Cliff Varnell

- Believe Oswald fired any shots

No

- Believe Oswald killed Tippit

No

- Believe the single bullet theory is possible

Prima facie evidence of conspiracy: Entrance wound lower in the back; entrance

wound in the throat.

- Believe shots were fired from the front, back or both directions

Several directions

- Can assess the performance of the Secret Service in Dallas

Epic failure, except for Clint Hill and Glenn Bennett nailing the back wound

in testimony. I generally deplore the practice of turning witnesses into perps,

although Greer and Kellerman have earned suspicion.

- Think LBJ and/or other high public officials were involved

The murder of JFK was pan-organizational, involving people with a variety of

backgrounds, some in the USG. My reading of history up to this point leaves me

with the sense that some Texas boys and some New York boys wanted to muscle

into international narcotics markets, and the demise of JFK was part of that. For the

Texas boys the death of JFK was an imperative; for the New York boys it was a contingency.

The Cowboys killed Kennedy, but as a false flag attack they failed to implicate Castro;

the Yankees covered it all up.

- Believe the single bullet theory is possible - No, I think it is probable.

There's no evidence to substantiate this claim, so why keep making it?

Thank you, Bernice!

James Richards did some follow-up research on the Israel brothers, Clarence and Elbert.

Both had played in the Negro Baseball League; it was Elbert was was the orderly at Bethesda.

This account, while obviously deficient as evidence, makes as much sense as anything else

concerning the head wounds, imo.

MY RESPONSE TO YOUR RESPONSE:

Well then, we disagree.

But let me point out something rather inescapable and fundamental: Oswald.

If Oswald was a pre-selected patsy, then this was a plot with a built-in coverup (i.e., a plan to make Oswald appear to be the assassin) and the proper execution of that "coverup" was fundamental to the architecture of the entire plan--i.e., the plan being that Oswald alone was to be held responsible for President Kennedy's assassination.

Thank you for the reply, David.

We indeed must disagree. If the conspirators merely wanted to set up a

"lone nut" why would they pick a guy with a heavy political background and a CIA

201 file?

I think it's clear that Oswald was methodically sheep-dipped to appear as an

agent of Fidel Castro "in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy,"

as the Dallas Assistant D.A. William Alexander formally charged.

Larry Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, pg. 13 (emphasis added):

(quote on)

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.

(quote off)

David Talbot's Brothers, pg 10:

(quote on)

...(I)t's important to note that [bobby] Kennedy apparently never jumped to the conclusion

that afternoon that Fidel Castro -- the target of so much U.S. intrigue -- was behind his brother's

killing. It was the anti-Castro camp where Bobby's suspicions immediately flew, not pro-Castro

agents.

...Bobby came to this conclusion despite the energetic efforts of the CIA and the FBI, which

almost immediately after the assassination began trying to pin the blame on Castro's

government. Hoover himself phoned Kennedy again around four that afternoon to inform

him that Oswald had shuttled in and out of Cuba, which was untrue...[T]he FBI chief failed

to convince Bobby that the alleged assassin was a Castro agent.

(quote off)

William Kelly, the "Black Propaganda Ops" thread:

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

(quote on)

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 Philips 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.

(quote off)

The historical record clearly indicates a concerted effort on 11/22/63 to paint

Oswald as part of a Castro conspiracy. The Dallas police, the FBI and the CIA

were all reading from the same script.

Who had the power to over-ride that?

Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry31073

(quote on)

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

"On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of

Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the duties of consoling the

stricken and guiding the quick."

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the lone assassin when

an innocent government, with so much evidence in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have

been keeping all options open. Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth

points to the highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime of

killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia nor from renegade

elements. But such a source is routinely given to using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control

renegade sources to do its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful

afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force

One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day

Kennedy Was Shot, New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia and/or

renegade elements.

(quote off)

Indeed. McGeorge Bundy, Skull & Bones '40.

The Big Enchilada was W. Averell Harriman, Skull & Bones '13...

Max Holland, The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow

during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald

association.

(quote off)

LBJ had barely time to take off his coat when he first arrived at the

White House, and in comes Harriman forestalling any inquiries

into possible Soviet involvement.

I must say that in 1963 "the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists" were

one crack investigative outfit! Absolved the Soviets less than 6 hours after

the killing!

