Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
On 4/22/2021 at 3:56 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Drawn conclusions prior to investigation-no. I studied the case in general from about 1984 to 1995 before drawing a conclusion.
You spent about 15 hours a day wearing a shirt, right? Times 365 days and 11 years. That's about 60,000 hours.
At any time during that period did you take 10 seconds out to objectively observe the movement of your shirt when you casually move around?
It's easy. Turn your head to the right, glance down at the fabric on top of your right shoulder, raise your right arm and wave, then watch the fabric of your shirt indent.
Problem is, Tracy, your confirmation bias won't allow you to observe something that's literally under your nose.
On 4/22/2021 at 3:56 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:As for the "First Day Evidence File" I think you should call it the Cliff Varnell First Day Evidence File since not everyone agrees with you.
Sorry Tracy, the First Day Evidence File is common knowledge.
There is nothing to disagree with. You didn't study this evidence 30 years ago and you're sure not going to acknowledge it now.
-
AOC says Biden ‘exceeded’ progressive expectations in first 100 days
https://nypost.com/2021/04/23/aoc-gives-biden-high-marks-for-first-100-days/
Anti-anti-Trump Lefties predicted Biden would be the most conservative Democratic President of the last century.
What are the chances they can admit that so far they're wrong?
-
12 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Drawn conclusions prior to investigation-no. I studied the case in general from about 1984 to 1995 before drawing a conclusion. Since then I specialized in Oswald, his exhumation, the John Armstrong theory and now the Maurice Bishop affair. So things like the single bullet theory or the autopsy are not as fresh in my mind as they used to be. And I am too lazy (and too busy) to research the current arguments just to post here.
As for the "First Day Evidence File" I think you should call it the Cliff Varnell First Day Evidence File since not everyone agrees with you.
No one can factually refute anything I've cited.
Every cold case homicide investigation in history commences with a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered with the body, the contemporaneous written notes of people in position of authority, the verified and authenticated medical evidence, and robust consensus witness statements.
You can't intellectually challenge any of this.
-
6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
You make a very good point. In my defense, I would say that many of the areas touched on by this thread are not my area of expertise.
So you've drawn conclusions prior to investigation.
6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:I have been devoted to studying the life of Oswald until recently when I got sidetracked into a study of the Maurice Bishop affair which I am writing a book on. Time is precious so I don't argue with the CTs as much as I probably should.
How does your determination to remain ignorant of the root facts of the case -- the First Day Evidence File -- lead to the conclusion of a single shooter?
6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:But I have cooked up a big batch of popcorn and I am enjoying it while you dismantle their arguments as Von Pein used to do here before they found a way to get rid of him. Great job sir!
A case study in intellectual dishonesty.
-
36 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
Thanks Cliff. There are some interesting thoughts there and I am not disagreeing but, I’ll play devils advocate on some.
- The opposing argument to JFK looking paralysed would be that he acted perhaps like anyone who was choking or trying to cope with a bullet in the throat / windpipe. There would be blood running down the throat and he’d be trying to breathe/cough. The shock might have prevented him ducking or reacting.
- Thats dead interesting with the dart gun and its range. 100 yards Is the range but, the reliable accuracy must be a lot less if the max range is 100 yards. Where do we think its been fired from? Someone on the street or the drains? Or a range getting towards its max range?https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm
Black Dog Man had a "very distinct straight line feature" "near the region of his hands". BDM was a "conspicuous person" who happened to "disappear the next instant."
If BDM was the throat shot shooter, the round had to have hit the right side of JFK's larynx, deflect down the right side of the trachea, burst blood vessels in the neck, cause a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and leave an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.
Quote- Would lower diameter bullets be more efficient when shooting through reasonably thick glass? Presumably s large round could put the whole windscreen or at least put a larger spiders web style fracturing of the glass around the hole. Does that explain the use of a seemingly different round?
