Cliff Varnell

Savvy it is! I hope Mr. Bleau cites the clothing evidence at his Lancer presentation.

Excellent video! Micah, I bailed out on that website several years ago. I used to invite people to turn their head to the right, glance down at the top of their right shoulder, raise and wave their right arm, observe the shirt fabric INDENT. With parsimony as my North Star, now I invite people to observe the visible shirt collar behind JFK’s neck in Dealey Plaza photos. JFK’s jacket collar was in a normal position, counterfeiting the claim the shirt and jacket were severely bunched up as required by the SBT.

I’d enjoy buying my friend Cory lunch but Mr. Bleau (or somebody!) has to cite the clothing evidence at a conference or event commemorating the 60th.

I stand corrected.

Absolutely. I contribute every fund drive. I have some technical issues plaguing me at the moment, but I'll get through it...

Excellent! I’ll contribute $100 to the Ed Forum! Wonderful news. I don’t like to be cynical all the time around here. Good show!

Apparently not. Not a word about the actual physical evidence. No wonder DiEugenio likes this guy.

From Episode 15: <quote on> So far we’ve talked about the President’s throat wound, and back — or back of the neck wound depending on your JFK assassination worldview. </q> Depending on your worldview? The bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars. Dealey Plaza photos/films show a normal amount of shirt collar visible behind his neck. The jacket collar was, therefore, in a normal position resting at the base of his neck, or immediately above it. What kind of “worldview” posits 3 inches of shirt and 3 inches of jacket elevating above a wound at the back of the neck without pushing up on the collar at the base of the neck? Does Crumpton ever address this issue?

Michael Hogan

I’ll take it as a No. Jim DiEugenio wrote 6 hours of Oliver Stone documentary and never mentioned the physical evidence, the bullet defects in JFK’s clothes. He wrote a eulogy for Vincent Salandria and never mentioned Salandria’s long-time emphasis on the clothing evidence. So of course the evidence that choked up Arlen Specter doesn’t rank as a ”Chokehold.” Academic Malpractice. Never bring troubling questions to a gun fight.

As Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria taught some of us — the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. Why do so many insist on making the case for conspiracy more complex than that? No one can build a career or monetize just repeating G & V. Chokeholds!

Bill, you’ve persuaded me on the latter point. However, the “other ways” of establishing Conspiracy are vastly inferior to the physical evidence, to the point of counter-productivity. In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing defects and Specter suffered a nervous breakdown. It never got better than that.

Fair enough. Only? Let’s go with impossible. The bullet holes in the clothes are too low.

Smarts are one thing. Savvy is another. We shall see.

Agreed. Like any cold case murder where the remains cannot be accessed, a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered with the body is the highest priority. The bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. This establishes the fact that JFK suffered shallow soft tissue wounds in his back and throat with no exits — shots from two different directions, therefore conspiracy. Oswald is accused of shooting Kennedy with 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds — but 6.5mm FMJ don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue. Isn’t that enough to establish Oswald’s innocence?

How does the Landis bullet associate with the back wound, other than the requirements of your pet theory? How would Landis know if the round were planted or not? You assume the truth of your pet theory. I don’t have “divine insights” — I have ear witness testimonies, eye witness testimonies, photographs, the Zfilm and physical evidence. According to your pet theory JFK was hit in the back with a hunk of metal that damaged no organs — and for 6 seconds he didn’t say a word. He had time to warn the others, or duck down. But instead he reacted to a strike in his upper back by balling his fists in front of his throat and remaining mute. What a crock!

After the introduction of CE399 the FBI Lab was not credible. When their accounts are corroborated by ear witnesses, eye witnesses, photographs/film, physical evidence (see Bennett, Glen).

You’re a bit short of an event.

If the clothing evidence-as-proof-of-Conspiracy is cited at any conference or event relating to the 60th anniversary I’ll take you to lunch, Cory. Don’t get your hopes up.

I’ll donate $100 to the Ed Forum if this book cites the clothing evidence as proof of conspiracy.

Fonzi and Salandria provided the template for a positive assertion of conspiracy — the bullet holes in the clothes too low. The “problem” with this is it counterfeits the Answer the Question of Conspiracy Parlor Game. Game players commonly ignore/dispute the clothing holes/T3 back wound to keep their pet theories relevant.

JFK had two soft tissue wounds with no exits. 6.5mm FMJ don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue. Therefore, Oswald could not have shot JFK with the rifle ascribed to him. Why does proving Oswald’s innocence have to be more complicated than that?

Asking troubling questions = pimping False Mystery.

Since these devices were produced to fill specific operational needs, I dare say you’re in no position to discount them on the basis of a wound’s appearance. But there is evidence that the devices were custom built according to need. A heavier round would be expected when firing in a windy environment. And you fail to take into consideration the physical environment in which such a weapon was used. A round traveling thru 100 yards of swirling wind would have to be heavier, no? Two shallow wounds in soft tissue are inconsistent with conventional firearms. Two wounds of entrance with no exits and no rounds present in the body are consistent with a high tech strike.

This makes no sense to me at all. Why ask questions when a positive assertion of fact is all that is required to prove conspiracy? The bullet holes in the back of JFK’s clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria showed how to “chokehold” lone nutters — Fonzi rubbed Specter’s nose in the bullet holes and Arlen had a nervous breakdown. I’m curious — when was the last time the clothing defects were mentioned at a JFKA Conference? COPA in 1998? What cold case murder investigation doesn’t start off with a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered from the victim? The JFKA. History’s most incompetently investigated murder.