Cliff Varnell

Fonzi and Salandria provided the template for a positive assertion of conspiracy — the bullet holes in the clothes too low. The “problem” with this is it counterfeits the Answer the Question of Conspiracy Parlor Game. Game players commonly ignore/dispute the clothing holes/T3 back wound to keep their pet theories relevant.

JFK had two soft tissue wounds with no exits. 6.5mm FMJ don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue. Therefore, Oswald could not have shot JFK with the rifle ascribed to him. Why does proving Oswald’s innocence have to be more complicated than that?

Asking troubling questions = pimping False Mystery.

Since these devices were produced to fill specific operational needs, I dare say you’re in no position to discount them on the basis of a wound’s appearance. But there is evidence that the devices were custom built according to need. A heavier round would be expected when firing in a windy environment. And you fail to take into consideration the physical environment in which such a weapon was used. A round traveling thru 100 yards of swirling wind would have to be heavier, no? Two shallow wounds in soft tissue are inconsistent with conventional firearms. Two wounds of entrance with no exits and no rounds present in the body are consistent with a high tech strike.

This makes no sense to me at all. Why ask questions when a positive assertion of fact is all that is required to prove conspiracy? The bullet holes in the back of JFK’s clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria showed how to “chokehold” lone nutters — Fonzi rubbed Specter’s nose in the bullet holes and Arlen had a nervous breakdown. I’m curious — when was the last time the clothing defects were mentioned at a JFKA Conference? COPA in 1998? What cold case murder investigation doesn’t start off with a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered from the victim? The JFKA. History’s most incompetently investigated murder.

Are you seriously suggesting any human being would react that way when struck in the back? If you stub your toe do you instinctively reach for your elbow? In your scenario JFK suffered a shallow, non-fatal wound in the back but he spent the next six seconds not ducking down. He held his fists in front of his throat but still got shot in the throat anyway? Then there’s the contemporaneous written account of SSA Glen Bennett. He wrote a few hours after the shooting that when the limo turned onto Elm St he was looking to the crowd to the right. Willis 5 shows Bennett turned to the right. He wrote that he turned to face JFK after the first report. Altgens 6 show Bennett still facing right but his features are blurred — consistent with motion. He wrote: “I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.” The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, between 1 to 2 inches right of midline. Exactly where Bennett described it. I can easily reach my T3. What’s the problem? So what? The brace wasn’t that restrictive, and it was around his waist. The Magic Brace Theory? Books are written about nonsense all the time. How did the man sit down if he was so restricted? Why would the brace cause him to make a defensive move with his hands at his throat? Yes, I’m quite sure I’d never wear a back brace that wouldn’t allow me to move. So you’re putting words in his mouth. He said he saw the shot hit. What pet theory of yours is getting reamed here? Bennett described a “ bang...bang-bang” shooting sequence — so did 55 other ear witnesses. His description of the back wound location matches 15 other back wound eye witnesses. Willis 5 and Altgens 6 corroborate his physical movement. Given your need to put words in his mouth I dare say you are the dogmatic one. Produce a witness who described a first-shot/back shot. The statements of Linda Willis and Nellie Connally describe him immediately moving his hands to his throat. I did answer you. Again: first shot paralytic, second shot toxin, then head shots with conventional firearms. The FBI was briefed on this technology coming in from outside the country. You didn’t read the Senseney testimony I posted? Why do you assume the weapon developed in the early 2000s was exactly the same as used in 1963? I guess you missed the Church Committee video where Frank Church asked to see the devices the CIA used to kill people. Or the link I posted describing the CIA stockpile of deadly shellfish toxin. Somehow the autopsists speculation JFK was hit with a high tech weapon hasn’t registered. From the HSCA x-ray analysis: <quote on> 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. <quote off> The autopsists discussed the bullet path of the throat wound? Citation please. T1 is below the throat wound; the EOP is above it. Dr. Mantik verified the authenticity of the cervical x-ray. I respect Pat Speer as a human being but as a JFKA researcher he’s one of the very worst.

Be that as it may, the technology existed in 1963.

The technology existed. Dal-Tex. An argument can be made for it, unlike your “undercharged” scenario which requires the fictional first-shot/back shot.

