Alterationists vs Non-Alternationists?

[Cliff Varnell]

Shooting him to paralyze him, to me, makes no sense.... you run the risk of anyone, someone, coming to his aid... all Jackie needed to do was pull him down...

If she didn't know what was wrong with him -- why would she pull him down?

In a first-shot/kill-shot scenario the danger was that he'd only be winged, and like a good military man hit the deck. They could not assume a successful first-shot/kill-shot.

Could they?

There's a bigger point being lost here. This idea of a blood soluble strike came from the autopsists.

That's not what I said Cliff.... I said that was all Jackie needed to do....

And this would be doubly true if a conventional first shot merely winged JFK. Then she would know -- and Kennedy would know -- that they were under fire and hit the deck.

With a blood soluble flechette no one knows what is going on. That's why Jackie said the look on JFK's face was "quizzical."

You don't think the soluble round shot could not have "nicked" or "winged" him and there would be NO CHANCE for a kill shot....

Sure there would. As long as the round penetrated subcutaneously the target would be paralyzed. But a first shot/kill shot MUST be 100% successful or else the plotters risk the gallows.

The FIRST SHOT, the unexpected shot, is the best chance for a kill shot... even a perfect paralyzing shot leaves room for some heroic action by someone around JFK...

And what if it wasn't successful, David? What then? A "best chance" is not the same a "guaranteed opportunity." How could they risk the chance JFK survived the initial volley?

And as a matter of fact it was NOT a first-shot/kill-shot, was it, David?

With no one infront of them, Greer's job was to get the heck out of there, Kellerman's SHOULD have gone thru hell and high water to cover his president...

If anything, the stopping of the limo should have caused a few SS men to jump on JFK to protect him...

Bolden tells us that probably wouldn't have happened in any scenario....

The autopsists were GUESSING cliff...

So are you! The advantage for the autopsists and S & O is that they, unlike you, actually saw the body and commented on it before their deliberations were corrupted by news of the Magic Bullet. Jump up and down and deny the possibility all you want, David, but the fact remains that this scenario is part of the historical record and not some pet theorist musing out his backside.

they did not see a round in the body... so, not realizing that the body had altered, or actually taking part in the alterations themselves

and that the bullets that SHOULD have been there, were no longer there

You know for a fact the body was altered? While I don't deny the possibility, as this scenario is also part of the historical record, I don't think anyone can put this forward as an historical fact.

and the FBI/SS would NEVER TAMPER WITH THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, right?

Sure, but you don't know that as a FACT in regard to the "missing bullets."

I don't traffic in certainties I can't back up 100%. We have different approaches to the evidence, you and I...

these "autopsists" were guessing as to what happened, and a soluble bullet made more sense at the time

Makes even more sense now. We know the technology existed; the autopsists did not know this, and that's why FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab, to find out if there were rounds that dissolved in the body. The autopsists didn't have access to the Zapruder film to observe JFK seize up paralyzed in about two seconds, consistent with blood soluble paralytics.

... then what really happened - Humes/Boswell altered the wounds

IMO Humes was trying to leave clues to clear his conscience...

You don't know if that's what really happened. You're GUESSING. And not a particularly informed guess either, judging from your promotion of Lipsey and the absurd back-of-the-neck entrance wound.

Amazing how "soluble bullet" makes more sense to you then the Secret Service disappearing evidence which it had in its hot little hands....

Amazing how you attribute to me the observations of those who actually handled the body.

Amazing how you ignore JFK's evident paralysis in the limo.

Amazing how you arrive at utter certainties you can't back up.

I haven't ruled out the possibility that that the rounds were removed pre-autopsy -- how can I, logically? Pre-autopsy surgery is indicated in the historical record.

So is the blood soluble flechette scenario. It isn't a "theory" so much as a scenario seriously regarded by those who handled the body.

As such it trumps all the armchair pet theorizing in the world.

[David Josephs]

I typed up a response and then lost it...

We have SS docs that talk about bullets that disappear

We have reports that prove CE399 was not in Dallas and added after the fact as evidence

and the FBI/SS would NEVER TAMPER WITH THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, right?

