Cliff Varnell

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

A high tech weapon for the throat & the back wound?

That’s what Humes et al speculated with the body in front of them.

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

IMHO the bullets were removed prior to autopsy.This work was not completed by Dr Humes or Boswell.

That’s a live scenario.  But it leaves a question hanging — what weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Typical.

 

"The bullet hit the back but only entered a couple inches in the soft tissue.  No, I can't support my silly nonsense but conspiracy authors said it, so..."

 

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?

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Educate this man Cliff.

Humes probed the wound with his finger & the wound was also probed with a stainless steel probe without success.

*In my mind,this bullet was removed pre autopsy at a funeral home other than O'Neil's.

**This funeral home is where the Secret Service got the black hearse to transport the body in a shipping casket.

That is a possible scenario.

My question is what round creates such a shallow wound?

2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

After all,a shot in the back is not a kill shot.Something happened,maybe a short shot.

Or a paralysis shot — scorpion logic.

Or a blood soluble toxin.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

I state an obvious fact we agree upon and you try to turn it into a bone of contention. 

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Remember all JFKA researchers (LN or CT):  When faced with a welter of clues, you are obligated to form rigid, resolute, unbending convictions, then chisel your sacred insights into granite at your homesteads. 

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Am I allowed to look at the Altgens photo first, and then rely on my pretty solid understanding of resolution in photos? 

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.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

. I'll give you a CT myth. Many have argued and continue to argue that it would be impossible for ALL the Parkland witnesses to be wrong, etc. 

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you believe you see a shooter in the Altgens photo? 

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

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PS-

One problem I have always had with the JFK throat shot---where was the shooter? What about the limo front window? 

BTW, I believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action, could not have fired the shots as rapidly as seen in the Z-film, or heard by many witnesses (the bang...bang-bang).

I am open from a shot from the GK-pergola area, though hardly necessary to prove a conspiracy. There was, at least, an intentional likely diversionary smoke-and-bang show there. 

But a shot from the front? Where? How? 

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Are you positively concluding, before pondering the matter, that Boris Badanov was not involved with a Russian frozen dart that was fired 100 meters into the wind at a moving target, likely at a subsonic speed, and then penetrated two inches into JFK (through two layers of clothing), and then disappeared? 

I’ve presented my research.  You can’t make a counter argument so you make faces.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If you look at the Altgens photo...you have nearly the proof you need....

I’ve presented a variety of proofs indicating that blood soluble weapon technology existed in different applications.

All that leaves you is contentless dismissals.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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. --CV

Steve Kober wrote that.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The (correx spelling) Altgens photo has all this? That is amazing. 

Was Boris Badanov bearded? If not, probably the type to have a heavy 5 o'clock shadow like a beard. 

Such are the dangers of marrying a conclusion prior to investigation.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

No. You're cherry-picking my comment.

No, you’re assuming the wound was caused by a conventional bullet — an assumption that cannot be made.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

First, we were talking about bullets (or, at least I was).  Second, what happened to this mysterious dart?  It evaporated?  It was made of ice?  C'mon man.

 

The technology existed.  The night of the autopsy, Humes et al seriously entertained the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon.

Lead a horse to water...

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/2c/f1/b7f57725cf38b1/US6705194.pdf

See Example 4 on page 8.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, that is assuming the hole in JFK's back was only two inches deep. Even so the CIA dart-gun explanation seems to lack credibility. 

It runs counter to your pet theory, that’s all.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Even the two-inch deep wound is a shaky premise. 

So what kind of weapon leaves a shallow wound then disappears?

Talk about shaky!

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You have never come back with a cite, along the lines of, "Pathologist Bill Smith has done hundreds of gunshot probes. He says he never found a bullet wound he could not probe to conclusion or exit from the body." 

No, I’ll leave the fiction to you.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If you find that, then maybe we can move from problem number one. 

Or, "Pathologist Bill Smith has probed hundreds of gunshot wounds, and says in some fraction of cases the probe cannot probe the wound to conclusion. Body organs shift, closing off the wound." 

At best Finck was lightly experienced at probes, and Hume a rank amateur. They worked under harried, hurried conditions, lost control of procedures, answered orders barked from a viewing gallery, terminated procedures on demand.

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>

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Where in the literature is there a reference to the CIA dart gun leaving a shallow bullet-hole like wound?

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We see references to tiny red dots, but nothing of a type of dart that leaves a two-inch deep hole in a human body, large enough to stick a finger into.

We see references to individual projects ordered up by Special Forces and the CIA group.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You keep asserting that a "blood soluble" round leaves a two-inch deep hole (or so) does...but is there any evidence of that? 

Since the round is designed to dissolve in the body we can assume it didn't exit.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If your answer is, "well, no a paper trails"....

Such a dart-round must have been fired at 75 yards or so, minimum. And yet the speed of such as shot is unknown...but likely very slow, compared to a 30.06. That means there would be quite a bit of drop in the shot. 

Making up stuff is a big hobby of yours, we know.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

A very and fragile light projectile, that could not withstand much propulsive power, and without structural integrity to leave anything to be found...fired at a moving target...into a wind....

Which might explain a larger round specifically designed for this job.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You think that is what happened? And then this light projectile dart disintegrated in JFK's body but left a permanent two-inch deep hole in his back (after passing through a coat and shirt), a hole large enough to stick a finger into? 

A larger round would be more stable.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Seems to me a few laws of physics might be challenged here.

 

So what kind of standard round leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue -- and then disappears?

Thrill us with your acumen, Ben.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What is the speed of a poisoned dart? Do you have even a guess? 

MKNAOMI didn’t leave a paper trail.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If the poisoned dart had no physical shell, how did the dart maintain integrity as it was initially propelled, and then went through the air?

In Senseney’s testimony he said the round was coated.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Did a shell fall off in flight? 

Could such a dart, just some sort of frozen or semi-soft mass, be fired only at slow speeds?

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Is there any evidence to exclude Boris Badinov and Natasha as suspects, using poisoned darts, in the death of JFK? 

Was Rocky in on it?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What evidence do you have the FBI was prepped to imply Russians shot JFK with a poisoned dart? 

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

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But the diameter of JFK's back wound was larger than a "tiny red dot."

Why do you assume every application of the blood soluble technology involved a tiny red dot?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Average-sized diameter for a common bullet. 

A common bullet won’t leave a shallow wound in soft tissue, then disappear.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

And what is the speed of a CIA-designed poison dart? 

Some say the CIA lifted the poisoned dart technology from the KGB. 

Some would be full of it.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you think it is possible Cubans or Russians shot JFK with poisoned darts? Why not? 

The FBI was prepped to insist on such.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you have any estimate at all at the speed of the poison darts as they travelled through the air? 

The JFK back wound was a bullet-sized wound, and even had an abrasion collar, no? Is that even disputed? 

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I read the two links, searching for darts. 

The CIA emphasis appeared to be on darts so small that a human victim would not even know he was struck.

You assume that there was always an operational interest in the human victim not knowing if they were hit.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

Makes sense, since the maximum range was only 100 yards. 

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There appears to be a mismatch with what is known about the size and wounds left by the CIA poison darts on humans, and the wounds on JFK's body. 

A shallow wound in soft tissue with no bullet recovered is consistent with blood soluble technology.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You have not provided any evidence to links suggesting CIA poison darts left bullet-sized wounds on a human. 

 

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.