There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

[Cliff Varnell]

I have presented prima facie visual evidence that the hole in the throat could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front, and I absolutely stand by that.

Ashton, there is no chain of possession for this "prima facie visual evidence."

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed this "prima facie visual evidence" denies having developed it.

This P.F.V.E. was not prepared according to autopsy protocol.

HSCA vol 7

<quote on>

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

<quote off>

The autopsy photos are worthless.

Perhaps you have proven that a frontal shot could not have created the throat wound seen in the autopsy photos -- but that is the extent of it.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The fruit of MKNAOMI?

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

"Say hello to my little friend"

[Tom Hume]

Hi Cliff,

If I understand you correctly, you think a small caliber weapon was fired from the front and struck Kennedy above the shirt-collar. Do you have an opinion about where the shooter was located?

Tom

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi Cliff,

If I understand you correctly, you think a small caliber weapon was fired from the front and struck Kennedy above the shirt-collar. Do you have an opinion about where the shooter was located?

Tom

The throat damage suggests a slight left to right trajectory.

I hesitate to go beyond that.

I used to think Black Dog Man was a suspect shooter, but Robert Prudhomme convinced me BDM was too far to the right...unless the round deflected off the right side of the trachea, ending up overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.

I can't say how plausible that scenario may be.

[Jon G. Tidd]

The autopsy photos are worthless except that they contradict the Dox and Rydberg drawings, statements of many medically-trained observers, and IMO the right lateral x-ray.

[Ray Mitcham]

Hi Cliff,

If I understand you correctly, you think a small caliber weapon was fired from the front and struck Kennedy above the shirt-collar. Do you have an opinion about where the shooter was located?

Tom

The throat damage suggests a slight left to right trajectory.

I hesitate to go beyond that.

I used to think Black Dog Man was a suspect shooter, but Robert Prudhomme convinced me BDM was too far to the right...unless the round deflected off the right side of the trachea, ending up overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.

I can't say how plausible that scenario may be.

A shot from the drain outlet would work. And it would be easier with a pistol than a rifle from there.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Tom Hume]

Hi Ray,

I see from your other posts on this thread that you are open to the notion of a airgun/gas-gun/pellet-gun shot from the front. Below is a link to Cliff’s thread, “Halliwell’s cat’s paw” from three months ago. I think this is a fascinating topic (apparently others do too) and I wonder if there’s something more to be learned here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22415&hl=%20kennedy's%20%20throat

Edited February 4, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Sandy Larsen]

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

. . .

Non-Projectile Scenarios

1. Ashton's Theory: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt ,and nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.

There is no "Ashton's Theory," so please remove any and all such claims.

At no time did I posit any "theory" on this subject. I have in good faith attempted to answer questions about what COULD have caused the hole in the throat, the slits/holes in the shirt, and the nick in the tie that was NOT a projectile from the front, because I emphatically and repeatedly have stated that the throat wound could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. I have presented prima facie visual evidence that the hole in the throat could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front, and I absolutely stand by that.

I further will state emphatically and repeatedly that the holes/slits in the shirt, and the nick in the tie, also could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. And I absolutely stand by that.

I do not carry the burden of supplying a "theory" of who or what DID cause any it.

So please don't feed the trolls using my name with false claims about what I have said. I will speak for myself. If you want to claim I've said something, use the QUOTE function and quote me. Thanks.

Ashton

Ashton,

Are you angry with me for using the word "theory" as opposed to "hypothesis," or "idea," or "presentation?"

Are you angry with me regarding any of the other things you state above?

[Sandy Larsen]

I would like to believe that the throat wound was inflicted by a small caliber bullet, located above the collar, and the slits in the shirt and the nick in the tie were caused by a scalpel used to remove the necktie. Adequate support exists for each piece of the total puzzle of the throat wound. This IMO is the least complex scenario that covers all evidence as it exists today.

Hmmm... but did you take into account the fact that the real wound would have had to be covered up in the autopsy photos? And a gash made at a lower location? That's not exactly a trivial matter.

If you hadn't hacked off this IMPORTANT part of the post where I said: "Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it." you wouldn't be asking that question. This is one of the MANY reasons I don't EASILY commit to a scenario. People make comments like this just to accuse you of missing something. I SAID there was STRONG EVIDENCE against it. Did you EVEN read the post????

Yes, of course I read your post. I'm sorry that what I asked upset you. At the time I read your "strong evidence against it" comment, I didn't know what you were referring to. And by the time the cover-up issue popped into my head, I had forgotten about your "strong evidence against it" comment. It hadn't sunk in. I'm only human after all.

That's you're go to excuse "you're only human." Yes, you're human alright. One of the more careless humans that posts here without thinking.

Do you feel better now, Tom? Now that you've put me down for being what I am?

Do you do the same with people who aren't as smart as you expect them to be?

