Cliff Varnell

Lead a horse to water... https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/2c/f1/b7f57725cf38b1/US6705194.pdf See Example 4 on page 8.

It runs counter to your pet theory, that’s all. So what kind of weapon leaves a shallow wound then disappears? Talk about shaky! No, I’ll leave the fiction to you. Oh, so you’re back to this again. Of course.

Steve Kober: I have just reread A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald Phillips which presents the work of Photonic expert Tom Wilson. In one chapter, Tom analysed an enlargement of Atlgens photograph #5. Tom Wilson's conclusion of the Dal-Tex second floor open window shows a man with a beard looking with his left eye through a device described as follows: " the device has a small oval tube at the end nearest the window. There are two small protrusions coming out of the device on the side away from the man. The device is aprx 6 to 9 inches in diameter and is aprx 36 to 48 inches long with a 90 degree eyepiece. Tom finishes the paragraph with his need to investigate this device further. I thought I might give it a try. After researching through the United States Patent Files, I think I may have found a device that matched Wilson's description. 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. I will attach the PDF file ( it's 8 pages and not too technical). Focus on Fig 6 whose look a demensions are a good match for the Wilson device. It also uses an explosive propellant rather than high pressure. Maybe thsi is the "firecracker" sound heard. It was discussed that the first shot should be the kill shot, but maybe that was not case. Maybe the first shot ( in ther back) was to make sure that JFK would not be knocked down thus out of sight for the other teams. Instead , maybe it was thought to paralysis him then he's an easy target for the rifle teams. I propose that this device existed in 1963 and used a paralysising compound in hard ice form. Read the Patent and see the muzzle velocity ( up to 9000 ft/sec) and Fig 8 shows an inpact into 20 mm of plywood. It also had a telescopic sight fitted. US_Patent_6705194_Ice_Bullet_Gun.pdf </q>

May 8, 1963. Hue, South Vietnam. Buddhist protesters crowded around a radio station when two explosions killed eight people. The Catholic Diem regime blamed the Viet Cong; the Buddhists.blamed Diem. From JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass, pgs 130-1: <quote on, emphasis added> Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victim's bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that "the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air," blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies... ...In May 1963, Diem's younger brother, Ngo Dinh Can, who ruled Hue, thought from the very beginning that the Viet Cong had nothing to do with the explosions at the radio station. According to an investigation carried out by the Catholic newspaper, Hoa Binh, Ngo Dinh Can and his advisers were "convinced the explosions had to be the work of an American agent who wanted to make trouble for Diem." In 1970 Hoa Binh located such a man, a Captain Scott, who in later years becamea U.S. military adviser in the Mekong Delta. Scott had come to Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used "an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people at the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device." <quote off>

There's no such thing as a shallow bullet hole in soft tissue type wound. The blood soluble technology was designed to dissolve in the body -- hence shallow wounds in soft tissue. We see references to individual projects ordered up by Special Forces and the CIA group. Since the round is designed to dissolve in the body we can assume it didn't exit. Making up stuff is a big hobby of yours, we know. Which might explain a larger round specifically designed for this job. A larger round would be more stable. So what kind of standard round leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue -- and then disappears? Thrill us with your acumen, Ben.

MKNAOMI didn’t leave a paper trail. In Senseney’s testimony he said the round was coated. As I posted in my first response to you, weapons were built according to specific needs — as well as the “dog” gun that was used frequently. Since there is no paper trail, only a reference to “swarms of projects”, we can’t know all the applications of the technology. All we can know is that standard rounds don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue — blood soluble rounds did.

Was Rocky in on it? The FBI was officially briefed on blood soluble weapons “to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people.”

Why do you assume every application of the blood soluble technology involved a tiny red dot? A common bullet won’t leave a shallow wound in soft tissue, then disappear. Some would be full of it. The FBI was prepped to insist on such.

No shallow wound in soft tissue is consistent with a standard bullet. The abrasion collar you’re referring to is in the Fox 5 autopsy “photo”. A lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

You assume that there was always an operational interest in the human victim not knowing if they were hit. The small entrance wound in the throat is consistent with a dart, So is the light damage in the neck — hairline fracture, broken blood vessels, an air pocket. Totally consistent with a dart. A shallow wound in soft tissue with no bullet recovered is consistent with blood soluble technology. The throat damage and the back wound are far from “bullet sized wounds.”

The FBI knew what offensive capabilities had been developed at Ft. Detrick, but they were officially briefed only on foreign use of MKNAOMI-style technology. 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.

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>

Why don’t you read the links provided? Neither Senseney nor Colby described the rounds as “frozen.” I think that was a colloquial turn of phrase on the part of the writer. I’m not speculating anything. The historical record is there for those open to reading it. If you’re not open to reading those links why are you here? Not necessarily! Some darts induced paralysis— the idea was to silence guard dogs. JFK may have been hit with two paralytics specifically designed for the job. Review the record.

Drawing conclusions prior to investigation again, Ben? 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 You may not realize, Ben, that a lot of different weapons were developed for MKNAOMI. Some involved shellfish toxin, some involved paralytics. Page 169 of Senseney testimony: pg. 169 <quote on> 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> Ben, your challenge here, as always, is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You’re begging the question, assuming the wound was created by a standard round. You asked — “What kind of weapon and/or ammunition do you suppose was used”... What kind of weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue? Dart gun.