It all depended on the military requirements of “a certain situation.” http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf pg. 169 <quote on, emphasis added> Q: ,,,[A]s to the kind of items you experimented with and developed, would it be accurate to say that you worked on and experimented with gadgets for which nobody ever yet has found a use? Senseney: I think there were some intended uses. For instance, the Special Forces gave us SDR, Small Development Requirements, indicating that they had a military requirement to meet a certain situation. Q: Was mostly all of your work then done of the basis of these special requirement requests that came either from the Special Forces or some other source? Senseney: That is true. Q: Did these requests come from the CIA directly, to your knowledge? Senseney: No; they sort of rode piggyback on most of these. They sort of rode piggyback on the Army's development and picked off what they thought was good for them, I guess. Q: But you did not undertake a development or experimental program of a particular weapon until you had some request from the Special Forces to develop the weapons system? Senseney: There was one item. It was a hand-held item that could fire a dart projectile. It was done only for them; no one else. <quote off> pg. 170 <quote on> Q: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's 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, 4640. This was done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe 6 weeks to 6 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 the hardware except the projectile, OK? Q: Indicating that they have been used? Senseney: Correct. ...Q: How much time usually elapsed between the time you gave them these weapons and the time they brought them back to you expended? Senseney: Usually 5 to 6 weeks. <quote off> Delivery systems were developed according to the requirements of specific operations. The dart delivery system depended on the needs of the operation. There was a variety of these delivery systems. So now Ben Cole questions the existence of this technology. Frank Church to CIA Director William Colby: “Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?” I’ve been over this twice with Ben Cole but since it doesn’t fit any of his pet theories he can’t accept it. Closed mind, after all. Steve Kober: Under Patent US 6705194B2 , issued on March 16, 2004 a patent was issued for a device for firing " a traceless gun firing lethal or non-lethal bullets . After impacting the surface of the substrate the ice bullet is melted and no traces of the bullet remains. The Patent is for " A Self Rechargeable Gun and Firing Procedure and the assignee is named as "Jet Energy Inc. NJ. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/2c/f1/b7f57725cf38b1/US6705194.pdf Check out Figure 8 in the above PDF. The bullet hole is similar to the defect in JFK’s jacket. There was a patent on it until 2021 or 2022. You cannot pay attention to the evidence presented, apparently. The dart gun had a range of 100 yards. I have nothing to do with it. The scenario was first proposed by the autopsists the night of the autopsy. Why this fact evades understanding is mystifying. At length I debunk your claims the first shot hit JFK in the back. Otherwise, I leave Senseney and Colby explain the high tech weaponry.

Andrew McCutchen hit in the back with a 95 mph fastball. Note his hands reflexively reached for the spot where he was hit. Pet Theorists feel compelled to claim JFK didn’t have average reflexes — he was struck in the back and raised his fists to his throat. False Mystery pimping at its worst.

Of course not. ”A June 29, 1975 CIA memorandum has also been located which documents the SOD/CIA relationship and confirms that no written records were kept; management was by verbal instruction and "human continuity." Do you need this explained? So you want to split hairs over whether “believe” and “general feeling” are significantly different? That the Magic Bullet was discovered. Do you need this explained? http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf <quote on, emphasis added> 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 tell display 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 163) 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... ...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country. </q> What part of “no written records were kept” do you not understand? So JFK responded to a shot in the back by holding his fists in front of his throat? He suffered a shallow wound in his back but didn’t try to duck out of harms way over the next 6 seconds? SSA Glen Bennett described the back shot immediately before the head shot. What’s your basis for challenging his account? The reason this scenario is untenable is because the cervical x-ray shows a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes. That’s not in a path to the EOP. Black Dog Man circa Z190.

All I know is that the autopsists seriously considered a high tech strike which turned MKNAOMI into persons of interest.

Deleted

The Zfilm, Willis 5, Altgens 6, the statements of Glen Bennett, Linda Willis, and Nellie Connally debunk your baseless assertion. Your mis-representation of the evidence is egregious.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf <quote on, emphasis added> 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 tell display 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 163) 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... ...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country. </q>

