Comment of the week

Willy Whitten – June 25

In reply to John McAdams

“Do you believe the throat wound was an entrance?
If so, what happened to the bullet?

If you can’t answer that plausibly, you have a problem.”~McAdams

There was no “bullet” to the throat, it was a dissolving flechette, as I so aptly proved previously.
\\][//

123 comments

  1. Tom S. says:

    Prior Cotw – http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/

    http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/#comment-884203
    Photon – June 28, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    In reply to Willy Whitten

    Willy, exactly who stated that there was a disappearing flechette?
    And where is the actual description or diagram of the umbrella launcher- not the fantasy of the author of this piece of tripe but a real piece of evidence- like the Bulgarian weapon used in London which required contact with the dissident victim.
    Having stated that, what would have been the point of trying to paralyze a victim when the same action could have introduced a fatal poison, obviating the need for the insanely complex assassination scenario you favor-when in the history of sniping we have never seen an episode of a sniper requiring his target to be paralyzed? If the conspiracy was so overwhelming and complex, why didn’t they know that JFK wore a back brace that made him relatively immobile-and making any attempt to “paralyze” him completely pointless-as demonstrated by his behavior after being hit in the back? If he was paralyzed, why did his arms rise up?

    http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/#comment-884220
    John McAdams – 2016/06/28 at 4:35 pm

    In reply to Bill Pierce.

    Here is their testimony before the Church Committee on September 16 to 18, 1975, as published in Volume One (1976) of that Committee’s final report, under the title, “Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents.”

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

    So it seems that the Richard Sprague of the HSCA took the flechette firing umbrella seriously.

    • From Church Committee Hearings, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1975. Testimony of William E. Colby, director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

      Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

      Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

      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.
      . . . .
      https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html
      . . . .
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        Of course Colby never stated that they had developed a disappearing flechette, only one that might penetrate without the victim knowing it. See Georgi Markov-but again, to go to such trouble only to paralyze an already immobile victim makes no sense.
        But even the tiny Markov pellet could be found. It did not disappear.

      • Church: “but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?”

        Church: “Or the dart?”

        Colby: “Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.”
        . . . . .
        Colby is obviously saying that the dart would not appear in the autopsy.
        \\][//

      • Randy Lombard says:

        That’s it Willy, this small snippet of testimony is what you’re hanging your hat and credibility on? SMH you’re going to have to do a lot better than that, seriously.

        I tried to find my previous comment to you regarding this matter but cannot locate it. So I will paraphrase based on memory. You were pontificating to someone to whom English appears to be a second language this huge Rube Goldberg plot, (which I encourage you to paste in this thread for proper context) without any citations or any qualifiers, stating your theories, some of which like the umbrella flechette gun, are obvious looney tunes. IMO espousing such ludicrous leads me to believe that your knowledge may be a mile wide, but it’s only an inch deep and shows no real deliberation over the actual evidence.

        If you’re going to give your self appointed seal of approval “\\][//” on every post on JFKFACTS at least do legitimate researchers and new students a solid and do your homework.

        Quite frankly, I find uninformed gadflies like you a hindrance to having this issue taken serious by the mainstream media. You constantly hijack and divert meaningful conversations and embarrass yourself and legitimate researchers and confuse students. Maybe you should step away from it and gain some perspective. You’ve already solved the case anyhow, right?

        • “Quite frankly, I find uninformed gadflies like you a hindrance to having this issue taken serious by the mainstream media.”~Randy Lombard

          Quite frankly anyone who thinks the JFK issue is ever going to be taken seriously by the mainstream media, is delusional. It is verboten.

          As per the flechette; I see it as a possibility, not a certainty. It is in fact technologically feasible, and may have been used via umbrella.

          You go on to say;
          “You’ve already solved the case anyhow, right?”

          On general terms yes. It was a military industrial coup d’etat. Anyone who hasn’t figured this out in the half century that has passed is never going to figure it out.

          This message has my seal of approval;
          \\][//

        • Brian Joseph says:

          Randy,

          Maybe you should step down from your ego and gain some civility instead of calling those who you disagree with “uniformed gadflies”. Exactly what constitutes a “legitimate researcher” to you? I’d rather be an illegitimate bastard researcher than have a smug “I’m smart and you’re an idiot” atitude. It is not Willy who is embarassing himself.

          • Randy Lombard says:

            Thanks for chiming in Brian, you made an error there, I didn’t say everyone who disagrees with me is an “uninformed gadfly.” That’s quite an assumption.

            Just because you’re too timid to call him out for his annoying and disruptive behavior doesn’t mean I am. I also think there are more people here that feel the same way, I do, but are too polite to say it.

            What is a “legitimate researcher?” Someone who has done actual data mining and independently verifiable deliberative scientific analysis.

            By comparison, Gad flies, IMO remind me of Scrappy Doo in demeanor, their knowledge of the case appears to be mainly YouTube videos and debunked tinfoil hat theories. You can find them on every street corner zealously holding court about how they “solved it.” They can’t give any actual facts or citations, mind you, but they always speak in absolutes, as though everything they say is factual.

          • “Just because you’re too timid to call him out for his annoying and disruptive behavior doesn’t mean I am. I also think there are more people here that feel the same way, I do, but are too polite to say it.”~Randy Lombard

            Yes the operative word there is “polite.”

            And the exact opposite is you, impolite, aggressive, and nasty. I would say generated by envy. Yes, you are a new comer to this forum, and you want to leapfrog the pecking order here by dissing a well established participant here.

            It is clear that you began here with one object in mind, to use me as a target for some undetermined angst that wells within you when reading my commentary.

            I have been seriously researching the JFK assassination for more than 40 years. I have a lot under my belt an under my hat.
            If you simply disagreed with me, that would be one thing, but you come on with such unconcealed rancor that it smells of cordite.

            I don’t know what your personal problem is, and I don’t care. I am CERTAIN it has little to do with giving Kennedy assassination researchers a bad name, and more to do with some lack of self esteem on your part.

            I have met my share of disingenuous snipes like you Lombard. You are more like a gnat than a horsefly; just a buzzing nuisance.
            Go find a ripe banana to flit around.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            I have met my share of disingenuous snipes like you Lombard. You are more like a gnat than a horsefly; just a buzzing nuisance.
            Go find a ripe banana to flit around.

            “I will bring locusts into your country tomorrow. 5 They will cover the face of the ground so that it cannot be seen.”

            There was no “bullet” to the throat, it was a dissolving flechette, as I so aptly proved previously.
            \\][//

          • So now that we have the version of Genesis as written by Kafka…we are to be treated to Exodus as written by Samuel Becket?

            Splendid!
            \\][//

  2. Tom,

    I believe a nurse in the Er reported giving a bullet to a secret Service agent that was unaccounted for, not sure what here name was, but there is a report somewhere of a bullet found by a nurse in the ER perhaps that is what happened to the bullet, it was lost or misplaced on 11-22 after a nurse discovered it in the sheets. I don’t recall the source of the rumor from the nurse.

  3. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’ve posted before I can’t buy the flechette because I doubt it was a developed enough weapon to rely on in the Assassination of a President in public.
    The second reason is JFK’s reaction to the first “shot” in the Zapruder film. Sitting straight up, grabbing for his throat. He was reacting, to a bullet, not a needle thin flechette he would not feel. Nor a melting/disappearing one.
    Last, Dr. Perry on 11/22/63 said 3x he observed an entrance wound, which he was well familiar with, not a needle mark or slice from a larger flechette.
    Where did the bullet go? Well, the two non forensic pathologists did not probe it (it was where the tracheotomy was, we didn’t know it was a wound). The late entering one forensic pathologist with little autopsy experience was directed by them, having higher rank, and those in the balcony. So we don’t know. A standard autopsy x-ray in any case with a neck wound might tell. But where is an x-ray of the neck?
    It’s been speculated this bullet might have been frangible.
    Entirely possible since nobody knows for sure.
    I’m no expert on the penetration of flesh and muscle of a 22 but I’ve wondered a few years now. I know they don’t always pass through a rabbit or squirrel. I know hollow points mushroom.
    A shooter behind the fence anywhere close to the ability of Chris Kyle from 20 yards with a highly accurate 22 and JFK’s necktie for a target would disable vocal chords.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Did you know that hollow point bullets only have to travel trough flesh to make them mushroom, and this mushrooming has nothing to do with striking bone? Do you know exactly what mechanism it is that makes a hollow point bullet mushroom?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Bob, I think you may have explained the details of how a hollow point mushrooms before here or elsewhere but I don’t remember the details. I Think I have a general understanding of the concept but can’t explain it other than collapsing and expanding.
        My real main interest is would a 22, hollow point or not, otherwise travel all the way through a person’s throat when shot from 20 yards away?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Could a lower caliber possibly combined with a sound suppressor (“silencer”) account for those who thought the first shot was a firecracker?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            The term “.22 calibre” covers a much broader range of rifles and rimfire ammunition than most people realise. For example, there are the .22 Short, the .22 Long, the .22 Long Rifle and the .22 Winchester Magnum.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/22short22lr.jpg/200px-22short22lr.jpg

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/22_Long%2C_22_LR%2C_22_Winchester_Magnum.JPG

            Within this broad range of ammunition, we are looking at muzzle velocities ranging from 830 feet/second (subsonic) to over 2300 fps (supersonic).

