Alterationists vs Non-Alternationists?

[Cliff Varnell]

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)

Did Sibert and O'Neill lie in their affidavit, is that what you're claiming? You do realize that their job was to write down what the autopsists said, right? And if there was a "general feeling" that rounds which "dissolve after contact" "could have" struck JFK in the back, they weren't referring to a general feeling among the janitor staff.

You get that, right?

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

So what? You're arguing with thin air, David.

[snip irrelevancies]

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...

It was written up as more than that David. It was written up as a "general feeling" that such rounds "could have" caused the back wound (and you're wrofng to assume they didn't know about the throat wound). This discussion was followed up by SA Sibert going to the phone to call the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such rounds.

How is that not an exercise of interest on the part of Humes and Co? How could they share a "general feeling" if that wasn't what they were thinking?

Or do you want to parse the difference between "feeling" and "thinking"?

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…

No, he came back with news of the Magic Bullet. So what? And if the only conclusion by the autopsists was that the bullet fell out -- why did Sibert call the FBI Lab?

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

What part of "completely fragmentize," "fragments completely," and "dissolves after contact" don't you get, David?

There was no metal on the x-ray, they weren't talking about metal fragments.

(to be cont'd)

Edited August 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

... 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.

Hey there Greg....

I tried to lay out my position in the above post....

I think the back wound was shallow and

1) either a pointed bullet was in there and fell out (Bell?). Whether that was the stretcher bullet or not, IDK. OR

2) the bullet was indeed still in JFK at 6:45 when Humes/Boswell used a clamp and simply removed it.... it then fell naturally to the 8:15 autopsy to state that the wound was indeed shallow and non-transitting (also remember that the FIRST reports were 3 shots, three hits, JFK - JC - JFK.... If the bullet they removed was anything but a CE399 twin... it had to disappear and other solutions created... and voila, CE399 becomes the shallow wound bullet.... until Tague has us run out of bullets... and the SBT is born. Whether there was evidence of surgery or not would be left up to HUMES to say so.... his sticking his pinkie into the wound could obliterate any signs of surgery...

The Parkland ER personnel saw a bullet hole, an entrance wound to their trained eyes. So much so they postulated that the exit wound out the back of the head was the end result of this bullet.

No bullets were looked for at Parkland, no xrays were taken.

There was a wound of the right temple, the left temple, the throat and a 3 inch avulsed hole in the back of the head.

I am DEFINITELY NOT stating that a soluble round or flechette was NOT used... what I am saying is Cliff's presentation of his THEORY as HISTORICAL FACT has a few holes in it.

If they ASKED about these rounds... why was the answer from FBI, "we have CE399, found on a 'JFKs' stretcher" ? It fell out of JFK's back, NOT from JC.

Discussing soluble rounds SERIOUSLY when Oswald had already been caught and publically convicted would have been absurd...

There is also nothing to state WHO had this discussion - specifically.

O'Neill's HSCA affidavit (curious - how come THIS affidavit is considered good evidence while the Baker/Weitzman/Boone affidavits were completely ignored at the WC hearings?)

What irks me about Cliff's presentation is the one-sidedness of it... in ALL THE RECORDS O'Neill's one sentence is the only mention of soluble bullets.

While at the same time basically confirming that a FMJ 6.5mm bullet did NOT hit JFK in the back...

and that the wound did NOT transit.... end of SBT.

The throat was not considered involved until the next morning's conversation with Perry.... since at no time did Bethesda even consider the throat the site of a bullet wound

why continually refer to this evidence - which is only related to the back wound - as something "the autopsists wanted to know".

And then conclude that their wanting to know makes it even more plausible and possible... isn't that a straw man argument?

When Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet

for the bullet that entered the back, Sibert left to

call SA Charles Killion (FE1 Laboratory) to determine

if any extra bullets existed. He was advised of the

finding of a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital

in Dallas and relayed this information to the autopsy

surgeons. I know for a fact that when the autopsy was

complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance

at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher

in Dallas came out of JFK's body. I understand that

Humes did call Parkland on 11/23/63 and learned at

that time that a tracheotomy had been performed over

a wound in the President's throat.

I do not recall anything about the tracheotomy

incision that indicated a bullet had damaged the area.

