Gary Marlow

[andries]

Thom ,sorry to interupt but that is a verry good thing i,ve also been wondering about for a long time,Why so mutch razzle dazzle about That shot,if it was fireded from behind ??? and the shot does fit in the time table of the shots,does it ?

[dankbaar]

Thom, Please realize that I am taking the trouble to convince you out of respect for you. That respect is not based on the fact that we agree on many things, but because I think highly of your ability to weigh the evidence with a logic, sincere open mind. Sometimes I ask myself why I should even try, because the best possible result would be to convince you and a handfull of people here on this forum. Almost certainly, I will not be able to wipe out the widespread contention that JFK was hit in the throat by a frontal bullet. That contention has rusted on the brainstems of too many, for me to be able to scrape it off there.It is ironic that you post Gil Jesus' youtube clip, because I was planning to do that myself, but you beat me to it. My reasons for posting it were quite the opposite of yours. Keep in mind that I think Gil Jesus is a good reseracher, with whom I agree on almost everything he says. But when I saw this clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQwherin he contends that JFK is "coughing up a bullet", it made me shiver about so much preposterous bull. I have not even tried to approach Gil about this, because usually what happens with researchers who invested much time and energy in a theory, they appear to be incapable of abandoning it. Besides, watching that clip and the irresponsible jumps to conclusions, it is clear that Gil fell in love with his theory. And love is usually blinding. First of all Gil makes the claim that "FK is pulling away his tie with his left hand, and cupping his right hand over his mouth, as if he is trying to cough up a bullet, lodged in his throat." Apart from the fact that this is PROVABLY NOT true, JFK is neither cupping his hand over his mouth, nor pulling away his tie, (anywone who studies the higher quality close up Zapruder frames can see this) I can assure you that being hit by a DEVASTATING bullet in the neck, demolishing your trachea, larynx and gullet, does not give you the experience that you have just a nasty peanut stuck in your throat, let alone that you still master the decency to put your hand over your mouth in trying to "cough it up". Now, with the provable baloney of this clip in mind, let us have a look at the other clip by Gil, posted by Thom. Gil argues there are two convincing pieces of evidence for a shot in the throat. Basically 1) the opinions of the Parkland doctors (Clark, Perry and Crenshaw) and 2) a through and through bullet hole in the windshield. Let us first take the latter "evidence". As much as I like to believe it, it has never been proven beyond any doubt that there was more than a crack in the windshield, that there was actually a hole. But even if that would have been proven, it is ridiculous to say that this is evidence for a shot from the front, because such a hole could as well have been made by a (missed) bullet from behind. In fact, this is far more likely, since it doesn't make sense for a shooter to shoot JFK from the front, right through the windshield and with other passengers in front of JFK, enhancing the risk of missing (and blocking) the target and hit others instead. Therefore this "evidence" is as weak as the strength that Gil likes to attach to it. In other words, a plus becomes a minus. Now let us look at the opinions of the doctors. First it must be realized that an opinion is not proof. You can have the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, but that does not make it fact. Ofcourse the doctors thought it was an entry wound! I don't blame them. Everyone would think that. You don't even need to be a doctor to have that opinion. It's logical. A small neat round wound, the size of pencil, is usually an entry wound. But the doctors had very little other information to arrive at their opinion. It was not their task to look for the exit wound or probe the bullet trajectory, like was done in the autopsy, it was their task to save JFK's life. They probably did not even look for an exit wound. Finding no exit wound and no bullet, would most likely have made them waver already in that opinion. Not to mention tracing the bullet path. They did not have that information. And they certainly did not have the information about the possibility of an explosive mercury filled bullet. If they would have been asked: Could that neat little round wound also have been caused by an exiting fragment from an explosive bullet, like a piece of shrapnel or a (heavy) drop of mercury, I wonder what they would have said. Anyhow, the opinion of the doctors that it was an entry wound, is no hard evidence that it was. I did not say that I have proven my point. All I am saying is that all things considered, the available evidence is much stronger for what I say, than for what others say about a frontal bullet, even if I am outnumbered by a million to one. Thom may say I am arrogant and have not proven my point, I have no issue with that. After all, I AM arrogant ! And what is proof? It is a subjective matter. For example you may have a murder with no witness to the crime, but a suspect may still be convicted based on the victim's blood on his hands and eyewitnesses testifing they have seen him near the crime scene. Nobody has seen the actual crime, but the evidence was sufficient for the judge to consider it proof. Another judge could again conclude otherwise. The evidence discussed here, was not even presented to a judge, so indeed I have not proven my point, certainly not legally. A judge might find a testimony of Thom Robinson about his observations during the autopsy, convincing proof. Then again he may not. We'll never know.

[dankbaar]

And that love is blinding was demonstrated by myself, as well as my arrogance. Below are direct quotes from my book: The small wound in the neck that everybody keeps talking about, I believe is an exit wound from the round that I used. I used a round that would explode on impact. This round was traveling at over 3,200 feet per second which would cause fragmentation on impact. And at that speed would penetrate, before exploding, which gives the effect that one wants for a guaranteed kill. That small wound they keep talking about, I believe is where a fragment exited from my round through his neck. But there is no way for me to prove that. Some will believe that he was shot from the front and hit in the neck, others will believe that the Umbrella Man shot him with a dart, and others, who knows what they believe.Note from Wim: I believe the throat shot was inflicted by another shooter on the south knoll, a shooter that James Files was not aware of, nor was told about. That shot went through the windshield and caused a thru and thru bullet hole. Evidence for this and more shooters can be found on http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com.(Bruce Brychek: )Jimmy's thought on the neck would are, that he was shooting Mercury loads, because they purposely explode upon impact. He thinks that pieces from his Mercury load came through Kennedy's neck, and also hit the windshield from the inside.Answer from Wim: Jimmy should stay away from speculation. Although his need to know knowledge actually enhances his credibility, and also proves that he is not "well read" on the assassination, there is no way that the throat wound was inflicted by a fragment from his bullet. The throat wound was caused by another bullet from the front (it could only have been from the south knoll in my opinion). It was a neat little round hole, recognised by all the Parkland doctors as an entry wound from a small caliber bullet. To my defense: I didn't know at the time I would speak with Thom Robinson a year later, and my love for the theory blocked me from using my brains.

