Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

And the 3 of us appear to be in the minority on this issue. I think this is due to the fascinating details of the assassination and the vagaries of human nature: people don't want to hear that there was an open and shut case for conspiracy back in 64/65 because then they can't play the "Let's Prove Conspiracy!" parlor game with the same gusto.

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've enjoyed it thoroughly, Mike! I think all our discussions are great!

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.

But I'm not discussing the throat wound evidence (the water soluble rounds) as a "proof of conspiracy." The only "proof of conspiracy" I ever discuss is the T3 back wound. After that its a matter of building a case against specific suspects for specific crimes.

For instance, the provenance of CE 399 is an important topic because it sheds light on criminal activity in a government bureau, not because it debunks the SBT. CE399 tells us nothing about how JFK was killed, but tells us a lot about how the crime was covered-up.

There are a lot of topics that are matters of the cover-up, not the killing, such as the head wounds evidence and Z-alteration. There is no point in discussing these topics as "proof of conspiracy" since the subject has already been settled, but they are important issues relating to obstruction of justice on the part of USG employees.

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.

Your kinds words are deeply appreciated, Mike. Discussing the case with you is never a waste of time!

I only micro-analyze USG complicity in the matter, and we can do that any time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff:

You are simply wrong here and you cannot bring yourself to admit it. And Mike was wrong not to call you out for it.

....For you to make that argument at all shows nothing but unbelievable bias on your part. If you go ahead and quantify the word count in both essays, VInce relies on the clothing evidence for less than five per cent of his overall argument. Probably less. In fact, in the first part, he clearly relies on the eyewitness testimony--of people like Bennett-- more, and also on CE 399 more. In the second half, the clothing is virtually not there.

So what the heck is this argument about? You and your own personal obsession?

Mike was being way too kind to you by granting you any authenticity to your fundamental thesis. It is simply and flatly wrong. So wrong that if VInce would have LEFT OUT the clothing evidence, that two part essay would have suffered negligible damage.

......So, let us never forget the contributions of the old, but let us use the new and more efficient and effective discoveries. Onward into the future, not the past.

Please Jim .Have you read the posts of mine that I linked? It is wrong of you to say I did not call Cliff out on his claim(s). What you are saying about Bennett and CE399 -- I most definitely addressed that and more. I argued with Cliff every step of the way.

The only point I conceded to Cliff is the relative importance to Salandria about the meaning of the clothing evidence. When I have time, I will post more on that. I never said that the other evidence was not important to Salandria; in fact I have

repeatedly claimed and demonstrated that it was. That was the gist of my arguments with Cliff.

Unless you tell me differently, I can only presume you didn't read my prior posts. Because you don't acknowledge them at all.

You wrote: "For you to say to Cliff that he is right in saying that the clothing evidence was predominant in VInce's destruction of the SBT, that is wrong. And that is what you said above."

I do not think that is what I wrote. It would make it easier for me if you would quote me.

Jim, please take a few minutes to quote the things I wrote that were wrong. That is the only way I can respond accurately to your charges.

PS) I have one more bone to pick with Cliff, but I promised him the last word. So unless he grants me privilege, I will keep my promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My usual burgundy

Cliff:

You are simply wrong here and you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Salandria referred to the T3 back wound as evidence which "goes to the core of the case".

Anyone can read his words. How many times do I have to cite them?

Tell me, is this what you call getting bludgeoned to death?

From the Liberation article, emphasis added:

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.

The Warren Commission had to recognize that a bullet in the back 5 3/4 inches below the top of the shirt which did not exit, would end the lone assassin theory.
For, if this bullet did not exit, the front neck wound constitutes a separate entry from the front. To add one bullet is to add one gunman, who cannot have fired from the Texas Book Depository Building. One gunman cannot be in more than one place at the one time.

An attempt was made to refute the evidence of the three Special Agents who stuck to the truth as they had seen it. The Warren Commission, trying to rebut this impressive evidence, hit rocks which caused its integrity to founder forever on the shoals of self-contradictory exhibits and finally fabrication and withholding evidence. Having made these charges, we will proceed to prove each of them.

