Cliff Varnell

Pure hearsay: Henry Heiberger was the FBI agent who handled JFK’s clothing. Heiberger had four daughters. One of his daughters went to college with my sister. She told my sis that her Dad told her the Warren Report was a lie.

I don’t trust an FBI analysis of any of the evidence once the Magic Bullet was put into play — by the FBI. Once CE 399 was put into evidence, copper HAD to turn up.

An object lesson in the power of physical evidence in a cold case murder investigation. The WarrenCommission, The Truth, & Arlen Specter by Gaeton Fonzi https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WCTandAS.pdf <quote, italic emphasis in the original, bold added> The Warren Commission Report says the entrance wound caused by the bullet which came out Kennedy’s throat was “approximately 5-1⁄2 inches” below the back of the right ear. Yet photographs of the President’s 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 1-3⁄4 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 5 3⁄4 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 attempted to 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.” 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.” </q>

If anyone thinks I’d give up my naturally air-conditioned Haight Ashbury pad for hot-as-hell Henderson...well, there are a couple of bridges here in town I can arrange for you a real deal, since you’re in the market. I recommend the orange one.

E. Martin Schotz, from his 1998 COPA speech: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMS.html <quote on> The struggle for truth in the assassination of President Kennedy confronts us with the problem of the “waters of knowledge” versus “the waters of uncertainty.” Let me give you an example involving two important individuals who attempted to bring the truth before the American people. I am speaking of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and filmmaker Oliver Stone. Both Garrison and Stone knew that the President was the victim of a conspiracy by high level US military intelligence officials. Each in his own way tried to bring such knowledge to the attention of the American people. In the case of Oliver Stone, even before his film JFK had received its final cut there developed an unprecedented campaign of slander against Stone, that he was a madman, that he was a drunk. In the face of this attack Stone was advised to compromise and did so.[3] He backed off from telling the American people that his film was the truth, and instead claimed that his film, JFK, was “my myth.” In other words Stone said “I have my myth and you are entitled to yours. I’m not saying I know what happened here. There is uncertainty.” The instant Stone did that, the campaign of slander ended. He was again acceptable. He was invited to address Congress and was permitted to ask the government to release more information so as to help us clear up the supposed mystery. Jim Garrison’s story is different. In the face of his effort to reveal the true nature of the assassination there was a campaign to discredit him. It was claimed that he was a drug addict, that he had ties to the Mafia, that he was grandstanding and self seeking. But Garrison never backed down. And because of that, even today a noted biographer cannot get a major publisher to enter into a contract to do an honest biography of the man. He is still an outcast, a madman as far as the society is concerned. Stone agreed to drink the waters of uncertainty and society recognized him as having miraculously recovered his sanity. Garrison refused, insisting on continuing to drink the waters of knowledge, and for this he suffered accordingly. </q>

Back to the issue at hand: To what do we attribute the marked decline of conspiracy support in this century? The polls show younger people are at least as supportive of conspiracy if not more (depending on the poll). The MSM hasn’t been nearly as active in the 21st century attacking the conspiracy view, not that that had any significant impact in the 20th century. As E. Martin Schotz pointed out in ‘98, the cover-up feeds on false mysteries. The chronic naysaying regarding the back/throat wounds is key to the cover-up.

It appears the fixation is yours.

CBS poll from 2013: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-still-think-there-was-a-jfk-cover-up/ <quote on> As they have for decades, most Americans (61 percent) think others in addition to Lee Harvey Oswald were involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that has dropped significantly from 15 years ago. At the same time, 20 percent think Oswald acted on his own, up 10 points from 1998, on the 35th anniversary of President Kennedy's death. Majorities across all age groups believe others in addition to Oswald were involved in the assassination, but those ages 65 and over are most likely to think Oswald acted alone (26 percent). </q>

Great! Here’s one poll showing numbers that go “through the ceiling.” It’s always best when folks bring receipts instead of making unsupported claims. The polling on younger people belies the claims that age is a factor in the recent slow leakage of conspiracy support.

But not “through the ceiling.”

That’s not what he said. To claim the conspiracy number went “through the ceiling” is a mischaracterization of the data.

Sandy, support for Conspiracy did not “go through the ceiling” in 1991-2, it matched the highs of previous decades. Just like the Gallup data indicates. It spiked again 1998 - 2001. How many picked nits fit on the head of a pin?

As opposed to Pet Theorists on-line who do a snuff job on the facts of the case?

So you’re saying that it’s just a theory that the bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are four inches below the bottom of the collars? Promotion of false mystery has been a feature of the cover-up since 1966.

