Jump to content
The Education Forum

Shots in Dealey Plaza


Recommended Posts

Shots

As James Files had been waiting that morning in Dealey Plaza in the railroad yard near the boxcars, with his jacket reversed, and smoking Pall Mall cigarettes, he could hear commotion from the crowd around 12:30. He discusses this with author Jim Marrs in an interview:

MARRS: Okay. Then what happened? The motorcade came?

FILES: …I walk away from the fence, I come back over, secured everything, I got ready, I could hear the rumble, the people murmuring, so you know the motorcade’s approaching…I got ready, opened it up. I’m holding the Remington fireball, and I’m below the fence at this point. The motorcade came down on, I believe that’s Main Street there, come down on Houston, turn back around onto Elm, came back down that little side drive there. When it came down and made it’s first right, that’s when I brought the weapon up. I’m over the fence and as they come down, and they make there turn onto Elm there, that’s when I started focusing through the scope and following the car. As the shots rang out, I started counting them—but I’m not counting: one, two, three, four. I’m counting: miss…miss…miss, because I know we’re going for the headshot. So I don’t care how many rounds are being fired so long as we get a headshot.

Sam Holland was one of many railroad workers who went to the triple underpass to see the President. He and his associates had the best view of the entire plaza. He describes in his Warren Commission testimony that he heard some shots in the vicinity of the School Book Depository and the Dal-Tex building:

STERN - What was your impression about the source of these noises, if you had one?

HOLLAND - Well, the impression was that the shots, the first two or three shots came from the upper part of the street, now, from where I was.

STERN - East on Elm?

HOLLAND - Yes, up in here somewhere. [indicating.]

Six Secret Service Agents, as well as police motorcyclists, and dozens of witnesses recall the limousine slowing down to almost a complete stop around the time of the first shots. Files talks about the limousine:

The motorcade to the best of my recollection, to me and my mind—and everything is slowed down at this point—when the first shot went off, it’s like it stopped. It’s like it slowed down to almost a crawl or barely moving, or maybe it even stopped, I’m not really sure on that point. I knew I was waiting—(gestures) it kept moving so it had to been moving but very, very slow.

Files describes the experience from his position:

I’m hearing the shots being fired, I’m counting them as a miss, as a miss, miss. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about. I got this sign there, that’s fixing to come into my field of fire. As far as I can see at this point, the President has not been hit in the head at this time. I seen the body lurch, I know he’s been hit, how serious I don’t know. But my last instructions was, we’re going for a headshot, if you have to take a shot, take it, but don’t fire unless it’s a necessity…We want everything from the back side. I’m not asking why. [i tell him] “Okay, whatever you say.” At this point, it starts to approach, it comes behind that freeway sign. I’d already been instructed not to hit anybody but Kennedy, because they didn’t want Jackie getting hurt or anybody else. I’m fixing to lose my field of fire, and at this point, either I shoot or I put it in the suitcase and leave. One or the other. I took the shot. I fired one shot, one shot only.

It is unknown exactly how many shots were fired. Many, such as Lee Bowers in the watch tower, and Sam Holland on the triple underpass, reported the last two shots, or reports as they are described, being very close together:

Mr. STERN - Now, that statement makes clear that you heard four shots, though you heard four shots at that time?

Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.

Mr. STERN - All right.

Mr. HOLLAND - But, two of them was rather close together, though.

Mr. STERN - So close do you think that might have been one shot?

Mr. HOLLAND - No, it was four.

Mr. Holland is asked, which of the four shots were fired close together?

Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.

Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?

Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.

Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?

Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.

Lee Bowers and Holland describe their impression of the events:

At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there. (Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane, 1966)

HOLLAND: There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots. (WC)

Mr. Holland had been consistent from the beginning, that he had “no doubt” in his mind whatsoever that one of the shots came from the trees behind the wooden fence. He is not alone. The following are some of the witnesses who made statement that they heard at least one shot come from the grassy knoll area:

Abraham Zapruder: He was standing on the knoll itself filming the assassination.