The T3 back wound is clearly proven in the above, and Salandria clearly refers to it as evidence that "goes to the core of the case."

Who's harder in denial on this subject, Jim DiEugenio or Craig Lamson?

And Mike was wrong not to call you out for it.

I think Mike's grasp of Salandria's work is superior to yours, with all due respect.

I read Vince's articles many years ago when I was writing my first book.

I then reread the first one when I read the Schotz book, since Marty excerpted it there. My memory was that VInce did not rely on the clothing evidence to justify his argument.

Your memory is suspect on this issue.

You do a lot of great work, Jim. I think you're one of the best writers going in the entire field.

But on the question of -- what is the most effective "proof of conspiracy"? -- I will argue you are dead wrong.

It was just one part of many, and not a major one.

Absurd. A more fundamental mis-reading cannot be imagined.

By the end of 1966 the clothing evidence was the only point of evidence Salandria cited to demolish the SBT, as in his debate with the Warren defenders in Boston.

All Gaeton Fonzi had to do to officially demolish the SBT was walk into Arlen Specter's office in 1966 and rub the clothing evidence in Specter's face.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

So I did not know what your argument with Mike was all about, or why Mike was qualifying his answers as he was.

And why he ended up even halfway granting you that point.

So I went back and looked up both essays.

For you to make that argument at all shows nothing but unbelievable bias on your part. If you go ahead and quantify the word count in both essays, VInce relies on the clothing evidence for less than five per cent of his overall argument. Probably less.

You don't count the words to grasp significance, Jim. Salandria lays it out right there.

What part of the following do you have trouble wrapping your head around?

The Warren Commission had to recognize that a bullet in the back 5 3/4 inches below the top of the shirt which did not exit, would end the lone assassin theory.

Bingo! Case closed. Discussion over. The T3 back wound puts the end to lone assassin theory and Jim DiEugenio can move on to charging the FBI Lab with obstruction of justice, a productive area of research.

As proof against the SBT -- face it, CE399 is a rabbit hole.

In fact, in the first part, he clearly relies on the eyewitness testimony--of people like Bennett-- more, and also on CE 399 more.

Salandria presented the testimony of Bennett et al in conjunction with the clothing evidence to put the back wound at T3.

Testimony + clothing evidence = T3 back wound.

Very simple. In subsequent discussions Salandria clearly put the clothing evidence first.

In the second half, the clothing is virtually not there.

And that's why we call it a subtext. Salandria used the T3 back wound to establish the "core of the case" and then argued the rest of the evidence in order to indict the Warren Commission and the FBI for obstruction of justice.

The significance of the T3 back wound -- its place at the core of Salandria's case -- couldn't be more clear.

An attempt was made to refute the evidence of the three Special Agents who stuck to the truth as they had seen it. The Warren Commission, trying to rebut this impressive evidence, hit rocks which caused its integrity to founder forever on the shoals of self-contradictory exhibits and finally fabrication and withholding evidence. Having made these charges, we will proceed to prove each of them.

Seems like a reasonable approach to the case. First, establish the fact of conspiracy, and then given this fact investigate the obvious obstruction and corruption by employees of the USG.

So what the heck is this argument about?

The impression you appear to labor under that the SBT survived the first critical assault by Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi back in 65/66.

You and your own personal obsession?

If you need to believe that, go for it. The T3 back wound is the prima facie case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK. I enjoy defending that fact against those who attempt to obscure it.

Mike was being way too kind to you by granting you any authenticity to your fundamental thesis. It is simply and flatly wrong. So wrong that if VInce would have LEFT OUT the clothing evidence, that two part essay would have suffered negligible damage.

But that's not what Vince did. Following publication of that article Salandria went to publicly debate the case with some Warren defenders armed with a shirt and jacket. It was like throwing garlic to a vampire.

And by the way, as I said, VInce's work today is primarily an historical marker. Almost no one uses it to demolish the SBF.

Fonzi did in 1966. Shut Arlen Specter right up. Just like I shut David Von Pein right up when he realized that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, over on the Denier's thread.

