16-11-2012, 10:44 AM
Hi Phil
I understand what do you mean about the windshield. I don't question a shot from the front through the windshield. It might well have happened, some researchers say yes, others say no. As we both well know, it does not really matter. A frontal shot could have hit the throat without hiting the windshield first. A shot to the throat from the front does not depend on a shot through the windshield, they are mutually exclusive.
First, we don't need to prove this in order to accept conspiracy, second the evidence were covered up so it is impossible to find out what happened that day regarding shots, wounds and location of shooters.
What i am trying to say is that as shot from the front could have not caused the throat wound, because Jack believed that for this to have happened, by definition the bullet would have passed through the tie and shirt, which it didn't.
It's a pity that Jack is not with us anymore to explain better.
I understand what do you mean about the windshield. I don't question a shot from the front through the windshield. It might well have happened, some researchers say yes, others say no. As we both well know, it does not really matter. A frontal shot could have hit the throat without hiting the windshield first. A shot to the throat from the front does not depend on a shot through the windshield, they are mutually exclusive.
First, we don't need to prove this in order to accept conspiracy, second the evidence were covered up so it is impossible to find out what happened that day regarding shots, wounds and location of shooters.
What i am trying to say is that as shot from the front could have not caused the throat wound, because Jack believed that for this to have happened, by definition the bullet would have passed through the tie and shirt, which it didn't.
It's a pity that Jack is not with us anymore to explain better.