- There are other threads about the angle of deviation when shooting a glass windshield. I can’t verify the truth in it but, some have claimed the angle of deviation is relatively predictable, ie someone skilled could practice it and make allowances for it. The evidence and eye witness accounts seen to indicate it the windscreen hole was passing in through the windshield toward passengers as opposed to exiting the vehicle. I guess the hole angle would indicate that.
That’s probably why I am so on the fence. i suspect those who have stood in Dealey Plaza and walked about a bit would have a clearer idea after looking at the angles etc I was even sat thinking last night along the lines if a ferrous bullet could have been used and removed with a high powered magnet, leaving no incisions where a bullet gad been removed. Over-elaborate I know.
Cheers
Chris
I'll always be on the fence on this issue. The post-mortem fakery angle has been exhaustively studied by Lifton and Horne, while the only name researcher who's looked into the high-tech angle is Greg Burnham.
-
10 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:
I see it differently. Debating the assassination with conspiracy theorists is what John McAdams would want us to do. Doing it in this thread is the best place for that. Pointing out their attempts to poison the well by attacking McAdams himself instead of his arguments is a good place to start.
All the best.
Hank
Yes, McAdams would want people to debate theories and when the nutters can't refute the facts they pretend the facts don't exist.
-
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:
1. I note you reference the autopsy doctors supposed speculation, rather than the autopsy doctors conclusions. (More on this below).
The autopsy conclusions were not contemporaneous.
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:2. If the rounds didn't exit, they had to be going pretty slowly to start with, right? They only had to penetrate, what, about six inches of flesh to exit? Why would bullets just stop in the body?
I've already answered this question in detail.
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:3. The historical record suggests a third possibility, one you don't even mention. The bullet struck JFK's back and exited his throat.
So you think the back of your neck is 4 inches below the bottom of your collar?
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:That's the conclusion of the autopsy doctors, and the conclusion of the HSCA forensic panel that studied the extant autopsy materials in 1978.
Wrong.
"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President. This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath." [1 HSCA 196]
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:I'll go with the experts with over 100,000 autopsies performed between them. What is your medical training?
4. Can you cite in the Sibert / O'Neill FBI report dated 11/26/63 about what they observed at the autopsy where there is any mention of an ice bullet?
I've already posted the source of this information.
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:If this was a court trial of Oswald, couldn't their 11/26/63 memorandum be used to impeach their recollections from 15 years after the fact? Is there any contemporaneous evidence (circa 1963) that there was any speculation about an ice / plastic / frangible bullet? I see nothing of the sort in the historical record.
I posted links to the historical record.
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:5. The historical record (see the S/O memorandum for the record) reflects the doctor's attempt at merging the evidence they had at the time: that the bullet that struck JFK in the back exited out his back and was found on a stretcher at Parkland. Nothing in the historical record about plastic / ice / frangible bullets.
All the best,
Hank
You can't process information that doesn't conform to your bias. Bad beat.
-
Just now, Hank Sienzant said:
== QUOTE ==
1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
Oswald said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting, not outside on the steps. He's on record as saying inside the bulilding. Outside the front door is outside, isn't it? It is where I come from. Or do conspiracy theorists have a different definition of inside and outside?
All the best,
Hank
The spin you put on this stuff must be dizzying.
-
2 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:
Begging the question logical fallacy.
Your assertions are not evidence.
I've confronted Mr. Baker many times with the evidence and he shows no indication he can process the fact that the back of his neck isn't four inches below the bottom of his shirt collar.
2 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:One obvious fact is that the rifle shipped to Oswald's PO Box was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. Do you dispute that obvious fact?
6.5mm FMJ don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.
-
1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:
So ya'll suggesting two magic bullets, then?
What, one wasn't enough for you?
Not my suggestion. It's what the doctors speculated the night of the autopsy.
1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:If JFK was struck with a bullet in the back and another in the front, where'd they exit -- as there were no bullets seen in the full body x-rays at the autopsy.
The rounds didn't exit.
1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:Did they just magically disappear?
