Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi:

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..."

What evidence do you think Salandria was referring to as being "blatantly obvious"?

The clothing evidence, of course!

Cliff, on what basis do you conclude the above?

No doubt Salandria felt that the clothing evidence was important, but to suggest that it is the singular

evidence Salandria considered in making his statement to Fonzi diminishes his work, in my opinion.

I like the word you've coined: obfuscationary. I know you've used it before. Most of us would have settled for obfuscatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle.

Comments?

This was only one example.

--Thomas :tomatoes

"he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle."

Correct!

However, there are "mounts" which fully correct for the off-center alignment, be it for a lefty or a righty, just as there exists many bolt actions rifles which were specifically produced for a left-handed shooter. (Principally hunting rifles).

If one will check up on it they will find that some of the best Russian snipers of WWII were in fact left handed as well as firing from the left handed position with right-handed bolt action rifles.

With that stated, one will not normally receive a scope mount for left-handed shooting with some cheapo scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi:

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..."

What evidence do you think Salandria was referring to as being "blatantly obvious"?

The clothing evidence, of course!

Cliff, on what basis do you conclude the above?

Michael,

Back in the '60's Salandria openly championed the JFK clothing evidence as the primary answer to the SBT. While I'm sure he'd include the Zapruder film or the statements of Sylvia Odio as "blatantly obvious" evidence of conspiracy, it was the clothing evidence Salandria publicly presented as the prima facie case against the SBT.

John Kelin's Praise From a Future Generation, pgs 334-5:

(quote on)

A panel discussion on the assassination was scheduled for Wednesday, November 30, 1966, at the Charles Street Meeting House in Boston. Billed as "Seven Judges, No Jury -- A Second Look at the Murder of a President," the panel consisted of Penn Jones and Vince Salandria presenting the case against the Warren Report, with Jacob Cohen and four others, mostly academics, defending it...

The evening contained a moment of theater -- not high drama, but a curious sort of burlesque. Cohen was doing his best to defend the single bullet theory when Salandria, the son of a skilled and proud tailor, reached into his briefcase and withdrew a shirt and jacket with holes in the same location as those in Kennedy's shirt and jacket. Moving toward Cohen, he asked him to demonstrate how the President's finely-tailored clothing could bunch up as the government claimed it did. Caught off guard, Cohen refused to cooperate and threw the clothes back toward Salandria.

(quote off)

Vincent Salandria takes the clothing evidence personally. So do I. His father was a tailor; a sibling of mine is one of the world's leading textile conservators and a 2-time winner of the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle Award for Costume Design.

Inspired by Salandria, journalist Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter in 1966 in the freshly elected Philadelphia DA's office. Fonzi described the encounter in his August 1, 1966 article in Greater Philadelphia Magazine, The Warren Commission, the Truth, and Arlen Specter:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

(quote on)

The Warren Commission Report says the entrance wound caused by the bullet which came out Kennedy’s throat was “approximately 5½ inches” below the back of the right ear. Yet photographs of the Presidents jacket and shirt, which were part of the FBI supplemental report of January 13th, make it difficult to believe that is the truth.

These photographs were not part of the Warren Commission Report and were left out of the 26 volumes of supporting evidence. Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing was in the Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained.

And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was 5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter bullet,” said the Report.

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report—placed below the back of the right ear—and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attemptedto have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times, he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It…it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that…aaah…that it gets…that…aaah…this…this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back…sit back now…all right now…if…usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if…but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits…it’s not…it’s not…it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt…after all, we lined up the shirt…and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front…”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes…aaah…well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to…aaah…understand the…aah…the angle of decline which…”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that…that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I…I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.”

It is difficult to believe that Arlen Specter didn’t take a very close look at that shirt—and that jacket—at the time of the investigation and that these factors didn’t indelibly stick in his mind: Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House, and if it is possible—but not probable—that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a tightly-buttoned shirt could have done the same thing.

And the Zapruder films show he wasn’t waving his hand higher than the level of his forehead before he was shot.

