A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

The article was written by Jerry Mazza! I was thrilled that a mainstream journalist would go near it. I don't think it would have drawn many readers to say that Gaeton Fonzi did something back in 1966!

Oh, I think it would be a very big deal indeed if a mainstream journalist

came out and announced that the case for conspiracy had first been

made back in 1966!

It would be a very big deal to show that both the mainstream news media and the

JFK Assassination Critical Research Community (which I refer to in my dour moods

as the JFK False Mystery Industry) have been chasing their collective tails for decades.

Yes, that would make fine mainstream news!

What would have been the point of that?

It would spare the world the endless pointless debates over the head wounds,

the acoustic evidence, the neutron activation analysis, and many many other

worthless dead-end rabbit holes favored by the JFK False Mystery Industry.

Besides, Gaeton did not present his findings at Cambridge and have them published in a peer-reviewed international journal.

Well, that's the beauty of prima facie physical evidence. A team of five year olds

could demonstrate the location of JFK back wound on the basis of the clothing

evidence.

This was a matter of "getting the word out", Cliff. I hope you can appreciate that.

What I appreciate are facts. And the claim that you and a team of experts

finally debunked the Single Bullet Theory is not a fact.

You also make comments about clothing "bunch" which are also not facts.

The movement of JFK's clothing as required by the SBT is flat out impossible,

as Salandria pointed out decades ago.

It would be great if someone got that word out!

Would you be happier if it hadn't been published at all? Josiah would, but would you? The next time you get some mainstream coverage for crucial evidence that establishes the existence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, let me know. Jerry did a good thing. I suppose we could probably go back to RUSH TO JUDGMENT, by the way, if we were so inclined.

Not for the prima facie case for conspiracy, which started with Salandria and the

clothing evidence.

And since David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., only performed his CAT scan long after Gaeton did his thing, the evidence I presented not only demonstrated that the "magic bullet" theory is false but that Gerald Ford had had the description of the wound changed to make it more plausible and that David Mantik has proven that it is not only false but not even anatomically possible!

But the location of the back wound was changed before Gerald Ford got to it.

It went from T3 (or T3/T4) up to just above the upper margin of scapula, as per

the final autopsy report. But that location is closer to T2, so Ford moved it again.

The more powerful case against the SBT is the T3 wound, which does not

require "expert" analysis.

The simplest explanation carries the day, Jim.

So I think you may want to reconsider your position. Gaeton did not do those things, but we did!

But Gaeton could explain his position to a five year old, who could then

explain it to his 3 year old brother.

Prima facie evidence trumps that which requires complex explanations.

This cheap, petty carping to diminish success in getting the word out is something I would expect from Josiah and Jerry, but not from you, Cliff. This only reinforces my impression that you are not really serious about these things. That is very disappointing.

Jim

I don't agree with the word you are getting out -- that the SBT requires

highly technical rebuttal.

You and Tink push this micro-analyzing crap to the detriment of historical truth,

imho.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Your approach is so much "inside baseball". That Ford changed the description and that Mantik proved it impossible were not known to Gaeton Fonzi. We all admire the work of those who have gone before, but the public wants the bottom line. When you do something that gets the word out, Cliff Varnell, be sure and let us know.

Cliff,

The article was written by Jerry Mazza! I was thrilled that a mainstream journalist would go near it. I don't think it would have drawn many readers to say that Gaeton Fonzi did something back in 1966!

Oh, I think it would be a very big deal indeed if a mainstream journalist

came out and announced that the case for conspiracy had first been

made back in 1966!

It would be a very big deal to show that both the mainstream news media and the

JFK Assassination Critical Research Community (which I refer to in my dour moods

as the JFK False Mystery Industry) have been chasing their collective tails for decades.

Yes, that would make fine mainstream news!

What would have been the point of that?

It would spare the world the endless pointless debates over the head wounds,

the acoustic evidence, the neutron activation analysis, and many many other

worthless dead-end rabbit holes favored by the JFK False Mystery Industry.

Besides, Gaeton did not present his findings at Cambridge and have them published in a peer-reviewed international journal.

Well, that's the beauty of prima facie physical evidence. A team of five year olds

could demonstrate the location of JFK back wound on the basis of the clothing

evidence.

This was a matter of "getting the word out", Cliff. I hope you can appreciate that.

What I appreciate are facts. And the claim that you and a team of experts

finally debunked the Single Bullet Theory is not a fact.

You also make comments about clothing "bunch" which are also not facts.

The movement of JFK's clothing as required by the SBT is flat out impossible,

as Salandria pointed out decades ago.

It would be great if someone got that word out!

Would you be happier if it hadn't been published at all? Josiah would, but would you? The next time you get some mainstream coverage for crucial evidence that establishes the existence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, let me know. Jerry did a good thing. I suppose we could probably go back to RUSH TO JUDGMENT, by the way, if we were so inclined.

Not for the prima facie case for conspiracy, which started with Salandria and the

clothing evidence.

And since David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., only performed his CAT scan long after Gaeton did his thing, the evidence I presented not only demonstrated that the "magic bullet" theory is false but that Gerald Ford had had the description of the wound changed to make it more plausible and that David Mantik has proven that it is not only false but not even anatomically possible!

But the location of the back wound was changed before Gerald Ford got to it.

It went from T3 (or T3/T4) up to just above the upper margin of scapula, as per

the final autopsy report. But that location is closer to T2, so Ford moved it again.

The more powerful case against the SBT is the T3 wound, which does not

require "expert" analysis.

The simplest explanation carries the day, Jim.

So I think you may want to reconsider your position. Gaeton did not do those things, but we did!

But Gaeton could explain his position to a five year old, who could then

explain it to his 3 year old brother.