The historical record indicates two possibilities -- the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy, or the rounds were high-tech blood soluble.
1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable?
If there were bullets that struck JFK in the back and the throat, why didn't they exit? The bullet that struck Connally went through his trunk, his wrist and into his thigh before apparently falling out onto a stretcher. What kind of bullets struck JFK twice from two different directions and didn't do significant damage? What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable?
All the best,
Hank
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf
<quote on>
Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved not only designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?
Colby: Well, there was an attempt—
Church: Or the dart.
Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.
Church: As a murder instrument, that is about as efficient as you can get, is it not?
Colby: It is a weapon, a very serious weapon.</q>
https://citizentruth.org/cia-heart-attack-gun/
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).</q>
-
49 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:
May I remind you that Oswald said in the hallway, when asked where he was during the assassination, said he was in the building, because he worked in the building?
== QUOTE ==
1st REPORTER : Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : No, sir, I didn't. People keep -- [crosstalk ] Sir?
1st REPORTER : Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : I work in that building.
1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html
This tutorial, is it designed to expose that Oswald lied about his whereabouts during the shooting?
Just curious.
Hank
So if you go to work and you step outside the front door for a minute you're no longer at work?
You're no longer at the site of your employment because you're standing outside the front door?
-
19 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
I have seen your concise and to the point proof a few times and it’s very hard for anyone to argue there wasn’t a conspiracy regarding the shirt hole and wound. Plus all those witnessed at Parkland.
Even though bullets do some peculiar things and theoretical physics can explain some strange things, there is no way one bullet caused all those wounds, and ends up in tact. If you had no Oswald, and gave that case to any impartial detectives, ballistic experts or forensics, there is no way they come up with that scenario, its pure fantasy.
I read the HSCA transcripts (I think) on the shell fish toxins and weapon used to fire them. I am still very much on the fence about whether a) Some high tech stuff was used b) Bullets were removed pre-autopsy (I know that argument rages).On the fence is the place to be, Chris. There are arguments on both sides.
QuoteI certainly can’t explain where the seemingly low calibre round that went in the throat has gone. Could the shallow back round have been retrieved? Could there still be some lead in JFK? Or mercury?
I still think that Alek Hidell YouTube South Knoll simulation is the best scenario I have seen. I keep thinking why the low calibre round and if it was the ice bullet or shellfish toxin, what is the effectiveness and accuracy of a round like that at 100 yards?
From the 1975 Church Committee testimony of William Colby, Director of the CIA.
Church:
Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?
Colby:
We have indeed.
Church:
Does this pistol fire the dart?
Colby:
Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.]
Church:
So that when it fires, it fires silently?
Colby:
Almost silently; yes.
Church:
What range does it have?
Colby:
One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters.QuoteI think that’s the distance to the south knoll bushes, possibly slightly further for the throat shot as it was a little higher up the road. If that came from the grassy knoll, then why the windscreen hole?
I don't know what to make of the t&t windshield defect. I can't imagine anyone planning to put a bullet into the windshield.
My best guess -- errant shot from a nervous shooter.
QuoteThis is what makes it so intriguing.
Do you have a theory on what kind of weaponry and where it came from for the throat shot? Was it off target or was it to subdue.
JFK appears to be paralyzed after the throat shot. What's the simplest explanation for someone acting paralyzed?
QuoteIs that over-elaborate or necessary to subdue him when a skilled marksman could just have taken him out in one go at that range.
No matter how skilled and cold-blooded these shooters had to have been, it's another level of tension when the target is the US President.
What if the first shot only wounds the target and he ducks down?
Scorpion logic -- paralyze the prey first.
-
13 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
That’s true, Cliff. He’s avoided direct questions, filibustered, and ignored some inconvenient truths in the matter.
Funny thing is there'd been no slams on McAdams for over 24 hours when Tracy bailed.
Holding the First Day Fact Pattern up to a nutter is like garlic before vampires.
They want to debate theories. That's a game for losers.
The facts collected in the first 24 hours of the assassination have a unified consistency: two wounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets.
