Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,563 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
One needn't be too imaginative to wonder if the notorious Hoover might have sought such information as insurance that the Commission wouldn’t deviate from Hoover’s lone nut theory – one that he announced within 2 hours of Oswald's arrest and before he'd lifted an investigative finger, and one that conveniently exculpated the Bureau and Hoover for not shielding JFK from a successful plot.
Gary, with all due respect, Hoover wasn't pushing a lone nut scenario
hours after the hit -- far from it.
And Hoover held nothing but contempt for the WC version of the lone nut
scenario -- the FBI had its own. The WC lone-nut-theory was presumptively
based on the final autopsy report, which was not a legitimate medicolegal
document.
The FBI autopsy report was a legitimate investigative document.
Hoover never bought the single bullet theory -- he simply pretended
the James Tague wound didn't exist.
As to the afternoon of 11/22/63...Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked:
4:19 PM, Hoover memo related that he had told RFK that the killer has"Communist leanings" and is a "very mean-minded individual." Hoover also related
and confirmed again in a 5:15 PM memo that the subject Oswald "went to Cuba on
several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for."
From Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, pg 24:
Ambassador Thomas C Mann reported to the White House, FBI, andJustice Department that he and CIA Station Chief, Winston ("Win") Scott, had
uncovered evidence that Castro, with possible KGB complicity, had paid to
assassinate President Kennedy.
There were dueling cover-ups afoot on 11/22/63: the Oswald-as-lone nut scenario,
and the Oswald-as-Castro-op scenario.
The latter was pushed by Hoover and CIA MEXI, the former by McGeorge Bundy
and Averell Harriman.
Vincent Salandria, from The Tale Told by Two Tapes
McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fatefulafternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from
Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim,
The Day Kennedy Was Shot, New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy
as the quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia
and/or renegade elements.
No, Bundy certainly didn't take orders from renegades.
From Joseph Trento's The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:
The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national securityteam was loyal. As [Pentagon aide William R.]Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell
(JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the
national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman
and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a
young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with
Harriman.
McGeorge Bundy took orders from Averell Harriman.
So did Lyndon Johnson.
Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, pg 57:
At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign
involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year
Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow
during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and
offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists.
None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald
association.
So in the hours following Kennedy's death, Hoover and CIA MEXI were pushing
the Castro-did-it line, while the Yale Boys were enforcing the lone nut scenario.
The only way Averell Harriman could responsibly claim as a fact -- a mere five hours
after the shooting! -- that the Soviets weren't involved was if Harriman had foreknowledge
of the plot.
-
Another: Does evidence exist to suggest that a coup d'grace was administered to JFK actively (via injection of a poisonous substance, for instance)...?
Charles
Yes!
The shallow back back wound and the absence of a bullet in the back.
There is the testimony of Senseney and Colby before the Church Committee
to blood soluble rounds, as well as CIA experimentation with shellfish toxins.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf
Senseney testified that they used a round the size of a .22 on a dog, and that
larger targets required larger rounds.
Colby admitted they experimented on humans.
None of that "poison dart" nonsense -- these were rounds JFK was struck with,
both in the throat and the back.
The autopsists shared a general sense that JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds,
at least before the introduction of the Magic Bullet fouled their diagnoses.
The Zap shows JFK reacting as if he was coughing up a bullet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ
The coup de grace was administered in Dealey Plaza.
-
Is the height of the seats important to debunking the MBT.
Absolutely irrelevant.
JFK was shot in the back around the level of his 3rd Thoracic vertebra,
2" to 3" too low for the SBT.
The SBT thus fails on it's trajectory, period.
-
From pages vii-viii of the Preface to Medicolegal Investigation of the
President John F. Kennedy Murder, 1978, Charles G. Wilber, Ph.d
(emphasis in the original):
An Example of Suppressed InformationUnexpected news releases by government agencies from time to time try the faith
of Americans in the integrity of the Warren Commission as a group and as individuals.
For example, the following news release was carried on national radio and television
services on 13 November 1976.
A memorandum from late FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, has recently come to light.
In that document, Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have told Fidel Castro that he, Oswald,
planned to murder President John F. Kennedy. A highly reliable source is said to have
revealed the matter to Hoover after being himself told of it by Castro. This memorandum,
if true, suggests that Castro or his henchmen were involved in Kennedy's murder in
retaliation for CIA attempts to kill Castro.
