Cliff Varnell

And the "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" would have been...?

But we don't see these two. We see one figure, correct? With a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands," according to the HSCA. Rifle? No, not a conventional rifle. A modified, silenced firearm, yes. Ike Altgens seemed to remember a policeman, or policemen, in the vicinity. As the charismatic President of the United States was driving toward them, one was more concerned with a coke bottle and the other couldn't bother to stand up and get a good look? Rosemary described this person as "conspicuous" and someone who "disappeared the next instant," which doesn't seem to match this scenario. And why wouldn't they be excited enough to stand to see the President and his lovely First Lady?

A subtle correction of Gary Mack from Rosemary Willis via the HSCA, emphasis added... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not.

Perhaps. Here's what the HSCA said: That's one long-necked bottle of soda, I'd say, but a better explanation that Mom-n-Babe or Gordon Arnold...

What she told the HSCA was that BDM happened to "disappear the next instant." If you can provide additional direct quotes of hers, please do so. Citation please. Dirt behind the concrete wall? Are you sure about that, Bill? We know Rosemary Willis was in Dealey Plaza for a fact. Do we know that Gordon Arnold was there for a fact? Please cite where he said he was behind the concrete wall in the BDM position. I wouldn't characterize her rapid head snap at Z214-217 as merely "looking back." It seems as if something specific drew her attention. And what was the "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" that is consistent with BDM being Gordon Arnold? His camera?

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention, then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him. After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby?? On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis? http://www.history-m...Vol12_0006a.htm I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this. hi cliff, i have not read of any impeaching her testimony on this f, i could have missed such though if, i believe the witnesses saw and said what they did and do not need others to put it into their words, cause they need to make it fit their theory.. i recall altgens mentions dpd in the area of the wall.......take care b... LIFTON's book, "Best Evidence." The following is from a 01NOV65 telephone conversation between LIFTON and "Associated Press photographer/news photo editor/wire photo operator, JAMES "Ike" WILLIAM ALTGENS, <QUOTE> He was friendly on the phone and mentioned quite casually that just before the motorcade came by, a number of people suddenly appeared behind the wall on the knoll. (84) He added that he thought it was an odd place to watch the parade from since the car would speed up right there as it entered the Stemmons Freeway. This was new, exciting information, but I was worried that Altgens might be confusing this recollection with his description of people on the overpass, which was mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony. But he assured me he was talking about the wall on the grassy knoll--to the right of the stairs when one faced the knoll. When I asked Altgens if there were any police among the "people" he saw, he replied, "I seem to remember that there were. (85) (84) Author's memo, 11/1/65 conversation with Altgens (85) Ibid <END QUOTE> Thank you, Bernice. Maybe these were the policeman who ticked off Phil Willis by running away from where he thought the shots were fired.

Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal... Only if one is inclined to believe it was a woman holding baby, a conclusion which assumes both Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 got it wrong. For those who hold to the possibility it was, indeed, a woman holding a baby, then on what basis are Rosemary's statement and the HSCA analysis impeached? I don't see where she indicates anything about the person disappearing after the headshot. Her rapid headsnap occurs Z214-217, and the only activity on the knoll she described was BDM disappearing "the next instant." With a shot to the throat at Z190 and BDM disappearing about a second later with a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" seems to me to make a compelling case for BDM as a shooter, although certainly not conclusive. Fair enough. It could be a coincidence that someone who went to see Kennedy holding a very distinct straight-line feature in their hands decided to disappear about a second after the guy they came to see was shot in the throat. Stationary for how long? There was less than a second between Betnzer 3 and Willis 5. None of this occurred during the time frame in question, did it? Rosemary started running west as the limo turned onto Elm Street and she told the HSCA she saw two "conspicuous people", Umbrella Man and Black Dog Man. Her description of UM matches Louis Witt's descriptions of his actions -- he was pre-occupied with the umbrella. Although she doesn't say exactly when "the next instant" of BDM's sudden disappearance occurred, her rapid head snap was drawn by something that occurred to her left, and BDM's absence from any other photos is consistent with his disappearing about the same time as her head snap. Wasn't she a bit pre-occupied with Abe during the time in question? If you were going to see the President of the United States in a motorcade why would you disappear just as the limo was approaching your position? And is a coke bottle a "very distinct straight-line feature"? If he were shooting a standard round, that would be less likely, perhaps, but the nature of the throat wound is consistent with non-conventional weaponry, seems to me. And it doesn't appear as if JFK were reacting to a conventional bullet strike. One more intriguing thing Rosemary Willis said to the HSCA: Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. She gave no information on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset when the policeman in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots came from; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll. It would have taken a big dose of suicidal bravery for anyone to directly accuse a cop of shooting Kennedy, seems to me. I'm not saying that it is a fact that BDM was a shooter, but that could be a reasonable conclusion that fits the extant evidence better than the other explanations that are kicked around.

