Plausibility & Ramifications of a Throat Wound?

[steve manning]

I just watched a 2 part youtube defense by Gil Jesus regarding the alledged throat wound. Look I don’t know anything about this guy Gil Jesus, but the simple fact is, he presents a very sound argument for a throat shot from the front. I would only ask anyone concerned to watch it at least few times if necessary, without interuption, because some of the details require and demand our full attention! Up to this point I will say that Wim has come the closest to persuade me otherwise, with the argument that they wouldn’t have fired a shot from the front that soon, because it basically destroys the patsy argument that shots only came from behind. In a perfect world I have to say this makes a great deal of sense, but I believe there were signs that the ideal plan was starting to unravel and I wonder if some of those ideas got bumped in the last hour? Incidentally, I do believe the back wound was most likely the one JFK reacted to by throwing his arms and elbows in the air, which of course was early in the sequence; perhaps the very first shot, unless he was hit in the throat just before this. Either way both those shots simply can’t be very far apart in time. Perhaps, his elbows and arms were reacting to the throat shot? I do not know the answer, but either way, it doesn’t rule out a wound of entry in the throat. Furthermore, Gil Jesus presents evidence about the hole in the windshield which I would dare say (with perhaps a few exceptions) is just as solid as most of the other evidence we have in this case. The theory of Wim and Jimmy which states that mercury from the round he fired might have came down from the brain area through the neck and out the front of the throat, while plausible, simply seems less likely. I realize the wound was tracked by a pathologist or mortician, but I think more likely the throat wound was the point of entry, and perhaps it deflected off the spinal column in his neck and went upward into his brain? But in order for the throat wound to be some kind of exit and nick the front of the tie (instead of the back of it), it would have MOST LIKELY looked more like an exit of some kind. I don't think this discounts Jimmy's involvement, he is already admitted to having limited knowledge about the overall plan. I would only be able to guess as to why a shooter would have fired so soon. I do think it is fair to say there was some confusion as to whether the plan was even going to be carried out at that point. There was at least one aborted plan prior to Dallas (Miami and maybe Chicago?). Perhaps talk of an abort mission caused one of the shooters (probably a south knoll team) to become more concerned the job got completed this time as opposed to worrying about another aborted mission, which again, probably happened twice before (Chicago and Miami). Another aborted effort at this point would mean the equivalent of reelecting JFK. Perhaps these were some of the same men posted as shooters? If so, perhaps they were getting tired of being called off?I do believe that Dallas would have been percieved to be the last place to really pull this off; and as it may have seemed to be slipping away, perhaps concern about how it looked became less of a priority in the last hour? In another 39 days it would have been 1964, the final stretch of the reelection campaign. JFK wouldn't have been able to go to the toilet without press coverage, and I have to believe the forces of darkness would want to get the dirty deed over with while it was still relatively dark by comparison.Moreover, I can only imagine how such a shot would have looked through a scope from the south knoll area? I bet it may have looked like one of those now or never type scenarios? I would also have to admit he would have been aiming through the windshield at his target; a more difficult shot yes, but not implausible. In fact, the more I think about it, I would also guess the shooter wouldn't have been aiming at his throat either; he was probably more likely aiming right between his eyes? This seems to be one way the windshield would have interfered; by forcing the round to hit lower? I really don’t know, but I’m certainly open to suggestions. Apparentlhy the round was moving with enough velocity to penatrate the windshield cleanly; if so, it is doubtful there would have been much of a drop in elevation from that distance? I believe under 200 yards? I will paste both links below for your review. Thanks for reading!PART ONEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=_QLFOzwsYSMPART TWOhttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=0Sl6V-0nK ... rely,Steve Manning

[Pennyworth]

I believe the throat shot came from the front, shot from the bridge.The throat shot was an entry wound , exiting out his back IMO . The shot to the throat came from above, possibly nicking the windshield. Note that the back shot was lower than the throat shot. Its perfectly logical to assume that these people who planned this so well would not risk having the grassy knoll shooters miss, and botch their murderous mission . The bridge shot was the back up. Or the grass knoll was the back up. They checked and covered each other.

[steve manning]

The shot to the throat came from above, possibly nicking the windshield. Do you mean "from above" the windshield?Its perfectly logical to assume that these people who planned this so well would not risk having the grassy knoll shooters miss, and botch their murderous mission . The bridge shot was the back up. Or the grass knoll was the back up. They checked and covered each other.[/quote]When you say "they" checked with each other, are you at least referring to Files? If so, I'm just curious how you know "they checked and covered each other?"I understand of course the front shots were back up, at least according to the original plan. However, with talk of aborting the op, I can't help but wonder if any of the shooters wondered if some of the others bailed? Thinking perhaps at the last hour they should take any shot they could get (even if was from the front), not knowing if the other teams, were still in their original places, (not that they would have known to begin with)thinking they might have aborted?Thanks for the feedbackSteve

[Pennyworth]

steve manning wrote:The shot to the throat came from above, possibly nicking the windshield. Do you mean "from above" the windshield?The bridge (from where I allege that one shot came from) that the limo was driving towards was at a higher elevation than the street that the limo was driving on...Its perfectly logical to assume that these people who planned this so well would not risk having the grassy knoll shooters miss, and botch their murderous mission . The bridge shot was the back up. Or the grass knoll was the back up. They checked and covered each other.When you say "they" checked with each other, are you at least referring to Files? If so, I'm just curious how you know "they checked and covered each other?"Yes on Files. I am conjecturing here on 'checking and covering'I understand of course the front shots were back up, at least according to the original plan. However, with talk of aborting the op, I can't help but wonder if any of the shooters wondered if some of the others bailed? Thinking perhaps at the last hour they should take any shot they could get (even if was from the front), not knowing if the other teams, were still in their original places, (not that they would have known to begin with)thinking they might have aborted?Thanks for the feedbackSteve[/quote]