Reportedly, shortly after Oswald told Castro of his plans, he (Oswald) got a job at the
Texas School Book Depository Building. Detailed plans of the exact route that the
presidential cavalcade would take through Dallas were presumably not firm until long
after that time. Oswald's preknowledge of just what building would be ideal for his
sniper attempt even before the parade route was allegedly selected is remarkable to
say the least, especially for a nonentity working alone and with no help from anyone
but himself.
-
Drago:
Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Piereson:
For those who weigh the actual evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin.
Each statement is demonstrably ludicrous.
Piereson is obviously neither cognitively impaired nor complicit in the crime, which destroy's the Drago dogma. On the other hand, Drago has weighed the evidence and has more than a little doubt that Oswald was the assassin, which destroys Piereson's proposition.
Piereson is intellectually dishonest.
The "actual evidence" must include the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket.
Anyone who claims that those bullet holes match the requirements of the
lone gunman theory is intellectually dishonest.
Anyone who claims that JFK's jacket was elevated more than a fraction of
an inch on Elm St. is intellectually dishonest.
Here is "actual evidence":
JFK on Main St. with his jacket riding into his hairline, the shirt collar
occluded at the back of his neck (25/26 second marks):
JFK on Elm St., his shirt collar was highly visible at the back of his neck
(11 - 14 second marks):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G98OFY_1Fm0
Anyone who views this evidence and still insists JFK's shirt and jacket were
elevated 2" to 3" entirely above the base of his neck is intellectually
dishonest.
Intellectual dishonesty can indeed cause one to be cognitively impaired.
I second Charles Drago's construct.
-
It's the Dallas motorcade.
Gary Mack has told me that the photograph of the limo was taken on "Main just west of the Adolphus Hotel,"
Thanks for checking this out, Charles. This photo was taken almost two
blocks up from where George Jefferies took his film. Since the Jefferies
film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting, we can peg the "Adolphus"
photo as taken two minutes before the shooting.
Jefferies:
The large crease in the jacket is new to me.There are two other photos taken after the "Adolphus" photo which
show a crease.
The Weaver photo, taken on Main & Houston:
And the Betzner photo taken on Elm St at Z186 (the sun shines
on JFK's shirt collar, indicating the jacket fell from its position on
Main St.)
The sun shines on JFK's left shoulder and the shadow suggests a
crease in the jacket. The SBT requires 2" to 3" of JFK's jacket
(and a near equal amount of his shirt!) to have bulged up entirely
above the base of his neck and yet his shirt collar is visible in Betzner
and instead of a "bulge" of fabric we see shadow below the collar.
Unless the image has been manipulated to support yet another bogus SBT argument ...Charles
No chance. Why doctor a photo taken two minutes before the shooting
but not doctor a photo taken a split second before the shooting?
The Betzner photo destroys the SBT. But you'd never be hired by the
JFK Mystery Industry if you acknowledged that.
The fact of the T3 back wound is anathema to the JFK Mystery Industry,
which is why it is so rarely cited.
-
Jefferson Morley (emphasis added)
Perhaps the single most intriguing story to emerge from the JFK filesconcerns a career CIA officer named George Joannides. He died in 1990 at
age 67, taking his JFK secrets to the grave in suburban Washington. His role
in the events leading up to Kennedy's death and its confused investigatory
aftermath goes utterly unmentioned in the vast literature of JFK's assassination.
Vincent Bugliosi's otherwise impressive 1,600 page book debunking every
JFK conspiracy theory known to man mentions him only in an inaccurate
footnote.
Vincent Bugliosi does not address the clothing evidence ANYWHERE in
his book. Deep into the CD accompanying Da Bug Book we find the
following...
Vincent Bugliosi (emphasis added):
A point that conspiracy theorists have raised over and over in theirbooks is that the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more
than 2 inches lower in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body.
But even if there wasn't an explanation for this, so what?
The physical evidence in the case doesn't fit the lone gunman scenario -- so what?
The Single Bullet Fraud in effect!
Impressive, hardly.
-
Great article up to this point, where I stopped cold and must respond:
Jefferson Morley:
Second, the scientific evidence supporting the lone gunman theory has weakened.There has NEVER been scientific evidence supporting the lone gunman theory.
The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2" to 3" inches below the wound
location required by the SBT.
That is a hard, concrete, measurable, inconvertible fact.
