Cliff Varnell

I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

Is that what this thread is, a discussion of real issues?

I think at this point the thread needs to be hijacked!

In military terms this thread has turned into "bouncing the rubble."

But having lived in Jersey City for so long, I had several bad experiences with homeless people. I think, for the lack of a better word, "liberals" go overboard about these things in the abstract.

Kathy C

Nothing abstract about my experiences with the homeless.

For every tale you and Dean tell about run-ins with the homeless -- I can tell ten.

I live in a neighborhood flooded with these folks. Part of the local color. It's not

about being "liberal," it's about having tough enough skin to step over and around

human puke and dog xxxx on the sidewalks without getting overly squicked. One

must realize that a certain percentage of people who are in disagreeable situations

are going to be, well, disagreeable.

I wouldn't live anywhere else. I love the Haight-Ashbury, homeless and all.

And may the Goddess forbid anyone from hijacking such an important thread...

Burglars steal safe in overnight break-in at Dallas' Sixth Floor Museum

My sources at the 6th Floor Exhibit assure me it was a lone burglar.

You draw an inference from stereotypical claims about homeless in Seattle to two

persons I admire (for extremely good reasons) in London and trash them without

even reflecting upon what I told you about them.

Having spent the last 21 years living a half-block off Haight St. in San Francisco

I know a thing or two about homeless people. I encounter droves of them daily.

I live one block from the entrance to Golden Gate Park, where a lot of them find

refuge.

Every morning you see them straggling out of the park where they spent

the night hoping the park rangers overlook them.

Some of them are as Dean portrays -- annoying beggars who stand outside

eateries accosting people for spare change. Some will even enter the joint

while you're dining and bug you.

Some are not annoying at all as they stand back holding a beverage cup

for spare change and chant -- "Help for the homeless, help for the homeless."

Some write clever signs and sit on the sidewalk trying to turn their

cardboard witticisms into coins.

My favorite was a guy who tied a plastic microwave food-cover to his head

and chanted -- "Spare change for flying saucer man!" I gave him a quarter.

Others play the pathos card and look the very definition of despair. Many

are in despair!

Some have no home because of chronic poverty; some are drug addicts;

some have mental health issues; some are runaways.

Most of them in these parts are youngsters out on a grand adventure, their

heads full of visions of the Haight-Ashbury of lore. They're almost always

disappointed and move on.

You cannot readily characterize a "homeless person" one way or the other,

except to say they don't have a roof over their head.

I don't bust out spare change very often unless the person has been around

for 6 months or a year. Survival on the streets earns respect in my book.

JVB aside, Jim's friends sound like very interesting people!

I believe the Betzner photo was taken somewhere between 190-195. Someone can probably come up with an exact frame.

It's generally accepted that Hugh Betzner's third photo was taken at Z186.

http://search.comcast.net/?cat=Web&con...;q=betzner+z186

P.S. I don't blame Bush as much as the folks behind him.

More Bushes.

Bush/Cheney succeeded where Richard Nixon failed: they politicized the

Central Intelligence Agency. Analysis was tailored to fit policy priorities

("next smoking gun a mushroom cloud"), and Cheney showed up at Langley

on occasion to whip the process.

Bush/Cheney further abused the Agency in the Plame Affair.

Only a Bush could get away with it, outright treason.

I read the book a few months ago. Don't know if it or the movie came first. The rifle was hidden in a pipe in a building (not named dal-tex) of the plaza (not named DP) where the assassination occured. Throughout there are JFK parallels, but with twists.

President Timothy Keegan was assassinated during a motorcade in Philadelphia.

So that year, many heard the usual speeches about the Single Bullet Theory, but some truly original work was not presented--and it could have been.

That's all I have to say for now.

DSL

4/22/10, 5AM PDT

David, I believe you're referring to the 2003 Wecht Conference?

There were at least two "CT" speakers there -- John Hunt, Stu Wexler -- who

are convinced that a bullet struck JFK in the posterior base of the neck and

exited his throat.

The NAA was the big controversy. I'm under the impression that JFK's back

wound at T3 was never mentioned during the entire conference (although

I'm open to correction on this point; the roster of speakers indicates as

much.)

IOW, it was a conference of Single Bullet Theorists out to impeach the SBT

on grounds other than trajectory.

I regard the event as a major joke, and I personally would be glad to have

had nothing to do with it if I were you.