When shown a tracing of the tracheotomy during the

HSCA interview, I had no recollection or comment concerning

the apparent bullet wound perimeter. It was and is my

opinion that the bullet which entered the back came out the

back.

Some discussion did occur c0ncernin.g the disintegration

of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy

that a soft-nosed bullet struck JW. 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.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

The only kind of bullet that "dissolves after contact" is one that's water/blood soluble.

Savvy "dissolves"?

dis·solve

   [dih-zolv] verb dis·solved, dis·solv·ing, noun

verb (used with object)

1.

to make a solution of, as by mixing with a liquid; pass into solution: to dissolve salt in water.

2.

to melt; liquefy: to dissolve sugar into syrup.

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.

See above.

The only kind of bullet that will completely fragment -- dissolve! -- and not leave any trace on the x-ray is water/blood 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.

Yes, David, we know that. So what? Sibert called to inquire as to rounds that "dissolved after contact" and not leave any trace on the x-ray.

That means blood or water soluble. The reason he called was because the autopsists had a "general feeling" that a liquid soluble round "could have" struck JFK.

That's an historical fact, no matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I am DEFINITELY NOT stating that a soluble round or flechette was NOT used... what I am saying is Cliff's presentation of his THEORY as HISTORICAL FACT has a few holes in it.

I don't have a theory. The FBI men recorded the autopsists having a "discussion" and in that "discussion" they arrived at a "general feeling" that a round which "dissolves after contact" "could have" struck JFK in the back.

David, what part of "dissolves after contact" don't you get?

If they ASKED about these rounds... why was the answer from FBI, "we have CE399, found on a 'JFKs' stretcher" ? It fell out of JFK's back, NOT from JC.

Because the FBI Lab was dragooned into the cover-up.

None of this has anything to do with me, David. Why do you insist on claiming that it does?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

Cliff - separating what they said into two posts makes this more confusing....

I posted what the CALL from Sibert to Killion was about... Sibert says it himself.

It was written up as more than that David. It was written up as a "general feeling" that such rounds "could have" caused the back wound (and you're wrofng to assume they didn't know about the throat wound). This discussion was followed up by SA Sibert going to the phone to call the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such rounds.

How is that not an exercise of interest on the part of Humes and Co? How could they share a "general feeling" if that wasn't what they were thinking?

Or do you want to parse the difference between "feeling" and "thinking"?

...

from the above post:

The reason he called was because the autopsists had a "general feeling" that a liquid soluble round "could have" struck JFK

Wrong again Cliff... your "general feeling" had to do with a "soft-nosed bullet" not soluble rounds.... or rounds that would completely fragmentize, the statement does not say that the doctors at the autopsy asked us to determine if there were such things as soluble rounds

A general feeling existed during the autopsy

that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.

and the phone call had nothing to do with soluble rounds

Sibert left to call SA Charles Killion (FBI Laboratory) to determine

if any extra bullets existed

SIBERT:

Following discussion among doctors relating to the back injury, I left the

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

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

almost completely fragmentize

When the autopsy

doctor appeared to have no idea of where the bullet

entering the back may have gone, the doctors began

discussing other possible outlets for the bullet.

No word of ice bullets or soluble rounds here - yet you keep claiming it was these doctors who came up with that option

and specifically asked about these types of bullets... I say BS.

The "discussion" could have easily been,

Humes, "I just don't understand where the bullet went"

O'Neill, "Well, I know there are bullets that dissolve, plastic or ice bullets"

Boswell, "huh?"

Finck, "Really?"

Sibert, "yeah, I've heard of those too"

Humes, "You saying that bullets that dissolve could have been used? That might explain why there is no transit"

Sibert, "Well, maybe there are other bullets still in Dallas... I will call Killion and find out"

and not another word is EVER spoken about soluble rounds.... cause where in the world would a non-CIA associated assassin get soluble rounds, right?

When Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet

for the bullet that entered the back, Sibert left to

call SA Charles Killion (FE1 Laboratory) to determine

if any extra bullets existed. He was advised of the

finding of a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital

in Dallas and relayed this information to the autopsy

surgeons. I know for a fact that when the autopsy was

complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance

at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher

in Dallas came out of JFK's body. I understand that

Humes did call Parkland on 11/23/63 and learned at

that time that a tracheotomy had been performed over

a wound in the President's throat.