            Certainly, many of these wold be capable of penetrating and passing through a human neck if fired at the throat although I would expect to see much damage to the vertebrae. Once again, as I told Bill, a soft or hollow point bullet would slow down more, as it passed through the flesh of the neck but, as there is so little flesh between the front of the throat and the vertebrae, would the hollow point bullet be able to perform to its full potential?

            Any calibre rifle fitted with a suppressor would sound like a firecracker, except for those bullets travelling less than the speed of sound. They would make no sound at all.

            Contrary to popular belief, an object exceeding the speed of sound does not just make a sonic boom (firecracker sound) at the moment it exceeds the speed of sound. It continues to make one long continuous sonic boom the entire time it is travelling faster than the speed of sound.

            For example, if you and I are standing on the ground a few miles apart, and a jet passes over us travelling in excess of the speed of sound, we will each hear a separate sonic boom. To each of us, it will seem there was only one sonic boom, and that that boom was directly over us when, in fact, the jet would have been making one continuous sonic boom that would have been heard by you and I plus all of the people in the few miles separating us.

            If a shot was fired from a suppressed high velocity rifle from behind JFK (Dal-Tex Building?) toward the TUP or the Grassy Knoll, the continuous sonic boom it made would be reflected back to the source of the shot off of every hard surface the bullet passed. If you were standing in front of the entrance to the TSBD, your ears would hear this progression of echoes as they travelled back to you from the TUP or the Grassy Knoll, and your senses would tell you this shot must have originated from the TUP or the Grassy Knoll.

            This is one of the strange phenomenon produced when suppressing a high powered rifle. The muzzle blast is eliminated, concealing the source of the shot, and the returning echoes from the sonic boom give the impression that the shot originated from the opposite direction it actually did.

            Do you see how this could have been used to advantage in Dealey Plaza?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Was that too deep for everybody? Want me to dumb it down a little for y’all?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          You will come to understand eventually that while calibre and velocity are one thing, the actual design of the bullet is far more critical in determining wound ballistics. In actuality, all of these factors must be considered together.

          Did you know there are bullets that are designed to disintegrate into a lethal cloud of metal powder after travelling a mere two inches through soft tissue (not bone)?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Ronnie Wayne
          June 30, 2016 at 12:21 am

          “My real main interest is would a 22, hollow point or not, otherwise travel all the way through a person’s throat when shot from 20 yards away?”

          There is an unpredictable factor in bullet behavior as it meets muscle and bone that I believe makes it impossible to accurately answer your question. You shoot 10 long rifle rounds through 10 necks and you won’t git an all or nothing results. I think you would get some going through the neck and some not going through. At only 20 yards, with much of its power still present, I think you would have more going through that not going through.

          But this is only the opinion of one who fired many boxes of .22 rounds in his youth.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            The rapid expansion (mushrooming) of a hollow point bullet is brought about by travelling through soft tissue, and does not require the bullet to impact bone.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Did you also know that a frangible bullet is a form of hollow point bullet, and relies upon the same mechanism to make it do what it does in soft tissue?

    • A standard autopsy x-ray in any case with a neck wound might tell. But where is an x-ray of the neck?

      In the National Archives. All the medical panels had access to them, as well as independent researchers (Lattimer, Wecht, Artwohl, etc.).

      • A standard autopsy x-ray in any case with a neck wound might tell. But where is an x-ray of the neck?
        “In the National Archives.”~McAdams

        And why are these photos and X-rays squirreled away in the National Archives ‘professor’? Why is the ONLY X-ray of the throat and upper chest in the public domain, the quality of a fifth generation xerox copy?

        Anyone who thinks this isn’t indicative of hiding something is naive.
        \\][//

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Ronnie Wayne
      June 29, 2016 at 12:00 am

      “I’ve posted before I can’t buy the flechette because I doubt it was a developed enough weapon to rely on in the Assassination of a President in public.”

      I certainly agree here Ronnie.

      “A shooter behind the fence anywhere close to the ability of Chris Kyle from 20 yards with a highly accurate 22 and JFK’s necktie for a target would disable vocal chords.”

      I’ve always thought the center fire 22s(.222, 223, 22-250) would have been the best option for whoever shot JFK. They are light, little or no recoil, fast and accurate.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        And capable of passing right through JFK’s neck at the velocity these bullets you suggest would have been travelling. Certainly, if nothing else, a shot to the throat from one of these calibres would have smashed a bullet into his cervical vertebrae and done some serious damage there. It is possible that a hollow point fired at JFK’s throat MIGHT have slowed down enough to lodge itself in his vertebrae, without exiting but, considering there is only a small amount of flesh plus the trachea and esophagus between the front of the throat and the cervical vertebrae, there is really not much there to make the hollow point bullet perform to full potential.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Bob Prudhomme
          June 30, 2016 at 9:57 am

          “And capable of passing right through JFK’s neck at the velocity these bullets you suggest would have been travelling. Certainly, if nothing else, a shot to the throat from one of these calibres would have smashed a bullet into his cervical vertebrae and done some serious damage there.”

          I certainly agree here, Bob.

          It is possible that a hollow point fired at JFK’s throat MIGHT have slowed down enough to lodge itself in his vertebrae, without exiting but, considering there is only a small amount of flesh plus the trachea and esophagus between the front of the throat and the cervical vertebrae, there is really not much there to make the hollow point bullet perform to full potential.

          True, the hollow point that didn’t work. I believe you made the important statement about the construction of the bullet being very important. I had a similar experience back when I was hand loading. Just starting out I wanted to use the best so I loaded some .300 Weatherby magnum rounds with the heavy made Nosler Partition bullet. The bullet zipped right through our east Texas white Tails and we lost some. Went to a lighter made Hornady bullet and solved that.

  4. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Tom S.

    Just a suggestion but, would you consider numbering these Comments of the Week, as discussions around them seem to continue on for much longer than a week, and it is impossible to know which Comment of the Week is being referred to in the Recent Comments column.

  5. kennedy63 says:

    Watching the Z-film, Kennedy responds to both his throat wounding and the bullet in his back. His hands (balled into fists) rise to his throat and his elbows are splayed outward on both sides of his body. His body and head incline from center to leaning leftward towards Jackie; then, in what seems like forever, we await the two head shots (one driving his head forwardly down and the other plowing him violently backward and to the left) that kill him.Judging from the bullet hole description of the throat wound, it was of smaller caliber than the back wound, meaning at least two shooters fired shots. The head shots totally destroyed JFK’s head and fragmented, thus all the [alleged] pieces found on the front floor of the limo. The bullet(s) [fragments?] causing damage to the interior dashboard chrome and windshield have only appeared in eyewitness and SS reports. When Greer and Kellerman gave testimony before the Warren conspirators, the damaged windshield was deep-sixed. Outside of JFK’s body, the limo was the second best evidence of a conspiracy. Lyin’ Lyndon took care of that damning piece of evidence by having the limo deconstructed and rebuilt. He never used the reconstructed car while President. The fallacy of the Warren Conspirators is that they offered America a myth built upon a lie. Kennedy was removed in a coup d’etat by his domestic enemies (the coalition of families and businesses operating globally, with Allen Dulles as their point man). The reasons? Kennedy began moving against their war-mongering, financial interests. Kennedy turned towards anti-imperialism, fascism, and racism. He turned toward liberating nations from under the domination of this globally entrenched cabal, consisting of European countries’ exploitation of non-white people (look at his support for emerging nations and leaders and US civil rights). If anyone believes the Warren Conspiracy, they do not understand the deep politics operating in this country over the past 150 years. Look at the history of the “Robber Barons” and you will crack the surface of this cabal. Look further into the Banking Industry domination of our nation and you become more aware of how one family takes control of nations (through usury) and how oil merchants and bankers merged to dominate our government’s policy at all levels. These people are rabid racist and fascist who financed the rise of the Third Reich (then brought them to the Americas after WWII). For an overview:

