Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
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.
-
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
I did not mean chemicals and pills, that has happened. I mean any verified known specific cases (name, date, location) of assassination by dissolving bullet fired from a rifle--can you name any?
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?
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:There is no record the autopsists considered that for the throat wound, but they did ask that for the upper back entrance wound out of desperation. Maybe "consider" is not even the right word; they wondered (being uninformed and not expert in such matters) whether dissolving bullets were a viable possibility.
When you wrote to Benjamin:
There is no record any autopsists believed that, or were sure it was even possible, but they wanted to know whether that was a theoretical possibility. Not the same thing.
So you want to split hairs over whether “believe” and “general feeling” are significantly different?
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:And what answer did they get back?
That the Magic Bullet was discovered.
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:There is no information they got a "yes" answer back from those in a position to know.
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>
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:It seems to me that as late as now in the year 2023 and still not a single verified specific instance in history of a killing done with a rifle firing a dissolving bullet--name, date, location--is a pretty good argument that kind of bullet was probably not in operational use then.
What part of “no written records were kept” do you not understand?
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:There are two major possibilities on the table explaining the upper back and throat wounds with conventional bullets: first the single bullet theory, which connects the back entrance to a throat exit, which has the known criticisms against it, compared to another line of possibility in which those two wounds are from separate bullets.
"There is no way to know for sure how the undamaged bullet ended up on top of the rear seat. But there seem to be only two real possiblities, both of which can be inferred from the Zapruder film. One way is that an undercharged bullet, having already been lodged in the president's back from an initial gunshot,
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?
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:was jolted out of his body after a subsequent shot to the head caused his upper body to be thrown violently back against the seat, bouncing off of it with great force. A second possibility is that at some point in those hectic moments, the bullet fell out of the president's back and onto the first lady's clothing (her white-gloved hand did brush hard against his back, around where the bullet could have been embedded at the moment of the final shot). As one can see in the Zapruder film, Jackie, at this stage, climbed onto the trunk of the speeding car, possibly to look for or retrieve a portion of her husband's skull--or out of sheer panic to take cover from further gunshots. In fact, the section of the back seat over which she stretched corresponds to the spot where Landis says he found the bullet. The autopsy evidence, as developed the night of the assassination, supports either one of these results ... the shoulder wound was shallow. Two doctors found that they could not pass more than half a pinky finger into the opening. Metal probes likewise uncovered no path of the bullet through the body ... [FBI agents O'Neill and Sibert] discussed the frustration of the Bethesda doctors when they could not locate a bullet or exit wound for the projectile that had entered the president's shoulder... the wound in the back, according to Sibert and O'Neill, did not align with the location of the front-neck wound; such a pathway would have required a bullet traveling from the book depository, behind the motorcade, to have changed course inside the president's body so as to exit higher up, through the neck, without hitting any bone to alter its course... Landis's discovery of the bullet on top of the rear seat, if true, comports with the initial finding: that the bullet had lodged superficially in the president's back before being dislodged by the final blast to his head. It also explains the 'pristine' nature of the bullet..." (James Robenalt, "A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held 'Lone Gunman' Theory", Vanity Fair, Sept 9, 2023, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman)
Then that leaves the throat wound requiring explanation.
Why not consider--consider--a return to an early idea of a number of the doctors who first observed the wounds: that the throat wound was an entrance, that there was a larger exit wound at the rear of the head to the right of the EOP, and the bullet that entered at the throat exited near the EOP.
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.
3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:No disappearing bullet in the neck. And removal of the "what about the throat wound?" objection to a non-perforating upper back entrance wound compatible with the Landis bullet.
Dr. Paul Peters, Nov 1966: "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occipit, and the only answer we could think [of] was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head..." (Lifton, Best Evidence [1982 Dell edn]m 407)
Dr. Malcom Perry: "Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that the wound on the outside of Kennedy's throat was below the wound on his trachea, and that this suggested to him that the bullet creating these wounds was heading up the neck, if fired from in front, or down the neck, if fired from behind." (Pat Speer, chap. 17, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter17newerviewsonthesamescene)
And Cyril Wecht:
Dr. Cyril Wecht: "According to Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History, Wecht had briefly come to speculate that a bullet had entered Kennedy's throat and exited his 'lower left occipital protuberance.' While Wecht quickly gave up on this idea, due to the incompatibility of such a bullet's trajectory with a shot from the grassy knoll..." (Speer, preceding link)
From where would such a shot have been fired?
