Cliff Varnell

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.

You’re not entitled to mis-represent the facts of the case without getting called on it.

I don’t respect people making things up. JFK shot in the throat, JBC shot, JFK shot in the back, then the head. You insist the first shot hit his back but the Zfilm and Bennett’s account prove otherwise. I’ve repeatedly cited the evidence debunking your claim and you continue to ignore it. Why should you get a pass? You should try and get your facts straight.

No Ben, it doesn’t come down to a difference of opinion. You make a claim — first shot/back shot — contradicted by the evidence: The Zfilm shows JFK responding to a throat shot first; Bennett placed the back wound right before the headshot — 90 yards away, not 50 -60. You don’t get to make stuff up and insist it’s true without getting called on it.

Ben Cole is determined to ignore the fact that JFK reacted to the throat shot first, and according to SSA Glen Bennett’s well corroborated contemporaneous account the back shot immediately preceded the head shot, around 90 yards away. Ben routinely ignores evidence he can’t spin to fit his pet theories.

I find that approach to your blatant obfuscation intellectually dishonest.

The Zfilm shows JFK reacting first to the throat shot; Bennett’s corroborated account puts the back shot later. These facts are contrary to your pet theory so your mind is closed to them.

And neither claimed JFK was shot in the back initially. None of whom claimed the first shot struck his back. Not in regard to the back wound. None of that has anything to do with the back wound. So what? Bennett’s account was contemporaneous and corroborated by Willis 5 and Altgens 6. You have zero basis for claiming a first-shot/back shot. None.

And no one describes the back shot first. Bennett could not have seen the back shot that early — he was looking to the right in Willis 5 (Z202). Sure, he was shot in the throat. That’s why his fists were balled — so he wouldn’t get shot in the throat again. Shot in the throat, sure. You weren’t there. Bennett was.

The best I can do is my 1955 Yukon Copper Cores MM-on-red-velvet calendar.

The limo is in the shop?

But according to SSA Glen Bennett’s well-corroborated contemporaneous written account JFK was shot immediately before the head shot — about 90 yards from the “short load” location. Undercharged round misses the target by inches over 90 yards? No way.

No, you could address the issues raised. You’re entitled to your opinions, of course, but not to your own facts. Ben posits a short load distance of 50 - 75 yards but Bennett’s corroborated account makes it closer to 90. Surely we can agree on the fact that 50 - 75 ain’t 90?

At 90 yards. Really? Not to mention the soft tissue no-exit wound in the throat — two short loads?

People who bash witnesses annoy me. I’m an outlier in this regard — expressions of annoyance are rare on Kennedy assassination boards.

Indeed. https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=67681 <quote on> Former Secret Service agent, Paul Landis, found the Magic Bullet on the top of the back seat of the limo? Undercharged round??? Mmm hmm. Nealy 60 years after the JFK assassination, we now have Magic Bullet 2.0. Can anyone explain to me how the possibly “undercharged” Magic Bullet 2.0 managed to hit the target at all if the person firing the rifle dialed in DOPE [Data Observed from Previous Engagements?] for a standard velocity round? Not only did the “undercharged” Magic Bullet 2.0 have enough velocity to hit the target using DOPE for a standard round, but it then, “Dislodged from a shallow wound in the president’s back, falling back onto the limousine seat.” If you’re not familiar with shooting high powered rifles, run this scenario past someone who is has and note the response. It will go something like, “No way.” Personal experience: I’ve probably shot something like 15,000 centerfire rifle cartridges in my life, mostly 5.56, 7.62×51 and 7.62×39. Also, some larger stuff, .300 Winmag, .338, etc. How many of those do you think were “Undercharged”? None. Zero. Zilch. I had a few bad primers (under a handful) fail to fire in all of that time. I mostly fired old, cheap military surplus ammo and most of that was not made in the U.S. I don’t think I ever had a U.S. manufactured centerfire rifle round (Winchester, Federal, Remington, etc.) fail to fire. How many “undercharged” centerfire rifle cartridges have you encountered in your decades of shooting? Imagine the odds, on the big day almost 60 years ago… A defective cartridge? Tell me another one. Someone, somewhere might try to sell you on squib loads to explain this. I’m just here to tell you, in over forty years of shooting, it hasn’t happened to me, or any of my friends. (Somewhere on this site you can read about my wife’s cousin trying to kill a pig with a wet .22. That doesn’t count, because first, that’s rimfire, which is less reliable than centerfire and, second, it was wet.) </q>