Cliff Varnell

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?

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.