Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,565 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
Yes, David, I think they would much rather debate body alteration over the probability Arlen Specter suborned perjury or the strange fact Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, etc. It's not that you don't know your stuff. You do. But it's that every bit of evidence you cite can be explained, correctly or not, by the familiar explanation that memories are imperfect, and people make mistakes. While you might not find that explanation satisfactory, they do, and will bank on it's success.
Success at what?
The RH series is about Oswald. It won't get into any of these issues.
It is a matter of authentic historical record that Humes noticed surgery
to the head in the early stage of the autopsy, which supports the
supposition that the handling of the body was less than kosher.
Bugliosi couldn't argue this case out of a wet paper bag, no one buys the
LN outside of the 20%ers, who need that notion for their world view.
RH is gonna bomb big time (assuming it ever gets made!)
People are suckers for the truth, Bubba.
-
there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence.
This statement is factually incorrect.
(*AF response in bold with an asterisk.)
*Well, which hairs should we split? Perhaps I should have said "there was an attempt at a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence that (assuming they weren't in on it) managed to keep the WC, the Clark panel and the HSCA enough in the dark to mislead the American public for 40+ years." I hope that you are not doubting that there was a conscious cover-up in the medical evidence.
Of course not. Why not frame the point as, "The improperly prepared medical
evidence indicates a conscious cover-up."
That way you are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It's a simple exercise in common sense to conclude that thereare two categories of medical evidence in the murder of JFK:
1) Evidence properly prepared, collected, and produced.
This would include: Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet,
JFK's clothing, the contemporaneous notes taken by Parkland doctors,
the neck x-ray, the FBI autopsy report and the 1978 sworn affidavits
of FBI autopsy observers Sibert and O'Neill.
2) Evidence improperly prepared, collected, and produced.
The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and anything to do
with the head wound evidence, especially the head x-rays.
*"Improperly prepared" is a bit ambiguous and leaves room for incompetence as an explanation. It is now completely demonstrated that fradulently prepared is the true decription of the autopsy photos, autopsy report, etc. Not incompetence, willful obstructiion of justice.And yet it is this fraudulently prepared material that holds such a fascination
for most of the heavyweight JFK assassination researchers, while the properly
prepared material is largely ignored.
Personally, I don't get it.
The properly prepared evidence is both internally consistent andconsistent with the witness testimony and the Dealey Plaza photo
evidence, including the Zapruder film (most importantly!)
between frames Z186 and Z255.
My beef with Horne isn't the evidence he analyzes (NOT "his" evidence)
but the emphasis.
*I tend to agree with you on the "not his evidence" comment. While we must all give credit where credit is due, I tend to agree with you that the researcher-centric approach to the evidence can be counter-productive. Ownership of ideas can certainly inhibit free and creative thinking.Like many JFK research heavyweights Horne seems to concentrate ondegraded evidence (head wounds) at the expense of credible
unambiguous evidence (back and throat wounds).
Eliminate any serious study of 2) and 1) leads directly to the perps...or
so I'll argue going forward.
*Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "degraded evidence." I think that the study of manipulation of the head wound evidence is the clearest indication of evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and cover-up. So of course it is worthy of attention. And figuring out exactly how the cover-up was implemented is certainly one path (of many) to the perpetrators.We already know from the properly prepared evidence that there was
a conspiracy and thus obstruction of justice and cover-up.
That is my main point: people have a fetish for conflicted, improper evidence
while the genuine evidence is ignored.
Of course my main point is that I believe that now there is no longer any room for debate that the medical evidence was consciously and purposely tampered with.
And my main point is that the properly prepared evidence tells us how
JFK was murdered: low back wound, throat entrance wound, no exit wounds,
no bullets recovered.
The autopsists were pointing their sharp scalpels at the CIA the night of
the autopsy, and they didn't even realize it.
-
"Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble
rounds."
What's the source for this claim?
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 1978 HSCA 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)
Completely-fragment/dissolve-after-contact = blood soluble.
If you want to nit pick, "water soluble" would also work.
-
Worse yet, they think based on their own personal efforts they have the answer(s) to this case. Poppycock!
The historical record doesn't belong to anyone.
Just because someone points out a fact in the historical record
doesn't make it proprietary.
I think the researcher-centric mentality is to be decried.
-
Worse yet, they think based on their own personal efforts they have the answer(s) to this case. Poppycock! P
I think the answers to the case are self-evident.
Eliminate consideration of debased medical evidence not
prepared according to proper protocol (anything to do with the
head wounds).
Embrace the utterly consistent, properly prepared medical
evidence which shows that JFK was struck in the back and in
the throat with rounds that were not recovered and did not exit.
Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble
rounds. The universe of people with significant knowledge of blood
soluble rounds in 1963 consisted of 4 guys: Richard Helms, Sidney
Gottlieb, Charles Senseney and Mitchell WerBell especially.
Why does everyone automatically assume HBF got it wrong the
night of the autopsy?
HBF cracked the case!
-
there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence.
This statement is factually incorrect.
It's a simple exercise in common sense to conclude that there
are two categories of medical evidence in the murder of JFK:
1) Evidence properly prepared, collected, and produced.
This would include: Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet,
JFK's clothing, the contemporaneous notes taken by Parkland doctors,
the neck x-ray, the FBI autopsy report and the 1978 sworn affidavits
of FBI autopsy observers Sibert and O'Neill.
2) Evidence improperly prepared, collected, and produced.
The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and anything to do
with the head wound evidence, especially the head x-rays.
The properly prepared evidence is both internally consistent and
consistent with the witness testimony and the Dealey Plaza photo
evidence, including the Zapruder film (most importantly!)
between frames Z186 and Z255.
My beef with Horne isn't the evidence he analyzes (NOT "his" evidence)
but the emphasis.
Like many JFK research heavyweights Horne seems to concentrate on
degraded evidence (head wounds) at the expense of credible
unambiguous evidence (back and throat wounds).
Eliminate any serious study of 2) and 1) leads directly to the perps...or
so I'll argue going forward.
-
To further illustrate my point that "Government Disinformation Agents"
are the product of bogeyman-mongering, let's flip the argument around
this way:
Imagine George H. W. Bush huddling with David Atlee Phillips to design a
campaign of infiltration and contamination of the John F. Kennedy
Assassination Critical Research Community -- what would they do?
If I were them, I'd create 2 main factions.
1) The first faction would attack the credibility of the folks who witnessed
the prima facie evidence of conspiracy: the throat entrance wound
and/or the low back wound. "I am unwilling to say, unambiguously,
that the throat wound was an entry hole. Sounds reasonable to me..."
one would declare.
This group would staunchly defend the authenticity of the Dealey
Plaza photo evidence.
2) The second faction would attack the authenticity of the Dealey
Plaza photo evidence -- and stick up for the witnesses. "The entire
Zapruder film is fake," many would declare.
Then I'd have these two factions battle it out over a long line of issues,
generally pitting the Witness Evidence versus the Photo Evidence in
storms so intense that members of the Community start to line up
on one side or the other...
...Thus generating the impression that the witness testimony conflicts
with the photo evidence at key points (which it doesn't).
Then, for good measure I'd put the very best extant evidence
in the case -- JFK's shirt and jacket, the concrete, measurable evidence
of 4+ shooters -- and put it in the hands of some joker who just likes
to argue and set him loose for a decade on various JFK newsgroups
going over the clothing evidence tit-for-tat, point-by-point, driving the
best evidence in the case down a rabbit hole of False Equivalency.
To top it off, I'd make this clown a punk rocker, or a gambling house
degenerate, or both! And I'd make sure he had an arrogant, know-it-all
attitude and a penchant for ridicule.
Now that, gentle reader, is a Disinfo Campaign for the ages!
-
In that case...
I strongly applaud any effort to rid redundant text from our replies!
-
Quoting PDS here doesn't hold water.
Certainly Ruby, the mafia, the Cubans and the renegade CIA were hook up with the drug networks, and as PDS says, an understanding of the drug networks gives you a good idea of how the underground Deep Political system works, but the Mafia didn't kill JFK.
No one is arguing that. It was a pan-organizational effort involving people
with a wide variety of backgrounds. If I'm reading Scott correctly one cannot
equate "drug networks" simply with the Mafia, the Cubans and renegade CIA.
Were the Mafia, the Cubans and renegade CIA behind 9/11?
Obviously not. And yet Scott sees drug-trafficking playing a determining
deep role in "virtually every deep event since JFK."
What were the two major foreign policy hot spots facing the Kennedy
Administration?
Cuba and Vietnam.
Is it a co-incidence that during the 50's Havana was the major hub for international
narcotics trafficking, and during the 60's and 70's SE Asia became the world's opium
basket?
What was the direct result of 9/11?
The US invasion of Afghanistan, with new and improved Afghan opium
production.
If I'm understanding him correctly, PD Scott is indicating that certain elites
within the American ruling class are players in international narcotics, and
much American foreign policy, now as in '63, is infected with those concerns.
In fact, I'd go Scott one better and say that drug-trafficking has had a determining
role in virtually every deep event since the overthrow of Diem.
The Mafia may have expressed foreknowledge of the assassination, but they didn't send Osawld to Russia, set him up as the Patsy, set black propaganda operations in motion to blame the assassination on Castro, control the motorcade, set the Patsy up in the TSBD, control the body, the AF1 communications, the autopsy, the Z-film, the official investigation, the writing of the Warren Report or the Congressional inquiries.This seems to be a critique of an argument no one here is making.
The new line in the sand puts the Lone Nuters and the Conspiracy Theorists who say the assassination was an attack on the man in revenge in the same category, and those who recognize it as an inside coup on the other.BK
And then are those of us who are not in any category whatsoever.
-
That people had foreknowledge of the assassination before it occurred and black propaganda
operations were conducted in concert with the murder indicates that the assassination was
carried out by trained covert intelligence operatives and not by a lone, deranged nut case
or the Mafia. This does not preclude however, members of organized crime or crazy people
from being involved in the operation.
And this should not preclude the plotter's ultimate concerns falling
along the lines of business normally associated with the Mafia, i.e.,
drug trafficking.
Peter Dale Scott, Pittsburg, Oct. '08 (emphasis added):
For over two years now I have been speaking and writing about what I call deep events. I mean by deep events the traumatic and unexpected episodes that recur periodically in US history and alter it, nearly always for the worse. These deep events can never be properly analyzed or understood, because of an intelligence dimension which results in a socially imposed veil of silence, both in the government and in the Mainstream Media.The more that I look at these deep events comparatively, ranging over the past five decades, the more similarities I see between them, and the more I understand them in the light of each other. I hope in this paper to use analogies from the murder of JFK and 9/11 to cast new light on the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy.
I began this analysis in 2006 by comparing the JFK assassination with 9/11. I drew attention to over a dozen similarities, of which today I will be focusing on only four:
1) the remarkable and puzzling speed with which those in power identified what I call the designated culprits (Lee Harvey Oswald and the 19 alleged hijackers),
2) the self-incriminating trail allegedly left by the culprits themselves – such as the bundle that James Earl Ray is said to have conveniently left in a doorway on his way to his car. Oswald was said to have carried a flagrantly falsified draft card identifying himself with the name A.J. Hidell, thus consolidating a link between himself and the Mannlicher-Carcano which had been ordered under that name. Even more spectacularly, Mohamed Atta was said to have left one rental car in the Boston airport, filled with boxcutters and other incriminating items; he then allegedly rented a second car and drove to Maine, where he packed bags with still more self-incriminating material.
3) the CIA's withholding of relevant information about the designated culprits from the FBI, thus leaving the culprits free to play their allotted roles on 9/11. I will say more about this.
4) the role of drug-trafficking in both JFK and 9/11 – and indeed in virtually every major deep event since JFK, specifically including MLK, RFK, Watergate, the Letelier assassination, and Iran-Contra.
-
Cliff, you are the one who is trying to water down conspiracy evidence by needlessly arguing against the official findings
Pat, I think you need to ask yourself why you are needlessly bashing
witnesses who make the "official findings" moot.
-
Black Propaganda Operations affiliated with the Assassination of JFK:
Add these:
Someone Would Have Talked (Larry Hancock):
4:19 PM, Hoover memo related that he had told RFK that the killer has "Communist leanings" and is a "very mean-minded individual." Hoover also related and confirmed again in a 5:15 PM memo that the subject Oswald "went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for." It is true that Hoover did pass on what appears to be some early misinformation about real time events in Dallas but it is hard to interpret the Cuba reference as a mistake since it would have had to come from Oswald's files. Hoover does not mention Oswald's activities in Mexico City or New Orleans or any suspicious contacts or connections.
From pages vii-viii of the Preface to Medicolegal Investigation of the
President John F. Kennedy Murder (Charles G. Wilber, 1978)
An Example of Suppressed Information
Unexpected news releases by government agencies from time to time try the faith
of Americans in the integrity of the Warren Commission as a group and as individuals.
For example, the following news release was carried on national radio and television
services on 13 November 1976.
A memorandum from late FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, has recently come to light.
In that document, Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have told Fidel Castro that he, Oswald,
planned to murder President John F. Kennedy. A highly reliable source is said to have
revealed the matter to Hoover after being himself told of it by Castro. This memorandum,
if true, suggests that Castro or his henchmen were involved in Kennedy's murder in
retaliation for CIA attempts to kill Castro.
Reportedly, shortly after Oswald told Castro of his plans, he (Oswald) got a job at the
Texas School Book Depository Building. Detailed plans of the exact route that the
presidential cavalcade would take through Dallas were presumably not firm until long
after that time. Oswald's preknowledge of just what building would be ideal for his
sniper attempt even before the parade route was allegedly selected is remarkable to
say the least, especially for a nonentity working alone and with no help from anyone
but himself.
-
Pat Speer wrote:
Cliff, you are the one who is trying to water down conspiracy evidence by needlessly
arguing against the official findings
Pat, let me roll that thought around in my noggin a little..."needlessly
arguing against the official findings"...are we still talking about the JFK
assassination?
When the "official findings" are lies we debunk the lies.
That's how we learn about the cover-up.
We don't repeat the lies of the cover-up just because we've made
ourselves "expert" in their fraudulent analyses, do we?
(Well, that's what Grandstanders have been doing since Tink Thompson
started the trend in 1966!)
when the official findings suggest more than one shooter."Suggest"?
Both the low back wound and the throat entrance wounds are prima facie
evidence of 2+ shooters.
It does not require "experts" to see that the SBT doesn't work with the
back wound that low.
Your "suggestion" is we ignore the people who actually saw the body, ignore the
evidence of the clothing defects, ignore the properly prepared medical
evidence and embrace improperly prepared evidence that even its supporters
allow is "deficient."
If there is actual logic involved in your thinking it eludes me, frankly.
If T-1 is consistent with the single-bullet theory, why does EVERY single-bullet theoristmove the wound upwards?
John McAdams for years argued that T1 works for the single bullet theory.
Why press a lie when the truth is so much more clear-cut?
The only witness you cited to claim the wound was at T-3 was Burkley.Care to re-read the testimony?
Dr. Ebersole put it at T4, etc...
In all other cases, you have interpreted what they said as T-3.Boyers put it below the upper margin of the scapula -- that's T3, Pat.
Jenkins described the wound as well below the throat wound which
corresponded to C7/T1.
Hill's description matches the bullet hole in the shirt and Bennett's
description matches the bullet hole in the jacket.
This is to say nothing of the statements of Jan Rudnicki, Floyd Riebe, Will Greer,
Roy Kellerman, Diana Bowron, and Edward Reed -- all indicating a location lower
on the back.