Dart weapons developed for the CIA project MKNAOMI at Ft Detrick, MD.

Heat goin’ to the Finals, Mike!

Modern politics should teach us that the keys to messaging are Simplicity and Repetition. The answer to — “A lone assassin killed Kennedy” (simple and endlessly repeated) sure as hell ain’t a 10 minute dissertation on the provenance of C399. Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria hit on the simplest case for conspiracy when Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence and Specter had a blithering breakdown. So I spent 21 years (May ‘97 to May ‘21) endlessly repeating the T3 evidence — the bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. “(W)e all throw up.” ...I’ll never get it — but I’m owed an apology.

In response to questions about his take on the back wound, James wrote: <emphasis added> The questions you ask, I believe, are fundamentally unknowable. They amount to what is, at root, guess work. And people can arrange clever arguments for their side, just as others can arrange clever arguments on their side. You can go as low as the WC and its three shots, Single Bullet Fantasy, or to the other end with Fetzer and his 9-10 shots, where he actually names the assassins. The fundamental problem here is that the autopsy in this case was interfered with. We know that from FInck's testimony at the Shaw trial which was covered up in the press via the work of James Phelan and his after hours snacks at his rented house in New Orleans. Neither the back wound nor the head wound was dissected. Therefore there are some people, like David Lifton for example, who seem to think that the back wound was actually "punched in", it really did not exist. You can make arguments that the back wound was at T 1, T 2, or T 3. In your case, you do not want to agree with the autopsy photos since it counters your argument that is was at T 3. We have all heard this ad infinitum from you: the pics are not properly labeled, they do not have a proper chain of possession etc etc etc until we all throw up. You have been arguing with Pat Speer on this for years on end. He has gotten sick of it; you have not--since your radius of interest in this case is much smaller than his. As per the timing of the back wound, again, how can anyone know for sure? Its guess work. I mean some argue that the last shot is now at Z 328. Was that it? Or did it come much earlier? Strange that you would go after Thompson on this issue. Because he argues in his book that it was at Willis 5. Where he says the shirt is not bunched. I have seen others use a different slide to say that his shirt was bunched. Personally, I really do not have a lot of interest in these kinds of timing and shot sequencing arguments today. There was a period when I did, many years ago. But like latter day Jim Garrison, I kind of look at this as a parlor game today.

Although I remain a critic of several of James DiEugenio’s views on both Cold War and contemporary histories, I’m happy to applaud the 2 hour Stone documentary JFK Revisited for covering the root facts of the JFKA: the shallow T3 back wound, and the throat entrance wound. Since these facts are rarely mentioned within the JFKA Critical Master Class, I think James and Oliver deserve much praise and on-going success.

I wasn’t aware there was a vote taken. A lot of people like to ignore the physical evidence in order to push their pet theories. Reflects poorly on them, not the evidence. What is there to deny? Are *you* denying the bullet holes in the clothes exist? Gaeton Fonzi induced Arlen Specter to have a nervous breakdown when confronted with the clothing evidence back in 1966. You didn’t watch the 2hour Oliver Stone Destiny Betrayed documentary? Right around the 30 minute mark it says JFK had a shallow wound to the right of T3. You’re claiming Stone got it wrong??

It *is* a bone of contention. “Highly unlikely” is not the same as “impossible.” How does that word salad challenge the root facts that JFK suffered a wound of entrance in his throat and a shallow wound right of T3 — facts you actively deny. They put it in a location consistent with T3 and the bullet holes in the clothes. Your prize Fox 5 is clearly a fake. That’s what a dozen witnesses saw. ...Excuse me? How is this an argument? Non-sequitur City... The cover-up supplied 4 different locations for the posterior wound. Rydberg drawing put it around C5/C6; Boswell in his ARRB interview put it at C6; the final autopsy report put it just above the the upper margin of the scapula (T2), and 13+cm below the mastoid process (T1) consistent with Fox 5. None of this followed autopsy protocol. The clothing defects prove it’s a lie. Properly prepared medical evidence proves it’s a lie. The contemporaneous record of 7 witnesses in positions of authority prove it’s a lie. Consensus witness testimonies prove it’s a lie. Proves Fox 5 is a lie, too. They were guessing. Why, why, why do you make such an assumption? There’s no chain of possession for the autopsy photos. They threw 4 locations at the wall hoping something would stick. That you chronically ignore the physical evidence is drool on the floor senseless.

Pure unadulterated bullshed. The single assassin scenario is flat out impossible. According to Pat Speer 15 T3 back wound witnesses got it wrong, a dozen throat entrance wound witnesses got it wrong, and JFK’s clothing moved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality. Pat thinks it’s impossible for the perpetrators of the cover-up to make up contradictory “evidence” even though they were flying blind. Absurd in the extreme.

Where in any of this gibberish is the actual physical evidence taken into account? At 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, the bullet holes in the back of JFK’s clothes prove the shot is impossible. I hate to be a killjoy but this tripe is absurd.