Key Witness: Jackie Kennedy

[Pennyworth]

Pennyworth wrote:Pennyworth wrote:OK,In response to someone's inquiry,There's over 60,000 articles to pour through to find the statement I once saw and remembered about someone telling Jackie Kennedy 'not to mention the front shot.'I will keep plugging on as I am curious also now.In the mean time I found this:When you look at the amount of eyewitness testimony regarding the right rear head wound, they all concur this part of Kennedy’s head was blasted out. even the violent backwards thrust of Kennedy’s body against the back seat testifies to a frontal assault and entrance wound. Jackie Kennedy said jack looked normal from the front, but she had trouble holding his head together. we now know why she made that statement.http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com ... iracy.html I AM GETTING CLOSE From the above paragraph :"Jackie Kennedy said Jack looked normal from the front, but she had trouble holding his head together"Now she sort of twists the statement around for the Warren Commission:" I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.htmlPP: This is the first article I came across with the Warren Commission on Jackie Kennedy'stestimony.please ignore the fact that it came from the Lancer. i feel the same way that Wim does about them On the lighter side and speaking of the LancerLook what I came up with after taking a brief look at the board..sara gets around.. As We Go Foward, JFK Lancer Needs Your Help [View all]Happy Holidays from JFK Lancer Productions & Publications Dear Debra, You know, many folks feel there is no other experience for JFK assassinati Debra Conway Dec-17-08 08:56 PMby saracarter

[Pennyworth]

saracarter's response to Debra Conways' plea for moneypriceless! http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboar ... 8289&page=

[Pennyworth]

Pennyworth wrote:we will get back to this.I am still looking for information that I came across a long time ago that Jackie Kennedy was instructed not to mention a front shot.I don't know if this is info or dis-info Its a real search here .She wrote a historical journal that was sealed and is not to be opened up for a long time. I wonder if this (not to mention the front shot) was something that was logged in her journalWARREN COMMISSION REPORT PAGE 61No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page61.php

[Pennyworth]

http://www.bygonebyways.com/80-TX-Dalla ... .jpgbridge and knoll shots...http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index ... -plaza.jpg

[Pennyworth]

Pennyworth wrote:http://www.bygonebyways.com/80-TX-Dalla ... .jpgbridge and knoll shots...http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index ... aza.jpgDid anybody look at these photos?Can I get some feedback?I have read that people who have visited dealey plaza have commented on how small the area actually was. To me, looking at these photos, it would not seem unreasonable and out of the realm that a frontal shot came from the bridge, nicking the windshield or not .Is there anyone here on board to disprove my theory?also, ignore the fact that some of the photos came from Mc Adams

[ThomZajac]

I've looked at the pictures and your theory seems logical for me. Also, one aspect of JFK's wounds that is simply ignored is that McClelland listed the cause of death as a shot to the LEFT temple.You'll get resistance on this site about EARLY shots being fired from in front because many here have accepted the theory that no shots were to be fired from in front unless the shots fired from behind had failed to kill the president.I do not buy this theory. I think it is more likely that the shot fired from behind were diversionary shots that also were used to implicate Oswald. I know it seems illogical that the conspirators intended to kill the president with frontal shots and then blame on a shooter from behind, but as there is no evidence Parkland (the best evidence) of JFK having been struck from behind, it is a theory that cannot easily be dismissed.

[andries]

Paul,with sutch a cover up wel organized on different levels,it,s bright and clear to methat no matter who,s firing from what angle and the trails left,they would surely have taken care of that, the far more important things are :He must absolutely be killed,a second change after an attempt is verry unlikely A good getaway chanceI dont who planned the seats in the car, kennedy is sitting on the right side in the car, but anyone who has seen dealy plaza must admit that the far best area to shoot and getaway is behind the fence.

[Pennyworth]

ThomZajac wrote:I've looked at the pictures and your theory seems logical for me. Also, one aspect of JFK's wounds that is simply ignored is that McClelland listed the cause of death as a shot to the LEFT temple.You'll get resistance on this site about EARLY shots being fired from in front because many here have accepted the theory that no shots were to be fired from in front unless the shots fired from behind had failed to kill the president.I do not buy this theory. I think it is more likely that the shot fired from behind were diversionary shots that also were used to implicate Oswald. I know it seems illogical that the conspirators intended to kill the president with frontal shots and then blame on a shooter from behind, but as there is no evidence Parkland (the best evidence) of JFK having been struck from behind, it is a theory that cannot easily be dismissed. They must have schemed to have back up from another angle, and I am hypothesizing that either the bridge or the knoll is it, most likely the knollFiles was instructed not to shoot unless ..??? maybe its because the front shot (the first shot IMO) was expected to do the heinous deed. I am conjecturizing that Files was a 'back-up' shooter in case the bridgeman didn't hit the target Also I doubt that anyone in Dealey Plaza that day was focusing on the bridge...they were looking in spectator awe at the presidential parade IMO .... possibly a silencer on the bridge gun?

[Pennyworth]

Pennyworth wrote:ThomZajac wrote:I've looked at the pictures and your theory seems logical for me. Also, one aspect of JFK's wounds that is simply ignored is that McClelland listed the cause of death as a shot to the LEFT temple.You'll get resistance on this site about EARLY shots being fired from in front because many here have accepted the theory that no shots were to be fired from in front unless the shots fired from behind had failed to kill the president.I do not buy this theory. I think it is more likely that the shot fired from behind were diversionary shots that also were used to implicate Oswald. I know it seems illogical that the conspirators intended to kill the president with frontal shots and then blame on a shooter from behind, but as there is no evidence Parkland (the best evidence) of JFK having been struck from behind, it is a theory that cannot easily be dismissed. They must have schemed to have back up from another angle, and I am hypothesizing that either the bridge or the knoll is it, most likely the knollFiles was instructed not to shoot unless ..??? maybe its because the front shot (the first shot IMO) was expected to do the heinous deed. I am conjecturizing that Files was a 'back-up' shooter in case the bridgeman didn't hit the target Also I doubt that anyone in Dealey Plaza that day was focusing on the bridge...they were looking in spectator awe at the presidential parade IMO.... possibly a silencer on the bridge gun?Correction on the second to last paragraph:I meant to say Files instead of Harrelson.....I just edited both posts

[Pennyworth]

altered back bullet hole does not match up with conclusions ...http://meltdown2011.com/2008/02/23/prez ... arren-rpt/