Prima facie evidence trumps that which requires complex explanations.

This cheap, petty carping to diminish success in getting the word out is something I would expect from Josiah and Jerry, but not from you, Cliff. This only reinforces my impression that you are not really serious about these things. That is very disappointing.

Jim

I don't agree with the word you are getting out -- that the SBT requires

highly technical rebuttal.

You and Tink push this micro-analyzing crap to the detriment of historical truth,

imho.

Edited March 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Your approach is so much "inside baseball". That Ford changed the description and that Mantik proved it impossible were not known to Gaeton Fonzi. We all admire the work of those who have gone before, but the public wants the bottom line. When you do something that gets the word out, Cliff Varnell, be sure and let us know.

You don't effectively combat a lie by repeating it, Jim, as that establishes

a false equivalent.

Why argue against a complex falsehood when you can argue for the simple truth?

The public was getting the bottom line from the first generation

critics until Tink Thompson came along and denied the prima

facie evidence of conspiracy. An army of Thompsonite pet theorists

have followed in his foot-steps, all denying either the low back wound

or the throat entrance wound or both.

I don't find it helpful when "experts" treat these obvious lies as

deserving of "international peer-review".

You and Thompson seem to share the notion that the case needs this kind

of "micro-analysis."

It doesn't.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Now you are talking about something with which we can agree. I am puzzled

by your confidence in "the men who were there". After all, after Parkland, the

"men who were there" (among the Naval officers and Secret Service agents)

were perpetrating the cover-up (stealing the body, removing bullet fragments,

performing surgery to the cranium, altering the X-rays, substituting someone

else's brain, and all that). And this business about the flechette is very strange

to me. Do you have any experience with firearms? Do you appreciate Greer

had to bring the limo to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed, because it is

so hard to hit a moving target? And with a flechette? I don't understand you

at all. You are spot on with Thompson but embrace a bizarre theory like this?

You accept the word of Humes and Boswell and reject that of Bob Livingston?

And what you take to be "obvious lies" comes from having studied the case.

The public in general, not to mention academician in particular, are averse to

"studying" anything. The fact that this particular presentation was given at a

great university and published in a peer-reviewed international journal is what

makes it credible to the public. It was not written for you or for other experts

on the case. It was written for the general educated public. That it made its

way into the mainstream is something for us all to celebrate--not because I

was the vehicle, but because of the message! There is the slightest chance

that, because Jerry Mazza published it, readers who would not ordinarily take

these issues seriously might read it and be affected. The thought that anyone

is going to be affected by Gaeton Fonzi's argument with Arlen Specter back in

1966 is a manifest absurdity! The culture of the United States is all about the

here and now. Yesterday is old news. We were lucky to get it out. Celebrate!

Your approach is so much "inside baseball". That Ford changed the description and that Mantik proved it impossible were not known to Gaeton Fonzi. We all admire the work of those who have gone before, but the public wants the bottom line. When you do something that gets the word out, Cliff Varnell, be sure and let us know.

You don't effectively combat a lie by repeating it, Jim, as that establishes

a false equivalent.

Why argue against a complex falsehood when you can argue for the simple truth?

The public was getting the bottom line from the first generation

critics until Tink Thompson came along and denied the prima

facie evidence of conspiracy. An army of Thompsonite pet theorists

have followed in his foot-steps, all denying either the low back wound

or the throat entrance wound or both.

I don't find it helpful when "experts" treat these obvious lies as

deserving of "international peer-review".

You and Thompson seem to share the notion that the case needs this kind

of "micro-analysis."

It doesn't.

Edited March 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

I am very worried about the research community if someone as smart as you are does

not know the stature of Bob Livingston. He was not only a world authority on the human

brain and a founding member of the first society to receive the Nobel Prize but he was an

expert on wound ballistics, having supervised an emergency medical hospital for wounded

Okinawans and Japanese prisoners of war during the Battle of Okinawa. When he came

into the civil service as the Scientific Director of the National Institute for Mental Health and

for Neurological Diseases and blindness, the government had to create a new, higher civil

service classification, because they had never had anyone of his qualifications ever before.

Now since you appear not to know that--if you did, I would find it incredible that you would

suggest that he "needed to do his homework"--and tells me that you have never bothered

to read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). And if you have never read it, then you have

probably never read MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM

HOAX (2003). So I create a research group that includes the best qualified experts who

have ever studied the assassination, we focus on sorting out the authentic from the phony

evidence, reconstruct the case from the ground up--AND YOU DON'T EVEN READ IT? Tink

has been so petrified of these books that he has published hack reviews on amazon.com.

Tell me that I'm wrong and that you actually do know who Bob Livingston was, because I

am in a state of disbelief that you would have so little respect for the most distinguished

scientist to even involved himself in the study of the assassination. Just for the record, by

the way, do you have any idea how unusual it is to have a paper that proves the existence

of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK presented at Cambridge? or how improbable it

is to be published in a peer-reviewed international journal? or the confluence of conditions

that have to converge for a mainstream journalist to publish this piece? Your admiration

for players in the past overshadows your appreciation of accomplishments in the present.

Jim

Cliff,

The article was written by Jerry Mazza! I was thrilled that a mainstream journalist would go near it. I don't think it would have drawn many readers to say that Gaeton Fonzi did something back in 1966!

Oh, I think it would be a very big deal indeed if a mainstream journalist

came out and announced that the case for conspiracy had first been

made back in 1966!

It would be a very big deal to show that both the mainstream news media and the

JFK Assassination Critical Research Community (which I refer to in my dour moods

as the JFK False Mystery Industry) have been chasing their collective tails for decades.

Yes, that would make fine mainstream news!

What would have been the point of that?

