Cliff Varnell

Mike,

The photo you're asking about was not prepared according to proper military autopsy

protocol. The HSCA singled it out as especially "deficient as scientific evidence." The

ARRB established that there was no chain of possession for that photo.

There is nothing in it to indicate it is a photo of John F. Kennedy.

Why study improperly prepared medical evidence when there is properly

prepared evidence such as Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face

sheet?

Michael,

Your critique is most welcome, as always. My responses in burgandy.

Cliff, I'm disappointed that you think that even approximates what I meant by the truth. I don't think that's what John Simkin meant either.

Fair enough. In that case the truth is known, imo. It was known in large part the night of the assassination.

Cliff, again I think you miss the context of "truth." This is John Simkin's statement that formed the title of this thread and to which I initially responded.

I have come to the conclusion that we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK.

This goes back to my original question as to context: I wrote:

(quote on)

Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in

the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going

to happen.

(quote off)

You said you were disappointed that I would define "truth" in such a manner,

so at this point I have no idea what you mean by "truth."

My observations are in this context:

(quote on)

As a self-admitted hobbyist I find the assassination becomes more and more clear

the longer I study it.

But that's just me.

(quote off)

Although we cannot claim to know the truth behind the assassination as

"settled fact," I'll argue that we can certainly reach a reasonable, supportable

conclusion as to the people behind JFK's killing, albeit one that falls short of

"historical truth."

In my reading of the case such a reasonable conclusion is at hand. I've clearly

underlined the subjective nature of this conclusion -- "But that's just me."

Surely, the truth to which you are referring ("known in large part the night of the assassination") is a different issue.

Since you're disappointed in my definition of "truth" as "settled fact" (objective),

and you're not buying what I'm selling here as "that which is clear to me" (subjective),

I don't have a handle on what constitutes "truth" in your book, Michael.

And besides, if what you claim is true, the prima facie case for conspiracy preceded Salandria:

By "case" I mean the prima facie evidence of conspiracy presented to the public as such.

Vince was the man. Inspired by Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi spoke truth to power when he humiliated

Specter over the clothing evidence in 1966. I'd peg that moment in history as when the SBT

was officially debunked:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/f...th_Specter.html

Not for the

prima facie

case for conspiracy, which started with Salandria and the clothing evidence.

Immediately after the autopsy, right before the cover-up enveloped them

completely, the autopsists huddled together with the 2 FBI guys and came

to the "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood/water soluble rounds.

I don't see what this has to do with the topic. I know you think it does.

Well, of course I do. I'm sharing what has "become more and more clear to me,"

that which has allowed me to reach a "reasonable conclusion" about the perps behind

the JFK assassination.

I'm sticking to the known credible historical record as best I can.

But at any rate, there are much more reasonable explanations.

For what? The fact that JFK suffered a shallow wound in the back, the round did not exit and no

bullet was recovered? The fact that JFK was struck in the throat with a round that did not exit and

was not recovered?

Two wounds. No exits. No bullets. What McKnight calls "the perplexing mystery."

I can buy pre-autopsy surgery to the head. I cannot buy pre-autopsy removal of a round which entered

the throat and left an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. Such an operation -- in addition to the known

surgery to the head -- would have required much more time that the autopsy time-line allows.

And if JFK were struck in the throat with a round as small as a .22, surely he would have suffered a lot

more damage than a nicked trachea, a bruised lung-tip, a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse

process, and an air-pocket.

All soft tissue damage, no? A .22 would surely have exited, no?

Then we have the Zapruder film, which shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds.

Perhaps it's a coincidence that the autopsists suspected blood soluble rounds and the CIA had indeed

tested such rounds, which paralyzed the target in two seconds?

Perhaps we can chalk it up to coincidence that Tom Wilson describes in the Altgens 6 photo a device

on the second floor of the Dal-Tex which, according to Steve Kober's research, resembles a patented device

that fires blood soluble rounds?

I'm not such a firm believer in coincidence, and I find it far far more likely that the prosectors got it right the

night of the autopsy.

See Gerald McKnight's chapter on the autopsy.

McKnight offers no solutions to the "perplexing mystery." In fact, he pooh poohs one of the common

explanations for the back wound -- that the bullet fell out. Couldn't happen, according to McKnight.

Your claim above misrepresents, but I don't really want to get into it with you.

Why not? Tell me, what am I misrepresenting?

Cliff, on another thread you wrote:

I am proposing that the autopsists got it right the night of the autopsy.

What is so "improbable" about 3 military doctors drawing a preliminary

conclusion which turned out to be correct?

Simplest explanation, actually.

Your guy, Gaeton Fonzi (whom I've met and respect) wrote about the autopsy in The Last Investigation.

In the chapter entitled Haunting Questions, Fonzi writes:

You refer to the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors as proper evidence, yet ignore the fact

that Humes burned his without any authority to do so.

I make a distinction between what Humes/Boswell/Finck said and did on 11/22/63 and what they said and did after.

By almost all accounts those men were not qualified to (and did not) perform a proper autopsy.

Not being qualified to perform a proper autopsy doesn't make any one a bad doctor. Humes had

the presence of mind to note pre-autopsy surgery to the head; afterward they came to a

preliminary conclusion subsequently supported by the neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, and the

historical facts surrounding CIA testing of blood soluble rounds.

They did the best they could with the limits placed upon them. Then they were dragooned into

the cover-up. But let's give them credit for properly filling out the autopsy face sheet diagram,

observing the pre-autopsy surgery to the head, and reaching a well-supported preliminary

"general feeling."

All of that occurred on 11/22/63. Everything they did after served the official cover-up.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...g_1a.htm#_edn39

You call some of Horne's work speculative, which he admits it is.

I'm glad to hear that he does. The other day James Fetzer stated as fact that Humes performed the

pre-autopsy surgery. I challenged him on that point, and I don't believe he responded.

In my opinion so are many of your conclusions, which you continue to assert as if they were established facts.