James Tague: He was hit by one of the bullets fired while standing near the triple underpass. When counsel suggested he might have heard echoes, he replied, "there was no echo." (Testimony of James Thomas Tague to the Warren Commission, July 23, 1964)

Jean Hill, and Charles Brehm: They were both standing on the south side of Elm Street

William Newman: Newman and his wife were standing at the base of the grassy knoll, and were the closest to the motorcade witnessing the headshot.

Mary Woodward, Maggie Brown, and Aurelia Lorenzo: They were all standing to the left front of the knoll.

Jean Newman: Standing between the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street and the TSBD.

John Chism: Chism and his wife were standing beneath a freeway sign on Elm Street.

Bill Lovelady, and O. V. Campbell: Both were employees at the TSBD (!)

James L. Simmons, and Richard C. Dodd, who were with Sam Holland on the triple underpass.

Lee Bowers in the watch tower.

The Rear Headshot

According to the 1992 book Double Cross: The Explosive, Inside Story of the Mobster Who Controlled America, Charles Nicoletti was one of the shooters during the assassination. Files says that when he had made that shot from the front-right, changing U.S. history forever, he has said that the one thing that was passing through his mind at that moment, was how frustrated he was that he missed his target by no more than one or two inches. Files elaborates on the headshot in his 1994 interview for Confessions of an Assassin:

So, as I fired my round, Mr. Nicoletti and I fired approximately at the same time as the head started forward, and then it went backward. I would have to say that his shell struck approximately 1000th of a second ahead of mine…(Confessions of an Assassin 1994)

Files clarifies in 2003, partially in defense of what he considers poor accuracy on his part, that his skill as a marksman, and his knowledge of weapons and ballistics leaves no doubt that Charles Nicoletti hit the President in the head from behind:

MARRS: You think he got hit (in the head from behind), just as you were squeezing?

FILES: What I believe is this: I got my readings as a marksman. I’m a good shooter--always was, and I’m not bragging on myself, don’t get me wrong, but that’s what got me my start with David Phillips, ‘cause of something I did in the Service, and I made a mark there and it’s on record, and it’s recorded, for headshots, what I did and the things that I did. But anyway, to make a long story short: As I was preparing to squeeze off my round, Kennedy’s head moved forward just as I squeezed…Let me clear the facts now: I never saw Mr. Nicoletti shoot Kennedy, but I know he was the man in the Dal-Tex building, the man supposed to be doing the shooting. Therefore the head started forward, as far as I’m concerned Mr. Nicoletti hit him at that point. As I squeezed off my round, the head started forward, I hit it, and blew the head backwards.

The possibility of a shot to the head from behind, has been an acknowledged, but rarely pursued theory. A shot from the rear does not argue for a conspiracy as strongly at the infamous frontal headshot. During the HSCA investigation, Dr. Cyril Wecht gives his opinion:

I have raised some questions concerning the head wound and the possibility, albeit remote, of a second shot fired in synchronized fashion … (Testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht to the HSCA, Sept. 8, 1978)

Dr. Wecht has personally performed over 14,000 autopsies during his career as Forensic Pathologist, and has supervised or reviewed more than twice that number. Wecht then addresses the possible headshot from the rear in relation to the President’s head movements:

The question of the President's movement after he was struck in the head makes us direct our attention toward such a possibility and…make it important to just raise that possibility, remote as it may be, that a second shot might have struck the President in the head in synchronized or simultaneous fashion.

Dr. Wecht’s reference to Kennedy’s movement in the Zapruder Film shows visual confirmation of a simultaneous shot from the rear and the front can be seen clearly in frames 312, 313, and 314. The President is clearly in distress as Mrs. Kennedy is at his side, when his head is thrown forward for an instant, then violently backwards.

Dr. Wecht is by no means alone. Dr. Joseph Riley, an expert in neuroanatomy who had viewed the original autopsy evidence and skull X-rays says the evidence proves "conclusively that John Kennedy was struck in the head by two bullets, one from the rear and one from the front." Radiologist Dr. Randy Robertson came to the same conclusion. (“THE GHOSTS OF NOVEMBER” By Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan “Vanity Fair” magazine, December 2001)

The description of the special hollow-point bullets filled with mercury that Files received from Wolfman seems to be consistant with analysis of bullet fragments in the President’s skull x-rays. Files says these rounds were used by both himself, and Nicoletti in the Dal-Tex building. Dr. Wecht explains the possibility of an exploding bullet:

It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition which would not have penetrated deeply or at all through the calvarium. I want to emphasize that this is remote but I have pointed this out because it is a possibility.

