We should recognize that in seeking explanations for what happened to JFK that sometimes the options that we have are all difficult. However, it always starts with the bare facts, and that includes these:
1) JFK was hit in the back with something that penetrated very little, meaning just an inch or so, according to the autopsy doctors. Now, I know, of course, that the story became that that bullet traversed him, but I reject that out of hand as a "swirler down the gurgler." The autopsy doctors wanted to dissect Kennedy to find out if that was true, but the admirals wouldn't let them. I'll say it again. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS WANTED TO DISSECT KENNEDY TO CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS TRUE, BUT THE ADMIRALS WOULDN'T LET THEM. I have discussed it with Dr. David Mantik who told me that he studied it closely and found out that the bullet would definitely have impacted the spinal cord, and that means that JFK would not have been able to sit there. There is also the fact that Dr. Perry, an experienced gunshot wound surgeon, stated that the throat wound was an entrance wound. I could expound further, but I am just going to leave it that that the traversing theory is beyond incredible, which means that we are left with what the autopsy doctors found, which was a shallow wound in JFK's back.
2) A FMJ bullet traveling at 2000 ft/sec could not possibly be stopped in an inch just from traversing skin, fascia, and muscle. There is not enough resistance there to stop it. It's energy could not have been dissipated. That degree of deceleration is impossible. So, it could not have been an FMJ bullet that stopped that short in JFK's back.
3) But third, the fact is that there was no bullet in his back. The autopsy doctors could feel no bullet. The x-rays showed no bullet. And there was no way that the bullet could have gotten out.
4) But, those are just the problems with the back wound. There are also the issues with Kennedy's conditon after he emerged from behind the phony freeway sign in the Zapruder film. And if you don't realize that the freeway sign in Zapruder is phony, you need to watch my video about it because I went to Dealey Plaza and proved that it is phony.
So, Kennedy was riding along, smiling and waving. He passes behind the phony sign, and when he emerges, he is a different person. He has completely lost his mind. He can't speak, and note that he didn't try to speak. He didn't grunt. He didn't use his hands to gesture or point. He made no effort to communicate at all. So, you can't just say that he was shot in the throat and couldn't speak. He couldn't speak because his mind was gone. But, what could have abolished his mind? He had suffered no brain damage to that point. All he had going on was a shallow wound in his back, which was essentially a scratch, and a shallow wound in his throat, which was more serious, but not life-threatening; and he would have been back to work in a matter of weeks. He suffered no brain damage, so there was no reason for his mind to be incapacitated at all. And no, you can't attribute it to the shock of the trauma, etc. This was John F. Kennedy, the hero of the PT 109. He was not going to crap out under pressure. And, his wife was sitting next to him in the car; he would have wanted to protect her if he was of right mind. But, he was not of right mind; he was of no mind. It's not that he had the mind of a child. It's more like he had the mind of an infant. He was mentally gone. He had no awareness; he did not understand anything that was going on.
But, his mental vacancy is just half of it. The other half is his dyskinesia. He exhibited a spasmodic paralysis, where, after raising his hands to his throat, he couldn't put his arms down. They were frozen. And poor Jackie tried to coax him to put his arm down, but to no avail. And it was progressive. It kept getting worse and worse, until he was frozen like Lot's wife.
What the hell is wrong with people, with doctors, that they can't see that this is extremely pathological, and it cannot be accounted for by physical trauma? A shallow back wound and a throat wound can't do this to you.
So, the problem is to account for JFK's bizarre condition and behavior after having experienced only a shallow back wound and a throat wound that damaged his trachea on the left side and caused a very minor lung contusion on the right. The trauma can't explain it.
5) So now, let's look at the evidence for the existence of the CIA "heart attack" gun. It was called that because it could deliver a drug or drugs that would mimic a heart attack. And remember, that there were JFK assassination figures who died suddenly of heart atttacks, such as David Sanchez Morales, Richard Case Nagell, and even Billy Lovelady. Were they shot with it? Here is a piece that about the Church hearings at which then CIA Director William Colby confirmed the existence of the "heart attack gun" and its effectiveness. He also confirmed that it could deliver a nerve toxin: paralytic shellfish toxin.
And at the following link, there is a video of that hearing, plus testimony by a former CIA agent, Mary Embley talking about it.
And here again is the link to Steve Kober on Education Forum writing about it in 2010.
What this is about is accounting for the evidence, referring to JFK's complete mental collapse and his state of progressive tetanic convulsion. His wounds can't account for it. The only thing that can is poisoning.
Now, I realize that, intuitively, it is difficult to accept this, that there is a lot of resistance, that your first reaction is to just reject it out of hand. I'm asking you not to do that because it explains the weird phenomenon we see of Kennedy in the Zapruder film better than anything else. It also conforms to the evidence of a very shallow back wound better than anything else.
