Robert Prudhomme Posted July 29, 2016 Author Share Posted July 29, 2016 Yes, gentlemen, I'm sure it could have been a rocket propelled flechette, or even a laser fired from a passing UFO. Whatever the case, on this particular thread, I am assuming the entrance wound in JFK's back was caused by a bullet, and I really don't feel like getting into another long drawn out flechette vs. bullet debate; at least not on this thread anyways. If you wish to discuss the poisoned flechettes, please show me the courtesy of doing so on another thread, and perhaps I will drop in and offer my opinion on the matter. The medical information I will be conveying on this thread is so complex, it will be difficult for anyone to comprehend if they have to sort through distracting off-topic posts to get at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Yes, gentlemen, I'm sure it could have been a rocket propelled flechette, or even a laser fired from a passing UFO. Whatever the case, on this particular thread, I am assuming the entrance wound in JFK's back was caused by a bullet, and I really don't feel like getting into another long drawn out flechette vs. bullet debate; at least not on this thread anyways. If you wish to discuss the poisoned flechettes, please show me the courtesy of doing so on another thread, and perhaps I will drop in and offer my opinion on the matter. The medical information I will be conveying on this thread is so complex, it will be difficult for anyone to comprehend if they have to sort through distracting off-topic posts to get at it. I thought the subject of this thread was the shallow back wound. Perhaps you should have said shallow back BULLET wound to avoid discourtesies. But carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 MKNAOMI dart is far more likely. Cliff, Would you happen to know if the other launching devices, besides an umbrella gun, included a camera? Ron, I haven't seen any evidence of such. Bob, why so touchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Cliff - MKNAOMI dart is far more likely. Really, Cliff? A dart? With that much pinpoint accuracy to hit Kennedy from a reasonable distance and to avoid detection? And when the U.S. had finally gotten a rocket off the ground just a few years before after several false starts in mid-launch? I had been reading a few posts of yours elsewhere so I wasn't quite sure where you stood on the whole thing. I did notice a lot of anger but the messages were quite ambiguous. But now I've got it. A dart. OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Cliff - MKNAOMI dart is far more likely. Really, Cliff? A dart? With that much pinpoint accuracy to hit Kennedy from a reasonable distance and to avoid detection? And when the U.S. had finally gotten a rocket off the ground just a few years before after several false starts in mid-launch? I had been reading a few posts of yours elsewhere so I wasn't quite sure where you stood on the whole thing. I did notice a lot of anger but the messages were quite ambiguous. But now I've got it. A dart. OK. You didn't know that the CIA had such weapons in 1963? It's a matter of record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 Sorry for the delay in my analysis of the medical evidence. I know I said I would deliver it a couple of days ago but, since then, I've been busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. Hopefully I can start on it tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 You didn't know that the CIA had such weapons in 1963? It's a matter of record. Yes, Ron, I'm completely and 100% aware of the Agency's mind-control, dart shooting, poison pen, hiring the Mafia to do its dirty work, wet works history and methods. I just don't think they'd take such a huge risk of using any of them that day when an easy, from a good distance crossfire with bullets, and with shooters from behind and in front, could have done the job more efficiently. Try to look at it from the big picture - they had already greased the screw as far back as June 1963 when they had their Crazy Commie Oswald primed to take the fall (unknown to him) by getting him to hand out Commie papers in NO; they had over-done photos of him holding not only the rifle he was going to take the fall with, but also holding a Commie handbill and a pistol to boot (talk about overkill); they had the rifle purchase paperwork ready to go (except they forgot one thing...he was working at JCS all day as documented by his time card...oops); they had an impostor going around firing other people's targets at a rifle range and still another going around bragging he'd be getting a lot of money soon while he's out test driving cars; then they have yet another impostor down in MC trying to reach out to a Russian assassin (but they screwed up with that one too because the impostor looked and sounded nothing like the man that was captured in Dallas - oops #2). So you have to ask yourself - why in the world would they go through all of this meticulous planning and then, switching gears, they'd take a chance of ##### it all up by shooting darts? Further. they needed bullet wounds and fragments to make it all tie together as neatly as they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 So you have to ask yourself - why in the world would they go through all of this meticulous planning and then, switching gears, they'd take a chance of ##### it all up by shooting darts? Further. they needed bullet wounds and fragments to make it all tie together as neatly as they could. All that meticulous planning would have gone for naught if JFK had ducked down to the floorboard after the first shot and survived. But instead he sat there as if paralyzed till they blew his brains out. And that was the purpose of the dart(s), to make sure he sat there till dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 (edited) Cliff - MKNAOMI dart is far more likely. Really, Cliff? A