New article at KENNEDYS & KING: JFK Secret Service Agent Paul Landis Makes a Big Splash In 2023...But How Credible Is He?

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That's your view, and you are entitled to it. 

You have the last word. 

You’re not entitled to mis-represent the facts of the case without getting called on it.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Your not entitled to mis-represent the facts of the case without getting called on it.

That's your version of the facts. 

Other people view and collate the facts in a different manner than you. Even within the CT research community, let alone the LN'ers. 

Try to broaden your perspective, keep an open mind, and refrain from claiming that other people are misrepresenting the facts. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That's your version of the facts. 

No, Ben, we can all see JFK raise his hands to his throat in the Zfilm.  Even you.  Bennett could not have seen the back shot prior to turning to the front, which Altgens 6 shows had not yet occurred as of Z255.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Other people view and collate the facts in a different manner than you.

You don’t collate any facts at all.  You cite no evidence of a first shot/back shot, instead you pronounce it was a fact on the basis of nothing.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

 

Even within the CT research community, let alone the LN'ers. 

Try to broaden your perspective, keep an open mind,

Imagine getting a lecture on keeping an open mind from someone who is thoroughly close minded to anything he can’t spin to suit his pet theories.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

and refrain from claiming that other people are misrepresenting the facts. 

You need to quit mis-representing the facts, Ben.  Until then I’ll be here to call you out on your fictions.

[Cliff Varnell]

Linda Willis stood to JFK’s left and behind him during the shooting sequence.  From her WC testimony.

<quote on, emphasis added>
Mr. LIEBELER. Did You hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss WILLIS. Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went. <\q>

First-shot/throat shot.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

Here’s Nellie Connally’s WC testimony:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.

I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.  I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. <\q>

First-shot/throat shot.

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That's your version of the facts. 

Other people view and collate the facts in a different manner than you. Even within the CT research community, let alone the LN'ers. 

Try to broaden your perspective, keep an open mind, and refrain from claiming that other people are misrepresenting the facts. 

 

 

Okay.  I now open my mind to a scenario where JFK suffered a shallow wound in the soft tissue of his back circa Z200.  He responded to this non-fatal strike in his back by balling his fists in front of his throat.  What bad luck for him — shot in the throat after he raised his fists.  So after avoiding the fists the round entered the throat, ripped a couple inches of trachea, burst some blood vessels, left a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes (according to the cervical x-ray declared authentic by Dr. David Mantik) and then disappeared.

That’s another soft tissue wound.  

Two short loads, Ben?

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Okay.  I now open my mind to a scenario where JFK suffered a shallow wound in the soft tissue of his back circa Z200.  He responded to this non-fatal strike in his back by balling his fists in front of his throat.  What bad luck for him — shot in the throat after he raised his fists.  So after avoiding the fists the round entered the throat, ripped a couple inches of trachea, burst some blood vessels, left a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes (according to the cervical x-ray declared authentic by Dr. David Mantik) and then disappeared.

That’s another soft tissue wound.  

Two short loads, Ben?

 

The throat wound is a mystery. Tink Thompson has suggested a fragment of windshield glass was responsible. Ir doesn't help that the wound itself was obliterated, making assumptions about that wound precarious. 

I forget now if the throat wound was exactly under the knot of JFK's tie or not. 

I have never been satisfied as to where the throat shot would have come from, with the windshield in the way. 

Do you suspect the CIA was able to fashion not only a disintegrating "ice" bullet, but one that could be programmed to swerve in flight, flying over the windshield but then ducking down to strike JFK in the throat? 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The throat wound is a mystery. Tink Thompson has suggested a fragment of windshield glass was responsible.

Glass shows up on x-ray.  Tink is wrong about a lot of stuff.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

Ir doesn't help that the wound itself was obliterated, making assumptions about that wound precarious. 

And two Parkland doctors —Carrico and Jones — wrote contemporaneous reports describing the wound as an entrance.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I forget now if the throat wound was exactly under the knot of JFK's tie or not. 

Not.  It was between the tie knot and the Adam’s apple.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I have never been satisfied as to where the throat shot would have come from, with the windshield in the way. 

Do you suspect the CIA was able to fashion not only a disintegrating "ice" bullet, but one that could be programmed to swerve in flight, flying over the windshield but then ducking down to strike JFK in the throat? 

A Z190 shot from Black Dog Man works.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Glass shows up on x-ray.  Tink is wrong about a lot of stuff.

And two Parkland doctors —Carrico and Jones — wrote contemporaneous reports describing the wound as an entrance.

Not.  It was between the tie knot and the Adam’s apple.

A Z190 shot from Black Dog Man works.

OK, that is your explanation. Black Dog man fired a disintegrating bullet into the throat of JFK  ~Z190. 

I accept your explanation as your earnest assessment of what happened. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, that is your explanation.

I’m just following through on the autopsists “general feeling” — JFK was hit with a round that disintegrated.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

Black Dog man fired a disintegrating bullet into the throat of JFK  ~Z190. 

See above.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I accept your explanation as your earnest assessment of what happened. 

 

Can you accept the fact that the docs, with the body in front of them, seriously considered the scenario where JFK was hit with a high tech round — exactly like weaponry developed for the CIA?

