The shots that didn't come from TSBD and DalTex either ...

[ThomZajac]

Bob wrote:Okay, lets forget about the limo...but NOT the windshield. The throat wound was the main reason for my post above. Again...riddle me this (or refute this)...In terms about the the hole in the front windshield, Jim Garrison's video of the JFK Limo at Parkland Hospital was taken less than five minutes after JFK was shot. The video clearly shows a chip in the window with a slight crack. No through and through hole that everyone seems to be talking about.Assuming that a bullet went through the windshield, JFK would have been hit in the throat with a flattened bullet that would have tore his throat apart. In that case there would have easily been a flattened bullet as evidence.Thom: Had there been an honest investigation this very well might have been the case. But it wasn't an honest investigation, as we know, and all evidence indicating a shot or shots from the front, and any bullets fired from a weapon other than Oswald's was eliminated in one way or another. No .22 or ice bullet could penetrate the windshield, and still do minimal damage to JFK'S throat. Virtually impossible for that penetration with those types of ammunition anyway.Thom: Good point, Bob. But I don't know how much a normal windshield would deform a bullet. Besides, for JFK to have been hit in the throat from in front does not require a bullet going through the windshield.If JFK was hit in the throat by some angle over, under, around or through the windshield, there would have been a bullet, or an exit wound. There was neither.Thom: Why do you keep implying that there was an honest investigation? There is ample evidence which pretty much proves that missiles were indeed removed from the president's body (but not recorded in the official version of events). Really, Bob, with all due respect, you've got to get over this- my goodness!Again, Bob, you may very well be right, but from this researcher's point of view, the evidence looks stronger that the throat wound was one of entrance, though, as always, you make some excellent points.TZ

[ThomZajac]

ps. By the time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda, his throat wound had grown to an large and ugly hole that cannot be explained merely as the tracheotomy performed by Perry. My opinion is that this was because of two reasons: first, the conspirators used this wound to retrieve the bullet, and second, to make the wound appear to be one of exit.

[Bob]

Doubting Thomas...I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the throat wound. AGAIN...we are talling about very soft tissue there. There would have been an exit wound out back (even with the spinal column). There wasn't. I know a little about the neck and how it works, as I had surgery there due to my neck fracture. However, I appreciate your interpretation, although it seems to be influenced quite a bit by Mr. Lifton.

[Dealey Joe]

Points of interest1.types of holes made and damage done would directly depend on the calibre and the weight of the bullet and load.2. being able to place a shot thru the windshield, bypass everyone else and hit jfk in the throat would require perfect placement for the shooter and Kennedy and would to me be virtually impossible or very lucky.3. any shot that came thru the windshield would not make a neat little hole.4. IF the throat wound was an entrance wound, it well could have been made by a fragment flying around the limo.5. the apparent damage to the inside of the car would have been made by shots from the rear with plenty of fragments.6. I am more concerned by the shallow back wound. can we be sure that it was shallow? and if so how was it made?7. the throat wound if in fact there was one? most likely is explained by bullet fragments either from entrance or exit.I think a good explanation of this is the grand possibility that there was no neck would at all. there was virtually no blood on the shirt from a throat wound.

[ThomZajac]

Yes, we should agree to disagree, but please keep in mind that I'm not saying you are wrong, only that I think the evidence points more strongly to the neck wound being one of entrance.On another matter, Joe wrote:6. I am more concerned by the shallow back wound. can we be sure that it was shallow? and if so how was it made?One thing we know for sure is that no one at Parkland noticed such a wound, and so that JFK was actually hit there (while still alive) is suspect.David Lifton is of the opinion that the back wound was added prior to autopsy for two purposes: 1) to implicate a shooter from behind, and 2) that it was shallow as to afford an opportunity to explain the "magic" Oswald bullet planted on the stretcher.The original wound had to be moved up once the conspirators decided that the neck wound could not be explained as an exit wound made by a fragment of the head shot (Bob and I would obviously disagree on this point), but its original purposes did not include that use.

[kenmurray]

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/boh_found.htm

[Mike Dempsey]

I was 12 the day Kennedy was shot and even then I didn't trust any of the information about Oswald being the lone assassin. They had too much information on him in a matter of hours. Oh if only all law enforcment agencies were that quick. . One thing I am sure of is that the fatal headshot where we witness the side of Kennedy's head explode is unlikely to have come from the Grassy Knoll. Why? I don't think the trajectory fits. A bullet from the grassy knoll unless it was designed to explode on impact would have forced Kennedy back towards Jackie and the bullet would have exited from the left rear, not the right rear. Conspiracy theories aside, a likely point of shooting was the storm drain in front of the limosine at ground level.The idea of the limo driver shot Kennedy is way too ludicrous. Having looked at the original Zapruder film frame by frame in both the original form and the digitally enhanced versions (thank God for DVD), it is clear that the driver was not extending his arm for the fatal head shot, nor did anyone in the car (the closest witnesses) see any such movement or hear a shot so close to Kennedy's position. I have a copy of the BBC documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" which starts out as a serious investigation but by the time they get to accusing L.B.J. it starts getting ridiculous. I don't think anyone has proven without a doubt that there were no shots from either the TSBD or the DalTex building. Witness the bullet that hit the curb ahead of the limo. The photgraphic evidence (Altgens's photo)that Oswald was in the main floor doorway of the TSBD building waering the exact same t-shirt and shirt that he was arrested in, when the limo passed. This would also explain why he was not winded when spotted in the lunchroom minutes after the shooting.Unfortunately there are far too many opportunists trying to gain fame or money feeding off the publics right to know what happened that day in Dallas. The sad thing is, due to the hundreds of books, films and documentaries available, the search for the real answers ar just getting lost.