    • Photon says:

      kennedy63 and this crackpot Flying Saucer fabulist Sheehan are perfect examples of the dysfunctional thinking that is going to elect Donald Trump our next President. Rational thought seems not to be involved in some of the conclusions stated by both. First off, JFK and his family were as much members of the “cabal” running the country as Rockefeller was in 1963 or the Kochs are in 2016. This St. John of Brookline fantasy seems an almost comical exercise to ignore the real human failings of a consummate politician -who despite the claims of people who really no very little about him was involved in sordid activities even going back to his first run for Congress when his old man hired somebody with the same name as Jack’s main competitor to run in the nominating election to split the vote and get Jack the nomination. His campaign’s activities in 1960 were distressingly similar to CREEP’s activities in the Watergate scandal, even to the point of JFK’s campaign getting ahold of Nixon’s psychiatric records. JFK was in bed with the Mafia in screwing Hubert Humphrey in West Virginia, and literally when involved with Judy Campbell. He was the epitome of a reckless figure-probably because he never suspected that he would live to an old age anyway as he had a fatal disease-one that contributed to his abnormal neck that so many autopsy ” experts” are incapable of recognizing.
      Too many CTers refuse to recognize these facts in a desperate attempt to give JFK’s death some kind of meaning or higher purpose-thereby generating the need for a conspiracy, instead of seeing t he reality-he took too many chances, he ignored standard security arrangements, he pursued a reckless pattern of exposure that no American President since has been foolish enough to recapitulate.
      Larry Sabato was right-if Oswald had not gotten him first someone else would have at some point. He was simply too easy a target.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        *YAWN*

        Here goes Photon with the “JFK’s abnormal neck” thing again.

        Are you ever going to tell us what this abnormality was, and how it made it possible for the Magic Bullet to pass through JFK’s neck without smashing through his vertebrae in the process?

      • J.D. says:

        Photon’s diatribe about JFK supposedly stealing the 1960 election just the same old right-wing tripe that the Kennedy-hating right has been peddling for decades. There is no evidence that the Kennedys stole the election.

        http://freakonomics.com/2005/11/03/did-richard-daley-steal-the-1960-election-for-kennedy/
        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.html

        The nonsense about the Kennedys “being in bed with the Mafia” is laughable, considering RFK’s brutal crackdown on organized crime. This is right down there with the claims that Bill Clinton had his enemies bumped off in Arkansas — except that the mainstream media never took those claims seriously, while they’ve rushed to embrace every single anti-Kennedy story, no matter how outlandish.

        The suggestion that Kennedy’s assassination was his own fault due to his own “recklessness” is odious. It was the Secret Service’s job to protect the president. Why weren’t they doing their job on November 22, 1963?

        • Photon says:

          J.D. Reveals another example of CTers seeing something that isn’t there. I never stated that JFK stole the election. The evidence is overwhelming that he had a clear electoral victory, even if there were unconfirmed shenanigans in Illinois and Texas.
          But to ignore his Mafia help in W.Va. is to ignore history. Humphrey, not JFK was the real civil rights and Liberal candidate in 1960. He should have won W.Va.-not because of his impeccable union credentials , or even in spite of his civil rights history-but because he was Protestant in a heavily Protestant and anti-Catholic state. JFK needed to win W. Va. to prove to the Party bosses that the religious issue could be overcome. He needed ” walking” money for the local Democratic leaders to support him . As was clearly documented in Hersch’s “Dark Side of Camelot” that money came from Mafia sources.
          JFK’s actions at Love Field were clearly reckless-he violated the preexisting plan, moved out into a potentially hostile crowd and could not have been protected by the SS from an Arthur Bremer or Mark Chapman type of attack.It was such an ideal spot for an incident that the SS ( and others ) probably let their guard down once the motorcade left Love Field. But that was the pattern with JFK – and reflective of a different time.
          He was reckless in his personal affairs. J.Edgar Hoover knew that as long as JFK was President, his job was secure. If he wanted to get rid of JFK all he had to do was pick up the phone, call Drew Pearson to come to his office and show him the pictures of Sam Giancana’s girlfriend entering the White House and staying overnight. In 1963 America Kennedy would have been out of the White House in 96 hours. As it was JFK almost had his own Profumo affair with Ellen Rometsch-and Pearson got close to breaking the story until Bobby got her deported. So there really was no need to assassinate JFK if the CIA, FBI ,Dulles or Hoover wanted him out of the Presidency.Zealots like DiEugenio dismiss this aspect of JFK by claiming that these affairs are all lies and never happened.Some of the stories may be exaggerated-the Marilyn claims for instance. But the most firmly documented ones are the most troubling, with implications for Mafia blackmail and Stasi espionage .

          • Photon says:

            Jfk was human, he had flaws like everybody else. But too many CTers dismiss or are unaware of those flaws-because if JFK was human like anybody else, he could be killed like anybody else, randomly, by a nobody: totally devoid of meaning.There would be no need for a Conspiracy, any more than there is a need for conspiracies for the random shootings that happen every day in places like Chicago and Los Angeles. Anymore that there is a need for Conspiracies in the attempts on Ford, Reagan, Wallace, John Lennon, McKinley, Garfield, Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt .But if a man’s reputation is built up with overblown accomplishments and ignored failures it is easier to assume that more powerful and extensive forces were required to insure his removal-despite the absolute illogic of that position.proved by history.

          • Photon says:

            If CTers had more realistic views of what JFK accomplished and who he actually was they might be able to rationally evaluate the physical evidence that is actually present and documented, not the ridiculous and logistically impossible claims of multiple shooters, flechettes ,bogus witnesses and non-existent head wounds
            There is no moral equivalence in murder.

          • J.D. says:

            All right, Photon, I stand corrected: You did not claim that JFK stole the election.

            However, do you realize that your criticisms of Kennedy’s recklessness could apply, with even more force, to most of the presidents who preceded him? Lincoln would meet with almost anybody who wanted to see him and regularly attended public events without a bodyguard. Harry Truman went on a road trip right after his presidency ended, with no security guards in sight. McKinley was shaking hands with strangers in a crowd when he was shot. Presidents did not live in a security bubble until relatively recently, and JFK’s “recklessness” needs to be seen in this light.

            Seymour Hersh’s book is a slumgullion of anonymous claims and hearsay, and was roundly condemned by most reviewers when it was published. Garry Wills, who wrote a fairly critical book about the Kennedys, said that the book was so dreadful that Hersh had probably destroyed his own career. This turned out not to be true, but Hersh has repeatedly been criticized for his heavy reliance on anonymous “inside” sources, most recently in his claims about the Syrian conflict and bin Laden’s death.

            When Hersh was asked why he wrote the Kennedy book, he gave two reasons. The first reason: He assumed, in advance, that Kennedy’s administration was just as corrupt as Nixon’s, and all he had to do was to find people who would give him the proof. (Hersh: “I’m talking to retired agents of the CIA, guys who worked Cuba. I’m getting the stories, as I knew I would because I knew they would all point the finger at the Kennedys, particularly Bobby.”)

            The other reason, and I quote: “I had a publisher who was going to give me a lot of money to do it.”

            http://niemanreports.org/articles/two-stories-seymour-hersh-never-wrote/

          • Photon says:

            I initially read ” The Dark Side of Camelot” with a great deal of skepticism. It is hard to believe that so many fantastic stories could be true; one wonders how JFK would have had time to do anything productive. But the Mimi Alford story confirms several of his allegations; the sordid Dave Powers episode perhaps the most notorious. Alford herself had been described by other JFK staffers (although never named) so at least her presence at the White House seems plausible.
            The party at Bing Crosby’s had been described by others and still is part of Palm Springs lore.
            Coming from a family with deep DFL ties I was aware of how HHH always resented how he was outmaneuvered by the Kennedy forces and Kennedy money in West Virginia and the dirty politics that were anathema to him.He never let his private resentment of JFK stealing his idea for a Peace Corps interfere with his party loyalty and attempts to push JFK’s legislative agenda. Hubert could have made a big stink about the West Virginia results, but he was satisfied that one of his political allies became Secretary of Agricuture in the JFK administration. He also boosted a local economics professor to JFK ( as the professor later told me) as the ” best economist west of the Mississippi “. Unfortunately Hubert told that to JFK while they all were in Minneapolis, leaving the said economist to wonder if Humphrey knew somebody better in St. Paul. Kennedy made that economics professor chairman of his council of economic advisers, ensuring that Humphrey would not be inclined to ever bring up the sordid activities of West Virginia.and he never publically did.