(quote off)

In The Last Investigation, pg 407-8, Fonzi concluded (emphasis added):

(quote on)

...I don't know the names of the individuals who held the weapons or synchronized the shooting. But, based on my experiences and knowledge of what I feel is the most valid evidence, I certainly have firm opinions about the character of the conspiracy--and some of the characters in the conspiracy.

And, yes, one of the opinions I've come to is that the issue of conspiracy is not contestable. It never was. Long before the Assassinations Committee received confirmation from the acoustics tests in Dealey Plaza, the evidence of a conspiracy was overwhelming. And, in the narrow perspective of my personal quest for substantiation, I've come to conclude that, for me, two pieces of evidence provide irrefutable verification of conspiracy. One demolishes the single-bullet theory: The locations of the bullet holes in the back of Kennedy's jackedt and shirt--hard, tangible, measurable evidence--obliterate the possibility of a bullet emerging from Kennedy's throat and striking Governor Connally. Single-bullet-theory author Arlen Specter conceded that it was a worrisome contradiction.

(quote off)

Salandria and Fonzi aren't the only major researchers who regard the clothing evidence as dispositive on the issue of conspiracy. On February 12, 2002 Jim Marrs sent the following to me in an e-mail (emphasis added):

(quote on)

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission smokescreen, namely

that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up. Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the government....period.

(quote off)

When I e-mailed him back asking for permission to use the quote, Jim responded (emphasis in the original):

(quote on)

Howdy Cliff,

Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this, the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has the staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.

Best regards,

Jim Marrs

(quote off)

When the Jefferies film was made public in early 2007 ctka.net published a fine article by John Kelin re-capping the "clothes bunch" faux-controversy, focusing on Fonzi's "official" debunking of the SBT in Specter's office in '66.

http://www.ctka.net/jefferies.html

(quote on)

"Specter made a fool of himself with Fonzi in trying to defend the single bullet theory," Salandria recalled in 2007, when asked about the Jefferies film and the apparent jacket-bunching. "If he could not defend the single-bullet concept, then it is not defensible."

Just how extensively this new Jefferies film will be used to promote jacket-bunching to explain the jacket/body discrepancy remains to be seen.

(quote off)

Salandria and Fonzi responded to the release of the Jefferies film by standing pat on their assertion that JFK's tailored clothing fit precluded any possibility of gross bunch up of the shirt and jacket.

And they are correct. Given JFK's posture and movement in the motorcade his tucked in custom-made shirt only moved in fractions of an inch. The gross fabric "ease" posited by the SBT has never been replicated given normal body movements. Arlen Specter learned this the hard way.

One of the best critics of bunch-fallacy is the otherwise Lone Assassin Theorist Jim Moore, who wrote in Conspiracy of One, pg 155

(quote on)

The photos taken at the moment of the assassination were a color slide by Phil Willis and a black-and-white still by Hugh Betzner. Both were shot from the south curb of Elm Street, and both depict the back of President Kennedy's head, since the limousine has already passed both photographers and is headed down the slope of Elm Street. Also visible in both photographs are the President's shoulders and upper back. The Betzner photo clearly shows the President's shirt collar, which would not be visible were his jacket bunched. Although not as evident in the Willis slide, the collar is also detectable and the jacket appears flat.

...Were it not for the photographic evidence, I could accept the theory of the bunched suit jacket. But what about a bunched shirt? Hardly possible, since the PLresident's shirts were custom-made and carefully fitted. Indeed, the law of averages also works against [this] scenario, the shirt would have to be bunched inside the jacket almost to the same degree as the coat. The odds against this millimeter-fopr-millimeter correspondance boggle the imagination.

(quote off)

Moore clearly described a situation where the jacket had to have dropped from it's position shown in photos taken earlier in the motorcade.

My research pinpoints the moments on Houston Street when the jacket dropped (Weaver photo, Nix film).

Salandria and Fonzi did the heavy lifting with the clothing evidence in the 60's, totally demolishing the Warren Report conclusions.

I'm merely bouncing the rubble.

No doubt Salandria felt that the clothing evidence was important, but to suggest that it is the singular evidence Salandria considered in making his statement to Fonzi diminishes his work, in my opinion.

That's exactly what Salandria was doing in his famous quote, right? Doesn't he diminish his own early work?

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy."

I think all good researchers should diminish their own work. Otherwise we have a condition in JFK research where whole sets of evidence are claimed as personal fiefdoms and defended as such. I published my original photo research on the drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza (occamsrazorjfk.net) without putting my name on it. The photos don't belong to me and the fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza doesn't belong to me.

Pre-autopsy surgery to JFK's head doesn't belong to David Lifton, either.

I like the word you've coined: obfuscationary. I know you've used it before. Most of us would have settled for obfuscatory.

Yikes! Thanks for the heads-up, Mike! A Sarahtard I'm not. I'm too old school to go around coining words. Obfuscatory it is!

To argue the fact of conspiracy on any grounds other than the T3 back wound is inherently obfuscatory -- as I see it, at any rate.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi:

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..."

What evidence do you think Salandria was referring to as being "blatantly obvious"?

The clothing evidence, of course!

Cliff, on what basis do you conclude the above?

Michael,

Back in the '60's Salandria openly championed the JFK clothing evidence as the primary answer to the SBT. While I'm sure he'd include the Zapruder film or the statements of Sylvia Odio as "blatantly obvious" evidence of conspiracy, it was the clothing evidence Salandria publicly presented as the prima facie case against the SBT.....

.....To argue the fact of conspiracy on any grounds other than the T3 back wound is inherently obfuscatory -- as I see it, at any rate.

It was not the only evidence that Salandria publicly presented as the case against the SBT. He gave equal import to Connally's wounds. And the SBT was not the only evidence of conspiracy that Salandria presented.

Cliff, thanks for your reply. Believe it or not, I spent the better part of last Sunday afternoon reading Kelin's book (remember our exchange when it first came out?) before posting my question to you. Despite your post I still differ - I don't think your conclusion above is warranted.

My main basis for saying that is Salandria's groundbreaking article for the Legal Intelligencer in fall of 1964 and his speech to COPA in 1998. Both argue the importance of the clothing evidence, but not to the exclusion of other "blatantly obvious' evidence of conspiracy.

In Salandria's speech to COPA, he said:

As I examined the evidence I was confronted with an unvarying pattern. Whenever evidence of a conspiracy emerged --- and mountains of facts were supplied by the government for us to scrutinize --- the government refused to act on that evidence. On the other hand, whenever any data emerged, no matter how thoroughly incredible, which could possibly be interpreted as supporting a lone assassin theory --- the government invariably and with the greatest solemnity declared that such data proved the correctness of the lone assassin myth. That is not the earmark of an innocent, blundering government.

I posited that an innocent civilian government would have in an unbiased fashion accepted, made public, and protected all of the assassination data. An innocent government would have fairly evaluated the data irrespective of whether or not they supported a particular conclusion. An innocent civilian government would never have accepted an improbable explanation of data while other probable explanations were extant.

I concluded that only a criminally guilty government which was beholden to the killers would reject a probable explanation of the evidence coming into its possession and instead would seize upon an improbable explanation for the evidence. Most importantly, I concluded that only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions. In short, while purporting to tell the truth, our government turned probability theory on its head. In an unvarying pattern it consistently accepted any data that even remotely supported a single-assassin concept and rejected data which incontrovertibly supported a conspiracy.

To me, the above words are as telling as anything Salandria has ever written or said. And he is as profound a thinker as there is or was in this case.

To me, the above is what made conspiracy blatantly obvious to Salandria. He then goes on to list some of the evidence and yes he mentions the clothing evidence. I conceded that it is very important in the scheme of things. But your claim that arguing conspiracy on any other grounds is inherently obfuscatory, or that he was referring to the clothing evidence exclusively in his words to Fonzi, does not jibe with what Salandria told COPA. Salandria himself argues conspiracy and includes much more evidence than just the clothing.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/vs_text.html

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/29th_Issue/vs_dissent.html

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re; SALANDRIA TO FONZI

...a previously framed fall-guy {FPCC Oswald} with recently arranged {by my

associates} pro-communist connections to Russian and Cuban emabassies, would

be assumed guilty, especially after and because own sudden death. These events

were based on the shock-treatment affects of Kennedy's assassination.