To the contrary, from the beginning here I made a sharp distinction between "settled facts" and that which

"seems clear to me."

I posit no speculation as fact, sir. And if you ever catch me doing so in any post, feel free to jump in and

set me straight.

Cliff, you cite Rosemary Willis as the most important witness in the case.

Arguably, yes. Crucial witness, as is her father and sister.

You claim that if you get ONE expert in this case it would be Tom Wilson.

You bet. Expands the scope of the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. I prefer that to the jihad conducted by

many experts against the Dealey Plaza photo evidence.

And that because Werbell developed a weapon, he was a "perp."

There's a bit more to that now, ain't there?

From Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason, an interview with Gerry Hemming, pg 665:

Hemming: ...Silencers were used extensively. These were sionic silencers purchased through Mitch WerBell.

ibid., pg 701:

Hemming told me several times, "If you want to get to the bottom of the JFK assassination, look at WerBell."

These are the same type of speculations that you criticize others for.

Now you've lost me. Citing Richard Helms as a perp is much more out and out speculation

than WerBell. And I don't see how my touting Rosemary Willis as a witness and Tom Wilson

as an expert is the equivalent of stating opinions as fact.

None of these issues are simple, really.

It couldn't be more straight-forward, to my eye. Properly prepared medical evidence trumps

improperly prepared medical evidence. Once that fact is grasped, the case falls

neatly into place...But that's just me.

Except that there was a conspiracy and as John Simkin concluded,

"....we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK."

As settled historical fact, I'm afraid I must agree.

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something

that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's

throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)?

Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

an apparent determined unwillingness to confront the discoveries of others who are more competent than they, including, in this case, Bob Livingston, Doug Weldon, David Mantik, Doug Horne, and Jim Fetzer.

And David Lifton.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry181092

So you've never read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), or INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). On the contrary, what you are citing here appears to be the partial observation of Humes taking a saw to the cranium of JFK in order to obfuscate the wound that entered his right temple at the hairline and to increase the massive blow out to the back of the head in order to create the artificial impression of a huge wound caused by a shot from the front. Tom Robinson was one of two witnesses who watched the whole thing.

I cannot believe that you are not studying the most important research on these matters, because it has led you to a state of incredible confusion and the utter incapacity to distinguish the true from the false.

And you reveal an utter incapacity to make any kind of coherent

response to the case I've laid out.

You keep wanting to cite experts; I counter with actual evidence.

Show me where Robinson identified Humes as the one who performed

surgery to the head.

Explain to me how a guy could be part of the cover-up and then give the

FBI information that directly points to the Central Intelligence Agency!

I am beginning to understand why some members of this forum are incapable of research: an apparent determined unwillingness to confront the discoveries of others who are more competent than they, including, in this case, Bob Livingston, Doug Weldon, David Mantik, Doug Horne, and Jim Fetzer.

I can explain the case for conspiracy to a 5 year old.

You guys cannot.

You have no idea which of the documents and records on which you rely is authentic and which is not, thereby making you a prime candidate for deception.

Nonsense. The properly prepared medical evidence is consistent:

1) The autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back wound at

T3/T4, consistent with the holes in the clothes. Signed off as: "Verified."

2) Burkley's death certificate put the back wound in the vicinity of the

JFK's "third thoracic vertebra," also consistent with the clothing holes.

Identifying the wound according to its vertebral level follows proper

autopsy protocol.

3) The contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors, wherein the the throat

entrance wound was properly recorded. Another half-dozen Parkland witnesses

later described the throat entrance wound, as well.

4) The neck x-ray. The damage is consistent with a shot from the front

which nicked the trachea, bruised the lung tip, left a hair-line fracture of

the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket. No exit. No bullet

recovered.

5) The FBI autopsy report was a properly prepared investigative document.

All of the above is consistent with the witness statements and Dealey Plaza

photo evidence from Z186 thru Z255 -- a sequence during which no tampering

of the Z film has been claimed.

-

This is quite appalling. The massive and detailed research by Doug Horne confirms surgery to the head,

We knew this from the FBI autopsy report, first noted by Humes and recorded by the

FBI guys, Sibert and O'Neill.

the falsification of the X-rays

The head x-rays would be inadmissible under any circumstances

given the pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

and the autopsy photographs,

The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy

protocol, and are thus rightly dismissed.

the revision of the autopsy report,

The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper

military autopsy protocol, and is thus rightly dismissed.

I've already gone over this...Interesting how I make these points

and you respond by pretending I haven't already covered them, that

I know nothing about it.

Odd rhetorical technique here, Jim...

the conduct of two supplemental brain exams with two different brains,

None of the head wound evidence is worth warm piss. Why do people

obsess on obviously faked evidence, Jim?

You guys are studying the cover-up, not the killing!

five physical differences between the film developed in Dallas and brought to the NPIC on Saturday (which was a split 8mm film) and the film developed in Rochester and brought to the NPIC on Sunday (which was an unsplit 16mm film), where the chain of custody was obviously broken and many, if not all, of the extensive alterations to the content of the original had already been performed, which I discussed in "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". My God, you don't even know that Roderick Ryan explained to Noel Twyman that the "blob" of brains to the right-front had been painted in, or that the Hollywood experts have viewed a 6k version of the film and discovered that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black from 313 through 339; nor that you can actually see the blow out to the back of the head in frame 374, where I discovered it. Just because you want to remain in a state of willful ignorance about these discoveries, ongoing research is rendering your untenable account of the assassination hopelessly irrelevant. But that appears to be hardly surprising, given your tenacious incapacity to separate the authentic from the fabricated evidence, which renders your claims to understanding this case utterly without foundation. This is disconcerting.

Jim, I'm beginning to draw the conclusion you don't bother reading

anything I write.

What part of the following don't you get?

