Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Either Salandria was talking specifically about the clothing evidence or he was speaking to a larger set of issues.

Or he was speaking to the larger set of issues directly raised by the clothing evidence, as I believe was the case.

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.

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.

Or he was speaking to the larger set of issues directly raised by the clothing evidence, as I believe was the case.

You may believe that. But even that differs materially from your original claim that I disputed.

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

Salandria considered Connally's wounds anything but a sidelight. Your two statements above are mutually exclusive. Your sidelight statement above misrepresents what I wrote:

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?

If you don't want to acknowledge the importance of Connally's wounds to as it pertained to Salandria's analysis of the SBT, that's your problem, not mine.

All this has become too involved and convoluted for my liking. I've seen nothing that would lead one to conclude that Salandria was referring specifically

or exclusively about clothing evidence when he uttered those words to Gaeton Fonzi.

:

Which is what you originally stated.

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."

This comment says everything about your argument Cliff. Salandria himself would not agree with that. We don't need to ask him - his writings make it clear.

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

I conceded to you at the outset that the clothing evidence is very important evidence. But to treat it like you do does not accurately reflect Salandria's writings.

It's really that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CV: Or he was speaking to the larger set of issues directly raised by the clothing evidence, as I believe was the case.

MH: You may believe that. But even that differs materially from your original claim that I disputed.

Yes, I believe he was referring to "the core of the case." Parse that any way you choose.

Salandria considered Connally's wounds anything but a sidelight.

I'm speaking for myself. You asked me why I don't quote Salandria on the issue and I think it's a sidelight. So I don't.

If you don't want to acknowledge the importance of Connally's wounds to as it pertained to Salandria's analysis of the SBT, that's your problem, not mine.

No problem. It doesn't figure into my analysis of the SBT except as a sidelight.

That's me. Your mileage may vary.

All this has become too involved and convoluted for my liking. I've seen nothing that would lead one to conclude that Salandria was referring specifically or exclusively about clothing evidence when he uttered those words to Gaeton Fonzi.

Which is what you originally stated.

I don't have a problem with Salandria referring to "the core of the case" against the USG in that instance.

You do, evidently.

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."

This comment says everything about your argument Cliff. Salandria himself would not agree with that. We don't need to ask him - his writings make it clear.

He'd agree that the issue goes to the core of the case.

I don't think you're taking what I mean by "arguing the fact of conspiracy." I'm referring to the case for 4+ shots. That and that alone. I'm arguing for arguing the 4+ shot scenario at its strongest -- the core of the case.

Now that seems like the obvious approach to the case to me -- argue it where the evidence is most redundant and demonstrable.

I'm out of step with the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community, obviously.

I repeat: It is a demonstrable fact that Salandria argued conspiracy on many other grounds.

Mike, I acknowledged this before you brought the subject up.

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.

Yes, he certainly has argued for a US government conspiracy on many other grounds. But the basis for this case is the core evidence which indicts the US government. The T3 back wound. Prima facie evidence of 4+ shots.

And he was anything but obfuscatory.

Yes, because he grasps the core of the case. Unlike others.

I conceded to you at the outset that the clothing evidence is very important evidence.

Yes, I suppose one could characterize evidence that "goes to the core of the case" as "very important evidence," but I think you'd be guilty of making an understatement.

But to treat it like you do does not accurately reflect Salandria's writings.

It's really that simple.

I treat it like it goes to the core of the case.

Everyone should. Very few do.

"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." -- Vincent Salandria,, 1965

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat: It is a demonstrable fact that Salandria argued conspiracy on many other grounds.

I think this is a more accurate characterization: Salandria argues US government complicity in the murder of JFK and the cover-up that followed.

The fact of conspiracy is the subtext to his case.

For me, once the core of the case is established then evidence is weighed according to how much light it sheds into criminal conduct within the USG, not whether or not the evidence is "proof of conspiracy."

How much light is shed by Connally's wounds into US government complicity? Relevant to the cover-up, but tells us nothing about how JFK was killed.

JFK's throat and back wounds shed light into US government complicity in the cover-up -- absolutely -- and even the murder, or so I like to argue.