Lots of Pet Theorist "CT"s can't stand these root facts any more than nutters.
-
On 4/16/2021 at 5:09 PM, Richard Booth said:
The censorship is also worrying to me, especially given how overt it has become in just the last two years.
Today, for example, Facebook began preventing people from sharing a story published by the New York Daily News. Admittedly, it was a rather dumb story that essentially excoriated one of the founders of Black Lives Matter for having a few luxurious houses. (Who cares? Good for her.)
Facebook essentially arbitrarily applied one or more of their Community Standards to prevent sharing the story.
Should the State dictate such an arbitrary application of editorial discretion illegal? It's a free speech issue -- the First Amendment guarantees I can post anything I want on a privately owned internet forum?
QuoteThen we have last October when the New York Daily News broke the story on the Hunter Biden laptop. The NY Daily News was censored, then, too--people were prevented from sharing that story and Twitter even suspended the New York Daily News account for it. Again, misleading and arbitrary rules were cited as the reason for censoring the story. I believe that Twitter claimed the story was about "hacked materials", which was false. They later ended up having to apologize for inappropriately censoring the story based on a false premise, meanwhile, the media largely self-censored and refused to cover the story, while falsely asserting that the story was "Russian disinformation" -- mind you, there was no proof of any Russian plot. At the same time Joe Biden claimed on national television that it was a "Russian plot." In reality, the story was damaging to Joe Biden because his son's laptop was filled with pictures of crack smoking, sex with prostitutes, messages about an inappropriate sexual relationship that Hunter had with a minor family member, and emails and messages about inappropriate Chinese influence peddling.
And this outrages you? Why would anyone care about Hunter Biden?
QuoteSo, we have Facebook and Twitter censoring stories based largely on ideological grounds.
Oh?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/tech/facebook-right-wing-misinformation/index.html
QuoteWe have Google and Wikipedia gatekeeping and excluding links, content and search results, and we have an entire generation of students who believe that dissent or critical debate is equivalent with racism, hate, or creating a physically unsafe environment.
Richard, I question your understanding of what today's students think. What do you define as "dissent" -- someone protesting environmental damage, or someone sticking up for the polluters?
QuoteI can only imagine what the debate club (if such exists) in modern schools looks like: "John Doe will be arguing for the position of [Progressive issue] and Jane Doe will be arguing the racist side."
Hmm. You don't know if debate clubs exist but you know what they'd say?
Here's the top 500 HS debate clubs.
https://www.speechanddebate.org/rankings/
QuoteIn saying all this, bear in mind that I am not a Republican nor even conventionally conservative. As an example of that: I believe we should cut our defense spending by more than half, we should have socialized medical care and dental care, and we should have social programs and subsidized assistance available for the elderly and poor, and that JFK and FDR were two great presidents.
Bravo!
QuoteJeff Bezos and Amazon should pay taxes. We need a higher minimum wage. With all the trillions of dollars this country makes we can afford to decimate the waste on weapons of war and instead focus on raising the quality of life for every American, and what's more, we could afford to do that if our defense spending were actually lowered to reasonable level.
I'm with you all the way on all of that.
-
On 4/16/2021 at 4:34 PM, Richard Booth said:
I think it's a little bit of both. The changes that have come with living in the information age have naturally progressed to produce young people accustomed to immediate gratification and at the same time our news media and sources of information have been subject to influence operations.
And this is different from American society in the 1950's -- how?
QuoteThe information age has also provided new ways to manufacture consensus that are probably more effective than the methods employed in the early days of MOCKINGBIRD.
What consensus among the young would that be?
QuoteI see Wikipedia and Google as both subject to censorship, and at once also heavily relied upon by young people as the arbiter of what is truth. Ask a young person how they would find something out and they would tell you to "research it." Ask them what "research" is and they're likely to tell you they would "Google it" or "read the Wiki"
And you don't think a lot of young people have developed a healthy skepticism of what they read on Wikipedia?