  6. MDG says:

    I agree W. Whitten that the flechette is a technical possibility that cannot be ruled out.

    (As per the flechette; I see it as a possibility, not a certainty. It is in fact technologically feasible, and may have been used via umbrella)
    W Whitten, June 29

    It is also completely odd, and noteworthy that Umbrella Mans black umbrella went up at the exact time when shots started to fly in Dealey Plaza.

    It was also a weapon in the arsenal of the CIA in 63. Thats been established conclusively at the Church hearings!

    It is so disgusting that a flechette with poison could have theoretically paralyzed JFK on impact.

    These people who used it possibly would have been very experienced in using it.

    I dont find it difficult to accept theoretically that JFK could have been paralyzed and have been finished off in this way theoretically if all shots had missed.

    These people who masterminded the killing of JFK in such a brutal, and horrific way were evil.

    There is now much evidence that they were part of the Secret Government of the United States.

    If a flechette was used it was Overkill during the Ambush.

  7. Greg Arious says:

    I guess we need an Umbrella Man re-enactment with a cheap umbrella and the world’s best flechette snipers to see if they can duplicate the feat…

    Seriously, most people studying the JFK assassination have been led so far off the reservation that they’ll never accept any kind of banal truth.

  8. Stephen Dale says:

    Why go to the trouble of using a flechette when you could just shoot him?

    • Photon says:

      Bingo. Why paralyze someone if the object was to kill him? Why have a triangulated shooting team when snipers act alone? Why do a tonsillectomy through the rectum?
      The Achilles Heel of conspiracy theories-almost all involve scenarios too complex to be believable, too complex to have remained undetected, too complex to have ever succeeded in the first place.
      Occam’s Razor. It is simple. It is logical.And it is almost always true.
      JFK took to many chances.
      Oswald’s rifle was ” good enough” for an 88 yard shot.
      Oswald was a ” good enough ” marksman to make that shot.
      Oswald’s last confirmed position before the assassination was on the sixth floor.
      Oswald owned the rifle used.
      Oswald took off immediately after the shooting before anybody else in the TSBD knew that JFK had
      had been shot.
      Oswald got lucky.
      Conspiracy theorists can never accept the fact that sometimes people can simply get lucky.
      Or that complex assassination attempts rarely work-it almost always boils down to one
      Individual who is the most motivated-and gets lucky.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        Still does not explain the large gaping hole in the back of JFK’s head.

        • Photon says:

          The one that McClelland didn’t see on Nov. 22, 1963? The one not seen by any of the physicians who attended the post, evaluated the photos and X-rays?
          Sorry Bob, it doesn’t exist.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            No, Photon, the one mentioned in almost every one of the medical reports submitted by the Parkland physicians on Nov. 22, 1963, and later repeated in their Warren Commission testimonies.

          • Photon says:

            The most interesting thing said by one of the Parkland doctors ( Carrico) was that while JFK was supine on the gurney they could see the head wound in its entirety.

      • Paulf says:

        Photon:

        Holy moly, your explanation for Occam’s Razor is the most ill-formed comment you’ve ever made, and that’s saying a lot.

        JFK took too many chances is Occam’s Razor? What the hell? That’s an opinion of yours, stupid as all get out, blaming the victim, but how is that the simplest explanation of anything?

        I don’t have the time or energy to go through each comment, but “Oswald got lucky” does not meet any standard or usage of Occam’s Razor.

        Plus, your facts are wrong. Oswald’s last confirmed position is your opinion, not reality.

        OR is a principle that a simplest, most logical explanation is usually the best. It doesn’t mean “any damned fool opinion that pops into my head.” Actually, the simplest, most logical explanation is that he was telling the truth about being a patsy. But even I would say that’s not dispositive, to be confused with looking at facts and evidence. Some things are complicated.

        Please, for the love of Mike, stop with the ridiculous nonsense of just automatically rebutting everything you read. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute, just wait till you do.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Excellent question, Stephen.

      I have always wondered what was supposed to have propelled this flechette, too. Rocket fuel? Compressed air? Big spring? Elastic?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Stephen Dale
      June 29, 2016 at 8:57 pm

      “Why go to the trouble of using a flechette when you could just shoot him?”

      God I love the smell of commons sense in the morning. Bang on Stephen.

  9. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Two assumptions that seem to be prevalent here.

    1. That the throat wound was of a smaller diameter than any other wounds. It was described by Parkland physicians as being 3-8 mm in diameter. The bullets fired from the Carcano were 6.8 mm in diameter.

    2. That the throat wound occurred before the head wound. The only evidence of an early throat wound is JFK raising his balled fists up toward his throat. This may have been a response to wounding of his right lung, and a sudden inability to respire with part or all of that lung.

  10. MDG says:

    In 1960, Colonel Prouty knew about the flechette launching weapon using an umbrella according to The Umbrella Man by Richard Sprague and Robert Cutler. Prouty also said less than 20 people in the CIA and Special Forces knew about it or had access to it. Including the Murderer.

    The Umbrella System: Prelude to An Assassination by Richard Sprague and Robert Cutler.

    “Colonel Prouty witnessed a demonstration of the flechette launching system using an umbrella in 1960 in Washington. …………….I am from personal and official experience able to support the Sprague Cutler thesis that an umbrella weapon was used in the JFK Assassination. ………..Consider also from the date of the JFK Assassination in 1963 there was no place anybody outside the very small CIA and Special Forces Group (no more than twenty people) who could get access to that flechette launching weapon system or anything like it……………………Someone had the power to ensure Umbrella Man’s nonapprehension and access to that weapon. That person was the Murderer”.

    https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

    • Bill Clarke says:

      MDG
      June 29, 2016 at 9:40 pm

      “In 1960, Colonel Prouty knew about the flechette launching weapon using an umbrella according to The Umbrella Man by Richard Sprague and Robert Cutler. Prouty also said less than 20 people in the CIA and Special Forces knew about it or had access to it. Including the Murderer.”

      You might have something here if Prouty was believable. He is not.

      • “You might have something here if Prouty was believable. He is not.”~Bill Clarke

        Mr Clarke’s blanket dismissal of Fletcher Prouty is a well known bias here. I think it behooves the forum to keep this in mind anytime Colonel Prouty is mentioned here.

        Many find Colonel Prouty much more believable than this jealously enraged pretender with a chip on his shoulder.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          June 30, 2016 at 6:25 pm

          “You might have something here if Prouty was believable. He is not.”~Bill Clarke

          “Mr Clarke’s blanket dismissal of Fletcher Prouty is a well known bias here. I think it behooves the forum to keep this in mind anytime Colonel Prouty is mentioned here.”

          You should also warn the group that I have a blanket dismissal of you, especially when you stumble around about JFK and the war. This is not due to any bias I have against you but instead is because you make such outlandish statements about the war which indicates you don’t know what you are talking about.

          Here is an example from this group; On November 24, 2015 at 5:51 pm Willy Whitten said; “It was only after substantial escalation by the US (By LBJ I believe you claim) that Hanoi turned to the Chinese for assistance and material”.

          This is a leg slapper for any one familiar with the history. You might want to read on Dien Bien Phu.

          “Many find Colonel Prouty much more believable than this jealously enraged pretender with a chip on his shoulder.”

          And many more find him a nutty fruitcake liar.
          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm

          • “And many more find him a nutty fruitcake liar.”
            ~Bill Clarke

            And that biased webpage by McAdams that is nothing but slander and character assassination is supposed to be taken seriously?

