Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Cliff Varnell]

One day General Ed Lansdale came to Fletcher's office and he was all excited about something. He began to "pitch" this new flechette dart weapon system and was beside himself with glee, according to Prouty. He was accompanied by another man who demonstrated how it worked. It could be fired from a fountain pen, a book, an umbrella, a walking stick (cane), a modified Colt .45, and perhaps other delivery systems that had yet to be developed. The demonstration was impressive as the dart, powered by solid rocket fuel, instantly accelerated to a very high speed and embedded into the wall of his office. Prouty told me: "Lansdale was like a kid in a candy store." Lansdale convinced Prouty to fly with him in a chopper that he had waiting outside in order for it to be demonstrated at a more suitable location.

The next demonstration convinced Prouty that this was, indeed, one of the most effective weapons he'd seen. An "operator" fired the dart (I don't remember the delivery system used) at a goat that was approximately 50 yards away and it literally blew the entire hind quarter (including leg and hip) off--obliterating it. Needless to say the Agency got their funding to ostensibly "develop a system" that, in reality, they already had proved was 100% successful before they had even requested the money.

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove

http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false

John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee.

Monk and Mike, thanks for the postings.

I find the breathless enthusiasms of Ed Lansdale and S. David Pursglove striking. They come off like little kids with new toys they can't wait to play with.

I don't know if blood soluble flechettes were used on JFK, but the possibility certainly existed. It's clear that the technology had been well tested prior to the fall of 1963.

This scenario is consistent with the autopsists theory of a round that "dissolves after contact,", and consistent with the neck x-ray and JFK's 2-second paralysis in the limo. And it's far less "far-fetched", imo, than the more extreme body alteration theories.

The way I see it, the evidence is clear that JFK was struck in the back in the vicinity of T3, the wound was shallow and did not exit, and no bullet was recovered. JFK was shot in the throat from the front, the round did not exit, and no bullet was recovered.

Near as I can figure it out, that leaves two possibilities: either JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds in the back and throat, or there was pre-autopsy surgery on the throat and back in order to remove those rounds.

The latter scenario has many more problems than the former, imo. While body alteration per se is not a "theory" -- it's mentioned in the FBI autopsy report, after all -- the kind of extensive alteration required to remove bullets from the back and neck strikes me as much more "far-fetched" than the autopsists theory of blood soluble rounds.

Another problem with the body alteration theory is that both the back and throat shots had to have missed their target -- JFK's head -- and both must have been defective "short-shots."

If there are other possibilities to explain how JFK had two entrance wounds with no exits and no bullets recovered, I'm all ears.

[David Josephs]

One day General Ed Lansdale came to Fletcher's office and he was all excited about something. He began to "pitch" this new flechette dart weapon system and was beside himself with glee, according to Prouty. He was accompanied by another man who demonstrated how it worked. It could be fired from a fountain pen, a book, an umbrella, a walking stick (cane), a modified Colt .45, and perhaps other delivery systems that had yet to be developed. The demonstration was impressive as the dart, powered by solid rocket fuel, instantly accelerated to a very high speed and embedded into the wall of his office. Prouty told me: "Lansdale was like a kid in a candy store." Lansdale convinced Prouty to fly with him in a chopper that he had waiting outside in order for it to be demonstrated at a more suitable location.

The next demonstration convinced Prouty that this was, indeed, one of the most effective weapons he'd seen. An "operator" fired the dart (I don't remember the delivery system used) at a goat that was approximately 50 yards away and it literally blew the entire hind quarter (including leg and hip) off--obliterating it. Needless to say the Agency got their funding to ostensibly "develop a system" that, in reality, they already had proved was 100% successful before they had even requested the money.

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove

http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false

John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee.

Excellent link Michael.... that weapon is very similiar to the 2004 patent application for the "ice" bullet gun earlier in this thread... even to the point that "multiple straws can be used"... except the new gun actually creates the slug as part of the process....

Bottom line - To dismiss technological solutions that appear "impossible" in present day is somewhat narrow minded imo....

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Pat Speer]

Cliff: Vince Bugliosi and John McAdams put the wound at T1. That should tell you something.

Pat: It tells me you're more obsessed with being arbitrary than being correct.

This tells me you have no rebuttal.

Yeah, they SAY it's at C7/T1,

No, T1 works for them both.

but they then turn around and claim it was WELL above the throat wound, which means they think the throat wound was around T3--which puts it pretty much on the sternum. ALL one needs to do to destroy their defense of the SBT is to accept the wound was at T1 or even C7/T1 and then point out that THEY have moved the throat wound to an impossible location to fit their wacky theory.

So what if T1 doesn't work for the SBT, how is that an argument for the wound being at T1?