But the Sibert and O'Neill drawings, for example, place the wound exactly where it was on the face sheet, in line with the shoulder tip, which is T-1, T-2 at the lowest.Look at where they put the back wound in relation to the throat wound:
well below.
The throat wound corresponded to C7/T1 and all of these witnesses
put the back wound well below that location.
You're not even logical. Clint Hill said "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column." You then bizarrely insist there was no way he could mistake 4 inches with 6 inches. This is ludicrous. People make this kind of mistake all day long.They do? Anyone over 2 years old, Pat? And how many Secret Service agents
trained to make accurate observations are going to make that mistake, Pat?
Clint Hill was sent on a solemn mission to view JFK's wounds. Do you think
he was so totally out of it that he'd blow it that badly? Do you think he didn't
take this solemn charge seriously enough to be as accurate as possible?
This is the kind of witness bashing I decry. Grandstanders must impugn
the competency of every witness who saw the throat and back wounds.
Incredible!
You then prop up Bennett's approximation of "about 4 inches down from the right shoulder",and assume he means 4 inches down on the clothes.
No, Pat. I point out the fact that the bullet hole in the jacket is four
inches below the bottom of the collar.
This is consistent with Bennett's report.
You have no rebuttal so you're trying to characterize these facts as opinion.
Well, what does Bennett mean by shoulder...the shoulder tip? The higher point where the shoulder muscles attach the neck? It is all too vague. YOU interpret Hill's "about 6 inches" and Bennett's "about 4 inches" to be the same location only because YOUR pet theory demands it.No, Pat, I'm pointing out the consistency of Hill and Bennett and the factual location
of the holes in the clothes:
Bullet hole in the shirt: 5.75" below the top of the collar, consistent with Hill's
testimony of "about 6 inches" below the neckline.
Bullet hole in the jacket: 4.125" below the bottom of the jacket collar, consistent
with Bennett's testimony of "about 4 inches below the shoulder-line."
You have no physical evidence, you have no witness testimony, you have
nothing but serial, incessant witness bashing.
Everyone who saw JFK's wounds got it wrong?...So we need experts...?
Bollocks!
The back wound photo proves the bullet entrance was too low to support the single-bullet theory.Sure, once we've trotted out the Grandstanding Experts who then can analyse
JFK's lean, the grade of Elm St., the position of Connally and blah blah blah.
The proven back wound at T3 requires no experts.
The throat entrance wound requires no experts.
Which is why you and Tink Thompson et al peddle this crap.
You guys want to be the "experts."
-
Cliff, you've got it completely backwards. It is your desire to "crack the case" that leads you to claim the back wound is at T3.
Pat,
First of all, others have "cracked the case" already. The dots connect themselves.
See Salandria, Vincent. Fonzi, Gaeton.
See Hancock, Larry. Or McKnight, Gerald.
See Bamford, James. And Scott, Peter D.
Once you adsorb the information these gentlemen have to share,
and once you realize that properly prepared medical evidence trumps
improperly prepared medical evidence, then the case falls neatly into
place.
Second of all, the T3 back wound isn't my claim, Pat.
None of this is about me (except for the punk rock bit.)
It is the observation of more than a dozen witnesses who had
prolonged views of the stationary body. It is the location indicated
by hard, physical evidence: the bullet holes in the clothes. It is the
location recorded in properly prepared medical documents.
It is the observation of a great American hero, Clint Hill.
In my opinion there were two great American heroes in Dealey Plaza who
tried to prevent Kennedy from getting shot.
Clint Hill and Tosh Plumlee.
We don't have documentation for Tosh -- if you buy his rap you buy it, that's it.
Clint Hill, however, is a world renown bona fide American hero. He performed two
acts of brave service to his country on 11/22 -- but in general Clint Hill only gets
credit for one.
The first we all know about -- the dash to the limo and the rescue of the
First Lady.
The second thing he did in the line of duty was even more significant.
From Clint Hill's sworn statement (emphasis added):
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellermanto come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy
had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I
viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline
on the back just to the right of the spinal column.
Pat, let's just think about this for a moment. In service to his country and to
historical truth itself, Clint Hill observed a back wound six inches down from the
neckline.
This matches the location of the hole in the shirt, 5.75" below the top
of the collar.
Is T1 six inches below the neckline? Of course not!
Could Clint Hill have mistaken "about 4 inches" for "about 6 inches"?
When he was three years old, maybe!
Do you know the difference between "about six inches" and "about
four inches," Pat? I know I do! And to argue that Clint Hill didn't
is pure witness bashing.
There are more than a dozen other guys who, while serving their country,
observed the low back wound at Bethesda.
These men -- and one woman, Diana Bowron at Parkland -- have had their
honor, their credibility, even their honesty challenged for 46+ years and I for
one am sick of it.
The HSCA FPP said it was at T1.They never saw the body. The studied an autopsy photo that they
singled out as "deficient as scientific evidence" but went ahead and
based their conclusion on that!
So you have a panel of guys who never saw the body conclude
the wound was at T1 on the basis of a photograph they conceded
was improperly prepared and prima facie inadmissible in court.
From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings (emphasis added):
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series ofnegatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES
of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have
been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that
it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were
positioned in such a manner to make it DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN
ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS of critical features (such as the WOUND IN THE
UPPER BACK) from anatomical landmarks.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;
such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the
examination.