{Oswald's alleged guilt destroyed the powerful and subversive FPCC Fair Play for

Cuba Committee} and with it Castro's influence in the American hemisphere.}

The planned "New Americanist Scheme" with it's framework so cunningly in place

for more than half a century, moved quickly to consolidate and hold perpetual

power over a bewildered government and confused nation.

These and their present supporters, who wield this stolen power, expect to

continue for hundreds of years in control of the system, now so wrongly titled

Republican and Conservative { and in the future by any other political

party name.}

Their guilty leadership, by stealth, with blood stained hands, reached out

and picked the overripe fruit of all U.S. Constitutional government power and

control. Wherein All other whites, colors and nations are now and forever

'second place subordinates" in all present and future schemes. These are to

serve the arrogant LDS plan for a world-wide totally materialistic, Church-

State for the eternal comfort of this caucasic beast and it's political image.

{...we unknowingly were being used to help install this system that since is

surreptitiously wielding every power of the U.S. Government to force the

extension of a purely materialistic-religious empire that is intent on

redesigning the entire world in it's own "communal image. An effort that

includes brute force and isolation of resistant individuals and entire nations.}

from 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vincent Salandria takes the clothing evidence personally.

That much is true, certainly. From Salandria's COPA speech:

In so concluding [the SBT as fact], our Cold War government in the context of the assassination had declared a moratorium on the science of physics and had declared the occupations of custom-shirt making and custom tailoring to be guilty of horrendous incompetence. I take particular umbrage about the government's shameless attack on the custom-tailoring trade. My deceased great father had been a proud practitioner of that honorable trade. He would have been horrified by the suggestion that one of his fellow coat makers had fitted President Kennedy's suit jacket in such a way that it had bunched up about four and one-half inches as the President raised his right hand no higher than his shoulder to greet the Dealey Plaza crowd. Arlen Specter and others who had promulgated this theory and who had failed to produce as witnesses the custom suit and shirt makers who had been in the service of President Kennedy were guilty of more than maligning their occupational skills. They were also guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance in office, and obstruction of justice. They were accessories after the fact and were criminal conspirators historically forever joined with the murderers of President Kennedy.

Michael, let's leave aside the question of whether or not my attempted Vulcan Mind Meld with the mid-70's Vince Salandria is accurate or even appropriate.

All that aside, I think you and I are talking about two different things.

I'm talking about arguing the fact of conspiracy.

I think you're talking about taking inventory of all the various facts of conspiracy.

Before we can take effective inventory of all the blatantly obvious facts of conspiracy we should logically start with the prima facie case, the fact with the most robust corroboration, with many sets of evidence abundantly redundant.

I assert that JFK's T3 back wound has the most corroboration. Not only the locations of the bullet holes in the clothes but the overwhelming consensus witness testimony out of Bethesda and three properly prepared official documents. Physical evidence, consensus witness testimony, properly prepared documentation.

Once stipulated, the T3 back wound provides a full inventory of blatantly obvious facts of conspiracy which logically follow...your mileage may vary, but these are the important ones in my book:

1. Since the back wound is well below the throat wound, the two were unrelated, separate shots.

2. The throat wound was an entrance.

3. The throat wound had no exit.

4. The back wound had no exit.

5. JFK and Connally were hit with separate shots.

6. CE399 was a plant.

7. The BOH autopsy photo is fake.

8. The final autopsy report mis-reported the location of the back wound, and the nature of the throat wound.

9. The autopsy doctors played an active role in the cover-up, military men acting under orders.

10. The FBI handled planted evidence; the Secret Service handled faked phtographs.

11. The Zapruder film captures JFK's reaction to throat trauma.

12. The credibility of the low back wound witnesses at Bethesda is bolstered.

13. The credibility of the throat entrance wound witnesses at Parkland is bolstered.

14. The credibility of Diana Bowron is restored.

15. The autopsists were perplexed by the wounds with entrances and no exits and no bullets.

You get the idea. From that inventory of conclusions drawn directly from the T3 back wound/throat entrance wound we follow Jim Marr's investigative arc and head directly to the question of who was powerful enough to enforce such a transparently phony cover-up of this monstrous crime.

