The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Where in the literature is there a reference to the CIA dart gun leaving a shallow bullet-hole like wound?

There's no such thing as a shallow bullet hole in soft tissue type wound.  The blood soluble technology was designed to dissolve in the body -- hence shallow wounds in soft tissue.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We see references to tiny red dots, but nothing of a type of dart that leaves a two-inch deep hole in a human body, large enough to stick a finger into.

We see references to individual projects ordered up by Special Forces and the CIA group.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You keep asserting that a "blood soluble" round leaves a two-inch deep hole (or so) does...but is there any evidence of that? 

Since the round is designed to dissolve in the body we can assume it didn't exit.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If your answer is, "well, no a paper trails"....

Such a dart-round must have been fired at 75 yards or so, minimum. And yet the speed of such as shot is unknown...but likely very slow, compared to a 30.06. That means there would be quite a bit of drop in the shot. 

Making up stuff is a big hobby of yours, we know.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

A very and fragile light projectile, that could not withstand much propulsive power, and without structural integrity to leave anything to be found...fired at a moving target...into a wind....

Which might explain a larger round specifically designed for this job.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You think that is what happened? And then this light projectile dart disintegrated in JFK's body but left a permanent two-inch deep hole in his back (after passing through a coat and shirt), a hole large enough to stick a finger into? 

A larger round would be more stable.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Seems to me a few laws of physics might be challenged here.

 

So what kind of standard round leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue -- and then disappears?

Thrill us with your acumen, Ben.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

May 8, 1963.

Hue, South Vietnam.

Buddhist protesters crowded around a radio station when two explosions killed eight people.

The Catholic Diem regime blamed the Viet Cong; the Buddhists.blamed Diem.

From JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass, pgs 130-1:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victim's bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that "the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air," blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies...

...In May 1963, Diem's younger brother, Ngo Dinh Can, who ruled Hue, thought from the very beginning that the Viet Cong had nothing to do with the explosions at the radio station. According to an investigation carried out by the Catholic newspaper, Hoa Binh, Ngo Dinh Can and his advisers were "convinced the explosions had to be the work of an American agent who wanted to make trouble for Diem." In 1970 Hoa Binh located such a man, a Captain Scott, who in later years becamea U.S. military adviser in the Mekong Delta. Scott had come to Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used "an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people at the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device."

<quote off>

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

25 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There's no such thing as a shallow bullet hole in soft tissue type wound.  The blood soluble technology was designed to dissolve in the body -- hence shallow wounds in soft tissue.

We see references to individual projects ordered up by Special Forces and the CIA group.

Since the round is designed to dissolve in the body we can assume it didn't exit.

Making up stuff is a big hobby of yours, we know.

Which might explain a larger round specifically designed for this job.

A larger round would be more stable.

So what kind of standard round leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue -- and then disappears?

Thrill us with your acumen, Ben.

Well, that is assuming the hole in JFK's back was only two inches deep. Even so the CIA dart-gun explanation seems to lack credibility. 

Even the two-inch deep wound is a shaky premise. 

You have never come back with a cite, along the lines of, "Pathologist Bill Smith has done hundreds of gunshot probes. He says he never found a bullet wound he could not probe to conclusion or exit from the body." 

If you find that, then maybe we can move from problem number one. 

Or, "Pathologist Bill Smith has probed hundreds of gunshot wounds, and says in some fraction of cases the probe cannot probe the wound to conclusion. Body organs shift, closing off the wound." 

At best Finck was lightly experienced at probes, and Hume a rank amateur. They worked under harried, hurried conditions, lost control of procedures, answered orders barked from a viewing gallery, terminated procedures on demand.

No one credits any part of the JFK autopsy as conclusive. 

But if Boris Badanov and Natasha were seen in Dallas...maybe you have something. 

[Cliff Varnell]

Steve Kober:

I have just reread A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald Phillips which presents the work of Photonic expert Tom Wilson. In one chapter, Tom analysed an enlargement of Atlgens photograph #5. Tom Wilson's conclusion of the Dal-Tex second floor open window shows a man with a beard looking with his left eye through a device described as follows: " the device has a small oval tube at the end nearest the window. There are two small protrusions coming out of the device on the side away from the man. The device is aprx 6 to 9 inches in diameter and is aprx 36 to 48 inches long with a 90 degree eyepiece. Tom finishes the paragraph with his need to investigate this device further. I thought I might give it a try. After researching through the United States Patent Files, I think I may have found a device that matched Wilson's description.