Black Dog Man circa Z190.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
By your lights there were perhaps five or six gunman that day.
One "ice bullet shooter-man" behind the limo, and the "Black-Dog ice-bullet-man". Then, one or likely two "ordinary" shooters behind the Presidential limo, and one ordinary shooter from the front, who perped the windshield strike from the left front. Another shooter who perped the smoke-and-bang show from the GK, or possibly he was a sixth shooter.
All I know is that the autopsists seriously considered a high tech strike which turned MKNAOMI into persons of interest.
-
-
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
CV-
I suspect JFK was shot in the back just before passing behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. As I recall, that is about 50-60 yards.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
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.
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>
-
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:
Cliff V., my problem with the disintegrating bullet idea which you propose happened from two separate gunmen (one from the rear and one from the Grassy Knoll, right?) is the high-tech dissolving bullets were designed to have stealth executions in which the victim might not even be aware they had been shot. But that does not apply at all to the JFK assassination, so what would be the point in the first place of going with high-tech bullets that would dissolve (what point to it?) instead of tried-and-true conventional sniper bullets?
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.
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:And were high-tech dissolving bullets known to have been used in any specific documented hit, with wounds that look like conventional gunshot wounds, not only then but even to the present day?
The back and throat wounds did not look like conventional gunshot wounds. Shallow wounds in soft tissue are not “conventional.”
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:What logic would there be to anyone planning an assassination in a public place of a figure in a motorcade to use disintegrating bullets? Why?
Other than pinning it on Kostikov & Co.?
First shot paralytic — doesn’t JFK appear paralyzed?
Second shot toxin in case the head shots miss.
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:Do you think Connally was hit with a dissolving bullet?
No, I think he was hit with JFK head shots that missed.
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:You have never said so, but why would an assassination be done with two shooters using Dick Tracy science fiction bullets and the third (the Connally shooter) not? What is the logic there?
The head shots were conventional rounds.
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:Are you holding to a serious argument that it is because all conceivable possible explanations with conventional bullets are excluded, therefore it can only have been a kind of bullet never known to have been actually used in a killing,
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>1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:for no imaginable reason why it would be used, and for which there is no positive evidence it was so used in this case apart from the backward claim that all conceivable explanations involving conventional bullets are excluded?
That the autopsists seriously considered the high tech scenario is sufficient reason to take it seriously.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
CV-
I think your explanation is faintly possible, and earnestly made.
So in other words you cannot accept the fact the autopsists believed this.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:I lean towards other explanations, also earnestly made.
I don’t find anything “earnest” about your chronic mis-representation of the evidence.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
OK, that is your explanation.
I’m just following through on the autopsists “general feeling” — JFK was hit with a round that disintegrated.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:Black Dog man fired a disintegrating bullet into the throat of JFK ~Z190.
See above.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:I accept your explanation as your earnest assessment of what happened.
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?
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
The throat wound is a mystery. Tink Thompson has suggested a fragment of windshield glass was responsible.
Glass shows up on x-ray. Tink is wrong about a lot of stuff.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:Ir doesn't help that the wound itself was obliterated, making assumptions about that wound precarious.
And two Parkland doctors —Carrico and Jones — wrote contemporaneous reports describing the wound as an entrance.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:I forget now if the throat wound was exactly under the knot of JFK's tie or not.
Not. It was between the tie knot and the Adam’s apple.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:I have never been satisfied as to where the throat shot would have come from, with the windshield in the way.
Do you suspect the CIA was able to fashion not only a disintegrating "ice" bullet, but one that could be programmed to swerve in flight, flying over the windshield but then ducking down to strike JFK in the throat?
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>
-
5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
That's your version of the facts.
Other people view and collate the facts in a different manner than you. Even within the CT research community, let alone the LN'ers.