So the result of the phone call was NOT the FBI making a case for soluble bullets or that they even existed, but for a bullet found in Dallas that fell out of JFK during external cardiac massage.

and no matter how much SPIN YOU PUT ON IT, you cannot make what is plainly written and easily understood as a phone call to see if there are other bullets in Dallas as a confirmation of the autopsists desire to know if soluble rounds exist.

DJ.

[David Josephs]

None of this has anything to do with me, David. Why do you insist on claiming that it does?

Cliff... YOUR interpretation of the affidavits lets YOU come to a conclusion which in turn allows YOU to formulate a THEORY about the use of soluble rounds...

You confuse which wounds they are discussing,

you confuse what the purpose of the call from Sibert was

You confuse what O'Neill repeatedly says about the "general feeling" in the room about the reason for the missing bullet - IT FELL OUT JFK's BACK...

What part of this statement eludes you? Where in their reports/statements do they mention asking Killion about soluble rounds?

Be specific Cliff - this is ALL ABOUT YOUR POV, and has nothing to do with what was actually said.

O'Neill:

I know for a fact that when the autopsy was

complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance

at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher

in Dallas came out of JFK's body

Edited August 16, 2012 by David Josephs

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff - separating what they said into two posts makes this more confusing....

I posted what the CALL from Sibert to Killion was about... Sibert says it himself.

It was written up as more than that David. It was written up as a "general feeling" that such rounds "could have" caused the back wound (and you're wrofng to assume they didn't know about the throat wound). This discussion was followed up by SA Sibert going to the phone to call the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such rounds.

How is that not an exercise of interest on the part of Humes and Co? How could they share a "general feeling" if that wasn't what they were thinking?

Or do you want to parse the difference between "feeling" and "thinking"?

...

from the above post:

The reason he called was because the autopsists had a "general feeling" that a liquid soluble round "could have" struck JFK

Wrong again Cliff... your "general feeling" had to do with a "soft-nosed bullet" not soluble rounds....

It's the same thing -- "soft-nosed", "plastic", "Ice bullet", "one which dissolves after contact," "fragment completely," "completely fragmentize."

How many ways did they have to put it, David? They were, by definition of the word "dissolves," inquiring about water/blood soluble rounds.

That's an historical fact.

or rounds that would completely fragmentize, the statement does not say that the doctors at the autopsy asked us to determine if there were such things as soluble rounds

And yet that's exactly what they did. They called the FBI Lab immediately after a discussion with the autopsists who shared a "general feeling" that a non-metallic round which "dissolves after contact" "could have" struck JFK.

The fact that the FBI man called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds is consistent with the "general feeling" that such a weapon "could have" been used on JFK.

Are you saying the autopsists speculated about "one which dissolves after contacft" without speculating as to whether such rounds existed?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

A general feeling existed during the autopsy

that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.

and the phone call had nothing to do with soluble rounds

This is beyond tedious.

"soft-nosed" = "one which dissolves after contact" = "'plastic' type" = "ice bullet" = "completely fragmentize" = "blood soluble"

You want these words to mean something else.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

(quote name='David Josephs' timestamp='1345155211' post='258425')

Cliff... YOUR interpretation of the affidavits lets YOU come to a conclusion which in turn allows YOU to formulate a THEORY about the use of soluble rounds...

(/quote)

There is no "interpretation" of "one which dissolves after contact."

What part of "dissolves" escapes your understanding?

Seriously, David...You're saying that "soft nosed bullet" is different from "ice bullet,"'plastic' type," "one which dissolves after contact"?

Sibert said he called the FBI Lab to inquire into a round that "fragmented completely" and "completely fragmentized."

You are claiming that "fragmented completely" is not the same as "one which dissolved after contact."

Absurd.

You confuse which wounds they are discussing,

Not at all. We have reason to believe they knew of the existence of the throat wound, and lied about that later. Dr. John Ebersole said it was known.

you confuse what the purpose of the call from Sibert was

You claim that "fragment completely" isn't the same as "one which dissolves after contact." The only mystery here is why you would make such an obviously fallacious assertion...

You confuse what O'Neill repeatedly says about the "general feeling" in the room about the reason for the missing bullet - IT FELL OUT JFK's BACK...