That's the easiest part of the case! We know that the lone assassin myth originated from the White House Situation Room the afternoon of 11/22/63 (thanks again V. Salandria). McGeorge Bundy was the top civilian at the helm of the Situation Room. When LBJ arrived at the White House he was met in very short order by W. Averell Harriman who declared in no uncertain terms that the Soviets were not involved.

How could Harriman have possibly known that unless he knew who had actually done the deed? The investigation then goes into the roles and relationship between Bundy and Harriman, and research into American foreign policy with Cuba and Vietnam.

Given the clear likelihood that Oswald was sheep-dipped to appear as a Communist agent, the investigation would include those individuals who promoted Oswald as a Communist agent in the wake of the murder.

That's the terrain of the case as I see it, in a nutshell.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dupe

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, let's leave aside the question of whether or not my attempted Vulcan Mind Meld with the mid-70's Vince Salandria is accurate or even appropriate.

To leave aside that question takes the discussion too far away from my original query.

All that aside, I think you and I are talking about two different things.

I'm talking about arguing the fact of conspiracy.

I think you're talking about taking inventory of all the various facts of conspiracy.

Cliff, I am not talking about taking inventory of all the various facts of conspiracy. What I am talking about is Salandria's statement to Fonzi that conspiracy was blatantly obvious and your claim that he was speaking specifically of the clothing evidence. A reading of his article in the Legal Intelligencer and his speech to COPA makes it abundantly clear that he was referring to much more than just that.

And actually his statement to Fonzi, in and of itself, makes that clear:

"All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when
all the time
it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious

that it was a conspiracy."
(bold added)

I have read your countless posts on countless threads about your opinions of the clothing evidence. To repeat them for me here strays too far from my original question.

I assert that JFK's T3 back wound has the most corroboration. Not only the locations of the bullet holes in the clothes but the overwhelming consensus witness testimony out of Bethesda and three properly prepared official documents. Physical evidence, consensus witness testimony, properly prepared documentation.

Once stipulated, the T3 back wound provides a full inventory of blatantly obvious facts of conspiracy which logically follow...your mileage may vary, but these are the important ones in my book:

(Fifteen items omitted)

......You get the idea. From that inventory of conclusions drawn directly from the T3 back wound/throat entrance wound we follow Jim Marr's investigative arc and head directly to the question of who was powerful enough to enforce such a transparently phony cover-up of this monstrous crime.

That's the easiest part of the case! We know that the lone assassin myth originated from the White House Situation Room the afternoon of 11/22/63 (thanks again V. Salandria). McGeorge Bundy was the top civilian at the helm of the Situation Room. When LBJ arrived at the White House he was met in very short order by W. Averell Harriman who declared in no uncertain terms that the Soviets were not involved.

How could Harriman have possibly known that unless who knew who had actually done the deed? The investigation then goes into the roles and relationship between Bundy and Harriman, and research into American foreign policy with Cuba and Vietnam.

Given the clear likelihood that Oswald was sheep-dipped to appear as a Communist agent, the investigation would include those individuals who promoted Oswald as a Communist agent in the wake of the murder.

That's the terrain of the case as I see it, in a nutshell.

Cliff, the terrain of the case, as you see it, has little or nothing to do with your claim that Salandria was talking specifically about the clothing evidence in his famous statement to Fonzi. The above is distracting and irrelevant to that issue, as far as I am concerned.

Finally, I posted an excerpt from Salandria's COPA speech which I'm not even sure you read. A reading of that quote and Kelin's book makes it clear that Salandria was referring to much more than just the clothing evidence as obvious signs of conspiracy.

In fact, Salandria's statement to Fonzi (and Kelin's book) make it clear that conspiracy was blatantly obvious before the holes in President Kennedy's clothes even became an issue. I don't want micro-analyze it any more than that.

