Jimmy Files Shot To JFK'S Head Killed JFK Instantly:

[ThomZajac]

I must again take David Lifton's position regarding the wound in the back.First of all, upon closer examination Secret Service agent Glen Bennett is not credible. I will look in Best Evidence to find the particulars, but in short, photos and film show that Glen Bennett was not looking at the president- but rather behind and to the right- at the time such a shot would have hit the president, and the precise nature of his explanation which corresponds EXACTLY with the official story line was not given until after the official story line had been established. Since NO ONE AT PARKLAND OBSERVED SUCH A WOUND the planners needed SOMETHING and Glen Bennett did the deed, in my opinion.Also my opinion, the wound(s) in the back were added after the president's body left the Parkland emergency room. The shallow wound was not originally intended to explain the throat wound but rather to indicate shots fired from behind AND to provide a wound from which the magic bullet -implicating Oswald's rifle- could have fallen. Later, when a rear entry wound was needed to correspond with the throat 'exit' wound, the back wound was moved up significantly.In short, where David Lifton stands almost alone is in his conclusion that the president was not hit from behind. I had long accepted the crossfire conclusion, but when I looked for evidence supporting a shot or shots entering from behind I was very surprised to learn that there was very little indeed. Don't get me wrong; I believe shots were fired from the Book Depository- but I believe the purpose of these shots were twofold- 1) to divert attention from the front, where the kill shot was to come from, and 2) to implicate Oswald.For me, the 'best evidence' is the president's body at Parkland. Not a single witness saw anything that indicated that the president had been struck from behind. I know I am in the minority, but if we know the body was altered before autopsy, then what evidence has the majority got that the president was hit from behind? Thom

[Dealey Joe]

ThomI have pretty much accepted the use of what I call a missfired DUD or a underload which happens mostly in reload or special load ammo for the low shallow back wound."if" in fact there were shots from the rear. one witness said one of the shots had a strange sound?Damm it's amazing how easy it is to be sucked into these explanations of "how it happened"Too simple to think all the shots from the rear missed? one of them must have hit Connoly, but that is what Jimmy said...miss....miss...miss????We thought he was talking about a head shot.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Michael Calder:Michael - Continuing our discussion and research about JFK'S obvious original shot to his back, I have resurrected my 05.14.2006 Headline Post, JFK'S SEXUAL EXCESSES AND COMPULSIVENESS MAY HAVE HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEATH. Please read and study this thread at your convenience. While Seymour M. Hersh and The Dark Side Of Camelot may not be highly regarded by some, he makes many powerful points that are spot on, and can not be ignored.Michael - Of noteworthy interest to me is that it took me approximately four (4) years from my original Headline Post to obtain and develop an intelligent discussion about the finely focused, and powerfully important points that I was trying to make.Of course I also recall that my original Headline Post on 03.22.2006 about your outstanding book JFK vs. C.I.A. also took some time to gain traction here.Comments ?Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[ThomZajac]

Bruce wrote in part;"Continuing our discussion and research about JFK'S obvious original shot to his back...."Obvious to whom? Certainly not ANY witness at Parkland.It may very well be that JFK was hit in the back, but the evidence for such a shot is not strong, and to call such a conclusion 'obvious' is misplaced.Certainly there is room for intelligent disagreement on this point, is there not?Thom