            The fear Prouty strikes in the heart of dishonest “researchers” is a wonder to behold.
            \\][//

          • Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot?
            Since Mcadams is known to use the alias “Paul Nolan” just how many other names has he used to deceive?
            He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert… or Crackpot?
            Here is what was discovered…

            http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/sparrows.html

            http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/faq.html

            http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?118646-John-Mcadams-Laughing-stock-of-the-internet

            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy, you are amusing. You’ve resorted to the same, “it is all McAdams’s fault,” plea that Len Osanic maintains. Despite requesting an impartial examiner to assist in
            restoring links to the Prouty site by Len Osanic in the footnotes in the L Fletcher Prouty wikipedia bio page, three years later Osanic stubbornly ignores the advice of the impartial examiner (Amatulic) and continues to present on his Prouty site the very material you are now presenting in lieu of an informative argument.:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L._Fletcher_Prouty/Archive_1#Malicious_insinuations
            I have no dog in this fight. Let me explain my involvement:

            The [redacted blacklisted link] site is blacklisted. In a lengthy email conversation with Len Osanic, and after posting proposals on both the blacklist and whitelist pages with no objection, I white-listed just the [redacted blacklisted link] home page, in the hope that it would lead to public discussion instead of unproductive back-room private conversation. That has happened. Mission accomplished.

            You want a policy? Here you go: Wikipedia:Libel. It is a policy to delete defamatory material. One could argue whether the policy applies to defamatory links or actual text in an article. It doesn’t matter. It should be obvious that Wikipedia cannot be complicit in libel. The [redacted blacklisted link]/mcadams page, while it does contain some valid critiques, clearly exists as a hatchet job for no other purpose than libel.

            That said, I think overall the [redacted blacklisted link] site is potentially a useful resource. It has some good information in it about the subject. The defamatory pages add no value and can safely be removed. Pages that attack McAdams’ arguments rather than his character can be kept. If the site contents was modified thus, I believe nobody would object to linking it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L._Fletcher_Prouty/Archive_1#Malicious_insinuations
            ……
            For the record, Amatulić came to this article at the request of Len Osanic, not me, and I’ve had no contact with him before his involvement in the issue following Osanic’s repeated requests. But let’s not let a little thing like facts get in the way of the conspiracy community’s constant attempts to blame everything on me. You say that we should be focused on “providing the best possible research material to the reader” after spending three paragraphs complaining about me. Go ahead, I would prefer you focused on that instead of me. Nobody’s stopping you from practicing what you preach. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

          • Tom,

            Is McAdams’ site sluring Flethcer Prouty any more upscale than the one you are savaging now?
            \\][//

          • And that biased webpage by McAdams that is nothing but slander and character assassination is supposed to be taken seriously?

            Most of the really damning stuff on this page:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm

            . . . comes as direct quotes from Prouty. For example:

            1. Nixon was in Dallas at the time of the shooting.

            2. The “High Cabal” had planned both the Korean and the Vietnam wars as of 1945.

            3. Oil isn’t really a fossil fuel.

            4. Powers’ U-2 spy plane was not shot down by the Soviets. It just landed.

            5. Prouty would “not be surprised” if “The Secret Team” killed Princess Diana.

            6. The hand of “American intelligence” can be seen in the Jonestown massacre.

            7. The Federal Reserve Bank was behind the JFK assassination.

            8. One of the multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza was firing blanks.

            9. KAL Flight 007 was downed by an explosive device planted by the CIA.

            And a lot more.

          • CIA documents show US never believed Gary Powers was shot down
            ~Giles Whittell, Washington Correspondent
            The London Times – May 1, 2010

            http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article711351
            \\][//

      • John Rowell says:

        Perhaps the testimony of Misters Colby, Helm, and Senseney will have more weight. Just scroll down a bit.

  11. Adam says:

    I enjoy Willy Whittens’ comments and learn from them as I do from the posts and comments of many participants here. Sounds like a flechette would have been possible but just because it was possible doesn’t mean it was used on JFK. I would need a bit more to convince me. While we’re on the topic of “The Umbrella Man” I feel there are to many coincidences with him and his neighbor,”The Hand Raising Guy” to ignore them. A guy who was using an umbrella on a clear day, who some saw pumping that umbrella as JFK was being shot in front of him. A guy who gave contradictory testimony (if that was really him) to congress. He allegedly worked in a building that housed military intelligence and who told congress he didn’t know the president had been shot until he was back at his office, heard it on the radio even though he said he remembered the man sitting next to him with a dark complexion’ saying “They done killed them folks”. That “Memory” also sounds like an old racist saying what he thought would be a believable memory of what a dark skinned person would say. As for that person who just happened to be oddly raising his hand and stepping towards JFK’s limo and just happened to sit calmly right next to the “Umbrella Man”. This man is then filmed talking into something that just happens to look like a walkie talkie, antenna and all as he looks towards the “Grassy “Knoll. This guy also happens to look a lot like photo’s of Orlando Bosh Avila at that time. I’m not convinced of some other photo look a like’s from Dealey plaza but this one has my attention. So the guy at least looks like one of the most fervent anti Castro warriors who did 4 years in prison for shooting down an airplane. To many coincidences. I grew up a sports kid and the “Umbrella Man” and “Hand Raising Guy” seem like the 1st base and 3rd base coach of the JFK assassination.

    • Thank you Adam,

      You say; “Sounds like a flechette would have been possible but just because it was possible doesn’t mean it was used on JFK.”

      I agree, but with this caveat; the umbrella weapon was not just “possible” it was developed and produced, and demonstrated.

      I think your prescient points as to the “umbrella man” and the ”The Hand Raising Guy” should be considered in that light. They were obvious confederates. They were obviously part of the Dealey Plaza operation. I think this in itself lends greater credence to the possibility that the umbrella was indeed a weapon.

      I presented this concept with an air of certainty that certainly caught the attention of the forum and especially my would be detractors. My purposed here is to provoke thought and curiosity in areas of this case. One that seems to circle in the same cycle of issues over and again.

      As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle remarked with the words of Sherlock Holmes; “all crimes are conceived in the imagination — all crimes can be solved by the imagination”

      [Exact Quote from HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES: “For that’s where crimes are conceived and they’re solved – in the imagination.]
      \\][//

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Adam
      June 30, 2016 at 6:39 am

      “I enjoy Willy Whittens’ comments and learn from them”.

      Good grief man! I hope you don’t take your “JFK in Vietnam” class from Willy. Then you’d be very confused.

      • Adam says:

        Bill, Willy contributes plenty of thought provoking comments. I often agree with his sentiment but if there is something given as fact that is not backed up or plain wrong by anyone, I have faith that the good researchers here will call it out & I may even have to do my own research. So do U think the throat wound was one of entrance ? and don’t you think the “Umbrella man” was at least suspicious ? especially when paired with the “Hand Raising Guy” ? I assume you are familiar with them ?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Adam
          July 1, 2016 at 10:19 am

          “So do U think the throat wound was one of entrance ? and don’t you think the “Umbrella man” was at least suspicious ? especially when paired with the “Hand Raising Guy” ? I assume you are familiar with them ?

          Yes, I’m somewhat familiar with them but, I suspect, not near as familiar as you and many others here in the group. It certainly isn’t my area of interest or expertise but I’ll give you a country boy answer best I can.

          1. I think the throat surgery at Dallas does much to confuse the entrance or exit wound question. My answer would be I don’t know. However, I’ve never had any trouble differentiating a entrance wound from an exit would. That would be with both soft nose and FMJ rounds. Yes, the difference is not as great with the FMJ round but I’ve always been able to tell which was which.

          2. Of course I find these two men interesting. Suspects? Again I don’t know and fear we will never know.

          Please remember what I told you about taking your “JFK in Vietnam” class from Willy.

  12. kennedy63 says:

    Photon, apparently the “cabal” post raised your ire and compelled you to launch into your standard vitriolic rant about the human flaws of JFK. In your puritanical zeal, you over look that Emperors and potentates, kings and queens, tyrants and despots from time immemorial, carried on dalliances with males and females. Kennedy is not an abnormality. Citing his sexual affairs does not address his about-face direction having rejected the insanity of [his advisor’s] recommendations during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Despite the ‘egregious shade’ you spew on JFK, you offer no reasonable counter explanations regarding what Sheehan proffers. Sheehan can have any personal view he deems worthy of his consideration – including UFO’s. The main critical inquiry here is Sheehan’s correct assertion that the identified “Dulles Cabal” overtly dominated US policy since before WWII, and that Kennedy’s assassination was ‘approved’ at this level. The symbolic window dressings called “Dealy Plaza” and the “Warren Deception” were verification that this cabal is both fascist and was/is in control of the machinery of government and the public puppets (read: politicians) we so ardently and faithfully believe are working in “we the people’s” best interests. If you still support the Warren Deception, well, let’s just say you still believe all is well and fair in Wonderland (read: America).

