Cliff Varnell

Pat, in Fox 5 there is a smaller artifact a couple of inches lower and a bit to the left of the artifact you claim was a T1 wound. The location of the smaller artifact is consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes and 15 eyewitness statements. For all you know Humes and Stringer signed off on the lower mark.

But somehow this didn’t apply to Humes and Stringer when they said Fox 5 showed the wound as they remembered. Those two were like Gods in their perfect recall! Never mind they were military men protecting the military...

And as usual you’re obfuscating the overwhelming evidence of a T3 wound. “Not entirely consistent”? The 15 total back wound witness statements are consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes. According to you all these witnesses got it wrong — and JFK’s clothing moved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality. Fox 5 shows a wound at least two inches higher. They weren’t commenting on the photos, Pat. 15 witness statements and the bullet holes in the clothes are consistent with T3. That you deny this is unbelievable.

Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician observed the body at Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra." Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in his notes on the afternoon of 11/22/63: <quote on> I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder. </q> 4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. In his notes mortician Thomas Robinson wrote: "And wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder". In their report for the FBI, James Sibert and Francis O’Neill wrote the back wound “was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.” O’Neill clarified the location for the HSCA: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm James Jenkins filled out the autopsy sheet and placed a dot in a location consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes. Then for good measure there was SS SA Clint Hill who went to the morgue to make mental notes on the wounds. He told the WC:. “...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.”</q> These are back wound witnesses. Carrico and Jones were throat wound witnesses. Dr. Charles Carrico’s contemporaneous note: “small penetrating wound of ent. neck". Ronald Jones’ contemporaneous note: “a small hole in anterior midline of neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound” T3 back wound, throat entrance. Get over it, Pat.

Since when do you give a damn about reports and notes, Pat? Glen Bennett, Francis O’Neill, James Sibert, Thomas Robinson, George Burkley, James Jenkins, Charles Carrico, Ronald Jones made contemporaneous notes/reports about the T3 back/throat entrance wounds — you claim they all got it wrong. So what? She testified she didn’t develop the extant autopsy photos. That breaks the chain of possession. Cut and dry. The significance of her testimony is the broken chain of evidence.

The judge wouldn’t allow the evidence if the defense convinced the court the photos weren’t authentic.

You’ve admitted that this is not automatic. No extenuating circumstances ever considered? Prove it. Wrong. There are many times more witnesses who dispute the wound location shown in Fox 5. As the HSCA pointed out the photo’s deficiencies as evidence would allow challenges to authentication. You seem to suffer the impression that Humes and Stringer possessed god-like infallibility, that their statements discount the physical evidence and 15 eye witnesses. Drool on the floor idiocy. The facesheet was filled out in pencil by James Jenkins. The measurements written in pen were not contemporaneous— they had to be added later. The measurements use improper landmarks, as did the final autopsy report. To claim that a judge wouldn’t take the lack of proper protocol and broken chain of possession into account is absurd. Not if you can’t establish authenticity. And the defense would have no problem pointing out a “wound” with a lower margin abrasion collar, broken chain of possession, multiple violations of autopsy protocol, discrepancies with the physical evidence and 15 eyewitnesses.

Are you denying the conclusions of JFK Revisited regarding the throat and back wounds?

Pat, you need to re-watch JFK Revisited at the 26-32 minute mark. Throat entrance wound; shallow T3 back wound. You lost the argument, Pat.

That’s funny from a fella who fetishizes fabrication. HSCA <quote on emphasis added> Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution. (quote off)

Only medical evidence prepared according to proper protocols, obviously.

“Almost entirely.” And under what circumstances do we NOT ignore the chain of possession? When the photo is contradicted by the physical evidence, the contemporaneous written accounts of witnesses in position of authority, the properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness statements. Military men protecting the military. That’s it.

You pretend these military men would have any credibility given the fact contrary testimony implicates the military in the JFKA cover-up. Once the lack of any chain of possession for the “photos” was established the defense would have grounds to attack their testimony. Without a chain of possession no judge will allow such shoddy evidence. No, let’s not. The context of this testimony you cite remains: military men protecting the military.