The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head. One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone." The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound. The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence…that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (CRIME OF THE CENTURY, by Michael Kurtz, pp. 177-178.)

Researcher David Lifton describes in his bestselling book Best Evidence that the laws of Newtonian physics make clear that the President was hit from the front, but he also describes his near obsession in 1966 over the cause of the forward head snap. He lists the possibility of two headshots from different directions, but claims this is improbable.

It was highly unlikely that two gunmen, even if both were wearing headsets and responding to the same order, would fire two shots which struck within the same eighteenth of a second. Such things as human reaction time and slight differences in distance from the target would introduce an element of randomness. (David Lifton, Best Evidence, Dell Publishing Co., Inc, p. 82)

But it seems that according to Files, randomness is exactly what was behind the simultaneous headshot. He claims that no radio communication was used between him and anyone else, and that they were not responding to real-time orders on whether to fire. The rear headshot was simply a result of chance, or as some might put it, fate.

The Front Headshot

In addition to hearing at least one shot from the knoll, many witnesses were unfortunate enough to witness the fatal head wound with their own eyes. There were dozens of reports of the back of the President’s head being blasted out.

Files describes the head wound from his position, looking through the scope. He remembers seeing Mrs. Kennedy reaching over the back of the car:

FILES: I gotta figure well she’s gotta be picking up a piece of his skull or something, ‘cause lotta people say you can’t see nothing through a scope like this, but what you’re gonna see is like—and I saw it, the head exploded. I saw the backside come out I seen brains or whatever you wanna call it. Tissue, hair, whole thing going everywhere. Just a spray! And if anybody disbelieves this, go out and shoot somebody and look through a scope while you’re doing it, and watch.

MARRS: Did you see anyone splattered with blood?

FILES: Err, I don’t know who was splattered, I think one of the agents, one of the secret service agents riding on the back of the car. I’m only assuming ‘cause I would say they probably got splattered ‘cause there was stuff everywhere.

Confirmation from witnesses, and doctors at Parkland Hospital was powerful, direct evidence of a shot from the front. For years lone-gunman theorists ignored these witnesses as being “mistaken.” However, with the release of HSCA and ARRB documents formerly withheld from the public regarding the testimonies of witnesses at the President’s autopsy, lone gunman theorists have, by any standard, lost their case.

Here is a list of some new witnesses, mostly from Bethesda Naval Hospital, who saw a large hole in the back-right of the President’s head:

Commanding Officer of the Military District of Washington, D.C Maj. Gen. Philip C. Wehle

(8/19/77 interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy [HSCA record # 10010042,

agency file # 002086, p. 2])

Aide to General Wehle Richard A. Lipsey (1/18/78 (audio-taped) interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy and

Mark Flanagan (RIF#180-10105-10405[see footnote on p. 619 of "Best Evi-

dence": "Lipsey insisted that Purdy tape record his interview, and Lipsey also

made his own tape of the interview for his records." See also pp. 186-187 of

"Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman]))

Bethesda Medical photographer Floyd Albert Riebe, "JFK: An Unsolved Murder", KRON, 11/18/88 (repeated in "JFK: The Case for

Conspiracy" video 1993 [see still photo on p. 88 of Groden's "TKOAP"])

Assistant Chief of radiology Dr. John H. "Jack" Ebersole (3/9/78 interview with Gil Delaney of the "Lancaster (PA) Intelligencer-

Journal"[see also "Best Evidence", p. 543, as part of Chapter 23 entitled "Allega-

tions of Dr. John Ebersole"])

Bethesda X-ray technicians

Dr. Edward F. Reed,Jr., (Interview with the HSCA (RIF#180-10105-10399 [see also "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor, p. 33]))

Jerrol F. Custer (9/7/77 interview with the HSCA's Mark Flanagan (RIF#180-10103-10116,

Agancy File Number 002339))

Bethesda Laboratory Technologists:

Paul O’Connor (HSCA Testimony of Paul O’Connor 6/28/78, “Bloody Treason” by Noel Twyman, 1997)