    • Kudos to you kennedy63 for such an eloquent rebuke of ‘Dr.’ Photon.

      The entity is so disingenuous as to back up my breakfast at times.
      \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Thank you for clearly stating that your conclusions relating to the assassination have nothing to do with the physical evidence and everything to do with an idealized portrait of JFK and preconceived notions supported only by wishful thinking and outright false statements.

      • “Thank you for clearly stating that your conclusions relating to the assassination have nothing to do with the physical evidence and everything to do with an idealized portrait of JFK”
        ~Photon

        Photon can always be counted on to reinterpret the words of another commentator to create an elaborate straw-man, which he then attacks like a myopic Don Quixote.
        \\][//

      • John Rowell says:

        Methinks thou doth protest too much.

      • Antonio D'Antonio says:

        All one would need to do is change “JFK” in your statement to ” the Warren Commission” and we have what I would consider to be a more realistic statement.

      • Paul M says:

        Photon, here is physical evidence – the hole in JFK’s suit jacket aligns with the hole in his back. He was sitting upright per the Zapruder film. No way the back wound aligns with the throat wound to allow for a shot from the TSB. So what caused the throat wound? Don’t reply with the Myer’s film scenario, because that shows JFK in a weird position that is definitely not how we see him in Zapruder. No one has ever refuted this key piece of evidence. So Ford moved the wound to the base of the neck to make SBT work out.

        • Photon says:

          JFK’s clothes were riding up his back and neck-clearly proven by photographic evidence that you and too many CTers ignore.
          The back wound is an entrance wound according to every forensic pathologist who has examined it or seen the autopsy data. That is not in dispute.

          • Paul M says:

            Photon, you are wrong. The clothing could not have been bunched up. That was an Arlen Spector excuse for the back wound being too low to align with the throat wound. I never said the throat was an entry wound. Just proving that the WC had to fabricate stories to make the SBT believable. The back wound location discredits the whole case against the shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

          • Photon, you are wrong. The clothing could not have been bunched up.

            Says who?

            The jacket was often bunched:

            Go to the bottom of the page here:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

            By the way, if the top of the collar was level with the tip of the mastoid process (as it is in many motorcade photos) the coat does not need to be bunched.

        • Paul M says:

          McAdams, read my July 4th post. The back wound and clothing holes all line up as shown in the Warren report and autopsy photo. So the jacket could not possibly be bunched up. The Zapruder film confirms this. So how do the back and throat wound relate when one accepts this FACT?

  13. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Seriously, what did this flechette use as a propellant to get it to its target, and what kind of guidance system was employed?

  14. MDG says:

    “You might have something here if Prouty was believable. He is not.”
    Bill Clarke, June 29.

    Richard Sprague, Robert Cutler and Colonel Fletcher Prouty! That’s three who knew what they were talking about.

    I dont find a flechette laughable. It was in the CIA arsenal in 63.

    It is theoretically possible it was what caused JFK’s neck wound.

    It is also noteworthy that TUM was not apprehended in Dealey Plaza. He just walked away.

    John Kennedy in Dealey Plaza was up against a large army of enemies the cabal referred to by Sheehan.

    • Tom S. says:

      Richard Sprague, Robert Cutler and Colonel Fletcher Prouty! That’s three who knew what they were talking about.

      MDG, Richard E. Sprague was a photon analyst who impressed Rep. Henry Gonzales.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Sprague
      ….Sprague was “the leading gatherer of photographic evidence about the Kennedy assassination”.

      Prouty made numerous uncorroborated assertions.

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8382#entry79668

      The fletchette was designed to dissolve completely, so no missile would be found.

      To the contrary, Prouty’s missile was metalic and had stabilizing fins. I have a scan
      of it and will post it if I can remember the file name. It’s length is about the diameter
      of a dime. It was propelled by carbon dioxide gas.

      Jack

      If you take anyone’s information on faith, in that you cannot identify a second reliable source for it, a responsible editor will not permit a submitting
      journalist to report the information as fact. Often it is obvious information that is impressive and received agreeably is simply offered and defended
      mostly by emotion, in comments submitted to this website.

      • Tom S. says:

        Willy, you have not walked back your claim that you’ve proved ???????? something? Despite this, you do have defenders.
        I do not understand what it is they are defending, even you are offering no defense of your claim that you proved anything.

        http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/578-umbrella-man-and-the-two-altered-photos/
        ……….

        Phyllis’s description of the bullet sounds very much like a flechette, and JFK did have a neck wound in that location. In 1989, Tom Wilson, an electrical engineer and photonics expert, used special photo analysis equipment to examine the autopsy photos in 3D. He determined that the small defect in the neck was an actual wound.

        Researchers have long suspected that JFK was paralyzed in some way due to his lack of movement and lack of speech, especially when compared to the extensive movements and vocalizations of Gov. Connally.

        In reaction to the insistence of commentors, I’ve backed away from an earlier effort to raise the bar in these discussion threads with the aim of the submitted information
        amounting to a reliable resource. Instead, the popular sentiment here is for a discussion of no greater informative value than available at any other suspicion driven
        conspiracy forum, long on uninformed opinion and emotion, acutely short on comments rich with supporting links. As Photon says, he includes what is generally known in his
        linkless comments, just as most other commentors believe they also include in theirs.

        I actually believed until recently that I had some influence to prevent being overtaken by a conclusion that my role here is a complete waste of my time.
        Drumpf nation, Drumpf JFKfacts.org discussion threads.

      • “To the contrary, Prouty’s missile was metalic and had stabilizing fins. I have a scan of it and will post it if I can remember the file name. It’s length is about the diameter of a dime. It was propelled by carbon dioxide gas.”~Jack

        Jack who, and how is it determined that it was Prouty’s missile?

        The Church Committee testimony of Colby, Helms, and Senseney runs counter to “Jack’s” assertions.
        \\][//

  15. kennedy63 says:

    At what point do researchers take the hint that the “mechanics” of the assassination mean nothing in light of the “big picture”- regarding the power brokers who approved the assassination by creating an atmosphere that allowed the team of assassins to prosper in their foul treason?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      I don’t quite see it the same way you do, kennedy63. I believe we can deduce the type of weapons used from sifting through all of the evidence, and the deductions we make will point directly at the killers.

      For example, if we discover, after careful analysis, that all of JFK’s and Connally’s wounds were made by full metal jacket bullets, there is a case for a lone assassin employed at minimum wage to have committed this crime.

      OTOH, if careful analysis produces evidence of exotic bullets (ie. frangible bullets) or rocket propelled flechettes, we have narrowed the suspects down to a small group whose pay cheques are signed by someone in the US Government.

  16. kennedy63,

    As far as the “big picture” I think a lot of us grasp that. It is often the core issue to the tributaries we spend a lot of hankering over.

    And again this is one area where Fletcher Prouty shines; the over all paradigm as seen from the inside for so many years.
    Yet he is flexible enough to go into the small details as seen from that perspective.

    It was mainly through listening to interviews with Prouty on KPFK in LA back in the 70’s that I came to understand the assassination as a coup d’etat.
    I still have dozens of cassette tapes of those late night interviews from “Something’s Happening” with Roy of Hollywood…Midnight to Dawn. Night owl stuff.
    \\][//

  17. Bob Prudhomme says:

    One last time, what did this flechette use as a propellant to get it from the umbrella to its target, and what kind of guidance system kept it on course?

    • Bob,

      As far as I can determine, the propellant may have been a chemical propellant like a tiny rocket. As far as a “guidance system”, it seems to be much the same as a bullet, or arrow, or bolt from a crossbow. That is that there is no guidance system per say, but for the trajectory it is fired at. How many bullets have “guidance systems”?
      Other than being self propelled and having pop up fins it is no different than a bullet.

      That is what I gather from the description given in the hearings.
      \\][//
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        “How many bullets have “guidance systems”?”

        Every bullet has a simple yet excellent guidance system, unlike your rocket propelled flechettes launched from an umbrella.

        The barrel of a rifle is a guidance system. By travelling through this long straight and precision made launch tube, the bullet is set upon a trajectory that allows shooters to hit targets 100 yards away and further with ease. Stabilisation? The rifling grooves cut into the rifle barrel impart a high speed spin to the bullet that gyroscopically balances the bullet in flight.

