Cliff Varnell

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

One of the most interesting parts of the book is by Andrew Eiler. 

Andrew is a very accomplished lawyer from Ontario.

He talked to Tanenbaum about differing standards of proof and he describes them in the book and how they originated.

He then explained how the WC and the HSCA did not abide by them.

Therefore the question is: by what standard was Oswald convicted?

I had never seen this issue raised as pointedly or as knowledgeably as Andrew did.

I sure as heck would have liked to see him debate Bugliosi on this.

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

None of the high tech devices there are relevant unless they make entrance wounds indistinguishable from conventional bullets.

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.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

The upper back wound of JFK was that from the autopsists, and the throat wound looked like a conventional bullet wound according to all who saw it at Parkland before the trach procedure. Those shellfish toxins etc were delivered differently, flachettes etc, no evidence by bullets producing conventional bullet wounds in 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.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Only the ice bullet, which is not in the Senseney testimony, would. You are mixing those exotic toxins told the Church committee with the known gunshot-appearing wounds of JFK.

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?

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Autopsists and/or fbi agents speculation of dissolving bullets is not evidence, any more than someone who saw a UFO and speculated Martians would be evidence for Martians. 

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.

5 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

The next time a historian, teacher, author or Warren Commission backer pushes the lone-nut assassin scenario, the reader will be able to counter with troubling questions,

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.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Cliff, on the sequence of the pre-Z313 shots, Benjamin is right you are overly dogmatic. Taking one at a time, on the initial hit with the reaction of JFK with the raised arms or fists, you flatly deny that could possibly be an instinctive reaction to being hit in the back. But how do you know that?

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.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Because JFK did not reach around and feel for his back in a spot that arms cannot easily reach or hands touch?

I can easily reach my T3.  What’s the problem?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

It has long been noted that JFK was wearing a restrictive back brace wrapped tightly around his thighs and lower trunk.

So what?  The brace wasn’t that restrictive, and it was around his waist.  The Magic Brace Theory?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Books have been written arguing that JFK was unable to bend down or duck even if he had wanted to, because of that brace, making him an upright "sitting duck" for followup shots to hit him after the first shot. 

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?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

If you, wearing a back brace, were stung in the back by surprise or hit by a bullet that went in an inch, and were not easily able to move, are you sure you would react any differently?

Yes, I’m quite sure I’d never wear a back brace that wouldn’t allow me to move.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On Bennett, he said he saw the bullet hit JFK of the upper back wound, but he could have seen the upper back wound already there when he looked and only assumed it happened the moment he looked, as opposed to seconds before.

So you’re putting words in his mouth.  He said he saw the shot hit.  What pet theory of yours is getting reamed here?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Bennett's time of looking would be the terminus ad quem, latest possible, time of the upper back hit as opposed to necessarily the absolute timing of it, even if that is not what Bennett said. All individual witness testimonies have to be judged and are provisional to some extent.

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.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

It is not that your interpretation is not a reasonable interpretation on the timing and reaction to shots in itself, its the over-dogmatism which prematurely rules out other possible viable interpretations that seems amiss.

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.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You never answered the basic question related to your supposition of high-tech dissolving rounds or ice bullets: why would assassins want some bullets, which make entrance wounds that look like conventional bullets, but not others, to dissolve, in a shooting done publicly?

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?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

And as Benjamin notes, your citing a patent application of a 9000 (!) fps ice bullet (no evidence it ever was manufactured) as a possible explanation to a bullet entering JFK's throat which, at a mere 9000 fps in initial velocity or about four times the speed of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, did not have enough force (as you suppose) to go all the way through the soft tissues of JFK's neck, or to go into JFK's back and out the front of JFK, sounds far-fetched.

Why do you assume the weapon developed in the early 2000s was exactly the same as used in 1963?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I think you were driven to these high-tech dissolving-bullets conclusions, for which there is no known actual evidence such were used in this or any other known assassination in history,

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.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

solely because of prematurely ruling out other possibilities involving conventional firearms and ammunition in the JFK assassination.

Somehow the autopsists speculation JFK was hit with a high tech weapon hasn’t registered.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

That is, it is more likely there is some mistake in what has been excluded.

On a throat entrance to rear-of-head exit as a possible bullet path (or vice versa), what you cite as medical argument against that is over my head to evaluate, and without necessarily rejecting what you say, it would be more convincing if you cited those with forensic pathology saying that in print (no offense intended but you are a layman like me on these matters I think).

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>

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

The reason why I want to hear that coming from those with expertise rather than lay opinions is because that exact bullet pathway (near-EOP rear of head to the throat) was the Sibert and O'Neill FBI reported conclusion at the end of the autopsy, based on the discussions they heard of the forensic pathologists doing the autopsy.