It would spare the world the endless pointless debates over the head wounds,

the acoustic evidence, the neutron activation analysis, and many many other

worthless dead-end rabbit holes favored by the JFK False Mystery Industry.

Besides, Gaeton did not present his findings at Cambridge and have them published in a peer-reviewed international journal.

Well, that's the beauty of prima facie physical evidence. A team of five year olds

could demonstrate the location of JFK back wound on the basis of the clothing

evidence.

This was a matter of "getting the word out", Cliff. I hope you can appreciate that.

What I appreciate are facts. And the claim that you and a team of experts

finally debunked the Single Bullet Theory is not a fact.

You also make comments about clothing "bunch" which are also not facts.

The movement of JFK's clothing as required by the SBT is flat out impossible,

as Salandria pointed out decades ago.

It would be great if someone got that word out!

Would you be happier if it hadn't been published at all? Josiah would, but would you? The next time you get some mainstream coverage for crucial evidence that establishes the existence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, let me know. Jerry did a good thing. I suppose we could probably go back to RUSH TO JUDGMENT, by the way, if we were so inclined.

Not for the prima facie case for conspiracy, which started with Salandria and the

clothing evidence.

And since David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., only performed his CAT scan long after Gaeton did his thing, the evidence I presented not only demonstrated that the "magic bullet" theory is false but that Gerald Ford had had the description of the wound changed to make it more plausible and that David Mantik has proven that it is not only false but not even anatomically possible!

But the location of the back wound was changed before Gerald Ford got to it.

It went from T3 (or T3/T4) up to just above the upper margin of scapula, as per

the final autopsy report. But that location is closer to T2, so Ford moved it again.

The more powerful case against the SBT is the T3 wound, which does not

require "expert" analysis.

The simplest explanation carries the day, Jim.

So I think you may want to reconsider your position. Gaeton did not do those things, but we did!

But Gaeton could explain his position to a five year old, who could then

explain it to his 3 year old brother.

Prima facie evidence trumps that which requires complex explanations.

This cheap, petty carping to diminish success in getting the word out is something I would expect from Josiah and Jerry, but not from you, Cliff. This only reinforces my impression that you are not really serious about these things. That is very disappointing.

Jim

I don't agree with the word you are getting out -- that the SBT requires

highly technical rebuttal.

You and Tink push this micro-analyzing crap to the detriment of historical truth,

imho.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

You are flooring me! The wound to the back had nothing to do with the Thorburn Reflex. That was because of the shot to the throat. The Thorburn Reflex is a bona fide phenomenon. I discussed this with him myself. Good God! That comes from a world authority on the human brain.

Thorburn requires significant damage to the spinal cord. No such damage

showed up on x-ray.

From "Lattimer and the Great Thorburn Hoax" by Wallace Milam

http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam-thor.htm

Through Ms. Cranor's efforts, I finally obtained a copy of Dr. Thorburn's original article. It was only then that the extent of Dr. Lattimer's scientific charade became evident. Eighteen years after his work was prostituted, it is finally time to let Thorburn speak for Thorburn:

In June, 1886, Dr. William Thorburn received a patient at his infirmary in Manchester, England. A workman had lost his balance and fallen while standing on a scaffolding whitewashing a wall. The back of his neck slammed against a bench while his feet remained caught in the ladder. As a final blow, the bucket of whitewash fell back upon him. Dr. Thorburn, who did not see the patient until he was brought to the hospital four days later, observed the man as his condition deteriorated over the next three weeks. After the workman's death 26 days after the accident, Thorburn performed a post mortem examination and then wrote about the incident as "Case I" in Cases of injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord. (18)

Dr. Lattimer sees such parallels in the injuries and reactions of the workman and Kennedy that he calls the President's response "an almost classic demonstration of what might be called a Thorburn position." (19) But if he read Dr. Thorburn's article at all, he must have noted many significant differences:

a. Thorburn's workman was rendered immediately unconscious (20); Kennedy was not.

b. According to Lattimer and his disciples, Kennedy's arms flew immediately into place and locked there. Thorburn's patient had no such immediate reaction. On regaining consciousness, his legs were paralyzed, but "his arms were partially so." (21) The engraving of the injured workman, showing his arms laid outward (Fig. 1-a), depicts his condition four da s after the accident, a fact which Lattimer deliberately distorted. (See below.)

c. While one of Kennedy's vertebra and his spinal cord may have been grazed (HSCA's medical panel concluded that a bullet did not hit one of Kennedy's vertebra and that the damage "if any, was purely negligible." (22), the workman suffered "complete transverse destruction of the spinal cord.... "(23)

d. The possible damage to Kennedy's vertebra occurred at the level of C-6 or C-7 (and even possibly T-1) according to the HSCA medical panel. As we have seen, Lattimer first claimed the bullet struck neither vertebrae nor the spinal cord. Then he narrowed the choices to C-6 or C-7, finally settling on C-6. He specifically ruled out C-5. But Thorburn's victim had a dislocation between the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae with complete paralysis of all nerves below C-5, the spinal cord being completely destroyed "immediately below the level of origin of the fifth cervical nerves." (25) As will be seen, Lattimer took steps which hid these facts as well.

e. Finally, the engraving of Thorburn's patient (Fig. 1-a) shows the position of his arms to be quite the opposite of Kennedy's. The workman's arms are abducted, falling to his side, away from the throat and midline of the body, while Kennedy's arms are adducted, his hands in front of his throat.

That Thorburn is the standard Posner/McAdams LONE NUT drivel should give you pause, Jim.

The damage on the x-ray is inconsistent with Thorburn Reflex.

You and Livingston are not entitled to your own facts, sir. And you haven't

convinced me that Livingston took into account the neck x-ray.

