Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cliff Varnell

Boycott the nutters!

Recommended Posts

Aw right!

Rang the bell of all five single bullet frauds and one Ozzie obsessive.

Good day's work...

Share this post


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

Aw right!

Rang the bell of all five single bullet frauds and one Ozzie obsessive.

Good day's work...

Paul Baker is going to be heartbroken! He didn't have the honor of being called a "single bullet fraud" by The Weaponizer. :( (Although, for some reason, Varnell seems to think Paul has posted in this thread.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the WC testimonies of close proximity witnesses Linda Willis and Nellie Connally.

<quote on>

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of NellieC:

<quote>

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry.  I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

<quote off>

This destroys the single bullet fraud, so naturally the nutters have to throw mud at Connally and Willis.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I hallucinating, or is Cliff continuing to engage the nutters on his own thread urging people to boycott the nutters?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, but this is pushing the envelope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay!

This thread has been up only 7 hours and I've bagged 13 responses from 5 nutters.

No need to read their garbage since we've read it all before many times ad nauseum ad infinitum...

Share this post


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

This destroys the single bullet fraud, ...

Cliff is hilarious. LOL.gif

He thinks the SBT is "destroyed" by merely looking at the testimony of Miss Willis and Nellie Connally.

Give me strength to continue. LOL.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

This thread has been up only 7 hours and I've bagged 13 responses from 5 nutters.

Who's the fifth "nutter"?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main myths the single bullet fraudsters always push is that there is no reasonable explanation for JFK's back and throat wounds.

The historical record on the subject proves otherwise.

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 x-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
3 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

 lets look  at the evidence and fin dthe truth

You've put your finger on the problem though you apparently don't realize it. The LNs already know the truth. Their whole purpose is therefore to argue against those who are trying to find the truth, which is different from what they already have. That's why arguing with them is a joke, like arguing with young-Earth creationists who are in possession of the truth and whose purpose is to attack those who study evolutionary biology and the fossil record..

Elsewhere you say you are not a LN. Then you say you used to be a CT but "grew up." What is that supposed to mean? You are one or the other. Either Oswald did it or he didn't. Unless you are locked into the LN truth with its blinders, the evidence in this case screams conspiracy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

You've put your finger on the problem though you apparently don't realize it. The LNs already know the truth. Their whole purpose is therefore to argue against those who are trying to find the truth, which is different from what they already have. That's why arguing with them is a joke, like arguing with young-Earth creationists who are in possession of the truth and whose purpose is to attack those who study evolutionary biology and the fossil record..

Elsewhere you say you are not a LN. Then you say you used to be a CT but "grew up." What is that supposed to mean? You are one or the other. Either Oswald did it or he didn't. Unless you are locked into the LN truth with its blinders, the evidence in this case screams conspiracy.

The "evidence in this case screams conspiracy", indeed -- while the nutters sputter rhetorical diarrhea.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

You've put your finger on the problem though you apparently don't realize it. The LNs already know the truth. Their whole purpose is therefore to argue against those who are trying to find the truth, which is different from what they already have. That's why arguing with them is a joke, like arguing with young-Earth creationists who are in possession of the truth and whose purpose is to attack those who study evolutionary biology and the fossil record..

Elsewhere you say you are not a LN. Then you say you used to be a CT but "grew up." What is that supposed to mean? You are one or the other. Either Oswald did it or he didn't. Unless you are locked into the LN truth with its blinders, the evidence in this case screams conspiracy.

 

 

Kudos, Sir. Wasting space and time is the point of some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

You've put your finger on the problem though you apparently don't realize it. The LNs already know the truth. Their whole purpose is therefore to argue against those who are trying to find the truth, which is different from what they already have. That's why arguing with them is a joke, like arguing with young-Earth creationists who are in possession of the truth and whose purpose is to attack those who study evolutionary biology and the fossil record..

Elsewhere you say you are not a LN. Then you say you used to be a CT but "grew up." What is that supposed to mean? You are one or the other. Either Oswald did it or he didn't. Unless you are locked into the LN truth with its blinders, the evidence in this case screams conspiracy.

 

 

I mean I used to believe in to all the ‘ theories’ .... but then I had a rude awakening and had to face the facts that not every single person in Dallas say around a table the week before and discussed their role in a fiendishly complex plot. 

It was looking into Lifton and Doug Hornes work when I realised that those same people went from trying to prove that the body was fake and the autopsy photos were fake etc to trying to prove that the Z film is all fake too . Because they at some point realised that for the first to be true, so does the second .

 Also I took some time off and came back to it with a more objective frame of mind . Sorry , ‘ grew up’ perhaps wasn’t the best term. Oswald didn’t do it no , but that doesn’t mean I believe in ‘ badgeman’ . Or , I used to buy into the ‘ magic bullet’ theory but then when you really look at it there is only one explanation for the first shot . IMHO ! 

Edited by Jake Hammond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I mean I used to believe in all the ‘ theories’ .... but then I had a rude awakening and had to face the facts that not every single person in Dallas say around a table the week before and discussed their role in a fiendishly complex plot. 

It was looking into Lifton and Doug Hornes work when I realised that those same people went from trying to prove that the body was fake and the autopsy photos were fake etc to trying to prove that the X film is all fake too . Because they at some point realised that for the first to be true, so does the second .

 Also I took some time off and came back to it with a more objective frame of mind . Sorry , ‘ grew up’ perhaps wasn’t the best term. Oswald didn’t do it no , but that doesn’t mean I believe in ‘ badgeman’ . Or , I used to buy into the ‘ magic bullet’ theory but then when you really look at it there is only one explanation for the first shot . IMHO ! 

Jake - I haven’t been following this thread closely, but I happened to read your post. I agree with some of what you said. The plethora of theories that conflict with one another can lead one to start disregarding all of them. I don’t by any means believe all the theories, as you put it. I’m not even sure anyone has correctly framed and fleshed out the truth. But I am convinced that the assassination was carefully planned, and it was a conspiracy by definition, and not a lone shooter acting for personal and possibly unknowable reasons. Would you agree with that last sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jake - I haven’t been following this thread closely, but I happened to read your post. I agree with some of what you said. The plethora of theories that conflict with one another can lead one to start disregarding all of them. I don’t by any means believe all the theories, as you put it. I’m not even sure anyone has correctly framed and fleshed out the truth. But I am convinced that the assassination was carefully planned, and it was a conspiracy by definition, and not a lone shooter acting for personal and possibly unknowable reasons. Would you agree with that last sentence?

Yes

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...