Cliff Varnell

Which I defined as “seriously considered”. To define “thought” exclusively as “concluded” demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the language.

I didn’t say Humes et al concluded JFK was hit with a high tech weapon — I used the phrase “seriously considered.” “A general feeling” is not a conclusion. Never said it was. You’re playing a semantic game because you can’t argue against the record. Happens.

“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.” — Francis O’Neill They seriously considered that. It’s part of the historical record. It’s sad you can’t process this — “A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.” What part of — “a general feeling existed” — don’t you understand?

Accounts from the autopsy put the lie to this claim. FBI SA O’Neill: “A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.” What part of that eludes you? You obviously can’t process information that runs counter to your pet theory.

And you disputed that fact and you’ve been proven wrong. A distinction without a difference. You can’t process information?

Those bullets never leave a shallow wound in soft tissue, and JFK suffered a shallow wound in soft tissue. Two counting the wound in the throat. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

That is a far cry from a cogent understanding of the historical record. The night of the autopsy Humes et al seriously considered the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon. Deal with it.

This is instructive: Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, pg 170-1: <quote on, emphasis added> In a small alcove of the autopsy room at Behsda Naval Hospital, the acting chief of radiology, Dr. John Ebersole, clips the last of the x-rays onto a light box. Nothing. No bullet. The president's entire body has been x-rayed and still the doctors have been unabel to determine what happened to the bullet that struck his back. "Where did it go? someone asked. The doctors have no idea. A discussion ensues about what might have happened to it. Someone suggests the possibility that a soft-nosed bullet struck the president and disintegrated. Others contemplate that the bullet could have been "plastic", and therefore not easily seen by x-rays, or that it was an "Ice" bullet, which dissolved after contact. None of the suggestions made much sense, but then neither did the absence of a bullet. FBI agent Jim Sibert decided to call the FBI laboratory and find out if anyone there knew of a bullet that would almost completely fragmentize. He managed to reach Charles L. Killion of the firearms section of the lab, who said he never heard of such a thing. After Sibert explained the problem. Killion asked if he was aware that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Sibert hadn't and is nearly certain that no one else at the morgue has either. Sibert hangs up the phone, returns to the autopsy room, and informs the three pathologists that a bullet had been recovered at Parkland Hospital. <quote off> But Killion HAD heard of this technology. The FBI had been briefed on it “to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people.” Our own President?

Pure what? From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. <quote off> From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.... Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic). <quote off>

Jet Energy, Inc. of New Jersey held a patent on exactly that type of weapon until 2022. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/2c/f1/b7f57725cf38b1/US6705194.pdf <q> EXAMPLE 4 The fluid consists of the medicine to be injected into the tissue of the patient. The ice slug containing the exact amount of the medicine to be injected is expelled from the gun so it penetrates into the patent [sic?] body at a precisely controlled site and the medicine is delivered to a patient. EXAMPLE 5 The invented device is used as 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. </q>

I think they were comfortable with a “special weapon” they could pin on the Commies. Oswald survived the afternoon, killing that scenario.

That’s what Humes et al speculated with the body in front of them. That’s a live scenario. But it leaves a question hanging — what weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

The autopsists thought JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body. Why isn’t that the most likely scenario?

That is a possible scenario. My question is what round creates such a shallow wound?

Or a paralysis shot — scorpion logic. Or a blood soluble toxin.

Pat, the critical distinction between us is: ”The 100% Fact of Conspiracy” is the subtext of my work. ”Proving LNT Highly Unlikely” is the context of your work. I find your approach to the evidence regressive.

Textbook case of projection.

https://www.amazon.com/Deeper-Darker-Truth-Wilsons-Assassination-ebook/dp/B002Y284R8 This stuff is way over my head. Wilson aside, the important point is the patent on blood soluble weaponry.

No, you are not allowed to assume Wilson’s methodology prior to investigation. Now be a good sport and do some open minded research on Tom Wilson. Btw, someone has a patent on technology you pretend doesn’t exist.

No, Pat, it is the totality of evidence which proves the throat wound was an entrance. The physical evidence, the contemporaneous records of witnesses in position of authority, the properly produced medical evidence, and consensus witness testimony — all corroborate the T3 and throat entrances.

Why don’t you check out Tom Wilson’s book before you dismiss him?

Black Dog Man. The HSCA study of Betzer 3 identified a "very distinct straight line feature...near the region of his hands". Rosemary Willis describes BDM as a “conspicuous” person who suddenly disappeared.

I’ve presented my research. You can’t make a counter argument so you make faces. I’ve presented a variety of proofs indicating that blood soluble weapon technology existed in different applications. All that leaves you is contentless dismissals.

Steve Kober wrote that. Such are the dangers of marrying a conclusion prior to investigation.

No, you’re assuming the wound was caused by a conventional bullet — an assumption that cannot be made. The technology existed. The night of the autopsy, Humes et al seriously entertained the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon.