Gary Marlow

[AnthonyAthletic]

Question :z212 The Motorcade disappears behind the Stemmons signpost, at this point from the front, The President shows no signs of being hitz225 The Motorcade exits from behind the signpost, first sign of impact to the neck/throat area (in or out)z226 The President visually reacts to what appears to be a shot (incoming or outcoming) from the throat areaz227-z312 The President appears to be reacting to being hit in the throat, his arms have raised to his neck/trachea area then subsided a few frames prior to z313, Kennedy is in serious distressz313 Fatal headshot(s)If the trajectory/probe shows that from the headshot; the probe aligns with the throat wound then for what reason is he holding his throat prior to z313 (the headshot)? This is something I do not understand, nor does make sense. The headshot/exploding bullet only happened at z313 onwards, so why is Kennedy in such distress hands raised to the throat from frame z226 onwards, up and to z313?

[dankbaar]

Okay Anthony, let's examine your route of thinking, in order to see if it is not a dead-end a route. So you think JFK is hit in the throat here at frame 225, because you say right after this shot he starts reacting to the throat wound, brings his hands up "to grab his throat", correct? You believe thus in fact that the throat shot was the first or second shot fired, correct? You believe that one of the shooters shot from the front despite the plan to blame a patsy, and that patsy was supposed to shoot from behind, correct? You believe that such a shooter would not have waited to fire from the front, until his co-shooters would have mortally hit JFK from behind, correct? You dismiss Kellerman's testimony that JFK said: I am hit, get me to a hospital. , correct? Frame 225: And this where he you believe he grabs his throat in reaction to the throatshot, correct? Frame 236: James Files 1994: Mr. Nicoletti asked me how would I feel in supporting him...in backing him up on this...and he told me I wouldn't fire unless it became extremely necessary........................Q: Did you think or have you ever thought about the fact that if you hadn't fired that shot that Oswald may still be alive or Tippit, or does that matter to you ?A: That doesn't matter to me....but I've...as far as that goes...If I hadn't fired the shot...Kennedy would have been killed anyway....because the last shot from Nicoletti caught him in basically the left side of the skull from the back that pushed the head forward...so basically speaking he would have been killed either way...but I had waited until the last point for fields of fire for me before Jackie Kennedy would become in the line of fire....if I don't take it at this point I'm losing my last chance for field of fire...then I don't fire at all...and then if Nicoletti hadn't of fired and neither one of us fired.... he might have lived...then the job wouldn't have been done.James Files 2003: Chuck said: We’re going for a head shot now. I said: This I understand, I realize this. He said: You are not going to fire unless it becomes a necessity. He says: If I miss, then it’s gonna be up to you. He says: But you don’t fire, unless I miss. It’s gonna be your call at that point. So you got to be very alert on this. And I told him: Don’t worry about me. I got it, boss! .......................But my last instructions were: We’re going for a headshot. If you have to take a shot, take it, but don’t fire unless it’s a necessity, unless you really have to. He said: Jimmy, don’t fire unless you have to, we want everything from the backside. (emphasis by Wim). I am not asking why. Okay, whatever you say. At this point, as he starts to approach and come behind that freeway sign … and I’ve already been instructed not his anybody but Kennedy, because they didn’t want Jackie to get hurt or anybody else, I’m fixing to lose my field of fire. And at this point …. either I shoot or I put it in the suitcase and leave. One or the other. I took the shot. I fired one shot, one shot only.

[AnthonyAthletic]

