all along. He was the ONLY shooter from the front, and even he was not supposed to shoot. But he did, because JFK had not been hit in the head. Failure was never an option in a operation that Jimmy took part in, not even at age 21. That's what made him such a valuable asset for the Chicago mob and the CIA. ********ONeill in his official report said agent Kellerman, now deceased, told him that Kennedy cried out, "My God, Ive been hit, get me to a hospital!"The second bullet hit Texas Gov. John Connally, sitting in a jump seat behind Kellerman. The third was the fatal wound to Kennedy. ONeill said recently in an interview that Kellerman insisted, when pressed how he knew it was Kennedy's voice, "I was with the man for three years, and know his voice like I know my own. And he was the only man in the back seat of the car that day who spoke with a Boston accent." From: http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index ... psy_1Hence another clue JFK was NOT shot in the throat and Jimmy was correct in assuming the throat wound was an exiting fragment from his exploding bullet. . Wim

[Pennyworth]

dankbaar wrote:And who was that person?None of your business. What counts is that this person proved to me beyond a shred of a doubt that the the man who Files said "burned a cop" that day, was Gary Marlow. How would this person know JF? How would you know somebody ? From the past and by association or friendship. Did Files mention the name Marlow first or did the 'concerned' person who approached you?The person who approached me, that person was not "concerned" as far as I know. I believe that Files would not mention a live participant, if you know what I mean.....He didn't. Have you read the book or website?To answer none of your business, what I meant to say or convey is how well do you know this person?..Nearly anyone can be paid off. Bugliosi is one big example. Please don't get so testy. I am on YOUR side remember? No I haven't read the book. I have neither the time or inclination to do so .But I can tell you something, I can come up will a lot of answers and/or clues Did Gary Marlow have any aliases?Remember also documents can be falsified like fake ID's, etc.. We have learned that from Chauncey Holt's revelations about the badges being made in Los Angeles.

[dankbaar]

Bruce once told me, and he repeated it recently again, that I should only allow people on the forum that have read the book and/or seen at least one of the DVDs. This will earn me the reputation of a money wolf, but thanks for reminding me, Bruce! I get your point! Wim

[Pennyworth]

dankbaar wrote:Bruce once told me, and he repeated it recently again, that I should only allow people on the forum that have read the book and/or seen at least one of the DVDs. This will earn me the reputation of a money wolf, but thanks for reminding me, Bruce! I get your point! WimI did buy your DVD. I was supposed to get 2. Only one was sent to me. That was a few years ago. it was the one about Chauncey Holt and Vegas. It was mind boggling.. I remember the part about the fake badge making in LA,

[kenmurray]

Ok, I'm a little puzzled here. In the article that Wim posted from Cape Cod Today, the article mentions "X-rays viewed by Humes, O'Neill. Sibert and others, revealed dozens of bone splinters and several bullet fragments. Two of the fragments were retrieved, and later matched to an M-1 rifle linked to Lee Harvey Oswald."An M-1 rifle? A rifle that is the standard issue of the armed forces and Oswald in the marine corps. Am I missing something here?

[Bob]

dankbaar wrote:Bob, I am sure Jimmy had no spotter. First of all because that would mean he was not telling the full truth, but there is a far more logical reason. Keep in mind that the grassy knoll was chosen by Jimmy himself, and only two hours before the assassination. This is why many people do not believe James Files, because they ASSUME this would never have been decided in this manner, because they ASSUME that the JFK assassination was a professional meticulously planned military-style operation. I have said before that in my view, considering all that went wrong, it was a rather clumsy operation with many last minute improvisations like the killing of Tippit and Oswald. But those people that therefore claim Files is a hoax, do not ask themselves why a hoax would concoct such an implausible story that collides so much with their predetermined assumptions. A hoax does not blow his chances to be believed by making up incredible details. That's one indication that this detail, although incredible at first glance, is simply the truth. But there's more. If Files is telling the truth, the grassy knoll was never planned as a shooter location. It was not even planned by Files as a shooter location when he chose that location, because he was NOT supposed to shoot, remember? He was purely serving as the backup shooter in case Nicoletti would miss JFK's head from behind. There is another reason that the grassy knoll would never have been planned as a shooter location. It is clear that Lee Harvey Oswald was the predesignated patsy to balme for the assassination and thus that all the shots were to come from behind. It does not make sense to jeapardize this plan by having a shot from the front. It is not for nothing that Nicoletti was extremely pissed that Jimmy had "overreacted" and taken his shot. And in fact, this has been the biggest problem for the Warren Commission to deal with. There is even a third reason that the grassy knoll was never considered as a shooter location. It is simply a very risky location to shoot from. It offered very little cover and a daring escape route. Apart from a little protection from the picket fence and an overhaning tree, it was a wide open area in view of many spectators, not to mention the risk to get out of there, undetected. Hardly a place to choose in a meticulously planned military style operation. In fact, such a bold and daring location is only suitable for a cocky, uncautious and fearless 21 year old Jimmy Sutton.It is still a wonder that Files, apart from his puff of smoke from the Fireball, was detected by so few people, like Bowers and maybe Hoffman. Lansdale must have been told by either Nicoletti, Roselli or Giancana, that Files would be a backup for Nicoletti on the knoll. The reason why Files disclosed only later that Lansdale came to check on him shortly before the motorcade arrived, is twofold. Initially he did not want to disclose involvement of the CIA. A combination of fear and loyalty. (His voice stress is the highest when he talks about David Phillips). Secondly, he did not know that Lansdale had died around the same time as Phillips. As far as he knew, Lansdale was still alive. Anyway, to have a spotter next to him doesn't make sense if the plan is not to shoot anyway, and I don't think any spotter would want to share the risk with James to be on that spot. WimWim, I certainly appreciate and respect your perspective, even if you do think I'm not sane. Seriously, you have much more insight on this subject obviously, so I value your opinion. Files acting alone does not fit the usual profile of Black Ops though. Still, your explanation is certainly believable. Bottom line, you may be right on this subject, but I still have some doubt. Also, I think I'm right about David Atlee Phillips being at LHO's midnight press conference, a belief that you don't hold true. But hopefully one day I will convince you and anyone else that doubts that possibility.

