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

[Phil Dragoo]

Thom, you cite Lifton circa 365-6 wherein he deplores the overlarge clothing ellipses, and 367 where he cites Willis 5 showing Glenn Bennett seeing the back wound from fifty feet looking in another direction. JD, you reference Chauncey Holt's mention of making sabots which wound up in Dallas. Marrs writes on 317:Dean Morgan of Lewisville (a suburb of Dallas) was told Texas researchersthat in 1975 his father was working on air-conditioning equipment on theroof of the Dallas County Records Building located just catercorner fromthe Texas School Book Depository. The Records Building's west side facesonto Dealey Plaza and there is a waist-high parapet along the edge of itsroof.According to Morgan, his father discovered a 30.06-caliber shell casing lyingunder a lip of roofing tar at the base of the roof's parapet on the side facingDealey Plaza while searching for water leaks.The shell casing is dated 1953 and marks indicate it was manufactured atthe Twin Cities Arsenal. One side has been pitted by exposure to theweather, indicating it lay on the roof for a long time. The casing, which remainsin Morgan's possession, has an odd crimp around its neck.Rifle experts have explained to Morgan that this is evidence that a sabotmay have been used to fire ammunition from a 30.06 rifle. A sabot is a plasticsleeve that allows a larger-caliber weapon to fire a smaller-caliber slug.The results of using a lighter-weight slug include increased velocity producingmore accuracy and greater striking power. And the smaller slug exhibitsthe ballistics of the weapon it was originally fired from, rather than, in thiscase, the 30.06, as the sabot engages the 30.06's rifling.98Thom, you see the Secret Service as Bob the Builder using a No. 3 Phillips to make the back wound, and a 22-ounce framing hammer to enlarge the Parkland occipital into the Bethesda C-54 hangar door.JD, I believe you and Holt raise the very likely possibility that technical developments both of Holt's sabot and Mitch WerBell's suppressed weapons would have played.Joe, you suggest a dud for the shallowness of the back wound. Absolutely has to be considered; as do the two braces--and of course these are in the National Archives, cracked Tom wisely.Somehow Connally was shot in the back. I don't see any evidence which excludes Jimmy Files; just find a sense he may be covering for person or persons unknown.For the reason that there were more missiles in heaven and earth than have been dreamt in any philosophy by any bard to date. Hence Bob and Bruce have called together this meeting of Baker Street Irregulars.Whoever bought the contract, Jimmy put the final ink to it; all subsequent being revision.

[ThomZajac]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote: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.Hi Bruce,I agree that we will simply have to disagree on this point, which is fine. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying JFK wasn't hit from behind- rather I am saying that the evidence I've seen is weak (in my opinion) and can hardly be considered conclusive.I believe JFK's initial response to being shot was in response to receiving a bullet wound of entry to his throat. I understand and respect Bob's and your and Wim's and others viewpoint that JFK's clenched fist response is also consistent with having been shot in the back. Again, I'm not saying that such a conclusion is outlandish, just weak on supporting evidence.As an aside, I don't think it is just unfortunate luck that JFK was hidden behind the Stemmons Freeway sign when first struck. Had he been struck in the back there would have been less reason to hide that moment than there would have been had he been struck from the front. Small point, I know, but worth mentioning.Also, do you know the status of the back braces? Seems to me that if one or both bore a bullet hole that the government would have made them available for public view. If one or both are not available, and no bullet hole is to be found, I think that tells us something too.I enjoy your posts, Bruce, and I think we are probably very close on the big picture view of things- which is really the most important view. The particulars regarding events after the bullets started flying while fascinating, are really quite secondary in comparison.We could have a good time over I few beers I'm sure.Thom

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Thom Zajac:Thom - Thank You for your good natured reply, and disagreement. We will have to fight about who picks up the check for those beers, but I look forward to meeting you some day. In the mean time Wim's JFK Forum, and the internet allow this type of friendship which we develop with many others, and for that I am additionally appreciative and supportive of Wim's dedication, website, and JFK Forum.That said, I understand your fine, narrow point that there is "no conclusive proof." At times too I focus on a tree, and at other times I focus on the forest. Certainly those observing me will see some idioyncracies within my nature that I do not see, or understand. Perhaps that is differently inherent in varying ways in each of our individual nature, education, and focus at a specific point in time, and varies to different degrees with different subject matters.O.K., my words, we sort of disagree on the proof level of "the possible shot to JFK'S back."Round two. No way do I believe that JFK was shot in the throat. One of the softest, most easily penetrable areas of the body, with minimal chances for deflection.Give me your supporting arguments.Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Dealey Joe]

Thom said;I believe JFK's initial response to being shot was in response to receiving a bullet wound of entry to his throat. I understand and respect Bob's and your and Wim's and others viewpoint that JFK's clenched fist response is also consistent with having been shot in the back. Again, I'm not saying that such a conclusion is outlandish, just weak on supporting evidence. Thom could you explain why a shot from the front did little if any damage to JFK's throatWe all agree it has the appearance of an entry but does not show the effects of entrance?Splain' that pleeze

