Gary Marlow

[Pennyworth]

Pennyworth wrote: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?I I should have edited my last statement last night I was in a hurry. I am debating this issue. IMO gary Marlow is a fictiious name /alias pseudonymHas anyone actually seen the alleged letters from Files to Marlow and Marlow's rejection for using his name ?

[ThomZajac]

This is a response to Wim's latest post on this subject."and I also believe the film was altered" (Thom's reference to the Zaupruder film)Wim's response to that- 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? Thom's response to that-The purpose of alternation was at least two-fold; 1) to attempt to eliminate evidence that the president was struck from in front, and 2) to eliminate the stop or very near stop of the presidential limousine. That said, they weren't magically creating an entirely new film, and their ability to alter it was limited. The plotters knew they had not eliminated all evidence indicating a shot from the front (the violent back and to the left motion of the president, for example), and so only only stills released, until they were forced to release the film TWELVE YEARS after the fact.Whether or not the Zapruder film was altered is a key element in the weighing of evidence, obviously. I don't want to argue all the reasons to suspect alteration at this moment, but I will mention one. The horrible wound to the right/top/nearly front of JFK's head in the Zapruder film was not consistent with any of the observations at Parkland Hospital. My response to your calling Zapruder film alteration a 'myth' is that I think you are clearly wrong on one the central aspects of the JFK assassination and coverup. I do think we should open up a thread on this very important topic.Thom wrote- 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 Wim's response to that- I don't know that, It is safe to say I agree with that. Thom's response to that- I'm not sure I understand your answer. Sorry.Thom Wwrote- So my revised conclusions are these; the president was killed by a shot fired from in front.Win's response- 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.Thom's response to that- There is no medical evidence at Parkland to support that view, and there is ample evidence at Parkland to refute it. Thom wrote-Shots were also fired from behind, but whether any of these shots hit the president is uncertain.Wim's response- Are you saying that you are uncertain that the president was hit by shots from behind?Thom's response to that- That is precisely what I am saying, and on this subject it is I who is trying to get the message out that the world might not be flat. Again, no one at Parkland observed any wound to the president which might indicate that he had been struck from behind. Such 'evidence' only shows up at Bethesda after the plotters had gained control of the body hours before. The best evidence is the president's body at Parkland, and that is what I am always going to come back to. I'm not saying that the president was absolutely NOT hit from a shot fired from behind, but I am saying that my examination of the evidence has led me to the conclusion that he was not. I realize this is a minority view, but I'll ask all of you who are so sure that JFK was struck from behind how you can be so sure in light of the fact that no one at Parkland observed any such wounds.Thom

[Pennyworth]

I shouldn't even be commenting here, but if you ask me to put 2 cents in, it looks like 3 seperate shots - 1- one to the side of the face2 -one to the back of the head3-one to the front throat area I wouldn't think that #1 and #3 were related shots.But I am no expert.But the experts don't know either

[dankbaar]

I should have edited my last statement last night I was in a hurry. I am debating this issue. IMO gary Marlow is a fictiious name /alias pseudonymHas anyone actually seen the alleged letters from Files to Marlow and Marlow's rejection for using his name ?Pennyworth, Since you emailed me that you spoke to Woody Harrelson in Santa Monica and gave me his alleged email adress and I found that it was not Woody Harrelson at all, I don't know what to think of you. With your post above, I do know that you can't read very well. Wim

[Pennyworth]

Thats the e-mail address he gave me.Did you ever contact him through his website address that I pm'd you??You are getting me quite confused and vice-versa.But we can straighten this out ok?Please explain what you mean that I can't read very well.I know that I can't type already

[Pennyworth]

If you are talking about the throat shot Wim, I just said to me it looks like it came from the front.I just found this info also .....this might help it might not...http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid5.htm

[Pennyworth]

Win's response- 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.PP: Wim I agree with you here...but I am just agreeing we do not know.

[Pennyworth]

dankbaar wrote: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. . WimOK Wim here I see your article.I do have a habit of skipping the bullet ones .But why are you saying that Files was the ONLY shooter from the FRONT and not supposed to shoot?Very confusingWim said:"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. "

[Pennyworth]

maybe R.D. Matthews took a shot also .He was listed by the FBI as being a burglar and a murderer.

[Pennyworth]

Was there an overhead bridge that the limo was driving toward in the scenerio?