Mockup of JFK's headwounds

[ThomZajac]

tom jeffers wrote:thomi think every effort was to come from behind just as it is in jimmys story. the front shot was a fluke and needed to be dealt with. the conspirators would have no way of knowing who would be looking at the wounds at parkland so a shot from the front was just another loose end for the team to cover up. the priorities had to be as follows:#1 kill jfk#2 kill jfk from anywhere#3 just kill jfkTom, I understand what you are saying, and you may well be correct, but for me the fact that NO ONE in Dallas who saw the president in close quarters-and there were over twenty-saw any wound that would have been caused by a shot fired from behind the president.That fact, in my opinion, is very important. Most of these people were medically trained, some were trying to save the president's life (though he was essentially D.O.A.), a few prepared his naked body for the casket. That none of these people saw the back wound or any entry wound in the rear of the president is not something that can be easily dismissed as a mere oversight.Evidence for the president having been hit from shots fired from behind is thin: there is James Files story, not physical evidence of course,but what else have you got really? Not the autopsy photos (bogus). I suppose the Zapruder film supports a shot from behind but that piece of evidence, in my view was in the hands of the conspirators (like the body itself) and is therefore highly suspect at best.Again, I'm not saying that it is absolutely certain that the president was NOT struck from behind. Maybe he was. But to me, the evidence does not support that conclusion- at least not conclusively.ThomP.S.Multiple shooters from the front would have ensured the president's death as surely as shots from anywhere else (EASY shots for a marksman).

[JDThomas]

Dealey Joe wrote:Please correct me if you think I'm wrong:Look at the position of the neck brace on the damaged side of the head - this is not a good resting place to support the skull - its too high. Pictures taken from the undamaged side show the brace more correctly placed, supporting the weight of the skull at its greatest depth and hence most stable.My conclusion to date is that it is incorrectly positioned on the damaged side because their was insufficient skull bone remaining for the brace to be placed in the correct supporting position. ..... Blow-out at the back of the head. Correctly placed, the brace would have dissappeared into JFK's head, implailing it

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:tom jeffers wrote:thomi think every effort was to come from behind just as it is in jimmys story. the front shot was a fluke and needed to be dealt with. the conspirators would have no way of knowing who would be looking at the wounds at parkland so a shot from the front was just another loose end for the team to cover up. the priorities had to be as follows:#1 kill jfk#2 kill jfk from anywhere#3 just kill jfkTom, I understand what you are saying, and you may well be correct, but for me the fact that NO ONE in Dallas who saw the president in close quarters-and there were over twenty-saw any wound that would have been caused by a shot fired from behind the president.That fact, in my opinion, is very important. Most of these people were medically trained, some were trying to save the president's life (though he was essentially D.O.A.), a few prepared his naked body for the casket. That none of these people saw the back wound or any entry wound in the rear of the president is not something that can be easily dismissed as a mere oversight.Evidence for the president having been hit from shots fired from behind is thin: there is James Files story, not physical evidence of course,but what else have you got really? Not the autopsy photos (bogus). I suppose the Zapruder film supports a shot from behind but that piece of evidence, in my view was in the hands of the conspirators (like the body itself) and is therefore highly suspect at best.Again, I'm not saying that it is absolutely certain that the president was NOT struck from behind. Maybe he was. But to me, the evidence does not support that conclusion- at least not conclusively.ThomP.S.Multiple shooters from the front would have ensured the president's death as surely as shots from anywhere else (EASY shots for a marksman).Thom, you make some valid points. However, we know that there were shooters in the back, based on John Connally's wounds and the curb shot that hit James Teague. We also know that there were men on the 6th Floor of the TSBD and the Algens photo clearly shows three men in the Dal-Tex building, one of which was Charles Nicoletti (see below). Jimmy Files maintains that his frontal shot to JFK's head was almost simultaneous to a shot by Nicoletti, which caused Files to miss slightly, as JFK's head was moving forward. That also caused the horrific impact to JFK's skull. Bottom line, I still feel that the back wound was real based on the actions of JFK with his hands being raised upward, which is precisely what happens when people who have back problems do when they are touched or struck on the back. I also still feel the the supposed throat wound was actually shrapnel exiting JFK's throat from the Files shot, which contained mercury. Thom Robinson said as much, when he viewed the autopsy at Bethesda. Robinson also said that he saw small particles of shrapnel that exited JFK's face as well.