And by what stretch of logic does the HSCA FPP T1 conclusion trump the
often graphic descriptions of the low back wound by more than a dozen
people who had prolonged views of the wound?
The measurements created at the autopsy suggests they were correct.Those measurements you're citing -- what was it, 13.5 cm below the mastoid
process? -- were written in PEN on the autopsy face sheet.
The other notations on the face sheet -- the dot consistent with
T4, the signed verification -- were written in PENCIL.
According to proper autopsy protocol the notations must be made
in PENCIL.
By what stretch of logic do you conclude that IMPROPERLY
prepared autopsy evidence trumps PROPERLY prepared
autopsy evidence?
So why pretend the wound was at T3, when the only evidence placing it at T3 is a writtenapproximation by one man, a man who never even studied the president's wounds?
Are you claiming that George Burkley never saw the wounds?
He was the only one present at both Parkland and Bethesda!
I don't mean to get nasty here, Pat, but do you only study evidence that comports
with your theories?
Are you wholly unfamiliar with the autopsy face sheet diagram, which was properly
marked "verified" in PENCIL?
Are you wholly unfamiliar with the facts concerning Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman and
Will Greer being sent to the morgue to view the wounds? All of them put the
wound lower down his back!
Sibert and O'Neill also prepared wound diagrams consistent with the lower back
wound.
Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the Boss about four
inches down from the right shoulder."
The bullet holes in the shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the collar. Like Clint Hill,
Glen Bennett nailed the location of the wound exactly!
James Curtis Jenkins, autopsy-attendee, in BODY OF EVIDENCE pg 713:
I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...throughthe pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was
making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry
into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited
in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the
junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart]
or the bronchus in the lungs.
Here's a guy who had his nose in JFK's chest cavity and graphically described
the low, non-transiting wound.
Did he hallucinate it, Pat?
Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik in 1992 that the
back wound was at T4! (KILLING THE TRUTH, Livingstone, pg 721).
Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology
Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is from Boyers signed
affidavit:
Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, morespecifically just under the scapula and next to it.
"Under the scapula" is consistent with T3.
Then we have the holes in the clothes and the fact that custom-made
dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the
Dealey Plaza photos show JFK's jacket dropping.
That's concrete physical evidence of the T3 wound, well corroborated
by the properly prepared medical evidence and the witness statements
of more than a dozen people who had a prolonged view of the wound.
Why not just accept the approximation at T-1, and PUMMEL the LNT community withthe FACT that THEIR version of the single-bullet theory is completely refuted by the
government's top "experts"?
1) Because it is a blatant lie, a product of the cover-up we are working to expose.
2) Because you are then taking a prima facie case for conspiracy and putting
it on a shelf which requires "experts" to evaluate.
Why are you attempting to water down conspiracy evidence in order to
support what is obviously a total fabrication?
-
I think I got you beat, Cliff.
No chance, pal.
I brought hardcore political punk rock into Reno Nevada beginning in 1979:
formed two hardcore political punk bands 7 Seconds and Section 8 and infused
them with my political fervor; promoted Blag Flag twice in Reno in 1981 when
they couldn't get a show anywhere on the West Coast due to the violence
of their audiences...I could go on, but my innate modesty forbids it...
OK, Cliff, you might have me on the whole punk rock thing, but I spent many an evening in the company of Eazy-E, Ice Cube, Ice-T, Snoop Dogg, etc as well as Bad Religion, Black Flag, X, Mudhoney, etc. I was an invited guest to Nine Inch Nails' and Smashing Pumpkins' first shows in L.A. (Smashing Pumpkins played a midnight show at a drag club in West Hollywood.) I hung out backstage with Eisnturzende Neubaten. (Germans have some serious BO.) Prince flew me to Minneapolis to play me his new record. Rodney King drove out to Simi Valley to buy me lunch and pick my brain. (Yes, I actually got in the car with him.)
So I've got Indie/alt cred to burn.
That's some serious biz cred, my man!
-
My fellow Starnes enthusiast Paul Rigby would call me "fatuous" for saying this, but
I don't believe in Government Disinfo Agent bogeymen.
You're right, Cliff, but that wouldn't stop me buying a round, on the eminently reasonable ground that anyone who admires Starnes, and repudiates Lamson, is anything but a lost cause.
Paul
And that wouldn't stop me from drinking it, Paul, with a round or two back!
As long as I don't need to drive.
-
I think I got you beat, Cliff.
No chance, pal.
I brought hardcore political punk rock into Reno Nevada beginning in 1979:
formed two hardcore political punk bands 7 Seconds and Section 8 and infused
them with my political fervor; promoted Blag Flag twice in Reno in 1981 when
they couldn't get a show anywhere on the West Coast due to the violence
of their audiences...I could go on, but my innate modesty forbids it...
-
engaged in an obfuscationary practice
Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world
think he didn't exist.
"Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..."
Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match...
-
It does mean, however, that they are selling out "the Cause" for their own self-aggrandizement.
Which is exactly what Tink Thompson did back in '66, in my opinion.
In the interest of intellectual honesty, I must disclose the view that every time
Cliff Varnell supports the False Equivalency meme by arguing the clothing evidence
as if it were a battle of equal opinions, he is engaged in an obfuscationary practice
and is selling out "the Cause" for his own self-aggrandizement and high amusement.