[ThomZajac]

Ah yes, the throat wound. Dismissing the utterly ridiculous magic bullet fairy tale explanation, that would seem to leave the following possibilities-1) It was caused by a bullet entering from the front very early in the sequence of shots fired, and did not exit. This is the view held by the majority of conspiracy researchers.2) It was a small exit wound caused by a tiny bullet fragment from the fatal 'exploding/mercury load' shot that struck the president's head from the front. This theory is held by Wim and some others.3) It was caused by a flechette fired by the umbrella man for the purpose of paralyzing the president so that he could not take evasive action.For those supporting option 1 (a bullet fired from in front) the Zapruder film offers support; the president's initial visible reaction to being hit is the raising of his elbows and the bringing of his hands (fists) to his throat. As the fatal head shot is still seconds away from being fired, this would seem to rule out option 2 (exit wound from fatal head shot). HOWEVER, Wim and supporters of option 2 are of the belief that JFK's elbows and hands response is NOT a reaction to a throat wound, but rather a wound to the back. Further, their argument goes, that if the plan was to pin the shooting on Oswald who was behind the president, it would have been lunacy for someone to have fired from the front so early in the sequence (before it would have been absolutely necessary). Have I stated this fairly?At the risk of sounding like a one trick pony, the question must be asked; what would be the best evidence to determine the nature of JFK's throat wound? The answer is obvious; his body. As it has been proven by David Lifton beyond any reasonable doubt that the body was altered between Parkland and Bethesda, this would mean that the what was seen at Parkland would qualify as the best evidence. And what was observed there? Good question.A throat wound, small and described by Dr. Malcolm Perry- and others- as a wound of entry. (A tracheotomy performed by Perry surgically enlarged the wound). The wound was seen by many, and there can be absolutely no question that a wound to the throat did indeed exist. On the other hand, NO ONE at Parkland observed a wound to the back. No one. It is also important to remember that the president's clothes were removed and his body was cleaned of blood before being placed in the casket. Is it reasonable to believe that a wound to the back could have gone completely unnoticed? I don't think it is. If there was no back wound, that would mean- unless I am missing something- that JFK's initial reaction was due to a shot from the front that hit him in the throat. And isn't JFK's reaction EXACTLY what one would expect had he been shot in the throat? I realize that things are not always as they appear, but it must be said that JFK's reaction is ABSOLUTELY consistent with having been hit in the throat.As I have said before, while logic is useful, it can also lead us to faulty conclusions because our logic is often based on a limited understanding of all the elements at play. It is reasonable to ask why a shot would be fired from in front so early in the sequence if the plan was to blame someone firing from behind. But we would be making a lot os assumptions here. We don't really know what the plan was, and we don't know if someone deviated from the plan for whatever reason. That is why evidence is so vital. Logic helps us investigate, but logic is not evidence. It is illogical that a shooter would have chosen to fire through the windshield, but we do not know if that was his intent. There are at least a few credible witnesses who describe a 'front-to'back' hole in the windshield. Of course, it would be nice to be able to examine the windshield, but it was destroyed a few days after the assassination. (By the way, Gil Jesus has put together a terrific video on the throat wound, and I'm sure link master Ken can dig it up for us).So here is what I think happened regarding the throat wound;The first shot to hit JFK entered this throat leaving a small entrance wound and the bullet did not exit. A tracheotomy was performed at Parkland obliterating the original wound and replacing it with a slightly larger surgical (precise) wound. Between Parkland and Bethesda the plotters took control of the body. They retrieved the bulled from JFK's throat and greatly enlarged the throat wound to make it appear to be an exit wound. They made other alterations to the body and head. One of these alterations was the creation of a back wound. The back wound was shallow and matched the angle of a shot having been fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. Another purpose of this wound was to offer an explanation of where the pristine bullet may have come from (the bullet would further implicate Oswald). The back wound was not intended to provide a path for an exit wound to the president's throat. The throat wound exit was to be explained in the same way that Wim does now; a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot, though in this case the plotters would insist that that shot had been fired from behind.This plan was soon changed because it quickly became apparent that the Zapruder film and testimony (wrong word?) from other witnesses demonstrated that the president had been hit in the throat long before being hit with the fatal head shot. (They apparently did not consider using the back wound as the cause for JFK's elbow/hand reaction). The back wound then had to be moved up so that the throat wound could be attributed to it being an exit wound from the same bullet, the pristine bullet that would become known as the magic bullet.Bottom line for me regarding the president's wounds; if a wound wasn't observed at Parkland, it is highly suspect. No back wound was observed at Parkland.Again, David Lifton's Best Evidence does an excellent job in detailing the above.

