Cliff Varnell

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

But Cliff, the argument that there was a 5 x 16 mm bullet hole (whether it was entrance or exit is a separate issue) at the rear hairline, as attested by the three autopsists and other witnesses and shown with devastating force in Pat Speer's chapter 13, one of the strongest and most significant chapters in Pat Speer, is extremely compelling (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster). 

It is true the autopsists tried to connect that to a head wound exit but that is impossible, and that interpretation of that bullet hole was simply in error. But that does not change the empirical existence of that rear hairline bullet hole at the rear hairline. 

There is no other possible connection to that rear hairline bullet hole than the throat wound. 

And this accounts for the hairline fracture at T1, the air pocket overlaying C7/T1, and JFK holding his fists in front of his throat 6 seconds before the head shot(s)?

T1 is a couple of inches below the hairline.

For all we know JFK may have taken three shots to the head.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Etc etc...

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

I realize that as I have tried to drive around Vegas and Swifties are everywhere.   Go Niners.  

Go Niners!  I like Miley Cyrus way better anyway.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

This is not true. In fact, I have recently posted that the argument for the throat wound's being too small is far greater than the argument for the head wound's being in the wrong place, and I would agree that the argument that the back wound was too low is also a much stronger argument. 

Statements that something "looked like an entrance" after all, are meaningless. What is important is why they thought it looked like an entrance and that is that it was extremely small, and, according to the HSCA, smaller even than the small back wound. 

Now, that's telling. Because the HSCA's Charles Petty wrote a textbook claiming that a wound of such small size should be considered an entrance wound. Now, there are exceptions to this in that a low velocity projectile will often barely escape the skin and leave an extremely small exit wound. 

The hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process could only have been caused by a throat entrance.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

But that only supports the importance of this wound. Whether or not the throat wound was an exit for a slow moving projectile or the entrance of one, is not that important, as both destroy the single-bullet theory and both lead us to the conclusion there was more than one shooter. 

That’s a given.  We need to move beyond the obvious and deal with the root facts: (1) JFK suffered an entrance wound in the soft tissue of his back, with no exit and no bullet recovered during the autopsy.  (2) He suffered a wound of entrance in the soft tissue of his throat, with no exit and no bullet recovered during autopsy.

This wound pattern is inconsistent with conventional firearms.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Now let's circle back to the head wound.

This is where I depart.  I find discussion of the head wound(s) futile.

Hate to tell you, Cory — a lot of nonsense can’t be stopped.

According to Pat Speer, fourteen throat entrance wound witnesses and sixteen low back wound witnesses all got it wrong.

How does that impact calculations?

This subject merits two threads?

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

So you believe that the back shot occurred immediately before the Z313 head shot???

According to Bennett, the bullet holes in the clothes, Willis 5, Betzner 6, and 55 other “bang...bang-bang” ear witnesses.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

Even the altered Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to an apparent back shot at least 87 frames, or 4.75 seconds, before the Z313 head shot. 

So he reacted to a back shot by holding his fists in front of his throat?  Other than the product of your imagination, there is no proof of this at all.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Do you think it's wise to rely so heavily on a single eyewitness recollection?

His account is heavily corroborated, and was initially recorded in writing a few hours after the killing.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think Bennett clearly merged some events and compressed their time frame.

You can produce no evidence supporting what you think.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

There is no way that the back shot came immediately before the Z313 head shot. 

There is no way a pet theorist will get off the scenarios they’ve married.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The back shot would not have been 90 yards away but only about 50-70 yards away from the sixth-floor window. The Z313 head shot would have been 90 yards away.

From the official statement of Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett:

About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. </q>

The back shot occurred “immediately” before the head shot(s).  Bennett’s account is corroborated by the location of the holes in the clothes (4 inches below the bottom of the collars, to the right of midline), Willis 5 @ Z201 (Bennett turned to the right), Altgens 6 @ Z255 (Bennett still facing right but with blurred features, indicating movement), and 55 other “bang...bang-bang” ear witnesses.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

A short shot (misfire) is a possibility. A number of witnesses said one of the shots sounded different from the others.

Utterly absurd.  A short shot traveled roughly 90 yards in swirling wind and missed the head by inches?  Complete nonsense.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Another possibility is that the back wound was made by a large fragment from the bullet that struck the pavement behind JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence.

More nonsense.  Bennett’s account debunks such a scenario.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

@Roger Odisio & @Jeff Carter,

Wow!

Thinking aloud...