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added) (quote on) Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that: 1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality. 2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view. 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks. 4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of theexamination. In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial. Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy. Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution. (quote off)

And IF these military men had refused to authenticate the “autopsy photos” they would have implicated the US Navy in the cover-up of the JFKA. Military men acting under orders to protect the military. The model of credibility, right?

I think people are pining over paperwork that never existed. From Larry Hancock’s Nexus, pg 36 <quote on, emphasis in the original, added emphasis mine> 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>

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf Both Senseney and Colby refer to weapons that were made to order depending on the requirements of the operation. Check out Figure 8 in this: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/2c/f1/b7f57725cf38b1/US6705194.pdf Make it bigger.

The short load scenario has been discussed at length on the EF. Problem overcome by making a heavier round. The MKNAOMI rounds had a 100 yard range. Not my version of events. Why people can’t wrap their head around that mystifies me. There was a variety of delivery systems. Depended on the requirements of specific operations. Most required the “dog gun” with smaller rounds. Enjoyable. Thanks.

The autopsists have the last word. It was their idea.

They say it deflected. Two short loads? They would have to aim way over his head —twice. See above. No way those were short loads.

And you think there’s 3 million natives who are going to make that a career. That cheap labor is all there is. Stop them at the border and crops rot in the field. Then make them all legal! Make it easy for southern immigration now like the Irish a couple of centuries ago or so. Title 42 was a Trump policy that created hell on the border. When Biden lifted it illegal border crossing dropped 70%. I don’t subscribe to your cause. I think it’s silly. Review your JFK Revisited, 26 to 32 minute mark iirc. JFK had a shallow wound to the right of T3 and an entrance wound in his throat. Two shallow wounds in soft tissue. What kind of firearm leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue? Nothing you can buy in a gun store.

Oh, that went over your head? My bad. I meant to imply the blueberries would rot in the field. Making a face isn’t making an argument, The exploitation is due to their status as “illegal” — they should be given fast tracks to citizenship, union membership, benefits. You’re big on formulaic thinking, I see.

I worked for a Fort Myers, FL juice shop in the winter of ‘73 — picked a lot of oranges for a buck an hour. Hard work not many natives make a career. What farm workers? You brought illegal immigration to “nil” in this scenario, remember? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/21/florida-immigration-law-business-owners-fear-exodus-of-workers-construction-landscaping/70341632007/ https://wusfnews.wuss.usf.edu/politics-issues/2023-06-29/ramifications-harsh-anti-immigration-laws-effect-saturday-felt Your challenge here, Ben, is that you don’t know wtf you’re talking about. Confronting Cesar Chavez's Stance On Illegal Immigration https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cesar-chavez-illegal-immigration_n_5065654 While Cesar Chavez has become one of the most iconic Latino civil rights leaders in U.S. history, his stance on the issue of illegal immigration didn't always reflect the dominant attitude among today's Hispanics. As a union organizer, Chavez worried that that employers would recruit undocumented immigrants to break strikes. By the 1980s, however, Chavez had become a supporter of immigration reform and backed the 1986 bill signed by President Ronald Reagan that legalized the status of nearly 3 million people. What blueberries?

Bullshed. Do immigrant workers depress the wages of native workers? https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long Politicians, the media, and the public express concern that immigrants depress wages by competing with native workers, but 30 years of empirical research provide little supporting evidence to this claim. Most studies for industrialized countries have found no effect on wages, on average, and only modest effects on wage differentials between more and less educated immigrant and native workers. Native workers’ wages have been insulated by differences in skills, adjustments in local demand and technology, production expansion, and specialization of native workers as immigration rises. No, that’s why the Goddess invented tarot cards. And what impact on the cost of food? I didn’t say anything like that. I asked to see if you would be willing to do back breaking work for any amount of money. Would it kill you to research the nonsense you spew about Trump’s immigration policies? I’m not part of that “community.” I just post here. I’m part of the Vincent Salandria School of Research into the Obvious. I think the JFK Critical Community is the Gang That Couldn’t Research Straight. I try to keep a leash on my contempt...