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

[Benjamin Cole]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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>

By your lights there were perhaps five or six gunman that day. 

One "ice bullet shooter-man" behind the limo, and the "Black-Dog ice-bullet-man". Then, one or likely two "ordinary" shooters behind the Presidential limo, and one ordinary shooter from the front, who perped the windshield strike from the left front.  Another shooter who perped the smoke-and-bang show from the GK, or possibly he was a sixth shooter. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

By your lights there were perhaps five or six gunman that day. 

One "ice bullet shooter-man" behind the limo, and the "Black-Dog ice-bullet-man". Then, one or likely two "ordinary" shooters behind the Presidential limo, and one ordinary shooter from the front, who perped the windshield strike from the left front.  Another shooter who perped the smoke-and-bang show from the GK, or possibly he was a sixth shooter. 

All I know is that the autopsists seriously considered a high tech strike which turned MKNAOMI into persons of interest.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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>

I did not mean chemicals and pills, that has happened. I mean any verified known specific cases (name, date, location) of assassination by dissolving bullet fired from a rifle--can you name any? 

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

There is no record the autopsists considered that for the throat wound, but they did ask that for the upper back entrance wound out of desperation. Maybe "consider" is not even the right word; they wondered (being uninformed and not expert in such matters) whether dissolving bullets were a viable possibility. 

When you wrote to Benjamin:

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

There is no record any autopsists believed that, or were sure it was even possible, but they wanted to know whether that was a theoretical possibility. Not the same thing. And what answer did they get back? There is no information they got a "yes" answer back from those in a position to know. It seems to me that as late as now in the year 2023 and still not a single verified specific instance in history of a killing done with a rifle firing a dissolving bullet--name, date, location--is a pretty good argument that kind of bullet was probably not in operational use then. 

There are two major possibilities on the table explaining the upper back and throat wounds with conventional bullets: first the single bullet theory, which connects the back entrance to a throat exit, which has the known criticisms against it, compared to another line of possibility in which those two wounds are from separate bullets.

"There is no way to know for sure how the undamaged bullet ended up on top of the rear seat. But there seem to be only two real possiblities, both of which can be inferred from the Zapruder film. One way is that an undercharged bullet, having already been lodged in the president's back from an initial gunshot, was jolted out of his body after a subsequent shot to the head caused his upper body to be thrown violently back against the seat, bouncing off of it with great force. A second possibility is that at some point in those hectic moments, the bullet fell out of the president's back and onto the first lady's clothing (her white-gloved hand did brush hard against his back, around where the bullet could have been embedded at the moment of the final shot). As one can see in the Zapruder film, Jackie, at this stage, climbed onto the trunk of the speeding car, possibly to look for or retrieve a portion of her husband's skull--or out of sheer panic to take cover from further gunshots. In fact, the section of the back seat over which she stretched corresponds to the spot where Landis says he found the bullet. The autopsy evidence, as developed the night of the assassination, supports either one of these results ... the shoulder wound was shallow. Two doctors found that they could not pass more than half a pinky finger into the opening. Metal probes likewise uncovered no path of the bullet through the body ... [FBI agents O'Neill and Sibert] discussed the frustration of the Bethesda doctors when they could not locate a bullet or exit wound for the projectile that had entered the president's shoulder... the wound in the back, according to Sibert and O'Neill, did not align with the location of the front-neck wound; such a pathway would have required a bullet traveling from the book depository, behind the motorcade, to have changed course inside the president's body so as to exit higher up, through the neck, without hitting any bone to alter its course... Landis's discovery of the bullet on top of the rear seat, if true, comports with the initial finding: that the bullet had lodged superficially in the president's back before being dislodged by the final blast to his head. It also explains the 'pristine' nature of the bullet..." (James Robenalt, "A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held 'Lone Gunman' Theory", Vanity Fair, Sept 9, 2023, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman)

Then that leaves the throat wound requiring explanation.

Why not consider--consider--a return to an early idea of a number of the doctors who first observed the wounds: that the throat wound was an entrance, that there was a larger exit wound at the rear of the head to the right of the EOP, and the bullet that entered at the throat exited near the EOP. No disappearing bullet in the neck. And removal of the "what about the throat wound?" objection to a non-perforating upper back entrance wound compatible with the Landis bullet.

Dr. Paul Peters, Nov 1966: "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occipit, and the only answer we could think [of] was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head..." (Lifton, Best Evidence [1982 Dell edn]m 407)

Dr. Malcom Perry: "Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that the wound on the outside of Kennedy's throat was below the wound on his trachea, and that this suggested to him that the bullet creating these wounds was heading up the neck, if fired from in front, or down the neck, if fired from behind." (Pat Speer, chap. 17, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter17newerviewsonthesamescene)

And Cyril Wecht:

Dr. Cyril Wecht: "According to Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History, Wecht had briefly come to speculate that a bullet had entered Kennedy's throat and exited his 'lower left occipital protuberance.' While Wecht quickly gave up on this idea, due to the incompatibility of such a bullet's trajectory with a shot from the grassy knoll..." (Speer, preceding link)