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Joe "Dealey Joe" Hall:Joe - JFK was hit in the back first, and never shot in the throat.Where is the exit wound from a throat shot to the front ?We know for a fact it never came through the front windshield as there was no bullet hole through the front windshield, only a nick or chip.When hit in the back JFK said: "I'm hit."Impossible to do if shot in the throat.Comments ?Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[ThomZajac]

Dealey Joe wrote:Thom said;I believe JFK's initial response to being shot was in response to receiving a bullet wound of entry to his throat. I understand and respect Bob's and your and Wim's and others viewpoint that JFK's clenched fist response is also consistent with having been shot in the back. Again, I'm not saying that such a conclusion is outlandish, just weak on supporting evidence. Thom could you explain why a shot from the front did little if any damage to JFK's throatWe all agree it has the appearance of an entry but does not show the effects of entrance?Splain' that pleeze Joe, wounds show (relatively) little damage at points of entry, especially in fleshy (non-boney) areas such as throat. And so the real question is 'why didn't the bullet exit?' which is a good question. Most people, when considering the possibility that the throat wound was one of entrance assume that the trajectory of the shot to be flat, but while that may have been the case, it is also possible that the trajectory was downward. A low velocity bullet entering JFK's neck just below the adam's apple and going downward could have caused a good deal of internal damage in the president's chest/lung area, and in Lifton's Best Evidence there is evidence of such damage.Bruce as far as evidence supporting the neck wound being one of entrance it's hard to do better than Dr. Malcomb Perry, the Parkand Doctor who performed the tracheotomy. He was very experienced with gun shot wounds and he called the neck wound one of entry a number of times on November 22. I believe Doug Horne's latest work sites a Secret Service or CIA man who admits to employing very heavy tactics to later get Perry to change his story to 'could have been either' or something along those lines. While I suppose it is possible that Perry was wrong, what we've got here is a qualified doctor certain on November 22 of what he saw while the president's body was still warm. This certainly qualifies as very strong evidence.

[Dealey Joe]

Bruce I agree from my way of seeing itI think this photo was taken about the time of the first shot.most are looking back as though a shot has been fired from the rear.There are better photos showing this but this is the only one I can find now.Some of the cops are looking at JFK and some are looking to the rear.Also there was much more cover from the rear. I can see no reason to suspectthat he was not hit in the back.

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Messrs. Thom Zajac and Joe "Dealey Joe" Hall:Thom and Joe - I think that it is naive, simplistic, and bordering on stupid to believe anything that came out of those doctor's who "...so valiantly tried to save JFK'S life...",(tear, tear). Hell, he was dead as a doornail one (1) second after the shot to JKF'S right front temple area blew his head off, and the in place cover-up took control with in-place unidentified CIA, FBI, and Military Intelligence who arrived with JFK'S body. Are they always on one (1) minute stand-by in case a President of the United States is assassinated ? I don't think so, normally. But in this case they clearly were. JFK couldn't even legally be declared brain dead because HE HAD NO BRAIN LEFT, it was blown out backwards and landed on the trunk which Jackie only retrieved a portion of.I will find Wim's previous research on this. If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck I recall Wim saying. Well the exit wound looked like an entrance wound because not a single one of these doctor's that you reference had any experience with, nor did they consider a Mercury Loaded Exploding Hollow Point.Thom - Explain the OTHER EXIT WOUNDS THROUGH JFK'S FACE THAT HAD TO BE FILLED WITH WAX AND CLAY WITHIN YOUR EXPLANATION ?Arguendo, Tom, give me a line of flight downward over the windshield, or from any forseeable angle that hits JFK in the throat, before JFK emerges from the sign, when he grimmaces, raises his hands, and says: "I'm hit," since NO BULLET came through the window. And your argument assumes an assassin was sighing in the killing of the President of the United States of America with a .22 calibre bullet ? Thom, defies reason from all angles. O.K., I'll play the stupid game. Show me ?(Thom, no disrespect intended. I just think that this is such a complete total waste of time.)Comments ?Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[kenmurray]

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ga ... _Large.jpg

[ThomZajac]

Joe, I am of virtually certain that a shot or shots were indeed FIRED from behind, but that certainly does not mean JFK was HIT from behind. I think it is very possible, perhaps even likely that the shots were fired only to create a diversion and to implicate Oswald.Here's the key: all bullets hitting JFK would have have to be removed before autopsy because they would not have come from Oswald's riffle. If you go in through the entry wound to retrieve the bullet, the wound gets much bigger and resembles an exit wound. Thus, planning to hit the president from behind would create some major problems. Better to hit the president only from the front and then alter the entry wounds to make them appear to be exit wounds. These guys were pros shooting from close range at a target moving towards them- no crossfire was needed, there was no escape route for the limo once it turned onto Elm.I know shooting from the front to implicate a shooter from behind is counterintuitive, but once it is realized that the bullets had to be removed shooting only from the front makes perfect sense.Thom