Vincent Salandria pointed this out in 1965. Gaeton Fonzi was the first
to publish a photo of JFK's jacket, and corroborated Salandria's conclusion.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html
In the Summer of 1966 Gaeton Fonzi published the smoking gun in the
Kennedy assassination: a photo of JFK's jacket and the all-too-low bullet
hole in its back.
The claim that JFK's jacket was "bunched up" in Dealey Plaza is trumped by
the films and photos which show the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.
Author Jim Moore was the first to observe this, back in 1991.
JFK on Main St (left photo):
His shirt collar wasn't visible at the back of his neck on Main St.
See the same thing at the 25-26 second mark of the Jefferies film,
also taken on Main St.
But on Elm St. JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in the films and photos.
Willis #4:
Here's the Tina Town film taken within a few seconds of the shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G98OFY_1Fm0
Note the white band at the base of JFK's neck from the 11 second
mark to 14 -- in between the motorcycle cops.
That white band was JFK's shirt collar gleaming in the sun, indicating
that his jacket collar had fallen to a normal position at the base of his
neck.
Indeed, these frames of the Houston St. segment of the Orville Nix film
show the jacket dropping:
The Death Certificate put the wound at T3, so do the holes in the clothes.
Any arguments to the contrary cannot be intellectually defended.
Salandria got it right -- the JFK research community over-analyzes the
evidence.
We have been deceived. By ourselves.
-
Soviet communism collapsed under the weight of its own excesses--military spending, vs. its lack of corresponding economic productivity. That didn't begin on Reagan's watch; it only concluded then. Just because I'm standing near a train when it derails, it does NOT necessarily mean that I CAUSED the derailment, any more than Reagan CAUSED the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The last point is especially true given the fact that the Soviet Union didn't dissolve
until almost three years after Reagan left office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2542749.stm
Reagan wasn't standing anywhere near the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Because the US over-spent billions on defense the Soviets decided they didn't
like Communism anymore?
Bollocks.
Jimmy Carter was much tougher on the Soviets than Reagan.
Carter refused them wheat, boycotted their Olympics, and armed the Afghans.
The latter policy was continued by Reagan.
The only people impressed by tough talk are insecure American right-wingers
(are there any other kind?)
What did Reagan do to back up his tough talk?
He cut-and-ran out of Lebanon, and then decided to jump bad on 30 Cuban
construction workers in Grenada.
He mined the harbor of Managua. He armed and trained death squads in
El Salvador and the contra terrorist army.
He blew away Gadaffi's baby daughter.
He allowed the National Security State to ramp up cocaine importation and
consumption, creating a crack epidemic in American cities and suburbs.
He ran up massive deficits that cost his successor a second term, and the
'93-'94 Dem congress was given the boot for raising the taxes it took to
pay off the Reagan spending spree.
Ronald Reagan -- first class wanker if you ask me.
-
I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for
a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the
SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.
Jack
And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?
The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.
A Castro conspiracy.
Thanks for making my point.
That is the trouble with the "Ashton Theory"...there is no way to know that quickly
that a throat wound would be needed..
And even though the throat wound is essential to the SBT, darlin' Arlen had not
even invented it yet. So that does not fly as a reason.
Therefore theories about a piercing throat wound at Parkland are very iffy. It seems
improbable that the SBT was a planned contingency.
...so back to square one...NO WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A BULLET GOING THROUGH
THE NECKTIE KNOT...so how did such a wound occur?
Jack
Jack, the wound was above the neck tie.
Prove it. Others have shown conclusively that it was not.
Even the OFFICIAL STORY is that it nicked the tie and
went thru the shirt. Bloodstains are inconsistent with a
higher wound. Proving it was above the shirt collar is
a tough task. Good luck.
Jack
From Jerry McKnight:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...e-Bullet_Theory
Emphasis mine:
It was politics, and only politics, that drove and shaped the evidence in the government’s investigation into the Kennedy assassination. For example, in March 1964 Commission counsel Arlen Specter went to Parkland Memorial Hospital to depose doctors, nurses, and administrators involved in treating the stricken President and the Texas Governor. Dr. Charles J. Carrico was the first physician to examine the agonal Kennedy, whose breathing was spasmodic and his color cyanotic (bluish gray), symptoms associated with a terminal patient. Because time was critical the attending nurses took scalpels and cut off Kennedy’s clothes. In their haste to free the patient from his clothes one of the nurses nicked the tie and left two slits in his shirt collar. As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature. Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line. So Specter had unimpeachable first-hand testimony that would have persuaded any good faith investigation to have ruled out the Commission’s single-bullet explanation.I wasn't there with a camera, Jack, so you're right -- I'm gonna have a tough
time proving it beyond doubt.