People like Tink offer moronic drivel about the throat wound as a wound of exit and you are going to defer to him over a world authority on the human brain? Egad! The principle of reasoning involved is called "inference to the best explanation".

How do I "defer" to Tink Thompson in any way, shape, or form?

Occam's razor: 3 military doctors came to a preliminary conclusion that was

subsequently proven correct.

Best explanation. Covers all the evidence you ignore.

The hole in the windshield and the wound to the throat and the cuts in his face and the sound of a firecracker are all explainable with high probability as effects of a shot fired from the location that Doug Weldon so thoroughly researched.

Rosemary Willis/Willis5/Zapruder trump Doug Weldon.

The most likely explanation for damage in Altgens6 and Altgens7 to be in the same location and for witnesses at Parkland and even in Washington to report a hole in the windshield is because there was a hole in the windshield!

A non-sequitur by any other name still...

I will grant this alternative. David suspects that the throat wound may have been caused by a chunk of glass that was propelled in the same direction as the bullet, which, however, was deflected and hit the roadway behind the limousine.

I cite witnesses. I cite photographs. The witnesses and the photographs

agree on the major points concerning JFK's throat and back wounds.

You cite other "experts."

Such is the "expert culture" of the JFK False Mystery Industry.

You may be more comfortable with that possibility, given the damage you note, where there may also have been a chest X-ray substitution.

Ah yes! They substituted an x-ray that shows minor soft tissue damage,

no bullet and no exit -- facts which directly implicate people associated

with the Central Intelligence Agency.

But that would still mean that the wound was caused by the bullet that created the through-and-through hole in the windshield.

How do you figure? Are you saying that separate shots could not possibly

account for both?

What evidence do you have that precludes two separate shots, Jim?

Your appeal to an odd device to fire a flechette strikes me as quite unreasonable for a moving target, regardless of its purported range.

Your opinion don't trump William Colby's description of the technology.

JF:

If you are trusting Humes and Boswell and Fincke, you have no idea what you are talking about. HUMES PERFORMED SURGERY TO THE HEAD BEFORE THE START OF THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT.

(/quote)

I don't buy it. Typical blood-lust in the JFK False Mystery Game: let's turn

conspiracy witnesses into perps!

No question Humes was dragooned into the cover-up. But his observations

of surgery to the head and "general feeling" about blood soluble rounds

tells us a great deal about Kennedy's killing.

Those observations, taken down by the FBI guys, occurred before

the prosectors were enveloped in the cover-up

JF:

Haven't you heard of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB?

(/quote)

His case against Humes is highly speculative.

JF:

I just interviewed David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, on "The Real Deal". His review of Horne's work on the medical evidence may be found archived on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com. That JFK's military aide was moved from the limo was an obviously necessary step to prepare for the shot through the windshield. I am stunned you don't grasp this.

(/quote)

I'm stunned you think the plotters planned to shoot through the windshield!

I'm not stunned that you cite Doug Horne, David Mantik, and Doug Weldon

because that's all you have.

I cite Rosemary Willis, and her rapid head-snap toward Black Dog Man Z214-17.

I cite Jackie Kennedy, who described the look on JFK's face as "quizzical,"

wholly inconsistent with the t&t windshield high-powered rifle scenario.

I cite the Zapruder film and its consistencies with the testimonies of

Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and Linda Willis -- JFK was grasping at his

throat.

I cite Willis 5, and the HSCA analysis of Black Dog Man in which a

"very distinct straight-line feature" is observed "near the region of

his hands."

I cite Altgens 6 and Tom Wilson's description of a device in the Dal-Tex

which is similar to devices used to fire blood soluble rounds.

And yes, I cite the preliminary conclusions of the autopsists which points

directly at individuals connected to the Central Intelligence Agency.

JF:

Do you understand that the autopsy X-rays were altered, that another brain was substitute for that of JFK, and that the Zapruder film was recreated to remove the limo stop and other events? Are you even aware of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? What do you think happened? SPELL IT OUT. Your position strikes me as quite bizarre. Tell me more.

(/quote)

Mitchell WerBell III designed two sound-suppressed weapons which fired

blood soluble rounds with high accuracy.

There were few misses in Dealey Plaza. Three misses from the 6th Fl

snipers nest were intentional.

The throat shot was perfect. A blood soluble paralytic fired by

Black Dog Man circa Z190, which caused JFK to seize up paralyzed

by Z230.

The back shot could have been a couple of inches more to the left

(closer to the heart) but otherwise a direct hit on the body with a

blood soluble toxin.

There was a triangulation of fire at his head, all three bullets hit.

I find the best explanation for the pre-autopsy events at Bethesda here

(admittedly hearsay and inadmissible, but "best explanation" nonetheless):

Elbert Israel was the name of the orderly.

3 shots to the head given quick treatment by a doctor other than Humes,

that's for sure.

According to Tom Wilson and the Hollywood 7 several frames

of the Z-film circa Z313 were tampered. This I can buy. I've

challenged alterationists to point out tampering during the crucial

sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru 255 (Altgens 6) and none has been

asserted much less argued.

I don't have a theory, I just cite the abundant and redundant

evidence in the credible historical record.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

I cite photographs. The witnesses and the photographs

agree on the major points concerning JFK's throat and back wounds.

You don't cite photos CORRECTLY. You have a MASSIVE FAIL when it comes to Betzner

It is unimpeachable. There was a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

You have FAILED to reufte this unimpeachable fact, despite months of trying.

You will NEVER impeach this fact. There is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The Varnell "Magic Jacket Theory ( yes you do have a theory...a now FAILED theory) is false.

[Cliff Varnell]

Now you are talking about something with which we can agree. I am puzzled

by your confidence in "the men who were there".