This astonishing power exhibited by Harriman -- absolving an obvious suspect

in a matter of hours and making it stick without question -- raises the obvious

suspicion that Harriman knew who actually killed JFK. Otherwise, how could

he responsibly rule out the Soviets so soon after the crime?

It's clear from the historical record that the Oswald-lone-nut scenario

was concocted and enforced by the bluest of Yankee blood.

But it was wholly improvised and very far from the original "architecture

of the crime."

(Moreover: if the plan was to blame Oswald "plus an accomplice" --that would not have made all that much of a difference. So, while leading to political complicatons--such a variation would have been just a relatively minor perturbation on the "official" story).

I think its fair to speculate that if Oswald had been gunned down around 2pm

11/22/63 instead of captured -- the "official lone nut story" would not have

passed the lips of a single person.

"Communist Kills Kennedy; Accomplices At Large; Castro Implicated"

would have been the headlines, or so I reasonably speculate.

Had Oswald been killed right after JFK there would have been no need for quick

surgery to the head, burned autopsy notes, faked and disappeared autopsy

photos, single bullet theorized, etc etc.

The decision to pin the blame on a lone gunman was made at the highest

levels of the American ruling elite. The record is clear that others wanted

the blame laid elsewhere, and it is among those "others" we find the killers.

My point is: any plan built around "Oswald" (and his past) makes Oswald fundamental to the political architecture of the Kennedy assassination. And the time line as to who he was, and why he was so special, leads to certain ineluctable inferences about the time line of the genesis of the Kennedy assassination.

Agreed! But Oswald-the-lone-nut was Plan B.

On the other hand, if Oswald was NOT a preselected patsy, then a host of questions can be posed about who Oswald was, how he came to be present at the locale of the crime and at the time of the crime, why he behaved as he did, etc etc--and if none of this was "pre-planned," then these questions can only be answered by resorting to "coincidence theory."

Oswald appears clearly sheep-dipped as a Communist operative, not

a lone nut. That part of the "official story" was hastily improvised.

I subscribe to the former view as providing the only rational explanation for all the

circumstances and the evidence in this case.

But you don't make a distinction between those who killed JFK and those

who covered it up.

That distinction is crucial to understanding the case, imo.

Also, please note: the fact that something that has the effect of falsifying the truth occurs "after the fact" --i.e., after JFK's murder--does not mean that act wasn't planned "before the fact."

Doesn't mean that it was certainly planned before the fact, either. In this

case the pre-planning fits a scenario far removed from the "official" one.

Not recognizing this can lead to much confusion. When actors show up for a 50 million dollar movie, they do what the script calls for AFTER the cameras start rolling (i.e., after the fact, when that phrase is viewed narrowly), but they really aren't acting "after the fact". To the contrary, they are behaving in accordance with a screenplay that was written well beforehand. The same general idea applies to the Kennedy assassination, when considering what was planned in advance, versus the exact time line along which events actually unfolded.

Here's where we disagree. The "screenplay" written for Oswald included

having the FBI produce "evidence" he'd been to Cuba, that Oswald had

met with Kostikov, etc etc.

That script was shredded when the star eluded death, and a hasty series of

improvs took over, including sending the new second lead into the Dallas PD

basement that Sunday.

If films were altered, for example, they were not sent to Rite Aide or Savon, an if the body was altered, that was not some bright idea invented by someone AFTER Kennedy was shot, perhaps inspired by some past reading of an Agatha Christie murder mystery, or by someone who learned the centrality of the autopsy by reading some Perry Mason mysteries.

This is a study of the cover-up, not the killing!

Remember what Oswald told his brother when they visited on Saturday, November 23: "Do not believe the so-called 'evidence.'"

Oswald understood it was "before the fact." Too bad he didn't live to be officially debriefed, so we could hear his full account.

DSL

1/29/10; 3 AM

Los Angeles, California

Or he could have been gunned down 11/22/63 and Mickey Mouse

would be the unofficial mayor of Havana and all of us would

have found other some other fascinating pursuit.

That's why the cover-up was slapdash.

This is a good time to thank Doug Horne and the ARRB for bringing us Janie Taylor and

the Elbert Israel story. (I don't have the link)

Israel was a black orderly at Bethesda said he was in the room when quick surgery

was done to JFK's head. Being black in 1963 meant being largely invisible.

Not hard evidence but then nothing about the head wound evidence is.

The architecture of the crime?

It was designed to look like a conspiracy!

That's why the cover-up was slapdash.

