Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Hit With Paralysising "Ice" Bullet


Steve Kober

Recommended Posts

Forum poll: ice bullets or blood soluble flechettes?

And have we conclusively ruled out the Umbrella Man as the culprit?

Dave

I don't understand your poll, Dave.

Here's where the "Ice Bullet" scenario came from:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

"Ice bullet" is another way of saying "blood soluble."

Some witnesses were dragooned into the cover-up by the authorities -- Louis Witt was drafted as a perp by the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community, blowing smoke over the autopsists' highly plausible scenario that hi-tech weaponry was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If surgery had been done to the President's head to alter the physical evidence of more than one shooter before the "official" Bethesda autopsy then it may also be plausible that a projectile that didn't fit the scenario was also removed at the same time.

The bottom line being if any alteration was performed between Parkland and Bethesda then everything recorded at the "official" Bethesda autopsy regarding existing or non-existing fragments or projectiles is simply academic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

As far as possible weapons, Mitch Werbell was floating in the same circles as many of our possible "perps". I'll get to him in a second.

Although it's possible that some of the "rogue CIA" that David Phillips later fingered, and whom I think are most likely to have been involved, might have access to extremely high tech weapons, I don't think they'd have been used.

Reason: This was an operation that needed to succeed, failure had too many consequences. Therefore, I don't think those behind it would add elements that weren't "tried and true". Murphy's law existed then as it does today.

The only reason to have Werbell "on board" is weapons and weapon technology, he doesn't bring anything else "to the table". What kinds of weapons did Werbell specialize in? Silenced weapons. Later, silenced automatic weapons. The issue here is that there were a few but not to many silenced weapons with any operational history in inventory. Most of these were for "close combat". That makes them inappropriate for this operation. There is an exception and I've brought it up before.

No one at street level would hear that.

Later in his career, Werbell developed modernized copy of that weapon that was used in Vietnam

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Dave,

I've never really addressed you clowns before (yes, plural). My personal policy is usually "Don't feed the trolls".

internet xxxxx:
  1. In Internet slang, a xxxxx is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers ...

Lately, I've noticed that you don't even try anything more than a couple of words in rebuttal and now you've resorted to childish jpegs from the net. What's next? Maybe you can start an LN JFK/LOL Cat meme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Dave,

I've never really addressed you clowns before (yes, plural). My personal policy is usually "Don't feed the trolls".

internet xxxxx:
  1. In Internet slang, a xxxxx is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers ...

Lately, I've noticed that you don't even try anything more than a couple of words in rebuttal and now you've resorted to childish jpegs from the net. What's next? Maybe you can start an LN JFK/LOL Cat meme.

Dave, <sigh>

Ridicule sans facts falls flat.

22shanexlarge1cia_zps07fec4d6.jpg

Dave, enough of the puerile interruptions...the adults are talking.

Chris, check out the following:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs94th/94intelligence_activities_I.pdf

Specifically Senseney's testimony here:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I skimmed through the first PDF and then actually read the entirety of Senseney's testimony. I actually had seen that before, years ago. For a long time I was quite interested in the biological aspects, MKULTRA, Gottlieb, the death of Frank Olson, etc. I also attended NBC school in Germany and have a better understanding of biological agents than most lay persons. I agree that there were exotic weapons developed. I simply don't understand why they would be used in the context of the Kennedy Assassination. It's rather obvious that he was shot, some gunshots were heard and his head practically exploded. There's no need for a subtle dart to deliver a toxin.

I am open to an exploding bullet theory, a frangible projectile maybe in the form of a sabot. That said, I think that the distances, the fact that the ambush was outdoors makes it more likely that a traditional delivery method would be used.

The Delisle weapon I linked to above was operational from WW2, in US inventory and reportedly used by the British in the Falklands. It was used for assassinations and was well liked by SOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I skimmed through the first PDF and then actually read the entirety of Senseney's testimony. I actually had seen that before, years ago. For a long time I was quite interested in the biological aspects, MKULTRA, Gottlieb, the death of Frank Olson, etc. I also attended NBC school in Germany and have a better understanding of biological agents than most lay persons. I agree that there were exotic weapons developed. I simply don't understand why they would be used in the context of the Kennedy Assassination. It's rather obvious that he was shot, some gunshots were heard and his head practically exploded. There's no need for a subtle dart to deliver a toxin.