And with that we can begin to inventory evidence which sheds light into criminal conduct by members of the USG.

Starting with McGeorge Bundy's mid-afternoon 11/22/63 call from the White House Situation Room regarding the capture of the lone assassin...

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, I posted an excerpt from Salandria's COPA speech which I'm not even sure you read.

No, I didn't. Your instincts are correct on this matter. Came from a speech he gave in 1998, did it?

I think I can make a guess -- Salandria indicts the US government for obstruction of justice in the murder of JFK?

Or does he lay out the case for 4+ shots in order to prove conspiracy?

"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."

Hey! I guessed right! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much light is shed by Connally's wounds into US government complicity? Relevant to the cover-up, but tells us nothing about how JFK was killed.

JFK's throat and back wounds shed light into US government complicity in the cover-up -- absolutely -- and even the murder, or so I like to argue.

And with that we can begin to inventory evidence which sheds light into criminal conduct by members of the USG.

Starting with McGeorge Bundy's mid-afternoon 11/22/63 call from the White House Situation Room regarding the capture of the lone assassin...

JFK's back wound doesn't lead to Connally's wounds.

JFK's back wound leads directly to the White House Situation Room the afternoon of the assassination.

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. <_<

Cliff, at the outset of our back & forth I asked you a simple question. You have made post after post that either strays far from that question or is irrelevant to that question.

You have given your opinions and you have pasted excerpts of Salandria that deal only with the clothing evidence.

The post above does not make your case that Salandria was referring specifically to the clothing when he called conspiracy "blatantly obvious." You allowed that he might have also considered

the Odio incident or the Zapruder Film as blatant evidence of conspiracy. You seriously sell short all the other evidence of conspiracy that Salandria wrote and talked about.

The article you linked to discusses much of it. And he may have been referring to none of it specifically in his remarks to Fonzi.

The statement that you picked out above calls the missile holes supportive and corroborative of the testimony of these Special Agents. Supportive and corroborative, Cliff. Or as Salandria says:

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.

Before you try and give me some more context and subtext mumbo-jumbo let me say that Salandria said the missile holes supported the Agents' evidence. Not the other way around.

One could gather from that snippet you posted that Bennett, Kellerman, and Hill's testimony was the prima facie source of Salandria's conclusion as to the location of the back wound.

I read your recent post. Just remember you wrote: "As far as Connally goes, his wounds are a sidelight that have nothing to do with JFK's wounds."

Well, I noticed that you changed my reference to "the SBT" to "JFK's wounds." Connally's wounds had much to do with the Single Bullet Theory (my post at the top) which has a lot to do

with what Salandria wrote and said about conspiracy.

Cliff, when Salandria wrote about "the core of the case," what do you think he meant?

And when Salandria wrote this (from the same article you excerpted above), what is the subject he's referring to?

In short, Messrs. Zapruder and Newton worked great damage on the Commission's fiat that the same first bullet to hit the President caused all the wounds on the Governor.

Commission Exhibit 399--The Bullet The
most concrete evidence on this subject
is the exhibit bullet itself.

Please don't give me this subtext and context stuff. Give me some plain English please.

And in that article Salandria wrote this:

The heavy weight of evidence requires us to conclude that the Commission was mistaken in its determination that Governor Connally was struck by the same first bullet or bullets which wounded the President. This evidence consists of the Governor's testimony, his wife's, that of all the eyewitnesses to the assassination, the Zapruder films, the ballistics evidence with respect to Commission Exhibit 399, and the anatomical findings indicating an irregular missile had punctured Governor Connally's wrist.

Do you really think Salandria considered the above a "sidelight" to the SBT?" I'm talking about Salandria, not what you (or I) think.

And getting back to what I said at the top of this post, and your response: How about I take everything Salandria wrote about the missile holes in the article you referenced and compare it to everything he wrote in the same article about Connally's wounds and see just how much significance he allowed to the latter?

Edited by Michael Hogan

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. <_<

Cliff, at the outset of our back & forth I asked you a simple question. You have made post after post that either strays far from that question or is irrelevant to that question.

And yet all my comments pointing out Salandria's reference to the T3 back wound as going "to the core of the case" remain unaddressed and certainly un-rebutted.

