Mockup of JFK's headwounds

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and Fellow JFK Forum Members:Wim - My Friend, of course I agree. You and I first touched on this point several years ago when we first met in Chicago, Illinois and dined with Nick Whalen.Just as Jimmy talked of the "unheard of" Remington XP - 100 Fireball, for some a "non-existent weapon" when first mentioned, he seemingly set himself up for criticism, disbelief, and failure if his real purpose had been immediate acceptance. Then he might have claimed he used a Manlicher Carcano.Comments ?Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.

[Dealey Joe]

Couple of thoughtsEven if the throat wound had not came from the Mercury, it could just as easily been caused by shrapnel from the bullet that hit the metal frame propelling a small chuck of metal back at the passengers. I believe there was metal pieces found in the car?Also very few would have known the experimental model XP-100 was chambered for .222Someone making up a story would most likely have used the .221 caliber story.

[ThomZajac]

Bruce,Excellent points, and you may very well be correct on all counts. I wish I had all the faith in Jimmy as you do, and maybe that will come over time, but I remain skeptical to some degree: I certainly believe it very likely that he was CIA/Mafia, in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and aware of and part of the plot to kill JFK. I do think there was more to the plot than he was aware or is willing to tell (other shooters for example) and whether or not he fired the fatal shot is still an open question for me. Could very well be.But here's how my cautious mind works: let's say Jimmy did fire the fatal shot from the grassy knoll. This would not prove JFK was hit from behind by Nicoletti or anyone else. Jimmy says that Nicoletti said that he did, but people say lots of things and Nicoletti may have had reason to say that, and if I recall correctly, Nicoletti would have been a very odd choice to shoot at the president from anywhere but a step or two away. I know Jimmy says and the Zapruder film supports that a shot from behind struck JFK an instant before Jimmy's, and that's a good point, not to be dismissed, but I simply can't point much weight on the Zapruder film. Again, I know I'm in the minority in saying that the evidence is not conclusive that JFK was struck from behind, and I'm not saying he wasn't. I guess I'm just super cautious in my determination of what constitutes conclusive evidence. I certainly respect your views to the contrary. So here's a question: if Nicoletti (or anyone else) fired a shot from the rear that hit JFK in the head an instant before Jimmy's shot, why did not one at Parkland see evidence of such a wound? And one more thing: if a head shot was what they were after, and JFK was hit in his lower back, how do you explain a professional shooter missing his mark by TWO FEET? I suppose it's possible, but that counts as evidence against in my way of thinking. Not conclusive, of course.Here's an unrelated question for you: In my Zapruder discussion/argument with Wim I became aware of the fact that all three videos taken at Dealey Plaza omit the turn from Houston to Elm (or the part once the limousine had come onto Elm). This seems extremely unlikely to me to be mere coincidence and lends itself as evidence pointing to something occurring then and there that the conspirators didn't/don't want us to know about. Your thoughts?Thom

[dankbaar]

So here's a question: if Nicoletti (or anyone else) fired a shot from the rear that hit JFK in the head an instant before Jimmy's shot, why did not one at Parkland see evidence of such a wound? Easy: The evidence for such a wound have been destroyed by the exit blastout (the size of a grapefruit) caused by the shot from the grassy knoll. And one more thing: if a head shot was what they were after, and JFK was hit in his lower back, how do you explain a professional shooter missing his mark by TWO FEET? If you mean the backwound below the shoulder, it was not even 1 foot from the head, and it is even for a professional shooter not easy to hit a moving target from that distance (TSBD or Daltex). James clarifies that he ASSUMES the back shots came from Nicoletti, as Nicoletti was the only shooter he was aware of. He says on several occasions that he did not SEE Nicoleti firing the shots. Ofcourse we know that besides Nicoletti in the Daltex there were also shooters on the sixth floor of TSBD. The question is if Files would have known that. He says he does not, and if Nicoletti would have known, he would not have told him, which is plausible and consistent with a need to know modus operandi. My personal take is that the backwound came not from Nicoletti but from the TSBD (it had a downward angle of 45 degrees) and that the missed shot hitting the curb and wounding James Tague, came from Nicoletti, as well as the shot that hit JFK in the back of the head. Although that shot could also have come from the TSBD.

[Davyjones]

Is it possible that the first shot from the TSB was premature,deliberate wide(the kerb shot) and caused a suprised Nicoletti to miss the head and hit the upper back ( a bad miss which could have aborted the mission) The next Nicoletti shot thwarted by JFKs forward head movement,hits Connelly. Only his third shot and Files shot do the fatal damage?

[ThomZajac]

dankbaar wrote:So here's a question: if Nicoletti (or anyone else) fired a shot from the rear that hit JFK in the head an instant before Jimmy's shot, why did not one at Parkland see evidence of such a wound? Easy: The evidence for such a wound have been destroyed by the exit blastout (the size of a grapefruit) caused by the shot from the grassy knoll. And one more thing: if a head shot was what they were after, and JFK was hit in his lower back, how do you explain a professional shooter missing his mark by TWO FEET? If you mean the backwound below the shoulder, it was not even 1 foot from the head, and it is even for a professional shooter not easy to hit a moving target from that distance (TSBD or Daltex). James clarifies that he ASSUMES the back shots came from Nicoletti, as Nicoletti was the only shooter he was aware of. He says on several occasions that he did not SEE Nicoleti firing the shots. Ofcourse we know that besides Nicoletti in the Daltex there were also shooters on the sixth floor of TSBD. The question is if Files would have known that. He says he does not, and if Nicoletti would have known, he would not have told him, which is plausible and consistent with a need to know modus operandi. My personal take is that the backwound came not from Nicoletti but from the TSBD (it had a downward angle of 45 degrees) and that the missed shot hitting the curb and wounding James Tague, came from Nicoletti, as well as the shot that hit JFK in the back of the head. Although that shot could also have come from the TSBD.Good points, Wim. Yes, it appears the only place a head shot could have entered was the area that got blown out by the frontal head shot. I am assuming that such a rear entry shot would not have exited under that scenario.If the curb shot was caused by a bullet intended for the president (and not simply a diversionary shot), it most certainly had to have come from the Dal-Tex Building, Fletcher Prouty pointed out long ago that a near-miss from the Dal-Tex building could explain the curb shot, but from any other location the miss would have had to have been by such a margin as to be comical.Not to split hairs, but I'm pretty sure the original location of the back wound was lower than the final official version, certainly more than a foot from the bottom of the head, but maybe not quite two feet either. Lower back is how I remember it, but I'm rusty regarding such details.Anyway, if I've got it right, according to those who believe that the president was struck from behind as well as the front, he was hit from behind twice (or more?). One shot entered the back of the head and did not exit, and the entry wound was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot. And no one at Parkland noticed the back wound because it was not causing much/any bleeding, and the president was on his back most of the time, and the nurses who stripped him down and cleaned him prior to placement in the casket just didn't notice. That's possible, certainly, but the odds of no one seeing the back wound are pretty long in my book. Stranger things have happened, to be sure.Thom

[dankbaar]

Anyway, if I've got it right, according to those who believe that the president was struck from behind as well as the front, he was hit from behind twice (or more?). One shot entered the back of the head and did not exit, and the entry wound was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot. And no one at Parkland noticed the back wound because it was not causing much/any bleeding, and the president was on his back most of the time, and the nurses who stripped him down and cleaned him prior to placement in the casket just didn't notice. That's possible, certainly, but the odds of no one seeing the back wound are pretty long in my book. Stranger things have happened, to be sure.I do not understand this. First you say it's plausible that the entry wound "was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot", but then you say "the odds of no one seeing the back wound are pretty long in my book."What do you mean? Do you mean the entry wound "that was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot"? Or do you mean the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot? If the latter, you are in error, since the exit wound was seen by virtually all of the witnesses: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htmIf the first , you just said it would be plausible that none of the witnesses would have seen an entry wound, as itv was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot?Hence , I am at a loss here what you're trying to say. Wim

[ThomZajac]

dankbaar wrote:Anyway, if I've got it right, according to those who believe that the president was struck from behind as well as the front, he was hit from behind twice (or more?). One shot entered the back of the head and did not exit, and the entry wound was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot. And no one at Parkland noticed the back wound because it was not causing much/any bleeding, and the president was on his back most of the time, and the nurses who stripped him down and cleaned him prior to placement in the casket just didn't notice. That's possible, certainly, but the odds of no one seeing the back wound are pretty long in my book. Stranger things have happened, to be sure.I do not understand this. First you say it's plausible that the entry wound "was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot", but then you say "the odds of no one seeing the back wound are pretty long in my book."THOM"S RESPONSEI'm talking about two different possible shots- the head shot (obliterated by the frontal head shot you say) and the back shot, which no one saw at Parkland. What do you mean? Do you mean the entry wound "that was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot"? Or do you mean the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot? If the latter, you are in error, since the exit wound was seen by virtually all of the witnesses: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htmIf the first , you just said it would be plausible that none of the witnesses would have seen an entry wound, as itv was obliterated by the exit wound caused by the frontal head shot?Hence , I am at a loss here what you're trying to say. THOM'S RESPONSEI hope you are at a loss no longer.ThomWim

[dankbaar]

I am still at a loss, but if you don't want to explain, so be it.However, it is interesting to not that so many witness saw the gaping back wound, yet on the autopsy photo there is none. So the fakers of this photo (i.e. the US government) in essence say these witnesses were all wrong. Hence the man claiming to have fired the shot that caused that wound, must be a lying hoax.

[ThomZajac]

Wim,I'm confused. I think anyone reading my post would understand that I was addressing the two possible shots that shot-from-behind advocates believe hit the president.1) the shot to the back of the head, who's entry wound, they say, was obliterated by the frontal head shot. I said I found this explanation plausible (which is not to say that the evidence is conclusive that he was hit from behind in this spot).and2) the shot in his back (as in his BACK), the wound that no one saw at Parkland. This is the wound that I said I thought the odds of not being seen were very long.Please tell me what question am I not answering?Also, I am trying to play nice, but you are making it difficult.Thom