Cliff Varnell

Because the assassination was designed to look like a conspiracy, imo.

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.

In actuality, of course, to any reasonable person listening to the 9/18/64 LBJ/Russell phone call [linked HERE], it's quite obvious that LBJ was just as clueless about the workability and feasibility of the SBT as Goofball Richard Russell was. Neither one of them knew what they were talking about.

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.

Remember it takes more than one to have a conspiracy but there is no limit for the total number involved.

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.

Any guesess who a third patsy might have been.

Jim

My best guess: the three tramps.

Charles V. Harrelson had "patsy" written all over him, imo.

Lyndon Johnson : I wish to God there was something that I could do and I wanted to tell you that we were grieving with you.

Rose Kennedy: Yes, well thank you very much, thank you very much. I know. I know you loved Jack and he loved you.

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.

Are you trying to say that, since you hear "obvious sarcasm" in Rose Kennedy's voice, when she says that her son, John F. Kennedy, loved Lyndon Johnson, in actuality he didn't like him at all ?

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

And therefore my point is not valid.

This is not a shock.

And in fact Johnson did not like JFK and was very possibly willing to have him killed. Is that what you are saying ?

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.

Well, it very easy for you, then, to prove whatever point you have. Just twist the facts, or pretend you hear something that is not there in the first place.

I'll leave the fact twisting to you and your nutter cohorts, FC.

Do your homework.

I say you have no right to pretend that Rose Kennedy is using sarcasm here. At least you CANNOT prove it, admit it.

Your ignorance of American political history is immaculate.

Lyndon Johnson : I wish to God there was something that I could do and I wanted to tell you that we were grieving with you.

Rose Kennedy: Yes, well thank you very much, thank you very much. I know. I know you loved Jack and he loved you.

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

Hello,

This is a serious, reasonable, humble message, meant only to fuel a mature debate. I hope it will be read by those interested in thinking seriously about the Kennedy assassination. Please, no insults here....

...people who say that there was a conspiracy to eliminate President Kennedy are wrong, or, to be more blunt, spread disinformation and lie to the American public...

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.

Now, back to more significant and relevant issues...

The SBF trajectory is demonstrably impossible.

I find it curious why anyone would argue against the SBF on any other grounds.

Because there are other significant evidentiary grounds. It is important to evaluate all relevant evidence in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

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.

You make extraordinary claims, yet you select your evidence as carefully as David Von Pein selects his.

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.

I once spent the better part of the day reading all the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill and the prosectors,

as you are fond of calling them, when you were trying to make your point about soluble bullets. It was easy to

see how you ignored all that they said that did not support your claim.

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.

Please don't introduce that here on this thread.

Done.

Cliff, as I have told you in the past, I like you and respect your right to your own conclusions.

Nevertheless, I don't have a desire to explain myself to you or debate you, especially on this thread.

It would just go on forever and everywhere until I got tired and gave up, not unlike your arguments

with Lamson.

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.

If you want to look only at the trajectories and consider everything else moot about the

single bullet fabrication, that's your call. I don't see many people sharing your position

on that.

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:

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder blades, it

reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission smokescreen, namely that

he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't be misled by the claim that his jacket

was somehow bunched up because hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't

bunch up. Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is that the

single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin theory doesn't work and

therefore there has been a big cover up by the government....period.

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.

Sitzman's statement was to Tink Thompson, Rosemary spoke to HSCA investigators.

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.

Louis Witt spoke to the HSCA and lied his ass off

I must respectfully disagree, my friend.

Rosemary Willis corroborates Witt.

Louis Witt to the HSCA:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street),

somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached)

I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the

same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand

saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella)

in front of me....My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.

From "The Presence of a Possible Gunman on the Grassy Knoll," HSCA:

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

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.

Are you saying that Sitzman lied to Tink but would have told the truth to the HSCA?

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.

her testimony trumps Duncan's speculation, I'd reckon.

So her testimony trumps what Sitzman said?

Yes, because the Willis 5 photo shows a single individual; Sitzman was busy with Zapruder;

Sitzman's statement was to Tink Thompson, Rosemary spoke to HSCA investigators.