I repeat: I feel justified in identifying the physical evidence that "goes to the core of the case" as that which Salandria described as "blatantly obvious" in the context of my discussion with Jim D. You disagree. Fine. Ask the man.

You have given your opinions and you have pasted excerpts of Salandria that deal only with the clothing evidence.

The T3 back wound, Mike. I deal with the T3 back wound. The clothing evidence best represents the T3 back wound. It "goes to the core of the case," after all.

The post above does not make your case that Salandria was referring specifically to the clothing when he called conspiracy "blatantly obvious."

I'm comfortable with "goes to the core of the case" equating "blatantly obvious".

I'm comfortable with the established fact of conspiracy providing the subtext to Salandria's inventories of USG malfeasance.

You allowed that he might have also considered the Odio incident or the Zapruder Film as blatant evidence of conspiracy.

Or any number of evidence sets you want to inventory. All of that is great once the core of the case is established.

You seriously sell short all the other evidence of conspiracy that Salandria wrote and talked about.

[I'm not interested in "other evidence of conspiracy."

I'm interested in "other evidence of US government complicity in the murder and cover-up."

The T3 back wound established the core fact -- no need to bounce the rubble unproductively.

Those are the two major points of Salandria's work that resonate to me, the establishment of T3 as the prima facie core case for conspiracy, and the ID of Bundy as the man in the White House Situation Room who informed LBJ that the lone killer had been caught. A clear cut case of obstruction of justice.

I like clear-cut evidence that pins a crime to a name, generates persons of interest. Otherwise, "proof of conspiracy" is just bouncing the rubble.

The article you linked to discusses much of it. And he may have been referring to none of it specifically in his remarks to Fonzi.

Again, I'm entirely comfortable with my interpretation of his comments as referring to evidence which goes the core of the case.

The statement that you picked out above calls the missile holes supportive and corroborative of the testimony of these Special Agents. Supportive and corroborative, Cliff.

"Dramatically" supportive...corroborative in a "solid" and "impressive" manner.

Yes. And he eventually refined his argument to the point he'd merely present the clothing evidence exclusively as a rebuttal to the SBT.

Or as Salandria says:

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.

Before you try and give me some more context and subtext mumbo-jumbo let me say that Salandria said the missile holes supported the Agents' evidence. Not the other way around.

Split all the hairs you want, Mike, it still comes down to the T3 back wound. A year and a half later he ditched the SS SAs and carried clothing to a debate with some Warren defenders. That was all he needed. The prima facie case. Blatantly obvious like nothing else.

One could gather from that snippet you posted that Bennett, Kellerman, and Hill's testimony was the prima facie source of Salandria's conclusion as to the location of the back wound.

And one could gather from his debate performance in 1966 that he only required the clothing evidence to rebut the SBT, which is certainly in the spirit of his comments to Fonzi.

I read your recent post. Just remember you wrote: "As far as Connally goes, his wounds are a sidelight that have nothing to do with JFK's wounds."

Well, I noticed that you changed my reference to "the SBT" to "JFK's wounds." Connally's wounds had much to do with the Single Bullet Theory (my post at the top) which has a lot to do with what Salandria wrote and said about conspiracy.

Cliff, when Salandria wrote about "the core of the case," what do you think he meant?

He very specifically referred to his disagreement with the Warren Commission over the location of the back wound as going to the core of the case.

"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."

No room for disagreement = blatantly obvious.

And when Salandria wrote this (from the same article you excerpted above), what is the subject he's referring to?

JFK's back wound.

The Back Wound

Here we must shift our attention backward. We will examine the Commission's inference concerning a bullet which allegedly entered the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck. We urge the reader to keep his mind open on the question of whether the back hit we are about to discuss has an exit on the front of the neck or whether it has an exit at all. Nothing we have examined so far would prove the Commission's conclusion that this shot in the back of the President exited from the front.

At this point in the exposition, each reader will have in mind Bennett's oft-repeated testimony that he observed a missile "hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder" (W-111). Special Agent Clinton L. Hill saw the President's body being worked on at the morgue in Bethesda during the course of the autopsy. He stated to the Commission that just before the body was placed into a casket "I saw an opening in the back, about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" (II, H-143).