(cue Joe Pesci)

Don't you get it?

Normally, in investigating a crime (which is “the event” in this instance), one is NOT dealing with a situation in which--fundamental both to the architecture of the crime (as well as its operation in real time)—a strategic deception was employed which involved both (a) a plan to falsify the evidence and (b ) conceal the existence of that plan itself.

I don't buy it.

The cover-up was certainly NOT "fundamental to the architecture of the crime."

There were two cover-ups in operation the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63:

1) Oswald the agent of a Castro/communist conspiracy, 2) the lone nut.

Please consult Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked.

The killers plumped for 1).

Yankee blue-bloods enforced 2).

Which is not to say that Yankee blue-bloods didn't have JFK's red blood on

their hands, as well, but the crime occurred in Dallas, after all.

As I have mentioned in an earlier post, Booth's denial is the main point here. His denial represents, as Pat suggested, perhaps millions of people who can not come to grips with the truth in this case - - even if it right before their eyes.

They put a cute twist on that.

They also got the back wound location correct -- "third thoracic vertebra" -- which

puts them ahead of 50% of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community, those

who put the back wound at the base of the neck even when the truth is right before

their eyes.

to the point where you now assert as fact that all the autopsy photos and x-rays are fake,

What Jack White or Pat Speer or any other researcher asserts about the autopsy

photos does not change the fact that the autopsy photos were not prepared according

to proper autopsy protocol, and there is no established chain of possession for them.

Even the HSCA concluded the autopsy photos were prima facie inadmissible

in court.

As far as the head x-rays go, the fact that Humes was reported in the FBI

autopsy report as observing prior surgery to the head casts the head x-rays

into the shadow of doubt.

The deficiencies of the autopsy photos and the head x-rays as scientific

evidence are self-evident.

Anyone else see this ad?

For the entire Viking-Cowboy game. Nice touch, I thought.

There's a change in the zeitgeist...anti-government is IN, baby!

"The government lied about it" is a hot Fox meme.

In fact, I've got a $20 bill to wager sez Reclaiming History will never be produced.

HBO is going to sink 10 episodes on a tale NO ONE buys anymore?

My Andy Jackson sez No way...

My interest in the cover-up goes well above the pay grade of the people to

whom you are referring.

The leaders of the cover-up revealed themselves within hours of the crime.

To me this is not a mystery. I'm more interested in the connections of

the people who actually killed Kennedy.

McGeorge Bundy called Lyndon Johnson while Air Force One was enroute to

DC and informed the new President that the lone assassin had been captured.

Was McGeorge Bundy the mastermind of this treasonous fiction?

So, no, the cover-up just ain't that much of a mystery to me.

Me either. Let's focus on folks like Bundy.

a viewer writes:

"McGeorge Bundy was appointed US National Security Adviser in 1961; he and his father were colleagues of Robert Lovett who advised JFK to appoint McGeorge to run the NSC. Lovett was also a director of the Freeport corporation (a Rockefeller interest) which needed the Dutch colony of West Papua to be sold to Indonesia so Freeport could mine the world's richest gold & copper deposits."

Robert Lovett is a key figure, indeed.

Kennedy kitchen cabinet.

Skull & Bones ('18).

During WW2 as assistant secretary for air in the War Department he developed the

doctrine of massive bombardment of enemy civilian centers. Right after WW2 he

spear-headed the formation of an intelligence branch to replace the OSS. As

Sec. of Defense under Truman he oversaw a massive build-up of American nuclear

capability.

His Dad ran the Harriman railroad interests.

Robert Lovett, C. Douglas Dillon, and W. Averell Harriman used to sit

around their Jupiter Island estates and run the American Imperial game

in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50s, and 60's.

When Nixon came in, the day-to-day operation of the Harriman/Walker/Bush

crime family was turned over to George H. W. Bush.

Or so I'd wildly speculate!

Cliff, I have made the point about custom-made clothing in many forums, including, I think, the article, "Reasoning about Assassinations".

You equivocate. You allow for the possibility of something wholly impossible.

But you seem to have a blind spot.

No, you're fixated on the cover-up, I'm more interested in the murder.

Don't you understand that the alteration of the X-rays, substitution of another brain, and recreation of the Zapruder film could only have been done by high-level government officials, including agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, and the president's personal physician, in the case of the former, or by agents of the Secret Service and technical experts, such as those at "Hawkeyeworks" in Rochester, NY, in the cased of the film? It appears to me you have not thought this through. Consider the following.