From where would such a shot have been fired? From the storm drain on the north side of Elm, post Z313. No windshield obstruction, upward angle, JFK already thrown backward and to the left from the head shot of Z313, perfect assassination shot at close range. That storm drain was not sealed or even checked by the Secret Service or Dallas Police, even after the fatal shots at the president in the immediate vicinity, a security oversight. Forget crawling through pipes anywhere, just a shooter in that storm drain. No officer reported looking in that storm drain to verify no one was in that storm drain from which a single perfect kill shot at JFK could have happened that would be a throat entrance/rear-head exit. After the shot the shooter would have tossed the weapon, not himself, far into one of the tunnels, then waited until night to exit out the manhole cover on top the way he had entered. It would account for one or two witnesses saying they actually saw smoke coming from the storm drain, a number of other witnesses smelling gunsmoke in the vicinity of the limousine not otherwise well explained, and a few witnesses thinking a shot sounded like it came from the front of and inside the limousine itself from the sound.

Tom Robinson, Gawler's Funeral Home, who cleaned up and reconstructed the JFK skull after the autopsy:

Tom Robinson: "Robinson also told Purdy [HSCA, Jan 1977] that he remembered (...) the doctors probing 'at the base of the head,' with an '18 inch piece of metal.' And this wasn't an isolated incident. Notes on Robinson's 1996 interview with the ARRB reflect that (...) he had 'vivid recollections of a very long, malleable probe being used during the autopsy. His most vivid recollection of the probe is seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head (after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck. He was adamant about this recollection. He also recalls seeing the wound high in the back probed unsuccessfully, meaning that the probe did not exit anywhere.'" (Speer, preceding link)

Edited November 4, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I did not mean chemicals and pills, that has happened. I mean any verified known specific cases (name, date, location) of assassination by dissolving bullet fired from a rifle--can you name any? 

Of course not.

”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." 

Do you need this explained?

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

There is no record the autopsists considered that for the throat wound, but they did ask that for the upper back entrance wound out of desperation. Maybe "consider" is not even the right word; they wondered (being uninformed and not expert in such matters) whether dissolving bullets were a viable possibility. 

When you wrote to Benjamin:

There is no record any autopsists believed that, or were sure it was even possible, but they wanted to know whether that was a theoretical possibility. Not the same thing.

So you want to split hairs over whether “believe” and “general feeling” are significantly different?

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And what answer did they get back?

That the Magic Bullet was discovered.

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

There is no information they got a "yes" answer back from those in a position to know.

Do you need this explained?

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>

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It seems to me that as late as now in the year 2023 and still not a single verified specific instance in history of a killing done with a rifle firing a dissolving bullet--name, date, location--is a pretty good argument that kind of bullet was probably not in operational use then. 

What part of “no written records were kept” do you not understand?

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

There are two major possibilities on the table explaining the upper back and throat wounds with conventional bullets: first the single bullet theory, which connects the back entrance to a throat exit, which has the known criticisms against it, compared to another line of possibility in which those two wounds are from separate bullets.

"There is no way to know for sure how the undamaged bullet ended up on top of the rear seat. But there seem to be only two real possiblities, both of which can be inferred from the Zapruder film. One way is that an undercharged bullet, having already been lodged in the president's back from an initial gunshot,        

So JFK responded to a shot in the back by holding his fists in front of his throat?  He suffered a shallow wound in his back but didn’t try to duck out of harms way over the next 6 seconds?

SSA Glen Bennett described the back shot immediately before the head shot.  What’s your basis for challenging his account?

 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

      was jolted out of his body after a subsequent shot to the head caused his upper body to be thrown violently back against the seat, bouncing off of it with great force. A second possibility is that at some point in those hectic moments, the bullet fell out of the president's back and onto the first lady's clothing (her white-gloved hand did brush hard against his back, around where the bullet could have been embedded at the moment of the final shot). As one can see in the Zapruder film, Jackie, at this stage, climbed onto the trunk of the speeding car, possibly to look for or retrieve a portion of her husband's skull--or out of sheer panic to take cover from further gunshots. In fact, the section of the back seat over which she stretched corresponds to the spot where Landis says he found the bullet. The autopsy evidence, as developed the night of the assassination, supports either one of these results ... the shoulder wound was shallow. Two doctors found that they could not pass more than half a pinky finger into the opening. Metal probes likewise uncovered no path of the bullet through the body ... [FBI agents O'Neill and Sibert] discussed the frustration of the Bethesda doctors when they could not locate a bullet or exit wound for the projectile that had entered the president's shoulder... the wound in the back, according to Sibert and O'Neill, did not align with the location of the front-neck wound; such a pathway would have required a bullet traveling from the book depository, behind the motorcade, to have changed course inside the president's body so as to exit higher up, through the neck, without hitting any bone to alter its course... Landis's discovery of the bullet on top of the rear seat, if true, comports with the initial finding: that the bullet had lodged superficially in the president's back before being dislodged by the final blast to his head. It also explains the 'pristine' nature of the bullet..." (James Robenalt, "A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held 'Lone Gunman' Theory", Vanity Fair, Sept 9, 2023, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman)

Then that leaves the throat wound requiring explanation.