Me:

According to Tom Wilson and the Hollywood 7 several frames of the Z-film circa Z313

were tampered (with). This I can buy. I've challenged alterationists to point out tampering

during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru 255 (Altgens 6) and none has been asserted,

much less argued.

Now you are talking about something with which we can agree. I am puzzled

by your confidence in "the men who were there".

I don't see anyone telling the FBI that treasonous obstruction of justice had

just occurred if that person was the perp of such a crime.

This defies my understanding of human nature.

Humes, Boswell and Finck were not brought fully into the cover-up

until after the autopsy, when the Magic Bullet was brought into

consideration.

As with the autopsy face sheet, the contemporaneous observations

of Humes/Boswell/Finck were golden.

After midnight 11/22/63 the prosectors turned into creatures of the cover-up;

prior to that it was another story.

And no, I don't buy Horne's case against Humes.

After all, after Parkland, the

"men who were there" (among the Naval officers and Secret Service agents)

were perpetrating the cover-up (stealing the body, removing bullet fragments,

performing surgery to the cranium, altering the X-rays, substituting someone

else's brain, and all that).

I find all of this easy to sort out.

There was medical evidence prepared according to proper military

autopsy protocol.

There was medical evidence NOT prepared according to proper military

autopsy protocol.

Of the former we include the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death

certificate, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors,

the neck x-ray. The FBI autopsy report was a properly prepared

investigative document, as were the depositions of the FBI agents

taken for the HSCA.

In the improper pile we find the autopsy photos, the head x-rays

(anything related to the head wounds is conflicted and readily dismissed),

and the final autopsy report, which listed the back wound improperly.

The properly prepared medical evidence is consistent and redundant

with the conclusion that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds.

And this business about the flechette is very strange

to me. Do you have any experience with firearms? Do you appreciate Greer

had to bring the limo to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed, because it is

so hard to hit a moving target?

Jackie described the limo as moving very slowly.

And with a flechette? I don't understand you at all.

Irrelevant. Nothing you or I assert trumps the credible historical

record:

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)

Humes, Boswell and Finck were hot on the trail of the perps, only to be

side-tracked by the FBI in 1963 and JFK assassination experts 46 years

later.

You are spot on with Thompson but embrace a bizarre theory like this?

Where am I spot on with Thompson, other than a general defense of

the authenticity of the Dealey Plaza photo evidence?

I denounce Thompson's unnecessary obfuscation about the throat

wound as heartily as I denounce Mantik for framing the throat/back

wounds as open questions that require "expert analysis."

A "Cause for Doubt"? How mild!

The evidence of the T3 back wound and throat entrance require no equivocations.

These hard facts are not "cause for doubt," they are absolutely dispositve of conspiracy

in the murder of JFK.

You accept the word of Humes and Boswell and reject that of Bob Livingston?

The preliminary conclusions of the prosectors carries more weight

than someone who didn't see the body and is speculating at best.

No way does Livingston make a definitive diagnosis on a body

he didn't examine.

And what you take to be "obvious lies" comes from having studied the case.

The obvious lies to which I referred are 1) JFK was struck at the back base

of the neck, and 2) JFK's throat wound was an exit.

Those are obvious lies which require no "expert analysis" to rebut.

The public in general, not to mention academician in particular, are averse to

"studying" anything. The fact that this particular presentation was given at a

great university and published in a peer-reviewed international journal is what

makes it credible to the public. It was not written for you or for other experts

on the case. It was written for the general educated public. That it made its

way into the mainstream is something for us all to celebrate--not because I

was the vehicle, but because of the message!

And your message that the SBT requires an "expert" to debunk

is factually incorrect.

And your characterization of the potential for clothing "bunch"

is also factually incorrect.

There is the slightest chance that, because Jerry Mazza published it, readers who

would not ordinarily take these issues seriously might read it and be affected.

Or their eyes might glaze over at the unnecessary complexity of your argument.

One of the standard complaints about CTs is the overwhelming complexity

of some arguments.

The thought that anyone is going to be affected by Gaeton Fonzi's argument with Arlene Specter back in

1966 is a manifest absurdity!

Not if it were properly reported! It's a lot easier to impress the

public with a simple demonstration than a complex argument.

That much should be obvious.

JF:

The culture of the United States is all about the here and now. Yesterday is

old news. We were lucky to get it out. Celebrate!

(/quote)

Ah yes, the prima facie cases for conspiracy are old hat!

We must be hip to all the new expert analysis which cites other

expert analysis and eschews that boring old stuff like actual

witness testimony, actual photographs, actual documentation.

Sorry, Jim. Yours' and Tink Thompson's "micro-analyses" are old news.

If I get ONE expert in this case -- I'll take Tom Wilson.

Cliff,

You are flooring me! The wound to the back had nothing to do with the Thorburn Reflex. That was because of the shot to the throat. The Thorburn Reflex is a bona fide phenomenon. I discussed this with him myself. Good God! That comes from a world authority on the human brain.

Thorburn requires significant damage to the spinal cord. No such damage

showed up on x-ray.

From "Lattimer and the Great Thorburn Hoax" by Wallace Milam

http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam-thor.htm

Through Ms. Cranor's efforts, I finally obtained a copy of Dr. Thorburn's original article. It was only then that the extent of Dr. Lattimer's scientific charade became evident. Eighteen years after his work was prostituted, it is finally time to let Thorburn speak for Thorburn:

In June, 1886, Dr. William Thorburn received a patient at his infirmary in Manchester, England. A workman had lost his balance and fallen while standing on a scaffolding whitewashing a wall. The back of his neck slammed against a bench while his feet remained caught in the ladder. As a final blow, the bucket of whitewash fell back upon him. Dr. Thorburn, who did not see the patient until he was brought to the hospital four days later, observed the man as his condition deteriorated over the next three weeks. After the workman's death 26 days after the accident, Thorburn performed a post mortem examination and then wrote about the incident as "Case I" in Cases of injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord. (18)