Since Rosemary's account is corroborated by the photo evidence, I'd say

her account trumps Sitzman, who wasn't paying attention to that area,

while Rosemary was running west in BDM's direction as the motorcade headed

down Elm St.

It trumps what we see in Nix?

It trumps what we see in Muchmore?

It trumps what we see in Darnell?

All of those corroborate Rosemary's account. We only see BDM in Betzner 3 and Willis 5;

Rosemary described this person as someone who happened to "disappear the next instant,"

and we can peg that instant as Z214-217 when she made her rapid headsnap in that direction.

And the "distinct straight-line feature," Dean? Did the woman with a baby

also bring her broom?

Duncan's analysis ignores the evidence.

Cliff

Show me another witness besides Rosemary Willis who saw a single "conspicuous" person in the BDM position

The HSCA analysis of Willis 5, Dean.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

A "distinctly straight-line feature" that was "near the region of the hands" rules out

a baby, seems to me.

I didnt ask for an analysis Cliff, I asked for another witness

Both of us know that no other witness saw what Rosemary said she saw

But since what she described is corroborated by Willis 5 her testimony trumps Duncan's speculation, I'd reckon.

"Distinct straight-line features" do not exist in nature.

Duncan's analysis ignores the evidence.

Cliff

Show me another witness besides Rosemary Willis who saw a single "conspicuous" person in the BDM position

The HSCA analysis of Willis 5, Dean.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

A "distinctly straight-line feature" that was "near the region of the hands" rules out

a baby, seems to me.

I agree with Duncans opinion 100%

I'm just curious...why would Rosemary Willis make up a story about a "conspicuous" person who happened

to "disappear the next instant"?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I almost always defer to the people who were there, but that's just me...

The woman and the baby hit the ground, right after that CardaginMan (The husband/dad) turned and ran up the stairs (as seen in Muchmore and Nix) to go back and protect his wife and child right after the head shot.

Sitzman saw the black couple on the bench eating and drinking soda, the bench that was right behind the retaining wall, in the same area that we see BDM in Willis and Betzner

Just like Duncan said its not BDM its BDW (and child)

According to the HSCA analysis it was a single individual, which is consistent with Rosemary

Willis describing a "conspicuous" person. Since Rosemary had the presence of mind to describe

Umbrella Man and his umbrella, how did she miss the baby being held by a "conspicuous" person?

And since when is a baby a "distinct straight-line feature"?

Duncan's analysis ignores the evidence.

Has anyone ever tried to duplicate the pic of the BDM?

jim

Gary Shaw posed there. Published in several books.

There is no black dog man in Moorman.

I think BDM was retouching to remove Gordon Arnold in Willis and Betzner.

However, Arnold also is not in Moorman.

Jack

Jack,

How does that explain Rosemary Willis describing Black Dog Man as a "conspicuous" person

who happened to "disappear the next instant"?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

Also, the HSCA examined Willis 5 and found a "very distinct straight-line feature" near the

"region of the hands."

Hmmm...JFK gets shot circa Z190 and someone with a "very distinct straight-line feature"..."in the

region of the hands"..."disappears the next instant"...

Rosemary's rapid headsap Z214-217 establishes the timing of her attention

being drawn to BDM's direction, a little more than a second after the throat shot.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Gee, I guess that rules BDM out as a shooter, eh? (sarcasm off)

Another false mystery in a case full of them.

Gordon Arnold fell to the ground immediately, disappearing from Rosemary's view.

Jack

And Gordon Arnold was behind the concrete wall with a straight-line feature in the region of his hands?

Where in his statements is any of that established?

I agree with Duncans opinion 100%

I'm just curious...why would Rosemary Willis make up a story about a "conspicuous" person who happened

to "disappear the next instant"?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I almost always defer to the people who were there, but that's just me...

Has anyone ever tried to duplicate the pic of the BDM?

jim

Gary Shaw posed there. Published in several books.

There is no black dog man in Moorman.

I think BDM was retouching to remove Gordon Arnold in Willis and Betzner.

However, Arnold also is not in Moorman.

Jack

Jack,

How does that explain Rosemary Willis describing Black Dog Man as a "conspicuous" person

who happened to "disappear the next instant"?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

Also, the HSCA examined Willis 5 and found a "very distinct straight-line feature" near the

"region of the hands."

