Cliff Varnell

Which, of course, is consistent with the photo analysis of Ft. Worth researcher Jack White.

I'm not casting aspersions on Jack's theory. In fact, I'm suggesting the individual who was capable of master-minding a psy-op of this sophistication. I am decrying the general tendency within the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community to turn witnesses into perps. It's a witch hunt. I find the easy accusations of treason and murder to be out of bounds. Unless, of course, it turns out that Jack is right... I hunt no witches. I go wherever the evidence leads. Jack Fair enough, Jack. Zap Alterationists tend to be far more friendly to the witnesses than others, and that's what I'm all about from here on out.

Thank you, Pamela. Some cannot see the obvious if it conflicts with preconceived beliefs. And some cannot tell what is legitimate inquiry, and that allowing a 5% chance for something is very good, indeed. Far from ordinary. Fine. But if you're going to fry someone for murder and treason you better have the goods, instead of turning into a free-for-all witch hunt. I'm here to defend witnesses, I think the perps are obvious. Has it ever occurred to you, Jack, that the reason the Z-film was so obviously altered was to get people to throw the whole thing out, and distract people from the fact that it shows JFK becoming paralyzed in two seconds -- consistent with known CIA operations?

QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Jan 8 2010, 03:36 AM) * Knowing who Zapruder worked for and knew, was involved with in clubs/groups before the events might change your mind further. Maybe so, Peter, maybe so...Still, it should take a lot more than guilt by association to hang someone for murder and treason, even posthumously. And I think we may overlook the incredible pressure put on these people. I'm convinced that Philip Willis, Rosemary Willis, Jean Hill and Marilyn Sitzman saw guys dressed as cops shoot JFK. Do you realize the suicidal bravery that would have been required for them to state this publicly in the 60's? I think Rosemary Willis was trying to tell us exactly that in her statements to the HSCA: If those cops were in hot pursuit of the shooters then Phil Willis would have had no reason to be upset. He was upset because guys dressed as cops shot Kennedy and ran away! There was an obvious shooter no one talks about any more. Black Dog Man. According to Rosemary Willis he was a "conspicuous" person who happened to "disappear the next instant." Thanks to Don Roberdeau's excellent "Headsnap" analysis of Ms. Willis, we know this disappearing act by BDM occurred circa Z214. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394 According to the HSCA photographic panel there was a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm Seriously, how more obvious could it be, Peter?

No, what's been laid to rest is the efficacy of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community. You guys are throwing the CIA baby out with the alteration bathwater.

I'm not casting aspersions on Jack's theory. In fact, I'm suggesting the individual who was capable of master-minding a psy-op of this sophistication. I am decrying the general tendency within the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community to turn witnesses into perps. It's a witch hunt. I find the easy accusations of treason and murder to be out of bounds. Unless, of course, it turns out that Jack is right...

No one has given me a reason to believe that there is any significant alteration during Z186-Z255. Those frames show JFK seizing up paralyzed in 2 seconds, a fact which points directly to 4 people who would have been called in for questioning had there been a legitimate investigation: Richard Helms, Sidney Gottlieb, Charles Senseney, and Mitchell Livingston WerBell III. One great reason to alter the Zapruder film post Z255 -- to distract people from the CIA-associated handiwork involved in paralyzing Kennedy. The most salient fact of the Zapruder film isn't that it's altered. The most salient fact of the Zap is that JFK is clearly shown to seize up paralyzed in just over two seconds, for which we have every reason to suspect the CIA, who tested a variety of these weapons on humans.

No, we are very far from where I left off months ago. No we are in the very exact same place. The argument is simple, show us a fold or bunch or whatever that can create the shadowline as see in Betzner. You say a certain kind of fold is what is seen in Betzner. No, Craig, YOU say a certain kind of fold is seen in Betzner. The characterization is yours. I agree with it. There is no dispute. Yours is an accurate description of what can be readily observed. The fold is Betzner is a bottom-left diagonal which, any pre-schooler might demonstrate, could only have been caused by the fabric being bunched down and to the left. You already have shown us, Craig. Your have accurately described what anyone can see for themselves. Again: Nothing trumps Betzner. What don't you understand about fabric folds? No one pulled on JFK's jacket. The diagonal fold is left side up. Are you denying these basic facts? Don't you know that "to push" is the opposite of "to pull"? A 5 year old could successfully explain this to a 3 year old. No, you created your fold by "pulling" up on the fabric. That isn't a replication of what happened with JFK. No one "pulled up" on JFK's jacket. No, your study involved stretched fabric. Do you not grasp the difference between stretching fabric and easing fabric? If you cannot wrap your mind around this simple dichotomy, well, there's nothing I can do for you, Craig. Thank you for describing the "bottom, left" bunch in Betzner. You've disproven yourself. You admitted that you created the fold by "PULLING directly up" (YOUR emphasis). Pulling is the exact opposite of bunching. Is this too complicated? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Jack, I read your recent grand theory on Zapruder film alteration with interest. I 95% don't buy it. Not for any technical/scientific reasons (not my thing), but because I can't stand it when witnesses are turned into perps, as you've done with Zap & Sitz. I see witness bashing all the time in these discussions, and I've developed a real problem with it, and I'm gonna start speaking up more about it going forward. What's the 5%? Your theory would've been right up the alley of one David Atlee Phillips, of Ft. Worth, Texas, as the master mind if not the master hand.