Hello Wim, (I have put your re questioning in Red, I am a little unsure as how to link zap frames onto the forum as I only have them on my pc)I don't dismiss anything, I am simply asking questions which I know not the answers to. I am here to read, view, ask questions and understand what I can. And for that I thank you for all of your replies. I do feel a bit bad about hijacking this thread which started with regards to Gary Marlow and the Officer Tippit murder.I don't think the President is hit in the throat at z225, but is reacting to something which starts at z226-229 and continues upto the headshot frame at z313You believe thus in fact that the throat shot was the first or second shot fired, correct? Probable, yes.You believe that one of the shooters shot from the front despite the plan to blame a patsy?I do believe this possible, but am unsure as to where this happens, I understand that it would be very foolish to fire the first or second shots from the front when the aim has not been achieved. Any shooter from the front would always wait for the last possible moment if the aim and instructions were 'we must achieve the assassination from behind', this stands to reason. If this is not the case, then I find it hard to explain what is happening from frame 226 to 312, those which give the impression of a throat injury based on JFK's reaction.and that patsy was supposed to shoot from behind, correct? Definately, a set up to blame one man 3 shots becoming 2 shots (magic bullet & fatal shot) from behind being the official verdict. This also makes me think why the Zapruder movie ever saw the light of day? Would there have been arguments over who did what, from where and when if this movie did not exist. I was trying to do the maths on the frames, am I right in saying that one frame is equal to 1/18th of one second? So from z226 (Stemmons sign exit) to z313 (headshot) = 87 frames = appx 4.8 seconds in real time? Does this sound right? This was based on references online to each second of Zapruder film equalling 18 frames per second.You believe that such a shooter would not have waited to fire from the front, until his co-shooters would have mortally hit JFK from behind, correct?As I have said above, as professional killers (James Files included), any such professional killer would wait until the last possible moment as James Files states on record. Any shot from the knoll front right was to be a controlled termination based on the fact that the first plan of action looked as though it wasn't going to happen, so Plan B, the knoll shot which was never intended, had to be enforced to ensure that the assassination was achieved.From watching the JF interviews, Mr Files comes across as a person, who at the time, when working for any organization is such a person who would follow orders through verbatim. To the level of 'I have been told to do this, instructed to do this, and this is the way I will do it', very disciplined, with the same military training and thinking being used at another level.You dismiss Kellerman's testimony that JFK said: I am hit, get me to a hospital. , correct? No, I never dismiss anything to which I am unsure, what I meant to come over was that from 226 onwards we 'appear' to have a throat shot (this is not my ascertainable view, but something which I just can not dismiss, being an avid layman of the case who happens to be undecided about it at the moment.)..I do say it appears to be this, based on other esteemed researchers in your field who also think that a frontal shot occurred before the kill shot.It also occurs to me Wim, that what we have been talking about is a mere 5 seconds of history which goes to show how complex, consuming and demanding such research to this whole horrible act is.ThanksAnthony

[ThomZajac]

Wim,You asked why there would be no exit wound from a frontal throat wound, and I acknowledge that that is an excellent question as it would seem the throat would offer little resistance and that a bullet entereing the front would exit the back of the throat. I will ask David Lifton how he explains that and pass along his response. As for me, I would guess that if the bullet first passed through the windshield (front-to-back) that its velocity was sufficiently reduced to the point that it could not exit. An alternative explanation is that the bullet lodged in a a vertebrae. As for the bullet itself, I most certainly believe it was removed by the plotters between Parkland and Bethesda, just as the throat wound was greatly expanded during that time (for retrieval of the bullet and to make the entry wound appear to be an exit wound). Additionally, there is the possibility that the throat wound was caused by a flechette fired by the Umbrella man, which would not have exited.Also you wrote; "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 !"I do not doubt this. However, my contention is that this was a body alteration made by the plotters between Parkland and Bethesda; they knew the president had a throat wound and needed to provide a from-the-rear explanation. I believe the plotters had planned from the beginning to alter the president's wounds and were therefore very well prepared to do so.Lastly, I would like to address the dangers of logic again. You seem to accept as a certainty that the plan to assassinate JFK revolved around the president being hit from shots fired from behind, and therefore that a shot fired from in front early in the sequence would be illogical. This is consistent with the view held by most researchers. On this it is I who is in the minority. I certainly believe shots were fired from behind, but I don't believe any of these shots were intended to hit JFK or Connally; rather they were intended to divert attention and to implicate a shooter in the Book Depository. Again, there is NO MEDICAL evidence at Parkland of the president having been hit from behind. The evidence there supports entry wounds to the throat, and LEFT and right temple, and a massive exit wound in the back of the head. I know you feel strongly about the throat wound and James Files, so strongly you object to your conclusions being referred to as 'theory. ' But I have question for you; if the throat wound was an exit wound caused by a fragment of the fatal head shot, why didn't the plotters allow that fact to become established? Obviously they would have said the shot entered from behind instead of if front, but that would have been far simpler and much more believable than the utterly ridiculous magic bullet fairy tale they eventually resorted to. Why? These guys certainly weren't stupid. It's because the president had obviously been hit in throat prior to the fatal head shot. It is a TREMENDOUS leap to insist that the president is reacting to a back wound when he reaches for his throat. Not even the plotters believed they could sell that. Perhaps, you are correct, Wim, but there is much evidence that points otherwise.

[dankbaar]

It is a TREMENDOUS leap to insist that the president is reacting to a back wound when he reaches for his throat.Wrong assumption again. He does NOT reach for his throat! I knew this was going to be a difficult task. It's very hard, if not impossible, to convince people that the earth is round, when they have been told it is flat as long as they remember. I am going to play some tennis now. Will be back tomorrow. Meanwhile you think about gathering some proof (and I mean proof, not hearsay) that JFK was reaching for his throat. Wim

[ThomZajac]

Have a good match.