[andries]

Howdy Mike Are you saying that sam holland and co,Lee Bowers,officer smith, Ed hoffman,and some more nearby people all must have had a black out on the same day,just to make money out off it.And should we start having full thrusth in spectorbullets ,echo,s and exploding coke bottles

[Dealey Joe]

Mike, I believe for one thing the Zapruder film has been altered to look like a shot from the rear.To professionals with computerised equipment today it is an armature job but the shock of what happens in Z313takes your mind off the real picture.i you look at the debris pattern in good pictures you can see what looks like an explosion going in all directions.That is just what happened, an explosion.i don't know if you have ever experimented or done any shooting with super high velocity ammo but in a .222 Remingtona 45 or 50 grain projectile traveling over 3000 ft per sec. would literally explode upon impact. It is not at all like a 7.65 or a 30-06 ect.It mighty not look like it came from any particular direction.A shot from the storm drain at street level is impossible.There could possibly have been a shot from the drain at the corner of the parking lot at the end of the fence but I think there was too much brush to make a shot but a possibility.i don't know if you have ever been to Dealey or not? Things take on a whole different look from there.I am beginning to think there was a shot from a .45 cal pistol from the road in front of TSBD that missed and foundin the sod across the road.I one picture you can plainly see a vehicle with someone standing beside it, then in seconds it is gone..I see shots being fired from DalTex for sure and possibly from TSBDDefinitely the head shot from the fence.Don't aay ant attention to Andries, he thinks Ed saw something

[Bob]

Mike Dempsey wrote:I was 12 the day Kennedy was shot and even then I didn't trust any of the information about Oswald being the lone assassin. They had too much information on him in a matter of hours. Oh if only all law enforcment agencies were that quick. . One thing I am sure of is that the fatal headshot where we witness the side of Kennedy's head explode is unlikely to have come from the Grassy Knoll. Why? I don't think the trajectory fits. A bullet from the grassy knoll unless it was designed to explode on impact would have forced Kennedy back towards Jackie and the bullet would have exited from the left rear, not the right rear. Conspiracy theories aside, a likely point of shooting was the storm drain in front of the limosine at ground level.The idea of the limo driver shot Kennedy is way too ludicrous. Having looked at the original Zapruder film frame by frame in both the original form and the digitally enhanced versions (thank God for DVD), it is clear that the driver was not extending his arm for the fatal head shot, nor did anyone in the car (the closest witnesses) see any such movement or hear a shot so close to Kennedy's position. I have a copy of the BBC documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" which starts out as a serious investigation but by the time they get to accusing L.B.J. it starts getting ridiculous. I don't think anyone has proven without a doubt that there were no shots from either the TSBD or the DalTex building. Witness the bullet that hit the curb ahead of the limo. The photgraphic evidence (Altgens's photo)that Oswald was in the main floor doorway of the TSBD building waering the exact same t-shirt and shirt that he was arrested in, when the limo passed. This would also explain why he was not winded when spotted in the lunchroom minutes after the shooting.Unfortunately there are far too many opportunists trying to gain fame or money feeding off the publics right to know what happened that day in Dallas. The sad thing is, due to the hundreds of books, films and documentaries available, the search for the real answers ar just getting lost.First, welcome to the forum Mike. That being said, I have some disagreements with your take. For one, I don't think we have ever been closer to finding out the truth concerning the JFK assassination, due to the great books last year by Jim Douglass and Doug Horne. Secondly, I agree with Joe about the sewer shot being almost impossible. Thirdly, Jimmy Files was aiming for the right eye of JFK from his position on the knoll, and was told NOT to hit Jackie Kennedy with his shot, if indeed he had to take one (he was considered a back up). However, just as Files shot, a shot from Chuck Nicoletti hit JFK in the back of the head, and that caused the shot from Files to miss the eye and hit JFK in the temple area. Those two shots hitting JFK almost simultaneously caused the massive wound in the back of JFK's head. Also, the man seen in the Altgens photo was Billy Lovelady, not Lee Harvey Oswald. Finally, in terms of the Zapruder film, I also thought it was legitimate until recently. The book by Horne prooves to me without a doubt that the film was altered.