Why not consider--consider--a return to an early idea of a number of the doctors who first observed the wounds: that the throat wound was an entrance, that there was a larger exit wound at the rear of the head to the right of the EOP, and the bullet that entered at the throat exited near the EOP.

The reason this scenario is untenable is because the cervical x-ray shows a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.  That’s not in a path to the EOP.

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

No disappearing bullet in the neck. And removal of the "what about the throat wound?" objection to a non-perforating upper back entrance wound compatible with the Landis bullet.

Dr. Paul Peters, Nov 1966: "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occipit, and the only answer we could think [of] was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head..." (Lifton, Best Evidence [1982 Dell edn]m 407)

Dr. Malcom Perry: "Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that the wound on the outside of Kennedy's throat was below the wound on his trachea, and that this suggested to him that the bullet creating these wounds was heading up the neck, if fired from in front, or down the neck, if fired from behind." (Pat Speer, chap. 17, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter17newerviewsonthesamescene)

And Cyril Wecht:

Dr. Cyril Wecht: "According to Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History, Wecht had briefly come to speculate that a bullet had entered Kennedy's throat and exited his 'lower left occipital protuberance.' While Wecht quickly gave up on this idea, due to the incompatibility of such a bullet's trajectory with a shot from the grassy knoll..." (Speer, preceding link)

From where would such a shot have been fired?

Black Dog Man circa Z190.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Andrew McCutchen hit in the back with a 95 mph fastball.  Note his hands reflexively reached for the spot where he was hit.  Pet Theorists feel compelled to claim JFK didn’t have average reflexes — he was struck in the back and raised his fists to his throat.

False Mystery pimping at its worst.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I did not mean chemicals and pills, that has happened. I mean any verified known specific cases (name, date, location) of assassination by dissolving bullet fired from a rifle--can you name any? 

There is no record the autopsists considered that for the throat wound, but they did ask that for the upper back entrance wound out of desperation. Maybe "consider" is not even the right word; they wondered (being uninformed and not expert in such matters) whether dissolving bullets were a viable possibility. 

When you wrote to Benjamin:

There is no record any autopsists believed that, or were sure it was even possible, but they wanted to know whether that was a theoretical possibility. Not the same thing. And what answer did they get back? There is no information they got a "yes" answer back from those in a position to know. It seems to me that as late as now in the year 2023 and still not a single verified specific instance in history of a killing done with a rifle firing a dissolving bullet--name, date, location--is a pretty good argument that kind of bullet was probably not in operational use then. 

There are two major possibilities on the table explaining the upper back and throat wounds with conventional bullets: first the single bullet theory, which connects the back entrance to a throat exit, which has the known criticisms against it, compared to another line of possibility in which those two wounds are from separate bullets.

"There is no way to know for sure how the undamaged bullet ended up on top of the rear seat. But there seem to be only two real possiblities, both of which can be inferred from the Zapruder film. One way is that an undercharged bullet, having already been lodged in the president's back from an initial gunshot, was jolted out of his body after a subsequent shot to the head caused his upper body to be thrown violently back against the seat, bouncing off of it with great force. A second possibility is that at some point in those hectic moments, the bullet fell out of the president's back and onto the first lady's clothing (her white-gloved hand did brush hard against his back, around where the bullet could have been embedded at the moment of the final shot). As one can see in the Zapruder film, Jackie, at this stage, climbed onto the trunk of the speeding car, possibly to look for or retrieve a portion of her husband's skull--or out of sheer panic to take cover from further gunshots. In fact, the section of the back seat over which she stretched corresponds to the spot where Landis says he found the bullet. The autopsy evidence, as developed the night of the assassination, supports either one of these results ... the shoulder wound was shallow. Two doctors found that they could not pass more than half a pinky finger into the opening. Metal probes likewise uncovered no path of the bullet through the body ... [FBI agents O'Neill and Sibert] discussed the frustration of the Bethesda doctors when they could not locate a bullet or exit wound for the projectile that had entered the president's shoulder... the wound in the back, according to Sibert and O'Neill, did not align with the location of the front-neck wound; such a pathway would have required a bullet traveling from the book depository, behind the motorcade, to have changed course inside the president's body so as to exit higher up, through the neck, without hitting any bone to alter its course... Landis's discovery of the bullet on top of the rear seat, if true, comports with the initial finding: that the bullet had lodged superficially in the president's back before being dislodged by the final blast to his head. It also explains the 'pristine' nature of the bullet..." (James Robenalt, "A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held 'Lone Gunman' Theory", Vanity Fair, Sept 9, 2023, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman)

Then that leaves the throat wound requiring explanation.

Why not consider--consider--a return to an early idea of a number of the doctors who first observed the wounds: that the throat wound was an entrance, that there was a larger exit wound at the rear of the head to the right of the EOP, and the bullet that entered at the throat exited near the EOP. No disappearing bullet in the neck. And removal of the "what about the throat wound?" objection to a non-perforating upper back entrance wound compatible with the Landis bullet.