Carrico was there and I have no reason to doubt him.
His account is consistent with no metal traces being found on the tie
or the shirt slits.
-
Today I'm feeling bold and burgundy.
Cliff, your view that the Cold War never existed is beyond belief.Your inability to process the English language is beyond belief.
I noted that the white race wasn't going to annihilate itself, and the "Cold War"
was used as a rationale for both the Americans and Soviets to exert their influence
in the 3rd World.
But you have no rebuttal to that point, which explains your inability to
quote me directly or accurately characterize my argument.
I suggest you try to peddle that to the millions who were enslaved in the Soviet Union
and the millions whose parents and grandparents were ruthlessly slaughtered by the
Communist butchers.
The slaughter to which you refer occured prior to the Cold War,
while Americans like W. Averell Harriman were financing the Soviets.
But then, you'd have to be familiar with the history of the 20th century to know that.
Perhaps you would also deny the Communist holocaust as some deny the Nazi Holocaust.
But scholars have concluded there were as many innocents killed under Communism as there
were under Hitler and just as in Germany many were Jewish.
I'm sure there were far more killed under Stalin. But don't let me
impede your hysterics. It's too fun to watch!
You complain about civilian casualties in Guatemala (isn't "collateral damage" the modern euphemism for such non-combatant deaths).
Hitler invaded France and slaughtered hundreds of thousands.
The CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Guatemala and installed
a series of right-wing thugs who, aided by the CIA, slaughtered hundreds of thousands.
In your moral vacuum, Tim, the former was "evil" but the latter was "collateral damage."
Clearly collateral damage is regrettable but it happened in WWII to an even greater extent
than it happened in the Cold War. Perhaps the Allies should never have bombed Dresden but
even if that is the case that does not mean that we were not justified in fighting the horrors
and evil of Naziism.
Does that mean the the United States gov't is justified in behaving like
the Nazis, invading other countries that pose no threat to us, slaughtering their people and
exploiting their resources?
Why was it "evil" for the Nazis but "justified" for the Americans?
And if you're going to denounce the evils of Naziism, how do you give
a pass to the American/British/Dutch banks and industrialists who
built the Nazi war machine? Your moral relativism is staggering.
To cite Guatamela as proof the United States should have never intervened
in any foreign countries is irrational. There is an old legal adage that says that
terrible cases make bad law. In other words, it is error to draw broad
generalizations from isolated cases.
Guatemala is not an isolated case.
"Regime change" became a disasterous foreign policy that led to the deaths of
millions, including tens of thousands of Americans. Needlessly.
This discussion started with John's argument that the US should have pursued an
isolationist foreign policy after WWII. He now, however, agrees that the Marshall Plan
was advantageous both for the rebuilding of Europe and for the interest of the United
States in containing Communism. It is a complete non sequitur to argue that because
of what happened in Guatemala the US should never have initiated the Marshall Plan
nor brought democracy to Japan.
I argued against "regime change" as American foreign policy
after WW2. I made no comment on the Marshall Plan.
Is it too much to expect a sliver of intellectual honesty wherein you accurately quote
my actual argument?
Perhaps you have an innate disability that prevents such. As such, I find too
much discussion with you tiresome.
-
I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for
a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the
SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.
Jack
And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?
The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.
A Castro conspiracy.
Thanks for making my point.
That is the trouble with the "Ashton Theory"...there is no way to know that quickly
that a throat wound would be needed..
And even though the throat wound is essential to the SBT, darlin' Arlen had not
even invented it yet. So that does not fly as a reason.
Therefore theories about a piercing throat wound at Parkland are very iffy. It seems
improbable that the SBT was a planned contingency.
...so back to square one...NO WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A BULLET GOING THROUGH
THE NECKTIE KNOT...so how did such a wound occur?
Jack
Jack, the wound was above the neck tie.
-
Cliff, the long and short of it is that we won the Cold War and we need no longer fall asleep worrying if there will be a nuclear exchange between superpowers.
Some of us figured out this scam at an early age.