Sure, but you don't know that as a FACT in regard to the "missing bullets."

I don't traffic in certainties I can't back up 100%. We have different approaches to the evidence, you and I...

Cause I see you have 100% proof that a blood soluble flechette was used and that the SS/FBI did not simply make bullets go away?

when in thie report below, from that day, tells us the SS has in their possession two bullets.... and one of them is directly linked to JFK's headshot...

So the bullet to the head, that the SS has in their possession, disappears... and you conclude that instead of a fragment exiting the throat, as was seen in THE autopsy report on Jan 27th

and then that too was disappeared since it was inconsistent with the SBT.... it was a soluble bullet carrying a paralyzing toxin...

cause the thenology existed at the time....

I repeat... the doctors asked about soluble bullets because

1) they were either in on the alteration and helping point in other directions or

2) they could not conceive of the SS/FBI or anyone altering the body and removing these bullets before hand... or the SS/FBI tampering with evidence....

Humes was a good military man... but documentation doesn't lie, too often... and this as well as another document describes a bullet

When we have photos of blond man picking up a bullet from the grass by the manhole cover

[Cliff Varnell]

I typed up a response and then lost it...

We have SS docs that talk about bullets that disappear

I'm specifically referring to the rounds that caused the back and throat wounds.

We have reports that prove CE399 was not in Dallas and added after the fact as evidence

Right. We know that CE399 didn't go thru JFK. Check. But I'm only referring to the rounds that caused the throat and back wounds. I'm not referring to anything else.

and the FBI/SS would NEVER TAMPER WITH THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, right?

Sure, but you don't know that as a FACT in regard to the "missing bullets."

I don't traffic in certainties I can't back up 100%. We have different approaches to the evidence, you and I...

Cause I see you have 100% proof that a blood soluble flechette was used and that the SS/FBI did not simply make bullets go away?

I never said that. I've been quite clear that, outside the certainty of a T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound, there are no other certainties.

Rather, I have 100% proof that FBI SAs Sibert and O'Neill swore that, at the end of the autopsy, the autopsists wanted to know if there were such things as bullets that dissolved in the body.

That's a fact. S & O wrote affidavits to that effect for the HSCA.

The FBI men certainly took the suggestion seriously as Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out if blood soluble weapons technology

existed.

That's a fact.

And it is also an historical fact that such technology existed.

The Zapruder film appears to show JFK acting in a manner consistent with paralysis.

That's a fact. That doesn't mean it was 100% certain that he was paralyzed, but it certainly appears that way.

The personnel at Parkland described a small wound of entrance in the throat, consistent with a small caliber round, inconsistent with a larger caliber weapon.

That's a fact.

I could go on and on, none of this is theoretical.

when in the report below, from that day, tells us the SS has in their possession two bullets.... and one of them is directly linked to JFK's headshot...

But I was specifically referring to the rounds that caused the back and throat wounds

So the bullet to the head, that the SS has in their possession, disappears...

But I was specifically referring to the rounds that caused the back and throat wounds

and you conclude that instead of a fragment exiting the throat, as was seen in THE autopsy report on Jan 27th

and then that too was disappeared since it was inconsistent with the SBT....

So everyone at Parkland got the throat entrance wound wrong? Any theory based on everyone getting it wrong the same way is weak.

And a fragment from *what* exited the throat? From the headshot(s)? So JFK started reacting to throat trauma 6 seconds before a suffered a wound in the throat?

it was a soluble bullet carrying a paralyzing toxin...

cause the thenology existed at the time....

I repeat... the doctors asked about soluble bullets because

1) they were either in on the alteration and helping point in other directions or

2) they could not conceive of the SS/FBI or anyone altering the body and removing these bullets before hand... or the SS/FBI tampering with evidence....

Your certainty on this matter is absolutely stunning. I guess that what happens when you marry your pet theories, then you know what happened, even if you can't argue it...

Humes was a good military man... but documentation doesn't lie, too often

Are you kidding me? Every medical document which was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol is a pile of lies.

... and this as well as another document describes a bullet

When we have photos of blond man picking up a bullet from the grass by the manhole cover

But none of these bullets caused JFK's back and throat wounds, and THAT is what I'm discussing.