Dr. Paul Peters, Nov 1966: "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occipit, and the only answer we could think [of] was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head..." (Lifton, Best Evidence [1982 Dell edn]m 407)

Dr. Malcom Perry: "Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that the wound on the outside of Kennedy's throat was below the wound on his trachea, and that this suggested to him that the bullet creating these wounds was heading up the neck, if fired from in front, or down the neck, if fired from behind." (Pat Speer, chap. 17, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter17newerviewsonthesamescene)

And Cyril Wecht:

Dr. Cyril Wecht: "According to Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History, Wecht had briefly come to speculate that a bullet had entered Kennedy's throat and exited his 'lower left occipital protuberance.' While Wecht quickly gave up on this idea, due to the incompatibility of such a bullet's trajectory with a shot from the grassy knoll..." (Speer, preceding link)

From where would such a shot have been fired? From the storm drain on the north side of Elm, post Z313. No windshield obstruction, upward angle, JFK already thrown backward and to the left from the head shot of Z313, perfect assassination shot at close range. That storm drain was not sealed or even checked by the Secret Service or Dallas Police, even after the fatal shots at the president in the immediate vicinity, a security oversight. Forget crawling through pipes anywhere, just a shooter in that storm drain. No officer reported looking in that storm drain to verify no one was in that storm drain from which a single perfect kill shot at JFK could have happened that would be a throat entrance/rear-head exit. After the shot the shooter would have tossed the weapon, not himself, far into one of the tunnels, then waited until night to exit out the manhole cover on top the way he had entered. It would account for one or two witnesses saying they actually saw smoke coming from the storm drain, a number of other witnesses smelling gunsmoke in the vicinity of the limousine not otherwise well explained, and a few witnesses thinking a shot sounded like it came from the front of and inside the limousine itself from the sound.

Tom Robinson, Gawler's Funeral Home, who cleaned up and reconstructed the JFK skull after the autopsy:

Tom Robinson: "Robinson also told Purdy [HSCA, Jan 1977] that he remembered (...) the doctors probing 'at the base of the head,' with an '18 inch piece of metal.' And this wasn't an isolated incident. Notes on Robinson's 1996 interview with the ARRB reflect that (...) he had 'vivid recollections of a very long, malleable probe being used during the autopsy. His most vivid recollection of the probe is seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head (after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck. He was adamant about this recollection. He also recalls seeing the wound high in the back probed unsuccessfully, meaning that the probe did not exit anywhere.'" (Speer, preceding link)

GD-

You are correct: the original design of the chemical dart-gun was to inflict a very small injury, in fact so small it would not be detected in autopsy.

As if, in fact a dart, like the head of sewing pin, had pierced the body. That is a far different injury than JFK received. 

There are other shortcomings to the dissipating bullet explanation. 

In the 60 years since the JFKA, the purported chemical dart gun technology has not been revealed or improved, or become a known method or murder. 

There are no articles or sources regarding the improvement of dissipating bullet-type weapons. 

If such a weapon has proved itself under such difficult conditions as the JFKA, would not the technology be adapted and improved? 

Huge questions remain. 

What type of dissipating bullet could be firm enough to withstand being shot at about 700 feet per second, and then to enter a human body by two inches, and leave a hole just like a bullet hole? With an abrasion collar? And then dissipate? 

All that said, CV has outlined a possible explanation of the mechanics of the JFKA, and the unusual throat wound. 

Is the CV explanation the only reasonable explanation, or the Truth? 

CV insists that it is. At length. 

If CV's supreme confidence were water, we would all need Noah's Ark after  conversations with CV. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

GD-

You are correct: the original design of the chemical dart-gun was to inflict a very small injury, in fact so small it would not be detected in autopsy.

It all depended on the military requirements of “a certain situation.”

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

pg. 169

<quote on, emphasis added>

Q: ,,,[A]s to the kind of items you experimented with and developed, would it be accurate to say that you worked on and experimented with gadgets for which nobody ever yet has found a use?

Senseney: I think there were some intended uses. For instance, the Special Forces gave us SDR, Small Development Requirements, indicating that they had a military requirement to meet a certain situation.

Q: Was mostly all of your work then done of the basis of these special requirement requests that came either from the Special Forces or some other source?

Senseney: That is true.

Q: Did these requests come from the CIA directly, to your knowledge?

Senseney: No; they sort of rode piggyback on most of these. They sort of rode piggyback on the Army's development and picked off what they thought was good for them, I guess.

Q: But you did not undertake a development or experimental program of a particular weapon until you had some request from the Special Forces to develop the weapons system?

Senseney: There was one item. It was a hand-held item that could fire a dart projectile. It was done only for them; no one else.

<quote off>

pg. 170

<quote on>

Q: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's office and your office, either the hardware or the toxin?

Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders, 4640. This was done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe 6 weeks to 6 months later they would bring those back and ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all the hardware except the projectile, OK?

Q: Indicating that they have been used?

Senseney: Correct.

...Q: How much time usually elapsed between the time you gave them these weapons and the time they brought them back to you expended?

Senseney: Usually 5 to 6 weeks.

<quote off>

Delivery systems were developed according to the requirements of specific operations.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As if, in fact a dart, like the head of sewing pin, had pierced the body. That is a far different injury than JFK received. 

The dart delivery system depended on the needs of the operation.  There was a variety of these delivery systems.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There are other shortcomings to the dissipating bullet explanation. 

In the 60 years since the JFKA, the purported chemical dart gun technology has not been revealed or improved, or become a known method or murder. 