The leaders of the two most populous Caucasian nations were never
a threat to annihilate their own race.
The "Cold War" was white folks' imperialism by another name.
Here's a bit of trivia for you, Tim: at the height of the Vietnam War, where
did Soviet military big shots go for top flight medical care?
Walter Reed.
The thrust of our foreign policy was supported by "wise men" from both parties, any one of whose intelligence and experience exceeded ours put together.As if they had a choice! The "wise men" from both parties would not have
held on to their jobs long if they didn't rubber stamp the National Security
State.
So to complain about intervention in a specific nation is nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking.I suppose it would look that way from within the moral vacuum of your
world view. Are you teaching your daughter to violently attack those with
whom she disagrees, Tim?
Had we intervened in Cuba as we did in Guatemala, the Cuban people would now have a much better life.Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans slaughtered in the
wake of the CIA's overthrow of their democracy.
You hate freedom and democracy, Tim. Face it.
The point is we were fighting a war with real enemies who meant to destroy our way of life and our freedom.I love the smell of hysteria in the morning...It smells like...napalm.
Perhaps there were occasional excesses in our activities, but winning the Cold War as we did was surely better than the horrors of World War II.We only had to fight WWII because criminal pukes like the Harrimans, the
Rockefellers, the du Ponts, the Warburgs, Joe Kennedy, Henry Ford, IBM
and ITT built the Nazi war machine.
-
I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for
a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the
SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.
Jack
And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?
The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.
A Castro conspiracy.
-
Cliff, I suspect everyone who read that post except you knew that was a little joke in honour of our English compatriots.
I suspect everyone who reads this exchange will notice that you can't
defend the treasonous hijacking of our nation's blood and treasure by
those you support.
I suspect more than a few will conclude the joke is on you.
-
Excellent post, Charles!
It's alleged that after Broadway Joe made his famous "guarantee"
of victory, he murmured off camera -- "As long as they don't
change their defensive signals."
Don Shula coached those Colts. Later, as coach of the Miami Dolphins,
Shula's team led the NFL in the least number of penalties year
after year.
Was that due to the discipline he instilled in his Dolphins -- or a form of
pay-off for throwing SB3?
When I was 9 years old I used to watch roller derby and pretend it was
real.
As a 52 year old, I like to attend Oakland Raiders' games and pretend
it's real. After the blatant corruption of the Pittsburgh-Seattle SB a couple
of years ago -- that task gets harder and harder.
And as far as Tom Brady and the Patriots go -- it was a fumble!!
And as far as Jack Tatum on Darryl Stingley is concerned -- it was a clean hit.
And as far as Ben Dreith's roughing the passer call is concerned -- it was a legit penalty.
But who has time for grudges?
I do! Rooting against is almost as satisfying as rooting for.
Of course, my perspective as a fan of the Raiders, the GS Warriors and
the SF Giants leaves me with more opportunity for the former than the
latter.
-
No, John missed JFK's point.
But Dawn I wish it were as simple as you say, that the US could simply run around importing democracy. But there are those who do not want democracy since it runs counter to their selfish political or religious interests.
Like those who engineered the overthrow of democratically-elected Mossedegh
in Iran, democratically-elected Arbenz in Guatemala, and democratically-elected
Allende in Chile?
American foreign policy was hijacked decades ago by a treasonous elite
(Harriman/Rockefeller) who have always hated democracy.
Hence they will use terrorism to kill not only Americans but their fellow counterymen.But prevail we not only must but we will. And like it or not, the tide is turning in Iraq.
It didn't take long for the Sunnis of Anbar to realize that Al Qaeda's advocacy
of a 7th Century lifestyle was not for them.
Even though the US military destroyed 70% of Fallujah in '04 -- they hate
Al Qaeda more than they hate us.
Al Qaeda has no chance of taking root outside the mountains of Afghanistan
and Waziristan.
The "War on Terror" is an utterly bogus construct pimped by Americans
In Name Only who wave the American flag with one hand and burn the
U.S. Constitution with the other.
America, Dawn, is not the "new Rome". We use our coliseums to play rugby, not to feed the lions.Rugby? Ever spend much time in America, Tim?
-
Cliff:
McCloy-Rankin document.....
B...
Thank you, Bernice! I think the FBI recreation in Dealey Plaza, which
left Specter holding his stupid pointer 4 inches above the "wound," was
such an embarrassment for the WC that Rankin felt a need to distance
himself from Darlin' Arlen's SBT.