With every finger that points, three point back.
Like Tink et...I just can't help myself.
Now back to that Lamson thread...
-
My fellow Starnes enthusiast Paul Rigby would call me "fatuous" for saying this, but
I don't believe in Government Disinfo Agent bogeymen. Not in this day and age.
What about the guy who works the Nutter desk at Langley -- or on the Carlyle Corp
floors of the TransAmerica Pyramid -- and whose job it is to manage a team of think
tank types who post on JFK newsgroups and forums?
That guy on the Nutter desk believes that Oswald acted alone.
The think tank types like John McAdams believe Oswald acted alone.
It's like a religious faith to these people. Facts make no impression.
Same with the Grandstanders, people afflicted with what I call Young Researcher Syndrome.
These otherwise fine people are motivated by the desire to be seen doing "great work" in the
field of JFK assassination research. They seek to garner sterling reputations for being
Very Serious, and usually concentrate on issues relating to the head wound(s).
The problem ambitious, grandstanding Young Researchers have is that there are two
prima facie cases for conspiracy -- the low back wound and the throat entrance wound.
The low back wound demolishes the SBT and establishes 4+ shots; the throat entrance
wound obviously establishes a shot from the front and thus conspiracy.
Those with Young Researcher Syndrome will never -- I repeat, never -- acknowledge
the low back wound/front throat wound.
Why?
Because to acknowledge those facts forecloses opportunity to do "great work" in the JFK
Assassination parlor game I call -- "Answer the Question of Conspiracy."
How can an ambitious researcher "Answer the Question of Conspiracy" if it's already been
answered?
How can all those hours and days and years studying the head wound
evidence be meaningful and significant if the study is moot?
So Grandstanders always pooh-pooh either the low back wound, the throat
entrance wound, or both. Always.
I recently read over the parts in Praise From A Future Generation concerning
the Vince Salandria - Tink Thompson feud, and it clearly struck me that Tink suffers
(even today!) from Young Researcher Syndrome.
When Tink sat down with Vince in the summer of '66 to work on a magazine article
that would eventually turn into Six Seconds in Dallas, Vince had the case cold:
the clothing defects were powerful corroboration of the T3 back wound; the Parkland
staff almost uniformly described the throat wound as an entrance; the WC testimony
of Nellie Connally, Clint Hill and Linda Willis established the fact that JFK was responding
to throat truma well before the head shot.
At some point in his work with Salandria, I think Tink came to the sense (it may not have
even been a conscious sense!) that all he was going to get out of this collaboration was a
reputation for being Vincent Salandria's "caddy," in a sense.
Tink didn't want to be anyone's caddy; he wanted to play the game -- "Answer the Question
of Conspiracy."
So Tink did what every Grandstander does -- he pooh-poohed the prima facie case for
conspiracy, and went on to glory with his own analyses. A fragment from the head shot
exited the throat? That's about as ridiculous an argument as could possibly be made!
Does this mean that Tink was (is) being intellectually dishonest about the throat entrance?
You bet! But being intellectually dishonest is the most human of failings, and it especially
rears its head when it comes to employment opportunities (or romantic ones!)
But a "government disinformation agent"?
I don't buy it.
I've been dealing with Grandstanders for over a decade. John Hunt, Barb Junkkarinen,
Pat Speer, Anthony Marsh are some of the leading Grandstanders. All of them
pooh-pooh the obvious, prima facie cases of conspiracy and all of them are "expert"
in other areas.
I don't think this makes them bad people, just bad researchers when it comes to
making the case for conspiracy. It doesn't mean they don't do great research in other
areas of the case.
And it definitely doesn't make them "government disinformation agents."
It does mean, however, that they are selling out "the Cause" for their own self-aggrandizement.
Which is exctly what Tink Thompson did back in '66, in my opinion.
No, I think the psyop guys at the CIA realized fairly early on that the John F. Kennedy
Assassination Critical Research Community tended to schism, and the most incriminating,
consistent facts would be lost in all the poo throwing.
Which is exactly what has happened.
-
It seems to me you are approaching a topic of considerable significance tangentially. Believing there was a frontal throat-shot is one corolary proof of conspiracy; it seems to me, believing that Lee Oswald was innocent or a patsy is the axiom.
And you are correct in that trying to figure out who is a 'sheep-in-wolves' clothing' in the CT community can be counter-productive, at least to some extent.
None of us likes to be sandbagged and have our time wasted by anyone who is intentionally blocking research. I tend to simply ignore the posts of some if I feel replying will just end up being a waste of time.
But the large issue is this -- we know from the past that there is an ongoing cover-up.
Pamela,
Yes, I agree there is an on-going cover-up, but it is a cover-up that has
taken on a life of its own. The people who espouse LN talking points
(LNs and CTs) really really sincerely believe the nonsense they
are repeating.
This is due to the vagaries of human nature. It's called "motivated reasoning."
I think a lot of researchers got into research with the goal of "solving" the
"Question of Conspiracy," and these researchers are going to deny any
prima facie evidence of conspiracy because they want the JFK Mystery to
continue until they can win it.
But as Vincent Salandria pointed out from the very beginning, the proven T3 back
wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy.
But that fact takes all the fun out of it for guys like John Hunt and Pat Speer
who want to do important work so they deny the fact that JFK was shot in
the back at T3. This affords them the opportunity to be the "experts" who
will finally crack the case!