James Curtis Jenkins (HSCA Testimony of James Curtis Jenkins 8/24/77)

Lab Assistant Jan Gail "Nick" Rudnicki

Morticians:

Tom Robinson (HSCA testimony of Tom Robinson)

John Van Hoesen (ARRB deposition of John Van Hoesen, September 26, 1996)

White House photographer Joe O'Donnell (ARRB depositions of Joe O'Donnell, January 29 and February 28, 1992)

FBI Agents

Frank O’Neill (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 69-70)

James Sibert (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 65-72)

It is inconceivable that these men in charge of examining the President’s wounds, morticians working with the President’s body for long periods of time, federal agents, photographers, and high-ranking military leaders were all “mistaken” when they testified, under oath, to what they saw. After almost 45 years of accumulating information, any attempt to discredit the notion that the President was shot from the front is, to put it mildly, inappropriate.

Forged Autopsy Photos

The authenticity of a particular autopsy photo of President Kennedy released to the public by the HSCA has been called into question for decades. Marrs and Files discuss the details of the head wound:

MARRS: Where was the exit? On the right side or the left side?

FILES: Uh, (indicating) partially most of it on his right side I guess. Back there, where the section come right out, part of the back of the skull. I didn’t go look at it, I didn’t examine it. And lot of people might find this hard to believe, but I’ve never read anything on the Kennedy Assassination ‘cause I was never interested in it.

Files is then asked whether he has seen the autopsy pictures of President Kennedy. He recalls Pamela Ray sending him a copy of High Treason, where he looked at a few pictures but was never interested, and never read it. He is given a copy of a photo of the back of Kennedy’s head, and is asked for his comment. “You’re gonna make me put my glasses on aren’t ya?” he says with a grin. After scanning the photo for a moment with a perplexed look, he says, “part of the flap on the side is missing, but I don’t see very much in this picture here of the back of the head missing. What I’m looking at here is a lotta hair.” Files is then asked what is his conclusion. “What’s my conclusion?” he says bluntly. “That ain’t the right picture!” A few chuckles are heard throughout the room as Marrs gives a simple thank you while regaining his composure.

Files has never really considered himself The man who killed John F. Kennedy. He says, “I hit him in the front…he was shot in the back [of the head] also…If I hadn’t of fired the shot…Kennedy would have been killed anyway.” (Confession of an Assassin 1994) Indeed, not only would Kennedy be dead, but the argument for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza would have been virtually baseless in the minds of the American public. Arguments for Jack Ruby’s mob connections, Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA history, and the dramatic changes in JFK’s policies after Lyndon Johnson assumed the thrown would have all faded from the minds of those who even for a moment wanted to question whether one man, with a poor-quality rifle, could simply aim out a window, and strike down one of history’s greatest leaders.

http://jfkmurderjamesfiles.weebly.com/jfk-blog.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Files also said he saw the shot strike Kennedy - through his scope.

Additionally, that he was forced to take his shot before the target vanished behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Neither of these could be considered accurate statements.

When Holland vaulted the cars blocking his way into the parking area, he was the first to the area of the GKS location - he did not observe a shell casing on the fence or in the mud.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motorcade came down on, I believe that’s Main Street there, come down on Houston, turn back around onto Elm, came back down that little side drive there. When it came down and made it’s first right, that’s when I brought the weapon up.

What?? Am I reading this right??The motorcade goes down the little side drive. I guess he means when it made it's first right, he meant on to Houston. But what little side drive is he talking about??

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motorcade came down on, I believe that’s Main Street there, come down on Houston, turn back around onto Elm, came back down that little side drive there. When it came down and made it’s first right, that’s when I brought the weapon up.

What?? Am I reading this right??The motorcade goes down the little side drive. I guess he means when it made it's first right, he meant on to Houston. But what little side drive is he talking about??

He could be referring to the Elm St extension - however, aside from a possible botched turn on to Elm - which witnesses spoke of but for which there does not appear to be any available corroborative photographic related evidence, a 'right turn' is also far-fetched.

I notice though, that most of these posts appear to be one-sided - eg, this is the info - end of line, not for discussion.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motorcade came down on, I believe that's Main Street there, come down on Houston, turn back around onto Elm, came back down that little side drive there. When it came down and made it's first right, that's when I brought the weapon up.