Gil Thanks for taking the time .Bookmarking it now. Ian Gil, "Was JFK trying to cough up a bullet?" is one of the most important pieces of "internet-era" research, in my opinion. I'm glad to see it's still available...

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention, then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him. After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby?? On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

Monk, I think the answer to that question can be found in the Operation Northwoods documents brought to light by James Bamford in Body of Secrets. From pg 84 of that book, emphasis added: According to the Operation Northwoods playbook "irrevocable proof that the fault lies with the Communists" was the necessary pretext for an invasion of Cuba. When Oswald was captured alive the "irrevocable proof" vanished. Within a couple of hours the Yankee blue-bloods pulled the plug on any Castro frame-up. Thanks for reviving the thread, btw. I've done some work on this that may take another ten years to finish...

Well, I guess we could consider what Rosemary Willis said about BDM. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm She described him as a "conspicuous" individual who happened to "disappear the next instant." We might be able to pin down exactly when that "instant" was by her rapid head turn Z214-217 as per Don Roberdeau's analysis: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394 And then there is the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 (see History Matters page cited above) in which they identified a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands." Those who like to promote the woman-holding-a-baby theory pretend that none of the above exists. Unless the baby was the very distinct straight line feature?

I would speculate that the three tramps and/or Jack Lawrence were patsies-in-waiting.

Thanks Michael. I've read that artcile before but I don't seem to remember the stuff about a fragment coming out the throat being in there. I'll check it again... I think Jim meant the theory proposed by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas. Cranor posits a possibility that the back wound was an exit, but that presents a world of trajectory problems all its own.

And so everyone who reported the wound as an entrance got it wrong and JFK reacted to this wound in his throat 6 seconds before it occured? That dog not only doesn't hunt, it never suckled a mothers' teat.

Short shot, okay. But the neck wound resulting from a fragment? No way. The wound was an entrance, for one, and how was it that JFK was reacting to a wound in his throat 6 seconds before that fragment could have exited? Which is? Agreed. But I divide the medical evidence into two categories, which for me explains a great deal about what happened to JFK. There is evidence that was properly prepared according to the prevailing professional protocols: the autopsy face sheet diagram, Burkley's death certificate, the contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors describing the throat entrance wound, the FBI autopsy report. There is evidence that was NOT prepared according to proper professional protocols: the final autopsy report, the measurements recorded in pen on the autopsy face sheet, the autopsy photographs. In regard to the x-rays, I dismiss the head x-rays because of the conflicts with the witness testimonies, and the note in the FBI autopsy report of surgery to the head area. I accept the neck x-ray as genuine, or at least have no reason to suspect it is not.

Factually incorrect. There are three possibilities: 1) The rounds which created the back and throat wounds remained in the body, indicating fakery of the neck x-ray and the incompetence of the autopsists (the least likely, in my view). 2) The rounds which created the back and throat wounds were removed prior to the autopsy (unlikely, in my view). 3) The suspicion held by the prosectors upon completion of the autopsy that JFK was hit with rounds which "dissolve after contact" was right on the money (highly likely, in my view). Given JFK's provable T3 back wound the SBT is impossible, period.

Better go tell those CTers who believe in a massive "Oswald Frame-Up" that they've got it all wrong then, Cliff. Oh, Oswald was framed, all right. But the ultimate target of the frame was Fidel Castro. Oswald was a little patsy. As to the substance of Jim's question, I hesitate to speculate.

Care to demonstrate how a tucked in custom made dress shirt rides up the 2+ inches required by the SBT? Care to explain how more than a dozen witnesses put the back wound in the vicinity of the bullet holes in the clothes? Did everyone who saw JFK's wounds suffer an identical hallucination, David? And don't go running for the skirts of Bugliosi, he can't address this subject any more than you can. As for the cover-up of the JFK assassination, it was formulated in Washington DC the afternoon of the murder and phoned into LBJ while he was still flying in from Dallas. LBJ was an employee who did the job assigned him.