[David Josephs]

I've understood your point and responded Cliff...

to reiterate... Given the choice between A) the SS/FBI destroyed the medical evidence and STOLE THE BULLETS FROM THE BODY

and are there bullets the FBI is aware of that dissolve in the body?

Why do you assume that asking the question suggests they were agreeing on a solution to their problem of no bullets?

OR when we now know that JFK was on the Bethesda morgue table by 6:45 with Humes and Boswell, Kellerman and ?? doing their thing to him so that

at 8-8:15pm we see "surgery to the top of the head" theses are PROVEABLE FACTS of the case...

YOU make observations of the Zfilm and conclude what you do... an interesting theory with all the components of a real possibility

That the throat was opened beyond the tracheotomoy, that bullets disappeared from a variety of locations, that the physical evidence was controlled and tampered with by the SS/FBI is impossible to refute....

I did not say Parkland got the throat wound wrong.... THEY knew JFK was SHOT Cliff... SHOT... so a wound on the throat the size of a small hole would NATURALLY cause ER personnel th think it was a gunshot, a very small caliber gunshot... yet these people also thought that this was the entry for the large blowout hole in the back of his head.... why is that not a possibility?

A FLURRY of shots could include

one to the right temple,

one to the left temple,

one to JC,

one thru the windshield to his throat,

one to the back of his head.... just as easily as the theory of a dissolving poisonous bullet....

I am stating what the Exec Session transcripts stated about an autopsy report that is no longer in existence..

I am saying that the dissolvable bullets/poisonous flechettes you talk about were supposedly so small as to not be detected upon entry... NOT to leave a 5mm hole that looks like a frontal bullet shot... otherwise why bother if it's going to appear like any other bullet which would cause medical personnel to dig into the wound to find this bullet??

Here's a theory - the shallow shot to the back hits nerves, that when combined with the corset he was wearing, made him immobile.

Now I realize that the other passengers do NOT agree with this statement.... yet there a number of uncoroborrated realities we need to put some faith behind, no?

If the throat wound did not occur until AFTER these shots, as a result of either a subsequent shot, the FLURRY, or a fragment exiting

Mr. SPECTER. We will start with his voice.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Ok. From the noise of which I was in the process of turning to determine where it was or what it was, it carried on right then. Why I am so positive, gentlemen, that it was his voice there is only one man in that back seat that was from Boston, and the accents carried very clearly.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, had you become familiar with the President's voice prior to that day?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; very much so.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was the basis for your becoming familiar with his voice prior to that day?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I had been with him for 3 years.

Mr. SPECTER. And had you talked with him on a very frequent basis during the course of that association?

Mr. KELLERMAN. He was a very free man to talk to; yes. He knew most all the men, most everybody who worked in the White House as well as everywhere, and he would call you.

Mr. SPECTER. And from your experience would you say that you could recognize the voice?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much, sir; I would.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, I think you may have answered this, but I want to pin-point just when you heard that statement which you have attributed to President Kennedy in relationship to the sound which you described as a firecracker.

Mr. KELLERMAN. This noise which I attribute as a firecracker, when this occurred and I am in the process of determining where it comes because I am sure it came off my right rear somewhere; the voice broke in right then.

Mr. SPECTER. At about the same time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct, sir. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, did President Kennedy say anything beside, "My God, I am hit."

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is the last words he said, sir

Edited August 15, 2012 by David Josephs

[Cliff Varnell]

I've understood your point and responded Cliff...

to reiterate... Given the choice between A) the SS/FBI destroyed the medical evidence and STOLE THE BULLETS FROM THE BODY

and are there bullets the FBI is aware of that dissolve in the body?

Why do you assume that asking the question suggests they were agreeing on a solution to their problem of no bullets?

I never said they were "agreeing to a solution." There was a "general feeling" with the autopsists that blood soluble rounds "could have" struck JFK -- according to the FBI men.

The FBI report on the autopsy also lists "apparent" pre-autopsy surgery, so that too is a possibility.