What?? Am I reading this right??The motorcade goes down the little side drive. I guess he means when it made it's first right, he meant on to Houston. But what little side drive is he talking about??

Kathy, the little side drive is likely Old Elm, which they used to call the street on which the book depository sits.

Roy Bierma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motorcade came down on, I believe that’s Main Street there, come down on Houston, turn back around onto Elm, came back down that little side drive there. When it came down and made it’s first right, that’s when I brought the weapon up.

What?? Am I reading this right??The motorcade goes down the little side drive. I guess he means when it made it's first right, he meant on to Houston. But what little side drive is he talking about??

He could be referring to the Elm St extension - however, aside from a possible botched turn on to Elm - which witnesses spoke of but for which there does not appear to be any available corroborative photographic related evidence, a 'right turn' is also far-fetched.

I notice though, that most of these posts appear to be one-sided - eg, this is the info - end of line, not for discussion.

- lee

Lee and Roy,

Thank you for your replies.

I have been blessed with being able to walk on that "side drive" at least a couple of times. My point, and I made it poorly, is that I found it amazing that he would say that in the first place. It is just so off base.

I don't believe that Pam is expecting any feedback, either. I suppose that the two feel it is critical to book sales to post here.

A real worry for me about reading all this Files stuff is all the contortions my face makes when I'm trying to figure out what he's saying. I am afraid that I am deepening lines that could've waited awhile.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Mike, it's probably better to chase Jack's hogwash of Badgeman and the moon landing that never happened :ice

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm

About the two headshots:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Regarding Files’ claims of the synchronistic headshots, Dankbaar concludes “there are two possibilities: 1) Files made a frame by frame study of the Zapruder film or 2) He knows the head went forward because he was aiming for the right eye, and missed because the head snapped forward first. And that's of course what I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Mike, it's probably better to chase Jack's hogwash of Badgeman and the moon landing that never happened :ice

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm

About the two headshots:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Regarding Files’ claims of the synchronistic headshots, Dankbaar concludes “there are two possibilities: 1) Files made a frame by frame study of the Zapruder film or 2) He knows the head went forward because he was aiming for the right eye, and missed because the head snapped forward first. And that's of course what I believe.

Wim,

It would help your case if you could find one instance when I supported the moon landing or Badgeman theories. I also would not at all say that there was NOT two head shots. However obviously the whole Files thing is just ridiculous. Con man nothing more nothing less.

Just as a technical reminder there did not have to be a shot from the back for the head to move forward. It is common for even inanimate objects to act in this manner.

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However obviously the whole Files thing is just ridiculous. Con man nothing more nothing less.

Now it gets interesting, Mike. Please give me ONE piece of HARD evidence that Files is a con, especially why it is so obvious. I'm sure my readers, the researchers mentioned here: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/researchers.htm , but most of all myself, would like to know. We can surely use some education from one that knows better, the more so when we are so delusional as to rate the story with 5 stars.

And while you're at it, can you give also give a plausible explanation for the 3 inch forward headsnap of Kennedy's head - faster than a human muscle can steer, faster than a human eye can detect, but not faster than he speed of a bullet -

other than a bullet, a neurospastical reaction, or fakery of the Zapruder film?

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However obviously the whole Files thing is just ridiculous. Con man nothing more nothing less.

Now it gets interesting, Mike. Please give me ONE piece of HARD evidence that Files is a con, especially why it is so obvious. I'm sure my readers, the researchers mentioned here: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/researchers.htm , but most of all myself, would like to know. We can surely use some education from one that knows better, the more so when we are so delusional as to rate the story with 5 stars.

And while you're at it, can you give also give a plausible explanation for the 3 inch forward headsnap of Kennedy's head - faster than a human muscle can steer, faster than a human eye can detect, but not faster than he speed of a bullet -

other than a bullet, a neurospastical reaction, or fakery of the Zapruder film?