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To leave aside that question takes the discussion too far away from my original query.

Fair enough. Do you know how to contact Mr. Salandria? Why don't we just ask him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, the terrain of the case, as you see it, has little or nothing to do with your claim that Salandria was talking specifically about the clothing evidence in his famous statement to Fonzi. The above is distracting and irrelevant to that issue, as far as I am concerned.

But it's absolutely relevant to the disagreement I have with Jim DiEugenio.

What is the most effective rebuttal of the Single Bullet Theory?

If Vincent Salandria had to make a case against the SBT and he had ONE piece of evidence to prove his case, what do you think he'd say?

I'm a betting man. Let's put a little something-something up and ask the man. I got a five dollar bill that sez -- clothing holes.

Finally, I posted an excerpt from Salandria's COPA speech which I'm not even sure you read. A reading of that quote and Kelin's book makes it clear that Salandria was referring to much more than just the clothing evidence as obvious signs of conspiracy.

Yes, I think I fairly well acknowledged that with this comment:

"While I'm sure he'd include the Zapruder film or the statements of Sylvia Odio as "blatantly obvious" evidence of conspiracy, it was the clothing evidence Salandria publicly presented as the prima facie case against the SBT."

I characterized Salandria's statement to Fonzi in the context of Jim D.'s assertion that the clothing evidence is not a prima facie case against the SBT, and what seems to me a clear implication from Jim that he somehow thinks the conclusions of the Warren Report have only been totally debunked in the last decade.

In fact, Salandria's statement to Fonzi (and Kelin's book) make it clear that conspiracy was blatantly obvious before the holes in President Kennedy's clothes even became an issue. I don't want micro-analyze it any more than that.

It was a blatantly obvious conspiracy at 11:21 am November 24, 1963.

What is the most blatantly obvious evidence against the Single Bullet Theory?

The bullet holes in the clothes.

Passe? Gimme a break.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To show you a perfect example of what I mean by the importance of the complete demolition of chain of custody, take a listen to TInk Thompson's interview on KPFK in January of 1967 on You Tube.

This is a man who did really good work on the whole SBT. Clearly a first generation critic who you give credit to for "destroying" the SBT.

What does he do amid midway through?

He actually says that Ce 399 could have been the bullet involved in the assassination! That it was fired from Oswald's rifle which was on the sixth floor.

(BTW, TInk said something of the same thing after the NAA came in for the HSCA.)

He can't say that today. And if you look at his interview on MFF, he does not. Specifically citing the Odum interview and Hunt's work at the ARchives. Similar to the talk he gave at Duquesne in 2003.

Once you have demolished completely the chain of custody of a piece of evidence like this, and I have seen few pieces of evidence ever that have been so demolished, no one can say it did what the prosecution said it did. Because if it did, or if it even existed at the time, then the prosecution would not have taken all the risks it did in exposing itself.

And that is what happened. The Commission created the SBF out of wholecloth because it was stuck with CE 399.

Therefore the SBF never occurred and CE 399 was not even found at Parkland.

I beg pardon if I offend, Jim, but I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of the chain of possession of the bullet found at Parkland. I also agree your conclusions about CE 399. Then why, I ask, do you not give greater scrutinty to a far more important chain of possession issue, namely the chain of possession of the President's body. With the body bag, shipping casket, 6:35-40 entrance to the back of the Bethesda Morgue, differing wound descriptions between Parkland and Bethesda -- there is more than enough reason to conclude the chain of possession of the President's body was lost. It doesn't matter if the reasons for the loss were benign or sinister; once the chain of possession is lost, the body becomes legally useless as a guide to the shooting in Dealey Plaza. Just wondering... and best, Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although originally written in response to Michael Hogan, the following is my rebuttal to a meme Jim DiEugenio penned not long ago concerning the "superhumanly complex" nature of the JFK assassination case.

Before we can take effective inventory of all the blatantly obvious facts of conspiracy we should logically start with the prima facie case, the fact with the most robust corroboration, with many sets of evidence abundantly redundant.