In the end, they had no choice but to hold their noses and go with it.
-
Cliff, IMO what hit JFK in the back was CE399.
No way. The wound was very shallow. Neither of JFK's non-fatal wounds
were consistent with a conventional round.
-
Charles and Mark,
JFK was struck twice with rounds that did no significant internal damage.
The back wound was very shallow, and like the throat wound it was inconsistent with a round
fired from any conventional firearm, or so I've been assured.
It was the nature of the back wound that spurred the autopsists to speculate that JFK was hit with
a blood soluble round.
Returning to that brief moment of actual investigative speculation, I submit that the coup de grace
was possibly a toxin fired into his back.
The problem with a wound induced at Parkland is this: how to guarantee the operatives had access
to Kennedy?
Surely Bowron wasn't in a position to guarantee she'd be the nurse to go out to meet the limo.
And if one is going to administer a coup de grace -- make it a coup de grace!
Why stab the guy in the throat when you could just as readily stab him in the heart?
It certainly appears that neither the throat wound nor the back wound were intended to
inflict fatal damage, in and of themselves. Makes sense (imo) to hit him with a paralytic,
and then a toxin, and then the head shot(s).
In a real investigation, two guys would have immediately been dragged in and grilled heavily:
Sidney Gottlieb and Mitch WerBell 3rd. They were the two most capable of creating such weapons.
-
Excellent post, Charles!
It's alleged that after Broadway Joe made his famous "guarantee"
of victory, he murmured off camera -- "As long as they don't
change their defensive signals."
Don Shula coached those Colts. Later, as coach of the Miami Dolphins,
Shula's team led the NFL in the least number of penalties year
after year.
Was that due to the discipline he instilled in his Dolphins -- or a form of
pay-off for throwing SB3?
When I was 9 years old I used to watch roller derby and pretend it was
real.
As a 52 year old, I like to attend Oakland Raiders' games and pretend
it's real. After the blatant corruption of the Pittsburgh-Seattle SB a couple
of years ago -- that task gets harder and harder.
And as far as Tom Brady and the Patriots go -- it was a fumble!!
-
Of course they didn't "intend for Castro to be removed." They had put the
bastard in power! Tosh Plumlee was flying missions for CIA from 1956
through at least 1958 running guns from the Florida Keys to Castro and
the 26th of July Movement! It was Raul Castro who got Plumlee off the
island when his plane went down on one of the runs in 1958, and Fidel
gave Plumlee a fatigue hat, for the love of Christ!
Castro has been playing the yanquis for suckers for the better part of
6 decades.
The history of Cuban-U.S. relations has been one big chump-a-thon,
with Fidel getting the better of the anglos at every turn.
If the CIA ever succeeded at removing the head of a Communist
state, I've missed it.
And it wasn't just guns they were running to and from Cuba and the
Florida Keys. If Castro hasn't tapped into the drug trade I'll eat Tosh's
fatigue hat!
Leveraging both ends against the middle was always Harriman's m.o.
-
I would call it exploring a plausible line of enquiry. We have to agree to disagree here.
Mark,
I want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The underlying
premise is sound: the plotters faced a conundrum in that a first-shot/kill-shot was
not 100% guaranteed.
Before we get to the baby, let's chuck the bathwater. It has all kinds of nasty bugs
in it.
Cliff:Answer Kathy's question, please.
If JFK wasn't reacting to a shot to his throat -- what was he doing with his hands
up around his throat?
Mark:
It looks that way. Or maybe it was meant to look that way.
Cliff:
Maybe it was meant to look that way?
Okay, so the Zapruder film was faked entirely, same with the Altgens
photo, and any witnesses who described JFK bringing his hands up are
possible perp-accomplices?
I tell you what, since this is such a good line of inquiry, let's track down
all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described JFK in a manner consistent
with the photo evidence. Let's see if we can find something in their back
grounds that might suggest intelligence connections, hm?
Disgusting. Morally repugnant.
Mark:
Sez you. I don't see it that way.
From William Newman's Clay Shaw trial testimony:
(quote on, emphasis mine)
Q: Do you have any impression as to the direction from which the shots came?
A: Yes, sir. From the sound of the shots, the report of the rifle or whatever it was,
it sounded like they were coming directly behind from where I was standing.