Thanks for your ground-breaking work on the FBI autopsy report, David. That

said, I find the construct "David Lifton's body alteration theory" to be historically

inaccurate.

It's "Commander Humes' body alteration observation as recorded by Sibert

and O'Neill and made known to the world by David Lifton with an assist from

Paul Hoch."

Not as snappy, obviously, but infinitely more accurate.

Those who challenge the basic tenent of your research are not challenging

a "theory" -- they are challenging a properly recorded statement which

happens to impeach the validity of all the head wound(s) evidence.

Humes observation is part of the credible historical record, and as such belongs

to all of us, not just you, David.

Antti,

You're spot on -- it's obvious that JFK was reacting to a throat wound as he

emerged from behind the Stemmons sign.

How could anyone interpret it otherwise is beyond me.

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his posterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

Thanks.

Posterior neck?

Don't you mean anterior neck, since you're citing the adams apple?

That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of

JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's

the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community.

Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet,

each with their own individual take on what they think happened.

Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm.

I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time,

however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense

of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more

like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now.

It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses

are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical

evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie

cases for conspiracy are consistently denied.

In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing

"disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting

for free?

Cliff,

I could not agree more. You are definitely well meaning, and ambitious, I just hope you have a strong back.

Your doing a magnificent job.

Mike

I have no ambitions whatsoever.

I'm not writing a book -- I don't think it takes a book to get down the essential facts of the case.

I don't associate in any way shape or form with other researchers, although

there are many I admire.

I've got two pieces of original research on the internet and neither has my name

attached to it.

I don't attend conferences (with two exceptions).

I don't consider myself an expert.

I think the case is way more simple than others make it appear.

I like to engage in rhetorical combat, which in itself is obfuscationary

in that it lends the appearance of (false) equivalency between the

prima facie cases for conspiracy and the many baseless assertions

to the contrary.

Which is why I won't be engaging you much, Mike.

That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of

JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's

the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community.

Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet,

each with their own individual take on what they think happened.

Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm.

I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time,

however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense

of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more

like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now.

It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses

are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical

evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie

cases for conspiracy are consistently denied.

In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing

"disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting

for free?

And yet the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community cannot reach

consensus on this issue because there is a significant number of researchers

who have a vested interest in keeping the "Question of Conspiracy" open

so they can answer it.

As a result we've got this "Expert Culture" in JFK research where actual

evidence isn't weighed, but the opinions of "experts" trumps all.

Demolishing Nutter assertions isn't nearly as interesting as popping

the balloon of a self-elected CT "expert."

"Experts" cannot answer "The Question of Conspiracy" because the answers

to that are self-evident.

It doesn't take an expert to figure out that with a back wound at T3 the SBT

is impossible.

That's why so many deny it -- what's the use of being an expert if an expert is

not required?

I could not have said this better myself. A Psyop designed to "confound and confuse" the movement into oblivion. Not to mention some of the idiocy spit out by these supposed "experts" in the public arena, thus creating or causing much morwe prudent investigators to look foolish. Sometime I still cannot believe to this very day that people are still debating in favor of the Lone Nut Theory...my good god. We have to move on and get to the meat, which is getting "rotten" by the day. (40+ years of running in circles and disinfo. agents can do that to "good meat")

B.A.,

I think the "Expert Culture" phenomenon is the result of the vagaries of

human nature. The case is fascinating, and so people put a lot of study

into certain areas and they want their work to have importance. If their

goal is to answer "The Question of Conspiracy" then they're naturally

going to deny that the "Question" was answered long ago.

I suspect the people who actively, knowingly pushed the cover-up

learned that they didn't need "disinformation agents." The armchair

citizen-detectives naturally attracted to the case would generate all the

mis-information the cover-up required.

That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of

JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's

the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself.

Educating you is a waste of time, Mr. Williams.

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

No actually I have a question.

You earlier claim that since I was not involved with the CIA testing of the paralytics, then I could have no idea what they would do. Is that not the case?

How then can you be so sure about what they do?

Because I can read the historical record.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

According to top CIA officials blood soluble paralytics took 2 seconds

to take effect.

Roughly two seconds after being shot JFK went from frantically

grabbing at his throat/collar/tie to being seized up and barely

moving and certainly NOT grabbing at his throat/collar/tie.

Jackie said the look on his face was "quizzical," as if he were

suffering from a "slight headache."

Is that what people look like when they're shot in the throat with convention

ammo -- they look like they have a slight headache?

Hence, I ask if you were involved in the testing.

Additionally you are correct in that I did not see the body, neither did you. So we are both interpreting the evidence based on what we have.

And what we have are 3 trained doctors who came to a preliminary conclusion

that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, a conclusion supported by the

neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, the testimonies of the witnesses with the best

view of JFK, and the research of Tom Wilson and Steve Kober.

We are both coming to different conclusions.

\

False equivalency. I cite evidence. You cite nothing.

Obviously some are far more based on speculation than others.

(poison darts...I kinda like to type it just to get a laugh)

And I guess you think Oswald's intelligence community connections

were a real hoot?

I'm sure Cliff must be tired of belaboring the point, and I'm tired of supporting him every time he does, while many here ignore the imporance of it.

It' will always be this way, Don. Lone Nutters have no choice but to deny the

proven location of the back wound -- otherwise they must cease to be Lone Nutters.

On the other hand, there is a legion of CTs who also must deny the prima facie

cases for conspiracy -- the low back wound, the throat entrance wound -- otherwise

the work they've done developing their own iron-clad "Case For Conspiracy" is moot.

There is no better evidence than the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat, which line up precisely. Add to that the fact that Boswell's original autopsy face sheet placed the back wound in the same location, Burkley's death certificate located it there, and Sibert and O'Neill described it being in the same location in their FBI report, and you have perhaps the most documented fact in this entire case.

And yet the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community cannot reach

consensus on this issue because there is a significant number of researchers

who have a vested interest in keeping the "Question of Conspiracy" open

so they can answer it.

As a result we've got this "Expert Culture" in JFK research where actual

evidence isn't weighed, but the opinions of "experts" trumps all.

Demolishing Nutter assertions isn't nearly as interesting as popping

the balloon of a self-elected CT "expert."

"Experts" cannot answer "The Question of Conspiracy" because the answers

to that are self-evident.

It doesn't take an expert to figure out that with a back wound at T3 the SBT

is impossible.

That's why so many deny it -- what's the use of being an expert if an expert is

not required?

Drawing lines on paper shows that theoretically it is very possible for a projectile to enter and exit higher in a forward leaning target.

The bullet is on a down ward trajectory, did you not look at the drawing?

I don't see Connally in your drawing. I don't see the low back entrance or

the throat exit.

You are aware that the Single Bullet Theory involves two people?

You really have no clue what you're doing here, do you?

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

Yes, you can see the left index finger trying to pull at the tie. but then the left fist rises to the level of the right fist, which is in front of his mouth. People choking on food make the same combination of signaling and defensive gestures, as if they're trying to cough up food into their hand.

Jackie takes hold of his left arm and brings it down - and JFK permits this, because he is trying not to violate the decorum of the parade. This is also seems to be among Jackie's concerns.

Where do you come up with this stuff, David?

The guy got shot in the throat and he frantically tried to cough

the projectile into his right hand while grabbing at his collar/tie.

Are you seriously proposing that the foremost thought in Kennedy's

mind was how he looked to a handful of people at the end of a parade?

You gotta be joking!

As he lets her pull his left arm down, the right hand goes limp and drops. I believe that, between the pain and the knowledge that he has Jackie's attention, he is allowing himself to give in to loss of consciousness at this moment.

However, as his head declines, JFK's right hand forms a fist again, and rises to throat level. You can see it just below his cheek in frame 312. I believe that either the struggle to stay conscious, or the declining of the head, brought enough pain to his throat that he raised that hand again defensively.

However you read his motions - JFK is not "paralyzed" in the sense that we understand the word; his arms move and hands change position. We are watching a man struggling for consciousness, life, and dignity.

Sorry, David, but your Vulcan mind-meld with Jack and Jackie is trumped by

the neck x-ray -- nicked trachea, bruised lung-tip, hairline fracture of the right

T1 transverse process, and a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

The damage in the x-ray is inconsistent with a shot from a conventional weapon.

Jackie said JFK's expression was "quizzical," that he looked like he had a

"slight headache," which is also inconsistent with a reaction to a shot from a

conventional weapon.

The fact that the bullet did not exit and could not be found in the body is inconsistent

with a shot from a conventional weapon.