Dr. Lattimer sees such parallels in the injuries and reactions of the workman and Kennedy that he calls the President's response "an almost classic demonstration of what might be called a Thorburn position." (19) But if he read Dr. Thorburn's article at all, he must have noted many significant differences:

a. Thorburn's workman was rendered immediately unconscious (20); Kennedy was not.

b. According to Lattimer and his disciples, Kennedy's arms flew immediately into place and locked there. Thorburn's patient had no such immediate reaction. On regaining consciousness, his legs were paralyzed, but "his arms were partially so." (21) The engraving of the injured workman, showing his arms laid outward (Fig. 1-a), depicts his condition four da s after the accident, a fact which Lattimer deliberately distorted. (See below.)

c. While one of Kennedy's vertebra and his spinal cord may have been grazed (HSCA's medical panel concluded that a bullet did not hit one of Kennedy's vertebra and that the damage "if any, was purely negligible." (22), the workman suffered "complete transverse destruction of the spinal cord.... "(23)

d. The possible damage to Kennedy's vertebra occurred at the level of C-6 or C-7 (and even possibly T-1) according to the HSCA medical panel. As we have seen, Lattimer first claimed the bullet struck neither vertebrae nor the spinal cord. Then he narrowed the choices to C-6 or C-7, finally settling on C-6. He specifically ruled out C-5. But Thorburn's victim had a dislocation between the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae with complete paralysis of all nerves below C-5, the spinal cord being completely destroyed "immediately below the level of origin of the fifth cervical nerves." (25) As will be seen, Lattimer took steps which hid these facts as well.

e. Finally, the engraving of Thorburn's patient (Fig. 1-a) shows the position of his arms to be quite the opposite of Kennedy's. The workman's arms are abducted, falling to his side, away from the throat and midline of the body, while Kennedy's arms are adducted, his hands in front of his throat.

That Thorburn is the standard Posner/McAdams LONE NUT drivel should give you pause, Jim.

The damage on the x-ray is inconsistent with Thorburn Reflex.

You and Livingston are not entitled to your own facts, sir. And you haven't

convinced me that Livingston took into account the neck x-ray.

People like Tink offer moronic drivel about the throat wound as a wound of exit and you are going to defer to him over a world authority on the human brain? Egad! The principle of reasoning involved is called "inference to the best explanation".

How do I "defer" to Tink Thompson in any way, shape, or form?

Occam's razor: 3 military doctors came to a preliminary conclusion that was

subsequently proven correct.

Best explanation. Covers all the evidence you ignore.

The hole in the windshield and the wound to the throat and the cuts in his face and the sound of a firecracker are all explainable with high probability as effects of a shot fired from the location that Doug Weldon so thoroughly researched.

Rosemary Willis/Willis5/Zapruder trump Doug Weldon.

The most likely explanation for damage in Altgens6 and Altgens7 to be in the same location and for witnesses at Parkland and even in Washington to report a hole in the windshield is because there was a hole in the windshield!

A non-sequitur by any other name still...

I will grant this alternative. David suspects that the throat wound may have been caused by a chunk of glass that was propelled in the same direction as the bullet, which, however, was deflected and hit the roadway behind the limousine.

I cite witnesses. I cite photographs. The witnesses and the photographs

agree on the major points concerning JFK's throat and back wounds.

You cite other "experts."

Such is the "expert culture" of the JFK False Mystery Industry.

You may be more comfortable with that possibility, given the damage you note, where there may also have been a chest X-ray substitution.

Ah yes! They substituted an x-ray that shows minor soft tissue damage,

no bullet and no exit -- facts which directly implicate people associated

with the Central Intelligence Agency.

But that would still mean that the wound was caused by the bullet that created the through-and-through hole in the windshield.

How do you figure? Are you saying that separate shots could not possibly

account for both?

What evidence do you have that precludes two separate shots, Jim?

Your appeal to an odd device to fire a flechette strikes me as quite unreasonable for a moving target, regardless of its purported range.

Your opinion don't trump William Colby's description of the technology.

JF:

If you are trusting Humes and Boswell and Fincke, you have no idea what you are talking about. HUMES PERFORMED SURGERY TO THE HEAD BEFORE THE START OF THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT.

(/quote)

I don't buy it. Typical blood-lust in the JFK False Mystery Game: let's turn

conspiracy witnesses into perps!

No question Humes was dragooned into the cover-up. But his observations

of surgery to the head and "general feeling" about blood soluble rounds

tells us a great deal about Kennedy's killing.

Those observations, taken down by the FBI guys, occurred before

the prosectors were enveloped in the cover-up

JF:

Haven't you heard of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB?

(/quote)

His case against Humes is highly speculative.

JF:

I just interviewed David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, on "The Real Deal". His review of Horne's work on the medical evidence may be found archived on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com. That JFK's military aide was moved from the limo was an obviously necessary step to prepare for the shot through the windshield. I am stunned you don't grasp this.

(/quote)

I'm stunned you think the plotters planned to shoot through the windshield!

I'm not stunned that you cite Doug Horne, David Mantik, and Doug Weldon

because that's all you have.

I cite Rosemary Willis, and her rapid head-snap toward Black Dog Man Z214-17.

I cite Jackie Kennedy, who described the look on JFK's face as "quizzical,"

wholly inconsistent with the t&t windshield high-powered rifle scenario.

I cite the Zapruder film and its consistencies with the testimonies of

Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and Linda Willis -- JFK was grasping at his

throat.

I cite Willis 5, and the HSCA analysis of Black Dog Man in which a

"very distinct straight-line feature" is observed "near the region of

his hands."

I cite Altgens 6 and Tom Wilson's description of a device in the Dal-Tex

which is similar to devices used to fire blood soluble rounds.

And yes, I cite the preliminary conclusions of the autopsists which points

directly at individuals connected to the Central Intelligence Agency.