Q: Now would you push the microphone aside and step down to the aerial photograph
and identify that general area, just the general area from which the sounds came.
A: In my opinion, the sounds of the shots sounded as if they had come from directly
behind me (indicating). I was standing near this light standard here, and I thought the
shots were coming from back here, and apparently everybody else did because they
all ran in that direction....
...Q: Would you tell us in as much detail as you can recall about the impact which you
may have observed from the shots.
A: Yes, sir. you want me to start with the first two shots?
Q: Start right from the beginning and just tell us as you recall.
A: Okay. My wife and myself were watching the parade come toward us.
We had to more or less step off the curb to look up the street, and as the
car was approaching I heard two shots -- BOOM, BOOM -- and when the
first shot was fired the President throwed his hands up like this (demonstrating),
and at the time what we thought had happened, somebody throwed firecrackers
or something under the automobile and he was protecting his face.
(quote off)
The plotters planted a "family guy" witness who testified to a knoll shooter
(and thus conspiracy) while giving *false* statements as to Kennedy's hand
movements?
And look who else was *part of the plot* -- Nellie Connally!
From her WC testimony:
(quote on, emphasis added)
Mr. DODD: ...You heard a shot, what appeared or sounded like a shot, a sharp
noise, to you? You turned to your left or your right?
Mrs. CONNALLY. My right.
Mr. DODD. You turned to your right. As you turned around and
saw the President, you saw him clutching his throat?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I saw him reach up to his throat.
Mr. DODD. Both hands were on his throat?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, sir.
(quote off)
I guess the script went a little awry here, since the films don't show JFK
clutching his throat, although his hands were in that area. However, as we
can see in the Gil Jesus video cited earlier in this thread, JFK momentarily
tried to tug at his shirt collar with his left index finger -- so Nellie's
inaccuracy is a minor inconsistency.
And then there's Jackie.
From her WC tesimony:
(quote on)
JBK:
...I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You
know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right.
And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical
look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand.
(quote off)
Was Jackie *in on it*?
Hey, that might explain how Bowron got away with stabbing JFK in the throat on
the way to TR1 -- Jackie had her back!
But what kind of *coup de grace* was that, anyway?
According to the neck x-ray there was a nicked trachea, a bruised lung-tip,
and a hairline fracture of the tip of the right T1 transverse process (and that
pesky air pocket overlaying C7 and T1 -- which everyone ignores because it
doesn't fit their pet theories.)
All of those wounds were non-fatal, non-life-threatening.
Of course, we could always pile the neck x-ray on the mound of faked
and planted evidence -- but for one enduring question: Why?
Why would the plotters alter the body to suggest shots from 2 directions
when one of their contingency plans was to pin the deed on a lone
assassin?
Why shiv a guy in the throat when he's already D.O.A. with brain matter extruding
from the right-rear of his head?
*Underkill* if ever I've heard of it.
Mark:No matter how well trained the assassins were, there was no guarantee a kill shot would be made. It would have been foolish for JFK's killers to assume as such. Shooters get nervous. Greer might have unwittingly moved the target. Anything could have gone wrong. If JFK's gets a non-fatal hit, where's his next stop?
Cliff:
That's why they paralyzed him first.
They had the technology, and the evidence is consistent with its use.
Mark:
I'm not disputing the probability of your scenario, Cliff. They had the technology.
They (may have) paralysed him. But you didn't really address my conundrum, ie.
what if something went wrong with the plan? What if they couldn't get in a clean
headshot and he wasn't fatally wounded? What then? In my view, it makes sense
for the planners to have a presence at Parkland, because that's where JFK was
going.
And that operative risked getting caught and thus exposing the conspiracy
just to inflict non-fatal wounds in the neck of a guy whose brains were already
blown out?
No, Mark, that is not a plausible scenario.
But yes, Mark, the plotters couldn't count on a first-shot/kill-shot. That's why
he was hit with a paralytic first. Once JFK was paralyzed (which he certainly
appears to be in the Zapruder film), more than one shooter had a clean head shot.
Two shooters behind the fence, perhaps. Two in the TSBD. Another in the Dal-Tex.
And perhaps one on the roof of the County Courts Building, and one on the south knoll.
They couldn't miss.
On the other hand, where was there a "clean" shot at Parkland?
-
Cliff: The sick joke is this thread.
Mark: I don't agree, Cliff.