Hmmm...JFK gets shot circa Z190 and someone with a "very distinct straight-line feature"..."in the

region of the hands"..."disappears the next instant"...

Rosemary's rapid headsap Z214-217 establishes the timing of her attention

being drawn to BDM's direction, a little more than a second after the throat shot.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Gee, I guess that rules BDM out as a shooter, eh? (sarcasm off)

Another false mystery in a case full of them.

Name a single one of my FAKE APOLLO MOON PHOTO studies which has been refuted. Here, try refuting this one:

Just my luck. I was about to "rate this post" positively, Jack, but that feature is no longer available! (Crap)

Woof Woof...

This from a guy who needs to draw "artifacts" in photos so that he can claim they are there.

You're a real piece of work, Lamson.

Cliff

The scenario that you back up is possible, no doubt in my mind

But for my personal shooting scenario it just does not fit

Dean, I'd like to hear more about how you see it happening...

This is arguably the most likely scenario.

I dont think so Cliff

I will believe a shot around Z190 (or a little after) from the front, but not a blood soluble flechette from the BDM position

Hi Dean,

This scenario matches the neck x-ray perfectly: bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of

the right T1 transverse process, subcutaneous air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. There

was no exit and no round recovered. Same thing with the back wound -- shallow, no exit,

no round was recovered.

This scenario also matches the testimony of Rosemary Willis, who described BDM as a "conspicuous" person who happened to "disappear the next instant." The HSCA photography panel examined Willis #5, taken a split second after the throat shot, and observed a "distinct straight-line feature" which was "near the region of the hands."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

This scenario was first put forth by the prosectors themselves at the end of the autopsy.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

IMO you are confusing the reaction to the back shot with the reaction to the throat.

If Duncan is correct and it was the umbrella dart... (which I have a tough time believing based on what the Perry says about the trach... the damage was to JFK's right side... the umbrella man shooting from JFK's right, from right to left, would not create damage to the right of JFK's neck but the left)... or some other kind of CIA "new" weapon... it was designed to enter with minimal pain or notice.

Problem is there are very few other places that shot could have come from unless from the Overpass or a second GK shooter.

Umbrella dart, no.

Blood soluble flechette fired circa Z190 by Black Dog Man from behind the short concrete wall in front of the picket fence, yes.

This is arguably the most likely scenario.

So, Duncan, how can you reconcile the very LOW placement of JFK's hands as late as Z225, if he'd been hit way back at Z194 or so? And then we see JFK rapidly move his arms upward toward his throat only after Z225. This doesn't add up.

Nonsense. Even Dale Myers animation shows JFK's right hand moving toward his throat

area before Z224.

This has pretty much run its course.

The image is a fake...taken of a real subject but the photo could not exist in a single exposure.

Explained here.

http://www.craiglamson.com/421.htm

Why would anyone buy an explanation from Craig "I just make stuff up" Lamson"?

Why not? The truth is the truth.

The truth is obviously not your concern here, Craig.

You've revealed yourself to be a fraud by claiming that artifacts exist

in photos that clearly do not exist, and you cannot identify.

Again, since you've proven that you'll claim anything as long as it agrees with

the official version of whatever historical event is under discussion, why should anyone

take you seriously?

This has pretty much run its course.

The image is a fake...taken of a real subject but the photo could not exist in a single exposure.

Explained here.

http://www.craiglamson.com/421.htm

Why would anyone buy an explanation from Craig "I just make stuff up" Lamson"?

Varnell and his vaunted photo analysis skills are missing in action here.

I wonder why?

He makes a great show of his supposed ability to read and dissect the JFK photos but fails to give his opinion here.

I wonder why?

So cliffy, is the photo real or fake and why?

Lets see what you are made of....

Cliff and Craig,

I wonder, the two of you don't happen to be married or something?

Sorry no. cliffy is the wrong gender....even though he argues like a girl...

Ah, OK. I thought I'd detected the true signs of a long lasting love affair...

Not near as long as you and Fetzer.

Craig Lamson, photo expert.

Fake or real?

How about a real fake.