Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK's Non-Fatals point to CIA/Mongoose


Recommended Posts

The cover-up of the JFK assassination kicked into high gear toward the end

of 11/22/63 when FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab for more information

about a type of bullet the autopists felt likely to have caused JFK's back wound.

Sibert was told of the discovery of the Magic Bullet, which had to account for all of

JFK's non-fatal wounds.

After that, the autopsists had to hew to the official lone gunman scenario.

The back wound, for instance, was moved three times to approximate the various

Single Bullet trajectories required to account for a lone gunman.

Before that phone call to the FBI Lab, however, the autopsists were able to confer

and arrive at an objective "general feeling" of what caused JFK's non-fatal wounds.

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA James Sibert:

I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with the back

wound and becoming frustrated during their search. They probed the wound

with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe. They concluded that

the wound went in only so far and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my

impression that both Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of

the bullet through the back. 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...

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA Francis O'Neill:

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. There was no real sense either way that the wounds

were caused by the same kind of bullet.

The FBI cover-up began with Sibert's call to Killion to ask about blood soluble

rounds.

It was the one point in the case where the perps were in the sight, because,

in fact, such hi-tech weaponry did exist.

William Colby, Church Comm. testimony, September 16, 1975

(emphasis added)

The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development of

bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick,

CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of

various chemicals and drugs. . . .

A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating

guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the

Agency did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its

peculiar needs for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human

incapacitation techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives

before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they

could take retaliatory action....

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that

could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck,

but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

Charles Senseney before the Church Committee, Sept. 18, 1975:

I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . . I was

the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on microorganism

projectiles and so forth.

[Church staffer]Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber

pistol with a sight mount at the top?

Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go into

the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this dart

launcher against humans?

Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now, these

were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because we got

all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many times

bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical

compound known as 46-40....

Tested on humans, this paralytic acted within two seconds, wouldn't show up on x-ray,

had the size of a .22 -- the latter precludes any theories that involve umbrellas.

Here's the HSCA examination of JFK's thoracic x-rays:

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.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still

present.

A bullet that leaves an air pocket but no bullet?

Given the shallow back wound and the non-exiting throat wound, I find it a

reasonable conclusion that the autopsists and FBI guys were correct the

night of the autopsy: JFK was struck with two blood soluble rounds.

This is consistent with JFK's apparent paralysis in the Dealey Plaza

photo evidence.

The "general feeling" amoung the doctors and lawmen the night of 11/22/63

indicted the CIA -- and their favorite assassination gunsmith -- an indictment

that still stands, imo.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwerbell.htm

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote what I just posted in the Back Wound thread:

One problem (or two) with the paralytic theory: the result of using dissolving paralytic elements would be unexplainable wounds (which we indeed have front and back). The conspirators didn't worry about that?

I disagree with Pat that the desired result for the assassins was to kill JFK with one shot. The desired result was to blame the hit on Castro, and the bloodier the better in blaming the bearded bastard, so it didn't matter how many shots it took or from what directions. LHO was the designated patsy, but only as the one identified member of a Castro hit team. (He turned himself into a lone nut by being taken alive.) But while several shots as needed were no problem, I would think that conspirators would hesitate to inflict wounds that were simply unexplainable, particularly since the only likely explanation (who could possibly foresee the SBT?) was the use of CIA weaponry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

Thanks for your response to my first thread!

To quote what I just posted in the Back Wound thread:

One problem (or two) with the paralytic theory: the result of using dissolving paralytic elements would be unexplainable wounds (which we indeed have front and back). The conspirators didn't worry about that?

Not if certain military men assured the perps that any embarrasing medical facts

could be covered up, given military control of the autopsy.

I disagree with Pat that the desired result for the assassins was to kill JFK with one shot. The desired result was to blame the hit on Castro, and the bloodier the better in blaming the bearded bastard, so it didn't matter how many shots it took or from what directions. LHO was the designated patsy, but only as the one identified member of a Castro hit team. (He turned himself into a lone nut by being taken alive.)
SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED is a must read.
But while several shots as needed were no problem, I would think that conspirators would hesitate to inflict wounds that were simply unexplainable, particularly since the only likely explanation (who could possibly foresee the SBT?) was the use of CIA weaponry.

I think the perps were less concerned about the wounds arousing suspicion

afterward than with the contingency problem of JFK being winged in the first

volley and then ducking down.

That was the far bigger issue they had to deal with, imo. So they paralyzed him

first -- or so I speculate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote what I just posted in the Back Wound thread:

One problem (or two) with the paralytic theory: the result of using dissolving paralytic elements would be unexplainable wounds (which we indeed have front and back). The conspirators didn't worry about that?

I disagree with Pat that the desired result for the assassins was to kill JFK with one shot. The desired result was to blame the hit on Castro, and the bloodier the better in blaming the bearded bastard, so it didn't matter how many shots it took or from what directions. LHO was the designated patsy, but only as the one identified member of a Castro hit team. (He turned himself into a lone nut by being taken alive.) But while several shots as needed were no problem, I would think that conspirators would hesitate to inflict wounds that were simply unexplainable, particularly since the only likely explanation (who could possibly foresee the SBT?) was the use of CIA weaponry.

I think the film and photographic evidence indicates JFK was immobilised before the head shot. The conspirators anxiety about any public disclosure of this was assuaged by the fact that they knew the autopsy was going to be controlled by persons allied to the conspiracy.

The idea that Castro was to be blamed (via a dead LHO) is interesting. If so, it would indicate Mafia (read Meyer Lansky) involvement, as the mafia was most desperate to unseat Castro. Jack Ruby is another factor tipping the scales towards Mafia/ Lansky. I can't see the MICC wanting to provoke a possible direct confrontation with the Soviet bloc, as their sights were set on prolonged intervention in SE Asia. Perhaps the promise of retaliatory action against a framed Castro was dangled in front of Lansky et al, in order to elicit their participation and then

quickly withdrawn once the deed was accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I tend to agree with you. It's just that no theory is without its problems. Which I guess is why they're called theories.

Ron

The only thing in the case I'm 100% on is the T3 back wound.

That I can prove.

Everything else is speculation. My approach is to look for consistencies

and not conclusions among the varied strings of evidence.

I think the consistencies of physical evidence, eye/ear witness testimony,

photographic evidence, and the historical record lead to what you and I

and many others regard as a reasonable conclusion: that the murder of JFK

was designed to be blamed on Castro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...