Special Agent Roy H. Kellerman testified about his experience at Bethesda during the autopsy studies there.

There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we--were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go?" He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." (II, H-93)

If Colonel Finck was correct, if there were indeed no lanes of exit from such a wound, then that is the end of the Commission's theory that one assassin fired all the shots at the assassination site. Such a finding of no outlet would make the back wound a separate hit. It would make the front neck wound a separate hit. It would place one gunman in front of the President. It would add one bullet to the three shells found in the Depository Building, thereby making four, and thereby requiring another gunman to accomplish all the shooting in the maximum allowable time. But while Colonel Finck at the autopsy in Bethesda was making this judgment on the dreadful night of November 22nd, 1963, the United States Government was proclaiming to the world that one man and one man alone had performed all the gory work in Dealey Plaza. This conclusion, in the light of the opinions of the autopsy experts, was utterly out of joint with the facts apparent at that time. At best, it was premature.

All the above testimony of Special Agents Bennett, Hill, and Kellerman indicates a hit in the back of the President roughly four to six inches below the inferior neckline. Material supporting evidence was found in the clothing of the President. FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier testified about the President's clothing as follows:

I found on the back of the shirt a hole, 5 3/4 inches below the top of the collar, and as you look at the back of the shirt 1 1/8 inch to the right of the mid-line of the shirt, which is this hole I am indicating ... [T]he coat hole is 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar. The shirt hole is 5 3/4 inches, which could be accounted for by a portion of the collar sticking up above the coat about a half inch. (V, H-60)

The bullet which made these 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. The Commission, however, concluded otherwise. Despite all the above evidence, the Warren Commission found that the hit in the back of the President was above the wound at the necktie knot. "The autopsy disclosed that the bullet which entered the back of the President's neck hit no bony structure and proceeded in a slightly downward angle" (W- 91). We submit that the Commission was in grievous and obvious error.

In short, Messrs. Zapruder and Newton worked great damage on the Commission's fiat that the same first bullet to hit the President caused all the wounds on the Governor.

Commission Exhibit 399--The Bullet The
most concrete evidence on this subject
is the exhibit bullet itself.

On the subject of Connally's wounds, yes, CE399 is the most concrete evidence. If you chose to micro-analyze the SBT, sure. Go for it. I've got better things to study, personally.

Please don't give me this subtext and context stuff. Give me some plain English please.

And in that article Salandria wrote this:

The heavy weight of evidence requires us to conclude that the Commission was mistaken in its determination that Governor Connally was struck by the same first bullet or bullets which wounded the President. This evidence consists of the Governor's testimony, his wife's, that of all the eyewitnesses to the assassination, the Zapruder films, the ballistics evidence with respect to Commission Exhibit 399, and the anatomical findings indicating an irregular missile had punctured Governor Connally's wrist.

Do you really think Salandria considered the above a "sidelight" to the SBT?" I'm talking about Salandria, not what you (or I) think.

I think the mid-70's Vincent Salandria would have regarded this as un-necessary "micro-analyzing."

And getting back to what I said at the top of this post, and your response: How about I take everything Salandria wrote about the missile holes in the article you referenced and compare it to everything he wrote in the same article about Connally's wounds and see just how much significance he allowed to the latter?

He and Fonzi both learned to confront Warren defenders with the clothing evidence alone, refining the core case for conspiracy to its state of sublime simplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clothing evidence best represents the T3 back wound. It "goes to the core of the case," after all.

Only in La La land...

You have a big problem cliff, your "clothing evidence" is full of holes since we know beyond all doubt that there was 3+ Inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Towner, Croft and Betzner.

You show your complete incompetence when you locate the intersection of the the shadow cast by the left corner of the fold on JFK's jacket with the natural shadow line cast by the shape of JFK's shoulder and call it an "indentation" In short, your claim is a physical impossibility. You have proven you don't even understand how the sun works....Totally incompetent on your part.

It's game, set and match cliff.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong title...should be Varnell's incompetence....