These are not "theories" in the same sense of the Single Bullet Theory, which was proposed after the autopsy. These two possibilities are scenarios suggested during the autopsy, before the prosector's deliberations were corrupted by news of the Magic Bullet.

My argument is that the blood-soluble flechette scenario explains more points of evidence, especially JFK's apparent paralysis after the throat shot, and a shooting sequence where the first two shots caused shallow wounds.

I think we must entertain the possibility that the back shot was the result of a sabot-sheathed CE399, better to frame the patsy, although I prefer possibilities raised by those who actually handled the body on 11/22/63.

OR when we now know that JFK was on the Bethesda morgue table by 6:45 with Humes and Boswell, Kellerman and ?? doing their thing to him so that

at 8-8:15pm we see "surgery to the top of the head" theses are PROVEABLE FACTS of the case...

Okay. Just because surgery may have been performed to the head doesn't rule out JFK being shot with blood soluble rounds.

YOU make observations of the Zfilm and conclude what you do... an interesting theory with all the components of a real possibility

It's not my theory. It's part of the history of the autopsy. I'm pointing out evidence which strongly supports the "general feeling" among the autopsists on 11/22/63, including the Z-film, the neck x-ray, the witness testimony, the history of CIA testing of blood soluble rounds.

I draw no hard and fast conclusion, other than to say that there was an excellent chance the autopsists got it right.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I am saying that the dissolvable bullets/poisonous flechettes you talk about were supposedly so small as to not be detected upon entry... NOT to leave a 5mm hole that looks like a frontal bullet shot... otherwise why bother if it's going to appear like any other bullet which would cause medical personnel to dig into the wound to find this bullet??

From the testimony of Charles Senseney before the Church Committee 1975:

Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to

utilize this dart launcher against humans?

Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog.

Now, these were actually given to them, and they were actually

expended, because we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the

projectile had to be made many times bigger. It was almost the

size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound known

as 46-40.

The bigger the target, the bigger the round.

CIA Director William Colby admitted the weapon was tested on humans.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

Edited August 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

I typed up a response and then lost it...

David,

I sympathise, it is really irritating when that happens.

I always type up my responses in Word and check before posting.

That way I always have a saved copy that I don't loose. It also gives me a chance to reflect on what I want to say and edit it if necessary.

Just an idea and thought.

James.

[David Josephs]

Ok Cliff...

Not a theory... defined as:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation,

in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

In other words Cliff... your proposing an explanation for the information you've gathered. "Possibilities" you call them that are based on your interpretation of the information available.

Why can you not even acknowledge that the autopsists saying something to the FBI in the room like, "So either of you guys throw away any bullets?" would be absurd...

"Are there bullets that dissolve?" is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a man who was shot, WITHOUT A TRANSIT LANE, has no bullets in his body.

What other choices are there Cliff? It was taken, it was never there, it dissolved.... The hole suggests it WAS there, and as I say, if HUMES and BOSWELL took the bullets out of JFK themselves,

asking whether there are dissolvable bullets is pretty clever - don't you think?

Or would you have them ask, "Wow, Surgery to the top of the head... did someone at Parkland dig the bullets out of the body as we can't seem to find any in this shallow wound... if "THEY" operated on the head

it is no great stretch to assume THEY removed the bullet in the shallow wound..." ?

Difference between us is you have a vested stake in your theory, which I would expect... it's a GOOD theory...

but please don't pull a Fetzer on me just because I happen to think there were other scenarios that satisfy the evidence, and don't necessarily buy into yours - agree to a little friendly disagreement here Cliff...

Only time will tell...

hopefully.

Peace

DJ

These are not "theories" in the same sense of the Single Bullet Theory, which was proposed after the autopsy. These two possibilities are scenarios suggested during the autopsy, before the prosector's deliberations were corrupted by news of the Magic Bullet.

My argument is that the blood-soluble flechette scenario explains more points of evidence, especially JFK's apparent paralysis after the throat shot, and a shooting sequence where the first two shots caused shallow wounds.

[Cliff Varnell]

Ok Cliff...

Not a theory... defined as:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation,

in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

In other words Cliff... your proposing an explanation for the information you've gathered.