What you describe are actions of the cover-up of the murder. At that

level the cover-up cannot tell us anything about what actually happened.

My interest in the cover-up goes well above the pay grade of the people to

whom you are referring.

The leaders of the cover-up revealed themselves within hours of the crime.

To me this is not a mystery. I'm more interested in the connections of

the people who actually killed Kennedy.

McGeorge Bundy called Lyndon Johnson while Air Force One was enroute to

DC and informed the new President that the lone assassin had been captured.

Was McGeorge Bundy the mastermind of this treasonous fiction?

In all of the following emphasis mine

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

(quote on)

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York,

W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960,

President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate

“with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of

all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide

William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting

the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments

secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor,

was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president.

He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the

White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

(quote off)

From JFK's taped notations on the Diem coup:

http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/cli...nam_memoir.html

(quote on)

President Kennedy: Opposed to the coup was General [Maxwell] Taylor, the

Attorney General [Robert Kennedy], Secretary [Robert] McNamara to a somewhat

lesser degree, John McCone, partly based on an old hostility to [Henry Cabot] Lodge

[Jr.] which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgement, partly as a result

of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his [CIA] station chief; in favor of the

coup was State, led by Averell Harriman, George Ball, Roger Hilsman,

supported by Mike Forrestal at the White House.

(quote off)

Via PD Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm#_ftn41

"Assassinations Report, 173. Cf. FRUS, #320; 777 (Bundy memo of April 21, 1963).

The other two documents are not in FRUS."

(quote on)

As early as January 4, 1963, Bundy proposed to President Kennedy that the

possibility of communicating with Castro be explored. (Memorandum, Bundy

to the President, 1/4/63). Bundy's memorandum on "Cuba Alternatives" of

April 23 [sic, i.e. April 21], 1963, also listed the "gradual development of some

form of accommodation with Castro" among policy alternatives. (Bundy

memorandum, 4/21/63) At a meeting on June 3, 1963, the Special Group agreed

it would be a "useful endeavour" to explore "various possibilities of establishing

channels of communication to Castro." (Memorandum of Special Group meeting,

6/6/63).

(quote off)

David Talbot's Brothers, pg 226:

(quote on)

When Lisa Howard told [envoy William] Attwood that Castro would like to

restore communications with Kennedy and offered to set up an informal meeting

at her apartment between him and Cuba's UN representative, Carlos Lechuga,

the diplomat responded enthusiastically. In a memo he wrote for [Adlai]

Stevenson and Averill Harriman -- who he was told was the best direct channel

to Kennedy -- Attwood suggested that "we have something to gain and nothing

to lose by finding out whether in fact Castro does want to talk"...Stevenson took

the proposal to Kennedy, who gave him clearance to pursue the dialogue.

Harriman too said he was "adventuresome enough" to like the idea...

(quote off)

ad·ven·ture (ăd-vĕn'chər)

n.

1.

1. An undertaking or enterprise of a hazardous nature.

2. An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving

intervention in another state's affairs.

Brothers, pg 217:

(quote on)

By the time Vietnam began to reach a crisis point late in Kennedy's term, much

of his national security bureaucracy -- weary with the president's sly maneuvers

to avoid war -- was in flagrant revolt against him. The Pentagon and CIA were

taking secret steps to sabotage his troop withdrawal plan. And even trusted

advisors like Harriman, the Moscow-friendly globe-trotting tycoon whom Kennedy

thought he could rely on to help broker a deal on Vietnam, were brazenly

undercutting his peace initiatives.

(quote off)

Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry31073

(quote on)

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the

identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the

duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick.

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the

lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence

in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open.

Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the

highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime

of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia

nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to

using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do

its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending

that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who

was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was

prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the

Mafia and/or renegade elements.

(quote off)

Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow

during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald

association.

(quote off)

"The Secret Origins of Skull & Bones":

http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html

Partial roster of Yale club "Skull & Bones":

W. Averell Harriman ('13)

McGeorge Bundy ('40)

So, no, the cover-up just ain't that much of a mystery to me.

Cliff, Maybe I am being to harsh with you. Do you agree with me about the

back wound as I discuss it in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you

can find via google or archived at http://assassinationscience.com? Thanks.

Jim, I know you are on the side of the angels in regard to the

back wound.