The thing about kids today is they have ready access to more than seven decades of post -WW2 anti-establishment youth culture -- the Beats and the Jazz players in the 50's, LSD and anti-war in the 60's, punk rock in the 70's and hardcore punk rock in the 80's and 90's, woke hip hop from the 80's on.
I find boomer researchers far more brain washed than the kids I know.
QuoteAt the same time, we also find a great deal of bogus information and misinformation spread out among the fringe to such an extent that a person who actively seeks out countervailing narratives is incredibly likely to come across bogus information that misinforms them. Those forces who would seek to create bogus alternative narratives--or even controlled opposition--have had 60 years to perfect that art within the JFK assassination community: the mafia did it, Castro did it, the driver shot JFK, the three tramps are x/y/z. Whatever successes, sources and methods have proven a success on that subject are likely readily utilized and expanded upon to poison the well on other subjects.
See LIFE Magazine Nov. 25, 1966 -- "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt"
https://www.originallifemagazines.com/product/life-magazine-november-25-1966/
There is no reasonable doubt about conspiracy. The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound, as Gaeton Fonzi established on June 28, 1966 when he confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence and the author of the SBT suffered a nervous breakdown.
The LIFE Magazine article rehabilitated both Arlen Specter and the SBT while promoting Connally's Z-film conspiracy case.
The Big Lie is the parlor game -- "Answer the Question of Conspiracy"
Micro-analyzing the acoustics, the NAA, the provenance of CE399, the head wound/s and other lesser proofs keep this parlor game going, even tho the researchers have the best intentions!
-
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
I am signing off on this thread because I fear that it is giving too much publicity to the nasty comments about McAdams and I don't want that.
I stopped throwing rocks at a beehive because I didn't want to get stung.
-
The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedyby E. Martin Schotz
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMS.html
-
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Who has unified it?
Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria.
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:Where is it published
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WCTandAS.html
They induced Arlen Specter to have a nervous breakdown over the clothing evidence.
The high water mark of JFKA research: start with the T3 back wound and the fact it's too low to associate with the throat wound. Follow the evidence from there.
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:and have all JFK researchers signed off on it?
The ones who haven't should find another subject to study. Do us all a favor.
-
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
some CTs believe LHO killed JFK as part of a larger conspiracy.
6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.
Oswald had an unchallenged alibi as recorded by FBI SA James Hosty -- he'd gone outside to watch the P. parade.
Like I said, this is a tutorial not a debate.
-
51 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Who has unified it?
Not "who" -- "what."
What's the unified evidence of the T3 back wound? The bullet holes in the clothes, the contemporaneous written notes of a half dozen witnesses in position of authority, the statements of a total of 16 T3 witnesses.
The unified evidence of the throat entrance wound? The contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors, the cervical x-ray, the statements of 14 eye witnesses.
QuoteWhere is it published
The First Day Fact Pattern is common knowledge. Confirmation bias prevents you from processing information that destroys the LN. Bad beat.
Quoteand have all JFK researchers signed off on it?
When the JFKA Critical Master Class finally arrives at a consensus over the T3 back wound I'll stop feeling a barely concealed contempt for the many big-name nay-sayers.
QuoteI can answer that-no because some CTs believe LHO killed JFK as part of a larger conspiracy.
You don't get it. I don't care about theories. Conspiracy theories are for losers!
-
9 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
As I said, he studies conspiracy theories of all types.
So he hasn't spent tens of thousands of hours of study and hundreds of thousands of written words on the JFKA?
Bring him here. I'll discuss the facts of the case, not the theories.
It won't be a debate -- it'll be a tutorial.
-
58 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
That's just silly. I came on to pay my respects on the second post of the thread and then there were 8 consecutive derogatory posts about McAdams. Only then did I engage the individuals.
I haven't said a word about McAdams.
I responded to your challenge.
I did you one better than a unified conspiracy theory -- a unified First Day Fact Pattern.
