Deletion of valid JFKA thread by mods

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

I'm a clueless LNer, so I defer to your "expertise". So were there two different shots, one from the back and one from the front????

You said it was too low to associate with the throat wound, right?

If so, where did those bullets go? 

Help me understand this Mr. Varnell, I'm just a stupid LNer trying to make sense of this. Surely you can explain this, right?

Since you describe yourself as stupid I can as well, right?

JFK was shot in the throat from the front, then about six seconds later shot in the back from behind.

The back shot was a shallow wound in soft tissue.  The shot in the throat was also a soft tissue wound that did not exit.

No rounds were recovered during the autopsy.

The night of the autopsy the doctors speculated JFK was struck with a high tech weapon that would dissolve in the body.

Such weapons were developed under US Army cover for the CIA at Fort Detrick, MD.

But you're too stupid to process these facts, by your own admission.

Edited July 24 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

39 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Wait.  A momentous occasion.  So, neither you nor Gerry believe in the Single Bullett Fantasy!

The humor has escaped Ron.

 

[David Von Pein]

36 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The back shot was a shallow wound in soft tissue.  The shot in the throat was also a soft tissue wound that did not exit.

  And now we're treated to some additional (unintentional) humor dished up by Mr. Clothes Are Everything Varnell.

Maybe Cliff can now tell all of us WHY any assassin(s) would have any desire at all to fire two obviously non-lethal, low-velocity rounds into JFK's body?

Did the brain-dead shooters only want to slightly wound the President, vs. ending his life forever?

 

Edited July 24 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

  And now we're treated to some additional (unintentional) humor dished up by Mr. Clothes Are Everything Varnell.

Your superior attitude isn't warranted.  You've stipulated to two facts -- JFK's jacket collar dropped in Dealey Plaza, JFK's jacket was elevated "a little bit."  These observations destroy the SBT.

21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Maybe Cliff can now tell all of us WHY any assassin(s) would have any desire at all to fire two obviously non-lethal, low-velocity rounds into JFK's body?

How many times have I been over this with you?

21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Did the brain-dead shooters only want to slightly wound the President, vs. ending his life forever?

 

First shot paralytic -- JFK acted paralyzed in the limo -- the second shot a toxin in case the head shots missed.

Edited July 24 by Cliff Varnell

[Steve Roe]

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The night of the autopsy the doctors speculated JFK was struck with a high tech weapon that would dissolve in the body.

Your source for this statement?

[Jean Ceulemans]

I believe that was some speculation by those present at the autopsy (I don´t remember where I have read this, somewhere on the EF I´d think...). 

 

 

Edited July 24 by Jean Ceulemans

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Your source for this statement?

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1978: 

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. 

<quote off>


From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic). 

<quote off> 

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. 

You left off this important observation on the very next sentence.

Quote-----> There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet. Link below.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=628#relPageId=7&search=O'Neill_affidavit

So, in other words, they talked about it and dismissed that idea of a plastic or ice bullet. And very important point, they were talking about the back wound, not the throat wound which they missed obscured by the trach incision at Parkland. 

[Cliff Varnell]

32 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

You left off this important observation on the very next sentence.

Quote-----> There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet. Link below.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=628#relPageId=7&search=O'Neill_affidavit

So, in other words, they talked about it and dismissed that idea of a plastic or ice bullet. 

Factually incorrect. 

"Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury," Sibert called the FBI lab -- at the autopsists' request -- for "information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize."

So obviously the doctors did not dismiss the possibility until Sibert returned from his conversation with Killion, who told him the bullet was on the way to DC from Dallas.

Up to that point a high tech strike was regarded as a plausible explanation for a shallow wound with no bullet.

It remains a plausible explanation.

 

 

Edited July 24 by Cliff Varnell

[Steve Roe]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Factually incorrect. 

"Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury," Sibert called the FBI lab -- at the autopsists' request -- for "information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize."

So obviously the doctors did not dismiss the possibility until Sibert returned from his conversation with Killion, who told him the bullet was on the way to DC from Dallas.

Up to that point a high tech strike was regarded as a plausible explanation for a shallow wound with no bullet.

It remains a plausible explanation.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The back shot was a shallow wound in soft tissue.  The shot in the throat was also a soft tissue wound that did not exit.

No rounds were recovered during the autopsy.

Mr. Varnell, let's cut to the chase, please. Do you believe there was a "plastic or ice bullet fired at the President? Yes or No? Front or back?

You posted it for some reason, so explain to everyone here following this

[Cliff Varnell]

52 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

 

Mr. Varnell, let's cut to the chase, please. Do you believe there was a "plastic or ice bullet fired at the President?

I don't deal with belief.  That's for stupid people.  The fact is that on the night of the autopsy the three doctors shared the speculation JFK was hit with a high tech round which dissolved.  The FBI men took this speculation seriously and one of them called the FBI lab to inquire as to the existence of such weaponry.

The answer to the inquiry was provided to the Church Committee in 1975.

52 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Yes or No? Front or back?

The facts:  shallow soft tissue wound in the back, a non-exiting soft tissue wound in the throat after which JFK acted paralyzed.

52 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

You posted it for some reason, so explain to everyone here following this

You too stupid to figure it out?

Edited July 24 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

On 7/20/2024 at 10:31 AM, Pete Mellor said:

😆 Keep pushing this Cliff.  The truth will out!

Thank you, Pete.  In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi humiliated Arlen Specter with the physical facts of the clothing evidence.

Same deal here.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Thank you, Pete.  In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi humiliated Arlen Specter with the physical facts of the clothing evidence.

Same deal here.

Cyril Wecht is critical of his fellow Pennsylvanian Specter in this respect in his recent book The JFK Assassination Dissected.  The Single Bullet, the clothes he inspected in the National Archives. 

As a Democrat he used his Warren Omission title to switch parties and become known a Benedit Spechter to become DA of Philadelphia, later running for Senator, then Governor and lost.  Winning Senator on another try. 

Reading the warren Commission Report in full Wecht said "It was maddening reading" his questioning of witnesses."  " He knew exactly what he was doing to negate the process of finding the truth." 

Quoting something from law school.  "When you have the law on your side pound the Law, when you have the Facts on your side pound the facts.  When you have neither pound the table.  He was an excellent table pounder."    

[Steve Roe]

On 7/24/2024 at 12:49 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

First shot paralytic -- JFK acted paralyzed in the limo -- the second shot a toxin in case the head shots missed.

Edited Wednesday at 12:50 AM by Cliff Varnell

No further discussion needed with this uber-silly comment. Maybe you should consider writing an article on Kennedys and King. 

[Kevin Balch]

On 7/23/2024 at 10:49 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Your superior attitude isn't warranted.  You've stipulated to two facts -- JFK's jacket collar dropped in Dealey Plaza, JFK's jacket was elevated "a little bit."  These observations destroy the SBT.

How many times have I been over this with you?

First shot paralytic -- JFK acted paralyzed in the limo -- the second shot a toxin in case the head shots missed.

This source states that a neuromuscular paralyzer commonly used before emergency intubation takes about 45 seconds to act when administered intravenously into a vein. Such an agent introduced via a bullet (or Umbrella Man’s flechette) would not necessarily be introduced in the optimal location and would take even longer to work. Do you know of an agent works nearly instantaneously?

https://iem-student.org/paralysing-agents/