Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Agreed Cliff but as I knew they would, rather than debate real evidence, they resort to name calling tactics. It’s ok. I have seen some lawyers with no case do that. It does not work in court either. 

Btw for the healthy non conspiracists, note that Cliff and I are most likely polar opposites politically. Yet here we are agreeing because we are looking at evidence not viewing the issue with blinders on.   And it is laughable to discuss evidence when so much was destroyed mutilated or lost. The response is always ok but it wasn’t intentional. First they don’t know that. Second at some point it is. Good job Cliff. 

Thank you, Cory.

Where were you active politically in Nevada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I'd like [DVP] to confirm your [Francois Carlier's] comment that he agreed that the shot hit JFK in the back rather than the neck. It'll be a hell of a shock to him.

No shock at all. Of course the bullet entered JFK's BACK (not his NECK). I've NEVER argued anything else. And you won't find any post of mine saying otherwise. I've always said "Upper Back", not "Neck" for the bullet's entry point. For example, in this post here (which I previously linked to in this thread), I said....

"Why are you [Anthony Marsh] stating that LNers "keep saying neck"? They do no such thing. LNers know the wound was in JFK's upper "back" (14 centimeters below the mastoid process), not in the "neck". Can you, Tony, post some messages of LNers saying "neck" repeatedly, in order to back up your statement that LNers "keep saying neck"? (I doubt you can.)" -- DVP; January 2018

And I've also said (many times) that the problem, IMO, is mainly just semantics---and nothing more.

Also See:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-860.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Two assassins' bullets, one from the front and one from the back, that didn't exit the body?  Pure happenstance that those two shots lined up in a way that brought the SBT at least within the realm of possibility? 

From a June 2018 discussion here at this forum....

"Isn't it amazing that there just happened to be another bullet hole on the opposite side of JFK's body to meet the "SBT" needs of Mr. Specter, et al?

Has any conspiracy theorist in history ever made this basic observation?....

Boy, those assassins were sure a bunch of lucky sons of bitches when the guy who shot JFK in the throat from the front managed to hit Kennedy in exactly the right spot on his body so that (later on) the official investigators could utilize that entry wound in the throat as the point of exit for the SBT bullet. And then the multiple assassins got even luckier when the upper-back bullet and the bullet that entered the throat both decided not to exit the body and then both of those bullets vanished into puffs of smoke before either of those bullets (which obviously were still inside JFK's body when he was inside Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland Hospital) could be seen by any non-conspirator.

Can anyone truly believe that such incredible good fortune could possibly have existed amongst the (alleged) multiple shooters who were (allegedly) firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63?

(And yet CTers have the gall to tell me that I am the one who believes in "Magic Bullets". Oy vey!)" --DVP; June 2018

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html#The-Incredibly-Lucky-Plotters

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

From a June 2018 discussion here at this forum....

"Isn't it amazing that there just happened to be another bullet hole on the opposite side of JFK's body to meet the "SBT" needs of Mr. Specter, et al?

Has any conspiracy theorist in history ever made this basic observation?....

Boy, those assassins were sure a bunch of lucky sons of bitches when the guy who shot JFK in the throat from the front managed to hit Kennedy in exactly the right spot on his body so that (later on) the official investigators could utilize that entry wound in the throat as the point of exit for the SBT bullet.

No where close to the "right spot."

Only a gullible fanatic would buy this garbage.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There are no unknown variables.

That's an incredibly brazen statement for anyone to make. And an incredibly silly one, to boot.

You, Cliff, should face the FACT that you don't really have any idea how much "bunching" was occurring with JFK's COAT or SHIRT when Kennedy was being shot in Dealey Plaza. You keep PRETENDING you do have all this knowledge....but you don't. And you KNOW you don't. You're just blowing more smoke. As usual.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lower neck" was innocent verbiage used on the night of the body examination, but the proof for this is also proof the pathologists fabricated their "throat wound ignorance" story.