Jack White, as well, at least as far as the wound being at T3.

I may not be on your guys' side in your main issue, but you

guys are on my side with my main issue.

I think you need to re-visit your characterization of the clothing

evidence.

You wrote (my emphasis):

...According to the official account,[diagram] h1, the bullet hit the President

at the base of the back of his neck, as the "magic bullet" hypothesis

requires. If h1 were true, then the probability of holes in the shirt and

jacket about 5 and 1/2 inches below the collar would be low, but not

impossible if, for example, they had been "bunched."

This is factually incorrect. The tandem 2+" movement of JFK's shirt

and jacket is flat-out impossible and cannot be replicated using

properly worn custom-made clothes.

First of all, JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, leaving a visible shirt

collar and fraction of an inch jacket folds.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

How could 2 inches of JFK's shirt and 2 inches of his jacket bunch

up entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck without pushing

up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?

It can't happen.

Second of all, in the field of clothing design, the term of art for clothes bunching

is -- "ease."

Any movement of clothing involving more than an inch of fabric is termed

"gross ease." The gross ease of fabric is caused by exaggerated

body movements, like stretching for an object on a high shelf.

Contrary to "gross" movements of clothing/body, are "casual" movements,

like lifting your arm to wave at someone.

Casual movements of the body ALWAYS result in fraction-of-an-inch

movements of clothing -- casual ease. The immutable law of

"casual ease" precludes the Gross Ease Fallacy required by the SBT.

From Love Field to downtown Dallas JFK's jacket eased up into his

hairline as seen in the Jefferies film.

It then dropped -- a fraction of an inch at a time -- over the last 90 seconds

of his life.

Thirdly, JFK wore a tucked-in custom-made shirt. Such shirts only have

a fraction of an inch of available slack.

That's why Bunch Theory has never been replicated.

Other than that, Jim, your article does a fine job of making the prima facie case

for conspiracy!

How you can have the nerve to post when you are clearly massively ignorant of the most important research on the authenticity of the evidence is beyond me. The whole case revolves about this question.

This research to which you refer speaks to the lower levels of the cover-up.

I am far more interested in research related to the actual killing of JFK,

and what the high level cover-up tells us about the perps.

You guys are mucking around in minutia; and excuse me if I'm not impressed

with the shabby way the low-back-wound/throat-entrance-wound is handled

by "experts."

Cliff, How do you know which evidence is fabricated and which is geniune?

Glad you asked!

It's a simple matter: was the evidence properly prepared, collected,

and produced according to the prevailing protocols?

If the evidence was properly acquired, it rightly belongs in the historical

record.

If the evidence was improperly acquired, it is rightly dismissed.

I dismiss the autopsy photos because they were not produced according to

proper autopsy protocol, there is no chain of possession (thank you for that

one, Doug Horne!), and even the HSCA concluded they were "deficient as

scientific evidence" and prima facie inadmissible in court.

I dismiss anything related to the head wounds, given the evidence

of pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

I dismiss the final autopsy report, which did not follow proper autopsy protocol

in the listing of the back wound.

I dismiss the measurements written in pen on the autopsy face sheet because

proper autopsy protocol requires using a pencil.

What do I regard as properly prepared, collect, and produced evidence?

Burkley's death certificate, which listed the back wound according

to its vertebral level -- T3 -- according to proper autopsy protocol.

Boswell's face sheet diagram and the verification of same was

filled out in pencil, according to proper autopsy protocol.

The FBI autopsy report was prepared according to proper

FBI protocol, and the FBI SAs in attendence supplemented

their report with sworn affidavits in 1978.

The contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors were

properly prepared.

You appear to be someone who simply ignores "evidence" if it conflicts with their preferred beliefs. I have published three books that are dedicated to the separation of the genuine from the fabricated. Have you read them? Are you familiar with David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays?

I have discussed my problems with Mantik with Jack White in another thread.

Mantik presents the T3-back-wound/throat-entrance-wound as open questions, exactly

the kind of equivocation that so angered Vincent Salandria about Tink Thompson.

Any study of the autopsy photos and x-rays is a study in fraudulent evidence

that may tell us a lot about the cover-up but tells us nothing about the killing

Bob Livington's on the substitution of another brain?

Another study of fraudulent evidence.

I'm far more interested in what actually happened in Dealey Plaza.

The massive, detailed, and through analysis of the recreation of the Zapruder film by David Mantik, Jack White, John Costella, David Healy, and David Lifton?