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I’m just following through on the autopsists “general feeling” — JFK was hit with a round that disintegrated.

See above.

Can you accept the fact that the docs, with the body in front of them, seriously considered the scenario where JFK was hit with a high tech round — exactly like weaponry developed for the CIA?

CV-

I think your explanation is faintly possible, and earnestly made. 

I lean towards other explanations, also earnestly made.  

[Greg Doudna]

Cliff V., my problem with the disintegrating bullet idea which you propose happened from two separate gunmen (one from the rear and one from the Grassy Knoll, right?) is the high-tech dissolving bullets were designed to have stealth executions in which the victim might not even be aware they had been shot. But that does not apply at all to the JFK assassination, so what would be the point in the first place of going with high-tech bullets that would dissolve (what point to it?) instead of tried-and-true conventional sniper bullets? And were high-tech dissolving bullets known to have been used in any specific documented hit, with wounds that look like conventional gunshot wounds, not only then but even to the present day? 

What logic would there be to anyone planning an assassination in a public place of a figure in a motorcade to use disintegrating bullets? Why?

Do you think Connally was hit with a dissolving bullet? You have never said so, but why would an assassination be done with two shooters using Dick Tracy science fiction bullets and the third (the Connally shooter) not? What is the logic there?

Are you holding to a serious argument that it is because all conceivable possible explanations with conventional bullets are excluded, therefore it can only have been a kind of bullet never known to have been actually used in a killing, for no imaginable reason why it would be used, and for which there is no positive evidence it was so used in this case apart from the backward claim that all conceivable explanations involving conventional bullets are excluded?

In the case of two gunmen but not a third that day?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

I think your explanation is faintly possible, and earnestly made. 

So in other words you cannot accept the fact the autopsists believed this.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I lean towards other explanations, also earnestly made.  

I don’t find anything “earnest” about your chronic mis-representation of the evidence.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Cliff V., my problem with the disintegrating bullet idea which you propose happened from two separate gunmen (one from the rear and one from the Grassy Knoll, right?) is the high-tech dissolving bullets were designed to have stealth executions in which the victim might not even be aware they had been shot. But that does not apply at all to the JFK assassination, so what would be the point in the first place of going with high-tech bullets that would dissolve (what point to it?) instead of tried-and-true conventional sniper bullets?

The FBI had been briefed to be on the lookout for similar technology imported from outside the country for use against “our people.”  As a false flag operation it was all lined up.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

And were high-tech dissolving bullets known to have been used in any specific documented hit, with wounds that look like conventional gunshot wounds, not only then but even to the present day? 

The back and throat wounds did not look like conventional gunshot wounds.  Shallow wounds in soft tissue are not “conventional.”

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

What logic would there be to anyone planning an assassination in a public place of a figure in a motorcade to use disintegrating bullets? Why?

Other than pinning it on Kostikov & Co.?

First shot paralytic — doesn’t JFK appear paralyzed?

Second shot toxin in case the head shots miss.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Do you think Connally was hit with a dissolving bullet?

No, I think he was hit with JFK head shots that missed.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

You have never said so, but why would an assassination be done with two shooters using Dick Tracy science fiction bullets and the third (the Connally shooter) not? What is the logic there?

The head shots were conventional rounds.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Are you holding to a serious argument that it is because all conceivable possible explanations with conventional bullets are excluded, therefore it can only have been a kind of bullet never known to have been actually used in a killing,

Where do you get the idea MKNAOMI was never involved in killing?

Larry Hancock’s NEXUS, pg 36

<quote on, emphasis in the original>

Confirmation of the MKNAOMI project was revealed in 1977, when Carter administration Defense Secretary Brown requested an internal review of CIA projects which had involved the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense's legal counsel conducted the investigation and among other things reported back that MKNAOMI had begun in the early 1950's and was "intended to stockpile severely incapacitating and lethal materials and to develop gadgetry for dissemination of these materials."

A June 29, 1975 CIA memorandum has also been located which documents the SOD/CIA relationship and confirms that no written records were kept; management was by verbal instruction and "human continuity." The memo refers to "swarms of project requests" and cites examples of suicide pills, chemicals to anesthetize occupants to facilitate building entries, "L-pills" and aphrodisiacs for operational use. The memo notes "some requests for support approved by the CIA had apparently involved assassination."

<quote off>

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

for no imaginable reason why it would be used, and for which there is no positive evidence it was so used in this case apart from the backward claim that all conceivable explanations involving conventional bullets are excluded?

That the autopsists seriously considered the high tech scenario is sufficient reason to take it seriously.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The FBI had been briefed to be on the lookout for similar technology imported from outside the country for use against “our people.”  As a false flag operation it was all lined up.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

<quote on, emphasis added>

Senseney: And the only thing that I can say is, I just have to suppose that, having been told to maintain the sort of show and tell display of hardware that we had on sort of stockpile for them, these were not items that could be used. They were display items like you would see in a museum, and they used those to show to the agents as well as to the FBI, to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people. (pg 163)

Baker: ...There are about 60 agencies of Government that do either intelligence or law enforcement work.

Senseney: I am sure most all of those knew of what we were doing; yes...

...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country. </q>