There is a lot of this kind of glory seeking going on, frankly.
But I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of John Hunt or Pat Speer,
I just question their "motivated reasoning" for denying the obvious
well-corroborated and crucial fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3.
I have no doubt that Gary Mack is utterly sincere in his belief that
there is no hard evidence of conspiracy.
Employment is a great spur for "motivated reasoning."
It is not going away. In fact, it is ramping up for 2013. RH is already on the shelves; that monstrosity was supposed to have *closed* the case again. It did not; but the mini-series based on it is in production and will be heading our way before 2013, we can be sure. The WC apologist TV shows are already popping up; I was inadvertently involved in one of them, ITTC. The focus will be and is to wipe out 50 years of CT research by pushing the LHO acted alone theory once more.So, perhaps we can take a step back and look at the process objectively. And keep moving things forward.
Minneapolis, MN (-10)
1.9.10
They've been pushing this nonsense for 46 years and 80% of the
public hasn't bought it yet.
-
Varnell:
That you cannot admit the obvious is telling.
Lamson:
Really?
Varnell:
Yes, really. The fraction of an inch diagonal fold is visible, your massive
impossible-to-replicate 3+" horizontal fold is invisible, a creation of your
own imagination.
Sorry but laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow prove your wrong again. But hey, give it a whirl. Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation. [/color]And your admission that Towner, taken 10 seconds earlier, shows "not much" bunching.
What caused 3 inches of JFK's shirt and jacket to leap up his back in 10
seconds, Craig?
Where did almost 3 inches of non-existent shirt fabric come from, Craig?
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!
This is more pure comedy gold, gentle reader.
Why? Two reasons. First that fold cannot produce the shadowline shown in Betzner, given the angle of incidence and JFK's body position.It's the indentation of fabric that creates this shadow.
Gentle reader, glance over at your right shoulder-line and slowly
raise your right arm. The fabric along the top of your shoulder-line
will ease into a series of folds with trough-shadows that result from
the slight indentation of the fabric.
Nope, wrong again.[Wrong about what?
Are you denying that the fabric in your shirt indents along the top of your
shoulder when you raise your arm?
Of course it does. Anyone can observe that you're wrong, Craig.
Against the laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow given the angle of incidence and the position of JFK's body. But hey, give it a whirl. Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. Male sure you create lighitng that has the same angle of incidence to JFK's body as in Betzner, then get back to us. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation.I have the illustration you prepared several years ago that contradicts what you
claiming now.
Remember?
The burden of proof is on you, Craig. You claim that more than 3 inches of
JFK's jacket (and 3 inches of his shirt) bunched up entirely above the base
of his neck in 10 seconds or less, all without pushing up at the jacket collar
at the base of his neck.
You've tried to replicate this, but you've failed. That's because it is
impossible and absurd on its face.
So instead of a meaningful replication you make examples that don't
involve fabric ease, at all, and then you pretend that it does.
That fabric indents when it eases is readily observable. That shadows
fill the troughs of those indentations is also readily observable.
That Craig Lamson doesn't understand clothing movement is an understatement.
But then again you can try , by creating some experimental, emprical evidence as proof of concept. Right now all you offer is ignorant handwaving. The argument has moved WAY beyond you Cliff and if you want to stay in the game you need to learn to keep up.The burden of proof is on you, Craig.
You claim that 3 inches of shirt and jacket can bunch up above the
base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar.
You have attempted this and failed.
Your failure to back up your claims with demonstrations of actual
bunched fabric speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.
The trouble is your decided ignorance in the properties of light and shadow. And your seeming inability to learn.The trouble is you refuse to observe the vertical/diagonal fold in Betzner, which
is in the exact place you say it's horizontal.
There is no diagonal fold, only a diagonal shadow castb y the left end of the horizontal fold.This horizontal fold clearly exists only in your imagination.
It's the only way to create this shadow shape as proven with experimental. empirical proof of concept photos. And its the only possible solution giventhe laws of nature and rhe properties of light and shadow.If you want continue your failed attempt to prove otherwise you will need to move beyond your handwaving and speculation and provide actual proof, via experimental, emprical proof of concept photos. Get to it Cliff or concede, its all you have left.
The burden of proof is on you. Show us a shirt and jacket with 3 inches of fabric
bunched up entirely above that knobby vertebra at the base of your neck, without
pushing up on the jacket collar.
You have found it impossible replicate your event because it is impossible and
absurd on its face.
BTW, Cliff, you said pulling or pushing will providet he same end result, so whats your problem now, considering we are talking proof of concept. Is all of this simply beyond you?No, pushing and pulling produce opposite results.
When you "pull directly up" you create vertical/diagonal folds.
When you "bunch directly up" you create horizontal/diagonal folds.
Why do the simplest dichotomies elude you?
I guess your own words elude YOU Cliff.."there are four (4) ways you can put a left-end up diagonal fold ( \)
in clothing fabric.
That's a fold that goes like this: \
That's the fold you noticed in Betzner.
1) Pulling/stretching the fabric UP,
2) Pulling/stretching the fabric DOWN,
3) Bunching/easing the fabric UP and to the RIGHT.
4) Bunching/easing the fabric DOWN and to the LEFT."
