Cliff Varnell

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Get your film written and we can talk about the Cadi. And don’t forget to bring the Marilyn Monroe evidence.   

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

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Tonight I was speaking with John Barbour who informed me that his third JFK film, “John Barbour's and William Shakespeare's Final Words on the Murder of JFK”

will be debuting in Encino, California on November 22, 2023.

So, if you want to go to the movies on November 22-which apparently is not an uncommon thing to do in the middle of the day-perhaps you can drive to Encino and watch it. 

Cliff, you can ride down in an Uber.   

The limo is in the shop?

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If what Secret Service agent Paul Landis says is true...how did that happen?

How did a Western Cartridge 6.5 slug end up on the top of the rear seat of the Presidential limo on 11/22, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA?

It does not appear, from Landis' account, there was an opportunity to plant such an artifact. 

Then, there is the aspect that the bullet wound in JFK's back extended into his body by only about two inches, possibly less. Attempts to probe the wound were unsuccessful.  OK, if the JFK back wound was that shallow, the slug could have popped out from subsequent pressure or shock waves to JFK's body.  

I have done the math (relying on industry data), and if the assassin that day used an undercharged Western Cartridge 6.5 bullet, it works out.

A slug fired at ~600-700 feet per second (fps) would have minimal drop at 50 yards, and would be underpowered, but would likely penetrate JFK.

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.

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I have to quote myself it seems 😇

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?

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I said it happens, I did not say it happens a lot.

I also said : "But having said that, this doesn't mean I believe it happened to Oswald or another shooter".

And finally : "if it happens to you, the statistics don't mean a thing".

So I can not 100% exclude it.

At 90 yards.  Really?

Not to mention the soft tissue no-exit wound in the throat — two short loads?

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

When I wrote "I try to stay away from those types", that simply means I will not get in a discussion with them.  But "they" certainly don't annoy me,  they are entitled to a different opinion. 

Life's too good to get annoyed by what is expressed on internet these days.

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

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Indeed, undercharged bullets are known and have been written about.

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>

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are not to be taken seriously. FYI, Galbraith's spin on the evidence, i.e., that JFK was determined to unconditionally abandon South Vietnam after the election, is viewed by the vast majority of historians as a discredited, fringe view.

But that's just it: The evidence shows, and shows pretty clearly, that JFK had no intention of allowing South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia to fall to the Communists, and that he had every intention of providing whatever military and economic aid was needed to keep South Vietnam free. The whole reason, the entire rationale, for his limited and conditional withdrawal plan was that the war was going well enough that some U.S. troops could be brought home without endangering the war effort; moreover, as JFK made clear, and as Bobby later explained, JFK felt that the war "had" to be won. Bobby even said that JFK was willing to authorize air strikes if they were needed, and expressly allowed that JFK may have been willing to send in regular combat troops if the situation ever got so bad that they were needed.

Also, as I've said before, if the plotters killed JFK over Vietnam, they certainly would have knocked off LBJ when he began and continued to blunderingly hamstring and restrict our military operations. For that matter, if Vietnam was the plotters' main concern, they never would have allowed Johnson to pick such a feckless dove as Hubert Humphrey as his VP, especially given LBJ's age and health history. It just makes no sense.

I agree with you about Averell Harriman's role. The fatally flawed "neutrality" pact for Laos was Harriman's doing, and his was recognized at the time. During the war, many GIs nicknamed the Ho Chi Minh Trail the "Averell Harriman Memorial Highway." What you seem to be unaware of is that JFK recognized that the Laos deal was a bad deal and was not working. 

What you seem to be unaware of is that the partition of Laos worked wonderfully well for the CIA.

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Indeed, undercharged bullets are known and have been written about.

About the odds, that's like : if it happens to you, the statistics don't mean a thing.

But having said that, this doesn't mean I believe it happened to Oswald.

100% correct on keeping an open mind, some people are way too strong : if you're not with me you're against me... no need.   

It’s not me Ben is against, it’s the contemporaneous account of SSA Glen Bennett he refuses to consider.

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

 

 

  IMO they are not expressing an opinion, they are dictating it seems, I try to stay away from those types.  

 

 

The types who annoy me are False Mystery naysayers.  Everything is cast in the shadow of doubt — even when it’s obvious.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Dented_shell.html

Interesting work on a dent found in one of the three WCC 6.5 cartridges found in the TSBD, post JFKA.

A hand-loaded, undercharged bullet? 