But you're right. When I came into the discussion in 1997 I couldn't understand why it was that very few outside of Salandria, Fonzi, and Jim Marrs cited the clothing evidence.

As I mentioned earlier, I attribute this to the over-weening desire on the part of many to play the "Let's Prove Conspiracy!" parlor game as if it meant something.

Simply because so many people have found new and better and more efficient ways to do that.

This is an egregious and provable mis-statement of fact. Fonzi took less than a minute to make a fool out of Arlen Specter.

People like Cranor,

Can she demonstrate her case to a 6 year old in less than a minute?

Nichols, Mantik,

Mantik? Brilliant. Micro-analyzed a wound that never existed, calling it "Cause for Doubt." What an utter, total joke. Sheep in wolves clothing, indeed.

the myriad discoveries of the ARRB in Horne's book, Aguilar, these people have all done such good work in exposing the SBF, that you don't need those ancient, what I call, Model T arguments anymore.

Congratulations. You and your colleagues have turned a prima facie, open-and-shut case for conspiracy into a myriad of highly technical cases, all of which require a college degree or two to verify.

You're playing right into the cover-up, as far as I'm concerned.

A six year old can verify the JFK clothing evidence. It's simplicity is what makes it superior.

I have a lot of respect for VInce. But even he will tell you that he is not a researcher anymore.

He did all the heavy lifting already as far as establishing the fact of conspiracy. You just can't bring yourself to admit it.

For instance, if you just take for example, Cranor's essay "Trajectory of a Lie" and the Nchols testimony at the Shaw trial, the SBF is gone. Why? Because her essay shows that Lattimer and Baden etc all lied about the shape of Connally's back wound in order to make it appear the bullet was tumbling. The actual mesaurements show it was not. Now, if you combine that with the Nichols testimony, this shows that the cervical vertebra were not hit. And they had to be if you use the WC measurements. Presto!

And this is your idea of "efficient" evidence? Please sit a 6 year old down and get them to understand it.

No, Jim. This is "efficient evidence":

JFK leaning forward to talk to Nellie C on Houston St.

jfk03nixA.jpg

jfk01nixA.jpg

JFK then leaned back and his jacket collar dropped to a normal position just above the base of his neck. There was obviously no "clothing bunch" above the base of the neck or the jacket collar could not fall.

A 6 year can get this.

RIght there, the bullet that hit Connally was a separate bullet which did not go through JFK. And we can forget all these endless arguments about Z frames, and how far a shirt will rise, and what position JFK's hands were in, and Croft and Betzer, and Houston Street vs. Elm street, and light rays off the shoulder, and how much bunching is here vs. there, and where JFK bought his shirts, and how much slack there is in a custom shirt (which you turned out to be wrong about), and the fit his jacket was, etc etc etc, ad nauseum until the end of our lives.

I mean please.

Your approach to the clothing evidence is the same as Gary Mack's. It doesn't matter how absurd a claim about the clothing evidence may be -- as long as someone is making some kind of noise about it then the issue is in dispute, according to you and Gary.

Craig Lamson et all claim that multiple inches of jacket fabric, multiple inches of shirt fabric, and JFK's un-tied down jacket collar all occupied the same physical space at the same time.

This is prima facie impossible. But you and Gary Mack regard this argument as valid!

Says more about you and Gary Mack than it does about the evidence in a murder case.

Now if you use the other evidence on top of Cranor and Nichols, that is Aguilar-Thompson-Hunt on the planting of CE 399, which we can now prove today, and Harris' new work on the JBC bullet, well Christ, its a slam dunk.

Or you can skip the Rabbit Hole Tour and all the expert analyses and simply point out that disparate, concrete objects don't occupy the same physical space at the same time.

Something a 6 year old readily understands.

So, let us never forget the contributions of the old, but let us use the new and more efficient and effective discoveries. Onward into the future, not the past.

You evidently don't grasp the contributions of "the old."