What an egregious mis-characterization of what O'Neill said in his affidavit. The "general feeling" concerned a "soft-nosed bullet." Non-metallic. One that doesn't show up on x-ray. "One which dissolves after contact".

Wow, it must kill your back to bend over so far backwards to claim that a "soft-nosed bullet" is one that rolls out of the body.

Bullets don't roll out of the body, David, hate to break it to you.

What part of this statement eludes you? Where in their reports/statements do they mention asking Killion about soluble rounds?

The part where Sibert said he called to inquire about a round that would "fragment completely," i.e. blood soluble.

Be specific Cliff - this is ALL ABOUT YOUR POV, and has nothing to do with what was actually said.

O'Neill:

I know for a fact that when the autopsy was

complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance

at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher

in Dallas came out of JFK's body

Yes, after the call to the FBI Lab they had to deal with the Magic Bullet, and the flechette investigation was prematurely ended.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

The only thing tedious is your refusal to see how YOUR definitions of terms and YOUR interpretation of one sentence O'Neill writes while ignoring everything else he says.

THIS is historical fact Cliff:

I know for a fact that when the autopsy was

complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance

at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher

in Dallas came out of JFK's body

THIS is a soft-nosed bullet....

A soft-point bullet (SP round or JSP for short), also known as a soft-nosed bullet, is a lead expanding bullet with a copper or brass jacket that is left open at the tip, exposing some of the lead inside and is thus an example of a semi-jacketed round. Side by side comparison with a hollow-point bullet and FMJ ammunition will quickly illustrate the difference.

Soft-point bullets are less common than hollow points, due to the slower expansion and greater penetration, but they fill roles that hollow points do not. In some cases the reduced expansion is desired, so that more penetration is achieved before the bullet begins the rapid deceleration caused by expansion. In other cases, the smooth, rounded profile typical of a soft-point bullet is preferred over the concave tip of a hollow point, because the latter tends to suffer failure to feed malfunctions in certain magazine-fed firearms.

Funny thing here Cliff... note the absence of the words PLASTIC, ICE, DISSOLVE, SOLUBLE....

You sir have twisted the definitions and words from Sibert and O'Neill to suit your purpose... and to attempt to prove YOUR THEORY.

The Drs did not ASK anything

Sibert did not tell them anything

All you have is a DISCUSSION about these types of bullets....

A bullet that FRAGMENTS does not dissolve Cliff... it FRAGMENTS, as in many, many little pieces... THESE are fragments...

Tell me, when you dissolve Sugar in water... are there FRAGMENTS LEFT?

If you choose to cling to your argument as is... fine with me... The theory of using soluble rounds is still sound...

Your argument in favor of their use is woefully inadequate.

I'd challenge anyone to read the FBI's AFFIDAVITS and come to your own conclusion... How a diseappeared bullet in the back equates to the Autopsy doctors forwarding the HISTORICAL FACT that the THROAT WOUND may have been caused by such a weapon system is simply too far a stretch without a fwe more dots to connect them...

You are comfortable making that leap... from what I've seen as coroborration... I am not.

[David Josephs]

Yes, after the call to the FBI Lab they had to deal with the Magic Bullet, and the flechette investigation was prematurely ended.

And no Cliff... the MAGIC BULLET / SBT does not come into existence for months... the autopsy report seen in EXEC session on January 27 DOES NOT STATE THE SBT AS A POSSIBILITY..

It offers a completely different explanation for the throat wound...

So if on Jan 27 the throat wound is a fragment... WHEN does the SBT come into existence? according to you it begins THAT NIGHT?

So where in the existing autopsy report is this explanation Cliff?

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in

regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit

or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all

has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably

a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation

the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent,

since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in

the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the

right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt

in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike

any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a

finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

[Mike Rago]

In many states using FMJ ammunition is illegal for hunting.

They are illegal for hunting because this ammunition tends to pass through their target.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Cliff Varnell]

The only thing tedious is your refusal to see how YOUR definitions of terms and YOUR interpretation of one sentence O'Neill writes while ignoring everything else he says.

THIS is historical fact Cliff:

I know for a fact that when the autopsy was

complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance

at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher

in Dallas came out of JFK's body

Yes, after the phone call to the FBI Lab. Not before.

THIS is a soft-nosed bullet....