No kidding. Just ask Don Adams. He's got eleven shots being fired from God knows how many guns. And Bob Groden is almost as bad. Bob has 8 to 10 shots being fired from at least 3 or 4 locations. I think a better question for the conspiracy theorists who think LHO was set up and framed as a lone patsy would be: WHY would any of the conspirators have even WANTED to risk the whole "patsy" ballgame by utilizing two, three, or four gunmen in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Because the assassination was designed to look like a conspiracy, imo. A Castro conspiracy. If Oswald had been gunned down soon after Kennedy then a (phony) hunt would have been on for his accomplices (or so I speculate), but because he was captured alive that option had to be immediately dropped.

My best guess: the three tramps. Charles V. Harrelson had "patsy" written all over him, imo.

The sarcasm dripping from Rose Kennedy's voice on that tape could eat through steel. Wait a minute. What are you saying, here ? That there was no love lost between LBJ and the Kennedys. Google "JFK LBJ animosity" and see what you get. For instance: http://books.google.com/books?id=yNj0mPk6AH0C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=jfk+lbj+animosity&source=bl&ots=vcaLn7EmIC&sig=sTrLodyegxDwmezUwo7HJjRGa2I&hl=en&ei=EeSPTMrILoT2tgOmqaiyDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jfk%20lbj%20animosity&f=false This is not a shock. I'm not in the "Johnson did it" camp. Johnson was an employee of the perps, nothing more. I'm in the "Texas oil did it in cahoots with Yankee blue-bloods" camp. I'll leave the fact twisting to you and your nutter cohorts, FC. Do your homework. Your ignorance of American political history is immaculate.

The sarcasm dripping from Rose Kennedy's voice on that tape could eat through steel.

That didn't take long. The back wound was too low for a single shooter. Period.

Hi Michael, This is to continue our discussion on the Bugliosi/Von Pein/CTKA thread. Michael, I'm curious as to what you regard as "significant evidentiary grounds," other than the throat entrance wound and the low back wound. Is CE-399 relevant to the Single Bullet Fallacy? Yes, but I'll argue that it is not significant. And the NAA is a total waste of time, or so I'll argue going forward. So other than the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound...what do you deem "significant" in regards to the debunking of the SBF? Cliff, I'll catch up with you on another thread. To me, this one is more about Vince Bugliosi, David Von Pein, and Jim DiEugenio (CTKA) and their arguments about what the record does and doesn't show. I will say this: In my opinion you repeatedly act as if you are the only one to have figured out this case on three levels: operationally, forensically, and politically. That would be a serious mis-impression on my part, Michael. I do think the historical record is fairly clear on all three levels, but I'm not the one who figured this out. Vincent Salandria figured it out decades ago. I think a distinction needs to be drawn between what can be established as a fact and what is an arguable likelihood. I would sincerely like your assessment of what "extraodinary claims" I have made in regards to matters of fact, as opposed to extraordinary claims I make as to what is arguable. Since the only reference to blood soluble rounds appears in S & O's HSCA depositions it should almost go without saying that most of what the FBI men say doesn't support that conclusion. But the fact remains that that was what they swore to under oath. The reason Sibert called the FBI lab was to inquire about a type of bullet which "dissolved after contact." That is not an "extraordinary" claim of mine, Michael. Done. We've had amicable discussions before, and I don't see why that should change. I am sincerely interested in, and have utmost respect for, what you have to say on these issues. There are a handful of people who acknowledge the prima facie case for conspiracy. Here is a quote from a private e-mail sent to me by Jim Marrs and posted with his permission: I would include in the category of "meaningless controversy" such subjects as CE-399, the NAA, the acoustics evidence, and the head wound evidence. Michael, you have quoted Vincent Salandria yourself cautioning against micro-analyzing the evidence. I am not alone in my position.

Whats that have to do with anything? Dean, There are no legal consequences lying to an author. There are legal consequences lying to government investigators. All things being equal, speaking in general, testimony taken under threat of perjury charges trumps testimony given informally. I must respectfully disagree, my friend. Rosemary Willis corroborates Witt. Louis Witt to the HSCA: From "The Presence of a Possible Gunman on the Grassy Knoll," HSCA: The accounts match, no? Everyone wants to hang Witt because he got his umbrella up in time to see JFK but this assumes that Witt would immediately locate JFK and the limo and that is an unfortunate assumption, imo. Just because Witt got the umbrella up in time to see JFK doesn't guarantee Witt visually picked JFK up instantaneously. Sitzman was busy at Z190 with Zapruder, and given the fact she was not immediately watching the area behind the concrete wall it's safe to say she may have got it wrong. I've read somewhere where Sitzman made some claim about a cop behind the wall, but I don't have a cite for it and can't vouch for it.