JFK Hit With Paralysising "Ice" Bullet

[Chris Newton]

Dave,

The movie "JFK" is a production meant to make $$$. It was a Hollywood production. It was a success. In that it spurred interest in the assassination in millions of Americans and that led to the HSCA, I applaud it.

have you seen "Parkland"? Did you note Zapruder standing on the pedestal? Who was standing there with him? Nobody.

Hollywood is not real life. It pretends to be real. These films are works of fiction. Who cares how accurate or inaccurate they are if they are entertaining?

As for CE399 - when you sign up to be a LN'er are you forced to accept all the party-lines? You can't move an inch away from crazy? It boggles my mind that you must cling to 399 to justify the impossible. It is to you guys what the theory of men living with dinosaurs (sorry to offend if I did) is to some Christians.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I believe the only thing more fantastic than the pristine condition of CE399 is the fantasy that it was able to pass between the ulna and radius bone of Connally's forearm, from the back side to the palm side, without hitting Connally's ulna bone.

Unless Connally was severely doublejointed in his elbows, there is simply no way his forearm could have turned to the point that a bullet, exiting below his right nipple, could have passed between these two bones.

I am simply astounded at how many researchers have completely ignored this small detail. If looked at closely, this alone is the deal breaker that totally debunks the Magic Bullet.

Our friend Dave seems to be a true believer. Perhaps he can demonstrate for us how CE 399 passed between these two bones in Connally's forearm.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Chris Newton]

Dave,

I'm not sure I accused you of anything of the sort.

I'll be glad to discuss 399 with you - in a thread for 399 or how about this one: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20476&hl ? I don't care. Start a new thread if you want.

I don't want to hijack this thread any further.

Chris

[Cliff Varnell]

Dave, I'll respond to your latest rhetorical exercise in the proper thread sometime before Nov 22.

I'll be asking you to post the Dale Myers drawing and the caption, as seen on page 46 of SkepMag.

Between now and then I have things to discuss with Chris Newton and Bill Kelly.

Chris,

Let's discuss tactics.

No matter how much military experience a fellow may have, no one has experience executing a sitting US President.

How could the plotter's be certain nervous shooters could deliver a 100% guaranteed first-shot/kill-shot?

After all, it was treason most high, the shadow of the gallows in the back of every man's mind, no?

[Chris Newton]

Cliff,

I agree to a point. The military, though, does seek out certain individuals who you and I would consider morally and ethically bankrupt. Delta used to show up in my battalion in Germany every couple years on a recruiting drive. They wanted unmarried NCOs, E-5s and E-6's in their second term of enlistment. If those individuals that volunteered made it through the psychological testing they would then spend another year in SOF. One of the recruiters told a group that I was in that, basically, they wanted cold hearted, cold blooded killers. The NCO's selected that didn't make it would not return to their units but would be re-assigned to other units as a security measure. The failure rate was quoted to me at about 98%.

I would not have made it in Delta.

I think the shooters were either men that were doing it for money (mafia) or revenge (rogue CIA, anti-castro cubans) or a combination of the two.

Let's take Werbell or Morales, as examples, they were utilized in executive action. Can you imagine they'd be nervous or scared? Or would it be business as usual?

I think the shooters were extremely skilled. The President was not an "easy" target. Shooting at a small target moving down an incline and left to right (or right to left) with a rifle is a very difficult thing.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Chris Newton

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I agree to a point. The military, though, does seek out certain individuals who you and I would consider morally and ethically bankrupt. Delta used to show up in my battalion in Germany every couple years on a recruiting drive. They wanted unmarried NCOs, E-5s and E-6's in their second term of enlistment. If those individuals that volunteered made it through the psychological testing they would then spend another year in SOF. One of the recruiters told a group that I was in that, basically, they wanted cold hearted, cold blooded killers. The NCO's selected that didn't make it would not return to their units but would be re-assigned to other units as a security measure. The failure rate was quoted to me at about 98%.

I would not have made it in Delta.

I think the shooters were either men that were doing it for money (mafia) or revenge (rogue CIA, anti-castro cubans) or a combination of the two.

Let's take Werbell or Morales, as examples, they were utilized in executive action. Can you imagine they'd be nervous or scared? Or would it be business as usual?

I think the shooters were extremely skilled. The President was not an "easy" target. Shooting at a small target moving down an incline and left to right (or right to left) with a rifle is a very difficult thing.

Wouldn't it be much easier if the target were immobilized first?

Scorpion logic -- paralyze first, move in for the kill at the most favorable moment.

Look at JFK's actions as he emerges from behind the freeway sign -- he appears to seize up paralyzed.

That action was consistent with a first shot-paralytic/second-shot toxin scenario -- not first-shot/kill-shot.

[Paul Brancato]

It looks that way to me too Cliff, but the idea hasn't gotten much traction.

[Chris Newton]

Cliff and Paul,

I'm not suggesting that it's impossible that a toxin delivery system was used. I just think it's unlikely. It doesn't make anything easier, it complicates the operation.