A soft-point bullet (SP round or JSP for short), also known as a soft-nosed bullet, is a lead expanding bullet with a copper or brass jacket that is left open at the tip, exposing some of the lead inside and is thus an example of a semi-jacketed round. Side by side comparison with a hollow-point bullet and FMJ ammunition will quickly illustrate the difference.

Soft-point bullets are less common than hollow points, due to the slower expansion and greater penetration, but they fill roles that hollow points do not. In some cases the reduced expansion is desired, so that more penetration is achieved before the bullet begins the rapid deceleration caused by expansion. In other cases, the smooth, rounded profile typical of a soft-point bullet is preferred over the concave tip of a hollow point, because the latter tends to suffer failure to feed malfunctions in certain magazine-fed firearms.

Funny thing here Cliff... note the absence of the words PLASTIC, ICE, DISSOLVE, SOLUBLE....

Right, which is why the autopsists were discussing something completely different.

The round you describe would show up on x-ray. Copper and brass show up on x-ray, right?

The kind of "soft-nosed bullet" they had their "general feeling" about didn't show up on x-ray.

They discussed types of rounds that would "fragment completely", "one which dissolves after contact" and not show up on x-ray

Your definition of "soft-nosed" doesn't match what the autopsists described.

You sir have twisted the definitions and words from Sibert and O'Neill to suit your purpose...

Factually incorrect. And quite ironic given your insistence that "fragment completely" means "roll out of the body whole."

No, David, I'm citing what they wrote -- Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire about rounds that "fragment completely" and "completely fragmentize". O'Neill characterized the discussion as involving "ones which dissolve after contact."

"One which dissolves after contact" = "completely fragmentize" = "fragment completely" = "blood soluble"

How you can deny this is a mystery.

[Cliff Varnell]

Yes, after the call to the FBI Lab they had to deal with the Magic Bullet, and the flechette investigation was prematurely ended.

And no Cliff... the MAGIC BULLET / SBT does not come into existence for months...

So? The round wasn't called CE399 for awhile, either.

Magic Bullet = CE399.

Nit-pick much?

Besides, the three-shot lone-nut scenario was settled upon at the highest levels of the US gov't on 11/22/63, and the autopsists were tasked with making the final autopsy report match the 3-shot scenario.

That's a fact.

The autopsists were tasked with reconciling the autopsy evidence with 3 shots and one recovered round.

That was their job. The final autopsy report listed two different locations for the back wound, and for the WC they came up- with another.

the autopsy report seen in EXEC session on January 27 DOES NOT STATE THE SBT AS A POSSIBILITY..

It offers a completely different explanation for the throat wound...

So if on Jan 27 the throat wound is a fragment... WHEN does the SBT come into existence? according to you it begins THAT NIGHT?

Yes, the 3-shot scenario and the appearance of what was later called CE399, or, if you please, the Magic Bullet both occurred on 11/22/63.

So where in the existing autopsy report is this explanation Cliff?

The existing autopsy report listed two wounds, both too high, so that the 3-shot scenario could be accommodated.

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in

regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit

or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all

has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably

a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation

the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent,

since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in

the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the

right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt

in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike

any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a

finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

Right! It is dawning on them that the back wound is too low. They are using the FBI report and the autopsy face sheet for the determination that the back wound was low...A low back wound destroys the 3-shot scenario!

That's why the autopsists put the wound "high" in two different locations.

1) "just above the upper border of the scapula"

2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process"

1) is consistent with T2, and 2) is consistent with C7/T1.

[Cliff Varnell]

If you choose to cling to your argument as is... fine with me... The theory of using soluble rounds is still sound...

Your argument in favor of their use is woefully inadequate.

Yes, it is "inadequate" to equate "fragment completely" with "dissolves after contact."

As any school kid knows, "fragment completely" means "roll out of the body whole."

Sigh.

I'd challenge anyone to read the FBI's AFFIDAVITS and come to your own conclusion... How a diseappeared bullet in the back equates to the Autopsy doctors forwarding the HISTORICAL FACT that the THROAT WOUND may have been caused by such a weapon system is simply too far a stretch without a fwe more dots to connect them...

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "fragments completely" is not the same as "dissolves after contact."

You couldn't be more painfully, obviously mistaken.

[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.

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.

No, he never mentioned them to me in relation to this weapon system.