It has been my belief for a long time now that the CIA used the Mexico City incident to paint Oswald as being in cahoots with Russia (via Kostikov) and Cuba (via Sylvia Duran's contacts, $6500 payment. etc.) to kill Kennedy for them. Thus setting a pretext for invasion of Cuba or war with Russia, which the generals wanted.

This thing with McGeorge Bundy now has me thinking that the plan signed off by Bundy's group (whoever that is) had no plans of implicating the communists.

I must respectfully disagree, Sandy.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

And that the generals influenced a group of CIA people to piggyback onto the Bundy plot the part about Cuba and Russia being behind the assassination.

But when Bundy's group got wind of the faked evidence pointing to Cuba and Russia, they quickly put the kibosh on that. Bundy's group apparently had no interest in having a conflict with the communists, other than Vietnam, and declared Oswald the lone killer.

 

In my view the Skull & Bones crew (Harriman, Bundy, Daddy Bush and his boy George) pulled the plug on the Commies-Did-It Scenario only because the designated patsy was captured and not killed.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Roger,

Are you sure that McGeorge Bundy's message to Air Force One was that a lone assassin had been arrested? Or could you be confusing that with his saying that there was no communist plot?

The latter is a point that @Cliff Varnell brings up occasionally. Although he attributes the source of that information to Averill Harriman.

This issue is very important IMO.

 

The President Has Been Shot, Charles Roberts  (p. 141) A reporter for Newsweek, Roberts was on AFI and met McGeorge Bundy at Andrews.

<quote on, emphasis added>

I remember looking at (McGeorge) Bundy because I was wondering if he had any word of what had happened in the world while we were in transit, whether this assassination was part of a plot. And he told me later that what he reported to the president during that flight back was that the whole world was stunned, but there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all.

<quote off>

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But I think it is much more likely that @Cliff Varnell got that right. That it was a high-tech melting bullet.

Thank you Sandy, but I need to emphasize the fact it was the autopsists who proposed this scenario with the body in front of them.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

On the  back shot, I think that was a short shot.  

A short shot which traveled 90 yards thru swirling wind and missed the target by inches.

Riiiiiiiiiiight...🥺

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Well I tried to raise your objection for you so you wouldn't have to jump in, but as long as you're here...

I honestly don't remember...From where do you think Burkley got T-3?

From his knowledge of human anatomy gained in medical school.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The bunching nonsense was invented so they could pretend the wound was where it is in the Rydberg drawings. The back wound location in the autopsy photos is not incompatible with the holes in the clothing, however. (although Cliff Varnell will claim otherwise)

This again?  The top of the back is never 4 inches below the bottom of anyone’s clothing collars.

The claim otherwise is fallacious.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

An entrance at T-1 as pushed by the HSCA is however lethal to the SBT, as it places the wound right over the first rib.

Sure, as long as we have JFKA Experts like Pat Speer to micro-analyze the evidence and argue endlessly with Lone Nutters.

Acknowledging the T3 back wound is hard on the Expert Class because it renders so many discussions moot.

Good to see Sandy Larsen and Ron Bulman agree with the autopsists about the possibility of a high tech hit on JFK.

The resistance to this scenario has long puzzled me.  It’s as if the JFKA Critical Community can’t take CIA-Conspiracy for an answer.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

A few points:

-- Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the doctors at Parkland Hospital described a
laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the small wound at the anterior surface of the neck, indicating that the bullet had traveled from the front of the neck to the back (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

Check.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- Autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments in the neck (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 168-170). Custer noted that when he drew attention to the bullet fragments in the C3/C4 area during the autopsy, he was told to “mind my own business” (p. 169).

HSCA:

These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed.  </q>

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- The greatly enlarged tracheotomy wound could indicate that fragments were retrieved from beyond the throat wound during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne, former chief analyst of military records for the ARRB. 

Other than the Stare-of-Death autopsy photo what’s the proof there was a “greatly enlarged tracheotomy?  I’m not challenging the point, just curious.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- Some have suggested that the missile that hit the throat may have been a fragment of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield. 

Glass shows up on x-ray.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- The throat wound was small (3-5 mm), roundish, and, most important, punched inward. Nurse Henchliffe told the WC that the throat wound looked like an entry wound, and that in all her years as a nurse and having seen many gunshot wounds, she had never seen an exit wound that looked like the throat wound.

Check.

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

As Cliff said, welcome Fred.  I've never disagreed with the possibility of what he proposes, the CIA did in fact create multiple interesting weapons.  The back shot really makes me wonder, I don't think a un accounted for bullet fell out in the back seat of the limo or on a gurney in the ER at Parkland after much reading.

