Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Cliff Varnell

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cliff Varnell

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Francisco
  • Interests
    In the early 80's I helped weaponize rocknroll (see bio); in the early 90's I helped weaponize collectors' trading cards; since then I've been helping to weaponize the salient fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK: the bullet holes in his clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound.

Recent Profile Visitors

23,300 profile views
  1. Kills me to agree with you about anything...<sigh>...but you're absolutely right. Who doesn't understand how a shirt moves? Seriously, it's a joke that anyone has to point it out. But The Josiah Thompson School of JFK Research cedes the clothing evidence no weight whatsoever. How does one honestly investigate a murder by ignoring the extant physical evidence? Jim DiEugenio brags about ignoring the clothing evidence in his presentations. He claims the back wound location is unknowable. He's hyper defensive about the autopsy photos. All of Tink's Kids are -- just like all the lone nutters clinging to the provably phony Fox 5 photo.
  2. If you understood the primacy of physical evidence in a murder case you'd wonder why anyone micro-analyzes anything else. Thank you for not agreeing with me!
  3. Pat Speer and David Von Pein in 2003: JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up 2 inches, so the bullet holes in clothes aligned with T1. Pat Speer and David Von Pein in 2014: JFK's shirt and jacket weren't bunched up at all, so the bullet holes in the clothes aligned with T1. Clever!
  4. Thrill us with your acumen, Jim, let's see your "clever" arguments for a T1 back wound. (I'm putting you on a bluff).
  5. I've read most of the second half of Talbot's Devil's Chessboard, if that makes you feel better. At the 2014 Bethesda Conference, Pat Speer cited Gaeton Fonzi's 1966 confrontation with Arlen Specter, who had a nervous breakdown over the clothing evidence. Pat thus stipulated to the fact Specter couldn't get Fonzi's shirt or jacket to elevate. Around 2014 David Von Pein grudgingly stipulated to the fact that JFK's visible shirt collar on Elm St proves the clothing wasn't significantly elevated. That fake debate has been over for years, Jim. You don't guess with physical evidence, Jim. Bullet holes in the clothes too low to associate with the throat wound. When Salandria/Fonzi/Epstein wielded the weaponized fact of conspiracy in 1966 they had the cover-up types nervous. Neither Speer or Von Pein argue the clothing was elevated. The fundamental problem is people who claim that the clothing evidence, the properly prepared medical documents, and the consensus statements of 16 witnesses are trumped by autopsy materials not prepared according to proper protocol. The back wound was probed. David's mutilation argument rests on mis-characterizations of SS SA Glenn Bennett's contemporaneous statements and the photo evidence which corroborates Bennett. Only by pretending that physical evidence, properly prepared documents, and witnesses don't count. The Fox 5 photo does not agree with the physical evidence, the properly prepared documents, and 16 eye witnesses, plus it shows a wound with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below. It isn't even a good fake. How strange. Usually "we" celebrate proofs of conspiracy and government cover-up. There was never an argument. Pat has an assumption -- the Fox 5 photo is genuine. He has had that assumption from the begining of his research, and he makes assertions based on cherry picked evidence to support his assumption. Assumption and assertion are not argument. For Pat JFK's back wound was at T1 if his clothing was bunch up a couple of inches, and his wound was at T1 even tho the clothing wasn't bunched up at all. Go figure. Cognitive dissonance. Yes, in the Salandria school we learn as much as we can from the physical evidence and then go macro looking for potential perps among the high level liars. Y'all a bunch of wild geese chasing red herrings down rabbit holes. Not according to SS SA Glenn Bennetts well-corroborated contemporaneous notes, which put the back shot right before the head shot. I got into a ten minute discussion with Tink Thompson at the 2005 Bethesda Conference. I mentioned his study of Willis 5 in Six Seconds and he looked surprised -- "I did? Well, if you think that's evidence..." he rolled his eyes. At that point a friend of his cut in and I stood there stunned. SSID sez the back wound isn't knowable, just like you Jim. No, you haven't. The only part of his shirt visible from behind is his normal amount of shirt collar. The T3 back wound ends the parlor game, which is why CT Pet Theorists are the biggest nay-sayers.
  6. I'm currently reading Larry Hancock's Surprise Attack. So, Jim...Where on JFK's back did he get hit, and during what sequence of the shooting?
  7. Mellen's Our Man in Haiti and the Harriman bio Spanning the Century.
  8. Jim -- Where and when was JFK shot in the back? Fundamental part of the assassination and you can't answer that question with a factual case.
  9. From the AP and CBS cover ups to Josiah Thompson/James DiEugenio/Pat Speer cover-ups regarding the T3 back wound. The AP and CBS cover-ups were in response to Salandria/Fonzi/Epstein weaponizing the clothing evidence. No. I ask you questions all the time you ignore. You have yet to grasp the first day evidence, much less anything more recent.
  10. As is yours. Those measurements you refer to were not recorded according to autopsy protocol and certainly do not match the "errant dot." There's no way way that "errant dot" was at the top of JFK's back. You habitually promote the weakest evidence, Pat Speer, and mis-represent the strongest evidence.
  11. The KGB and the JFK case