[tom jeffers]

bobi agree.tomps i might need some help with my fantasy football team.

[Bob]

tom jeffers wrote:bobi agree.tomps i might need some help with my fantasy football team.I'm happy to help if I can my friend. Email me with any questions you may have.

[ThomZajac]

Bob wrote-Thom, you make some valid points. However, we know that there were shooters in the back, based on John Connally's wounds and the curb shot that hit James Teague. We also know that there were men on the 6th Floor of the TSBD and the Algens photo clearly shows three men in the Dal-Tex building, one of which was Charles Nicoletti (see below). Jimmy Files maintains that his frontal shot to JFK's head was almost simultaneous to a shot by Nicoletti, which caused Files to miss slightly, as JFK's head was moving forward. That also caused the horrific impact to JFK's skull. Bottom line, I still feel that the back wound was real based on the actions of JFK with his hands being raised upward, which is precisely what happens when people who have back problems do when they are touched or struck on the back. I also still feel the the supposed throat wound was actually shrapnel exiting JFK's throat from the Files shot, which contained mercury. Thom Robinson said as much, when he viewed the autopsy at Bethesda. Robinson also said that he saw small particles of shrapnel that exited JFK's face as well.I agree that there were shooters positioned behind the president and that he/they fired shots. I would say that that is indisputable. The real questions however, are 1) was their intent to hit the president or was it instead to divert attention from the frontal shooter(s) and implicate Oswald? and 2) was the president and/or Connally struck from behind?I know what the overwhelming consensus or near consensus is on this, and it may well be correct, but I simply do not feel the evidence to be strong enough to be considered conclusive, whereas the evidence regarding a shot from the front most certainly is (20 plus Parkland witnesses). Okay, you've got the the Files story. Intriguing and possibly true but very possibly false too. You've got the Zapruder film which many of us believe to have been in the hands of the conspirators who altered it, You've got the curb shot. But that certainly did not hit the president and may have not even been aimed at him- a diversionary shot to distract and implicate Oswald. You've got Thom Robinson but he didn't get to view the body, in my opinion, until after the conspirators had altered the body. You may think you have Connolly's wounds, but very little evidence is presented on them really and I do believe he was likely shot from the front as well.In a nutshell, the best evidence in a homicide is the body, but in this case it was not reliable after it left Parkland. And since the autopsy photos were taken after Parkland they are not reliable either. The best evidence then becomes the witnesses who viewed the president's body before it left Parkland- over 20 of them. ALL concluded he had been hit from the front, and none concluded he had been hit from behind. That's not conclusive that he was not hit from behind, but it pretty damn close in my book, and the other evidence you mention isn't enough to sway the probability in favor of a shot or shots having entered the president from behind. My opinion. Any hurricanes coming your way?Thom Zajac (not Robinson)

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:Bob wrote-Thom, you make some valid points. However, we know that there were shooters in the back, based on John Connally's wounds and the curb shot that hit James Teague. We also know that there were men on the 6th Floor of the TSBD and the Algens photo clearly shows three men in the Dal-Tex building, one of which was Charles Nicoletti (see below). Jimmy Files maintains that his frontal shot to JFK's head was almost simultaneous to a shot by Nicoletti, which caused Files to miss slightly, as JFK's head was moving forward. That also caused the horrific impact to JFK's skull. Bottom line, I still feel that the back wound was real based on the actions of JFK with his hands being raised upward, which is precisely what happens when people who have back problems do when they are touched or struck on the back. I also still feel the the supposed throat wound was actually shrapnel exiting JFK's throat from the Files shot, which contained mercury. Thom Robinson said as much, when he viewed the autopsy at Bethesda. Robinson also said that he saw small particles of shrapnel that exited JFK's face as well.I agree that there were shooters positioned behind the president and that he/they fired shots. I would say that that is indisputable. The real questions however, are 1) was their intent to hit the president or was it instead to divert attention from the frontal shooter(s) and implicate Oswald? and 2) was the president and/or Connally struck from behind?I know what the overwhelming consensus or near consensus is on this, and it may well be correct, but I simply do not feel the evidence to be strong enough to be considered conclusive, whereas the evidence regarding a shot from the front most certainly is (20 plus Parkland witnesses). Okay, you've got the the Files story. Intriguing and possibly true but very possibly false too. You've got the Zapruder film which many of us believe to have been in the hands of the conspirators who altered it, You've got the curb shot. But that certainly did not hit the president and may have not even been aimed at him- a diversionary shot to distract and implicate Oswald. You've got Thom Robinson but he didn't get to view the body, in my opinion, until after the conspirators had altered the body. You may think you have Connolly's wounds, but very little evidence is presented on them really and I do believe he was likely shot from the front as well.In a nutshell, the best evidence in a homicide is the body, but in this case it was not reliable after it left Parkland. And since the autopsy photos were taken after Parkland they are not reliable either. The best evidence then becomes the witnesses who viewed the president's body before it left Parkland- over 20 of them. ALL concluded he had been hit from the front, and none concluded he had been hit from behind. That's not conclusive that he was not hit from behind, but it pretty damn close in my book, and the other evidence you mention isn't enough to sway the probability in favor of a shot or shots having entered the president from behind. My opinion. Any hurricanes coming your way?Thom Zajac (not Robinson)In terms of hurricanes, I'm in Wisconsin now until the middle of October, but from what I have heard, it has not been too bad so far regarding hurricane forecasts in the Gulf. But it's REAL early yet. The water is already warm thanks to the BP oil spill. Speaking of the other Thom (Robinson), he was actually at both the pre-autopsy procedure altering the appearance of JFK and the ACTUAL autopsy at Bethesda. Doug Horne writes about that in his book. We will continue to agree to disagree about this point, but you are a worthy opponent my friend.