Under Patent US 6705194B2 , issued on March 16, 2004 a patent was issued for a device for firing " a traceless gun firing lethal or non-lethal bullets . After impacting the surface of the substrate the ice bullet is melted and no traces of the bullet remains. The Patent is for " A Self Rechargeable Gun and Firing Procedure and the assignee is named as "Jet Energy Inc. NJ.

I will attach the PDF file ( it's 8 pages and not too technical). Focus on Fig 6 whose look a demensions are a good match for the Wilson device. It also uses an explosive propellant rather than high pressure. Maybe thsi is the "firecracker" sound heard. It was discussed that the first shot should be the kill shot, but maybe that was not case. Maybe the first shot ( in ther back) was to make sure that JFK would not be knocked down thus out of sight for the other teams. Instead , maybe it was thought to paralysis him then he's an easy target for the rifle teams. I propose that this device existed in 1963 and used a paralysising compound in hard ice form. Read the Patent and see the muzzle velocity ( up to 9000 ft/sec) and Fig 8 shows an inpact into 20 mm of plywood. It also had a telescopic sight fitted.

US_Patent_6705194_Ice_Bullet_Gun.pdf

</q>

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, that is assuming the hole in JFK's back was only two inches deep. Even so the CIA dart-gun explanation seems to lack credibility. 

It runs counter to your pet theory, that’s all.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Even the two-inch deep wound is a shaky premise. 

So what kind of weapon leaves a shallow wound then disappears?

Talk about shaky!

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You have never come back with a cite, along the lines of, "Pathologist Bill Smith has done hundreds of gunshot probes. He says he never found a bullet wound he could not probe to conclusion or exit from the body." 

No, I’ll leave the fiction to you.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If you find that, then maybe we can move from problem number one. 

Or, "Pathologist Bill Smith has probed hundreds of gunshot wounds, and says in some fraction of cases the probe cannot probe the wound to conclusion. Body organs shift, closing off the wound." 

At best Finck was lightly experienced at probes, and Hume a rank amateur. They worked under harried, hurried conditions, lost control of procedures, answered orders barked from a viewing gallery, terminated procedures on demand.

Oh, so you’re back to this again.  Of course.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Lead a horse to water...

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/2c/f1/b7f57725cf38b1/US6705194.pdf

See Example 4 on page 8.

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Griffith]

This is a sad waste of time and an unfortunate repetition of falsehood. 

The shoring idea is patently absurd. The bullet would have been long gone before the shirt collar could have shored up the neck. 

Exit wounds are not punched in. The throat wound was punched in. It was also only 3-5 mm in diameter. 

As we have discussed at length in this forum, we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point. Boswell admitted to the ARRB that once they removed the chest organs, they were able to probe the wound, and Dr. Karnei noted that the doctors positioned JFK's body "every which way" to facilitate the probing. They found the end of the tract--it ended at the lining of the chest cavity. Men around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the chest cavity lining. This was when Finck declared for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point, and that's why a call was placed to Dallas to inquire if a bullet had been found there. 

We have known for years now that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat wound.

The shirt slits were not made by a bullet but by a nurse who was hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothes. That's why there's no fabric missing from them, and that's why no copper traces were found in or around the slits, although copper traces were found around the holes in the back of the coat and shirt. The FBI’s Robert Frazier admitted that the front shirt slits were “not specifically characteristic of a bullet hole” (5 H 61). An initial FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment” (Director FBI to SAC Dallas, Urgent, 11/26/1963, FBI HQ JFK File, 62-109060-421; Jevons to Conrad, 11/26/1963, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-1086; Hoover to James J. Rowley, Chief of U.S. Secret Service, 12/5/1963, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-1781; LINK) 

Frazier lamely theorized that a yawing bullet could have made the slits. However, when bullets make exit holes in clothing, they remove fabric in the process, yet no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Moreover, a yawing bullet could not have produced a small, neat, punched-in throat wound, even if the shirt had been able to shore up the neck a millisecond before the bullet exited. A yawing bullet would have produced a much larger wound. 

Any bullet exiting the shirt slits could not have missed the tie. We have known for years that the tie had no hole through it and no nick on either edge. This is powerful, irrefutable evidence that the SBT is bogus. 