        Does your umbrella rocket launcher have any of these features?

        Here is something else to think about. A revolver is similar to a rifle yet not as accurate, due to lower velocities and a far shorter “guidance system” or barrel, yet it would still be more accurate than a rocket propelled flechette. That being said, I would be hesitant to attempt to make a shot at JFK’s head from TUM’s position with a revolver, simply because I’m not sure I could hit a moving target travelling over 14 feet per second from left to right in front of me.

        Here’s a tough question. If the flechette was rocket propelled, why did no one see the exhaust from this rocket? Nellie Connally was looking directly at JFK following the “throat shot”. Don’t you think she would have noticed the tail end of this rocket fizzling away in JFK’s throat, or at least have seen a little steam as the heat from this rocket evaporated some of JFK’s blood?

        If this flechette had tail fins, how did it make such a neat and round wound? If it entered JFK’s throat through the “wound” that Tom S. pointed out, which looks more to me like a zit, what happened to the tail fins, as they would obviously be too large to go through this wound and dissolve inside JFK’s neck along with the rest of the rocket?

        Speaking of dissolving rockets, what materials was this flechette made from, that allowed it to completely dissolve in JFK’s throat in a matter of minutes?

        Am I the only one who can see the ridiculousness of this whole thing?

        • “The barrel of a rifle is a guidance system. By travelling through this long straight and precision made launch tube.”~Prudhomme

          So someone trained in handguns couldn’t have hit Kennedy in the throat with a snub nose .38…?
          Is that what you are claiming here Bob?
          \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            July 1, 2016 at 3:48 pm

            “The barrel of a rifle is a guidance system. By travelling through this long straight and precision made launch tube.”~Prudhomme

            “So someone trained in handguns couldn’t have hit Kennedy in the throat with a snub nose .38…? Is that what you are claiming here Bob?”

            No matter how well you are trained you must have the right equipment to get the job done. A sub nosed .38 is not adequate equipment for killing JFK in a moving car.

            My Weatherby 300 rifle has a 26 inch launch tube.
            My .218 Bee rifle has a 22 inch launch tube.
            My snub nose revolver .38 has a 2 inch launch tube.

            You need help with the math? Had you used an expert pistol shooter and a M-1911 .45 you might have been in the ballpark.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            The limo supposedly pass TUM travelling at 12 mph. This seems like a fairly slow speed, until you convert it to feet per second and discover the limo was travelling from left to right in front of TUM at a velocity of 17.6 feet per second. Hold your hand in front of you and, in the space of one second, imagine you are tracking a target for almost 18 feet.

            Now, I know you watch lots of movies, and actors like Bruce Willis can almost make a shot like this with one eye closed but, in the real world, it is a bit more difficult.

            Also, if JFK was struck in the throat by this flechette, his wounds do not line up with TUM’s position. While the projectile that caused his throat wound passed through the right side of his trachea, it also passed through the centre of his throat at the entry/exit point. This does not line up with TUM at all, unless JFK was looking almost to the rear of the limo when TUM released his flechette.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Bob Prudhomme
          July 1, 2016 at 10:38 am

          “Am I the only one who can see the ridiculousness of this whole thing?”

          Oh dear no! I read you loud and clear. Perhaps you and I are the only two that worked in the woods!~~

          In 1970 when I was in Vietnam it was considered a good shot if the 105s got a round within 100 yards of target. They usually did better. That is why you call “danger-close” if your target was 100 yards or less. Now they tell me they can put a round in your back pocket. Same with bombs. What it took 400 bombs to do in Vietnam they can now do with one “smart bomb”.

          My point being that I doubt any rocket/flechette in 1963 would have the technology to be an acceptable assassination weapon. I’m just saying….

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Somehow I knew you worked in the woods at one time. Your logger common sense shows through. 🙂

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            The whole notion of being able to hit a moving target with a miniature rocket is just ridiculous. The potential for missing is tremendous, and how does a miniature rocket loaded with toxin, found on the grass in Dealey Plaza, get explained away?

            What everyone fails to comprehend is that while a bullet will leave the barrel travelling at its maximum velocity, a rocket will require time to accelerate up to its max velocity AFTER it is already on its way to its target, vastly increasing the lead required to hit a moving target.

            And another small problem. If you look at this frame, you can see that DCM was standing in front of TUM with his fist raised, at about the moment TUM is supposed to have released his rocket.

            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LcYucd0utBw/T8DDrnjiyzI/AAAAAAAAB_Y/SyV3ZXilcSg/s1600/Picture+11.png

            At the very ;east, I would find this quite distracting, if I was attempting to aim a rocket, At the worst, DCM stood a very good chance of getting hit in the arm with a flechette loaded with a paralyzing toxin.

            How did TUM aim his umbrella launcher? From what I can see, he held it far above his head and would have had to guess at where he was aiming. With a stiff wind blowing through Dealey Plaza that day, and that umbrella presenting a great amount of sail area, how could he keep it on target with one hand, even if he could aim it?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Don’t get me wrong. There is something definitely strange about TUM standing there with an open umbrella on a sunny November day, and DCM standing directly in front of him giving JFK the Black Panther salute. I just don’t believe they are the actual assassins. I believe they were positioned at that spot so to be able to visually check the results of the first volley of shots. I believe their task was to evaluate JFK’s wounds and, if necessary, give the go ahead to the next shooter to finish JFK off.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bob, there is no way to prove it I know of but I’ve long concurred that Umbrella Man was in fact Signal Man.

  18. Eddy says:

    There is acoustic, witness, and possibly physical evidence of a shot/shots from the front. There is contrary evidence, possibly doctoring of evidence, potentialy combined with possible disinformation.

    One of the biggest suspect pieces of evidence is the Zapruder film, from which many of the above theories use to gain ground.

    In my view, prior to the 1990’s, the public could have concluded all shots came from the rear. After this period of greater document release, it became virtualy impossible to sustain that position.

    • “One of the biggest suspect pieces of evidence is the Zapruder film, from which many of the above theories use to gain ground.”~Eddy

      Curious phrasing there Eddy. Could you elaborate?
      \\]//

      • Eddy says:

        Yes I will. But before I do I am fully aware of your view on the Zapruder film, please don’t repeat it.

        1. The film’s chain of custody cannot be relied upon.
        2. The film doesn’t match what many witnesses saw.
        3. The film has been incompetently/intentionally damaged.
        4. Even Zapruder wouldn’t vouch for the accuracy of his own film (Garrison trial).

        With these indisputable facts, I find it strange that the film is used as a starting point for so many theories, including the ones in this thread.

        • “Yes I will. But before I do I am fully aware of your view on the Zapruder film, please don’t repeat it.”
          ~Eddy

          Why shouldn’t I Eddy? Your assertions leading to the conclusion that the Z-film was altered are all BS.

          I am not going to clog up this thread with another carousel reiteration of this dispute, but I will offer the argument proving it is impossible to create an undetectable altered Kodachrome 8mm depiction of the Zapruder film:

          https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/

          \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Why shouldn’t I Eddy? Your assertions leading to the conclusion that the Z-film was altered are all BS.
            ……..
            \\][//

            Did someone comment, “all BS”?

            There was no “bullet” to the throat, it was a dissolving flechette, as I so aptly proved previously.
            \\][//

          • “Did someone comment, “all BS”?”~Tom S.

            What do the initials B.S. stand for Tom?
            \\][//

          • Eddy says:

            I have read the information on the link you provided Willy. I found the information from Zavada interesting, the rest appears to be McAdams style selectivity. I’ll point out two aspects that look overstated to me.
            1. You can tell if a frame has been removed.
            2. People looking from behind the Limo wouldn’t be able to tell if it stopped.

            Perhaps you have other links I could try?

  19. MDG says:

    It is not too difficult to fathom that people in the Presidential Limousine saw things that have never been made public.

    It is theoretically possible flechette fins were seen, and found on 11/22/63 in the Limo.

    Same old problem…………………. the Coverup.

    The Connallys had a lot to say but it is possible they did not tell everything as they had good reasons to be afraid.

    Dead would have been worse than Bankrupt which is what happened to them (1987).

    http://www.history.com/news/the-other-victims-of-the-jfk-assassination

    A proper investigation also should have removed the bullet fragments from Connally.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/18/us/fbi-backs-plan-to-remove-connally-bullet-fragments.html

    If it wasnt for the Zapruder Film we wouldnt be talking about this right now.