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:Bruce wrote in part;"Continuing our discussion and research about JFK'S obvious original shot to his back...."Obvious to whom? Certainly not ANY witness at Parkland.It may very well be that JFK was hit in the back, but the evidence for such a shot is not strong, and to call such a conclusion 'obvious' is misplaced.Certainly there is room for intelligent disagreement on this point, is there not?ThomOnly for you. I totally understand your point of view Thom, and we have debated this on more than a few occasions. I agree that JFK WAS shot in the back on the first shot that hit him. You know my reasons why, but here again is my reasoning for some of the newcomers. I still think the first shot hit JFK in the back and caused his arms to go near his throat...plus people like Kellerman heard JFK say that he was hit. A throat wound would make that very difficult to do...or it would have sounded very garbled. Take it from someone who has had severe back injuries (2 herniated discs among other issues), when I am touched in my back, I have the same type of movement. My arms go up, like I'm blocking in a football game. My fists also clinch. Remember, that JFK had back issues and was wearing a brace that day. That is one of the reasons he couldn't get down after the first shot.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Thom Zajac:Thom - I completely believe by all that I have heard, seen, researched, studied, and analyzed that JFK was shot in the back first. Period.I have absolutely zero interest in discussing this issue anymore, whatsoever. For me it is a complete waste of time. I have had discussions with people who were in Dallas, Texas on 11.22.1963. I have my own agenda, and this is not even on my radar. No disrespect, Thom as I know that you are an excellent JFK Forum Member, and I always read your material. But on this issue we must agree to disagree. A major point for me was that the two (2) back braces on JFK help destroy the single bullet theory even more.You previously mentioned David S. Lifton's work. He concentrates on the head wounds, the caskets, the casket liner, the body bag, and the funeral hearses. He focuses on the apparent surgical alterations between Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas after 1:00 p.m. vs. the Bethesda Maryland Autopsy conducted six (6) hours later. The former states that JFK was struck from the front. The latter, the government report, states that JFK was struck from behind.Since it seems of importance to you, please provide your opinion as to why JFK raises his hands, and grimaces after coming into view from the street sign ? If not from the back wound, then from what shot ? Comments ?Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[JDThomas]

Dealey Joe wrote:ThomI have pretty much accepted the use of what I call a missfired DUD or a underload which happens mostly in reload or special load ammo for the low shallow back wound."if" in fact there were shots from the rear. one witness said one of the shots had a strange sound?Damm it's amazing how easy it is to be sucked into these explanations of "how it happened"Too simple to think all the shots from the rear missed? one of them must have hit Connoly, but that is what Jimmy said...miss....miss...miss????We thought he was talking about a head shot. Does this match-up with Chauncey Holt's slightly cryptic claims concerning his experiments with Sabot loading?"... some of those shells found their way to Texas."

[Dealey Joe]

What bothers me is that the back wound was very shallow and done no apparent damage?how did this happen? if this was a legitimate shot where is the damage?The neck wound because of no apparent neck dammage I feel must be a shrapnel wound?I can buy the possibility that the back brace might have held JFK in an upright position with a brocken back.but a shot in the nech from the front wo8ild have the effect of taking off his head.Connelly seemed to have the only seriouse body wounds.Maybe we just don't have the truth about it.Now no one believes the Zapruder film.I think I am leaning toward the magic bullet theory... .222 from the picket fence.

[Dealey Joe]

JDThomas wrote:Dealey Joe wrote:ThomI have pretty much accepted the use of what I call a missfired DUD or a underload which happens mostly in reload or special load ammo for the low shallow back wound."if" in fact there were shots from the rear. one witness said one of the shots had a strange sound?Damm it's amazing how easy it is to be sucked into these explanations of "how it happened"Too simple to think all the shots from the rear missed? one of them must have hit Connoly, but that is what Jimmy said...miss....miss...miss????We thought he was talking about a head shot. Does this match-up with Chauncey Holt's slightly cryptic claims concerning his experiments with Sabot loading?"... some of those shells found their way to Texas."JD I don't recall Chauncy talking about Sabot? must have missed it, willl have to watch again.What is your take on Sabots?

[JDThomas]

Dealey Joe wrote:JD I don't recall Chauncy talking about Sabot? must have missed it, will have to watch again.What is your take on Sabots?Holt's talking about sabots is not on video as far as I am aware. He wrote it in a critique of Posner's book.http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3 ... .pdfPosner makes the statement that the cartridge manufactured by Western Cartridge Company was very accurate and reliable. What he fails to tell the reader—if he or his experts are aware of the fact—is that the weapon was not designed to handle American ammunition. We test-fired the weapons at various times—but not without considerable apprehension, considering the warning regarding the dangers inherent in using powerful American ammunition. We also reloaded a lot of ammunition using lead bullets, with varying amounts of different propellants and different bullet weights in an effort to improve its performance. We also “Mexican loaded” a lot of 6.5 mm ammo in larger “necked down” cases, and experimented with loading the Carcano bullet in a sabot, which was being developed at that time. The idea of the sabot was an old one and hadoriginally been designed for artillery rounds. In the 1960s, armorers were just beginning to experiment with sabots for rifle ammunition. The sabot offers endless possibilities for confusing ballistic experts. Much of this specially-loaded Carcano ammunition ended up in Texas and Louisiana.