[ThomZajac]

I have to confess I have not read Doug Horne's masterpiece and so I'm a bit in the dark about how and when he believes JFK's body was altered and when precisely Thom Robinson got to look at it. But I do understand that Robinson believes the throat wound to be one of exit- caused by a shot from the front. If he's right (I'm not conceding that point), I guess that strengthens the case for the president being hit from behind because his initial reaction to being hit could not then have been from the throat wound. A shot to the back, you say. Could be, I say. Could be. Or not.I guess I'll have to get Horne's book-

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Thom Zajac, and Fellow JFK Forum Members:Thom - You've been a Great, Long Time, Strong Contributing JFK Forum Member who I agree with 80 % of the time, or more. I respect your efforts, input, and work. The totality of your work here convince me of your sincerity.Here's a few points that I strongly believe. Please think along with me, then provide your reflections.I always believed Jimmy's analysis that his exploding Mercury Tipped Hollow Point came through JFK'S throat based upon Jimmy's experience, and narration of what he saw through his scope. Even Wim first attacked Jimmy and myself in his First Edition, Files On JFK, and changed his opinion in the Second Edition.Later, videos and photos emerged, or were located by me that proved to me that there was no Through And Through Bullet Hole in the limo front windshield.My own research and study on this Subject Matter convinced me that there was no frontal bullet wound to JFK'S throatThen, Wim presented the report of the bullet-schrapnel path being traced from JFK'S head to his throat.Hence, I more strongly believed Jimmy's interpretation.Moving On:JFK was wearing two (2) back braces. Documented. Both are in the National Archives. Only one is in the Warren Commission Report. Serious.My opinion based upon personal, private tests is that the two back braces operated as a Partial Bullet Proof Vest. Not quite the same effect as Kevlar.But JKF was wearing:1. A suit jacket.2. A dress shirt.3. An undershirt.4. Back Brace # 1 with stretched nylon and canvas.5. Back Brace # 2 with heavy duty stretched nylon and canvas.The rifle shot to JFK'S back whether you believe it was:A. Oswald from the Texas School Book Depository Building, orB. Nicoletti from the Dal-Tex Building,was about 100 yards, give or take. This is the range that some basic rifles have begun to loose some of their range, effectiveness, and penetration.The combined layers of material would act as a Partial Bullet Proof Vest, further limiting the effectiveness and penetration power of a rifle slug, as the limo continued to move away from the shooter.All of this further underscores for me why they were going for a: HEADSHOT.For a guaranteed kill you always go for a headshot, or finish with a: HEADSHOT.Thom, this is My Opinion, nothing more.I welcome your analysis because you are so well read on this overall Subject Matter.Comments ?Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[dankbaar]

Bruce, There is a nother aspect to this discussion. As we have seen often before, Jimmy offers an opinion (based on his knowledge of the facts as he knows them) that goes AGAINST the mainstream concensus of the JFK research community. Very dumb for a hoaxer. Wim