So now Ben Cole questions the existence of this technology.

Frank Church to CIA Director William Colby: “Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?”

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There are no articles or sources regarding the improvement of dissipating bullet-type weapons. 

I’ve been over this twice with Ben Cole but since it doesn’t fit any of his pet theories he can’t accept it.  Closed mind, after all.

Steve Kober:

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.

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

Check out Figure 8 in the above PDF.  The bullet hole is similar to the defect in JFK’s jacket.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If such a weapon has proved itself under such difficult conditions as the JFKA, would not the technology be adapted and improved? 

There was a patent on it until 2021 or 2022.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Huge questions remain. 

What type of dissipating bullet could be firm enough to withstand being shot at about 700 feet per second, and then to enter a human body by two inches, and leave a hole just like a bullet hole? With an abrasion collar? And then dissipate? 

You cannot pay attention to the evidence presented, apparently.  The dart gun had a range of 100 yards.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

All that said, CV has outlined a possible explanation of the mechanics of the JFKA, and the unusual throat wound. 

I have nothing to do with it.  The scenario was first proposed by the autopsists the night of the autopsy.  Why this fact evades understanding is mystifying.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Is the CV explanation the only reasonable explanation, or the Truth? 

CV insists that it is. At length. 

At length I debunk your claims the first shot hit JFK in the back.  Otherwise, I leave Senseney and Colby explain the high tech weaponry.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It all depended on the military requirements of “a certain situation.”

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

pg. 169

<quote on, emphasis added>

Q: ,,,[A]s to the kind of items you experimented with and developed, would it be accurate to say that you worked on and experimented with gadgets for which nobody ever yet has found a use?

Senseney: I think there were some intended uses. For instance, the Special Forces gave us SDR, Small Development Requirements, indicating that they had a military requirement to meet a certain situation.

Q: Was mostly all of your work then done of the basis of these special requirement requests that came either from the Special Forces or some other source?

Senseney: That is true.

Q: Did these requests come from the CIA directly, to your knowledge?

Senseney: No; they sort of rode piggyback on most of these. They sort of rode piggyback on the Army's development and picked off what they thought was good for them, I guess.

Q: But you did not undertake a development or experimental program of a particular weapon until you had some request from the Special Forces to develop the weapons system?

Senseney: There was one item. It was a hand-held item that could fire a dart projectile. It was done only for them; no one else.

<quote off>

pg. 170

<quote on>

Q: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's office and your office, either the hardware or the toxin?

Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders, 4640. This was done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe 6 weeks to 6 months later they would bring those back and ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all the hardware except the projectile, OK?

Q: Indicating that they have been used?

Senseney: Correct.

...Q: How much time usually elapsed between the time you gave them these weapons and the time they brought them back to you expended?

Senseney: Usually 5 to 6 weeks.

<quote off>

Delivery systems were developed according to the requirements of specific operations.

The dart delivery system depended on the needs of the operation.  There was a variety of these delivery systems.

So now Ben Cole questions the existence of this technology.

Frank Church to CIA Director William Colby: “Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?”

I’ve been over this twice with Ben Cole but since it doesn’t fit any of his pet theories he can’t accept it.  Closed mind, after all.

Steve Kober:

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.

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

Check out Figure 8 in the above PDF.  The bullet hole is similar to the defect in JFK’s jacket.

There was a patent on it until 2021 or 2022.

You cannot pay attention to the evidence presented, apparently.  The dart gun had a range of 100 yards.

I have nothing to do with it.  The scenario was first proposed by the autopsists the night of the autopsy.  Why this fact evades understanding is mystifying.

At length I debunk your claims the first shot hit JFK in the back.  Otherwise, I leave Senseney and Colby explain the high tech weaponry.

From the cited patent:

"A method for formation of slugs in a gun barrel and acceleration of these slugs up to the speed of 3 km/sec and more is suggested."

---30---

Three kilometers per second works out to 9,843 feet per second. But the patent holders think they could fire the ice bullets even at higher speeds.  The langauge of the patent suggest the weapon was never actually consteucted. 

By way of comparison, a high power rifle fires bullets at 2,300 feet per second. 

The US military has weapons that fire at even higher fps, such as the 

The 120mm smoothbore main gun on the M-1 Abrams tank fires a depleted-uranium penetrator rod at least 5,700 fps.  The Navy's Rail Gun, which employs electric current rather than gunpowder, gets over 8,000 fps with its projectiles.

---30---

The filing of a patent means what?  That the purported dart gun shoots at 9,843 fps except when it shoots at even higher speeds? You think there might be fanciful elements to the patent?