 

From BEST EVIDENCE (free ebook: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hsyco7pb7zpml9z/BEST EVIDENCE - Disguise and deception in the assassination of JFK by David S. Lifton.pdf?dl=0)

 

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"
The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."61

Although Barnum's report was incorrect on the head shot not exiting, both points of entry are those shown in the autopsy photographs, and the neck trajectory was the "transiting" conclusion to be found in the official autopsy report Humes wrote later that weekend.*

[...]

*Barnum's account also raises this question: why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Although Cliff will insist that it is IMPOSSIBLE! for the coat and shirt to have moved in unison, I don't think we can know the effect of JFK's elaborate back brace.  No, it didn't simply sit at his waist.  Probably like everyone here, I did my own quick bunching experiment and was surprised at how much bunching does occur with what seemed like very slight movement.  But I don't hinge my thinking solely on the back brace because, as I stated, there are just too many unknowns/variables to be dogmatic on the subject one way or the other.

brace.jpg.e26a00801b525df2894dd9d49a04961b.jpg

Hello Lance.
Yes, somes years ago, as you say probably like everyone else here, I did somes experiments with two shirts and two jackets and took pictures, and also took pictures of my dad's back, using a marker to mark the wound location (or possible wound locations).
I helped me understand that the bunching of the clothes could very well match a high location for the wound. Most certainly, the location of the holes in the shirt and jacket, though actually being "lower" than the wound in Kennedy's back, can very well be understood and reconciled with the bunching effect.
To me, there is no real problem here, once you have realized that it IS possible and probable. The pictures of Kennedy in Dealey Plaza give confirmation.
I agree with you that there are variables and of course there are minute details that we cannot be 100% sure of. That's right.
But I believe, correction I claim that some hypotheses lead nowhere. For example, you can suppose that JFK was shot lower in the back, at the level of the holes in the clothes and that the clothes were not bunched. OK, why not suppose that ? But try to go further and it leads nowhere. Unless you go on to claim that some doctors secretly retrieved the bullet or that the bullet was made of butter and melted inside JFK's body… (that's a little bit of sarcasm but not far from what some conspiracy theorists actually claim).
So after having tried all the paths of suppositions that lead nowhere, you come back to the starting point and there is only one remaining path, which makes sense and connect the dots.
Yes, using common sense you get an overall picture and a true solution that really connect the dots. No question.
Therefore, I say YES, you can be peremptory or authoritative in this case.
Dogmatic ? I don't know what you mean by that, but I may differ from you on that topic, but I really think that if one uses critical thinking, one can say that the single bullet is now a matter of certainty. There is no doubt, because there is no other possible way to explain everything. No other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

That's an incredibly brazen statement for anyone to make. And an incredibly silly one, to boot.

You, Cliff, should face the FACT that you don't really have any idea how much "bunching" was occurring with JFK's COAT or SHIRT when Kennedy was being shot in Dealey Plaza.

Anyone can make a simple observation of their own clothing, David.

Every time you, David Von Pein, casually raise your right arm and wave your right hand the fabric of your shirt indents on your right shoulder-top.

That is a 100% fact.

That you cannot process this fact indicates your True Belief.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Hello Lance.
Yes, somes years ago, as you say probably like everyone else here, I did somes experiments with two shirts and two jackets and took pictures, and also took pictures of my dad's back, using a marker to mark the wound location (or possible wound locations).

This I gotta see!

Show us how you get 2+ inches of your shirt and 2+ inches of your jacket to elevate entirely above the top-of-the-back "wound" without pushing up on your jacket collar.

Show us or STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, François Carlier said:

I agree with you that there are variables and of course there are minute details that we cannot be 100% sure of. That's right.
But I believe, correction I claim that some hypotheses lead nowhere. For example, you can suppose that JFK was shot lower in the back, at the level of the holes in the clothes and that the clothes were not bunched. OK, why not suppose that ? But try to go further and it leads nowhere. Unless you go on to claim that some doctors secretly retrieved the bullet or that the bullet was made of butter and melted inside JFK's body… (that's a little bit of sarcasm but not far from what some conspiracy theorists actually claim).
So after having tried all the paths of suppositions that lead nowhere, you come back to the starting point and there is only one remaining path, which makes sense and connect the dots.
Yes, using common sense you get an overall picture and a true solution that really connect the dots. No question.
Therefore, I say YES, you can be peremptory or authoritative in this case.