Wim

Wim,

I would be glad to share with you. I have actually been working on a Files project on and off for a short bit of time. Interesting stuff really. I will move this to the top of the stack, and have something to you as soon as I can manage it. I will first offer it in an email, I feel that is the only proper way to proceed. I will give you a small hint, one is a piece of physical evidence, and the other it files Military History. The physical evidence will come to you from another source, but never fear, you'll know it was with my help.

Now this forward movement. I believe I did just explain it, even inanimate objects when struck, tend to move towards the direction from which the bullet came.

I might be able to dig up a few photo examples for you. The other thing to consider is the transfer of kinetic energy from a transiting bullet. Its very minor, and less than 1% of the total energy of the projectile. Of course the only real way for a bullet to transfer the full energy is to remain inside the target.

A .01% transfer from a 161 grain projectile traveling at 2182 FPS is roughly only .1 FT LBS. Now one has to consider the time. At 2182fps the bullet would transit a 12 inch head in .000458295 seconds. The impact of .1 ft lbs in this short amount of time would not even come close to the required energy to move the average 8 lb head 3 inches.

Something else I might add is the fact that Files claims to have seen the head go forward, and then his shot strike in his scope. As you said the alleged 3" forward movement would be imperceptible to the eye....so how could he have seen this? How would he have witnessed his own bullet strike when one considers the recoil of the weapon?

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else I might add is the fact that Files claims to have seen the head go forward, and then his shot strike in his scope. As you said the alleged 3" forward movement would be imperceptible to the eye....so how could he have seen this? How would he have witnessed his own bullet strike when one considers the recoil of the weapon?

Mike , first of all, there is no significant recoil for that weapon:

Wim,

I like the XP 100 IN 221 Fireball, low recoil pretty accurate out to 250 yards. It can be used very well with a rifle type scope such as a 4.5x14x40. Try it you'll like it!

John

If as the official records claim, Lee Harvey Oswald is the shooter of JFK, the rifle that was "recovered" in the depository was a Manlicher bolt action rifle. It shoots a 6.5 mm cartridge, more powerful than the .223 win/5.56 NATO or the .221 Rem Fireball. Recoil from that rifle with the military loading is slightly less than the .308 win/7.62 Nato. Never have I seen in print (anywhere) that JFK was shot with a handgun. Whomever is telling you that a .221 fireball kicks "like a mule" and "harder than any rifle", apparently is regurgitating information that he/she has heard somewhere.

The fireball was introduced in a bolt action hand gun in 1962 (not a pistol), and propelled a 50 gr bullet in the 2600-2700 fps range. I'd even be picky enough to tell you that someone who calls an Remington XP100 a "pistol" has a lot more to learn about firearms than they are going to by reading internet conspiricy theories. Felt recoil from a typical 4lb6oz handgun will be in the 5 to 7 lb range. Compare this to a typical 30-06 rifle (180 gr bullet) at 19 lbs, and you'll wonder how big this person's mule really is.

Dan

Secondly, Files does not say he actually SAW the head move forward. What he says is this:

I was aiming for his right eye, which to me is the left side of his head looking head on. But for him it would be his right eye, and when I pulled the trigger, and I'm right in on it, and it's almost like looking six feet away through the scope. As I squeezed, take off my round, his head moving forward, I missed and I came in right along the temple. Just behind the eye.

Thus he concluded the head snapped forward, because he was aiming for the eye and MISSED, because his bullet came in behind the eye.

Thirdly, if Files was not in the military, you must also accept that he invented his military service as far back as the sixties, when he told his wife that he was. He also raised his two daughters with the phantom idea. Talking about ridiculous and obvious, can you give me good reason why makes that up to his blood relatives? http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/faith.htm

And the girls from Saigon sending him love letters? He picked those up on vacation, right? Before he went to jail in 1980, right? Saigon was then what Bangkok is now, right?

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/vietnamcard2.JPG

Fourthly, absence of physical evidence is never evidence of absence. Besides, in this case much physical evidence has been altered or removed. Or can you give me the cigarette butts from behind the picket fence? Or the photopgraphs of the footprints maybe? The brains of JFK? Now we only have X-Rays and expert opinions as evidence that the "dustlike particles" were mercury ..........

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else I might add is the fact that Files claims to have seen the head go forward, and then his shot strike in his scope. As you said the alleged 3" forward movement would be imperceptible to the eye....so how could he have seen this? How would he have witnessed his own bullet strike when one considers the recoil of the weapon?