And on and on we could go. It is just absurd. It is sad that we have a group of people who, for reasons best known to themselves, simply refuse to acknowledge plain, obvious, determinative facts but keep on repeating myths that have been debunked for decades now. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

This is a sad waste of time and an unfortunate repetition of falsehood. 

The shoring idea is patently absurd. The bullet would have been long gone before the shirt collar could have shored up the neck. 

Exit wounds are not punched in. The throat wound was punched in. It was also only 3-5 mm in diameter. 

As we have discussed at length in this forum, we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point. Boswell admitted to the ARRB that once they removed the chest organs, they were able to probe the wound, and Dr. Karnei noted that the doctors positioned JFK's body "every which way" to facilitate the probing. They found the end of the tract--it ended at the lining of the chest cavity. Men around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the chest cavity lining. This was when Finck declared for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point, and that's why a call was placed to Dallas to inquire if a bullet had been found there. 

We have known for years now that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat wound.

The shirt slits were not made by a bullet but by a nurse who was hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothes. That's why there's no fabric missing from them, and that's why no copper traces were found in or around the slits, although copper traces were found around the holes in the back of the coat and shirt. The FBI’s Robert Frazier admitted that the front shirt slits were “not specifically characteristic of a bullet hole” (5 H 61). An initial FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment” (Director FBI to SAC Dallas, Urgent, 11/26/1963, FBI HQ JFK File, 62-109060-421; Jevons to Conrad, 11/26/1963, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-1086; Hoover to James J. Rowley, Chief of U.S. Secret Service, 12/5/1963, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-1781; LINK) 

Frazier lamely theorized that a yawing bullet could have made the slits. However, when bullets make exit holes in clothing, they remove fabric in the process, yet no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Moreover, a yawing bullet could not have produced a small, neat, punched-in throat wound, even if the shirt had been able to shore up the neck a millisecond before the bullet exited. A yawing bullet would have produced a much larger wound. 

Any bullet exiting the shirt slits could not have missed the tie. We have known for years that the tie had no hole through it and no nick on either edge. This is powerful, irrefutable evidence that the SBT is bogus. 

And on and on we could go. It is just absurd. It is sad that we have a group of people who, for reasons best known to themselves, simply refuse to acknowledge plain, obvious, determinative facts but keep on repeating myths that have been debunked for decades now. 

We can agree on this. The "shored" wound argument pushed by Lattimer and propped up by Baden et al was a hoax. While it is true "shored" exit wounds are exits that look a lot like entrances, I found a top textbook with a section on how to tell a shored exit apart from its corresponding entrance. According to this textbook, the entrance wound leading to a shored exit is inevitably smaller than the shored exit. Well, hell, JFK's back wound was, by all estimates, larger than his throat wound. If one assumes they are connected, then, one is forced to assume the back wound is the exit, and not the throat wound.

P.S. I'll save the SBT-lovers out there their next post where they claim whoever wrote this textbook was an idiot, etc. It was Dr. Charles Petty-THE top gunshot wounds expert among the members of the HSCA Pathology Panel. Even Worse, he wrote his chapter on gunshot wounds while serving on the HSCA Pathology Panel. So he damned well knew the throat wound was not a shored wound of entrance, even while signing onto a report pretending his throat wound was a shored wound of exit. .

FWIW, I had a meeting with Dr. Wecht at the 2014 Bethesda conference that focused on this issue. He was disgusted by Petty's subterfuge.  I sent him the following slide, and half-expected him to add it or at least add the info provided into his presentations. But he never did. For whatever reason, he was reluctant to call out his colleagues on their obvious deceptions, and instead chose to pretend they were simply mistaken. I believe he should have taken the other route. 

[Bill Brown]

18 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’re begging the question, assuming the wound was created by a standard round.

You asked — “What kind of weapon and/or ammunition do you suppose was used”...

What kind of weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

Dart gun.

 

 

No. You're cherry-picking my comment.

 

First, we were talking about bullets (or, at least I was).  Second, what happened to this mysterious dart?  It evaporated?  It was made of ice?  C'mon man.

 

[Bill Brown]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

We've been through this, but the fact remains that there is NO evidence the shooter was wearing a t-shirt. None of the witesses described such a thing. And none of them noticed the shooter's bare arms. So the facts strongly suggest the sniper was NOT wearing a t-shirt. 