Thanks for posting that cliff. It shows your complete incompetence and your inability to understand how the sun works. In addition you proved the fold stayed the same on Main, Houston and Elm. Thanks for disproving your own weak case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, I knew it was a mistake to ever make a comment on this thread in the first place. The discussion between us has (d)evolved far from

what I originally intended and I find myself arguing things with you that I do not want to argue. The fault is mine.

At first, I felt the urge to reply specifically to some of the things you wrote in your last post, but the format made it too difficult for me. I do not want to choose

a different colored font in order to preserve my comment, then your comment, then my comment about your comment about my comment. It's just too tedious.

Instead, I am going to try and reframe our discussion, if only briefly, by trying to focus on the things we agree on to some extent. I agree with you and I agree with

Vince Salandria about the fact that there is no need to micro-analyze the evidence in order to conclude that there was a conspiracy to murder the President.

I agree with you and Salandria (and many others of course) that it was the national security state.

In this thread, I never argued what I thought the evidence means, only what I thought Salandria believed the evidence meant. I did so by putting my interpretation on some

of the things he said and wrote.

Our discussion became a battle of excerpts and nuances of words. Largely a waste of time for both of us.

I think that on this forum I generally refrain from discussing the evidence in terms of what I personally believe, but more often in terms of what someone else has said or written about it.

As a kid I felt certain there was a conspiracy when Oswald vehemently proclaimed he was a patsy. His purported and inexplicable actions after escaping Dealey Plaza and his unlikely

capture made no sense. The rush to judgment by the Dallas police was understandable, but the failure of our nation's newspapers and television to pursue the most elementary questions

seemed ominous to my very young mind. Like so many others I saw him murdered on Sunday morning. I was struck with the immediate and sickening feeling that we were never going

to know the complete truth about Lee Oswald.

Ever since that day I have been obsessed to some extent with the mystery. All aspects of it.

Let me get back to Salandria. Although I've never met him, reading what he wrote and what others wrote about him convinces me that he is a great man. And by that I mean not just his

early and essential involvement in the JFK assassination, but in his longevity, his economic world-views, and the way he treats his friends. I think you and I can at least agree about his influence on this case.

Cliff, I concede to you that during the course of our discussion on this thread, I've downplayed the importance of the clothing evidence that Salandria felt it deserved. I think I did so in order

to counter some of the points you made that I did not agree with. I think the importance of the holes in President Kennedy's coat and shirt rank very high on the list of indisputable evidence.

You have a logical right to emphasize it. I agree that in Salandria's opinion it was at the top of the list.

But it was not only item on his list. That is my point since my initial comment. Salandria often wrote about how our government turned probability theory on its head. Loosely paraphrasing him for a moment,

if one hundred pieces of evidence point to conspiracy, and if only one of them is true, then there was a conspiracy. And all the arguments of the Oswald did it alone camp fall down like a house of cards.

It takes more than one piece of evidence to fit Salandria's model of probability theory

You say that you're "not interested in other evidence of conspiracy" (i.e. the SBT) and that any discussion of same is obfuscatory. Yet for years, I've read your thoughts on water-soluble rounds and silencers

and the like. And I'm gonna remind you, our discussion as far as I'm concerned is is not about what you are interested in. It's about what Salandria supposedly was and is interested in.

Again, no argument that to him the clothing evidence wound up being number one on his list. But what made conspiracy clear to Salandria was the response of the government to all of the

pertinent evidence. The lack of an honest investigation was what made conspiracy blatantly obvious. I believe that is what he was talking about to Fonzi.

At any rate, I would like to end this with you having the last word. If you feel like it, go ahead and chop up my sentences and insert your retorts with that distinctive #8B0000 colored font..

Cliff, based your posts here at EF, I've always liked you. In my opinion you're a witty and informed man, well-spoken for sure, appropriately irreverent, a decent and very intelligent guy.

I'm sure I'd enjoy sitting next to you at a Warriors game talking about how they stole Dorell Wright from the Heat, or at a Giants game discussing Zito's pitch count. Or maybe a cup of joe at

one of SF's java joints talking about politics,the economy, or our divergent tastes in music. I'm sure I'd laugh often and learn a few things from you. I think we would see eye to eye on a lot of things.

And our differences would be inconsequential.