Mike , first of all, there is no significant recoil for that weapon:

Wim,

I like the XP 100 IN 221 Fireball, low recoil pretty accurate out to 250 yards. It can be used very well with a rifle type scope such as a 4.5x14x40. Try it you'll like it!

John

If as the official records claim, Lee Harvey Oswald is the shooter of JFK, the rifle that was "recovered" in the depository was a Manlicher bolt action rifle. It shoots a 6.5 mm cartridge, more powerful than the .223 win/5.56 NATO or the .221 Rem Fireball. Recoil from that rifle with the military loading is slightly less than the .308 win/7.62 Nato. Never have I seen in print (anywhere) that JFK was shot with a handgun. Whomever is telling you that a .221 fireball kicks "like a mule" and "harder than any rifle", apparently is regurgitating information that he/she has heard somewhere.

The fireball was introduced in a bolt action hand gun in 1962 (not a pistol), and propelled a 50 gr bullet in the 2600-2700 fps range. I'd even be picky enough to tell you that someone who calls an Remington XP100 a "pistol" has a lot more to learn about firearms than they are going to by reading internet conspiricy theories. Felt recoil from a typical 4lb6oz handgun will be in the 5 to 7 lb range. Compare this to a typical 30-06 rifle (180 gr bullet) at 19 lbs, and you'll wonder how big this person's mule really is.

Dan

Secondly, Files does not say he actually SAW the head move forward. What he says is this:

I was aiming for his right eye, which to me is the left side of his head looking head on. But for him it would be his right eye, and when I pulled the trigger, and I'm right in on it, and it's almost like looking six feet away through the scope. As I squeezed, take off my round, his head moving forward, I missed and I came in right along the temple. Just behind the eye.

Thus he concluded the head snapped forward, because he was aiming for the eye and MISSED, because his bullet came in behind the eye.

Thirdly, if Files was not in the military, you must also accept that he invented his military service as far back as the sixties, when he told his wife that he was. He also raised his two daughters with the phantom idea. Talking about ridiculous and obvious, can you give me good reason why makes that up to his blood relatives? http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/faith.htm

And the girls from Saigon sending him love letters? He picked those up on vacation, right? Before he went to jail in 1980, right? Saigon was then what Bangkok is now, right?

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/vietnamcard2.JPG

Fourthly, absence of physical evidence is never evidence of absence. Besides, in this case much physical evidence has been altered or removed. Or can you give me the cigarette butts from behind the picket fence? Or the photopgraphs of the footprints maybe? The brains of JFK? Now we only have X-Rays and expert opinions as evidence that the "dustlike particles" were mercury ..........

Wim

Wim,

First off a rifle locked in the shoulder firing at 19 lbs, and a handgun fired from the extended arm at 5-6 lbs are completely different. Like comparing apples to oranges.

Second, I would like to ask you if you have ever fired an xp, so as to speak from first hand experience? My father was an avid silhouette shooter, owning 2 xps one in .221 and one in .223. I have, over the course of time, had the opportunity to fire many of these, in many different calibers.

Aiming for his right eye? Looking through a scope mounted on a handgun, with outstretched arms? On a moving target? :lol: :lol: That in itself is ridiculous.

Mercury eh? I can almost hear the James Bond music playing in the background. Can you offer something in the way of proof that the bullets were mercury, and do you have any idea of what the wound ballistics of a mercury bullet look like ( I do.)?

Ah yes the military career, Files may or may not have been in the military. Hard to tell with his tall tales, however there are some serious problems with his time line, as I am sure you are aware of. Kinda nifty how his packet just kinda showed up isnt it?

Files is a fraud Wim, and I am sorry if you bought his load of crap, but, to perpetuate this con one becomes a con themselves. Have you no honor?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However obviously the whole Files thing is just ridiculous. Con man nothing more nothing less.

Now it gets interesting, Mike. Please give me ONE piece of HARD evidence that Files is a con, especially why it is so obvious. .

Wim

The trajectory of the second head shot was at an upwards angle hitting the right temple area and exiting the back of the skull. No head shot came from behind the picket fence.

Don Bailey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...