[steve manning]

Any ideas where a shooter could have been on that bridge where the others up there would not have noticed? Did you watch the "Wound of Entry" videos? Also, where would a shooter on the bridge (who did not have the windshield in his field of fire) been aiming? for the throat or between the eyes, or somewhere else?Steve

[Pennyworth]

steve manning wrote:Any ideas where a shooter could have been on that bridge where the others up there would not have noticed? Did you watch the "Wound of Entry" videos? As I said in an earlier post, people were looking at the presidential parade, not the bridge IMO. Someone could have taken a shot real fast, ducking in and out of sight. The bridge was reported to have been closed to traffic. I will see if I can retrieve the info Also, where would a shooter on the bridge (who did not have the windshield in his field of fire) been aiming? for the throat or between the eyes, or somewhere else?I don't knowSteveexcerpt taken from Lee Forman speaks... posted under Gordon Arnold thread: Cops on the bridge. One was Roscoe White. He's been proven to be a very shaky character. I don't recall who the other cop was, but there appeared to have been widespread badness in the Dallas Police department at that time. - Witnesses that saw men with long rifles on the overpass prior to the assassination

[ThomZajac]

Steve wrote-"I am sorry to be such a persistent pain about this topic but I just watched a 2 part youtube defense regarding, you guessed it, the throat wound. Look I don’t know anything about this guy Gil Jesus, but he presented a sound argument for what I’ve suspected to be the truth all along. I will say that Wim has come the closest to persuade me otherwise, with the argument that they wouldn’t have fired a shot from the front that soon, because it basically destroys the patsy argument that shots only came from behind."Steve, have you read Best Evidence by David Lifton? In addition to proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the JFK's body did not arrive at the autopsy table at Bethesda in the same condition that it had left Parkland, he also maps out a very good case for shots having hit JFK ONLY from the front. This seems counterintuitive if one is trying to frame a patsy in a position from behind, but a close look at the evidence helps put this into better perspective.Members o the Warren Commission viewed the autopsy as the best evidence. But if the body was altered prior to autopsy (which it was) then the observations by the medical personnel at Parkland Hospital thereby becomes the best evidence. No one at Parkland noted or observed any wound on the president consistent with an entry from the rear. They observed an entry wound to the throat with no exit, and an entry wound to the LEFT temple, and an exit wound in the right rear of the head. Lifton contends that the back wound and the entry wound low on the head were added after the body left Parkland, and that the exit wound was expanded to four times its Parkland size- up and forward.The plan, Lifton says, was to shoot the president only from in front and not have the bullets exit, and then before autopsy enlarge the entry wounds to make them consistent with an exit wounds and then add small entry wounds in the rear to correspond- to reverse the trajectory of the bullets. The plan required the removal of all bullets from the body, and then the planting of Oswald bullets in the limousine and on a stretcher. Shots entering from behind fired from any riffle but Oswald's would have created a major problem if it did not go all the way through the president; retrieving the bullet before autopsy would have enlarged the entry wound (making it look more like an exit wound). Essentially, if the plotters planned to gain control of the body to alter the wounds before autopsy (which they did), then it makes sense to fire only from in front- as weird as that may sound. But the best evidence bears than out. This is not to say that no shots were fired from behind- but those shots were diversionary and fired to implicate Oswald, not to hit the president.So having the first shot hit JFK in the throat from in front is consistent with the plan as explained by David Lifton. Many of us assume JFK was killed in a crossfire, but it is an assumption not strongly supported by evidence.Lastly, I do think the fatal shot that exited the back of the president's head was NOT part of the plan: it created a big problem for the planners and resulted in a massive top-of-the-head wound that greatly aroused the suspicions of Dr. Humes who remarked that there had been surgery in the top of the head area (no such surgery was performed at Parkland). Hope that helps-Thom

[Dealey Joe]

If there was in fact a throat wound I think it was a shrapnel wound.and if there was a second shot from the front it most likely came from the street drain which might explain the damage to the windsheild?

[steve manning]

Thom,Best Evidence is the first major JFK book I ever read...back in 1985 while I was in Japan in the Army. So I'm familiar with his thesis and how the body is the best evidence in a murder investigation etc. I've been studying and following the case since the day it happened (for 46 years). My whole point here is really more of a friendly rebuttle to Wim's latest theory about the throat wound. I believe JFK was hit from the front and the back.Did you watch the you tube videos I pasted in my post? Thanks,Steve

[steve manning]

Dealey Joe wrote:If there was in fact a throat wound I think it was a shrapnel wound.and if there was a second shot from the front it most likely came from the street drain which might explain the damage to the windsheild?Hey Joe,The storm drain theory has been debunked for some time now; I realize Gary Mack has no credibility on this forum, and I'm not sure he should? All questions about his personal views aside, even he had the good sense to place a camera in the drain to reveal the view from there. A shooter couldn't see far enough down the street to make such a shot, particularly prior to the Stemmons freeway sign where JFK was first hit.Did you watch the Youtube videos in my first post? The trajectory of the windsheild hole and the neck wound obviously traces back via a certain trajectory, which apparently is best fit by the south knoll (I've never been there). Check it out if you haven't yet.Steve