More from the patent:

"Water is supplied into a pipe from a high-pressure pump. The pipe ID is '4", the length of the tube is 2-6" and the pump pressure ranges from 10,000 psi to 60,000 psi. The pipe is separated from the pump by a check and control Valves. A Section of a pipe is cooled by liquid nitrogen or by the refrigerant. The length of the cooled section is 1/6" the 1/2" and its distance from the pipe edge ranges from 5" to 30". An electrode is located at the distance of 0–0.02" from the pipe at the end of the cooling zone. A water droplet connects the electrode with the pipe surface. The electrode is a part of an electrical circle, which start up and shut down the pump. The system operates as following. Initially the pipe is filled with water, the pump is shut down, the valve is closed and the cooling media is supplied to the pipe. The water at the cooled region freezes and the ice slug is formed. The water droplet between the electrode and the pipe is frozen and the pump starts up. The timer controls the time log between the slug formation and the initiation of the pump operation. As the pump starts to operate the pressure in the conduit before the slug increases, the valve opens and the high pressure is exerted on the slug. The slug is separated from the pipe (barrel), expelled from the pipe at a high velocity and impacts the target."

---30---

This is a rather cumbersome weapon to drag around in the bushes at the Grassy Knoll. They had this on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Well, maybe this explains the JFKA. Maybe not. 

Try reading the patent closely. 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

From the cited patent:

"A method for formation of slugs in a gun barrel and acceleration of these slugs up to the speed of 3 km/sec and more is suggested."

---30---

Three kilometers per second works out to 9,843 feet per second. But the patent holders think they could fire the ice bullets even at higher speeds.  The langauge of the patent suggest the weapon was never actually consteucted. 

By way of comparison, a high power rifle fires bullets at 2,300 feet per second. 

The US military has weapons that fire at even higher fps, such as the 

The 120mm smoothbore main gun on the M-1 Abrams tank fires a depleted-uranium penetrator rod at least 5,700 fps.  The Navy's Rail Gun, which employs electric current rather than gunpowder, gets over 8,000 fps with its projectiles.

---30---

The filing of a patent means what? 

The technology existed.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

 

That the purported dart gun shoots at 9,843 fps except when it shoots at even higher speeds? You think there might be fanciful elements to the patent?

More from the patent:

"Water is supplied into a pipe from a high-pressure pump. The pipe ID is '4", the length of the tube is 2-6" and the pump pressure ranges from 10,000 psi to 60,000 psi. The pipe is separated from the pump by a check and control Valves. A Section of a pipe is cooled by liquid nitrogen or by the refrigerant. The length of the cooled section is 1/6" the 1/2" and its distance from the pipe edge ranges from 5" to 30". An electrode is located at the distance of 0–0.02" from the pipe at the end of the cooling zone. A water droplet connects the electrode with the pipe surface. The electrode is a part of an electrical circle, which start up and shut down the pump. The system operates as following. Initially the pipe is filled with water, the pump is shut down, the valve is closed and the cooling media is supplied to the pipe. The water at the cooled region freezes and the ice slug is formed. The water droplet between the electrode and the pipe is frozen and the pump starts up. The timer controls the time log between the slug formation and the initiation of the pump operation. As the pump starts to operate the pressure in the conduit before the slug increases, the valve opens and the high pressure is exerted on the slug. The slug is separated from the pipe (barrel), expelled from the pipe at a high velocity and impacts the target."

---30---

This is a rather cumbersome weapon to drag around in the bushes at the Grassy Knoll. They had this on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Dal-Tex.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, maybe this explains the JFKA. Maybe not. 

An argument can be made for it, unlike your “undercharged” scenario which requires the fictional first-shot/back shot.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The technology existed.

Dal-Tex.

An argument can be made for it, unlike your “undercharged” scenario which requires the fictional first-shot/back shot.

The patent application does not indicate the fearsome weapon was ever actually built. 

Able to project ice slugs at more than 9,000 fps!

I suspect the patent filing was more hope and than observed results. 

...

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The patent application does not indicate the fearsome weapon was ever actually built. 

Able to project ice slugs at more than 9,000 fps!

I suspect the patent filing was more hope and than observed results. 

...

 

Be that as it may, the technology existed in 1963.

[Greg Doudna]

Cliff, on the sequence of the pre-Z313 shots, Benjamin is right you are overly dogmatic. Taking one at a time, on the initial hit with the reaction of JFK with the raised arms or fists, you flatly deny that could possibly be an instinctive reaction to being hit in the back. But how do you know that? Because JFK did not reach around and feel for his back in a spot that arms cannot easily reach or hands touch? It has long been noted that JFK was wearing a restrictive back brace wrapped tightly around his thighs and lower trunk. Books have been written arguing that JFK was unable to bend down or duck even if he had wanted to, because of that brace, making him an upright "sitting duck" for followup shots to hit him after the first shot. If you, wearing a back brace, were stung in the back by surprise or hit by a bullet that went in an inch, and were not easily able to move, are you sure you would react any differently?

On Bennett, he said he saw the bullet hit JFK of the upper back wound, but he could have seen the upper back wound already there when he looked and only assumed it happened the moment he looked, as opposed to seconds before. Bennett's time of looking would be the terminus ad quem, latest possible, time of the upper back hit as opposed to necessarily the absolute timing of it, even if that is not what Bennett said. All individual witness testimonies have to be judged and are provisional to some extent. It is not that your interpretation is not a reasonable interpretation on the timing and reaction to shots in itself, its the over-dogmatism which prematurely rules out other possible viable interpretations that seems amiss.