Yes, that is the salient point.  When I say the SBT is "problematical" and neither side can be dogmatic, I'm mostly talking about "when we view the SBT in isolation."  It's a theory that has some problematical aspects, from the location of the holes in the clothing to the condition of the bullet.  BUT, as those charged with investigating the assassination have repeatedly concluded, the SBT is the "least problematical" of the alternatives.  This is true when the SBT is viewed in isolation and certainly when it is viewed in the context of the assassination as a whole.  In the latter context, we can speak with a level of confidence about the SBT while acknowledging (and dealing with) the discrepancies and problematical aspects.  This is precisely why someone like Cliff wants to view the SBT only in isolation (and, indeed, to restrict the view to only the evidence he likes).  With the theories that obviously are more problematical than the SBT, both in isolation and in the context of the assassination as a whole, the Conspiracy Game is to keep "solving" those problems with conspiracy speculation for which there is no factual basis and to keep moving the goalposts until the supposed conspiracy involves so many persons and so many facets and stages that it becomes comical.

Notwithstanding that Cliff and Cory think they're scoring points with open-minded readers, I'm confident the reality is otherwise.  Although Clint claims that responding to my posts is "fun," like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm confident the reality is otherwise.  Ad hominem attacks are seldom the tactic of debaters who are confident they're scoring points.  Sure, the conspiracy community is a brotherhood, and I don't expect to be any more popular than a psychiatrist at a Scientology convention, but I'm confident that those who have not yet drunk the conspiracy Kool Aid can see who is simply a one-dimensional conspiracy cultist.

As previously stated, it isn't utterly inconceivable to me that Lee Harvey Oswald might have been involved in a "conspiracy" with another person or two - who were perhaps in Dealey Plaza or perhaps not.  (I put "conspiracy" in quotation marks because this could mean almost anything.)  I don't believe this fits the facts because I don't believe Oswald's actions in the 24 hours before and the 12 hours after the assassination match any sort of conspiracy scenario.  But I'm not unalterably opposed to such a notion if facts come to light that can be reasonably explained in no other way.  However, any such "conspiracy" would have to fit who Oswald actually was.  It would, I believe, have to be a pro-Castro "conspiracy" with Oswald front and center.  If I thought Cliff's "irrefutable evidence" were ANYWHERE NEAR as irrefutable as he claims, that's the direction I'd be looking.

But I guarantee you that such a "conspiracy" would be opposed as vehemently as the Lone Nut explanation by MUCH of the JFK conspiracy community.  They would hate it as much as they hate the Lone Nut explanation.  Why?  Because the issue for them really isn't "Who killed JFK?"  This very large segment of JFK assassination research is essentially a religion driven by liberal ideology.  The goal is to invest JFK's death with meaning equal to the greatness of his Presidency and the near-worship in which his memory is held.  The goal is to read back into JFK's death all that we have learned since about corruption in government and business.  The goal is to explain the current state of America by the fact that we lost JFK and the same dark forces are still at work today.  I'm not saying these are conscious goals, or even that there is anything wrong with them, but I am convinced they're the psychological underpinnings of a great deal of what might otherwise seem to be inexplicable quasi-religious conspiracy thinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, François Carlier said:


But I believe, correction I claim that some hypotheses lead nowhere. For example, you can suppose that JFK was shot lower in the back, at the level of the holes in the clothes and that the clothes were not bunched. OK, why not suppose that ? But try to go further and it leads nowhere. Unless you go on to claim that some doctors secretly retrieved the bullet or that the bullet was made of butter and melted inside JFK's body… (that's a little bit of sarcasm but not far from what some conspiracy theorists actually claim).

It wasn't "conspiracy theorists" who came up with the idea JFK was hit with a high tech round that dissolved in his body -- it was the autopsists on the night of the autopsy, with the body in front of them.