BTW, hand-loading of the WCC 6.5 cartridges "was a thing." Evidently, the copper-jackets were sometime removed and replaced with lead slugs. A gun shop in Dallas was doing that. 

Maybe LHO (or another party), short on ammo, tried an amateur-hour hand-load. 

Worth thinking about. 

First shot back shot is not worth thinking about.  

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Many witnesses say the first shot was different in volume and tone than the following two shots. Interesting.

Which has no bearing on Bennett's well-supported account putting the back shot 90 yards from your short load.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Keep an open mind, and cordial prospects. 

 

You have a closed mind in regard to Bennett’s statement, and Kennedy’s clear reaction to a first shot throat shot.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You have the final word CV. 

Certainly not.  Before long you’ll be back claiming JFK was hit with an under-charged round, Finck lied about his experience, the bullet may have transited, etc etc etc.  That’s your shtick.  Just don’t expect me to respect it.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I show good faith, and all earnest commenters deserve respect. M

No, you habitually mischaracterize the evidence: Pierre Finck’s experience with gunshot wounds, the timing of the back shot according to Bennett’s well-corroborated report, the accounts of the probing of the back wound — to name the more egregious examples of bad faith.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We disagree on the possible causes of JFK's 11/22 back wound. 

And you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that doesn’t fit your pet theories — bad faith.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

With the new revelations of Paul Landis, I suspect an undercharged WCC 6.5 round. 

Without a shred of evidence that such a round was ever produced.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You suspect a disintegrating projectile did the trick. 

No, I’m pointing out that the autopsists suspected a disintegrating projectile,.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So it goes. 

 

You habitually bash witnesses who don’t support your pet notions.  I call that bad faith.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

It is enough to post your views, and respect those of others. Try to be civil, cordial, collegial. 

Try to show good faith in your discussions, Ben, then you might be treated with the respect you think you deserve.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Gary Murr:

OK, here is what I really posed and asked:

This is merely the latest iteration of the “short load” scenario posed by Mr. Cole.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If Paul Landis, in fact, found a slug, which in appearance looked like CE399, on the rear seat of the limo in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, how did that happen?

We know, in part from the documents you have provided, that a proper WCC 6.5 round left the assassin's muzzle at ~2,300 feet per second, and it was 50-75 yards from from gun barrel until impact on JFK.

SSA Glen Bennett’s abundantly corroborated contemporaneous written account establishes the back shot immediately before the head shot — 90 yards.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In short, such a proper WCC 6.5 round would have passed through JFK, akin to the round that passed through Gov. Connally. 

So what happened (if Landis' recollection is correct)? 

The only answer that avails itself is that the WCC round was defective (unlikely)

This is a breakthrough!  The first time Ben Cole has acknowledged the scenario is “unlikely.”

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

or, more likely, "short-loaded" by hand. 

Short loaded by hand and still only missed the head by 7 - 8 inches?  

Or the bullet was planted.  

But that doesn’t fit Ben’s pet theory, so he goes with a wildly far fetched scenario to naysay a point of clarity.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Perhaps LHO (or other party), lacking much ammo, hand-loaded a leftover cartridge. As LHO (or other party) evidently had only four rounds total, the idea of LHO (or other party) hand-loading a round is not totally farfetched. 

And the round dropped only 8 inches over 90 yards?

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As I recall, there is even a question about one of the WCC 6.5 cartridges found in the sniper's nest having an odd, or defective "crimp" in its nose, just atop of the cannelure. A short-loaded round? 

IMHO, a short-loaded WCC 6.5 cartridge may explain the curious injury in JFK's back.  

My back of the envelope calculations (based on industry literature) is that a short-loaded WW cartridge, one fired ~700 feet per second, would have but minor (insignificant) "drop" at 50 yards, but could still penetrate JFK by an inch or two. 

The distance was almost twice that.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Others may have other explanations for the possibly shallow injury in JFK's back. 

Some contend the slug penetrated JFK's back and exited the throat. 

Which brings us to Ben’s Lone Nut Adjacent scenario — the bullet entered the back at T3 at a downward angle, somehow climbed up the spine to fracture the right T1 transverse  process, then change direction again to tear the trachea and exit the throat.  Even Lone Nutters reject this as idiotic.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So it goes. 

Some people have divine assistance in these matters, or are divine themselves, and can "divine the answer." 

I just slog along with facts at hand....

 

No, Ben, you ignore anything that doesn’t confirm your pet theories.