    TUM appears in the Zapruder Film quite dramatically!

    I think it is important to talk about this as it is theoretically possible TUM had something to do with the Assassination.

    It is a wonder Zapruder was allowed to stand on that pedestal and shoot the Film.

    But we know this was not a Perfect Crime so we have the Z Film.

    We also know DPD was told to watch but stand down in Dealey Plaza.

    (And Yes where is the Original Nix Film showing the JFK Assassination with the view opposite to Zapruder)

  20. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Regarding the original question in he thread topic:

    I personally believe there was an frontal entrance wound in the throat. Based primarily on the Zapruder film and Dr. Perry’s experienced professional opinion an hour after the Assassination.
    Where the bullet went is unknown and may never be.
    As Bob Prudhome has pointed out it might have been frangible.
    Then again if it was a small caliber hollow point (e.g. a 22) it might have mushroomed and/or hit cartilage or neck/back bone and not exited.
    Why, why, why was the throat wound not properly examined by a Forensic pathologist?
    Orders.

  21. MDG says:

    EDDY The authenticity of the Z Film is irrelevant to a discussion of TUM.

    TUM is in the Z Film whether you believe it was altered, or not.

    Man is dressed in black with black umbrella. The umbrella is put up at the exact time of the Assassination. Very peculiar.

    President John F. Kennedy was brutally murdered at the exact time of the umbrella going up.

    http://assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/willis-betzner-bronson.jpg

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1122/JFK-assassination-Why-suspicions-still-linger-about-Umbrella-Man

    I dont know if TUM had anything to do with the Assassination but all oddities in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 have to be looked at.

    TA The Assistant of TUM had a walkie talkie. DPD were allowed to watch the motorcade but stand down. TA is very suspicious for possessing that in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

    We have been told none of JFK’s wounds were dissected. Including the neck.

    This would be unusual but perhaps they were dissected including the neck with that information available only on a need to know basis.

    Probably Coverup.

    Fletchette or no fletchette. Let’s not be afraid to talk about anything related to the JFK Murder.

    TUM and TA could have been undercover Secret Service. We just don’t know.

    I am interested in other people’s opinions including W. Whitten even if I don’t agree with everything he, or other people say.

    We just don’t have all the information we need and it may come in future generations, or we may never know what happened and why.

    We do have a lot more information now.

    I never bought the LN story or believed the WC Report.

    I have also never bought that Novel is TUM.

    • “I have also never bought that Novel is TUM.”~MDG

      I don’t buy that Witt was TUM either. I think that TUM and ‘radioman’ were confederates. I think there is a good chance that Orlando Bosch could be ‘radioman’. It would make sense as he was an anti-Castro Cuban working for the CIA in 1963. I think that whoever TUM was would be someone in the Banister group of anti-Castro Cubans — not necessarily Cuban himself, but involved with that op.

      Bosch was in contact with the CIA in 1962 and 1963, as the agency itself admitted, as recorded in the National Security Archive.[5] At this time, Bosch was the General Coordinator of the Movimiento Insurreccional de Recuperacion Revolucionaria (Insurrectional Movement of Revolutionary Recovery, MIRR), which in 1967 became Poder Cubano (Cuban Power)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bosch

      \\][//

  22. kennedy63 says:

    PHOTON’S FOLLY
    “Occam’s Razor. It is simple. It is logical. And it is almost always true.” -Photon, 6/30/16
    “JFK took too many chances.”
    Photon, this is your opinion…the President doesn’t work for the Secret Service, rather, they are public employees entrusted to protect the person of POTUS.
    “Oswald’s rifle was ‘good enough’ for an 88 yard shot.”
    No, the ancient rifle emphatically was not “good enough” according to an FBI report.
    “Oswald was a ‘good enough’ marksman to make that shot.”
    No, he wasn’t. This is a blatant lie. I AM good enough to make that shot. The question then becomes, did I shoot that rifle and make that shot? There is claim and there is evidence. This statement is a claim without evidence.
    “Oswald’s last confirmed position before the assassination was on the sixth floor.”
    Charles Givens made this ridiculous assertion in conjunction with the FBI. According to his own testimony, Givens went to the 6th floor to retrieve a pack of cigs. An African American worker ate lunch on the 6th floor (seeing/hearing no one!), then went down the stairs to the 5th floor to join 2 other workers looking out the windows. Oswald stated that at least 2 of these workers (at the 5th floor windows) earlier saw him in the lunchroom on the 1st floor (Domino Room). Givens was talking with a friend at a nearby parking lot during the assassination.
    “Oswald owned the rifle used.”
    A. Hidel ordered the rifle.The M.O. was NEVER stamped as cashed by a bank. Who picked up the rifle from the P O Box is unknown. No one ever saw Oswald with this weapon.
    “Oswald took off immediately after the shooting before anybody else in the TSBD knew that JFK had been shot.”
    This is absurd, even for you Photon. People employed at the TSBD were outside and looking out windows. They knew that JFK had been shot. Oswald saw several people (Truly and DPO, as well as news reporter asking him where was a phones the reporter could use). Oswald was NOT the only employee who was absent from the TSBD after the assassination. Some were outside due to the building being sealed by DPD. You cannot assign a guilty motive to Oswald’s movements unless you do the same for all other absent employees – like the President of the TSBD.
    “Oswald got lucky.”
    No, Oswald got the hell out of Dodge because he knew the frame up was in progress, with him as the Patsy.
    “Conspiracy theorists can never accept the fact that sometimes people can simply get lucky.”
    I got lucky on my prom night back in 1974. I would not call being framed for the murder of the POTUS getting lucky. That is more like the action on my prom night (wink, wink!)
    “Or that complex assassination attempts rarely work-it almost always boils down to one individual who is the most motivated-and gets lucky.” This is straight out of the DULLES lecture to the Warren Deceivers on HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER! He spewed this venomous pablum on the Omissioners at their first meeting, pressing them for the preferred lone-gunman assassination scenario and Oswald’s contrived guilt = Patsy. The Warren Report is a preposterous hypothesis (The BIG LIE) that NEVER was proved. The prosecutorial brief presented to the American public failed to convict Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt. The Omissioners failed to “have something issued to the American people that would satisfy them that Oswald was the lone assassin and that he had no confederates who are still as large” – J. Edgar Hoover [F.B.I]

  23. kennedy63 says:

    Is this too much to ask?
    It is clear from the amassed evidence that there was a retrieval of bullets from the body before the official autopsy was performed. It becomes clear from the moment of the assassination, collection of any evidence indicating a conspiracy was part of the containment phase. Why did Dr.Humes burn his original autopsy notes AFTER OSwald was dead? What happened to the bullet/fragment retrieved by “the suit” at the manhole cover? What happened to the bullet given to a government agent by the nurse in Trauma Room 1(JFK)? Why did Sibert/O’Neill write that “apparent surgery of the head” had already been performed on JFK BEFORE the official autopsy began? For those who don’t know, we’ve moved beyond the Warren Omission into the viscous darkness of the 53 year old conspiracy that murdered President Kennedy. This is not venal idolization, but citizens seeking redress for a crime so heinous as to traumatize a world of people in its wake. The worst part of this nightmare is the repository of spineless leaders, who recoil in their fear of the truth not wanting to admit they no longer are in control, yet are but witting dupes to fascist corporate patrons and benefactors. Frangible bullets! Poisonous flechettes! What do these vague obscenities have to do with confronting TRUTH and POWER?

  24. MDG says:

    Flechettes were used with poisons in WW1 and before.

    There is, and there has been flechettes for over 100 years and before. Some are the size of nails.

    http://www.antipersonnel.net/sdllc/001.html

    The Israeli Military has used them but they are prohibited under International Humanitarian Law

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israel-using-flechette-shells-in-gaza

    It is possible that a flechette did go through JFK’s throat. We have all heard it was a very small hole.

    And the tracheotomy was done right where the hole was which complicates the situation.

    TUM or TA obviously did not fear getting apprehended in Dealey Plaza.

    It is interesting to contemplate the thinking of the Assassins.

    President John F. Kennedy was not going to emerge from Dealey Plaza alive if he had somehow possibly ducked the fatal shot.

    It is theoretically possible poison was used in this Murder.

    It is possible TUM is a real clue to so much more.

    It seems to me that a possible Flechette adds more evidence the CIA possibly was involved Crime of the Century.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more