All we'd have to do is stay away from micro-analyzing the JFK murder.

Anyway, as D Wade says, let me outta here. I think I hear Lamson knocking on your door. Thanks for the discussion, Cliff. Let's argue again in a couple of years.

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

The most famous article VInce ever wrote was his excellent piece in Liberation in 1965. It is the single most potent destruction of the SBT from the first generation of critics. I read it while researching my first book and I will never forget the feeling I had when reading it or where I was. (The UCLA LIbrary and they had to get the magazine from storage.)

Here it is:http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html

If you examine it you will see that you and Cliff are both wrong. The clothing evidence does not in any way dominate the essay. In fact, it is not even the major feature in the essay. Both CE 399 and the entrance--exit debate take up more space.

But if you are a Johnny one note, and you are adamant about it, you can insist, bully, and bludgeon people to death with sheer repetition.

But that does not change what is in front of you.

PS This link I think is the second part to the Salandria Liberation series. Again, the clothing evidence does not in any dominate and is not even the major piece of evidence, far from it.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/30th_Issue/vs_stw.html

Cliff linked to that exact article (his works) and quoted from it. This was my reply.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=231003

I don't think you read it.

Also Jim, please see this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=230951

I referred to your second link here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=230663

My latest post to Cliff was fairly long. When you say Cliff and I are both wrong, please afford me the courtesy of telling me exactly what I wrote that was wrong.

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

The most famous article VInce ever wrote was his excellent piece in Liberation in 1965. It is the single most potent destruction of the SBT from the first generation of critics. I read it while researching my first book and I will never forget the feeling I had when reading it or where I was. (The UCLA LIbrary and they had to get the magazine from storage.)

Here it is:http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html

If you examine it you will see that you and Cliff are both wrong. The clothing evidence does not in any way dominate the essay. In fact, it is not even the major feature in the essay. Both CE 399 and the entrance--exit debate take up more space.

Jim, how much space a topic takes up is not an accurate measurement of the topic's significance.

Such would be a reflection of a topic's complexity, not its significance.

But if you are a Johnny one note, and you are adamant about it, you can insist, bully, and bludgeon people to death with sheer repetition.

I choose to be a Johnny-One-Note when it comes to the SBT because that is all it takes to destroy it.

If you refer to re-invent the wheel every few years, go for it. But don't claim that yours is the first to roll.

I prefer to bludgeon people to death with the facts. It really isn't "death," it only feels that way when one is presented with simple, inconvenient facts they cannot refute.

And the fact is that Salandria clearly referred to the location of the back wound as evidence that "goes to the core of the case."

But that does not change what is in front of you.

PS This link I think is the second part to the Salandria Liberation series. Again, the clothing evidence does not in any dominate and is not even the major piece of evidence, far from it.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/30th_Issue/vs_stw.html

So now the T3 back wound is not a major piece of evidence according to Salandria?

Wow!

I guess he was just kidding when he wrote this, Jim?

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.

What part of "goes to the core of the case" is unclear to you, Jim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So besides the fact that Vince's articles are now more useful as historical markers than as evidence, the point Varnell was making is in error.

That's a hoot! So the case Salandria presents in his early articles didn't destroy the SBT on the basis of the evidence?

We can have that debate any time, Jim.

I would love to see you say that to Vincent Salandria's face, that the evidence he cited -- the testimony of 3 Secret Service SAs and the clothing evidence -- doesn't demolish the SBT as a matter of fact.

I would love to see you tell Salandria, the son of a tailor, that the clothing evidence is not dispositive.

The burden of proof is on YOU -- show us how custom-made shirts ride up multiple inches by waving your arm.

Show us how it's possible for multiple inches of jacket fabric, multiple inches of shirt fabric, and JFK's jacket collar to have all occupied the same physical space at the same time.

If this is not possible, the SBT is prima facie demolished and we can skip the rest of the Rabbit Hole Tour.

I mean no objective person reading those two essays could say that VInce used the clothing evidence as his dominant exhibit or even his major exhibit.

I mean no objective person can mistake Salandria's identification of the T3 back wound as evidence "that goes to the core of the case."

How this can be mistaken or misconstrued is beyond me.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

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...