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

Your Single Bullet Theory requires a wound in the back of JFK's neck so that

the bullet could exit the throat on a downward trajectory and on into Connally.

You can't have a downward trajectory into Connally if the bullet exits JFK on

an upward trajectory, which would have to happen given the back wound was

several inches below the throat wound.

Cliff,

How very untrue.

Consider.

Croft 3 just seconds before the first shot. JFK has his upper body angled at 30*

This drawing replicates a 6.5mm bullet(MC) coming down from a 21* angle (SN)into a 30* forward leaning target (JFK).

Note that the exit is higher than the entry.

How does this line up with a strike on Connally?

Where are you showing an entry point 4 inches below the bottom

of his collar, an exit out of his throat, and a downward trajectory

into Connally?

Drawing lines on a paper means nothing.

Ok so the docs discussed the possibility of ice bullets? So what.

That is the only scenario that explains the neck x-ray and JFK seizing up

paralyzed in two seconds.

That is the only scenario that explains the following facts: JFK was struck

once in the back from behind, once in the throat from the front; two

entrances, no exits; no bullets were recovered.

At this point they were looking for reasons to explain an entrance and no exit, this was of course before they contacted Dallas and found out about the wound in the throat.

They quickly dismissed it as any sane person would.

Anyone with a lick of understanding about the background of Lee Harvey Oswald

knows that the man had intelligence connections, and that assassination weapons

developed and tested by the Central Intelligence Agency thus could never be

summarily discounted.

That your world view sees this as "insane" tells us all we need to know

about your world view, frankly.

So now you are telling me that the bullet could not have exited higher than it entered? It that the jist of what you are postulating now? Can you or have you done anything to prove that?

Lets see what you have.

Your Single Bullet Theory requires a wound in the back of JFK's neck so that

the bullet could exit the throat on a downward trajectory and on into Connally.

You can't have a downward trajectory into Connally if the bullet exits JFK on

an upward trajectory, which would have to happen given the back wound was

several inches below the throat wound.

Arguably the best assassination/coup film ever has yet to be mentioned:

Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dInC81EuuyI

Directed by Costas-Gavras, the guy who did Missing and State of Siege,

the latter also a top-notch political assassination flick.

And life just keeps getting easier and easier.

So you cant provide any evidence that this was the accepted theory at the conclusion of the autopsy. Fair enough.

I have posted this information several times.

Why you cannot process this information is a mystery.

I will post it again, as there is value in repetition:

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)

Why would we "know" there was more than one shooter? I know no such thing.

Probably because you don't appear willing to process information

that runs counter to your preconceived notions.

I'll give you a hint: the back wound was way too low for that round

to have exited the throat on the downward trajectory required by

the Single Bullet Theory.

If you'd done your homework before showing up on this Forum you'd

grasp these things.

Right now it feels like I'm talking to the wall.

There was one weapon found, and the only ballistic evidence in this case leads back to that rifle. Do you have some "hidden" evidence that we do not know about? If you do stop being bashful son and bring it forward.

What good does it do to inform someone who seems impervious to information?

The low back wound and the throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence

of at least two shooters. If you don't understand why that is, I suggest you do

some homework on the basic facts of the case.

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory.(poison dart/ice bullet) How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

A theory that they obviously abandoned. Why else would it not be in the final autopsy report? Oh yes...they altered it. The most common CT sewage expelled when the evidence does not fit the theory.

Hilarious coming from you, Mr. Williams. Why don't you actually read the information I cite,

or is it too much to ask of you?

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

I dont have a problem with its existence, I just chose to disregard it, just like the autopsy Doctors did.

It's good that you admit to disregarding evidence that fouls your deadender Lone Nut world

view. I've noticed the same thing since you've appeared here.

Cliff they had nuclear weapons during this time as well, and just to slow you down, they did not use one of them either.

And the point of this brilliant comment is...?

I have ALWAYS been interested in the "quizzical look" comment by Jackie. He most likely was hit with something non-conventional if you know what I mean. I have always, always found that statement odd or deeply interesting at best.

P.S - Cliff those were awesome defenses, wow lol. (no sarcasm intended, but definitely a compliment) Love the logical discourses when used in argumentation.

Thanks, B.A....All I'm doing is citing the credible historical record. Some

people have a hard time with that, evidently...