Chris, it's a pleasure to discuss this with someone knowledgeable.

Let's review the shooting sequence. The first shot struck his throat. According to the HSCA analysis of neck x-ray:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in

that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may

be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

I was curious what the trajectory of an air-pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes would look like, so I asked Jame R. Gordon to demonstrate such a trajectory on his anatomical model.

C7T1_2.png

The air-pocket trajectory points to the entrance wound!

Chris, what kind of conventional weaponry causes nothing but soft tissue damage, doesn't exit, and leaves an air-pocket but no bullet?

I am open to an exploding bullet theory, a frangible projectile maybe in the form of a sabot. That said, I think that the distances, the fact that the ambush was outdoors makes it more likely that a traditional delivery method would be used.

The Delisle weapon I linked to above was operational from WW2, in US inventory and reportedly used by the British in the Falklands. It was used for assassinations and was well liked by SOF.

Ah, but this relates to the head wounds -- off limits rabbit hole for me, Chris.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like to quote Gerry Patrick Hemming, who spread so much disinfo, but in one of A. J. Weberman's internet "nodules," GPH asserted that the back wound was the "meat shot," a non-fatal wound that would not be a debated through-and-through penetration, and was intended to establish a lone shooter from behind.

So, why not an ice bullet for this hit, if a cover-up was anticipated?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Dave,

I've never really addressed you clowns before (yes, plural). My personal policy is usually "Don't feed the trolls".

internet xxxxx:
  1. In Internet slang, a xxxxx is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers ...

Lately, I've noticed that you don't even try anything more than a couple of words in rebuttal and now you've resorted to childish jpegs from the net. What's next? Maybe you can start an LN JFK/LOL Cat meme.

Well, Chris, I confess it's not my proudest moment. It's difficult to take some of these theories very seriously -- but then again, I used to believe quite strongly in some conspiracy theories that other CTs say are ridiculous, so who am I to judge?

Who are you to claim you've done a "sober and careful analysis of the evidence"?

It was the autopsists who thought JFK may have been hit with rounds that didn't show up on x-ray.

That's why FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab

You did know that, right, Dave?

Or are you habitually incapable of processing information contrary to your cherished beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film

Again, I've read most of the ARRB medical and Bethesda testimonies and I firmly believe when the Bethesda Dr. noted "surgery" to the skull he was unwittingly revealing an action that had not been performed at Parkland.

For your theory to work:

The nearly intact "magic" bullet found near a stretcher in Parkland didn't come from that wound in Kennedy's back (I believe this is fantasy bullet, but maybe it fell from the back wound, IDK)

There cannot be any alterations done to the corpse between Parkland and Bethesda. (I believe this happened nullifying any observations taken during the subsequent

autopsy)

As David pointed out, the back wound could be a fabrication (I suppose at the alteration above?) (you need someplace extremely private to fire a weapon into a corpse and not

draw attention - doubtful - and even then you'd have to set it up carefully

because of trajectory and recover the bullet? - unlikely sorry GPH)

If all those conditions exist and, the bullet was not simply "missed" then your theory has legs but it's too much of a stretch for me with everything else that's recently been revealed about Bethesda.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As David pointed out, the back wound could be a fabrication (I suppose at the alteration above?) (you need someplace extremely private to fire a weapon into a corpse and not

draw attention - doubtful - and even then you'd have to set it up carefully

because of trajectory and recover the bullet? - unlikely sorry GPH)

GPH actually meant that the "meat shot" was fired from behind in Dealey Plaza, to mark the back as a rear shooter's target. In Weberman's "nodules," I believe he suggested it came from the Dal-Tex building. But GPH is an unreliable narrator.

Still, worth consideration as an opinion on the reason for a torso shot, apart from a flat-out miss of the head.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Dave,

I've never really addressed you clowns before (yes, plural). My personal policy is usually "Don't feed the trolls".

internet xxxxx:
  1. In Internet slang, a xxxxx is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers ...

Lately, I've noticed that you don't even try anything more than a couple of words in rebuttal and now you've resorted to childish jpegs from the net. What's next? Maybe you can start an LN JFK/LOL Cat meme.