Once the T3 back wound is pointed out, the discussion of trajectory is over. There is no need for Pat Speer and David Mantik to thrill us with their acumen and explain why the T1 location doesn't work for the SBT.

We know that without un-necessary explication.

Pat, you refuse to face the actual physical evidence, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical evidence -- why?

Because your pet theory destroys the SBT? So what? Who cares about what your theory is if you can't support it with facts?

Your claiming that the wound was at T3,

Stop.

This is where the rabbit hole express ends.

It is not my claim that the wound was at T3, Pat. That is where the bullet defects in the clothing put it, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documentation including the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death certificate, and the FBI autopsy report.

All you can cite for your case are: improperly produced, obviously deficient autopsy photos for which there is no established chain of possession; two different locations for the back wound listed in the final autopsy report, neither location properly recorded; and measurements recorded in pen on the autopsy face sheet.

According to proper autopsy protocol the face sheet needed to be filled out in pencil.

That portion of the face sheet that was properly recorded in pencil was the T3 or lower dot on the posterior figure in the diagram, which was signed off in pencil as "verified."

The properly prepared medical evidence corroborates the consensus witness testimony and the physical evidence of the clothing defects

Pat, the fact that John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy that was covered-up at the highest levels of the US Government doesn't appear to have informed your analyses.

But go ahead, as you were saying?

Your claiming that the wound was at T3, however, creates the impression it is YOU who is moving the wounds around to debunk their theory, and lets them off the hook in the eyes of those not convinced by your claim.

Excuse me? This makes absolutely no sense, Pat. Who cares what impression I make?

What do I have to do with the facts of the case? If people lack the ability to discern the difference between properly prepared evidence and improperly prepared evidence -- who cares? It's not my problem.

Pointing out the obvious doesn't leave anyone off the hook. You let Nutters off the hook by buying into their high back wound nonsense, and by YOUR obsessive championing of the "obviously deficient" autopsy photos.

But you and I have noting to do with the historical facts of the matter. You don't appear concerned with historical fact at all, but rather with the rhetorical back and forth with your Nutter adversaries.

Cliff: So why, Pat, do you parade this trash like its Macy's on Thanksgiving?

Pat: Because, like it or not, many people are convinced CTs are wacky, and I delight in showing them instances where our "wackiness" is not only supported by the official record, but where it is LNs such as McAdams and Bugliosi who are truly wacky.

I don't get this at all. Who cares if some people think WC critics are "wacky," how does that enter into the weighing of evidence?

I hate to break it to you Pat, but what you call the "official record" isn't supported by the very same people who wrote it!

The HSCA panel based their SBT on measurements taken from a photograph they admitted was "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements." They based their conclusions on material they condemned as having "obvious deficiencies."

One the the guys who signed off on the official autopsy report, Dr. Finck, condemned the way the back wound was listed in the final autopsy report.

"JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

And yet here you are, repeating Lone Nutter talking points with no regard for the historical truth of the matter.

On a personal note, I enjoy tweaking you just as much as you enjoy tweaking McAdams.

In my book, you guys are on the same side.

This says more about you than it does about me. For some reason you think it is better to push a losing argument against the SBT than a winning one. Your argument for T3 necessitates that both the autopsy photos and autopsy measurements are false. Few will buy this, particularly in that the photos and measurements are strong evidence against the SBT. It makes little sense, after all, for the big bad evil conspirators to fake the measurements and fake the photos and be so tentative about it that their fakes measurements and photos still suggest a conspiracy.

But, punk rocker that you are, you'd rather tweak people with whom you mostly agree than make a lot of sense.

Good luck on that.

[Greg Burnham]

This says more about you than it does about me.

I beg your pardon? It says NOTHING about either of you! I thought that this discussion/argument was about ideas, concepts, and conclusions -- and I'd expect that you, as a moderator, should know that it is NOT about "the persons" involved in the debate-- IMHO.

For some reason you think it is better to push a losing argument against the SBT than a winning one.

Wow. Now that says a lot about... -- never mind, I don't want to be a hypocrite considering my above statement. However, sometimes the truth isn't found in the most popular or simplistic argument. The truth exists irrespective of the perceived obscurity of the argument which identifies its location.

Your argument for T3 necessitates that both the autopsy photos and autopsy measurements are false. Few will buy this, particularly in that the photos and measurements are strong evidence against the SBT. It makes little sense, after all, for the big bad evil conspirators to fake the measurements and fake the photos and be so tentative about it that their fakes measurements and photos still suggest a conspiracy.

The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball.

But, punk rocker that you are, you'd rather tweak people with whom you mostly agree than make a lot of sense.

That is inappropriate ad hominem especially for a moderator.