1 hour ago, Gary Murr said:

Hello Cliff:

Thanks for your question. Unfortunately I cannot give you a definitive answer as I just don't know. I can tell you that of the approximately 3000+ rounds of this ammunition that I know was tested by various individuals or concerns, such as the Western Cartridge Company, directly, the research and development branch of their corporate partner, Winchester-Western in New Hampshire, the testing facilities of the OSAAC in St. Louis, Missosuri, the Aberdeen Proving Grounds test facilities, H. P. White Laboratories, all of who produced copies of their results, copies that I do have, as well as tests performed by the FBI Lab and Navy Lab in Washington, as well as numerous individuals and critics who defend the work of the Warren Commission et al, such as Dr. John Lattimer and Lucien Haag and his son, not a single "short load" round of WCC 6.5mm ammunition was recorded as being experienced. The main complaint indicated in these various reports was a failure of the ammunition to load, in particular as it was tested in the Breda LMG and to a lesser extent in the various Carcano rifles/carbines of Italian manufacture, and a propensity to fail to eject from the test weapons. However, even in these instances the occurrences were minor in nature. For instance, of the 1,593 rounds of ammunition put through the various testing procedures by the OSAAC in St. Louis and Aberdeen, these particular failures occurred 27 times. In their summation of the servicability of this ammunition there was agreement that these failures to feed or eject were caused "by faulty weapons or a different time-pressure relationship" in the WCC 6.5mm ammunition than in ammunition designed and manufactured by Italian concerns specifically for these same weapons. 

While I am not in a position to deny that "short loads" may have existed in an unknown quantity of cartridges out of the 4 million+ that were produced by the WCC - after all, anything is possible - I have no proof that just such short-loaded ammunition existed or still exist, and I base this answer on my study of the extremely stringent manufacturing rules for military ammunition ... which is really what the WCC 6.5mm ammunition was and is. 

In closing, I would be curious and interested as to the basis of the unamed "regular poster[s]" basis for his thought that 6.5mm Carcano ammunition manufactured by the WCC specifically possessed "short-load" rounds that were common in 1963.

Thanks for your detailed response, Gary.

Every time I cite the fact 6.5mm FMJ don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue, Ben Cole chimes in with the short load scenario.  

No amount of contrary evidence gets Ben to get off it.

Out of two million rounds of WCC 6.5mm FMJ how many would be short loads, on an average?

There’s one regular poster here who thinks defective rounds were common in 1963.

On 9/14/2023 at 7:52 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Three myths that have done great damage to the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination, and that have drawn severe criticism from academics and journalists, involve JFK and Vietnam. These myths are (1) that JFK was killed because he was going to unconditionally and totally disengage from South Vietnam after the election,

I argue JFK was killed because his plans to scale down overall American presence in SE Asia would jeopardize CIA operations in Laos.  

On 9/14/2023 at 7:52 AM, Michael Griffith said:

It was JFK's liberal advisers who were feeding him false information about the war, especially Hilsman, Harriman, Forrestal, and Ball.

Bingo!  Harriman was the heavy, the others merely his protégés.

Harriman out maneuvered Kennedy and boxed him into support for the Diem coup.

Who negotiated the ‘62 partition of Laos, which gave the Ho Chi Minh Trail to the Communists and the Golden Triangle poppy fields to allies of the CIA?

Harriman.

American elites had a vital interest in Laos.  Diem and Kennedy had to go.  The most intense bombing campaign in history followed, and the Golden Triangle eventually replaced Turkey as the foremost source of heroin.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

Yeah - maybe going through all the steps will make it clearer and just using the alternative hypothesis that the hypothesis is incorrect:

1) Make an observation

2) Ask a question

3) Form a hypothesis = a testable explanation

4) Make a prediction based on (3)

5) Test the prediction

6) If the test falsifies (3) form a new hypothesis

So about those bullet holes - one could approach it this way:

(1) Observation:  There are almost-round bullet holes on JFK's shirt and jacket 4+ inches below where they would have to be for the neck to throat wound path to be true.

I was adding the shirt and jacket — so in this construction it’s “2+ inches below.”  There is another crucial observation: the Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar visible, indicating the jacket collar was in a normal position, the lower margin at the base of the neck C6/7.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

(2) What would explain (1)?

(3) Hypothesis:  The shirt and jacket bunched up.

(4) Prediction: a sufficiently bunched up shirt & jacket would result in the observed round holes.