Well, Chris, I confess it's not my proudest moment. It's difficult to take some of these theories very seriously -- but then again, I used to believe quite strongly in some conspiracy theories that other CTs say are ridiculous, so who am I to judge?

Who are you to claim you've done a "sober and careful analysis of the evidence"?

It was the autopsists who thought JFK may have been hit with rounds that didn't show up on x-ray.

That's why FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab

You did know that, right, Dave?

Or are you habitually incapable of processing information contrary to your cherished beliefs?

Who are you to claim you've done a "sober and careful analysis of the evidence"?

I'm someone who understands both sides of the argument, if for no other reason than because I've been on both sides of the argument. Can you think of a better "home test" for objectivity?

You're someone who frequently boasts. You are someone who infrequently cites evidence.

I'd like to be able to say that others at this forum understand both sides as well as I do, but I asked skeptics of the LN position here if they understood the LN side of the case well enough to make a hypothetical argument for it:

You haven't demonstrated an understanding of anything. You only boast of prowess no one can witness.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20464

No one has an obligation to prove anything to me, of course. But don't complain when I draw a reasonable conclusion from the silence.

You're inability to defend your positions explains all your frequent silences, Dave.

Or are you habitually incapable of processing information contrary to your cherished beliefs?

When I figured out that facts demolished the conspiracy theories I believed in, Cliff, what did I do?

You shouldn't have had conspiracy beliefs in the first place. The fact of conspiracy is a matter of observation, not belief. You should follow the evidence, but you obviously can't.

Take your time processing the question.

Dave

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're someone who frequently boasts. You are someone who infrequently cites evidence.

Was my response to your "who are you" question a boast?

Indeed it was.

"I'm someone who understands both sides of the argument," sez Reitzes.

That's all you do, tout your divine conversion. As if someone gives a tinker's damn.

You can't argue your positions with facts, Dave. You just like to pretend your biography performs the same function.

From what I've seen, many people around here seem to view my "conversion" from CT to LN with derision. From my perspective, it was quite a learning experience.

Big deal. It doesn't take the place of little things like facts, tho you've convinced yourself it does, clearly.

As for a lack of evidence in my writings, to which articles of mine do you refer? I'm pretty conscientious about supporting everything I write with credible evidence, and often link to primary sources so readers can verify what I say.

I've pointed out the problems with your Skeptic article, such as your egregious misrepresentation of the clothing evidence, the fallacious SBT re-enactments you cite, the fallacious conclusions you draw concerning the HSCA analysis of the autopsy photos...do we need to go on any more?

You have demonstrated a great disregard for facts, David.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure my positions are explained fairly well and sourced sufficiently in everything I publish. Of course, when someone points out a demonstrable error, as Thomas Graves did the other day in a thread here, I make the necessary correction, as anyone should.

No, you don't. I pointed out to you the mistaken drawing of JFK on page 46 of Skeptic Magazine -- the Dale K Myers drawing. It shows JFK's jacket collar jacked into his hairline.

Wish I had a hundred bucks for every time I've pointed out this egregious misrepresentation of the clothing evidence.

Dave Reitzes says nothing, defends nothing.

You find it hard to understand why I do not consider some of your arguments worth answering,

Again, you have trouble discerning the fact of the matter. I find it easy to understand why you don't reply with fact-based argument -- you can't.

of course, when you consider them utterly dispositive of the issue of conspiracy.

But some fairly prominent critics of the LN position, from John Hunt to Bill Kelly to Pat Speer, have also disputed the merits and/or significance of your arguments. What does that tell you?

They don't put forth any fact-based arguments, either. That's what you guys have in common -- the inability to argue a position with facts.

Have you bothered to read Hunt's article? He dubbed it "The Case for a Bunched Jacket" -- only one problem...His case wasn't finished yet!

But he published his conclusions anyway.

Seriously, this is the "critical thinking skills" endorsed by 'Dave Reitzes:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm

...[M]y research indicates that the difference between the impact point of a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot is little more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet finished.

Wow!

What a powerful "argument"!

E-mail Hunt and he'll let you know what his argument is, but in the meantime read his conclusions!

They teach you these critical thinking skills at Skeptic, Dave?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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

×
×
  • Create New...