I don't see anyone telling the FBI that treasonous obstruction of justice had

just occurred if that person was the perp of such a crime.

This defies my understanding of human nature.

Humes, Boswell and Finck were not brought fully into the cover-up

until after the autopsy, when the Magic Bullet was brought into

consideration.

As with the autopsy face sheet, the contemporaneous observations

of Humes/Boswell/Finck were golden.

After midnight 11/22/63 the prosectors turned into creatures of the cover-up;

prior to that it was another story.

And no, I don't buy Horne's case against Humes.

After all, after Parkland, the

"men who were there" (among the Naval officers and Secret Service agents)

were perpetrating the cover-up (stealing the body, removing bullet fragments,

performing surgery to the cranium, altering the X-rays, substituting someone

else's brain, and all that).

I find all of this easy to sort out.

There was medical evidence prepared according to proper military

autopsy protocol.

There was medical evidence NOT prepared according to proper military

autopsy protocol.

Of the former we include the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death

certificate, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors,

the neck x-ray. The FBI autopsy report was a properly prepared

investigative document, as were the depositions of the FBI agents

taken for the HSCA.

In the improper pile we find the autopsy photos, the head x-rays

(anything related to the head wounds is conflicted and readily dismissed),

and the final autopsy report, which listed the back wound improperly.

The properly prepared medical evidence is consistent and redundant

with the conclusion that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds.

And this business about the flechette is very strange

to me. Do you have any experience with firearms? Do you appreciate Greer

had to bring the limo to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed, because it is

so hard to hit a moving target?

Jackie described the limo as moving very slowly.

And with a flechette? I don't understand you at all.

Irrelevant. Nothing you or I assert trumps the credible historical

record:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

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

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Humes, Boswell and Finck were hot on the trail of the perps, only to be

side-tracked by the FBI in 1963 and JFK assassination experts 46 years

later.

You are spot on with Thompson but embrace a bizarre theory like this?

Where am I spot on with Thompson, other than a general defense of

the authenticity of the Dealey Plaza photo evidence?

I denounce Thompson's unnecessary obfuscation about the throat

wound as heartily as I denounce Mantik for framing the throat/back

wounds as open questions that require "expert analysis."

A "Cause for Doubt"? How mild!

The evidence of the T3 back wound and throat entrance require no equivocations.

These hard facts are not "cause for doubt," they are absolutely dispositve of conspiracy

in the murder of JFK.

You accept the word of Humes and Boswell and reject that of Bob Livingston?

The preliminary conclusions of the prosectors carries more weight

than someone who didn't see the body and is speculating at best.

No way does Livingston make a definitive diagnosis on a body

he didn't examine.

And what you take to be "obvious lies" comes from having studied the case.

The obvious lies to which I referred are 1) JFK was struck at the back base

of the neck, and 2) JFK's throat wound was an exit.

Those are obvious lies which require no "expert analysis" to rebut.

The public in general, not to mention academician in particular, are averse to

"studying" anything. The fact that this particular presentation was given at a

great university and published in a peer-reviewed international journal is what

makes it credible to the public. It was not written for you or for other experts

on the case. It was written for the general educated public. That it made its

way into the mainstream is something for us all to celebrate--not because I

was the vehicle, but because of the message!

And your message that the SBT requires an "expert" to debunk

is factually incorrect.

And your characterization of the potential for clothing "bunch"

is also factually incorrect.

There is the slightest chance that, because Jerry Mazza published it, readers who

would not ordinarily take these issues seriously might read it and be affected.

Or their eyes might glaze over at the unnecessary complexity of your argument.

One of the standard complaints about CTs is the overwhelming complexity

of some arguments.

The thought that anyone is going to be affected by Gaeton Fonzi's argument with Arlene Specter back in

1966 is a manifest absurdity!

Not if it were properly reported! It's a lot easier to impress the

public with a simple demonstration than a complex argument.

That much should be obvious.

JF:

The culture of the United States is all about the here and now. Yesterday is

old news. We were lucky to get it out. Celebrate!

(/quote)

Ah yes, the prima facie cases for conspiracy are old hat!

We must be hip to all the new expert analysis which cites other

expert analysis and eschews that boring old stuff like actual

witness testimony, actual photographs, actual documentation.

Sorry, Jim. Yours' and Tink Thompson's "micro-analyses" are old news.

If I get ONE expert in this case -- I'll take Tom Wilson.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So you've never read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), or INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). On the contrary, what you are citing here appears to be the partial observation of Humes taking a saw to the cranium of JFK in order to obfuscate the wound that entered his right temple at the hairline and to increase the massive blow out to the back of the head in order to create the artificial impression of a huge wound caused by a shot from the front. Tom Robinson was one of two witnesses who watched the whole thing. I cannot believe that you are not studying the most important research on these matters, because it has led you to a state of incredible confusion and the utter incapacity to distinguish the true from the false. I am beginning to understand why some members of this forum are incapable of research: an apparent determined unwillingness to confront the discoveries of others who are more competent than they, including, in this case, Bob Livingston, Doug Weldon, David Mantik, Doug Horne, and Jim Fetzer. You have no idea which of the documents and records on which you rely is authentic and which is not, thereby making you a prime candidate for deception. This is quite appalling. The massive and detailed research by Doug Horne confirms surgery to the head, the falsification of the X-rays and the autopsy photographs, the revision of the autopsy report, the conduct of two supplemental brain exams with two different brains, five physical differences between the film developed in Dallas and brought to the NPIC on Saturday (which was a split 8mm film) and the film developed in Rochester and brought to the NPIC on Sunday (which was an unsplit 16mm film), where the chain of custody was obviously broken and many, if not all, of the extensive alterations to the content of the original had already been performed, which I discussed in "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". My God, you don't even know that Roderick Ryan explained to Noel Twyman that the "blob" of brains to the right-front had been painted in, or that the Hollywood experts have viewed a 6k version of the film and discovered that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black from 313 through 339; nor that you can actually see the blow out to the back of the head in frame 374, where I discovered it. Just because you want to remain in a state of willful ignorance about these discoveries, ongoing research is rendering your untenable account of the assassination hopelessly irrelevant. But that appears to be hardly surprising, given your tenacious incapacity to separate the authentic from the fabricated evidence, which renders your claims to understanding this case utterly without foundation. This is disconcerting.