[AnthonyAthletic]

Researchers Rich DellaRosa whilst speaking on radio with Jim Fetzer went as far as saying that from Parkland to Bethesda there was a Pre Autopsy on the President (achieved in under 45 mins) where all fragments were removed, bullets were removed, prosthetics were added along with the repair to the back of the head.That's one point, another much simpler point endorsed by many were that the pictures were simply forgeries. A Pre Autopsy, however, would allow the 'clean up' prior to the 'official autopsy' and could answer the question 'where is the so called throat entry wound bullet'?The throat entry bullet wound was as per most things covered up by desimation of the body. A 5mm entry wound became a three quarter inch slit to allow tracheoptomy, which then sometime after Parkland and possibly before Bethesda became a horrible two and a half inch or so tear? Sounds simple?Anyone wishing to believe the throat wound was not an entry wound, that's fine as its just another viewpoint. I am just trying to ascertain facts or the likelihood of this or that.With regards to 'Entry wound' I am simply making a referral to testimony from Parkland Staff, Doctors dealing with gunshot wounds surely know their stuff and have no reason to fabricate anything, whilst they were trying to save the President they had no idea that the official story was "lone gunman, from the rear". And I do understand that the mistake the Parkland Doctors may have made on that afternoon was the fact that they never turned the President over to check for any back entry/exit wounds (Crenshaw/Consipiracy of Silence). That was done at Bethesda.I have always found this site very educational, and do hope that all views, theories and speculations are up for debate and not already set out in stone.

[dankbaar]

Wim, I certainly appreciate and respect your perspective, even if you do think I'm not sane. I am sure you know it was a matter of joking and to stress the point that was coming. Besides, It was not a statement but a question, remember? It grabbed your attention, right? I am not saying Files acted alone. After all, he interacted with others, like Nicoletti. I am saying he acted alone as the shooter on the knoll. I agree that the location and Files acting alone on the knoll, does not rhyme with a meticulously planned blackops operation, but that was my whole point! Wim

[dankbaar]

1) It was caused by a bullet entering from the front very early in the sequence of shots fired, and did not exit. This is the view held by the majority of conspiracy researchers.Yes, and you immediately spell out its biggest problem: did not exit. Which presents the next biggest problem: What happened to the bullet if it did not exit? Is it still in that coffin in Arlington? The neck is not a big part of the body that has a lot of bone to brake the speed of a bullet. Except for the (relatively small) vertebrea, it is only soft tissue that could never stop a bullet. So why is there no exit wound? At which point in time was Kennedy hit in the throat by this bullet? From where was it fired? Did Kellerman lie when he testified that he heard JFK say:I am hit, get me to a hospital! Or could JFK have spoken with a bullet in his vocal cords, stuck on a vertebrea of his spine? Researchers that want to hold on to this theory (which is only based on the (understandable) opinion of the Parkland doctors) should also answer these questions logicly and convincingly. 2) It was a small exit wound caused by a tiny bullet fragment from the fatal 'exploding/mercury load' shot that struck the president's head from the front. This theory is held by Wim and some others.I object to the word theory. A theory does not have good evidence like this: What you don't know is that I have an interview with Thom Robinson, (embalmer and witness to the autopsy) wherein he states that the gaping hole in JFK's skull was probed with a tiny probe and that one of those probes from INSIDE the skull came out through the throat wound !This means that the trajectory to the throatwound started (or ended, if you wish) at the gaping wound in the skull.