Or as healthy as you expect them to be?

Or as well off as you expect them to be?

etc.?

I suggest you put some thought into this.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy Larsen said: "I trust photos more than I do a person who sees something in person but doesn't take measurements or study it."

And that is why your assertions are useless.

You see two LARGE holes in a bad photo, ....

I have never said the holes are large. But I have called them "holes/slits."

....and yes I've seen that photo for years, it is another high-contrast B&W photo in which black blood stains appear to be dark holes. You have know altered these large holes into 2mm holes to fit your theory.

I have never claimed these holes to be 2 mm in size.

I've done nothing to fit "my theory." Because I as yet have not settled on a theory. And in fact, I include in my list of potential theories the one you "would like to believe" because it is the "least complex scenario" (in your opinion).

Of course all scientists reject first-person examination of evidence in favor of poor photographs. That IS a poor photograph. IF it isn't tell how many loose threads you see and give their precise location.

I could do that. Do you think my count and locations would be worse than Dr. Mantik's, which he would have to recall from his memory of seeing the shirt? I don't think so. And that is my whole point. The information he relayed is merely his opinion based on seeing the shirt.

How many shadows are actually bloodstains and vice versa?

You are of course basing this on statements from Mantik that he took NO measurements at any time? Presumably this is another one of your unfailing assumptions.

Until somebody points out where Dr. Mantik published his data or the interpretation of his data, or some other convincing citation, I will continue to assume that he took no such measurements and performed no such study. Just the same as I do when anybody else states something without providing data or studies to back it up.

Of course without measurements Mantik can't determine that there is no fabric missing.

You posted two pictures with OBVIOUS holes in the middle of slit fabric, and that is your PROOF that a bullet can make a slit WITHOUT a hole.

I didn't claim anything of the sort. (Jeez, you have a lot of nerve calling ME careless with my posts. Kettle/black.)

You said "If you can find an example where an exiting or entering bullet left a round hole in the body and a slit in the shirt, I would REALLY like to see it. And so I showed you a picture of a slit in a shirt caused by a bullet. (Plus a second picture showing a slit in a jacket.) You didn't say the picture had to have no hole. The hole part didn't occur to me because I didn't make the claim you're attributing to me. You're the one putting words in my mouth about slits without holes being caused by bullets.

(Though certainly a slit in fabric can be made without making a hole... that is, without taking away much fabric. For example with a sharp pointed object. Like, perhaps, a bone fragment shaped that way.)

My position is that bullets and projectiles can make slit-like holes in fabric. And if conditions are right, a projectile can take away little fabric. It's as simple as that.

Sandy Larsen said: "I figured it was bound to come to this. Because I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes. I can and do accept that possibility."

And you can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes.

For a moment, let's assume it is true that I can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. I ask myself, what is your point in stating that here? I'll tell you what I believe. I believe it's because you consider what I said above ("I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes.") was meant to belittle you or your belief. Because I've noticed that you easily take offense.

If that is what you belief, then I want you to know that that was not my intention at all when I said that. I was just making an observation. Just like the observation I made that Robert at one time was stuck on the idea that the tie knot really had six icons per row. These are nothing but observations on my part, with absolutely no belittling intended.

Having pointed that out.... the truth is than I CAN accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. (That is, projectile holes in the shirt near the top button.) And I prove that by pointing out that my list of possibilities includes such scenarios.

Pot calls kettle black. I accept "no holes" and reject "holes". You accept "hole" and reject "no holes." I accept the former and you accept the latter. In your universe, you are a bigger person than I, because you "can accept" the "holes" theory. Now there's logic fit to make Spock cry.

LOL, I was right... no surprise. You do take offense easily, Tom. (Please note that that this statement is just an observation, not meant to demean you. Everybody has their own peculiar mannerisms.)

Ashton has made the same complaint that I have - you are attaching my name to a statement that you misquote when as Ashton said you could have cut and pasted. Like Ashton you present what I stated was a POSSIBLE theory because it had LARGE PROBLEMS as MY theory.

You pointed it out and I fixed it. Why make a big deal of it? I'll do the same for Ashton.

I haven't bothered to proof read this post to you. Any mistakes I made are perfectly acceptable to you...

That's right. Because I'm not the type of person who makes a big deal about people's mistakes. I will politely correct them, if it's important. But I don't make it personal.

....because I too am only human. So for once post no complaints!!!

I make innocent observations. You take them as a complaints. There's not much I can do about that.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I have presented prima facie visual evidence that the hole in the throat could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front, and I absolutely stand by that.

Ashton, there is no chain of possession for this "prima facie visual evidence."

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed this "prima facie visual evidence" denies having developed it.

Thanks for quoting that, Cliff. I was unaware of this important piece of information.