Cliff,

You are flooring me! The wound to the back had nothing to do with the Thorburn Reflex. That was because of the shot to the throat. The Thorburn Reflex is a bona fide phenomenon. I discussed this with him myself. Good God! That comes from a world authority on the human brain.

Thorburn requires significant damage to the spinal cord. No such damage

showed up on x-ray.

From "Lattimer and the Great Thorburn Hoax" by Wallace Milam

http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam-thor.htm

Through Ms. Cranor's efforts, I finally obtained a copy of Dr. Thorburn's original article. It was only then that the extent of Dr. Lattimer's scientific charade became evident. Eighteen years after his work was prostituted, it is finally time to let Thorburn speak for Thorburn:

In June, 1886, Dr. William Thorburn received a patient at his infirmary in Manchester, England. A workman had lost his balance and fallen while standing on a scaffolding whitewashing a wall. The back of his neck slammed against a bench while his feet remained caught in the ladder. As a final blow, the bucket of whitewash fell back upon him. Dr. Thorburn, who did not see the patient until he was brought to the hospital four days later, observed the man as his condition deteriorated over the next three weeks. After the workman's death 26 days after the accident, Thorburn performed a post mortem examination and then wrote about the incident as "Case I" in Cases of injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord. (18)

Dr. Lattimer sees such parallels in the injuries and reactions of the workman and Kennedy that he calls the President's response "an almost classic demonstration of what might be called a Thorburn position." (19) But if he read Dr. Thorburn's article at all, he must have noted many significant differences:

a. Thorburn's workman was rendered immediately unconscious (20); Kennedy was not.

b. According to Lattimer and his disciples, Kennedy's arms flew immediately into place and locked there. Thorburn's patient had no such immediate reaction. On regaining consciousness, his legs were paralyzed, but "his arms were partially so." (21) The engraving of the injured workman, showing his arms laid outward (Fig. 1-a), depicts his condition four da s after the accident, a fact which Lattimer deliberately distorted. (See below.)

c. While one of Kennedy's vertebra and his spinal cord may have been grazed (HSCA's medical panel concluded that a bullet did not hit one of Kennedy's vertebra and that the damage "if any, was purely negligible." (22), the workman suffered "complete transverse destruction of the spinal cord.... "(23)

d. The possible damage to Kennedy's vertebra occurred at the level of C-6 or C-7 (and even possibly T-1) according to the HSCA medical panel. As we have seen, Lattimer first claimed the bullet struck neither vertebrae nor the spinal cord. Then he narrowed the choices to C-6 or C-7, finally settling on C-6. He specifically ruled out C-5. But Thorburn's victim had a dislocation between the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae with complete paralysis of all nerves below C-5, the spinal cord being completely destroyed "immediately below the level of origin of the fifth cervical nerves." (25) As will be seen, Lattimer took steps which hid these facts as well.

e. Finally, the engraving of Thorburn's patient (Fig. 1-a) shows the position of his arms to be quite the opposite of Kennedy's. The workman's arms are abducted, falling to his side, away from the throat and midline of the body, while Kennedy's arms are adducted, his hands in front of his throat.

That Thorburn is the standard Posner/McAdams LONE NUT drivel should give you pause, Jim.

The damage on the x-ray is inconsistent with Thorburn Reflex.

You and Livingston are not entitled to your own facts, sir. And you haven't

convinced me that Livingston took into account the neck x-ray.

People like Tink offer moronic drivel about the throat wound as a wound of exit and you are going to defer to him over a world authority on the human brain? Egad! The principle of reasoning involved is called "inference to the best explanation".

How do I "defer" to Tink Thompson in any way, shape, or form?

Occam's razor: 3 military doctors came to a preliminary conclusion that was

subsequently proven correct.

Best explanation. Covers all the evidence you ignore.

The hole in the windshield and the wound to the throat and the cuts in his face and the sound of a firecracker are all explainable with high probability as effects of a shot fired from the location that Doug Weldon so thoroughly researched.

Rosemary Willis/Willis5/Zapruder trump Doug Weldon.

The most likely explanation for damage in Altgens6 and Altgens7 to be in the same location and for witnesses at Parkland and even in Washington to report a hole in the windshield is because there was a hole in the windshield!

A non-sequitur by any other name still...

I will grant this alternative. David suspects that the throat wound may have been caused by a chunk of glass that was propelled in the same direction as the bullet, which, however, was deflected and hit the roadway behind the limousine.

I cite witnesses. I cite photographs. The witnesses and the photographs

agree on the major points concerning JFK's throat and back wounds.

You cite other "experts."

Such is the "expert culture" of the JFK False Mystery Industry.

You may be more comfortable with that possibility, given the damage you note, where there may also have been a chest X-ray substitution.

Ah yes! They substituted an x-ray that shows minor soft tissue damage,

no bullet and no exit -- facts which directly implicate people associated

with the Central Intelligence Agency.

But that would still mean that the wound was caused by the bullet that created the through-and-through hole in the windshield.

How do you figure? Are you saying that separate shots could not possibly

account for both?

What evidence do you have that precludes two separate shots, Jim?