I've had thoughts prior to reading this regarding the throat wound though, based on personal experience, statements, and the death stare photograph among other things.  I have a .22 rifle I hunted with in years gone by.  A hollow point bullet will not exit small game.

Small caliber, small entry wound per Dr's at Parkland.

The death stare photograph shows this small wound widened and butchered.  As if someone might have probed for and possibly removed a bullet.  Speculation on my part.   

And the same with the back shot, another shallow wound in soft tissue?

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are quoting a consultant. The HSCA pathology panel ignored or rejected much of what they were told by their consultants, and the HSCA rubber-stamped the conclusions of the panel, and not the consultants. 

 

Here's the panel's conclusion:

"The panel noted a general haziness and poorly defined decrease in radiodensity in the neck tissues just above the right chest cavity in films 8 and 9, and attributed this to interstitial emphysema. This was probably related to the surgical tracheotomy or missile injury to the trachea, followed by positive pressure insufflation, with a slight escape of air into the adjacent tissues. Continued breathing by the President, possible even after the trachea had been perforated by the missile because the overlyng defect was more or less sealed by the shirt and necktie, could also have caused air to leak into the adjacent tissues.”

And yes, I agree, that was a crock of nonsense. 

No challenge of the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process.  There’s only so much smoke they could blow denying the shot from the front.

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

Would the air pocket not be a remnant of the cavitation caused by the passage of the bullet through the neck as per the SBT?

The bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You ask a reasonable question. 

In addition, there was a windshield in front of JFK.

The claim that the wound was caused by a glass shard or a bullet fragment is debunked by the fact glass and metal both show up on x-rays.  There was no glass or metal in JFK’s throat.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Some people posit a midget was hiding in a sewer drain.

JFK's neck wound sure is an oddity. 

Tink Thompson has speculated a bullet fragment, or shard of glass made a wound in JFK's front throat. Or possibly an exiting skull fragment. 

This “speculation” ignores the hairline fracture and airpocket at T1.

Ben Cole is adamantly opposed to the Autopsists Scenario of high tech weapons, so much so he pretends all the throat entrance wound witnesses got it wrong and the cervical x-ray doesn’t exist.

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Are we sure now that the "air pocket" isn't an artifact like the HSCA said?

Are you sure that’s what the HSCA said?

Here’s the HSCA analysis of the cervical x-ray:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed.  </q>

2 hours ago, Fred Dent said:

(I'm new, so please go easy on me...)

After spending hundreds of hours in the JFK vortex as an earnest student of the assassination, there is one question that I cannot seem to find an answer to:

If JFK was shot in the neck/throat from the front, why is there no exit wound in the back of the neck?  Because the neck is a relatively small section of our anatomy, it seems that a bullet would easily pass through and create a visible exit wound.  However, there doesn't seem to be much discussion around this topic that I can find in my searching and reading of the case.  

Perhaps this has been addressed by other researchers.  If so, I would appreciate being pointed to any discussions or articles related to this topic.

Fred Dent

 

 

Hi Fred.  Welcome to the Ed Forum.  You ask a great question.  JFK suffered two entrance wounds in soft tissue with no exits — in his back at the level of his 3rd thoracic vertebra, and in his throat.

No rounds were recovered from those locations during the autopsy.  

The neck x-ray showed a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an airpocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.

No conventional weapon leaves a wound pattern like that.

The autopsists initially speculated JFK was hit in the back with a high tech round which dissolved in the body.  

For reasons that have long been a mystery to me, this Autopsists’ Scenario has been near universally ignored.

The CIA program MKNAOMI employed blood soluble paralytics and toxins.  In my book that’s the starting point of any coherent cold case investigation into JFK’s murder.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Kirk: what's this Gallagher thing?  (Jim's reference to us being the Gallagher Bros.)

 

Cliff: Noel and Liam Gallagher of Oasis.  Jim’s a big early 90’s britpop fan.

Given that Oasis is horribly over-rated, the label is deeply insulting.  I think that’s what Jim was going for. Nice one, Jim!

 

Yes, Cliff, that does sound like sh-t, and that would be a good Jim putdown of us. But it struck me as way too hip.

Jim wasn't making a reference to Oasis.

Of course not.  The chances of Jim knowing about Britpop are nil.  He used to refer to Woodstock as a horrible event.  Pop culture ain’t his jam.

He’s the Oasis of historical research — brittle, whiny and way over-rated.

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

 

Thanks Denny.  Your input is always appreciated.