Here's the historical record on the subject:

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>

It is a fact that the autopsists speculated the night of the autopsy that JFK was hit with a high tech weapon that left no trace on r-ray or in the body.

That's the historical record, not some CT speculation.

Greg Burnham compiled this :

<q>

From the Church Committee testimony of CIA Director Colby:

 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1975.
Testimony of William E. Colby, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee met at 10 A.M. in the Russell Building.

 

Present: Senators Church, Tower, Mondale, Huddleston, Morgan, Hart of Colorado Baker, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director, Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, chief counsel, Curtis Smothers and Paul Michel, Committee staff members.

 

Chairman Church:
The particular case under examination today involves the illegal possession of deadly biological poisons which were retained within the CIA for five years after their destruction was ordered by the President. . . . The main questions before the Committee are why the poisons were developed in such quantities in the first place: why the Presidential order was disobeyed; and why such a serious act of insubordination could remain undetected for so many years.

 

William Colby:
The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various chemicals and drugs. . . . Information provided by him [a CIA officer not directly associated with the project] and by two other officers aware of the project indicated that the project at Fort Detrick involved the development of bacteriological warfare agents--some lethal--and
associated delivery systems suitable for clandestine use
[emphasis added]. The CIA relationship with the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick was formally established in May 1952.

 

The need for such capabilities was tied to earlier Office of Strategic Services World War II experience, which included the development of two different types of agent suicide pills to be used in the event of capture and a successful operation using biological warfare materials to incapacitate a Nazi leader temporarily.

 

The primary Agency interest was in the development of dissemination devices to be used with standard chemicals off the shelf. Various dissemination devices such as a fountain pen dart launcher appeared to be peculiarly suited for clandestine use. . . . A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could take retaliatory action. [Or to prevent guard dogs from barking.]

 

One such operation involved the penetration of a facility abroad for intelligence collection. The compound was guarded by watchdogs which made entry difficult even when it was empty. Darts were delivered for the operation, but were not used.

 

Church:
Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?

 

Colby:
We have indeed.

 

Church:
Does this pistol fire the dart?

 

Colby:
Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.]

 

Church:
So that when it fires, it fires silently?

 

Colby:
Almost silently; yes.

 

Church:
What range does it have?

 

Colby:
One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters.

 

Church:
About 100 meters range?

 

Colby:
Yes.

 

Church:
And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

 

Colby:
That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

 

Church:
Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

 

Colby:
Well there was an attempt--

 

Church:
Or the dart?

 

Colby:
Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1975
. Richard Helms' testimony:

 

Huddleston:
Mr. Helms, you said you were surprised, or that you had never seen the dart gun that was displayed here yesterday. Would you be surprised or shocked to learn that that gun, or one like it, had been used by agents against either watchdogs or human beings?

 

Helms:
I would be surprised if it had been used against human beings, but I'm not surprised it would have been used against watchdogs. I believe there were various experiments conducted in an effort to find out how one could either tranquilize or kill guard dogs in foreign countries. That does not surprise me at all.

 

Huddleston:
Do you know whether or not it was used, in fact, against watchdogs?

 

Helms:
I believe there were experiments conducted against dogs. Whether it was ever used in a live operational situation against dogs, I do not recall.

 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1975
. Testimony of Charles A. Senseney:

 

Senseney:
I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . . I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on microorganism projectiles and so forth.

 

Smothers:
Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top?

 

Senseney:
This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go into the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

 

Smothers:
Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this dart launcher against humans?

 

Senseney:
No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now, these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many times bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound known as 46-40.

 

Smothers:
And their interest was in dog incapacitation?

 

Senseney:
Right

 

Baker:
Your principle job with the DOD, I take it, was to develop new or exotic devices and weapons: is that correct?

 

Senseney:
I was a project engineer for the E-1, which was type classified and became the M-1. They were done for the Army.

 

Baker:
Did you have any other customers?

 

Senseney:
To my knowledge, our only customer was Special Forces and the CIA, I guess.

 

Baker:
Special Forces meaning Special Forces of the Army?

 

Senseney:
That is correct.

 

Baker:
And the FBI?