My main concern is the practicality of the delivery system. The target is outdoors, it's a blustery day. The testimony as to the handgun's maximum range is immaterial. The maximum effective range is key. For someone to have shot the President with that they would have needed to be standing in the crowd, curbside along the route. Regardless of the lack of noise, pulling that gun out pointing it at the president is a risky thing. Additionally, conventional projectiles are affected by crosswind, I'm not an expert on darts but I suspect they'd be affected more so.

This aspect breaks one military doctrine called K.I.S..S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff and Paul,

I'm not suggesting that it's impossible that a toxin delivery system was used. I just think it's unlikely. It doesn't make anything easier, it complicates the operation.

My main concern is the practicality of the delivery system. The target is outdoors, it's a blustery day. The testimony as to the handgun's maximum range is immaterial. The maximum effective range is key. For someone to have shot the President with that they would have needed to be standing in the crowd, curbside along the route. Regardless of the lack of noise, pulling that gun out pointing it at the president is a risky thing. Additionally, conventional projectiles are affected by crosswind, I'm not an expert on darts but I suspect they'd be affected more so.

This aspect breaks one military doctrine called K.I.S..S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Chris,

By immobilizing the target first, the task of delivering a kill shot would be a lot simpler, wouldn't it?

First-shot/kill-shot may be the simplest tactic but it isn't guaranteed, is it?

A winged Kennedy might hit the deck.

Not all head shots result in death, correct?

[Chris Newton]

Cliff,

Yes, somehow immobilizing the target would have increased the chance that you'd hit that target.

I'm quite sure whomever shot him hoped for a first shot/first kill.

A winged Kennedy could hit the deck. The Secret Service could shield him. The driver could have taken a head shot sending the car who knows where. There are lots of unknowns when you shoot into a convertible full of people. I suppose a paralyzing dart could have ricochet off something, struck a motorcycle policeman who could have then run over a guy carrying an umbrella.

And you are correct, not all head shots result in death.

It still doesn't make sense to me. If the kill zone is approximately the distance from a little ways down Elm from Houston to a little ways before the overpass, time is of the essence. It makes more sense to have several skilled shooters take their best shots than to screw around with a paralyzing dart and then after that wasted time engage him. You'd take the same chance (and maybe more of a chance) that the dart would miss or hit an unintended target. They didn't seem to care much about hitting other targets. I think it was plain luck no one other than Connaly (and Tague) were injured.

I think a non-fatal, non-glancing shot to the head has more to do with ballistics than anything else. I submit that if I shot you in the head with my Tank's old M2HB it would always cause a fatality.

It's interesting that you mention the "one shot / one kill" because that was a doctrine we strove for in Armor (and I think Desert Storm proved we attained). To do this took planning. It took time at the range and it took teamwork. If I was a betting man I'd bet money that the plotters reduced risk through planning and teamwork rather than fancy 007 weapons.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Yes, somehow immobilizing the target would have increased the chance that you'd hit that target.

I'm quite sure whomever shot him hoped for a first shot/first kill.

A winged Kennedy could hit the deck. The Secret Service could shield him. The driver could have taken a head shot sending the car who knows where. There are lots of unknowns when you shoot into a convertible full of people. I suppose a paralyzing dart could have ricochet off something, struck a motorcycle policeman who could have then run over a guy carrying an umbrella.

And you are correct, not all head shots result in death.

It still doesn't make sense to me. If the kill zone is approximately the distance from a little ways down Elm from Houston to a little ways before the overpass, time is of the essence. It makes more sense to have several skilled shooters take their best shots than to screw around with a paralyzing dart and then after that wasted time engage him. You'd take the same chance (and maybe more of a chance) that the dart would miss or hit an unintended target. They didn't seem to care much about hitting other targets. I think it was plain luck no one other than Connaly (and Tague) were injured.

I think a non-fatal, non-glancing shot to the head has more to do with ballistics than anything else. I submit that if I shot you in the head with my Tank's old M2HB it would always cause a fatality.

It's interesting that you mention the "one shot / one kill" because that was a doctrine we strove for in Armor (and I think Desert Storm proved we attained). To do this took planning. It took time at the range and it took teamwork. If I was a betting man I'd bet money that the plotters reduced risk through planning and teamwork rather than fancy 007 weapons.

But you still have to square that with the facts on the ground in Dealey Plaza.

He was shot in the throat circa Z190. The round nicked his trachea, burst some blood vessels, created a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.

And then there is that air-pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse process -- a trajectory which points back to the entrance between the 3rd and 4th trach rings.

His wife said he had a "quizzical" look on his face.

How is that wound pattern consistent with first shot/kill shot?

And then the second shot hit him in the back (as per the testimony of SS SA Glen Bennett) -- shallow wound, no round recovered.

How is that consistent with second-shot/kill shot UNLESS the first shot was a paralytic and second shot a toxin?

Otherwise, they sure waited a while to get around to the kill shot, Chris!

Edited October 26, 2013 by Cliff Varnell