No, I said the Gallup polling showed a consistency in public opinion from 1976 to 2001. I also pointed out that the spike in conspiracy belief following the release of JFK matched highs reached twice before. Jim D. wrote: “The number of people who did not buy the WC and thought it was a conspiracy went through the ceiling in the years 1991-92 due to the film JFK.” This is an over-statement since the polling you cited shows that level of support in both the 70’s and 80’s, and spiked 6 points more in 1998. And since that did not go “through the ceiling” the claim that it did is an exaggeration.

The bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are four inches below the collars. Is that a fact, or a theory?

I haven’t seen that argument. I’m blaming the JFKA research community for ignoring historical facts — T3 back wound, throat entrance — in favor of rabbit holes like the acoustics, the NAA, the provenance of the Magic Bullet, the head wound(s), and any number of other dead ends.

Since my position is that public support for the LN ballooned in this century — as reflected in all the polls — it seems that you’re nit-picking a “gotcha.”

Gallup: One man Others involved No opinion 2001 Mar 26-28 13 81 6 1993 Nov 15-16 15 75 10 1992 Feb ^ 10 77 13 1983 Oct ^ 11 74 15 1976 Dec † 11 81 The JFK spike in the other polls matched highs reached twice earlier.

On the night of the autopsy, with the body in front of them, the autopsists seriously considered the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech round. This fact has been ignored by the US Gov’t, the Mainstream Media...and the JFKA Masterclass Critics. That’s my second beef with y’all. The first is the collective failure to reach consensus on the root facts — T3 back wound, throat entrance wound. This plays into the hands of the Cover-Up, creating a sense of false mystery surrounding cut and dried facts (e.g. The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound). E. Martin Schotz wrote a scathing critique of COPA in 1998 — still applicable, in my book. https://www.ratical.org/ratville//JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMSapp.html

As I mentioned in an earlier post, on three occasions during the 90’s I opened up the sports pages of the SF Chronicle to read that Oswald acted alone. Then I could go to the funny pages and read in Doonesbury that JFK conspiracy theorists were whackos. Since none of that sort of drive-by smearing made an impact on public opinion, it’s hard for me to see anti-9/11-inside-job coverage impacting views of the JFKA to the extent of a 20% increase in LN support.

I’m with you on 9/11 but I can’t buy the hypothesis that the anti-Inside-Job bias in trad media spills over into people’s view of the JFKA. According to the AP poll cited above, only 35% get a significant amount of their JFKA info from trad media.

Wikipedia: Conspiracy theorists often argue that there were multiple shooters—a "triangulation of crossfire"—and that the fatal shot was fired from the grassy knoll and struck Kennedy in the front of the head.[282] Individuals present in Dealey Plaza have been the subject of much speculation, including the three tramps, the umbrella man, and the purported Badge Man.[283][284][285] Conspiracy theorists argue that the autopsy and official investigations were flawed or, at worst, complicit,[286] and that witnesses to the Kennedy assassination met mysterious and suspicious deaths.[287] Conspiracy theories have been espoused by notable figures, such as L. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy, who believed that elements of the U.S. military and intelligence communities had conspired to assassinate the president.[288] Governor Connally also rejected the single-bullet theory,[289][290] and President Johnson reportedly expressed doubt regarding the Warren Commission's conclusions prior to his death.[291] According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his father believed that the Warren Report was a "shoddy piece of craftsmanship" and that John F. Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy, possibly involving Cuban exiles and the CIA.[292] Communist rulers like Castro and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev believed that Kennedy had been killed by right-wing Americans.[293] Former CIA director R. James Woolsey has argued that Oswald killed Kennedy as part of a Soviet conspiracy.[294] </q> Hardly a virulent attack. In 2013 the Associated Press and Gallup both ran JFKA polls. Gallup found a 61/30% split in favor of conspiracy. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1813/Most-Americans-Believe-Oswald-Conspired-Others-Kill-JFK.aspx The AP found a 59/24% split pro-conspiracy with 16% unsure. http://surveys.associatedpress.com/data/GfK/AP-GfK April 2013 Topline Posted FINAL_JFK.pdf The AP poll also asked: How much of what you know about the Kennedy assassination has come from each of the following sources. (Nearly all/most) Movies or fictional TV shows — 9% Newspapers, magazines, television news or websites operated by news organizations — 35% History textbooks or other non- fiction books — 37% Discussion with friends or family — 12% Blogs or websites that are not operated by news organizations — 6% Maybe they flooded JFKA newsgroups and forums with “CTs” whose job was to uphold at least one Lone Nut talking point — that the back shot transited, for instance?

JFK Revisited cites the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound. That’s two wounds in soft tissue with no exits. 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue. Why did JFK Revisited spend so much time on the Magic Bullet when it was impossible from the get-go?

Ben, how do you account for the fact that the LN scenario never garnered more than 15% approval from 1976 to 2001 — during the height of MSM support — but shot up into the low 30’s in both 2013 and 2017 when far more people followed the subject on-line?