I assert that JFK's T3 back wound has the most corroboration. Not only the locations of the bullet holes in the clothes but the overwhelming consensus witness testimony out of Bethesda and three properly prepared official documents. Physical evidence, consensus witness testimony, properly prepared documentation.

Once stipulated, the T3 back wound provides a full inventory of blatantly obvious facts of conspiracy which logically follow...your mileage may vary, but these are the important ones in my book:

1. Since the back wound is well below the throat wound, the two were unrelated, separate shots.

2. The throat wound was an entrance.

3. The throat wound had no exit.

4. The back wound had no exit.

5. JFK and Connally were hit with separate shots.

6. CE399 was a plant.

7. The BOH autopsy photo is fake.

8. The final autopsy report mis-reported the location of the back wound, and the nature of the throat wound.

9. The autopsy doctors played an active role in the cover-up, military men acting under orders.

10. The FBI handled planted evidence; the Secret Service handled faked phtographs.

11. The Zapruder film captures JFK's reaction to throat trauma.

12. The credibility of the low back wound witnesses at Bethesda is bolstered.

13. The credibility of the throat entrance wound witnesses at Parkland is bolstered.

14. The credibility of Diana Bowron is restored.

15. The autopsists were perplexed by the wounds with entrances and no exits and no bullets.

You get the idea. From that inventory of conclusions drawn directly from the T3 back wound/throat entrance wound we follow Jim Marr's investigative arc and head directly to the question of who was powerful enough to enforce such a transparently phony cover-up of this monstrous crime.

That's the easiest part of the case! We know that the lone assassin myth originated from the White House Situation Room the afternoon of 11/22/63 (thanks again V. Salandria). McGeorge Bundy was the top civilian at the helm of the Situation Room. When LBJ arrived at the White House he was met in very short order by W. Averell Harriman who declared in no uncertain terms that the Soviets were not involved.

How could Harriman have possibly known that unless he knew who had actually done the deed? The investigation then goes into the roles and relationship between Bundy and Harriman, and research into American foreign policy with Cuba and Vietnam.

Given the clear likelihood that Oswald was sheep-dipped to appear as a Communist agent, the investigation would include those individuals who promoted Oswald as a Communist agent in the wake of the murder.

Is this case Superhumanly Complex? No.

Sufficiently complex? Yes. Yes indeed. The truly fertile research fields are few, but target rich:

* The core of the case, the T3 back wound, and all the conclusions that logically flow from it (including the conclusion that CE399 was planted, implicating the FBI in the cover-up.)

* W. Averell Harriman (Under Secretary of State) and McGeorge Bundy (National Security Advisor), the Yankee bluebloods who on 11/22/63 installed the "official" cover story of no conspiracy foreign or domestic; what their backgrounds were and what roles they played in US foreign policy in SE Asia and Cuba 1961-63.

* There are many perp suspects to be found in the sheep-dipping of Oswald as a commie agent, and among those who actively pushed the competing cover-up narrative that Castro was behind it.

In my view, ninety-five percent (95%) of the rest of the stuff related to the assassination is window dressing at best.

Your mileage may vary on the remaining worthy five percent (5%).

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not the only evidence that Salandria publicly presented as the case against the SBT. He gave equal import to Connally's wounds.

Equal import?

With all due respect, Michael, that's a big fat major league hanging curveball!

A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes The President's Back and Neck Wounds by Vincent J. Salandria, Liberation Magazine, March 1965.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html

(emphasis added):

The bullet which made these [clothing] holes would have only originated from behind the President, who was sitting erect, facing front, in the Presidential limousine. Both the Commission and the writer are in perfect agreement here. It would seem, also, that there is no room for disagreement with respect to where the missile which impacted on the President's back entered. But, alas, on this score, the disagreement between the writer and the Commission is sharp and goes to the core of the case.

The writer concludes from the evidence of Special Agents Bennett, Kellerman, and Hill that there was a wound in the President's back some 4 to 6 inches down from the neck line. The writer feels that the missile hole 5 3/4 inches below the top of the shirt collar and 1 1/8 inches to the right of the midline of the shirt, dramatically supports the testimony of these Special Agents. The missile hole in the President's coat: 5 3/4 inches below the top of the collar corroborates their testimony in a solid and impressive way.