JF:

Do you understand that the autopsy X-rays were altered, that another brain was substitute for that of JFK, and that the Zapruder film was recreated to remove the limo stop and other events? Are you even aware of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? What do you think happened? SPELL IT OUT. Your position strikes me as quite bizarre. Tell me more.

(/quote)

Mitchell WerBell III designed two sound-suppressed weapons which fired

blood soluble rounds with high accuracy.

There were few misses in Dealey Plaza. Three misses from the 6th Fl

snipers nest were intentional.

The throat shot was perfect. A blood soluble paralytic fired by

Black Dog Man circa Z190, which caused JFK to seize up paralyzed

by Z230.

The back shot could have been a couple of inches more to the left

(closer to the heart) but otherwise a direct hit on the body with a

blood soluble toxin.

There was a triangulation of fire at his head, all three bullets hit.

I find the best explanation for the pre-autopsy events at Bethesda here

(admittedly hearsay and inadmissible, but "best explanation" nonetheless):

Elbert Israel was the name of the orderly.

3 shots to the head given quick treatment by a doctor other than Humes,

that's for sure.

According to Tom Wilson and the Hollywood 7 several frames

of the Z-film circa Z313 were tampered. This I can buy. I've

challenged alterationists to point out tampering during the crucial

sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru 255 (Altgens 6) and none has been

asserted much less argued.

I don't have a theory, I just cite the abundant and redundant

evidence in the credible historical record.

Your approach is so much "inside baseball". That Ford changed the description and that Mantik proved it impossible were not known to Gaeton Fonzi. We all admire the work of those who have gone before, but the public wants the bottom line. When you do something that gets the word out, Cliff Varnell, be sure and let us know.

You don't effectively combat a lie by repeating it, Jim, as that establishes

a false equivalent.

Why argue against a complex falsehood when you can argue for the simple truth?

The public was getting the bottom line from the first generation

critics until Tink Thompson came along and denied the prima

facie evidence of conspiracy. An army of Thompsonite pet theorists

have followed in his foot-steps, all denying either the low back wound

or the throat entrance wound or both.

I don't find it helpful when "experts" treat these obvious lies as

deserving of "international peer-review".

You and Thompson seem to share the notion that the case needs this kind

of "micro-analysis."

It doesn't.

Cliff,

The article was written by Jerry Mazza! I was thrilled that a mainstream journalist would go near it. I don't think it would have drawn many readers to say that Gaeton Fonzi did something back in 1966!

Oh, I think it would be a very big deal indeed if a mainstream journalist

came out and announced that the case for conspiracy had first been

made back in 1966!

It would be a very big deal to show that both the mainstream news media and the

JFK Assassination Critical Research Community (which I refer to in my dour moods

as the JFK False Mystery Industry) have been chasing their collective tails for decades.

Yes, that would make fine mainstream news!

What would have been the point of that?

It would spare the world the endless pointless debates over the head wounds,

the acoustic evidence, the neutron activation analysis, and many many other

worthless dead-end rabbit holes favored by the JFK False Mystery Industry.

Besides, Gaeton did not present his findings at Cambridge and have them published in a peer-reviewed international journal.

Well, that's the beauty of prima facie physical evidence. A team of five year olds

could demonstrate the location of JFK back wound on the basis of the clothing

evidence.

This was a matter of "getting the word out", Cliff. I hope you can appreciate that.

What I appreciate are facts. And the claim that you and a team of experts

finally debunked the Single Bullet Theory is not a fact.

You also make comments about clothing "bunch" which are also not facts.

The movement of JFK's clothing as required by the SBT is flat out impossible,

as Salandria pointed out decades ago.

It would be great if someone got that word out!

Would you be happier if it hadn't been published at all? Josiah would, but would you? The next time you get some mainstream coverage for crucial evidence that establishes the existence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, let me know. Jerry did a good thing. I suppose we could probably go back to RUSH TO JUDGMENT, by the way, if we were so inclined.

Not for the prima facie case for conspiracy, which started with Salandria and the

clothing evidence.

And since David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., only performed his CAT scan long after Gaeton did his thing, the evidence I presented not only demonstrated that the "magic bullet" theory is false but that Gerald Ford had had the description of the wound changed to make it more plausible and that David Mantik has proven that it is not only false but not even anatomically possible!

But the location of the back wound was changed before Gerald Ford got to it.

It went from T3 (or T3/T4) up to just above the upper margin of scapula, as per

the final autopsy report. But that location is closer to T2, so Ford moved it again.

The more powerful case against the SBT is the T3 wound, which does not

require "expert" analysis.

The simplest explanation carries the day, Jim.

So I think you may want to reconsider your position. Gaeton did not do those things, but we did!

But Gaeton could explain his position to a five year old, who could then

explain it to his 3 year old brother.

Prima facie evidence trumps that which requires complex explanations.

This cheap, petty carping to diminish success in getting the word out is something I would expect from Josiah and Jerry, but not from you, Cliff. This only reinforces my impression that you are not really serious about these things. That is very disappointing.

Jim

I don't agree with the word you are getting out -- that the SBT requires

highly technical rebuttal.

You and Tink push this micro-analyzing crap to the detriment of historical truth,

imho.

Cliff,

Just for my understanding, do you believe in the suggestions you are making or displaying your ingenuity in argument?

I was marshaling evidence for why a through-and-through hole in the windshield can explain all of these data points.

But your data points have nothing to do with the throat wound.

The notion that the eight other "data points" support the a) data point is a non-sequitur.

1) There was an entrance wound in the throat.

2) There was a shot thru the windshield from the front.

THEREFORE

3) The shot that struck the throat also struck the windshield.

Non sequitur, Professor.

There is nothing that establishes the throat shot as the t&t windshield shot.

Nothing.

You are conflating an argument for a t&t hole in the windshield

for an argument that the t&t hole in the windshield was caused

by the same round as the one that struck JFK in the throat.

The latter does not follow the former, Jim.

You seem to be taking a Thompsonian line of offering ad hoc explanations for each of the data points separately. Do I understand you correctly? Are you endorsing all of these improbable explanations

What "improbable explanations" do you have me endorsing?

I am proposing that the autopsists got it right the night of the autopsy.

What is so "improbable" about 3 military doctors drawing a preliminary

conclusion which turned out to be correct?

Simplest explanation, actually.

as preferable to the hypothesis of a bullet through the windshield that hit JFK in the throat,

made the sound of a firecracker, caused small shards of glass to cut his face, which was observed by the witnesses as they reported, described in a published article, and facilitated by moving the president's military aide out of the anticipated trajectory?

I've already covered these points. None of them add up to throat-shot/t&t-shot.

If JFK were struck in the throat with a high powered round it would certainly do more

damage than a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse

process, and an air pocket.

This "anticipated trajectory" to which you refer is defied by Willis 5 and BDM's position.

I didn't think anyone took the idea of a flachette seriously, since the probability of aiming and hitting a moving target with such a device are miniscule.

Factually incorrect.

1975 Church Committee testimony of William Colby (emphasis mine):

Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which

would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?

Colby: We have indeed.

Church: Does this pistol fire the dart?

Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is

obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a

normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by

electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a

small dart.

Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently?

Colby: Almost silently; yes.

Church: What range does it have?

Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100

meters.

Church: About 100 meters range?

Colby: Yes.

Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the

target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used.

There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in

various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which

potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved

designing a gun that could strike at a human target without

knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin

itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was

hit.

Moreover, your claim about paralysis seems to have a simpler explanation. Robert Livingston, M.D., explained to me that raising his hands to his throat was probably due to the Thorburn Reflex.

So a shallow wound in the back between 1 to 2 inches right of his spine

at the level of his third thoracic vertebra induced Thorburn Relex?

No, Jim, Dr. Livingston is entitled to his opinions but he is not entitled

to his own facts. His diagnosis was based on the fraudulent notion that

JFK was struck at the back base of the neck.

Such is not the case. Livingston needs to do his homework. Even the

Thompsonites find the Thorburn scenario ridiculous.

Lattimer, of course, also advanced that hypothesis, but the advantage of Livingston over Lattimer is that Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and Lattimer a urologist.

And neither of them knows where JFK's back wound was. IOW, neither of them

know the first thing about the John F. Kennedy assassination.

In any case, the probability of these ad hoc explanations being true at the same time is equal to their product, which, since the flachette hit by itself is miniscule, must be some tiny fraction of a very small probability.

Your unproven assumptions are dazzling, Dr. Fetzer. Many data points directly

support the conclusion that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, which was

the preliminary conclusion of the men who actually examined the body.

The damage shown in the neck x-ray is utterly consistent with this scenario:

JFK suffered a nicked trachea, a bruised lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the

right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

No exit wound. No bullet recovered.

Same with the back wound: shallow with no exit and no bullet recovered.

JFK's actions in the limo are consistent with this conclusion: he was struck

circa Z190 and was seized up paralyzed with a "quizzical" look on his face

by circa Z230.

According to Tom Wilson's analysis of Altgens 6 there was a man in the

Dal-Tex who appeared to be aiming a device Steve Kober has identified

as similar to devices that fire blood soluble rounds.

The statements of close witnesses Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Linda Willis

corroborate what we see in the Zapruder : JFK "clutching" at his throat

during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru Z255 (Altgens 6).

The evidence of JFK being hit with blood soluble rounds is substantial;

and that is not the idle theory of a hobbyist.

That conclusion was drawn by the men who were there.

The probability of the effects I have enumerated, by contrast, is very high, if the hypothesis of a shot through the windshield were true. So the windshield shot hypothesis has a high likelihood on the evidence, your alternatives in combination very low. If you want to be rational and allocate your subjective degrees of belief at least roughly in accord with the objective strength of the evidence, then you are barking up the wrong tree. But then I doubt that you are serious about this anyway. It seems to be increasingly difficult to find serious students of the death of JFK on this forum.

Assertions are not argument. You ignore the witness testimony, the Dealey Plaza

photo evidence, the neck x-ray, the historical record of CIA operations, and the

conclusions of the autopsists. What you promote instead is unrelenting non sequitur,

and zero relevant facts.

Quote your fellow experts all you want, Jim.

I prefer the actual evidence.

when Josiah posts rubbish about the wound to the throat being an exit wound,

And an exit wound made by a fragment from the head shots, at that?

Rubbish, truly.

One gets the impression there are parts of the Zapruder film Tink Thompson

has yet to watch.

But what about the mote in your own eye, Jim?

I find the following to be an egregious piece of fluff:

The ‘magic bullet’ theory and a coup d’etat in America

http://www.infowars.com/the-magic-bullet-t...tat-in-america/

Jerry Mazza

Infowars.com

March 8, 2010

Whether you know it or not, the “magic bullet” theory is the critical keystone of the US Government’s claim that a “lone gunman,” Lee Harvey Oswald, assassinated President John F. Kennedy. This theory has been conclusively proven false as of November, 2009, with the publication of Reasoning about Assassinations, by Dr. James Fetzer, based upon research by a team of experts.

I hate to burst your bubble Jim, but Gaeton Fonzi conclusively proved the

SBT false back in 1966 when he confronted Arlen Specter with the JFK

clothing evidence.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fon...th_Specter.html

Back in '66 Salandria won debates by challenging his opponents with the clothing evidence.

But like Peter Dale Scott, Vincent Salandria is a universally respected figure whose essential

conclusions are near-universally ignored.

JFK's T3 back wound and throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence of

conspiracy, and require no *team of experts* to establish.

