Things Don't Add Up : A Novel of Kennedy Assassination Research

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Varnell

We have to keep in mind that two of the witnesses, Linda Willis and Clint Hill, were behind JFK at the time he was supposed to be grabbing his throat. You are correct, though, in quoting Nellie Connally as saying JFK had his hands at his throat. I had never read her testimony closely enough to see that Arlen Specter had clarified her words for her.

That being said, Mr. Jesus's video does tend to show us that JFK had one hand at his mouth and the left hand pulling at his tie. Mr. Jesus does make an extremely good case for a frontal shot through the windshield and he also puts forth a very good explanation for Connally's reaction.

I am a little puzzled as to just why someone would want to paralyze JFK with a dart, as opposed to killing him outright, but, as you say, to say he was or was not hit by conventional weaponry would be making an assumption.

Yes, JFK was not hit in the spine but, rather, 1.5-2" to the right of the spinal midline. However, there is a particularly large accumulation of nerves in the cervical area that leave the cervical spine to go to the arm.

"There was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes."

As you say, no assumptions can be made, and I refuse to assume any of the autopsy evidence is genuine. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to JFK being struck at the level of the T3 vertebra.

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Varnell

We have to keep in mind that two of the witnesses, Linda Willis and Clint Hill, were behind JFK at the time he was supposed to be grabbing his throat. You are correct, though, in quoting Nellie Connally as saying JFK had his hands at his throat. I had never read her testimony closely enough to see that Arlen Specter had clarified her words for her.

That being said, Mr. Jesus's video does tend to show us that JFK had one hand at his mouth and the left hand pulling at his tie. Mr. Jesus does make an extremely good case for a frontal shot through the windshield and he also puts forth a very good explanation for Connally's reaction.

I don't buy the through-the-windshield scenario. If it were a first-shot/kill-shot plan -- why would they aim through the windshield?

I am a little puzzled as to just why someone would want to paralyze JFK with a dart, as opposed to killing him outright,

Because there was no guarantee of a first-shot/kill-shot. What if JFK were wounded with the first shot and hit the deck? With a paralytic the round could hit anywhere on the body and be successful.

but, as you say, to say he was or was not hit by conventional weaponry would be making an assumption.

I go where the evidence takes me, or at least I try to. The first shot was an entrance to the throat which didn't cause major damage, or exit. The second shot was a hit to the back which didn't cause any major damage and didn't exit.

These facts are consistent with strikes by high tech weaponry, but inconsistent with strikes by conventional firearms.

Yes, JFK was not hit in the spine but, rather, 1.5-2" to the right of the spinal midline. However, there is a particularly large accumulation of nerves in the cervical area that leave the cervical spine to go to the arm.

But the round didn't strike that area.

Image548.gif

"There was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes."

As you say, no assumptions can be made, and I refuse to assume any of the autopsy evidence is genuine. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to JFK being struck at the level of the T3 vertebra.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is invited to repeat Lamson's bunch-fallacy non-argument in their own words.

There's never any takers for that one...

Edited May 18, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Varnell

We have to keep in mind that two of the witnesses, Linda Willis and Clint Hill, were behind JFK at the time he was supposed to be grabbing his throat. You are correct, though, in quoting Nellie Connally as saying JFK had his hands at his throat. I had never read her testimony closely enough to see that Arlen Specter had clarified her words for her.

That being said, Mr. Jesus's video does tend to show us that JFK had one hand at his mouth and the left hand pulling at his tie. Mr. Jesus does make an extremely good case for a frontal shot through the windshield and he also puts forth a very good explanation for Connally's reaction.

I don't buy the through-the-windshield scenario. If it were a first-shot/kill-shot plan -- why would they aim through the windshield?

I am a little puzzled as to just why someone would want to paralyze JFK with a dart, as opposed to killing him outright,

Because there was no guarantee of a first-shot/kill-shot. What if JFK were wounded with the first shot and hit the deck? With a paralytic the round could hit anywhere on the body and be successful.

but, as you say, to say he was or was not hit by conventional weaponry would be making an assumption.

I go where the evidence takes me, or at least I try to. The first shot was an entrance to the throat which didn't cause major damage, or exit. The second shot was a hit to the back which didn't cause any major damage and didn't exit.

These facts are consistent with strikes by high tech weaponry, but inconsistent with strikes by conventional firearms.

Yes, JFK was not hit in the spine but, rather, 1.5-2" to the right of the spinal midline. However, there is a particularly large accumulation of nerves in the cervical area that leave the cervical spine to go to the arm.

But the round didn't strike that area.

Image548.gif

"There was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes."

As you say, no assumptions can be made, and I refuse to assume any of the autopsy evidence is genuine. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to JFK being struck at the level of the T3 vertebra.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is invited to repeat Lamson's bunch-fallacy non-argument in their own words.

There's never any takers for that one...

Mr. Varnell

I see there are quite a number of points we agree on. It is always a bit awkward when I meet a fellow CT for the first time. There is always that uncomfortable period when two CT's are uncertain as to just which theories the other CT subscribes to.

Ah, to have a time machine to take us back and witness the whole thing for ourselves. Although, I must say, I would probably ruin the opportunity by closing my eyes at the moment of the head shot.