You never answered the basic question related to your supposition of high-tech dissolving rounds or ice bullets: why would assassins want some bullets, which make entrance wounds that look like conventional bullets, but not others, to dissolve, in a shooting done publicly? And as Benjamin notes, your citing a patent application of a 9000 (!) fps ice bullet (no evidence it ever was manufactured) as a possible explanation to a bullet entering JFK's throat which, at a mere 9000 fps in initial velocity or about four times the speed of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, did not have enough force (as you suppose) to go all the way through the soft tissues of JFK's neck, or to go into JFK's back and out the front of JFK, sounds far-fetched.

I think you were driven to these high-tech dissolving-bullets conclusions, for which there is no known actual evidence such were used in this or any other known assassination in history, solely because of prematurely ruling out other possibilities involving conventional firearms and ammunition in the JFK assassination. That is, it is more likely there is some mistake in what has been excluded.

On a throat entrance to rear-of-head exit as a possible bullet path (or vice versa), what you cite as medical argument against that is over my head to evaluate, and without necessarily rejecting what you say, it would be more convincing if you cited those with forensic pathology saying that in print (no offense intended but you are a layman like me on these matters I think). The reason why I want to hear that coming from those with expertise rather than lay opinions is because that exact bullet pathway (near-EOP rear of head to the throat) was the Sibert and O'Neill FBI reported conclusion at the end of the autopsy, based on the discussions they heard of the forensic pathologists doing the autopsy. Would that bullet pathway have been concluded in that FBI report on the basis of the autopsists' discussions if those autopsists knew it was obviously non-viable? Is a throat to rear-of-head bullet pathway in fact known excluded in the overwhelming view of expert opinion since that time which has written on this specific point? That is what would sway me, if you were able to cite bibliography on that.

On the other hand, Pat Speer in his discussions on his website cites a lot of bibliography which he says supports the viability of that bullet pathway--which I have not worked through to study slowly and carefully partly because it is over my head and partly because I would prefer to read a discussion not mediated through a lay researcher with a point of view (even though Pat Speer is one of the better lay researchers with a point of view). Have you worked through the arguments Pat Speer cites on that bullet pathway?

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Cliff, on the sequence of the pre-Z313 shots, Benjamin is right you are overly dogmatic. Taking one at a time, on the initial hit with the reaction of JFK with the raised arms or fists, you flatly deny that could possibly be an instinctive reaction to being hit in the back. But how do you know that?

Are you seriously suggesting any human being would react that way when struck in the back?  

If you stub your toe do you instinctively reach for your elbow?

In your scenario JFK suffered a shallow, non-fatal wound in the back but he spent the next six seconds not ducking down.  He held his fists in front of his throat but still got shot in the throat anyway?

Then there’s the contemporaneous written account of SSA Glen Bennett.  

He wrote a few hours after the shooting that when the limo turned onto Elm St he was looking to the crowd to the right.  Willis 5 shows Bennett turned to the right.  

He wrote that he turned to face JFK after the first report.  Altgens 6 show Bennett still facing right but his features are blurred — consistent with motion.  

He wrote: “I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.”  The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, between 1 to 2 inches right of midline.

Exactly where Bennett described it.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Because JFK did not reach around and feel for his back in a spot that arms cannot easily reach or hands touch?

I can easily reach my T3.  What’s the problem?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

It has long been noted that JFK was wearing a restrictive back brace wrapped tightly around his thighs and lower trunk.

So what?  The brace wasn’t that restrictive, and it was around his waist.  The Magic Brace Theory?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Books have been written arguing that JFK was unable to bend down or duck even if he had wanted to, because of that brace, making him an upright "sitting duck" for followup shots to hit him after the first shot. 

Books are written about nonsense all the time.  How did the man sit down if he was so restricted?  Why would the brace cause him to make a defensive move with his hands at his throat?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

If you, wearing a back brace, were stung in the back by surprise or hit by a bullet that went in an inch, and were not easily able to move, are you sure you would react any differently?

Yes, I’m quite sure I’d never wear a back brace that wouldn’t allow me to move.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On Bennett, he said he saw the bullet hit JFK of the upper back wound, but he could have seen the upper back wound already there when he looked and only assumed it happened the moment he looked, as opposed to seconds before.

So you’re putting words in his mouth.  He said he saw the shot hit.  What pet theory of yours is getting reamed here?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Bennett's time of looking would be the terminus ad quem, latest possible, time of the upper back hit as opposed to necessarily the absolute timing of it, even if that is not what Bennett said. All individual witness testimonies have to be judged and are provisional to some extent.

Bennett described a “ bang...bang-bang” shooting sequence — so did 55 other ear witnesses.

His description of the back wound location matches 15 other back wound eye witnesses.

Willis 5 and Altgens 6 corroborate his physical movement.

Given your need to put words in his mouth I dare say you are the dogmatic one.

 

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

It is not that your interpretation is not a reasonable interpretation on the timing and reaction to shots in itself, its the over-dogmatism which prematurely rules out other possible viable interpretations that seems amiss.

Produce a witness who described a first-shot/back shot.  The statements of Linda Willis and Nellie Connally describe him immediately moving his hands to his throat.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You never answered the basic question related to your supposition of high-tech dissolving rounds or ice bullets: why would assassins want some bullets, which make entrance wounds that look like conventional bullets, but not others, to dissolve, in a shooting done publicly?