[Sandy Larsen]

Version: 6 Date: 2/3/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 7 Date: 2/4/16

Below The Collar Line

1. A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.
2. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat.

Common Notes:

• The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile.
• The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left side of the knot, as reported by the FBI, then it could not have been made by the projectile. (Because in that case the nick would be higher than the shirt holes, due to the knot's structure.) Note, however, that if by "JFK's left" the FBI meant the left side of the front of the knot, that would mean the the nick was unrelated to the wound. (This may be the case as there is extant a photo showing the nick in that very position. Though it is unknown to us if the knot shown is the original knot.) It was unrelated to the wound because the trajectory could not include the knot.
• According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with these scenarios. It shows an air pocket at C7/T1. On the other hand, Jerrol Custer thought the x-ray is fake. (Was he the one who saw bullet fragments or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities.

Above The Collar Line

1. A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

Common Notes:

• There seems to be no explanation for the two holes/slits in the shirt or the nick in the tie.
• The true neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place.

Non-Projectile Scenarios

1. Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Theory Hypothesis: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt ,and possibly nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.

Useful Animated GIF

(Posted by Ashton Gray years ago. Note that I

believe the arrow should be lowered by about

1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to

carefully check this first.)

[Tom Neal]

Sandy Larsen said: "I trust photos more than I do a person who sees something in person but doesn't take measurements or study it."

And that is why your assertions are useless.

You see two LARGE holes in a bad photo, ....

I have never said the holes are large. But I have called them "holes/slits."

....and yes I've seen that photo for years, it is another high-contrast B&W photo in which black blood stains appear to be dark holes. You have know altered these large holes into 2mm holes to fit your theory.

I have never claimed these holes to be 2 mm in size.

I've done nothing to fit "my theory." Because I as yet have not settled on a theory. And in fact, I include in my list of potential theories the one you "would like to believe" because it is the "least complex scenario" (in your opinion).

Of course all scientists reject first-person examination of evidence in favor of poor photographs. That IS a poor photograph. IF it isn't tell how many loose threads you see and give their precise location.

I could do that. Do you think my count and locations would be worse than Dr. Mantik's, which he would have to recall from his memory of seeing the shirt? I don't think so. And that is my whole point. The information he relayed is merely his opinion based on seeing the shirt.

How many shadows are actually bloodstains and vice versa?

You are of course basing this on statements from Mantik that he took NO measurements at any time? Presumably this is another one of your unfailing assumptions.

Until somebody points out where Dr. Mantik published his data or the interpretation of his data, or some other convincing citation, I will continue to assume that he took no such measurements and performed no such study. Just the same as I do when anybody else states something without providing data or studies to back it up.

Of course without measurements Mantik can't determine that there is no fabric missing.

You posted two pictures with OBVIOUS holes in the middle of slit fabric, and that is your PROOF that a bullet can make a slit WITHOUT a hole.

I didn't claim anything of the sort. (Jeez, you have a lot of nerve calling ME careless with my posts. Kettle/black.)

You said "If you can find an example where an exiting or entering bullet left a round hole in the body and a slit in the shirt, I would REALLY like to see it. And so I showed you a picture of a slit in a shirt caused by a bullet. (Plus a second picture showing a slit in a jacket.) You didn't say the picture had to have no hole. The hole part didn't occur to me because I didn't make the claim you're attributing to me. You're the one putting words in my mouth about slits without holes being caused by bullets.

(Though certainly a slit in fabric can be made without making a hole... that is, without taking away much fabric. For example with a sharp pointed object. Like, perhaps, a bone fragment shaped that way.)

My position is that bullets and projectiles can make slit-like holes in fabric. And if conditions are right, a projectile can take away little fabric. It's as simple as that.

Sandy Larsen said: "I figured it was bound to come to this. Because I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes. I can and do accept that possibility."

And you can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes.

For a moment, let's assume it is true that I can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. I ask myself, what is your point in stating that here? I'll tell you what I believe. I believe it's because you consider what I said above ("I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes.") was meant to belittle you or your belief. Because I've noticed that you easily take offense.

If that is what you belief, then I want you to know that that was not my intention at all when I said that. I was just making an observation. Just like the observation I made that Robert at one time was stuck on the idea that the tie knot really had six icons per row. These are nothing but observations on my part, with absolutely no belittling intended.

Having pointed that out.... the truth is than I CAN accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. (That is, projectile holes in the shirt near the top button.) And I prove that by pointing out that my list of possibilities includes such scenarios.

Pot calls kettle black. I accept "no holes" and reject "holes". You accept "hole" and reject "no holes." I accept the former and you accept the latter. In your universe, you are a bigger person than I, because you "can accept" the "holes" theory. Now there's logic fit to make Spock cry.

LOL, I was right... no surprise. You do take offense easily, Tom. (Please note that that this statement is just an observation, not meant to demean you. Everybody has their own peculiar mannerisms.)