Your appeal to an odd device to fire a flechette strikes me as quite unreasonable for a moving target, regardless of its purported range.

Your opinion don't trump William Colby's description of the technology.

JF:

If you are trusting Humes and Boswell and Fincke, you have no idea what you are talking about. HUMES PERFORMED SURGERY TO THE HEAD BEFORE THE START OF THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT.

(/quote)

I don't buy it. Typical blood-lust in the JFK False Mystery Game: let's turn

conspiracy witnesses into perps!

No question Humes was dragooned into the cover-up. But his observations

of surgery to the head and "general feeling" about blood soluble rounds

tells us a great deal about Kennedy's killing.

Those observations, taken down by the FBI guys, occurred before

the prosectors were enveloped in the cover-up

JF:

Haven't you heard of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB?

(/quote)

His case against Humes is highly speculative.

JF:

I just interviewed David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, on "The Real Deal". His review of Horne's work on the medical evidence may be found archived on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com. That JFK's military aide was moved from the limo was an obviously necessary step to prepare for the shot through the windshield. I am stunned you don't grasp this.

(/quote)

I'm stunned you think the plotters planned to shoot through the windshield!

I'm not stunned that you cite Doug Horne, David Mantik, and Doug Weldon

because that's all you have.

I cite Rosemary Willis, and her rapid head-snap toward Black Dog Man Z214-17.

I cite Jackie Kennedy, who described the look on JFK's face as "quizzical,"

wholly inconsistent with the t&t windshield high-powered rifle scenario.

I cite the Zapruder film and its consistencies with the testimonies of

Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and Linda Willis -- JFK was grasping at his

throat.

I cite Willis 5, and the HSCA analysis of Black Dog Man in which a

"very distinct straight-line feature" is observed "near the region of

his hands."

I cite Altgens 6 and Tom Wilson's description of a device in the Dal-Tex

which is similar to devices used to fire blood soluble rounds.

And yes, I cite the preliminary conclusions of the autopsists which points

directly at individuals connected to the Central Intelligence Agency.

JF:

Do you understand that the autopsy X-rays were altered, that another brain was substitute for that of JFK, and that the Zapruder film was recreated to remove the limo stop and other events? Are you even aware of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? What do you think happened? SPELL IT OUT. Your position strikes me as quite bizarre. Tell me more.

(/quote)

Mitchell WerBell III designed two sound-suppressed weapons which fired

blood soluble rounds with high accuracy.

There were few misses in Dealey Plaza. Three misses from the 6th Fl

snipers nest were intentional.

The throat shot was perfect. A blood soluble paralytic fired by

Black Dog Man circa Z190, which caused JFK to seize up paralyzed

by Z230.

The back shot could have been a couple of inches more to the left

(closer to the heart) but otherwise a direct hit on the body with a

blood soluble toxin.

There was a triangulation of fire at his head, all three bullets hit.

I find the best explanation for the pre-autopsy events at Bethesda here

(admittedly hearsay and inadmissible, but "best explanation" nonetheless):

Elbert Israel was the name of the orderly.

3 shots to the head given quick treatment by a doctor other than Humes,

that's for sure.

According to Tom Wilson and the Hollywood 7 several frames

of the Z-film circa Z313 were tampered. This I can buy. I've

challenged alterationists to point out tampering during the crucial

sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru 255 (Altgens 6) and none has been

asserted much less argued.

I don't have a theory, I just cite the abundant and redundant

evidence in the credible historical record.

Edited March 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

So you've never read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), or INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). On the contrary, what you are citing here appears to be the partial observation of Humes taking a saw to the cranium of JFK in order to obfuscate the wound that entered his right temple at the hairline and to increase the massive blow out to the back of the head in order to create the artificial impression of a huge wound caused by a shot from the front. Tom Robinson was one of two witnesses who watched the whole thing.

I cannot believe that you are not studying the most important research on these matters, because it has led you to a state of incredible confusion and the utter incapacity to distinguish the true from the false.

And you reveal an utter incapacity to make any kind of coherent

response to the case I've laid out.

You keep wanting to cite experts; I counter with actual evidence.

Show me where Robinson identified Humes as the one who performed

surgery to the head.

Explain to me how a guy could be part of the cover-up and then give the

FBI information that directly points to the Central Intelligence Agency!

I am beginning to understand why some members of this forum are incapable of research: an apparent determined unwillingness to confront the discoveries of others who are more competent than they, including, in this case, Bob Livingston, Doug Weldon, David Mantik, Doug Horne, and Jim Fetzer.

I can explain the case for conspiracy to a 5 year old.

You guys cannot.

You have no idea which of the documents and records on which you rely is authentic and which is not, thereby making you a prime candidate for deception.

Nonsense. The properly prepared medical evidence is consistent:

1) The autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back wound at

T3/T4, consistent with the holes in the clothes. Signed off as: "Verified."

2) Burkley's death certificate put the back wound in the vicinity of the

JFK's "third thoracic vertebra," also consistent with the clothing holes.

Identifying the wound according to its vertebral level follows proper

autopsy protocol.

3) The contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors, wherein the the throat

entrance wound was properly recorded. Another half-dozen Parkland witnesses

later described the throat entrance wound, as well.

4) The neck x-ray. The damage is consistent with a shot from the front

which nicked the trachea, bruised the lung tip, left a hair-line fracture of

the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket. No exit. No bullet

recovered.

5) The FBI autopsy report was a properly prepared investigative document.

All of the above is consistent with the witness statements and Dealey Plaza

photo evidence from Z186 thru Z255 -- a sequence during which no tampering

of the Z film has been claimed.