Try to broaden your perspective, keep an open mind, and refrain from claiming that other people are misrepresenting the facts.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Some new info, courtesy of hand-loaders, gun boards---
Q. How do you tell if a bullet has been hand-reloaded?
Here is an online photo CE 543, the modestly "dented" cartridge found in the sniper's nest. You can just see an imperfection on the lip or nose of the cartridge.
Here are answers to how to tell whether a bullet has been hand-loaded or not:
Look at the brass. If you look close, you should be able to see if it's been through a re-sizing die or not.
Factory new ammo will be very straight and clean. Reloaded ammo won't be quite as perfect.
Also look for tarnish on the brass. A lot of the brass I reload has stains and imperfections that don't fully come out in the tumbler - unless they wet tumble, then it gets pretty cleanAlso
Check for light scoring, or small dents on the case. Also the case head might have marks from an extractor. Mixed head stamps are a give away as well.
Indeed, there is a small dent on the CE543 cartridge, and the nose does not make a perfect circle.
Interesting, no?
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.
-
3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
That's your version of the facts.
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.
3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:Other people view and collate the facts in a different manner than you.
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.
3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:Even within the CT research community, let alone the LN'ers.
Try to broaden your perspective, keep an open mind,
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.
3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:and refrain from claiming that other people are misrepresenting the facts.
You need to quit mis-representing the facts, Ben. Until then I’ll be here to call you out on your fictions.
-
4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
That's your view, and you are entitled to it.
You have the last word.
You’re not entitled to mis-represent the facts of the case without getting called on it.
-
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
CV-
I am presenting my view, and respecting the view of others.
I don’t respect people making things up.
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:Not that numbers make right, but many JFKA researchers and witnesses agree with this 11/22 chain of events: JFK shot, JBC shot, then, quickly, JFK again.
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.
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:You may disagree with that chain of events. That is fine. Let us know your views.
I’ve repeatedly cited the evidence debunking your claim and you continue to ignore it. Why should you get a pass?
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:You should try for a cordial, collegial tone.
You should try and get your facts straight.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
CV-
We are on different pages on this one.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
So, the "dented" cartridge, aka shell, hull, could have been a defective hand-loaded round, that fired off about ~600-700 fps (less than one-third normal muzzle velocity), striking JFK at 50-60 yards and penetrating only an inch or two.
The slug then popped out when JFK was struck again, and a shock wave passed through JFK's body. The WC 6.5 slug is one-and-one quarter inch long.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
CV-
Try for a cordial, collegial style in your commentary.
I find that approach to your blatant obfuscation intellectually dishonest.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
As I said, we are just on different pages on this one.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
JBC and his wife were there too.
And neither claimed JFK was shot in the back initially.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:And other witnesses.
None of whom claimed the first shot struck his back.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:There is conflicting testimony.
Not in regard to the back wound.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:Some people even heard only two shots, and others four. Even on basics, different recollections among earnest observers. Some heard shots from the GK, others only from the TSBD.
None of that has anything to do with the back wound.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:Now, we have a reputable, credible witness (Landis) who says he found a slug, that looked like CE399, on the top of the rear seat of the presidential limo, in the near-immediate aftermath of the JFKA.
So what? Bennett’s account was contemporaneous and corroborated by Willis 5 and Altgens 6.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:What I have tried to lay out is one explanation of how that could have happened.
You have zero basis for claiming a first-shot/back shot. None.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Many witnesses describe the sequence of shots as first to JFK (timed to when JFK was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign or shortly before, as seen in the Z film), then JBC, then JFK again.
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).
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:Indeed, JBC and his wife describe the sequence this way.
As noted by thousands, Ms. Kennedy looks concerned and focused on JFK by Z228. By then, JFK has his balled fists at his throat. It sure looks like JFK has been shot.
Sure, he was shot in the throat. That’s why his fists were balled — so he wouldn’t get shot in the throat again.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:My own two cents is JFK shot behind just before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign, that is ~Z220,
Shot in the throat, sure.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:then JBC is hot at ~Z295 and then JFK at Z313.
You weren’t there. Bennett was.
New article at KENNEDYS & KING: JFK Secret Service Agent Paul Landis Makes a Big Splash In 2023...But How Credible Is He?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.