Ashton has made the same complaint that I have - you are attaching my name to a statement that you misquote when as Ashton said you could have cut and pasted. Like Ashton you present what I stated was a POSSIBLE theory because it had LARGE PROBLEMS as MY theory.

You pointed it out and I fixed it. Why make a big deal of it? I'll do the same for Ashton.

I haven't bothered to proof read this post to you. Any mistakes I made are perfectly acceptable to you...

That's right. Because I'm not the type of person who makes a big deal about people's mistakes. I will politely correct them, if it's important. But I don't make it personal.

....because I too am only human. So for once post no complaints!!!

I make innocent observations. You take them as a complaints. There's not much I can do about that.

That's right, Sandy. Change my statements just enough to make it APPEAR that you are answering when in fact you only are evading.

Do you make excuses for yourself automatically, or do you actually have to think about it?

[Tom Neal]

Do you feel better now, Tom? Now that you've put me down for being what I am?

Do you do the same with people who aren't as smart as you expect them to be?

Or as healthy as you expect them to be?

Or as well off as you expect them to be?

etc.?

I suggest you put some thought into this.

Now you're a psychiatrist, too?

I felt fine before, and I feel fine now, Dr. Larsen.

But you OTOH must be feeling QUITE guilty Dr. Larsen, to come up these 'questions'. Possibly you were looking in a mirror when you wrote them.

If I disagree with you, obviously it's MY problem alone, therefore I MUST treat the entire world that way, because the idea that you are responsible for your careless action could not be attributed to you.

I suggest you think about this - don't foist your issues onto others, grow up and OWN it. Using your go-to response "I'm only human" is not owning it. It's saying what I did is OK because no one is perfect, but you use it to excuse behavior that is easily correctable and the average person does not do.

THIS IS THE LAST RESPONSE I WILL POST REGARDING YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS.

IT IS OT AND HINDERS THE PROGRESS OF THIS THREAD.

[Ashton Gray]

The fruit of MKNAOMI?

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

Cliff, you have surprised me before with your persistence on a dead-end path, but I have to say that you have gobsmacked me by trotting out that weary old "cough up a bullet" hack job video that goes coughing and hacking through Fantasy World.

Here, in pertinent part, is the response I posted in this very thread over eight years ago, on 23 October 2007. It was my response then, and it is my response now:

==========BEGIN ORIGINAL RESPONSE========

Well, I guess it's only fitting that such snake-handling faith-based front-shot fervor would be the work product of somebody named "Jesus."

...The G. Jesus Hairball Cough-Up video is garbage. The only reason I'm responding to this nonsense at all is an attempt to keep any more people from falling into the endless punji pits dug by the "Front Shot Faithful."

Gil Jesus didn't bother to look past what he wanted to see, and is too damned blinded by religious zeal to notice that at all relevant times in the little snippet of the Zapruder film that he latched onto like a snapping turtle and wouldn't let go of, Kennedy's tie is hidden by the right side of his coat as a result of his right arm being held up high, as, e.g., Zapruder 237 shows:

And, as night follows day—while Front Shot Faithful hold hands and sing "I Shall Not Be Moved" and two choruses of "He Was Clutching at His Throat"— the continuity of the film, once Kennedy's right arm comes down and the right side of the coat is no longer blocking the view of the tie, proves conclusively to anybody who gives a tinker's dam about the truth that the tie, at all relevant times, has been sitting right where it would be expected:

I'm not responding to any more of this junk. If anybody wants to discuss any rational aspects of the evidence, let me know.

Meanwhile, I've made my record.

==========END ORIGINAL RESPONSE========

It certainly seems that you and Jesus didn't bother to notice that JFK has his coat buttoned in the limousine:

It's an utterly crucial fact that accounts precisely for the way the front edges of the coat "billow" out as he raises his arms. Ignoring such crucial details is sloppy to the point of— Well, to the point of a Gil Jesus video claiming that JFK was trying to cough up a hairball. I mean, a bullet.

As for the Senseney testimony, I'm very familiar with it, Cliff. In fact, it gets its own mileage in my book Watergate: The Hoax.

Now that you've "opened the door" on it, though, I'm going to ask you a very specific question, and I'd like you to simply answer this question directly and honestly, if you can, without three pages of irrelevantly quoted bloviation:

IF the CIA (or any tentacle of the "intelligence" gang of the U.S.) had indeed developed some sort of Top Secret delivery system for a powerful toxin, designed to be used against a human being, is it your considered and sober opinion that they MOST LIKELY would have deployed it:

A. Out in broad daylight with hundreds of people looking on, OR,

B. In the hands of a trained medical professional inside a medical facility, with that medical professional having known and cleared access to the target individual?

A or B, Cliff?

I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting your pithy answer.

Ashton