 

Now you're twisting it around.

 

I didn't say matter-of-factly that the shooter was wearing a T-shirt.  I simply said that just because witnesses describe the sniper's nest shooter as wearing a light-colored shirt does not rule out Oswald as this shooter.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

No. You're cherry-picking my comment.

No, you’re assuming the wound was caused by a conventional bullet — an assumption that cannot be made.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

First, we were talking about bullets (or, at least I was).  Second, what happened to this mysterious dart?  It evaporated?  It was made of ice?  C'mon man.

 

The technology existed.  The night of the autopsy, Humes et al seriously entertained the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon.

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

We can agree on this. The "shored" wound argument pushed by Lattimer and propped up by Baden et al was a hoax. While it is true "shored" exit wounds are exits that look a lot like entrances, I found a top textbook with a section on how to tell a shored exit apart from its corresponding entrance. According to this textbook, the entrance wound leading to a shored exit is inevitably smaller than the shored exit. Well, hell, JFK's back wound was, by all estimates, larger than his throat wound. If one assumes they are connected, then, one is forced to assume the back wound is the exit, and not the throat wound.

P.S. I'll save the SBT-lovers out there their next post where they claim whoever wrote this textbook was an idiot, etc. It was Dr. Charles Petty-THE top gunshot wounds expert among the members of the HSCA Pathology Panel. Even Worse, he wrote his chapter on gunshot wounds while serving on the HSCA Pathology Panel. So he damned well knew the throat wound was not a shored wound of entrance, even while signing onto a report pretending his throat wound was a shored wound of exit. .

FWIW, I had a meeting with Dr. Wecht at the 2014 Bethesda conference that focused on this issue. He was disgusted by Petty's subterfuge.  I sent him the following slide, and half-expected him to add it or at least add the info provided into his presentations. But he never did. For whatever reason, he was reluctant to call out his colleagues on their obvious deceptions, and instead chose to pretend they were simply mistaken. I believe he should have taken the other route. 

Does the slide show a gunshot through living or dead tissue? Dead tissue would be less elastic and so would be less susceptible to the effects of shoring.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Gerry Down

[Benjamin Cole]

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It runs counter to your pet theory, that’s all.

So what kind of weapon leaves a shallow wound then disappears?

Talk about shaky!

No, I’ll leave the fiction to you.

Oh, so you’re back to this again.  Of course.

I have just reread A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald Phillips which presents the work of Photonic expert Tom Wilson. In one chapter, Tom analysed an enlargement of Atlgens photograph #5. Tom Wilson's conclusion of the Dal-Tex second floor open window shows a man with a beard looking with his left eye through a device described as follows: " the device has a small oval tube at the end nearest the window. There are two small protrusions coming out of the device on the side away from the man. The device is aprx 6 to 9 inches in diameter and is aprx 36 to 48 inches long with a 90 degree eyepiece. --CV

The (correx spelling) Altgens photo has all this? That is amazing. 

Was Boris Badanov bearded? If not, probably the type to have a heavy 5 o'clock shadow like a beard. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I have just reread A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald Phillips which presents the work of Photonic expert Tom Wilson. In one chapter, Tom analysed an enlargement of Atlgens photograph #5. Tom Wilson's conclusion of the Dal-Tex second floor open window shows a man with a beard looking with his left eye through a device described as follows: " the device has a small oval tube at the end nearest the window. There are two small protrusions coming out of the device on the side away from the man. The device is aprx 6 to 9 inches in diameter and is aprx 36 to 48 inches long with a 90 degree eyepiece. --CV

Steve Kober wrote that.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The (correx spelling) Altgens photo has all this? That is amazing. 

Was Boris Badanov bearded? If not, probably the type to have a heavy 5 o'clock shadow like a beard. 

Such are the dangers of marrying a conclusion prior to investigation.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Steve Kober wrote that.

Such are the dangers of marrying a conclusion prior to investigation.

Are you positively concluding, before pondering the matter, that Boris Badanov was not involved with a Russian frozen dart that was fired 100 meters into the wind at a moving target, likely at a subsonic speed, and then penetrated two inches into JFK (through two layers of clothing), and then disappeared? 

If you look at the Altgens photo...you have nearly the proof you need....