    Because family friends of his girlfriend were taking heat for hosting the family of an alleged Presidential assassin? Because a fella realizes he's in the patsy chain unless he directs the cover-up to the best of his ability?
  12. How many times was JFK shot in the head? Once? Twice? Thrice? We'll never know. The study of the head wound/s takes us no where and tells us nothing.
  13. Because we know JFK wore that clothing, but there is no reason to believe that cartridge had anything to do with the shooting. Direct physical evidence is supreme in murder investigations. What you call "obsession" I call "proper protocol." Fact #1 -- The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar. Fact #2 -- The verified Death Certificate, filled out by JFK's personal physician, listed the back wound as at the level of "the Third Thoracic Vertebra." Fact #3 -- The neck x-ray shows a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process. Fact #4 -- Two Parkland doctors wrote contemporaneous notes describing the throat wound as an entrance. Fact #5 -- A Secret Service Special Agent described in his contemporaneous notes a shot to JFK's back "four inches down from the shoulder." Fact #6 -- Two FBI Special Agents wrote a cable to FBI HQ describing the back wound as shallow, with no bullet found during the autopsy. Strongest evidence in the case -- the clothing defects, the verified Death Certificate, the neck x-ray, the contemporaneous notes of 5 men in positions of authority prove that there was a shallow wound in the back, no bullet found in the autopsy, and an entrance wound in the throat with no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy. The wound pattern established by the strong evidence precludes a shot from a 6.5mm FMJ. JFK wasn't shot in the back with an FMJ, dented lip or no...
  14. Paz, this is the perfect example of Josiah Thompson School -- we MUST rely on the analysis of inferior evidence by an expert to buy this as proof of conspiracy. Same with the acoustics evidence, the NAA, the head wound/s..."The expert sez!" It's like re-inventing the wheel as a rectangle.
  15. Paz, in 1966 Vincent Salandria shared his research on the clothing evidence with Edward Epstein, Gaeton Fonzi, and Josiah Thompson, among others. Epstein wrote up the location of the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket in his 1966 book Inquest. Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence on June 28, 1966. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fonzi-Specter_Interviews.html (15 minute mark) Specter babbled like an idiot. Josiah Thompson co-wrote an article for Life Magazine, November 25, 1966, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," which ignored the clothing evidence entirely, offering John Connally's micro-analysis of the Zapruder film. "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- that is The Big Lie. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound. In 1967 Thompson noted the clothing evidence in his book Six Seconds in Dallas, but somehow concluded -- “The exact location of the [back] wound cannot now be conclusively determined.” (pg 49). That is a bald-faced mis-statement of fact. In SSID Thompson also threw BS pixie dust over the throat entrance wound, which pissed Salandria off no end. Salandria stresses evidence, while Thompson & Co. emphasize experts. Their approaches to the case are mutually exclusive, if not outright antagonistic. The Vincent Salandria School restricts micro-analysis to the clothing evidence; the Josiah Thompson School pretends the clothing evidence doesn't exist and encourages micro-analysis of anything and everything else.