Yes, Craig, up is the opposite of down, right is the opposite of
left, and stretching is the opposite of easing.
What is there you don't understand?
-
I cannot believe that anyone in this day and age is still promoting the "bunched up" theory of JFK's clothing.
The funny thing is, Craig has shown that he doesn't know what it means
to "bunch" fabric.
He keeps coming up with examples of homemade stretched and
twisted fabric -- irrelevant to the discussion since JFK's jacket
wasn't stretched or twisted. Sad to see such cluelessness, but the
concept of "fabric ease" simply eludes Craig Lamson.
The man wore custom-tailed suits and shirts, which do not tend to "bunch up".A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of available slack.
JFK preferred a suit style called Updated American Silhouette, which features
a "suppressed waist-line." This means that the shirt had to fit close to the torso
so it wouldn't ruin the lines of the jacket.
Craig, like all LNers, needs to pretend that this doesn't matter.
Moreover, bunching up would not explain why the hole in the back on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's FBI report, or the death certification by Admiral Burkely would confirm the same location as the shirt and jacket, all of which converge at about 5 1/2 inches below the collar just to the right of the spinal column.There are two kinds of medical evidence in the JFK assassination: that which
was properly prepared, collected, and produced; and that which was
improperly prepared, collected, and produced.
The autopsy face sheet diagram, Burkley's death certificate, and the FBI autopsy report
were all properly prepared.
The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and the head- x-rays were improperly
produced and carry no evidentiary weight.
Moreover, official reenactment photographs by the Warren Commission staff show the wound to the back at the same location. And one of them -- in which Arlene Specter is showing the path that the "magic bullet" would have had to take if that hypothesis were correct -- also shows the circular patch on the stand-in several inches below his hand, which means that a photograph that was intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it.That was J Edgar Hoover sticking his finger in Specter's eye. Hoover didn't
buy the Single Bullet Theory and resented Specter, so he set him up to look
ridiculous and succeeded famously.
In addition, we know that Gerald Ford, (R-MI), a junior member of the Warren Commission, had had the description of the back wound changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" to make the "magic bullet" hypothesis more plausible.And David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has taken a patient with similar chest and neck dimensions to JFK and plotted the purported trajectory that the "magic bullet" would have had to have taken, if that hypothesis were true, which turns out to be anatomically impossible. So the theory has been thoroughly refuted, as I explained in a presentation at Cambridge University, which was published in a peer-reviewed international journal and is accessible via google under the title, "Reasoning about Assassinations". It is archived on my blog for 22 November 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf. That horse is long gone.
Lamson is the last dead-ender. All the other Nutters are too embarrassed
to "bunch."
-
Cliff wants the world top believe his left side up/right side down fabric bunch can produce the shadowline as seen in Betzner.
So you are denying that the shadow in Betzner is left-side up?
Not at all, I've no problem with the diagonal portion of the shadow, in fact its the expected result being cast from the left edge of the large HORIZONTAL fold on JFK's back. The fact of the matter is that is the only way TO PRODUCE the diagonal shadow.
Factually incorrect. When fabric eases into a trough along a diagonal
a diagonal shadow forms. The fabric is indented in Betzner, not bulged.
If there were a massive bulge in Betzner, the top of the fold -- 3 times larger than
the visible shirt collar! -- would have caught sunshine. There is no such artifact
in the photo, so you need to make it up.
Perhaps it's you who should consult those pre-schoolers, given yor utter failure to understand simple properties of light and shadow.Indented fabric creates shadows.
Indentation is the opposite of bulge, another simple dichotomy that eludes you.
Lets not forget this shadow line obscures the jacket collar.Absurd. The jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.Not absurd at all. IF the fold did not obscure the jacket collar, you would see the shadow from JFK's neck pass over the jacket collar. The laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow demand it. I see we are back to where we were months ago, your ignorance of the subject matter shining through.The shadow passes over the shirt collar. The jacket is below that. The jacket collar
cannot be distinguished from the jacket.
Cliff whats the world to believe that fabric arraingement like this can obscure the jacket collar.
Nothing in this photo replicates JFK's jacket, which was not twisted or
stretched, as you have done here.
You argue "Bunch Theory" but you show no signs of understanding
what "bunched fabric" entails!
You need to wrap your mind around these simple dichotomies, Craig:
Indentation is the opposite of bulge. Concave vs. Convex.
Vertical is the opposite of horizontal. Consult some children on that one.
The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Cliff Varnell
Correct! The prosectors used the wrong terminology. But what they were clearly describing
was a round that "disintegrated, "fragmented completely," "completely fragmentized,"
"dissolved."
Do we need to inventory the correct definitions of those words, Todd?
Those descriptions do not fit either "soft-nosed" or "plastic" bullets, which clearly
do not "completely fragmentize."
No, one that dissolves after contact.
It isn't up to me to define what these people said. Your nit-picking over
their choice of words doesn't change their words, Todd.
A round that dissolves after contact is blood/water soluble.
They came to this conclusion because they had two wounds with no
bullets and no exits.
They could look at the neck x-ray and see the clear front to back
path with no bullet and no exit.
The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed circa Z190 to Z230,
consistent with being struck by a blood soluble paralytic developed for
the Central Intelligence Agency, originally to silence guard dogs.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt
All of which is consistent with this:
http://www.ctka.net/forbidden.html