[Jsnow915]

Thom....this is the only thing I think Posner got right...when Kennedy is hit in the back it hit a muscle(not sure which) but it raises Kennedys arms up in a clinched fist.

[ThomZajac]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this, as we all are. Makes the world go 'round. I'll be responding to Wim's post later this evening....

[Pennyworth]

dankbaar wrote:Should I change the text: "Meet the real killer of J.D. Tippit", to "Meet the man who James Files says killed J.D. Tippit"On second thought I conclude that I disagree. Here is why: Gary knew about the confession of James Files when he lived. As a matter of fact , Jim has asked Gary shortly before he died if would have objection to release his name. Gary said NOT to release his name. Bruce made a post on the forum to this effect. Do you remember it? Otherwise I look it up for you. The question is how long did Gary know? My sense of logic tells me that he has known for a much longer time about Jim's confession, probably right from the start in 1993/1994 when press coverage started. If not by the press he would have been informed by his old associates and friends in Chicago. That means that he also knew about what Files said about the killer of Tippit. He probably has followed it closely, and was relieved that his identity was not disclosed. This is probably also what Jim referred to when he said he received pleas from other people: Please leave my name out it, Jimmy! Now, keep in mind that Gary's photo has been on the website since its inception in 1995. It's hard to imagine that Gary was not aware of the website (and thus his photo) for all those years. And Gary did NOTHING about it. If what Files says, would not be true, then Gary would have protested the allegation and he would have sued the people (Bob Vernon and later me) for libel and slander for putting his photo on the Internet and present him as the killer of J.D. Tippit. The fact that he did nothing, and even asked Jim to leave his name out of it, even after death, is an implicit admission that he was indeed the killer of Tippit. WimMaybe the face didn't fit the name, thats why nothing was done. I'm sorry I am not contesting you. Did Files actually call this man and ask permission?

[ThomZajac]

dankbaar wrote:It is a TREMENDOUS leap to insist that the president is reacting to a back wound when he reaches for his throat.Wrong assumption again. He does NOT reach for his throat! I knew this was going to be a difficult task. It's very hard, if not impossible, to convince people that the earth is round, when they have been told it is flat as long as they remember. I am going to play some tennis now. Will be back tomorrow. Meanwhile you think about gathering some proof (and I mean proof, not hearsay) that JFK was reaching for his throat. WimWim,Let me begin by saying that we agree on many things, and that I think the way you've explained the nature of the CIA apparatus employed to execute the assassination is brilliant, the best I've seen.And let me also say that trying to determine precisely what happened in Dealey Plaza- who the shooters were, where they were, when they fired, and what wounds they caused and when- is a bit of a black hole because there is very little we can say with absolute certainty. We can gather evidence and examine it, and we can come to our own conclusions, but there are very few conclusions for which there is consensus among knowledgeable researchers. You may be correct that JFK's throat wound was not one of entry, but for you to insist this is so and to ridicule those who have come to a different conclusion is, well, arrogant. Certainly you must realize that the possibility exists that you have reached an erroneous conclusion.You have taken issue with my saying that JFK reached for his throat, and suggested I gather proof to demonstrate that he did. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. My contention is that immediately after being hit, the president brings both hands toward the throat wound; the left hand attempts to loosen his tie, and his right hand is held over his mouth as if he is hoping to cough out a bullet. Again, my contention is that this is precisely the kind of response one would expect from someone just having been shot in the throat. Does that mean he was beyond any reasonable doubt? No, it does not. But nor can you say with certainty that the president's response was the result of having been shot in the back. You can site doctors who will say that the president's response is consistent with a shot to the back that hits a particular muscle or nerve or whatever, but you can't know beyond a reasonable doubt that that is what happened. Certainly you can say that based on the evidence you've examined, your conclusion is that the president is reacting to having received a bullet in the back, but you have not proven this to be so.There is much evidence supporting the conclusion that the president's throat wound was one of entrance. Even a small exit wound caused by fragment would, well, be an exit wound; the skin and tissues would project outward from the body. But the observations by those at Parkland were otherwise. All called it a wound of entrance. It's not just the size of a wound that dictates whether it is one of exit or entry, but also the nature of wound.Below is a link to a Gil Jesus youtube video that presents my case very well. It is a two part video, and for the second part you'll need to click on the prompt that follows the conclusion of the first part.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLFOzwsYSMI certainly don't mean to be antagonistic, Wim. I've been publishing a newspaper for twenty five years and I've developed a pretty good sense of what we can say we know and what we can't. I won't ridicule your conclusion, and you may be right, but please don't claim that you have proven your point- you haven't, and I have not proven mine.Thom