-

This is quite appalling. The massive and detailed research by Doug Horne confirms surgery to the head,

We knew this from the FBI autopsy report, first noted by Humes and recorded by the

FBI guys, Sibert and O'Neill.

the falsification of the X-rays

The head x-rays would be inadmissible under any circumstances

given the pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

and the autopsy photographs,

The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy

protocol, and are thus rightly dismissed.

the revision of the autopsy report,

The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper

military autopsy protocol, and is thus rightly dismissed.

I've already gone over this...Interesting how I make these points

and you respond by pretending I haven't already covered them, that

I know nothing about it.

Odd rhetorical technique here, Jim...

the conduct of two supplemental brain exams with two different brains,

None of the head wound evidence is worth warm piss. Why do people

obsess on obviously faked evidence, Jim?

You guys are studying the cover-up, not the killing!

five physical differences between the film developed in Dallas and brought to the NPIC on Saturday (which was a split 8mm film) and the film developed in Rochester and brought to the NPIC on Sunday (which was an unsplit 16mm film), where the chain of custody was obviously broken and many, if not all, of the extensive alterations to the content of the original had already been performed, which I discussed in "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". My God, you don't even know that Roderick Ryan explained to Noel Twyman that the "blob" of brains to the right-front had been painted in, or that the Hollywood experts have viewed a 6k version of the film and discovered that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black from 313 through 339; nor that you can actually see the blow out to the back of the head in frame 374, where I discovered it. Just because you want to remain in a state of willful ignorance about these discoveries, ongoing research is rendering your untenable account of the assassination hopelessly irrelevant. But that appears to be hardly surprising, given your tenacious incapacity to separate the authentic from the fabricated evidence, which renders your claims to understanding this case utterly without foundation. This is disconcerting.

Jim, I'm beginning to draw the conclusion you don't bother reading

anything I write.

What part of the following don't you get?

Me:

According to Tom Wilson and the Hollywood 7 several frames of the Z-film circa Z313

were tampered (with). This I can buy. I've challenged alterationists to point out tampering

during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru 255 (Altgens 6) and none has been asserted,

much less argued.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

an apparent determined unwillingness to confront the discoveries of others who are more competent than they, including, in this case, Bob Livingston, Doug Weldon, David Mantik, Doug Horne, and Jim Fetzer.

And David Lifton.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry181092

[Barb Junkkarinen]

??

*Excellent*, John! Exactly.

She is wearing a white peasant blouse. The classic is white billowy in the sleeves and loose on the body ... lots of fabric. The sleeves can be long or short or in between ... like banded at the elbow, and again, billowy with lots of fabric. The neckline can be worn just loose ... or classically has elastic so you can stretch it to wear it slightly, or completely, off of one or both shoulders. Her sleeves look they come to the elbows, and since she is clapping her hands, all that fabric from the sleeves makes it look almost like she could be wearing a shawl.

The one at this link is not just like hers, but you get the idea:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...4=263602_263622

Sometimes they are embroidered around the neckline and even the sleeves in white or a colored pattern depending on the country.

She is wearing a blue skirt (denim?) with a dark green apron. I think it is most likely an apron that ties on ... like perhaps she was a waitress on her way to work (if after work, or in mid-work I would expect she would have taken the apron off). But, there were also dresses and skirts made with an apron as part of the design ... they were popular in the 50s ... maybe the early 60s too. Happy that style went extinct.<g> Here is a pattern for one from the 50s:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...9EoGgsgOYsdXQAw

It's quite clear what she is wearing in the clear croft frame that I think Robin posted a few days ago. Go figure this fuzzy pic of Jack's ... but you have drawn the outline perfectly. No baby.<g>

The purse, and I am convinced it is a purse and not a pocket, is most likely a shoulder bag hanging from her right shoulder from a thin white strap ... which is lost in the fabric of her blouse.

It's a girl thing!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited March 19, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[John Dolva]

That's great Barb. Fashion interests me. I've never come across the apron style. That and the blouse seems to clinch it.

I also thought along the line of a waitress with perhaps a purse for transactions that seems to me to be located for easy access. It was lunch time and many attended as dressed from work. She's stylishly and seems functionally dressed as well.

[Josiah Thompson]

That's great Barb. Fashion interests me. I've never come across the apron style. That and the blouse seems to clinch it.

I also thought along the line of a waitress with perhaps a purse for transactions that seems to me to be located for easy access. It was lunch time and many attended as dressed from work. She's stylishly and seems functionally dressed as well.

Nice going, John and Barb. While Fetzer fulminates, you two move right along texturing the match up between the Croft photo and Altgens #6. I wonder if there is any way to figure out who this woman was.

Josiah Thompson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

That's great Barb. Fashion interests me. I've never come across the apron style. That and the blouse seems to clinch it.

I also thought along the line of a waitress with perhaps a purse for transactions that seems to me to be located for easy access. It was lunch time and many attended as dressed from work. She's stylishly and seems functionally dressed as well.

Nice going, John and Barb. While Fetzer fulminates, you two move right along texturing the match up between the Croft photo and Altgens #6. I wonder if there is any way to figure out who this woman was.

Josiah Thompson

Tink,

Doug DeSalles and I have discussed this several times over the years re the whole line of people along in there. Here we have these people who had the shooting happen virtually right in front of them and very few of them have been identified. A problem with running a blurb and photo in the Dallas papers and asking "Are you one of these people?" is it is likely to bring out a lot of of false ID claims ... but you never know, we could get lucky.

Like John, I think the woman is most likely a waitress ...and I think he is correct, could be on her lunch hour ... which most likely means she worked nearby.... that could be something to go on too, especially if those clothes she is wearing were some sort of a waitress uniform ... at least the apron would have been restaurant issue...

Eh?

Bests,

Barb :-)