"The old" settled the fact of conspiracy, and we can go from the T3 back wound to the White House Situation Room and investigate the people who covered up the crime and investigate those surrounding the sheep dipping of Oswald as an agent of Fidel.

By bouncing the rubble with your "new and improved proofs of conspiracy" it is you -- Jim DiEugenio -- who is looking into the past and, from many inferior positions, re-fighting battles won long ago.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff,

Don't you realize that trying to "talk sense" to Jimbo is like talking to a really thick brick wall, especially when what you're saying is counter to his "world view'? My suggestion: Give it up.

--Tommy

edited in the interest of conserving bandwidth

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS) I have one more bone to pick with Cliff, but I promised him the last word. So unless he grants me privilege, I will keep my promise.

Mike, by all means. Fire away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff:

I read the first part of your reply.

That was it.

Of course. You make claims you can't back up, so you bail.

Typical of those who attempt to obfuscate the prima facie case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

You are now shifting ground away from your original "primacy of the shirt evidence" to the location of the back wound.

I would too. Nice tactical retreat.

The T3 back wound and the clothing evidence are the same thing.

You read Salandria with zero comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH:

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.

This is what I am talking about.

In reading those two essays the above statement is simply wrong.

VInce does not begin with this as his lead exhibit and he does not end with it either.

No, he clearly describes the back wound evidence -- 3 SS SA testimonies + the clothing evidence -- as that which "goes to the core of the case."

And he does not trumpet it as his ace card. That is a Varnell creation, clear and simple.

Ask the man. Surely you have contact information. Ask Vincent Salandria what's the single most efficient argument against the SBT.

Go ahead, Jim. Make my day.

VInce uses the clothing evidence as simply one exhibit among many to prove his argument of multiple shooters.

An egregious mis-statement of fact.

It is not at the "top of the list" by any means to any objective person, which Varnell is not.

Any objective person understands what "goes to the core of the case" means.

So Mike, this point should have never been granted. SInce it is not present in the two essays. Although I can understand you wanting to get out of this any way you can. Because its quite clear that Cliff does have an irrational obsession. I mean to misrepresent those two essays as he did?

I will now exit since I do not want to be endlessly burgundized.

You don't want to get called on your myriad mis-statements of fact. Can't say I blame you.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is complete BS on your part.

VInce begins his arguement for the low location of the back wound, NOT WITH THE CLOTHING EVIDENCE!

Same thing. No difference between the clothing evidence and the low back wound.

Exact. Same. Thing.

But with the eyewitness testimony. That is an absolute fact. Which you have to ignore.

I ignore nothing. The testimony of the witnesses and the clothing defects are perfectly consistent with a T3 back wound.

Here it is:

In this article we will analyze the Warren Commission's following crucial conclusion:

President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck...

Such is the conclusion of the Commission. It is our purpose to analyze the evidence which the governmental inquiry used to support this conclusion. We will delve into the source or sources of the shot or shots which inflicted the first wounds on the President. By examining these wounds we hope to shed light on the direction or directions from which the shots came. Such an exploration will, needless to say, provide valuable information on the question of the number of shots fired into the President. Our study will also help us decide the vantage point or points of the assassin or assassins on November 22nd, 1963.

First let us attend most carefully to the source or sources of the shot or shots which caused the wounds in question, i.e. the back and neck wounds of the President. The reader will recall that the Commission concluded three shots were fired. It decided that all the shots were fired from "above and behind the Presidential limousine" (W-14). Our task can be simply defined as an analysis of the evidence offered by the Commission to determine whether such evidence supports the Commission's conclusions relative to the back and neck wounds of the President. All of the evidence discussed herein is derived from the Warren Report and its supporting notes of testimony and exhibits. Not a scrap of it comes from any outside source.

The first evidence of a back wound came from Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, stationed at the time in the right rear seat of the President's followup car,

who heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. At that moment, Agent Bennett stated: "...I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear of the President's head." (W-111)

According to Bennett, the second shot hit "about four inches down from the right shoulder." His testimony indicated that the first bullet did one of two things: either missed, or hit the President at a point which Bennett did not or could not see from his position in the followup car.