This has nothing to do with me. This has nothing to do with any theories of mine. I'm simply pointing out what they thought at the time and the evidence consistent with their observations.

"Possibilities" you call them that are based on your interpretation of the information available.

Bollocks. I've been over this many times. You insist on making this about me, and it isn't.

Why can you not even acknowledge that the autopsists saying something to the FBI in the room like, "So either of you guys throw away any bullets?" would be absurd...

I fail to see any point to the above. What are you talking about?

"Are there bullets that dissolve?" is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a man who was shot, WITHOUT A TRANSIT LANE, has no bullets in his body.

What other choices are there Cliff? It was taken, it was never there, it dissolved.... The hole suggests it WAS there, and as I say, if HUMES and BOSWELL took the bullets out of JFK themselves,

asking whether there are dissolvable bullets is pretty clever - don't you think?

Apparently you know exactly what happened. I can't say that...

Or would you have them ask, "Wow, Surgery to the top of the head... did someone at Parkland dig the bullets out of the body as we can't seem to find any in this shallow wound... if "THEY" operated on the head

it is no great stretch to assume THEY removed the bullet in the shallow wound..." ?[

Difference between us is you have a vested stake in your theory, which I would expect...

That's rich coming from someone who acts likes he knows exactly what happened!

It's not my theory, David. It's in the historical record.

it's a GOOD theory...

See above.

but please don't pull a Fetzer on me just because I happen to think there were other scenarios that satisfy the evidence, and don't necessarily buy into yours - agree to a little friendly disagreement here Cliff...

Only time will tell...

hopefully.

Peace

DJ

I think I've been generous in acknowledging the other possibilities indicated in the historical record.

These are not "theories" in the same sense of the Single Bullet Theory, which was proposed after the autopsy. These two possibilities are scenarios suggested during the autopsy, before the prosector's deliberations were corrupted by news of the Magic Bullet.

My argument is that the blood-soluble flechette scenario explains more points of evidence, especially JFK's apparent paralysis after the throat shot, and a shooting sequence where the first two shots caused shallow wounds.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

David,

I think we're in general agreement. I won't deny that a compelling case can be made for pre-autopsy removal.

But I'm more impressed with the corroborative evidence for Flechette.

[Greg Burnham]

... The hole suggests it WAS there, and as I say, if HUMES and BOSWELL took the bullets out of JFK themselves,

asking whether there are dissolvable bullets is pretty clever - don't you think?

One of the problems with that scenario, David, is that it is inconsistent with an extremely shallow wound to the back.

They could barely get the tip of their pinky to where the path ended. There was no "surgery" evident in the back at

the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so

without leaving any evidence of surgery?

I am not necessarily convinced that the flechette dart was used, but I will not rule it out based on the evidence nor on

arguments that I have thus far seen entertained by detractors. I've been looking at this evidence for almost 2 decades

and even Fletcher Prouty told me when I brought it up that he was almost certain it was used. He based his opinion on

the characteristics of the wounds and the effect on the target, that are unique to this weapon system. He was the one

who originally got it approved for development for the CIA.

[Mike Rago]

I put dissolvable bullets in the extraordinary claims category.

The doctors did not probe the wound properly. They did not know the angle of entry. The bullet passed through the president. It is obvious when looking at the Zapruder film.

The two wounds with no bullets are SCREAMING at you that a bullet passed through the president. The Zapruder film confirms it ( or as Josesphs likes to say , corroborates it). You are placing too much weight on the probing of the wound. You are placing so much weight on the probing of the wound that it leads you to postulate totally insensible things, or as I said in the beginning, extraordinary claims. Look at Fincks testimony

http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKfinck.htm

Edited August 16, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Cliff Varnell]

... The hole suggests it WAS there, and as I say, if HUMES and BOSWELL took the bullets out of JFK themselves,

asking whether there are dissolvable bullets is pretty clever - don't you think?

One of the problems with that scenario, David, is that it is inconsistent with an extremely shallow wound to the back.

They could barely get the tip of their pinky to where the path ended. There was no "surgery" evident in the back at

the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so

without leaving any evidence of surgery?