The autopsists discussed the bullet path of the throat wound?  Citation please.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Would that bullet pathway have been concluded in that FBI report on the basis of the autopsists' discussions if those autopsists knew it was obviously non-viable? Is a throat to rear-of-head bullet pathway in fact known excluded in the overwhelming view of expert opinion since that time which has written on this specific point? That is what would sway me, if you were able to cite bibliography on that.

T1 is below the throat wound; the EOP is above it.  Dr. Mantik verified the authenticity of the cervical x-ray.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On the other hand, Pat Speer in his discussions on his website cites a lot of bibliography which he says supports the viability of that bullet pathway--which I have not worked through to study slowly and carefully partly because it is over my head and partly because I would prefer to read a discussion not mediated through a lay researcher with a point of view (even though Pat Speer is one of the better lay researchers with a point of view). Have you worked through the arguments Pat Speer cites on that bullet pathway?

I respect Pat Speer as a human being but as a JFKA researcher he’s one of the very worst.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The patent application does not indicate the fearsome weapon was ever actually built. 

Able to project ice slugs at more than 9,000 fps!

I suspect the patent filing was more hope and than observed results. 

...

 

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

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

From the cited patent:

"A method for formation of slugs in a gun barrel and acceleration of these slugs up to the speed of 3 km/sec and more is suggested."

---30---

Three kilometers per second works out to 9,843 feet per second. But the patent holders think they could fire the ice bullets even at higher speeds.  The langauge of the patent suggest the weapon was never actually consteucted. 

By way of comparison, a high power rifle fires bullets at 2,300 feet per second. 

The US military has weapons that fire at even higher fps, such as the 

The 120mm smoothbore main gun on the M-1 Abrams tank fires a depleted-uranium penetrator rod at least 5,700 fps.  The Navy's Rail Gun, which employs electric current rather than gunpowder, gets over 8,000 fps with its projectiles.

---30---

The filing of a patent means what? 

The technology existed.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

 

That the purported dart gun shoots at 9,843 fps except when it shoots at even higher speeds? You think there might be fanciful elements to the patent?

More from the patent:

"Water is supplied into a pipe from a high-pressure pump. The pipe ID is '4", the length of the tube is 2-6" and the pump pressure ranges from 10,000 psi to 60,000 psi. The pipe is separated from the pump by a check and control Valves. A Section of a pipe is cooled by liquid nitrogen or by the refrigerant. The length of the cooled section is 1/6" the 1/2" and its distance from the pipe edge ranges from 5" to 30". An electrode is located at the distance of 0–0.02" from the pipe at the end of the cooling zone. A water droplet connects the electrode with the pipe surface. The electrode is a part of an electrical circle, which start up and shut down the pump. The system operates as following. Initially the pipe is filled with water, the pump is shut down, the valve is closed and the cooling media is supplied to the pipe. The water at the cooled region freezes and the ice slug is formed. The water droplet between the electrode and the pipe is frozen and the pump starts up. The timer controls the time log between the slug formation and the initiation of the pump operation. As the pump starts to operate the pressure in the conduit before the slug increases, the valve opens and the high pressure is exerted on the slug. The slug is separated from the pipe (barrel), expelled from the pipe at a high velocity and impacts the target."

---30---

This is a rather cumbersome weapon to drag around in the bushes at the Grassy Knoll. They had this on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Dal-Tex.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, maybe this explains the JFKA. Maybe not. 

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

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

GD-

You are correct: the original design of the chemical dart-gun was to inflict a very small injury, in fact so small it would not be detected in autopsy.

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.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As if, in fact a dart, like the head of sewing pin, had pierced the body. That is a far different injury than JFK received. 

The dart delivery system depended on the needs of the operation.  There was a variety of these delivery systems.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There are other shortcomings to the dissipating bullet explanation. 

In the 60 years since the JFKA, the purported chemical dart gun technology has not been revealed or improved, or become a known method or murder. 

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?”

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There are no articles or sources regarding the improvement of dissipating bullet-type weapons. 

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.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If such a weapon has proved itself under such difficult conditions as the JFKA, would not the technology be adapted and improved? 

There was a patent on it until 2021 or 2022.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Huge questions remain. 

What type of dissipating bullet could be firm enough to withstand being shot at about 700 feet per second, and then to enter a human body by two inches, and leave a hole just like a bullet hole? With an abrasion collar? And then dissipate? 

You cannot pay attention to the evidence presented, apparently.  The dart gun had a range of 100 yards.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

All that said, CV has outlined a possible explanation of the mechanics of the JFKA, and the unusual throat wound. 

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.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Is the CV explanation the only reasonable explanation, or the Truth? 

CV insists that it is. At length. 

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.

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.

Deleted

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 clean

Also

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.