 

Senseney:
The FBI never used anything.

 

Baker:
Looking at your previous executive session testimony, apparently you developed for them a fountain pen. What did the fountain pen do?

 

Senseney:
The fountain pen was a variation of an M-1. An M-1 in itself was a system, and it could be fired
from anything
[emphasis added]. It could be put into--

 

Baker:
Could it fire a dart or an aerosol or what?

 

Senseney:
It was a dart.

 

Baker:
It fired a dart . . . a starter, were you talking about a fluorescent light starter?

 

Senseney:
That is correct.

 

Baker:
What did it do?

 

Senseney:
It put out an aerosol in the room when you put the switch on.

 

Baker:
What about a cane, a walking cane?

 

Senseney:
Yes, an M-1 projectile could be fired from a cane; also an umbrella.

 

Baker:
Also an umbrella. What about a straight pin?

 

Senseney:
Straight pin?

 

Baker:
Yes, sir.

 

Senseney:
We made a straight pin, out at the Branch. I did not make it, but I know it was made, and it was used by one Mr. Powers on his U-2 mission.

 

Huddleston:
Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's [a researcher at Fort Detrick] office and your office, either the hardware or the toxin?

 

Senseney:
The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders 46-40. This was done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe six weeks to six months later, they would bring those back and ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all of the hardware except the projectile, okay?

 

Huddleston:
Indicating that they have been used?

 

Senseney:
Correct.

 

Huddleston:
But it could have been used on a human being?

 

Senseney:
There is no reason why it could not, I guess.

 

Schweiker:
Mr. Senseney, I would like to read into the record [from a CIA document] at this point a quote from paragraph nine [exhibit 6, document 67]: "When funds permit, adaptation and testing will be conducted of a new, highly effective disseminating system which has been demonstrated to be capable of introducing materials through light clothing, subcutaneously, intramuscularly, and silently, without pain."

 

Now, I just have a little trouble, Mr. Senseney, reconciling your answers in conjunction with this project, when the CIA document makes clear that one of the very specific purposes of the funding and the operation was to find a weapon that could penetrate light clothing subcutaneously, which obviously means through the skin, and intramuscularly, which obviously means through the muscles of a person. And are you saying that you have absolutely no recollection at all that tests or programs were designed to use any of these devices to permeate clothing on people and not dogs?

 

Senseney:
We put them on mannequins.

 

Schweiker:
What's that?

 

Senseney:
We put clothing on mannequins to see whether we could penetrate it. These were the requirements. You almost read the exact requirements that the SDR quoted from the Special Forces there.

 

Schweiker:
I would not expect you to test them on live human beings. I would hope that you did use mannequins, Mr. Senseney. Wouldn't that be directed toward people-usage, though? That is the point we're trying to establish.

 

Senseney:
That is what the Special Forces direction was. You have to look at it this way. The Army program wanted this device. That is the only thing that was delivered to them. It was a spin-off, of course, from the M-1. The M- 1 was a lethal weapon, meant to kill a person, for the Army. It was to be used in Vietnam. It never got there, because we were not fast enough getting it into the logistics system.

 

Schweiker:
What was the most-utilized device of the ones with which you worked and supervised?

 

Senseney:
The only thing I know that was really used was the dog projectile. The other things were in the stockpiles. I don't think anyone ever requested them.

 

Schweiker:
How do you know for certain it was for dogs?

 

Senseney:
Well that is what they asked us to test them against. They wanted to see whether they could put a dog to sleep, and whether sometime later the dog would come back and be on its own and look normal.

 

Schweiker:
Of the devices that came through you, which of these were utilized in any capacity other than for testing?

 

Senseney:
That was the only one that I know of--the dog projectile. I call it a dog projectile. We were developing it because the scenario read that they wanted to be able to make entrance into an area which was patrolled by dogs, leave, the dog come back, and then no one would ever know they were in the area. So that was the reason for the dog projectile.

 

Church:
Thank you Senator Schweiker. I think it is clear that the CIA was interested in the development of a delivery system that could reach human beings, since not many dogs wear clothing. And you would agree with that, wouldn't you?