[dankbaar]

Back to Gary Marlow, consider this: Jimmy Files fingers a lifelong friend as the killer of J.D. Tippit. He doesn't reveal his name, to protect that friend, but Bob Vernon puts the picture of that friend on the Internet for everyone to see. All this happens while Gary Marlow is still alive. Is it not a HUGE risk to take for James Files "the hoax"? What happens next? Gary Marlow does not stand up and blow Jimmy's story out of the water. He keeps in hiding. In fact, he is begging Jimmy to leave his name out of it, even after he is dead! Wim

[Bob]

I have posted this before, but as I am someone that has had some serious back issues, including two herniated discs because of my accident, the actions of JFK after passing the road sign are very much like the actions I have when I am poked in the back, like when my wife accidentally does at night. I clinch my fists and raise my arms. It is a neurological reaction.

[dankbaar]

Imagine what you would do if you're hit by the force of bullet 5 inches below the shoulder and slightly to the right of the spine. I bet your wife does'nt hit you that hard , but I also bet your elbows would fly forward, jerking your underarms and hands inward in the direction of your throat. Especially if you were just waving the crowd.

[Jsnow915]

Thom...if you get a chance,take a look at the Altgens photo...I'd post it but I'm not at my computer...Jackies hand is on JFk's left arm...like I said (only opinion)...that this is something Posner got right.

[ThomZajac]

Thanks, Wim. I had not considered that JFK was responding to a back wound until I visited this site, and I would like to think that I have since considered the evidence carefully. Your points are well taken.Here's a tale of something which I had long accepted as 'fact,' but have reexamined and been moved to a different conclusion. I know you will not agree with my revised view, but I share this story to demonstrate that I can indeed be open-minded on these matters.I was making a list of things I could say that I knew for certain to be true, and on that list was that JFK was killed by a shot fired from in front, and that he was also hit from a shot fired from behind, thereby proving multiple gunman and by definition, a conspiracy. For me, the back wound was proof that the president had been hit from behind. Later, however, in my discussions with David Lifton, I became aware that no one at Parkland had observed any such wound to the president's back. This does not mean, of course, that no back wound existed (I suppose it could have gone unnoticed), but this fact moved my fact into the category of 'uncertain.' When I considered that the back wound MIGHT have been added between Parkland and Bethesda, I was startled to realize that very little additional evidence existed to demonstrate the president had been hit from behind. None of the head wounds noted at Parkland indicated that he had been hit from the rear. On the Zapruder film there is the forward head movement of the president an instant before the fatal head shot, but that is not conclusive in my view, and I also believe the film was altered to support the contention that the president had been hit from behind. There is the fact that James Tegue was injured by a shot that almost certainly had to come from behind, but this obviously does not prove the president was hit by a bullet fired from behind. JFK's body was undeniably altered between Parkland and Bethesda so virtually all the medical evidence gathered at Bethesda is extremely suspect, including the autopsy photos. As for Connally, we all seem to accept that he was shot from behind, but what evidence do we really have?So my revised conclusions are these; the president was killed by a shot fired from in front. Shots were also fired from behind, but whether any of these shots hit the president is uncertain. It is possible that the plotters never intended to hit the president from behind (as illogical as that may seem), and that the shots were fired simply to implicate Oswald and were not aimed at the president. For me, that is a bit like considering that the world is not flat; most all of us have long accepted that the president was killed in a crossfire (if one is to define crossfire as shooters from significantly different positions firing at the same target), but I don't think that that case can be made beyond a reasonable doubt.The odd thing for me is that I often return to the point that such details, while interesting and fascinating, are not all that important to understanding what happened that day in Dallas. It was a coup d'etat, and that the plotters have been largely able to keep that coup a secret one speaks volumes about our situation today. Is it safe to say that here at the forum we have a consensus on that?

[ThomZajac]

Bob wrote:I have posted this before, but as I am someone that has had some serious back issues, including two herniated discs because of my accident, the actions of JFK after passing the road sign are very much like the actions I have when I am poked in the back, like when my wife accidentally does at night. I clinch my fists and raise my arms. It is a neurological reaction.Yes. I remember you saying that. My point is that reasonable arguments can be made supporting either wound being the cause of JFK's reaction, but that neither argument can be conclusive.

[dankbaar]

and I also believe the film was altered This is what I call another popular myth. For what purpose? Watching the Zapruder film, you don't see the president is hit from the right front? If you do, why didn't they alter that? And why did they keep the film from the public until they were forced to release it in 1975? The odd thing for me is that I often return to the point that such details, while interesting and fascinating, are not all that important to understanding what happened that day in Dallas. It was a coup d'etat, and that the plotters have been largely able to keep that coup a secret one speaks volumes about our situation today. Is it safe to say that here at the forum we have a consensus on that? ThomZajac I don't know that, It is safe to say I agree with that. So my revised conclusions are these; the president was killed by a shot fired from in front. I do not agree that the president was killed by a shot from in front. I believe that a shot from behind, the one in his head that struck him a fraction before the frontal headshot struck him, was also fatal. Shots were also fired from behind, but whether any of these shots hit the president is uncertain.Are you saying that you are uncertain that the president was hit by shots from behind?Wim