Has Salandria ever use language like this to characterize the significance of Connally's wounds?

This is Barry-Zito-on-a-bad-day kind of stuff, Michael, with all due respect. <_<

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/16/SP0U1KB6SB.DTL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, the terrain of the case, as you see it, has little or nothing to do with your claim that Salandria was talking specifically about the clothing evidence in his famous statement to Fonzi. The above is distracting and irrelevant to that issue, as far as I am concerned.

But it's absolutely relevant to the disagreement I have with Jim DiEugenio.

What is the most effective rebuttal of the Single Bullet Theory?

If Vincent Salandria had to make a case against the SBT and he had ONE piece of evidence to prove his case, what do you think he'd say?

I'm a betting man. Let's put a little something-something up and ask the man. I got a five dollar bill that sez -- clothing holes.

Cliff, in terms of my initial question to you, your disagreement with Jim DiEugenio is a separate issue. So is the Single Bullet fantasy. So is your betting proposition.

Salandria told Fonzi this: "We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy."

About that, you wrote this: "What evidence do you think Salandria was referring to as being "blatantly obvious"? The clothing evidence, of course!"

I asked you: Cliff, on what basis do you conclude the above?

I feel the need to repeat this because it seems to me you want to make a simple question complicated by introducing a long line of peripheral issues. Either Salandria was talking specifically about the

clothing evidence or he was speaking to a larger set of issues. The latter is clearly the case.

Going through some of Salandria's statements and culling out only his offerings about the clothing to the exclusion of everything else he wrote or said does not make your case.

It was a blatantly obvious conspiracy at 11:21 am November 24, 1963.

What is the most blatantly obvious evidence against the Single Bullet Theory?

The bullet holes in the clothes.

Passe? Gimme a break.

Are you talking to me? Or Jim DiEugenio?

And when you quote Salandria's views on the Single Bullet Theory, why do you never include what he said about Governor Connally's wounds?

And again Cliff, it was you that wrote this: "To argue the fact of conspiracy on any grounds other than the T3 back wound is inherently obfuscatory -- as I see it, at any rate."

It is a demonstrable fact that Salandria argued conspiracy on many other grounds. And he was anything but obfuscatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the need to repeat this because it seems to me you want to make a simple question complicated by introducing a long line of peripheral issues. Either Salandria was talking specifically about the

clothing evidence or he was speaking to a larger set of issues. The latter is clearly the case.

...

And when you quote Salandria's views on the Single Bullet Theory, why do you never include what he said about Governor Connally's wounds?

And again Cliff, it was you that wrote this: "To argue the fact of conspiracy on any grounds other than the T3 back wound is inherently obfuscatory -- as I see it, at any rate."

It is a demonstrable fact that Salandria argued conspiracy on many other grounds. And he was anything but obfuscatory.

It's a difference between subtext and context.

In his 1965 Liberation article Salandria said JFK's T3 back wound "goes to the core of the case", based on the testimony of three Secret Service SAs and the clothing evidence. That is the root fact in Salandria's case against the government. That is the vital subtext to all of Salandria's work describing the conspiracy in the context of US government complicity.

The T3 back wound is the root fact of the JFK assassination.

Arguing the fact of conspiracy is making the case for 4+ shots. That's it. Period. Once this root fact is established -- then the USG is on the hotseat as a logical consequence.

Salandria frames the conspiracy as emanating from the USG. He only needs to reiterate the core issue on occasion, as he does with the clothing evidence. He presents all proofs of conspiracy in the USG-perp context: elements within the USG perpetrated the cover-up as a matter of fact, and with a near-certainty the perps of the murder were organized within the ranks of US intel/military covert forces.

Salandria's case envelopes all proof of conspiracy within the context of USG complicity in the cover-up certainly -- and the murder most probably.

Am I wrong about this, Mike?

As far as Connally goes, his wounds are a sidelight that have nothing to do with JFK's wounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...