dart? Bob, this isn't my theory. It's what the autopsists speculated the night of the autopsy -- that JFK was hit with a round which wouldn't show up in the autopsy. With that much pinpoint accuracy to hit Kennedy from a reasonable distance and to avoid detection? Had a range of 100 yards. US Army Special Operations Division developed blood soluble dart technology but briefed the FBI that such technology "might be brought into the country." https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf[bottom pg 166] They would have blamed foreign operators. And when the U.S. had finally gotten a rocket off the ground just a few years before after several false starts in mid-launch? Non sequitur. I had been reading a few posts of yours elsewhere so I wasn't quite sure where you stood on the whole thing. I did notice a lot of anger but the messages were quite ambiguous. But now I've got it. A dart. OK. From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> 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. <quote off> From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> 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). <quote off> Edited July 30, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 RON - But instead he sat there as if paralyzed till they blew his brains out. And that was the purpose of the dart(s), to make sure he sat there till dead. Connally didn't collapse or throw himself down either. The agents up front, who weren't even hit with anything, froze. Even Jackie froze..was she hit with a dart, too? No one really knows how one is going to react when hit with a bullet, Ron. That entire group had seen nothing but smiling, happy, cheering crowds for the past two days. It's not like they were sitting around saying, "OMG, here come the bullets. Don't forget to throw yourselves down." The point is, I don't think they would have used darts. And just because Kennedy froze doesn't mean he was suddenly hit by a high-tech dart causing him paralysis. Even Reagan froze up when he was shot, before the SS agent pushed him into the car. But he survived and we know he was hit with bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Yes, gentlemen, I'm sure it could have been a rocket propelled flechette, or even a laser fired from a passing UFO. Whatever the case, on this particular thread, I am assuming the entrance wound in JFK's back was caused by a bullet, and I really don't feel like getting into another long drawn out flechette vs. bullet debate; at least not on this thread anyways. If you wish to discuss the poisoned flechettes, please show me the courtesy of doing so on another thread, and perhaps I will drop in and offer my opinion on the matter. The medical information I will be conveying on this thread is so complex, it will be difficult for anyone to comprehend if they have to sort through distracting off-topic posts to get at it. Bob, Glad to see that you, along with one or two others, myself included, feel that OT/Hijacking is AGAIN a problem on this site. Not everyone does it, but I recently did. However, after several posts I realized that pages of posts were totally OT and the thread had been successfully hijacked. I posted on that thread that I would delete any of my posts that were OT. I did so, and in my next post asked others to do the same. In response, one of these OT-posters "noticed" that after making "outrageous claims" I had deleted my posts. He went so far as to post a link to my deleted posts, indicating he did this so I could not deny them. Due to the facts that I had specifically stated WHY I had deleted my posts and that on another thread frequented by this same poster, I continued to support these ALLEGED 'outrageous claims,' this 'person' did all but say the words "You are a L*I*A*R." Putting all of these together I conclude that this would qualify as 'libel.' Yet despite a complaint to the mods, after several days he hasn't even received a warning. So thanks for addressing this IMPORTANT issue! Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 @Robert: I'm going to step outside the box here & submit a scenario to you that is very simple in explaining JFK's back wound & the small wound in his neck while realizing most folks aren't ready to even consider this: JFK's car rounds the corner & passes the reflecting pool & the Elm sidewalk monument. SS Agent Ready reaches into his coat jacket & fires his pistol at JFK, striking him in the back. JFK turns quickly around & looks backwards towards the SS car. Ready fires again & hits JFK in the throat..... Note: Substitute Emory Roberts for agent Ready or have them both working in concert as JFK's car is traveling slowly down the incline of Elm Street. How difficult would it have been to pull that off? How much time would it take? The passengers in the back seat of the SS car would be looking at the backs of both agents. Ready fires from within his coat front, Roberts from next to the side wing glass. Would that fit into your wound analysis? Just thinkin' Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 No one hijacked this thread. As far as I can tell every post in this thread is relevant to the thread subject. If some people don't like some views that were posted about the wound, that's too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 ...if some people don't like some views that were posted about the wound, that's too bad.The same goes for you and your opinion. Something that obviously never occurs to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) ...if some people don't like some views that were posted about the wound, that's too bad.Here's a lesson in logic for all of us. What does the thread starter know about the intent of his own thread? This guy knows better... BTW, the same goes for you and your own opinion. Something that historically never occurs to you. Edited July 31, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now