I have put this to these gentlemen, and yourself, many times: show me the

fakery in Z186-Z255.

Otherwise, you are ignoring crucial evidence of how JFK was killed because

you have a fetish for evidence that doesn't show how he was killed.

I don't think this makes you a bad guy, Jim, it just means we're studying

different cases.

Because if you are not familiar with their work, then you haven't a clue.

I'd rather be familiar with the actual evidence, Jim, then muck about in evidence

we all agree is a fraud.

Hi Cliff,

Doug Horne has an errata page on his blog if you have any corrections to make about his book, which you apparently haven't read since you are quoting what other people have said.

No, I'm not that interested, frankly. I restrict my studies to authentic evidence,

and it sure looks to me like Horne concentrates on fraudulent evidence.

Charles Barkley once said of basketball beat writers, "The more they watch the

game the less they understand."

I fear this is true of JFK assassination researchers: the more they study the

head wounds the less they understand.

I don't know about you, but after many years, decades of studying this case, my research is coming together, and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall in to place.

And the CIA are Patsies as much as Oswald.

Bill Kelly

Bingo!

It was a pan-organizational effort, people whose backgrounds were incidental to

their common goal, which, according to my reading of history, was the establishment of

a Laos-to-U.S. heroin pipeline thru Vietnam and Havana.

More and more it becomes clear (to me, at least) that JFK was murdered in a

manner designed to pin the blame on Castro, to provide a rationale for an invasion

of Cuba.

Hanging the crime on "the CIA" or "the Mafia" or "the FBI" only because various

perps had backgrounds in these various organizations is the wrong way to look

at the case, imo.

There is a history of blue-blood elites being involved in the dope trade, after all.

Doug will however, spark the response of McAdams, Max Holland, Posner and Bugliosi, and each time they respond, it will be up to someone who has actually read Horne's work to defend him and correct them.

Who's going to correct Horne?

I'm not terribly impressed with a lot of things I'm hearing about Horne's work.

For instance -- the back wound was faked?

&I saw Horne quoted as agreeing with a 1988 Tink Thompson statement

to the effect that most homicide cases become more clear with time -- but

that's not the case in the murder of JFK.

This opinion leads me to believe Doug Horne and Tink Thompson are

studying a different murder case than I am, as after nearly 20 years of study

my experience is the exact opposite.

Is the prolonged study of fraudulent evidence like the prolonged study

of the sun with the naked eye -- it's only a matter of time before you

can't see anything at all?

People with closed minds cannot an infusion of truth.

For many years, people's minds refused to believe that the Z film was faked. Now it is proven.

Jack

I acknowledge that possibility in my comments. It is germane to my point:

the study of fraudulent evidence (the head wounds for certain, the Zap head

shot frames quite possibly) is a study of the cover-up, which should

not be confused with a study of the killing.

Nothing about the killing can be gleaned from fraudulent evidence.

Faked evidence is fetishized in the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community;

authentic evidence is ignored or spun to fit various Pet Theories, all at the expense

of the prima facie cases for conspiracy.

You haven't shown where Z186-Z255 is faked, Jack.

Doug will however, spark the response of McAdams, Max Holland, Posner and Bugliosi, and each time they respond, it will be up to someone who has actually read Horne's work to defend him and correct them.

Who's going to correct Horne?

I'm not terribly impressed with a lot of things I'm hearing about Horne's work.

For instance -- the back wound was faked?

&I saw Horne quoted as agreeing with a 1988 Tink Thompson statement

to the effect that most homicide cases become more clear with time -- but

that's not the case in the murder of JFK.

This opinion leads me to believe Doug Horne and Tink Thompson are

studying a different murder case than I am, as after nearly 20 years of study

my experience is the exact opposite.

Is the prolonged study of fraudulent evidence like the prolonged study

of the sun with the naked eye -- it's only a matter of time before you

can't see anything at all?

"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.

“Completely-fragment” does not “=blood soluble”, in any way shape or form.

A “soft-nosed bullet” and “bullet which fragments completely” are not “blood soluble” – those type of bullets fragment in smaller pieces, they don’t dissolve.

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."

As for a "plastic" bullet, plastic is also not “blood soluble”.

That leaves an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact”. What exactly is your definition of an “Ice” bullet? One made out of ice?

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

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 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.

*"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 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.

*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 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.

*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.