 

Senseney:
Yes.

 

Church:
Okay.

 

Schwarz:
Along the same line, I assume you must agree that spending money in order to make darts of such a character that they cannot be detected in an autopsy does not have much to do with dogs?

 

Senseney:
No, that would not have anything to do with dogs.

TUM5.gif

</q>

The Prosector's Scenario was well grounded in historical fact.

Here's the kicker, from Senseney's Church Committee testimony:

http://www.aarclibra..._6_Senseney.pdf

<q, emphasis added>

pg 163

Senseney: And the only thing that I can say is, I just have to suppose that, having been told to maintain the sort of show and telldisplay of hardware  that we had on sort of stockpile for them, these were not items that could be used. They were display items like you would see in a museum, and they  used those to show to the agents as well as to the FBI, to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people.

 pg 166:

Baker: ...There are about 60 agencies of Government that do either intelligence or law enforcement work.

Senseney: I am sure most all of those knew of what we were doing; yes...

Senseney...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country.

</q>

The night of the autopsy the doctors asked the FBI men if there was such a thing as a bullet that wouldn't show up in the autopsy.

According to Charles Senseney the FBI had been briefed on just such technology, with the understanding it would be brought in from outside the country.

The FBI was primed to blame the JFKA on foreign perps, according to this record.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Yes, that is the salient point.  When I say the SBT is "problematical" and neither side can be dogmatic, I'm mostly talking about "when we view the SBT in isolation."  It's a theory that has some problematical aspects, from the location of the holes in the clothing to the condition of the bullet.  BUT, as those charged with investigating the assassination have repeatedly concluded, the SBT is the "least problematical" of the alternatives. 

Wow!

An appeal of authority in the JFK case!

Allen Dulles told you what to believe and you therefore believe it.

It's show and tell time, Lance -- show us how you get a wad of clothing to elevate entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

It is an irrefutable fact that you cannot do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Wow!

An appeal of authority in the JFK case!

Allen Dulles told you what to believe and you therefore believe it.

It's show and tell time, Lance -- show us how you get a wad of clothing to elevate entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

It is an irrefutable fact that you cannot do this.

Nor can you prove what position JFK's back brace, shirt or jacket was in at the moment he was hit. It is an unknowable issue. As Lance has mentioned, you want people to view any specific piece of evidence in a vacuum. But real-life investigations, as opposed to the type of speculation you and others offer, don't work that way. They consider all of the evidence which includes the well-known physical evidence against LHO as well as his personal biography. It also includes the complete lack of physical evidence that shows any other shooter anywhere. So, you can continue to say you have irrefutable proof (which you can't take to authorities)if you want, but I for one don't buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Nor can you prove what position JFK's back brace, shirt or jacket was in at the moment he was hit.

There is visible shirt collar above the jacket collar in every Elm St. photo.

The jacket collar rested in a normal position just above the base of his neck.

The SBT requires multiple inches of his shirt and jacket to elevate entirely above the top of his back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Your True Belief prevents you from recognizing this obvious absurdity.

 

Quote

It is an unknowable issue.

Not at all.  There is nothing more predictable than the movement of a man's shirt.

Quote

 

As Lance has mentioned, you want people to view any specific piece of evidence in a vacuum. But real-life investigations, as opposed to the type of speculation you and others offer, don't work that way. They consider all of the evidence which includes the well-known physical evidence against LHO as well as his personal biography. It also includes the complete lack of physical evidence that shows any other shooter anywhere. So, you can continue to say you have irrefutable proof (which you can't take to authorities)if you want, but I for one don't buy it.

Gaeton Fonzi took it to the authorities in 1966 and was ignored.

You can't buy what's under your own nose because of True Belief.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Gaeton Fonzi took it to the authorities in 1966 and was ignored.

He was ignored for the same reasons you would be ignored if you took the evidence to someone. That reason is, as I mentioned, that evidence is not viewed in a vacuum. I suspect that is the true reason you don't try to do anything with it.

Share this post


Link to post
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...