The FBI had been briefed to be on the lookout for similar technology imported from outside the country for use against “our people.” As a false flag operation it was all lined up. The back and throat wounds did not look like conventional gunshot wounds. Shallow wounds in soft tissue are not “conventional.” Other than pinning it on Kostikov & Co.? First shot paralytic — doesn’t JFK appear paralyzed? Second shot toxin in case the head shots miss. No, I think he was hit with JFK head shots that missed. The head shots were conventional rounds. Where do you get the idea MKNAOMI was never involved in killing? Larry Hancock’s NEXUS, pg 36 <quote on, emphasis in the original> Confirmation of the MKNAOMI project was revealed in 1977, when Carter administration Defense Secretary Brown requested an internal review of CIA projects which had involved the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense's legal counsel conducted the investigation and among other things reported back that MKNAOMI had begun in the early 1950's and was "intended to stockpile severely incapacitating and lethal materials and to develop gadgetry for dissemination of these materials." A June 29, 1975 CIA memorandum has also been located which documents the SOD/CIA relationship and confirms that no written records were kept; management was by verbal instruction and "human continuity." The memo refers to "swarms of project requests" and cites examples of suicide pills, chemicals to anesthetize occupants to facilitate building entries, "L-pills" and aphrodisiacs for operational use. The memo notes "some requests for support approved by the CIA had apparently involved assassination." <quote off> That the autopsists seriously considered the high tech scenario is sufficient reason to take it seriously.

So in other words you cannot accept the fact the autopsists believed this. I don’t find anything “earnest” about your chronic mis-representation of the evidence.

I’m just following through on the autopsists “general feeling” — JFK was hit with a round that disintegrated. See above. Can you accept the fact that the docs, with the body in front of them, seriously considered the scenario where JFK was hit with a high tech round — exactly like weaponry developed for the CIA?

Glass shows up on x-ray. Tink is wrong about a lot of stuff. And two Parkland doctors —Carrico and Jones — wrote contemporaneous reports describing the wound as an entrance. Not. It was between the tie knot and the Adam’s apple. A Z190 shot from Black Dog Man works.

Pat, you left out the best part of Fonzi’s interviews with Specter. The WarrenCommission, The Truth, & Arlen Specter by Gaeton Fonzi https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WCTandAS.pdf <quote, italic emphasis in the original, bold added> The Warren Commission Report says the entrance wound caused by the bullet which came out Kennedy’s throat was “approximately 5-1⁄2 inches” below the back of the right ear. Yet photographs of the President’s jacket and shirt, which were part of the FbI supplemental report of January 13th, make it difficult to believe that is the truth. These photographs were not part of the Warren Commission Report and were left out of the 26 volumes of supporting evidence. Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing was in the Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained. And there was a very obvious discrepancy: the hole in the back of the jacket was 5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1-3⁄4 inches to the right of the center back seam of the coat. traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter bullet,” said the Report. The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5 3⁄4 inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole. Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report — placed below the back of the right ear — and illustrated in exhibit 385, which dr. Humes had prepared. “Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times,” he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.” If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth? “No, not necessarily. It ... it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that ... aaah ... that it gets ... that ... aaah ... this ... this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back ... sit back now ... all right now ... if ... usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if ... but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits ... it’s not ... it’s not ... it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.” What about the shirt? “Same thing.” There is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing? “No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt ... after all, we lined up the shirt ... and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front ...” But where did it go in the back? “Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes . . . aaah ... well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to ... aaah ... understand the ... aah ... the angle of decline which ...” Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front? “Well, I think that ... that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.” Somewhat lower? “Perhaps. I ... I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.” </q>

Okay. I now open my mind to a scenario where JFK suffered a shallow wound in the soft tissue of his back circa Z200. He responded to this non-fatal strike in his back by balling his fists in front of his throat. What bad luck for him — shot in the throat after he raised his fists. So after avoiding the fists the round entered the throat, ripped a couple inches of trachea, burst some blood vessels, left a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes (according to the cervical x-ray declared authentic by Dr. David Mantik) and then disappeared. That’s another soft tissue wound. Two short loads, Ben?

Here’s Nellie Connally’s WC testimony: <quote on, emphasis added> Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before. I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that 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. <\q> First-shot/throat shot.

Linda Willis stood to JFK’s left and behind him during the shooting sequence. From her WC testimony. <quote on, emphasis added> Mr. LIEBELER. 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. <\q> First-shot/throat shot.

According to you, Ben, this round had to have been fired 50 - 60 yards away. JFK was 90 yards away when he was shot in the back.

No, Ben, we can all see JFK raise his hands to his throat in the Zfilm. Even you. Bennett could not have seen the back shot prior to turning to the front, which Altgens 6 shows had not yet occurred as of Z255. You don’t collate any facts at all. You cite no evidence of a first shot/back shot, instead you pronounce it was a fact on the basis of nothing. Imagine getting a lecture on keeping an open mind from someone who is thoroughly close minded to anything he can’t spin to suit his pet theories. You need to quit mis-representing the facts, Ben. Until then I’ll be here to call you out on your fictions.