It's a fact: the night of the autopsy the doctors openly suspected JFK was hit with the kind of high tech weaponry developed for the CIA at Fort Detrick MD.
-
54 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Contrary facts do not disprove a theory. Professional investigators, attorneys etc. know that there will be facts pointing toward a certain conclusion as well as facts that do not seem to confirm it.
There isn't a professional investigator in the world who'd disregard the physical evidence recovered with the body, the contemporaneous written reports of people in position of authority, the consensus eye/ear witness statements, the authenticated/verified medical evidence.
But you ignore all of those things, Tracy.
-
49 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
But epistemological authorities (as Uscinski refers to them) do not agree with you.
No, you're just making up stuff because you have no answer for the First Day evidence.
I don't present any theories, just facts gathered on the First Day.
You have no rebuttal, so you wave your hands.
49 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:It is those authorities that you have to convince-not me or other LNs or even CTs. That will be the thesis of my piece.
I don't have to convince anyone. Either you are capable of making a simple physical observation or you're not.
Confirmation bias is a bitch, ain't it, Tracy?
Wikipedia
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Cliff Varnell
Case in point:
https://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0006.html
Interview With Gaeton Fonzi
8 October 1994
16. In your discussions with Mitchell Livingston WerBell III, did he discuss any of the ultrasophisticated assassination weapons he had developed for the CIA at all? Anything that comes close to Livingstone's reference to "ice bullets" used in Dealey Plaza?
GF: Mitch WerBell discussed almost [everything]. I spent almost a whole day with him up in his farm, as he called it, in Georgia. His training ground for guerrillas. And he covered almost everything. He was half bombed. He had been coming off the wagon and he covered almost everything in terms of questions that I was interested in. I don't recall him saying anything about an ice-bullet. Not at all.
16.a. An ice hatchet? A machete?
GF: (Laughter). </q>
It's hard for silent gen and boomer types to take the ice bullet scenario seriously because of pop culture conditioning.
https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/Athnel_Jones
When Addie Gothorn was found dead in a hotel, Dick Tracy combined efforts with FBI agent Jim Trailer to find the killer. A bullet hole was apparent in the back of Gothorn's head, but there was no bullet to be found.
Soon after, a bellhop at the hotel was killed in the same manner. Athnel's eyeglasses had been found at the scene of the crime, which prompted Tracy to plant Junior in disguise as a bellhop to spy on Jones. After an attempt on Junior's life, Tracy and Trailer broke into Athnel's room. They discovered a refrigeration unit that Athnel used to produce his unique bullets which were made of ice.
Athnel returned to his room and found Tracy and Trailer, who were able to stall Athnel until the ice bullets in his gun melted. Athnel was arrested and his guns were taken to Washington D.C. by Trailer for further study. </q>
From 3 Days of the Condor, the Robert Redford character:
Joe Turner : Ice! The murderer pours water into a .38 caliber mold, freezes it, and keeps it solid until the crime. Then he shoots the guy with the ice bullet. Cops show up, there's just a few drops of water. No bullet, no ballistics.- That's great.
Millennials, on the other hand, grew up on The Matrix and anti-establishment high tech.
This is an anecdote I never tire of re-telling.
I once pointed out to a millennial friend of mine that her generation didn't appear all that interested in the Kennedy assassination.
"That's because they make it so boring," she said, and the subject dropped.
A couple weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to and I said --"Giving people hell about the central question of the JFK assassination." This was in the late summer of 2013.
"What is the central question of the JFK assassination?"
"You don't want to know--"
"No, tell me."
"JFK was shot in the back, there was no exit wound and no bullet found in the autopsy; he was shot in the throat, no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy. The central question is --what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"
She thought for a second, then said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"
"A lot of problems with the autopsy, but that was the situation...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy."
"Or it was some government sh-t that dissolved!" she said with an air of triumph.
About a year later I told this story to another millennial friend of mine and when I got to the line "--some government sh-t that dissolved--" she blurted: "That's what I was gonna say!"