Good luck on that.

Wow.

[David G. Healy]

Ya gotta understand Monk--- Pat Speer got speared by David Lifton many moons ago, he hasn't recovered...

Frankly, I find his moderator status here a JOKE... (and the humor continues)

This says more about you than it does about me.

I beg your pardon? It says NOTHING about either of you! I thought that this discussion/argument was about ideas, concepts, and conclusions -- and I'd expect that you, as a moderator, should know that it is NOT about "the persons" involved in the debate-- IMHO.

For some reason you think it is better to push a losing argument against the SBT than a winning one.

Wow. Now that says a lot about... -- never mind, I don't want to be a hypocrite considering my above statement. However, sometimes the truth isn't found in the most popular or simplistic argument. The truth exists irrespective of the perceived obscurity of the argument which identifies its location.

Your argument for T3 necessitates that both the autopsy photos and autopsy measurements are false. Few will buy this, particularly in that the photos and measurements are strong evidence against the SBT. It makes little sense, after all, for the big bad evil conspirators to fake the measurements and fake the photos and be so tentative about it that their fakes measurements and photos still suggest a conspiracy.

The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball.

But, punk rocker that you are, you'd rather tweak people with whom you mostly agree than make a lot of sense.

That is inappropriate ad hominem especially for a moderator.

Good luck on that.

Wow.

[Pat Speer]

This says more about you than it does about me.

I beg your pardon? It says NOTHING about either of you! I thought that this discussion/argument was about ideas, concepts, and conclusions -- and I'd expect that you, as a moderator, should know that it is NOT about "the persons" involved in the debate-- IMHO.

For some reason you think it is better to push a losing argument against the SBT than a winning one.

Wow. Now that says a lot about... -- never mind, I don't want to be a hypocrite considering my above statement. However, sometimes the truth isn't found in the most popular or simplistic argument. The truth exists irrespective of the perceived obscurity of the argument which identifies its location.

Your argument for T3 necessitates that both the autopsy photos and autopsy measurements are false. Few will buy this, particularly in that the photos and measurements are strong evidence against the SBT. It makes little sense, after all, for the big bad evil conspirators to fake the measurements and fake the photos and be so tentative about it that their fakes measurements and photos still suggest a conspiracy.

The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball.

But, punk rocker that you are, you'd rather tweak people with whom you mostly agree than make a lot of sense.

That is inappropriate ad hominem especially for a moderator.

Good luck on that.

Wow.

Uhhh, Greg, my calling Cliff a punk rocker was not meant as a put-down. It was an acknowledgment of what both he and I know--that there is great entertainment to be had in popping the balloons of the over-inflated. He thinks of me as being over-inflated, and delights in popping my balloons. I get it.

P.S. If I've offended Cliff in any way, I apologize.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Ya gotta understand Monk--- Pat Speer got speared by David Lifton many moons ago, he hasn't recovered...

Frankly, I find his moderator status here a JOKE... (and the humor continues)

Not sure what you mean, David. Last I checked, Lifton and I are on good terms. He thinks the body was altered. I do not. No nastiness. None of the insults thrown my way by Fetzer, etc.

As far as my moderator status, I am one among many, and the new kid on the block, and mostly take a back seat to others. If you wish to make a list of the times I've abused my authority, I suspect a large number of us would find it most enlightening.

[Cliff Varnell]

On a personal note, I enjoy tweaking you just as much as you enjoy tweaking McAdams.

In my book, you guys are on the same side.

This says more about you than it does about me.

I don't divide JFK assassination researchers into LNers and CTs.

There are those who acknowledge the prima facie case for conspiracy -- that JFK was shot in the back at T3 and hit in the throat from the front -- and those who don't.

I don't care if you promote a conspiracy theory in the murder of JFK or not, either you acknowledge that which is obvious in the case, or you don't.

You and John McAdams and all LNers and a whole lot of "CTs" do not ackowledge this evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, you folks are all on the same side, throwing pixie dust on a case that has been made far too complex.

For some reason you think it is better to push a losing argument against the SBT than a winning one.

For some reason you think you've ever "won" a debate with me?

Your argument for T3 necessitates that both the autopsy photos and autopsy measurements are false.

Neither the autopsy photos nor the autopsy measurements were prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols. There is no evidence that the body of JFK is the subject in the back of the head photos. The people who measured the wound in the BOH photo said it was "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements" of the wound, but you insist this is the strongest evidence in the case.

One guy who signed off on the autopsy measurements in the final autopsy report dismissed those measurements in clear language.

The autopsy measurements on the face sheet were written in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol, and obviously not recorded contemporaneously.

Then there is the matter of the autopsy photos having no chain of possession.