And from here, VInce goes into THE DIRECTION the shots came from and evidence of two origin points. In other words, he thought so much of the clothing evidence that it is not even close to being his lead exhibit.

No, from Bennett's testimony Salandria goes to the clothing evidence to establish the T3 back wound.

You're separating the clothing evidence from the witness testimony of the T3 back wound, which is absurd.

Salandria clearly cites the two in conjunction.

What part of this can't you follow, Jim?

Why don't you tell everyone when VInce actaually gets to the clothing evidence? Its quite a ways down isn't it?

That's not the point. It's what Salandria says about the T3 back wound going to "the core of the case" where the significance of this evidence is clearly outlined.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here is the part of the essay that Varnell trumpets as his ace card, the so-called clothign evidence as the core of the case:

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.

As anyone can see, its not just the shirt that goes to the core of the case.

As anyone who has read my posts on this thread can see, I'm arguing for the T3 back wound indicated by the clothing holes and the witness testimony.

The fact of the T3 back wound goes to the core of the case. By separating the hard physical evidence -- the clothing holes -- from the witness testimony, you do dis-service to Salandria's argument. To say the least.

Its the testimony of three witnesses PLUS the shirt. TO say its the clothing it to mischaracterize what VInce is writing.

The subject is the T3 back wound. The clothing holes are the most direct evidence of such.

Any attempt to separate the clothing evidence from the T3 back wound is nothing but rhetorical vapor.

But further, and this is the real point, that is about it for the clothing evidence in this rather long essay. VInce alludes to it a bit more right after this, but that is about all. In the second part he uses it even less!

Yes, for any well-grounded researcher the fact of conspiracy is a subtext to their analyses, not the context.

The context is USG complicity in the murder and cover-up.

So please CLiff, do not say I don't have the ammo to back up exactly what I am saying.

You've got nothin'. Salandria clearly describes the T3 back wound as going "to the core of the case," your vaporous non-arguments to the contrary.

And his work in late-1966 involved only the clothing evidence as a rebuttal to the SBT.

I do and have done it. What I don't want to do is get in one of these endless and pointless arguments with you. Like Mike said, he made a mistake entering it in the first place.

Of course you're done with it. When all you can argue is word counts -- instead of what the words actually say -- you don't have any business in this discussion, frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CV

"No, from Bennett's testimony Salandria goes to the clothing evidence to establish the T3 back wound."

Not so.

In my second excerpt I went ahead and showed where VInce went into the clothing testimony of Frazier. It was not after Bennett. It was after his recap of Bennet, Hill and Kellerman, just as I quoted above.

Split hairs much, Jim? Salandria cited the 3 SS guys and combined their testimony with the clothing evidence and thus debunked the SBT.

At the beginning of the essay after dwelling on Bennett's testimony he goes into directionality and features Perry and the tracheotomy. Here is the proof:

According to Bennett, the second shot hit "about four inches down from the right shoulder." His testimony indicated that the first bullet did one of two things: either missed, or hit the President at a point which Bennett did not or could not see from his position in the followup car.

His testimony gives rise to the following question:

Bingo! Yes, once we establish the T3 back wound several important questions are raised.

But the T3-back-wound/fact-of-conspiracy is clearly established first by Salandria.

Could the President have been hit in the front of the neck by the first shot, directed from a rifle positioned in the front of the President, and then immediately thereafter struck in the back by a different missile, aimed from a weapon of an assassin posted in the Book Depository Building? Is there credible evidence to support an early hit on the President from the front? With the purpose of answering this inquiry, we must examine the wound in the President's neck.

The autopsy report was prepared at Bethesda Naval Hospital. It indicates a wound "in the low anterior cervical region" (W-541). This, in layman's terms, describes a wound in the front of the neck at the necktie knot. The Report concludes "that the bullet exited from the front portion of the President's neck that had been cut away by the tracheotomy" (W-88). Since we have adopted a view of healthy skepticism, there is no need for us to join in the Commission's conclusion that this wound was an "exit" wound. Rather, we will sift the evidence, and arrive at whatever independent conclusion the evidence directs us to.