Cliff,

Not to make the point too strongly, but we are dealing with NINE data points, where you are offering an explanation that might account for ONE. How about ( and © and (d) and (e) and (f) and (g) and (h) and (i)? Yours is the kind of response I would expect from Josiah, the PI, who specializes in focusing on one aspect of multi-faceted argument to the exclusion of the rest. So, if he was shot by Black Dog Man, as you suggest, what explains the small shrapnel wounds to the face,

A shot or shots other than the throat shot.

the damage to the windshield,

A shot or shots other than the throat shot.

the sound of a firecracker,

Consistent with the reasonable conclusion that Mitchell WerBell III designed

a sound-suppressed weapon that delivered a blood soluble flechette to JFK's

throat circa Z190.

the witness reports from Parkland,

How do those establish that the throat shot came through the windshield?

the reporter's column, the confirmation from the official at Ford, the dissimilarity in the windshield later produced, and that his aide was moved from the limo--where he would have created a barrier to a shot through the windshield--to the last car?

How does any of this establish the throat shot as the one that went through

the windshield?

Beg the question much?

If the shot to the throat is so "readily explained", then how about the EIGHT other data points?

None of which establishes a connection between the throat shot and the t&t shot.

This speculation of yours and Weldon's ignores the throat x-ray, the witness testimony

of Rosemary Willis, the fact that JFK seized up paralyzed in two seconds consistent

with known CIA weapons testing and consistent with the preliminary conclusions of

the autopsists immediately after the autopsy.

© the location of the damage in Altgens6 and Algens7,

This has not been established.

[/b]...You can't explain the confirmation from Ford (g). You can't explain why the substitute bears no

similarity to the original (h). And you can't explain why JFK's aide was moved to the very last vehicle (i).[/b]

G and H are irrelevant and I seriously question the idea that JFK's aide would

have prevented BDM from hitting Kennedy.

Please refer us to the testimony of Rosemary Willis regarding blackdogman.

I did.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

Too late to obtain justice? Agreed.

Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in

the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going

to happen.

Cliff, I'm disappointed that you think that even approximates what I meant by the truth. I don't think that's what John Simkin meant either.

Fair enough. In that case the truth is known, imo. It was known in large

part the night of the assassination.

Immediately after the autopsy, right before the cover-up enveloped them

completely, the autopsists huddled together with the 2 FBI guys and came

to the "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood/water soluble rounds.

This conclusion is supported by the neck x-ray which shows a bruised

lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an

air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. No exit wound, no major damage, no

bullet recovered.

The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in about two seconds.

Close witnesses Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and Linda Willis describe JFK

as "grasping" or "clutching" his throat, just as we see in the Zap.

Prior to the assassination the CIA had tested blood soluble flechettes which

paralyzed the victim in two seconds.

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

Steve Kober researched Tom Wilson's analysis of Altgens 6 and found a

match with the weapon Wilson described in A Deeper, Darker Truth:

a weapon that fires blood soluble rounds. Coincidence?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl=

In 1963 the universe of people with access to this technology had to

be very small: Richard Helms, William Colby, Sidney Gottlieb, Charles

Senseney and Mitchell WerBell III.

I'd add WerBell, and very possibly Richard Helms, to my perp list.

I think it reasonable to consign John Martino to a minor courier role as discussed

in Someone Would Have Talked; Dr. Ignorzio was a nobody; the Buchanan

brothers were likely bit players in the initial Castro-did-it cover-up; Carlos Bringuier

likely a bit player in the sheep-dipping of Oswald.

Here's a revised list of serious perps/accessories.

I find this list a reasonable conclusion derived directly from the historical record.

Not a complete list, but a good start...imho...

With Hoover, you might be on to something. The rest of those guys lived too long.

I don't find longevity dispositive of innocence.

They might have been black op pawns, fallback patsies, unwitting stooges, or simply in

the wrong places at the wrong times.

I think we can eliminate Martino, Ignorzio, the Buchanans, and Bringuier on this

basis -- bit players.

I find it hard to believe that they planned, executed, or covered up President Kennedy's murder.

These guys?

I'd find it hard to believe they weren't involved in the planning, execution, and

(attempted) Castro-did-it cover-up.

With the possible exception of Hoover, I don't think those names were who John Simkin was referring to

as "the people behind the murder of JFK."

I'm not trying to compile a complete list, but draw conclusions based on the historical record.

(And by the way Cliff, although I don't agree with you on some items, I find you one of the well-informed and likeable people on this Forum)

Thank you, Michael! Your views always carry weight with me, sir!

Indeed, by denying the through-and-through hole in the windshield, how can you explain (a) the entry wound to the throat,

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis

this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's

ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance.

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

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line

feature" in the region of his hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

There is no innocent explanation for this.

Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage

to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound.

There ARE innocent explanations, like retouching. Most photos of this area are retouched,

most specifically the Nix film.

So Rosemary Willis was "in" on it?

Only two images show BDM...Betzner and Willis5. I believe that both may be altered.

I believe BDM may have been inserted to create confusion.

I can see Maurice Bishop recruiting the 10-year old Rosemary Willis to

participate in this confusion.

Most crucial to BDM's absence is Moorman, which does not show BDM.

Even more crucial to BDM's absence is Rosemary Willis' description of

him as "conspicuous" and a person who happened to "disappear the next

instant."

What do you think Rosemary's CIA code name was, Jack?

The people behind the murder of President Kennedy remain unknown, although there are many on this Forum that have

their own particular answer or answers. I've never believed for a moment that government records would reveal what

really happened in Dallas that day.

The conspirators are dead and the study of President Kennedy's murder has been relegated to more of a hobby than

any opportunity to obtain justice or truth.

Too late to obtain justice? Agreed.

Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in

the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going

to happen.

As a self-admitted hobbyist I find the assassination becomes more and more clear

the longer I study it.

But that's just me.

I subscribe to William Kelly's "proof in the propaganda" view: JFK's killers were the guys

who immediately started pushing the Oswald-as-Commie-agent meme. Names in bold:

Larry Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, pg. 13:

Immediately following the assassination, FBI and CIA informant Richard Cain

(an associate of Sam Giancana and participant in the very early Roselli organized

attempts against Castro) began aggressively reporting that Lee Oswald had been

associated with a FPCC group in Chicago that had held secret meetings in the

spring of 1963 planning the assassination of President Kennedy...

Following the assassination, John Martino and Frank Fiorini/Sturgis of Miami,

and Carlos Bringuier of New Orleans, all began telling the same story about Oswald

visiting Cuba and being a personal tool of Fidel Castro. Strangely enough, on

the afternoon of November 22 after Oswald's arrest, J. Edgar Hoover also related

that the FBI had monitored Oswald on visits to Cuba.

Hoover wrote in a 4:01 PM EST on November 22: "Oswald...went to Cuba on

several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for." Hoover

repeated this information again an hour later in a memo of 5:15 PM EST.

ibid, pg 288:

On Friday evening, Dallas Assistant D.A. William Alexander prepared a formal

set of charges for Lee Oswald. These papers charged Oswald with murdering the

President "(in furtherance of) an International Communist Conspiracy."

William Kelly, the "Black Propaganda Ops" thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=11191&hl=

7) In Miami, shortly after the assassination, Dr. Jose Ignorzio, the

chief of clinical psychology for the Catholic Welfare Services, contacted the

White House to inform the new administration that Oswald had met directly

with Cuban ambassador Armas in Mexico.

8) In Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips of the CIA debriefed a Nicaraguan

intelligence officer, code named "D," who claimed to have seen Oswald

take money from a Cuban at the Cuban embassy. [see: Alvarado Story]

9) In New Zealand, U.S.A.F. Col. Fletcher Prouty read complete biographies

of Oswald in the local papers hours after the assassination, indicating to him

that a bio of Oswald was pre-prepared.

10) Brothers Jerry and James Buchanan, CIA propaganda assets, began

promoting the Castro-did-it theme immediately. According to Donald Freed

and Jeff Cohen (in Liberation Magazine), the source of the Buchanan's tales

was the leader of the CIA supported International Anti-Communist Brigade (IAB).

"Back in Miami," they wrote, "a high powered propaganda machine was cranking

out stories that Oswald was a Cuban agent…" Sturgis is quoted in the Pampara

Beach Sun-Sentinel as saying that Oswald had talked with Cuban G-2 agents

and fracassed with IAB members in Miami in 1962.

To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter: "It's all there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you

need to catch them, these men you seek..."

Or so my hobby has led me to conclude.

Indeed, by denying the through-and-through hole in the windshield, how can you explain (a) the entry wound to the throat,

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis

this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's

ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance.

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

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line

feature" in the region of his hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

There is no innocent explanation for this.

Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage

to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound.

Another good review of the book is by the historian Joseph E. Green:

http://www.ctka.net/2010/voodoo.html

It includes the following:

Aaronovitch's point of view on Oswald is as follows:

If one reads the Warren Report, the circumstantial evidence that Oswald was the lone gunman seems overwhelming. He worked at the Texas School Book Depository, where, on the sixth floor, after the shooting, his rifle was discovered inside an improvised sniper's nest. People had seen a man at the sixth-floor window, had seen the rifle barrel, had heard the shots. Oswald was the only employee unaccounted for after the shooting, and he was picked up shortly afterward in a cinema, having just shot a policeman looking for someone of his description. The words 'slam dunk' come to mind. [7]

A clear-cut case of journalistic malpractice. Even if every point in this "slam dunk" case

were true none of it would preclude other shooters.

Aaronovitch presents no case against conspiracy, but pretends otherwise.

Apologies for taking this away from the topic of fabric folds.....

Same topic, Michael.

The JFK's clothing defects are prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

Andy Walker, Mike Tribe, David Aaronovitch and June Sochen must either embrace

Lamson's Folly or admit to committing journalistic/academic malpractice.

Sure Cliff. Same topic. My mistake.

The same hysteria Walker et al attribute to conspiracists is on display in Lamson's posts.

The same embrace of wildly implausible (impossible) scenarios and ad hom attacks,

also attributed to conspiracists.

Yes, Michael, I think it is appropriate in this thread to demonstrate the usual Lone Nut

response to prima facie evidence of conspiracy and tie Walker et al to their own

characterizations of others.

Apologies for taking this away from the topic of fabric folds.....

Same topic, Michael.

The JFK's clothing defects are prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

Andy Walker, Mike Tribe, David Aaronovitch and June Sochen must either embrace

Lamson's Folly or admit to committing journalistic/academic malpractice.

So, Andy, when is Peter Lemkin going to be reinstated as a member in

good standing of this fine Forum?

John shouldn't have to deal with this right now, and I for one think you ought to

take care of this, Andy.

CLIFF THE LINK TO YOUR SITE IS BROKEN...B

Thanks Bernice!

Yeah, I'm not sure what went on there...so I linked to my article instead,

which I should be doing anyway...

There is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

6+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric (3+" each) in a massive horizontal fold 6 times

larger than JFK's visible shirt collar?

Hysterical.

We see the pattern repeated and repeated and repeated - a case is made against conspiracy x or the 'evidence' presented to support it and out trot the wild eyed cavalry...with their 'ad homs'

Andy, I hope you're following this because much it concerns what you've

written earlier.

I've made the case that the bullet defects in JFK's clothing are prima facie

evidence of 2+ shooters -- and out trots the wild eyed with the "ad homs."

Lamson's last post was in moderation limbo for what -- 10 hours?

Looks like it ain't just CTs who get hysterical around here.

I was and still am, correct on both counts.

You've made so many claims that you've back-pedaled from it'd

take a scorecard to keep track.

I found NEW evidence, and revised PART of my orignal work.

Part? PART? Well, that's new. You never said anything about "part" of your

original work being wrong before. Let me guess...you've come into NEW evidence

concerning your original work and you were only PART wrong?

Am I close?

How many times are you going to turn up flat wrong and still claim credibility

on this issue?