(5) Test results (evidence):  (an actual or thought experiment  to test the H):

* Take a sheet of paper

* Fold it so that one spot is now over a location 4 inches higher than its original location

* Draw a round 1 inch diameter hole on the paper & cut it out of the folded paper

* Unfold the paper

If the hole in the paper is an ellipse 5 inches long and 1 inch wide and not a circle-like hole in the jacket and shirt

(6) New hypothesis:  The shirt and jacket weren't bunched up.

The bunched clothing hypothesis is rejected.  Note - I don't have to prove the new hypothesis just reject what is not true.

 

That’ll work.  Although I find it more economic to point out the undisturbed jacket collar.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

It is after the hypothesis (H) of shots only coming from the rear is rejected.  

Okay.  The H requires 4”+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric to occupy the same physical space as the jacket collar — an untenable scenario.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am unaware there is a prescribed, widely known reaction to an under-charged bullet that enters an inch or so into one's back. When wearing a back brace. 

 

For all you know the Landis bullet was planted.

Secret Service agent Glen Bennett wrote a contemporaneous report which precludes a first shot back shot.

We’ve been over this already Ben.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

To prove that JFK was fired upon from more than 1 direction the hypothesis would simply be

H: All shots fired at JFK were fired from the rear.

Alt H: Shots were fired from other directions.

Why isn’t the hypothesis a positive declaration of multiple directions?

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

The theory would go in the H (hypothesis) and would hold until rejected.

The claim that multiple inches of bunched shirt and jacket could occupy the same physical space as the jacket collar is prima facie untenable, no?

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

You've also put evidence in both hypothesis.

No, I cited evidence for my hypothesis and left the absurdity of the alternative to speak for itself.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

 

  Assumptions and evidence are used to reject hypotheses.

We can reject the alternative because disparate physical objects can’t occupy the same physical space at the same time.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Unless the round was undercharged.

And JFK reacted to this undercharged round striking his back by holding his fists in front of his throat.  Maybe that’s what people do in your parallel universe, Ben.

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Hypothesis: JFK was fired upon from at least two directions because the bullet holes in the back of his shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, and Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of visible shirt collar.  The clothing defects are too low to associate with the wound in his throat.

Alternative hypothesis:  To line up with the SBT trajectory, 2+” jacket and 2+” shirt elevated above the wound at the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

 

JFK had a shallow back wound in soft tissue.  6.5mm FMJ rounds never leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.  The claim Oswald struck JFK with the rifle attributed to him is demonstrably False.

11 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Hi Marcus

Personally, I think this should be approached another way by applying the scientific method:

* State a hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis

* Evaluate the evidence to see if you should reject the hypothesis 

Hypothesis: JFK was fired upon from at least two directions because the bullet holes in the back of his shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, and Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of visible shirt collar.  The clothing defects are too low to associate with the wound in his throat.

Alternative hypothesis:  To line up with the SBT trajectory, 2+” jacket and 2+” shirt elevated above the wound at the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

1 hour ago, Doug Campbell said:

I'm sorry. No.

Any member of this forum can type 10 pages worth of facts & factoids about GHW Bush and his Zapata Oil, but it will not change the truth. "Zapata" was a geographic reference, and there was never any connection whatsoever between Bush & his company, and the assignation of the operational designation ZAPATA to the Bay of Pigs Invasion operation. The notion is false, the allegation untrue.

ZAPATA was a geographic reference to the area of Cuba at which that particular plan called for the invasion force to land.

Just like the "Oriente Plan" called for a landing at Oriente Province, Cuba.

Just like the "Trinidad Plan" called for the force coming ashore south of the town of Trinidad, Cuba.

The "Zapata Plan" called for a landing on The Zapata Peninsula.

This is the plan that was ultimately chosen.

The Zapata Plan thus became Operation ZAPATA. 

Agreed:  There was no name association between Operation Zapata and Zapata Off-Shore.

How does that preclude an operational association?  Zapata Off-Shore could run supplies from the mainland to moveable oil derricks in the Caribbean and back without a customs check.  The temptation to move contraband had to be intense.

1 hour ago, Doug Campbell said:

The Exile force thus landed on The Zapata Peninsula, at The Bay Of Pigs. 

As planned.

There never was a connection between Bush/Zapata and Operation ZAPATA.

Paul Helliwell and his anti-Castro dope runners never used Zapata Off-Shore to fund off-the-books projects?  I’m not so sure.