It's one of the best threads, imo. Worst case scenario is that Ashton
may be wrong but it's a plausible and well-presented case. Why wouldn't
the planners have an operative planted in Parkland?
Cliff:
Because they had the technology to paralyze him, which is exactly what
we see happening to JFK in the limo.
I don't agree that it's a plausible case. It is yet another example of gratuitous
witness-bashing, the amount of which that goes on in this case is repugnant, imo.
Mark in blue...
mo, that's the kind of sentiment which impedes progress towardclosure in this case.
And, in my opinion, it is just this kind of witness-bashing that impedes
progress toward closure in this case.
I'm of the view the first day witness testimony, the Dealey Plaza photos,
and the contemporaneous documentation PRIOR to the introduction of
CE399 tells us the how, which in turn tells us the who, which in turn tells
us the why.
Any speculation not based on the first day evidence is a waste of time, imo.
And yes -- Occam's Razor applies to this case.
All the talk about tarnishing reputations presupposes that the normal rules of society apply. In this case they don't. There was no genuine investigation, no satisfactory explanation of what happened, hence almost anyone is suspect. It's regrettable if fate has dealt the players in this drama such a hand but the blame rests with the USG, not those keen to learn the truth.On 11/22/63 there most certainly was a genuine investigation,
albeit short-lived, which commenced at Bethesda, when Humes, Boswell
and Finck huddled up after the autopsy, in the presence of Sibert
and O'Neill of the FBI.
They couldn't figure out why there was no bullet and no lane of exit for
the back wound.
A very plausible explanation to the men who examined the body
was that the president had been struck with a blood soluble round.
In a direct, genuine investigative action Sibert called the FBI to enquire
as the the existence of rounds that dissolved in the body.
Sibert's enquiry was deflected by news of CE399.
From the moment that the Magic Bullet was presented to the autopsists,
everything Humes, Boswell, and Finck wrote or said was skewed
by the political decision made in DC to blame the crime on a single
gunman.
Prior to that moment, what they had to say about blood soluble rounds was
corroborated by the Dealey Plaza photo evidence and the neck x-ray.
Answer Kathy's question, please.If JFK wasn't reacting to a shot to his throat -- what was he doing with his hands
up around his throat?
It looks that way. Or maybe it was meant to look that way.
Maybe it was meant to look that way?
Okay, so the Zapruder film was faked entirely, same with the Altgens
photo, and any witnesses who described JFK bringing his hands up are
possible perp-accomplices?
I tell you what, since this is such a good line of inquiry, let's track down
all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described JFK in a manner consistent
with the photo evidence. Let's see if we can find something in their back
ground that might suggest intelligence connections, hm?
Disgusting. Morally repugnant.
A front shot seems the most likely explanation to me too. Since we don't know for sure,Sez you.
The DP films and photos show him responding to a trauma in his neck region.
His wife testified that he had a quizzical look on his face. Kellerman testified
that Jackie said -- "What are they doing to you?" or words to that effect.
The Zapruder film shows JFK bringing his hands toward his throat for a
couple of seconds and then acts paralyzed.
At the hospital two contemporaneous written reports refer to a small
wound of entrance in the throat. A half-dozen Parkland witnesses
specifically describe the wound as one of entrance.
According to the neck x-ray there was a bruising of the tip of the lung
consistent with this frontal shot, as well as a minute fracture of the tip
of the T1 transverse process and most importantly a layer of
air overlapping C7 and T1.
According to the autopsists prior to the corruption of their analysis
by CE399 blood soluble rounds seemed like a plausible explanation.
William Colby and Charles Senseney testified to the Church Committee
that blood soluble rounds were developed for the CIA and tested on
humans which would render the target paralyzed within a few seconds
and not show up on x-ray.
Me, I'm not a Co-Incidence Theorist. No.
what's the harm in exploring every possibilty?What's the harm in gratuitously attacking the credibility of anyone
who witnessed the crime?
Such an approach guarantees the crime could NEVER be solved.
No matter how well trained the assassins were, there was no guarantee a kill shot would be made. It would have been foolish for JFK's killers to assume as such. Shooters get nervous. Greer might have unwittingly moved the target. Anything could have gone wrong. If JFK's gets a non-fatal hit, where's his next stop?That's why they paralyzed him first.
They had the technology, and the evidence is consistent with its use.
COPA Coast to Coast
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
My comments in burgundy.