I am not necessarily convinced that the flechette dart was used, but I will not rule it out based on the evidence nor on

arguments that I have thus far seen entertained by detractors. I've been looking at this evidence for almost 2 decades

and even Fletcher Prouty told me when I brought it up that he was almost certain it was used. He based his opinion on

the characteristics of the wounds and the effect on the target, that are unique to this weapon system. He was the one

who originally got it approved for development for the CIA.

Monk, did Prouty ever say anything about Mitchell WerBell or Sidney Gottlieb in connection with his suspicions?

I think those two guys are "persons of interest" based on the historical record itself, ¬ entirely speculative.

[David Josephs]

a) Assuming you are not a supporter of the Warren Commission, then you will be aware that a bullet entered JFK's throat. However no bullet was discovered. As I see it there are only three options

i. The SBT theory is not a theory but a fact and that explains it. I have presented, along with many other members, reasons why that is not a valid proposition.

ii. That a bullet actually was discovered, but never registered. It is possible, but I find it difficult to see how such a find could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neil. For those reasons, although it has logic, I don't see this as avalid proposition.

iii) That just leaves the option that a bullet was removed at some point and that is why a bullet was not found.

There is another option directly indicated in the historical record.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

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.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

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).

The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact".

The correct answer would have been -- yes!

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

Page 3 of SIBERT Affidavit:

David,

I think we're in general agreement. I won't deny that a compelling case can be made for pre-autopsy removal.

But I'm more impressed with the corroborative evidence for Flechette.

Fair enough Cliff.... yet I am going to layout below the evidence you pointed us to and the conclusion that the Doctors DID NOT ASK ANY SUCH THING... NOR was that the consensus of the men in that room

As I dig a little deeper into your source material I think we have a difference of opinion as to what was said….

(I do not see where I claim to know what happened... only the logic behind the different questions Humes COULD have asked... and whether or not he was involved in the pre autopsy surgery.)

This has nothing to do with me. This has nothing to do with any theories of mine. I'm simply pointing out what they thought at the time and the evidence consistent with their observations.

What THEY THOUGHT AT THE TIME... is something you conclude from what was said... you have no idea what HUMES was thinking... "If I ask about a soluble bullet, maybe they will forget the "surgery to the head" comment" is just as possible as anything else... given the time of arrival and the events between 6:30 and 8:00pm

I find it funny that you take the facts available and create a THEORY to fit those facts - a very good theory indeed.... yet then call it HISTORICAL FACT.

The existence of the weapon system is not in question...the THEORY you put forth is that it was used that day... based on your interpretation of the evidence available.

Lifton/Horne's THEORY is that the body was operated on prior to the start of the official autopsy - again based on the evidence available - and these two theories are not in conflict at all...

What I disagree with is your assertion that it was the DOCTORS who gave the soluble solution a thought, that THEY originated the thought and that there was any resolution to what YOU CLAIM, was THEIR question....

It's hard to deny the existence of additional bullets as described by the SS memos... the CE399 problems, and the reality that MORE THAN 3 SHOTS WERE FIRED... there HAS to be more bullets in DP or in the bodies... and there were.

Why can you not even acknowledge that the autopsists saying something to the FBI in the room like, "So either of you guys throw away any bullets?" would be absurd...

I fail to see any point to the above. What are you talking about?

What I am saying here Cliff, is the question of what happened to the bullet that was supposed to be IN THE BACK WOUND is one of THREE possibilities....

1) are there soluble bullets (Cause there is no bullet here, it is a shallow hole, and there is not transit lane - where the #$^$# is the bullet")

2) with "surgery to the head" there could have been surgery to other parts specifically to remove bullets... HUMES did not, and WOULD NOT ask if surgery COULD have been performed to remove the bullet(s)... NOR DID HUMES ASK IF THERE EXISTED ROUNDS THAT DISSOLVE... (unless you can prove it)

3) the bullet fell out the shallow wound… was pointed and found by Tomlinson… and is subsequently replaced with CE399.

Cliff - "there were discussions" that did NOT make it into the FBI report from that day, or Humes' testimony, or Boswell, or Finck

Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?

Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?

Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, Doctor Humes, at one point in your examination of the President, did you make an effort to probe the point of entry with your finger?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - And at or about that time when you were trying to ascertain, as you previously testified, whether there was any missile in the body of the President, did someone from the Secret Service call your attention to the fact that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; they did.

Mr. SPECTER - And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have described as entering at Point "C" on Exhibit 385? http://www.history-m...Vol16_0501a.htm

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned.

I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.

The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact".

This statement of yours is the crux of your argument Cliff... you ASSUME the doctors wanted to know something when all that is written is a DISCUSSION... and the discussion centers around the BACK WOUND, not the throat… At the time you are sourcing, the throat wound was not even a consideration…

The Doctors, using only the physical evidence before them, can only conclude the back bullet fell out.

SIBERT does not come back from his call with information regarding ice bullets…

And O’Neill gives us the actual impression of what they saw:

SIBERT:

http://www.history-m...et/pdf/md46.pdf

It was my impression that both Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet thru the back.

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 doctors relating to the back injury, I left the

autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch Killion. I

asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would

almost completely fragmentize

Cliff - from this quote we conclude that Sibert was going to ask about a bullet that could completely FRAGMENTIZE... (as opposed to all FMJ bullets that are NOT DESIGNED TO FRAGMENTIZE.) not whether bullets were soluble. And since we can also conclude that this CALL TO KILLION comes after the back wound discussion mentioned by O’Neill below… the concept of SOLUBLE BULLETS was not mentioned again. In fact, when Sibert returns, he only mentions the bullet that becomes CE399… NOTHING related to info on soluble bullets.

O’NEILL

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md47.pdf

Funny again how you neglect to include the statements just prior to and just after your copy/paste.....

Were any of the rounds fired “soft-nosed”… given CE399?

Did Sibert or O’Neill come back from calling around to say that a soluble bullet was an option?

It was and is my opinion that the bullet which entered the back came out the back.

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration

of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy

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" bullet, one which dissolves

after contact.

There was also no real sense either way

that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet.

So what I would like to know is how you arrive at the conclusion from these documents that YOU referred us to, that Drs Humes, Boswell and/or Finck ASKED to find out whether the bullet could have been soluble… as opposed to complete fragmentation…

I don’t see ANYTHING that refers to “blood” soluble… in fact, the evidence points to EVERYONE IN THAT ROOM believing the round fell out JFK’s back and was the bullet found at Parkland.

[Cliff Varnell]

What THEY THOUGHT AT THE TIME... is something you conclude from what was said... you have no idea what HUMES was thinking...

Sure I do. It's right there in the accounts of the FBI men. Once more?

SA O'Neill:

(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)

SA Sibert:

(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).

(quote off)

[snip nonsense arguing against a point I'm not making]

I find it funny that you take the facts available and create a THEORY to fit those facts - a very good theory indeed.... yet then call it HISTORICAL FACT.

The existence of the weapon system is not in question...the THEORY you put forth is that it was used that day... based on your interpretation of the evidence available.

Factually incorrect from beginning to end. I'm pointing out the THEORY the autopsists put out. Why do you insist -- against all documented evidence -- on attributing to me what is in the historical record?

I know you have some kind of ax to grind here, David, that's obvious. But is there any reason why you cannot wrap your mind around the FACT that the reason FBI James Sibert called the FBI Lab at the conclusion of the autopsy was to inquire about bullets that "dissolved upon contact."

That is not my theory. That is an historical fact, whether it serves your pet theories or not.

Lifton/Horne's THEORY is that the body was operated on prior to the start of the official autopsy -

Nonsense. It's written up in the FBI report -- "apparent" surgery to the head. Researchers don't get to claim elements of the historical record as their personal work.

What I disagree with is your assertion that it was the DOCTORS who gave the soluble solution a thought, that THEY originated the thought and that there was any resolution to what YOU CLAIM, was THEIR question....

David, again, it's not my assertion. It's what Sibert and O'Neill asserted. The resolution of the blood soluble scenario was the call to the FBI Lab, where SA Killion informed SA Sibert of the Magic Bullet.

Blood soluble scenario prematurely resolved.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell