Cliff Varnell

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

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

Who shot JFK in the throat?

Black Dog Man. How do we know? Because Rosemary Willis describes him as

a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant" right after

JFK was shot in the throat; and because according to the HSCA's analysis of

the Willis 5 photo there was a "very distinct straight-line feature" near the region

of BDM's hands.

How can anyone put an innocent spin on that?

Excellent take Cliff.

Rosemary made on of the most important witness report before the HSCA.

Martin

Along with her dad Phil Willis and her sister Linda, Rosemary answers

a lot of questions.

From the HSCA report:

Ms. Willis...gave no information on the direction or location of the shots, but stated

that her father became upset when the policemen in the area appeared to run away

from where he thought the shots came from; that is, they were running away from

the grassy knoll.

Many have tried to spin this statement into something innocent. Like Wikipedia:

Rosemary was also documented in the HSCA report that her father, military veteran Phillip Willis, became upset when the Dallas policemen, sheriffs, and detectives --who first quickly ran onto the grassy knoll where he thought the shots came from-- then the authorities ran away from the grassy knoll.

What nonsense! Since when does a good Texan like Phil Willis get upset when

the sheriff's posse rides out after the bad guys?

Seems to me Rosemary Willis wanted to tell the world that guys dressed like

cops shot Kennedy.

I like to share this few frames i extracted from JFK the movie.

This few frames showing Rosemary Willis running and following the presidential limousine on Elm street.

Amos Euins sitting on a white concrete structure clapping his hands.

It needs maybe a minute or two to load this GIF cause it's almost 10 Mb huge.

This also an attempt to divert from the latest discussions back to the JFK research.

I hope thats OK.

Thank you

Martin

Any discussion that highlights Rosemary Willis is more than OK.

She's the most important witness in the case, imo.

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

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

Who shot JFK in the throat?

Black Dog Man. How do we know? Because Rosemary Willis describes him as

a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant" right after

JFK was shot in the throat; and because according to the HSCA's analysis of

the Willis 5 photo there was a "very distinct straight-line feature" near the region

of BDM's hands.

How can anyone put an innocent spin on that?

Yes, Peter, most interesting. I've read the book and for some reason the 638 ways do NOT include a number of attempts that are directly connected to what happened at Dealey Plaza. Those are the attempts to kill Castro that need to be reviewed more closely.

The others are just theater.

Bill Kelly

Bill, anything at all about Operation Northwoods?

Me:

You always state your conclusions as certainties, Craig, it's your MO.

Craig:

And I was correct.

First you admit you were wrong about the right-side fantasy bunch,

now you are claiming you were correct again!

Which is it, Craig? What does it take for you to make up your mind?

First you claimed that ALL the Dealey Plaza photos had the same right side

"Betzner bunch," then when presented with the actual evidence you furiously

back-pedaled while blowing the same old smoke.

You have not only mis-analyzed Betzner -- by your own admission -- you've

mis-analyzed every photo taken in Dealey Plaza.

No, I got it all correct all along Cliff.

Then why have you admitted you were incorrect with your initial Betzner Bunch

analysis?

You put the entire Betzner Bunch on JFK's right shoulder initially, now you're

claiming the "larger portion" of the fold was TO THE LEFT of JFK's centerline.

And all the Dealey Plaza photos show a massive fold on both JFK's right and left

shoulder? You admit that Towner shows "not much bunch," so how could you get

it "all correct all along"?

It would appear there is one constant to Craig Lamson's analyses: no matter

how much Craig contradicts himself, he is always correct.

That is, Craig is always correct until he experiences a rare moment of lucidity

and admits he was wrong.

There is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. You can't refute this fact.

But you're claiming this fold is "TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back," (YOUR

emphasis) a claim you will soon need to disavow, as usual.

Please show the quote where I have made this claim about Betzner.

Gentle reader, Craig Lamson presents a fascinating study of "intellectual hysteria."

A couple of years ago Craig put both the Towner photo and the Croft photo into evidence

of his bunch theory. He was forced to admit -- in a fleeting moment of lucidity -- that the

amount of elevated fabric in Towner was "not much."

Now he back-pedals on his Croft analysis while blowing his trademark smoke.

The Croft photo was taken less than a second before Betzner. According to

Craig the fabric fold in Croft is (his emphasis) "TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's

back."

Right on cue Craig must back-pedal, of course, and deny that he applied

this analysis to Betzner.

Here's Craig's full quote (emphasis in CAPS is Craig's, emphasis in bold is mine):

The evidence provided in Croft is unimpeachable. There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. The laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sun in relation to JFK in Croft prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you consider this unimpreachable evidence "arcane" speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty or rather lack thereof.

When we move past Croft and on to Betzner we find the same fold obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This too is unimpeachable due to the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Given the jacket collar is at least 1.25 inches tall, this fold of fabric including returns equals at least 3 inches of fabric. Again unimpeachable.

That's 4 (count 'em!) FOUR unimpeachable assertions that the Betzner Bunch was

the large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of JFK's centerline.

Thank you for demolishing the Single Bullet Theory again, Craig.

All your other assertions, baseless as they may be, are simply off-topic.

Me:

And what's truly high comedy about this, Craig, is that you admitted to Pat Speer that

your New & Improved Betzner Bunch is...wait for it... "mostly on the left side".

Craig:

Given you like to misquote, please provide the link and the entire quote.

You are correct, Craig. I mis-quoted you and I apologize. My paraphrase

proved accurate, however.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=171623

From the "Question for Z-film Experts" thread, post #10, emphasis Craig's:

... There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back...

...The large portion of the fold as seen in Croft is to the LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back as proven by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

First you claim JFK's "Betzner Bunch" was on the right shoulder, and that ALL the Dealey

Plaza photos showed the same right shoulder bunch.

But you dis-avowed both those conclusions, and now place the fold TO THE LEFT of midline.

But you just make things up as you go along, Craig, don't you?

Andy, are you following this?

Me:

You always state your conclusions as certainties, Craig, it's your MO.

Craig:

And I was correct.

First you admit you were wrong about the right-side fantasy bunch,

now you are claiming you were correct again!

Which is it, Craig? What does it take for you to make up your mind?

First you claimed that ALL the Dealey Plaza photos had the same right side

"Betzner bunch," then when presented with the actual evidence you furiously

back-pedaled while blowing the same old smoke.

You have not only mis-analyzed Betzner -- by your own admission -- you've

mis-analyzed every photo taken in Dealey Plaza.

There is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. You can't refute this fact.

But you're claiming this fold is "TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back," (YOUR

emphasis) a claim you will soon need to disavow, as usual.

The bullet holes in the clothing are right of mid-line.

Your analysis demolishes the Single Bullet Theory.

Thank you for your contribution to the case, Craig.

The aircraft used by this group were designated as “cutouts” and certified as belonging to the U.S. Forest Service’s air- craft fleet, but they were controlled by U.S. military intelligence, and contracted by civilian operators for whom Plumlee and other pilots worked. These pilots used secret air bases in Costa Rica, as well as on the notorious John Hall Ranch, as unloading and staging areas for the illegal weapons. They also used hidden runways in Costa Rica and El Salvador, controlled by the drug cartel, which then allowed them to bring into the United States drugs on the return trips.

Tosh,

At the risk of going slightly off-topic, I gotta ask: did you ever get the impression

you were doing the same thing in Cuba late-50's -- running guns in, running drugs out?

You just can't impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The fold is there and that is unimpeachable. All other Varnell arguments have been tossed into the dustbin of ignorance.

This the same rhetoric Craig used during the two years he ADMITS he

was dead wrong.

Now let's see if Mike Tribe or Andy Walker can wrap their academic minds

around the notion that 6+ inches of combined shirt and jacket fabric could

magically leap up JFK's back in defiance of the law of gravity, above the bottom

of the jacket collar without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Since Andy and Mike love to shackle conspiracists with the absurdities of the

fringe, let them own Lamson's Folly as their defense of the Single Bullet Theory.

I called the work unimpeachable for TWO years? Please support that with fact Varnell.

You always state your conclusions as certainties, Craig, it's your MO.

You've been making definitive statements about "bunch" since 2007. Your rationales

and excuses change, but your rhetoric doesn't.

From the "Another thread for the bunch debate" thread, where you posted this graphic

and dubbed your imaginary right-side fabric fold as "the Betzner Bunch":

Here's what you wrote on Feb 21, 2008:

You problem is that the "Bentzer Bunch" is totally consistant WITH ALL of the Dealy Plaza images

showing the bunch both before and after the back shot. Do I need to post all of the images?

I called your bluff. ALL the Dealey Plaza images were posted (see my website).

And then you said they didn't count!

You still claim the earlier photos don't count!

And what's truly high comedy about this, Craig, is that you admitted to Pat Speer that

your New & Improved Betzner Bunch is...wait for it... "mostly on the left side".

Andy Walker and Mike Tribe will need to do a little research on the clothing

evidence to find out that the bullet hole in JFK's jacket -- also known as

hard evidence -- is 1.75" right of midline.

Craig admits that his earlier analysis was wrong and there was no significant

elevation of JFK's jacket on the right side where the bullet hole is.

In other words, Walker/Tribe/Aaronovitch are counting on Craig Lamson to

defend a theory he demolishes by his own hand.

"Voodoo Histories'' lucidly reveals the weaknesses of several popular conspiracy theories, including the JFK-RFK-MLK assassination trifecta, the origin of the "Da Vinci Code,''and Marilyn Monroe's death. The book endeavors to explain why "the counterintuitive, the unlikely, and the implausible . . . have a better purchase on our imagination and beliefs than the real."

And yet David Aaronovitch, in order to defend the Single Bullet Theory, must

embrace absurdities far greater than the Da Vinci Code.

The claim that JFK's clothing hiked 3+ inches up his back in 10 seconds

on its own power must have purchase on Aaronovitch's imagination,

or he must admit he is wrong about the JFK conspiracy.

You just can't impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The fold is there and that is u8nimpeachable. All other Varnell arguments have been tossed into the dustbin of ignorance.

This the same rhetoric Craig used during the two years he ADMITS he

was dead wrong.

Now let's see if Mike Tribe or Andy Walker can wrap their academic minds

around the notion that 6+ inches of combined shirt and jacket fabric could

magically leap up JFK's back in defiance of the law of gravity, above the bottom

of the jacket collar without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Since Andy and Mike love to shackle conspiracists with the absurdities of the

fringe, let them own Lamson's Folly as their defense of the Single Bullet Theory.

Craig, you have stipulated to two facts:

1) Your analysis of Betzner was WRONG for two years.

2) You concede that there was "not much bunch" in the Towner photo taken

10 seconds before Betzner.

Your credibility on this issue is zero.

Maybe Mike Tribe and Andy Walker would like to chime in.

Gentlemen, I'm serious.

Wrap your minds around the following scenario: JFK's tailored jacket and

tucked-in custom-made dress shirt leaped up his back 3+" each in 10 seconds,

elevating entirely above the SBT in-shoot at the base of JFK's neck without

pushing up on the jacket collar resting at the base of JFK's neck.

Wrap your minds around the possibility of that scenario and get back to us, okay?

Maybe Mike Tribe and Andy Walker would like to chime in.

Keep in mind the amount of exposed shirt collar at the back of JFK's head -- 1/2".

The contents of the red box --according to Craig Lamson -- involves

3+ inches of JFK's jacket and 3+" of his shirt elevated entirely above

the SBT inshoot at the base of his neck.

And this occurred without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base

of the neck!

Neat trick, I know.

Craig Lamson back on the attack!

Are you referring to the fold that you didn't notice until after two years of intense analysis?

Why yes I DID find new evidence and I adjusted my positon. Thats how it works, at least for the intellectually honest.

It took you two years to "discover new evidence" but you disparage as

"intellectually dishonest" all who do not see it instantly. How does that work?

After 2 years of intense expert analysis you got Betzner wrong -- why should

anyone have any confidence you got it right this time?

It just seems that you're trying to leverage your position as an "expert"

to blow smoke about a subject you obviously know little about.

And I do find it very amusing that after, wha tis it...10 yeats YOU still can't understand the fold! Stones and glass houses and all of that.

And what is there to understand about a "fold" you couldn't detect for two years?

Your original claims were blown out of the water so you invented an

impossible scenario you can't replicate or explain.

The fold where both the sunny side and the shadow side are in shadow?

Thats really a funny one Varnell. I can't wait for your to explain this one!

You explain it. On Jan 9 2010 we had the following exchange:

Me:

Where's the 1.5" upside of your imaginary horizontal fold, which somehow

stayed hidden in the shadows even though it's 3 times larger than the shirt

collar!

You:

It IS the shadow. Simple things really escape you.

So the topside/sunny side of this massive bulge -- which was three

times larger than the visible shirt collar! -- IS the shadow. Please explain

how 1.5" inches of sunshine catching fabric IS the shadow...

According to Craig the red box below contains 3+ inches of JFK's

shirt and 3+ inches of JFK's jacket elevated entirely above the

SBT inshoot at the back of the neck!

Amazing!

And if this were a matter of observing "simple things" why did it take

you two years of intense study of make this "new discovery"?

Could it be you are only trying to save face after your nutter world view was

disabused?

Funny how such obvious artifacts escaped the keen eye of Craig Lamson

for two years.

How long has this fold escaped your eye? 10 years?

You studied the photo for two years and this rationalization didn't

occur to you.

Why did it take two years if it's so obvious?

Why is there clearly a vertical-diagonal fold where you claim a horizontal

fold?

Then there's the Towner photo you put into evidence yourself, Craig.

You admitted this photo shows "not much" in the way of fabric bunch.

How can you observe "not much bunch" in the Towner photo taken 10 seconds

before Betzner -- and then claim 3+ inches of JFK's shirt and jacket

leaped up his back on their own power in 10 seconds?

You can't replicate your fantasies; you can't explain how 6 inches of shirt and

jacket fabric defied Newton's First Law and the Law of Gravity.

You can't tell the difference between an indentation and a bulge, a vertical

fold and a horizontal fold, and stretching fabric as opposed to bunching fabric.

You claim JFK's tucked in custom-made shirt had 3+ inches of slack

because you pride yourself on being ignorant of clothing fit.

Have I left anything out?

There is a fold, large enough to obscures the jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. How it got there is irrelevent. It's there and your simply can't refute it.

Get back to us when YOU adjust your failed position to reflect the new..and unimpeachable evidence.

The new rationalizations carry no more weight than Craig's demolished original

claims.

A massive impossible-to-replicate-or-explain fold is there because Craig Lamson says so.

Evidence and common sense need not apply in his universe.

Bill,

I was sent this post by Pat Speer from the Lancer Forum, where he is attacking Doug Horne. Since you and I are both

staunch supporters of Doug--whose work, in my view, represents a turning point in JFK assassination research by virtue

of his standing as a member of the ARRB and the thorough, detailed and meticulous character of his research--yet Pat is

attacking him there. His doubting of Sandra Spencer's memory because it was thirty years old is about as ridiculous an

objection as I have encountered. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., for example, in his chapter on the medical evidence in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), also points out that Spencer could be so certain that these were not the photos she

had processed because they were on the wrong kind of paper, which she had not used. On page 241, Mantik explains

that Spencer had brought to her deposition a JFK photograph that had been developed ten days before his death. By

comparing the identifying marks on this photo to the autopsy photos, she was able to conclude that she had developed

none of extant autopsy photos. That would appear to be definitive evidence. Yet Speer dismisses it as mere "silliness"!

I find Pat's work on the medical evidence disposable.

Like other "high back wound" pet theorists Speer must conduct jihad against

the witnesses. Everyone who saw the low back wound got it wrong.

Pat's claims are based on the notion that improperly prepared medical evidence

trumps properly prepared medical evidence.

As I say, readily disposable.

At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts...

So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom

of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination?

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe.

Sadly for you and your silly website, it is unimpeachable that there was a fold of fabric large enough to obsure JFKJ's jacket collar in Betzner. You fail at intellectual honesty...

Craig Lamson back on the attack!

Are you referring to the fold that you didn't notice until after two years of intense analysis?

The fold where both the sunny side and the shadow side are in shadow?

Funny how such obvious artifacts escaped the keen eye of Craig Lamson

for two years.

Of course, what are we to expect from one who can't discern the difference

between horizontal and vertical, indentations and bulges, or stretching fabric

and bunching fabric.

It's all the same to Craig Lamson.

Intellectual malpractice.

Cross-posted:

Many years ago, when the Education Forum still mostly dealt with education issues, I became worried that it was being taken over, more and more, by people whose primary interest was not educational but rather the discussion of the arcane details of what they saw as government conspiracies to, among other things, change the climate in order to cause flooding in New Orleans, falsify the Apollo moon landings, destroy the WTC, assassinate Benazir Bhutto, etc, etc, etc.

Hurricane Katrina was an epochal natural disaster; to ascribe this to a US government

conspiracy is utterly fanciful and not widely held.

The Apollo moon landings were an epochal achievement in human history that has

attracted a small cohort of naysayers who can produce no prima facie evidence of

criminal conspiracy.

Three buildings at the WTC collapsed in free-fall speed in the direction

of greatest resistance. This strikes many people as prima facie evidence of

controlled demolition.

The murder of Benazir Bhutto was a criminal conspiracy according to

the official version blaming Mehsud.

Prof. Tribe, your etc., etc, etc. certainly includes the JFK assassination

with its abundant and redundant evidence of criminal conspiracy, of which this

is a handy sample:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

How on earth do you conflate fanciful speculation for which there is no prima

facie evidence of criminal conspiracy with hard, cold crime scene facts?

At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts...

So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom

of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination?

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe.

Sorry to hijack the thread again, Andy! Tough to keep up around here, but that's

why I love the joint, warts and all.

Mike Tribe added a couple of interesting "conspiracy" theories to the pile

which you, Mike and David Aaronovitch equate with 9/11 and the JFK

assassination.

One is on the frivolous list -- that the US government conspired to create

Hurrican Katrina. I've never heard that one before. Did Mike Tribe encounter

a drunk under a full moon and transcribe this scenario as it was spoken of

between swigs?

The other Tribe cite is the assassination of Benizar Bhutto. Well, the guy the Pakistani

gov't fingered for the deed (Mehsud) denied it.

Don't terrorists commit terror in order to brag about it?

Isn't there a legitimate question as to the parties responsible?

At any rate, the assassination of Bhutto was certainly a criminal conspiracy

left un-examined.

Seems we have a case of false equivalency, Andy.

Neither, there's nothing unsettling there at all. Pardon my humour.

Ah, the dry Aussie wit! Pardon granted...

please dont

Which long word was unsettling to you -- "nonsensically" or "frivolous"?

Given the tenor of your post it had to be one or the other.

why use long words when brevity will suffice?

When I hire an editor I'll keep you in mind. Thanks.

IMO there's a form of bigotry at work in all this.

Having spent most of my life in the Deep South, I have had plenty of opportunities to see racial bigotry at work. It has often been said, and I believe it has validity, that bigots in this sense are people who need someone to look down on. ("White trash" need something lower than themselves.)

In the larger sense of bigotry, who is more looked down on by the rest of the population (and of course by the government and its media) than "conspiracy theorists" with their wacko ideas, tinfoil hats, etc. All CTs must be lumped together, of course. Evidence for this or that conspiracy is irrelevent, these are just people who will believe anything. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if CTs don't all look alike!

What I'm not sure of is the need that's being met by this looking down. We know what the government's need is (self-preservation), but as for the need of other folks looking down their proboscises, I don't quite get it, unless it's the need for security. (I want government that's non-conspiratorial. Therefore my government is non-conspiratorial, and you better not try to tell me otherwise!)

Andy Walker et al are guilty of a mechanical, motivated reasoning which

nonsensically conflates frivolous speculation with physical evidence from

actual crime scenes.

Sorry to hijack yer thread, Andy!

Back on topic!

According to my understanding Princess Diana died in a high speed car chase.

There are allegations of a criminal conspiracy, but no prima facie evidence of such.

Jesus' "bloodline" is historical speculation which doesn't appear to have held up well.

By what form of tortured logic does this compare with actual crimes scenes such as

Dealey Plaza and Ground Zero et al?

9/11 was obviously a criminal conspiracy -- unless you think Osama bin Laden himself

hijacked four planes? There are obviously open questions about the ultimate blame

for this conspiracy when you consider the fact that the US Justice Department has never

indicted Osama bin Laden for the crime. As far as Pakistan goes, it is a matter of some

record (Times of India, Agence France) that the then head of Pakistani ISI Mahmoud Ahmed

wired Mohamad Atta $100,000 the summer of 2001.

How does citing these facts constitute "Voodoo History"?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a literary account widely regarded as a hoax. How

is this placed under the same color as hard facts in historic crime?

Apollo was a watershed event in human history that 10% of folks don't buy.

There is certainly no prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy involved in the moon

landings.

JFK assassination features an adundance of prima facie evidence of criminal

conspiracy.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

I dismiss the Aaronovitch premise as wholly mechanical and illogical, painting

legitimate obvious views with issues raised only for their frivolity.

Whatever offense he may have committed pales in comparison to the xxxx I've taken

around this joint for years without complaint (hi Craig) -- until now.

It didn't seem to bother the moderators when Craig Lamson suggested

I was a corrupt poker dealer because I disagreed with him.

Hey Evan -- want me to drag up some old Craig invective you allowed for years?