I did answer you.  Again: first shot paralytic, second shot toxin, then head shots with conventional firearms.  The FBI was briefed on this technology coming in from outside the country.  You didn’t read the Senseney testimony I posted?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

And as Benjamin notes, your citing a patent application of a 9000 (!) fps ice bullet (no evidence it ever was manufactured) as a possible explanation to a bullet entering JFK's throat which, at a mere 9000 fps in initial velocity or about four times the speed of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, did not have enough force (as you suppose) to go all the way through the soft tissues of JFK's neck, or to go into JFK's back and out the front of JFK, sounds far-fetched.

Why do you assume the weapon developed in the early 2000s was exactly the same as used in 1963?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I think you were driven to these high-tech dissolving-bullets conclusions, for which there is no known actual evidence such were used in this or any other known assassination in history,

I guess you missed the Church Committee video where Frank Church asked to see the devices the CIA used to kill people.  Or the link I posted describing the CIA stockpile of deadly shellfish toxin.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

solely because of prematurely ruling out other possibilities involving conventional firearms and ammunition in the JFK assassination.

Somehow the autopsists speculation JFK was hit with a high tech weapon hasn’t registered.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

That is, it is more likely there is some mistake in what has been excluded.

On a throat entrance to rear-of-head exit as a possible bullet path (or vice versa), what you cite as medical argument against that is over my head to evaluate, and without necessarily rejecting what you say, it would be more convincing if you cited those with forensic pathology saying that in print (no offense intended but you are a layman like me on these matters I think).

From the HSCA x-ray analysis:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

<quote off>

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

The reason why I want to hear that coming from those with expertise rather than lay opinions is because that exact bullet pathway (near-EOP rear of head to the throat) was the Sibert and O'Neill FBI reported conclusion at the end of the autopsy, based on the discussions they heard of the forensic pathologists doing the autopsy.

The autopsists discussed the bullet path of the throat wound?  Citation please.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Would that bullet pathway have been concluded in that FBI report on the basis of the autopsists' discussions if those autopsists knew it was obviously non-viable? Is a throat to rear-of-head bullet pathway in fact known excluded in the overwhelming view of expert opinion since that time which has written on this specific point? That is what would sway me, if you were able to cite bibliography on that.

T1 is below the throat wound; the EOP is above it.  Dr. Mantik verified the authenticity of the cervical x-ray.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On the other hand, Pat Speer in his discussions on his website cites a lot of bibliography which he says supports the viability of that bullet pathway--which I have not worked through to study slowly and carefully partly because it is over my head and partly because I would prefer to read a discussion not mediated through a lay researcher with a point of view (even though Pat Speer is one of the better lay researchers with a point of view). Have you worked through the arguments Pat Speer cites on that bullet pathway?

I respect Pat Speer as a human being but as a JFKA researcher he’s one of the very worst.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Doudna]

18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I did answer you.  Again: first shot paralytic, second shot toxin, then head shots with conventional firearms.  The FBI was briefed on this technology coming in from outside the country.  You didn’t read the Senseney testimony I posted?

Why do you assume the weapon developed in the early 2000s was exactly the same as used in 1963?

I guess you missed the Church Committee video where Frank Church asked to see the devices the CIA used to kill people.  Or the link I posted describing the CIA stockpile of deadly shellfish toxin.

None of the high tech devices there are relevant unless they make entrance wounds indistinguishable from conventional bullets. The upper back wound of JFK was that from the autopsists, and the throat wound looked like a conventional bullet wound according to all who saw it at Parkland before the trach procedure. Those shellfish toxins etc were delivered differently, flachettes etc, no evidence by bullets producing conventional bullet wounds in appearance. Only the ice bullet, which is not in the Senseney testimony, would. You are mixing those exotic toxins told the Church committee with the known gunshot-appearing wounds of JFK. Autopsists and/or fbi agents speculation of dissolving bullets is not evidence, any more than someone who saw a UFO and speculated Martians would be evidence for Martians. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

None of the high tech devices there are relevant unless they make entrance wounds indistinguishable from conventional bullets.

Since these devices were produced to fill specific operational needs, I dare say you’re in no position to discount them on the basis of a wound’s appearance.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

The upper back wound of JFK was that from the autopsists, and the throat wound looked like a conventional bullet wound according to all who saw it at Parkland before the trach procedure. Those shellfish toxins etc were delivered differently, flachettes etc, no evidence by bullets producing conventional bullet wounds in appearance.

But there is evidence that the devices were custom built according to need.  A heavier round would be expected when firing in a windy environment.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Only the ice bullet, which is not in the Senseney testimony, would. You are mixing those exotic toxins told the Church committee with the known gunshot-appearing wounds of JFK.

And you fail to take into consideration the physical environment in which such a weapon was used.  A round traveling thru 100 yards of swirling wind would have to be heavier, no?

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Autopsists and/or fbi agents speculation of dissolving bullets is not evidence, any more than someone who saw a UFO and speculated Martians would be evidence for Martians. 

Two shallow wounds in soft tissue are inconsistent with conventional firearms.

Two wounds of entrance with no exits and no rounds present in the body are consistent with a high tech strike.

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell