Limo window crack+dent prove 4th shot

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:Excellent video, Ken. EXCELLENT. I am always leery of using the (altered) Zapruder film in an attempt to prove anything, but I do think the witness testimony proves the point entirely. Destroying the windshield?! This case is so obvious it wouldn't make a good episode of C.S.I.I would, however,like to use this topic to again point out something that I've been harping on for a while, Namely, that the medical staff (and others) at Parkland were certain that the president had been hit from the front (at least twice), but there is absolutely no such evidence from Parkland indicating that the president was hit from the rear. That only happens later; autopsy, autopsy photos, Zapruder film- things the planners could control. (And the 'testimony' of James Files).For many many years I had simply accepted that the president had been struck from behind, as this had never seemed to be in doubt for nearly every researcher (except David Lifton). The bullet wound in the back of the president seemed to make this a slam dunk. But knowing what we do about the altering of the president's body between Parkland and Bethesda, it now seems likely that the president's back wound was one of those body alterations; no one at Parkland saw it.Bottom line; JFK was not struck a single time from behind, in my opinion.Interesting observation Thom. However, I still think JFK's head wound was from two simultaneous shots, one from behind (most likely Nicoletti in the Dal Tex building) and one from the knoll (Files). But you have me thinking about the back wound now Thomas.

[kenmurray]

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L3UrW_jCDY&feature=fvw

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:Here is an interesting video done by Gil Jesus:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLFOzws ... dExcellent videos!I'm curious about the trajectory of that bullet that penetrated the windsheild from the front. Can it be tracked to a shooting position? Was it tracked to a shooting location?

[ThomZajac]

South knoll, I believe.Would you suppose the shooter intended to shoot through the windshield?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

ThomZajac wrote:South knoll, I believe.Would you suppose the shooter intended to shoot through the windshield?What I'm actually thinking is that the shooter was going for his head too and didn't compensate for bullet-drop, causing the bullet to come in low.Gravity acts independently on a bullet, so, it pulls a bullet, any bullet, down at the same rate, it's just that a high-powered bullet will be a lot farther out.

[ThomZajac]

Bob wrote:ThomZajac wrote:Excellent video, Ken. EXCELLENT. I am always leery of using the (altered) Zapruder film in an attempt to prove anything, but I do think the witness testimony proves the point entirely. Destroying the windshield?! This case is so obvious it wouldn't make a good episode of C.S.I.I would, however,like to use this topic to again point out something that I've been harping on for a while, Namely, that the medical staff (and others) at Parkland were certain that the president had been hit from the front (at least twice), but there is absolutely no such evidence from Parkland indicating that the president was hit from the rear. That only happens later; autopsy, autopsy photos, Zapruder film- things the planners could control. (And the 'testimony' of James Files).For many many years I had simply accepted that the president had been struck from behind, as this had never seemed to be in doubt for nearly every researcher (except David Lifton). The bullet wound in the back of the president seemed to make this a slam dunk. But knowing what we do about the altering of the president's body between Parkland and Bethesda, it now seems likely that the president's back wound was one of those body alterations; no one at Parkland saw it.Bottom line; JFK was not struck a single time from behind, in my opinion.Interesting observation Thom. However, I still think JFK's head wound was from two simultaneous shots, one from behind (most likely Nicoletti in the Dal Tex building) and one from the knoll (Files). But you have me thinking about the back wound now Thomas. Well, that could be, but you'd have to base that upon the Zapruder film which I would argue was altered to eliminate the stop and to make it appear the president had been shot from the rear and only the rear, and James Files' "testimony," which is filled with riddles, omissions, and some outright lies which he later says were necessary to project certain people, so one never really knows when he is being truthful- and even if he is being truthful about what he 'thinks' he could simply be wrong or misinformed. And since there is no medical evidence to support a shot form behind, that entry would have had to been blown out by the shot from the front, and it could not have exited. Possible certainly, but the weight of evidence, I think, points otherwise.Here's another thing; Dr. McCellan wrote that the cause of death was a bullet wound to the 'left' temple (supported by other Parkland doctors and personnel). And don't you think it's odd that none of the autopsy photos, that I know of anyway, show the LEFT side of the president's head?

[ChristophMessner]

Thanks for all those interesting links, friends! Thom, I guess, Dr. McCellan just meant the left side from his perspective, looking onto JFK's face, so he meant JFK's right temple, didn't he? And: no evidence for a headshot from behind? Zapruder showes a short sequence of JFK's head pushed forward before it was pushed backward. A photo of the shattered skull showes a half of a bullet hole in the skull bone. And the skull fragment flapout on JFK's right temple rather speaks for a bullet having just exited there, before the bullet from the front entered the just created hole accidently.Chris

[ThomZajac]

ChristophMessner wrote:Thanks for all those interesting links, friends! Thom, I guess, Dr. McCellan just meant the left side from his perspective, looking onto JFK's face, so he meant JFK's right temple, didn't he? And: no evidence for a headshot from behind? Zapruder showes a short sequence of JFK's head pushed forward before it was pushed backward. A photo of the shattered skull showes a half of a bullet hole in the skull bone. And the skull fragment flapout on JFK's right temple rather speaks for a bullet having just exited there, before the bullet from the front entered the just created hole accidently.ChrisHi Chris. I'd have to say that any doctor who says or writes 'left temple' means the patient's left temple, otherwise every determination of right or left would be ambiguous/meaningless McCelan was questioned about this, and he MEANT left temple. Why this is so easily dismissed as a simply error is mind boggling.In my previous posts I have harped on there being no Parkland medical evidence of a shot having hit the president from behind. All that evidence was 'produced' AFTER the president's body had left Parkland; the autopsy, the autopsy photos, and the Zapruder film - all controlled by the planners of the execution of the president and its attempted coverup. And then there's Jame Files tale, which is intriguing but filled with omission and lies (to protect others, not give them up). So again, my point is that the doctors and personnel at Parkland encountered NO evidence indicating that the president had been struck from behind. No one saw the splaying of the right temporal area at Parkland. No one saw a back wound, No one saw any entry wounds in the back of the president's head or neck. I believe that this is because he was not struck from behind.

[ChristophMessner]

Well Thom, it's true, that normally one should assume that doctors mean what they say. But maybe you can see that this left/right issue is symptomatic for all these heavily debated and permanently unsolved issues of the JFK-murder-case. At first sight for the conspiracy-inclinated all signs point directly towards conspiracy-evidences, for the LN-SBT-orientated all signs point directly towards a LN-SBT-WC-confirmation. But on the second and third look it turns out, that many aspects show people who change their behavior radically as soon as they experience the force of power, fear, money, ... somehow everything remains on the scales and the direction of the switch towards one particular side depends radically on how you want this world to be. So you say Parkland staff did not find any evidence for a hit from behind and it rather was produced afterwards, but at a closer look some doctors and nurses concluded that there was a shot from behind and by many there was not only produced a hit from behind, but concluded a second headshot from the front, which obviously destroyed the entry hole from behind. And James Files' confessions, they contain some omissions, yes, but is that reason enough to call them only tales? Chris

[ThomZajac]

[quote="ChristophMessner"]Well Thom, it's true, that normally one should assume that doctors mean what they say. But maybe you can see that this left/right issue is symptomatic for all these heavily debated and permanently unsolved issues of the JFK-murder-case. At first sight for the conspiracy-inclinated all signs point directly towards conspiracy-evidences, for the LN-SBT-orientated all signs point directly towards a LN-SBT-WC-confirmation. But on the second and third look it turns out, that many aspects show people who change their behavior radically as soon as they experience the force of power, fear, money, ... somehow everything remains on the scales and the direction of the switch towards one particular side depends radically on how you want this world to be. So you say Parkland staff did not find any evidence for a hit from behind and it rather was produced afterwards, but at a closer look some doctors and nurses concluded that there was a shot from behind and by many there was not only produced a hit from behind, but concluded a second headshot from the front, which obviously destroyed the entry hole from behind. And James Files' confessions, they contain some omissions, yes, but is that reason enough to call them only tales? You make my argument for me: "But on the second and third look it turns out, that many aspects show people who change their behavior radically as soon as they experience the force of power, fear, money," Parkland doctors and personnel were under tremendous pressure to endorse the Lone Nut firing-from- behind theory, and some did change their tunes. But my logic tells me that their FIRST revelations- unaffected by these great pressures- were truth. We each are entitled to our own opinions, obviously, but when it comes to the medical evidence, the best evidence is the body before it fell into the control of the federal government, and that evidence screams loudly that the president was killed by shots fired from in front, and in front only. Only after the feds gained control of the body did any evidence to the contrary appear. Obviously the feds wanted the world to believe the president was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald firing from behind- but to this doubting Thomas no such evidence exists until the feds gained control of the body. The Zapruder film shows a wound that no one at Parkland saw. That tells me the Zapruder film wound is a lie, and that that lie goes far beyond the wound; among other things, the film eliminates the stop of the car, and it shows the JFK's head moving slightly forward before the fatal shot from the front. For me, that simply is not credible evidence- it is disinformation in a large dose.And I truly don't understand why the left temple wound is so quickly dismissed- especially when as far as I know, no autopsy photos (which are largely bogus anyway) show the left side of JFK's head. Shouldn't that throw up a red flag? It's odd, really, that such crucial testimony is dismissed without scrutiny. No one at this forum seems to think much about it. Why the blind spot? Lastly, James Files has lied on several occasions . There is simply no question about that. Rather than say, "I won't comment on that," he chose to lie (being behind the fence by himself, for example #1, how much he was paid, example #2). So now instead of trying to decide if James Files is telling the truth or lying about his involvement in the JFK case, we have to try to decide what he is lying about and what he isn't. Maybe he did fire the fatal shot from the front, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth, or is correct about a shot hitting the president from behind an instant before that. I find it odd that you attach more credibility to James Files regarding a shot striking the president from behind, than you do for Dr. McCellan regarding a wound to the left temple. It may well be that the president was also struck from behind, but in my mind that can only be regarded as speculation, not fact (and I don't see evidence that convinces me that this was likely the case). On the other hand, there is, in my opinion, ample evidence proving that the president was struck from the front'; that he was struck from the front is FACT.In trying to determine what happened it's important to make a distinction between what we know with absolute certainty, and what we think might have happened. Everyone makes their own judgments on those things of course, but for me it is beyond question that JFK was struck from the front, and it is speculation that he was struck from behind. AS it stands, I would say JFK was not struck from behind.