The tracheotomy was prepared by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry of Parkland Hospital. Dr. Perry described the neck wound as "a small wound in the lower anterior third in the midline of the neck, from which blood was exuding very slowly" (VI, H-9). Dr. Perry testified that he didn't know whether this wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound (VI, H-15). Dr. Charles James Carrico likewise described the President's throat wound as "fairly round, had no jagged edges" (III, H-32).[/i]

Note the order of established fact -- first the T3 back wound, then the throat entrance wound.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff:

I read the first part of your reply.

That was it.

Here's the important part you missed:

Congratulations. You and your colleagues have turned a prima facie, open-and-shut case for conspiracy into a myriad of highly technical cases, all of which require a college degree or two to verify.

You're playing right into the cover-up, as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitting hairs?

You said he went into the clothing evidence after Bennett.

No he did not sir. And I proved it.

Do you bother to read what you cite?

He went from the testimony of Bennett, Hill and Kellerman into the clothing evidence as "material support" that "dramatically" corroborated the witness statements.

It's the T3 back wound that "goes to the core of the case" -- all your rhetorical vapor doesn't change that fact.

But the fact that he used the SS agent FIRST implies he thinks that is more important in establishing a low back wound than the clothing evidence.

The low back wound is the point. The low back wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy, a far more efficient case than anything you or Mantik ever dreamed up.

Just as I said, he then goes into the directionality of the shots. Period.

That is not splitting hairs. That is quoting the text accurately and not misrepresenting it for your own agenda.

The misrepresentations are all yours. Here's another quote you can't seem to wrap your mind around:

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.

Apparently Jim DiEugenio does think there is room for disagreement on the location of the back wound.

Whose agenda does that serve, pray tell?

Anyone who has any respect for scholarship and accuracy quotes the original text as written. Not as one wishes it to be.

The T3 back wound goes to the core of the case, Jim, whether that suits your agenda, or not.

PS: To any unfortunate souls who are still reading, please note Varnell's continued tactical retreat from Vince's "primacy of the clothing evidence for lower back wound" to four different pieces of evidence for the lower back wound. Because that is what is actually in the essay.

Yes, the point being that the back wound was at T3, a fact which destroys the single bullet scenario and excuses us from any need for further bloviating on the subject by self-elected experts.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff:

I read the first part of your reply.

That was it.

Here's the important part you missed:

Congratulations. You and your colleagues have turned a prima facie, open-and-shut case for conspiracy into a myriad of highly technical cases, all of which require a college degree or two to verify.

You're playing right into the cover-up, as far as I'm concerned.

This part is must-read, as well.

Your approach to the clothing evidence is the same as Gary Mack's. It doesn't matter how absurd a claim about the clothing evidence may be -- as long as someone is making some kind of noise about it then the issue is in dispute, according to you and Gary.

Craig Lamson et all claim that multiple inches of jacket fabric, multiple inches of shirt fabric, and JFK's un-tied down jacket collar all occupied the same physical space at the same time.

This is prima facie impossible. But you and Gary Mack regard this argument as valid!

Says more about you and Gary Mack than it does about the evidence in a murder case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As anyone can see, its not just the shirt that goes to the "core of the case". Its the testimony of three witnesses PLUS the shirt. To say its the clothing is to mischaracterize what Vince is writing.

But further, and this is the real point, that is about it for the clothing evidence in this rather long essay. VInce alludes to it a bit more right after this, but that is about all. In the second part--which is about as long-- he uses it even less!

So please CLiff, do not say I don't have the ammo to back up exactly what I am saying. I do and have done it.

What I don't want to do is get in one of these endless and pointless arguments with you. Like Mike said, he made a mistake entering it in the first place.

Jim, I addressed what Salandria wrote about the agents in one of my posts: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=231003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THat was one of your better replies Mike. And you are correct.

ANd I understand how Varnell can wear someone down. SInce he is so addicted to his own agenda.

My agenda is to defend the prima facie case for conspiracy.

What's your agenda, Jim?

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...