This garbage is your idea of a "winning argument"?

Few will buy this,

How the hell do you know? Did you take a poll, Pat? Somehow I don't think you're in a position to say what other people will or will not buy.

And what does that have to do with the historical truth of the matter? You treat this subject like it is part of a PR campaign to convince people there was a conspiracy. People overwhelmingly already know that!

Few will buy this, particularly in that the photos and measurements are strong evidence against the SBT.

They are not prima facie evidence of conspiracy. The actual location of the wound at T3 is prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

T3 relieves the JFK Research Community of having to waste time on utterly worthless rabbit hole discussions like the acoustics evidence and the NAA, and near-worthless discussions about the head wounds and CE-399.

But that's why there's a CT push-back against the prima facie case -- too many researchers have invested too much time trying to "Answer the Question of Conspiracy", a question that was answered in the earliest days of the earliest researchers.

It makes little sense, after all, for the big bad evil conspirators to fake the measurements and fake the photos and be so tentative about it that their fakes measurements and photos still suggest a conspiracy.

They came up with three separate locations for the back wound: just above the upper margin of the scapula (T2), 14cm below the mastoid process (C7/T1), and the cervical location in the Rydberg drawing.

It makes sense that they wouldn't know exactly where to place the back wound so they kept moving it around hoping that something would stick.

And it did stick. With Pat Speer et al.

But, punk rocker that you are, you'd rather tweak people with whom you mostly agree than make a lot of sense.

Good luck on that.

On the key issues you and I do not agree, near as I can tell.

If I'm not making sense why don't you offer an actual rebuttal to the facts I've laid out?

Edited January 20, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

That is inappropriate ad hominem especially for a moderator.

I appreciate that very much, Monk, but Pat meant no offense.

And no offense taken.

[Pat Speer]

The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball.

On second glance, I find this to be one of the more remarkable things I've ever read. Greg is suggesting that evidence suggestive of more than one shooter--such as a 14cm measurement on the autopsy face sheet and a back wound at T1 on the autopsy photos--could be faked evidence to make us think there was only one shooter. Fascinating.

I suppose by this same token we can suspect that the unidentified prints in the sniper's nest were added just to, y'know, make sure we believed Oswald pulled the trigger.

[Cliff Varnell]

The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball.

Bingo! And thus, three different locations for the back wound in the "official record."

All of them wrong, of course.

[Cliff Varnell]

The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball.

On second glance, I find this to be one of the more remarkable things I've ever read. Greg is suggesting that evidence suggestive of more than one shooter--such as a 14cm measurement on the autopsy face sheet and a back wound at T1 on the autopsy photos--could be faked evidence to make us think there was only one shooter. Fascinating.

But the T1 location does NOT suggest more than one shooter. No, we have to draft the sublime talents of David Mantik and Pat Speer to micro-analyze the trajectory at T1, the same location Bugliosi and McAdams have it, and announce to the world that there is "cause for doubt" or some such pablum and insist that T1 doesn't work for the SBT!

Hurrah!

OR, we could point out where the wound actually was at T3 and no analysis by experts is required.

Bummer for the experts, eh?

Edited January 20, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Ya gotta understand Monk--- Pat Speer got speared by David Lifton many moons ago, he hasn't recovered...

Frankly, I find his moderator status here a JOKE... (and the humor continues)

Not sure what you mean, David. Last I checked, Lifton and I are on good terms. He thinks the body was altered. I do not. No nastiness. None of the insults thrown my way by Fetzer, etc.

As far as my moderator status, I am one among many, and the new kid on the block, and mostly take a back seat to others. If you wish to make a list of the times I've abused my authority, I suspect a large number of us would find it most enlightening.

I disagree with Pat on several fronts but I have confidence in his temperament as a moderator.

I don't agree with David Lifton's body alteration theories.

But since surgery to the head is listed in the FBI autopsy report, how can anyone categorically dismiss the possibility, if not probability, of pre-autopsy surgery to the head?

It's not a theory and it doesn't belong to David Lifton.

[Greg Burnham]

If you wish to make a list of the times I've abused my authority, I suspect a large number of us would find it most enlightening.

First of all, I note the "fake tan" applied to your photo! Just kidding, of course--but I couldn't resist.

[Bill Miller]

Not sure what you mean, David.

If you wish to make a list of the times I've abused my authority, I suspect a large number of us would find it most enlightening.

It's ok, Pat ... David also doesn't know what he means. And please do not give him a list to do for he needs to stay focused on getting that request made to have an expert of his choice to examine the Zfilm at the NARA so to put an end one way or another to the alteration debate. Wish all the years we have been waiting for him to get it together that I am sure he is almost finished, but a list afterward might be nice.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Bill Miller