Oh man! Come on Cliff why cant I join? I wanted so bad to be a member of W.A.G. You talk too much and say nothing. No chance. Cliff nobody ever knows what you are talking about I think you should go back and read my serious posts Sure, sure. You can't fool me, Dean. I know your game, pal. I invented it. You're trying to become a Super Member of the Ed Forum as fast as possible. Why? To impress chicks. Man up and admit it!

No, we are very far from where I left off months ago. You weren't hip to the stretch/ease dichotomy months ago. I knew that was a nuance that would likely escape you. Months ago I made a statement to this effect: "There are two ways to bunch a left-side up diagonal fold in fabric -- ease it UP and to the RIGHT, or ease it DOWN and to the LEFT." But you don't know the difference between "pull" and "bunch," which most people don't think about, so why would you? As a result, you took a photo of a left-side-up diagonal and said you "PULLED directly up" on the fabric. Obviously you don't see the difference between pulling on fabric and pushing on fabric. No one pulled on JFK's jacket, Craig. Anyway, I wanted to wait until we had an audience to discuss this. What you've demonstrated is how to create the left-side-up Betzner diagonal by pulling on fabric. Non sequitur. Nothing pulled on JFK's jacket. The fabric bunched on JFK's back, which is the opposite of what you did in your example. Gentle reader, glance down upon your top clothing. Grab a pinch of shirt or blouse between your thumb and forefinger. Now slowly pull your garment in the direction of your chin, sliding the fabric lightly across your skin several inches. Observe the vertical/diagonal folds that form in the fabric. Now ease the fabric back down and observe horizontal/diagonal folds form. When fabric bunches up or down it creates folds that are more horizontal. When fabric is stretched up or down it creates folds that are more vertical. The Betzner fold was created by the fabric being pushed down and to the left by JFK's posture change where he turned to the right, an obvious clock-wise torque. Non-sequitur. Craig Lamson has observed the light/shadow pattern in Betzner and identified a left-side-up diagonal fold to the "bottom left" of a diagonal shadow. You said it, brother! No way. Not at all. I'm superstitious about cameras. They steal your soul.

Oh man! Come on Cliff why cant I join? I wanted so bad to be a member of W.A.G. You talk too much and say nothing. No chance.

Yes! The the fold that is left side up, right side down in Betzner 3: Left side up, right side down: \ Here's how you describe the fold and its shadow: So we have by your own analysis of Betzner a diagonal fold that is at the bottom left of the shadow. It is readily observed that the fold in Betzner is a left-side up, right-side down fold like this: \ Craig, 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, in which case the \ will be on the right. 2) Pulling/stretching the fabric DOWN, in which case the \ will be on the left. 3) Bunching/easing the fabric UP and to the RIGHT. 4) Bunching/easing the fabric DOWN and to the LEFT. No one pulled on JFK's jacket. The fabric was not stretched in the limo. Just the opposite. His jacket eased as he casually sat and waved. So we can eliminate 1) and 2) in the case of JFK. As photo expert extrodinaire Craig Lamson has observed in the Betzner photo, emphasis added: That diagonal was created when JFK changed his posture circa Z173, turned his head to the right and started to wave his right hand. This posture shift pushed the fraction-of-an-inch horizontal fold we see in Croft into the "bottom, left" diagonal fold we see in Betzner. Thank you for your contribution, Craig.

I no longer belong in the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community. I've formed the 11/22 Witness Appreciation Guild, based on the following convictions: 95+% of the consensus witness testimony at Dealey/Parkland/Bethesda is credible. 95+% of the Dealey Plaza photo/film evidence is authentic. The properly prepared and collected medical evidence trumps the improperly prepared and collected medical evidence. 11/22 W.A.G. will obviously be a solo gig.

Everyone who observed and described the throat wound as an entrance suffered a similar erroneous perception. Everyone who observed and described the back wound low (T3) suffered a similar erroneous perception. Everyone who observed and described the occipital-parietal exit wound suffered a similar erroneous perception. That's what, 50? 60? 70? people involved in mass erroneous perception? Let's call this for what it is, gentle reader: Witness Bashing

Let'em go, Jack! This is pure comedy gold! "Yes, sir" = "No" "about where your tie is" = "exactly where your tie is" "above" = "overlaying" And what's truly hilarious is a lone nutter citing how a shirt is properly fit. Hey Todd! A properly fit tucked in custom-made dress shirt tailored for a suit with a "suppressed waist" (JFK's prefered cut) only has THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH of available slack. Excess slack around JFK's midriff could have ruined the lines of his Updated American Silhouette cut jacket. Your SBT needs more than 3 inches, Todd. Pet-Theorist Pat Speer only requires 2 inches of non-existent slack. Don't bother these guys with the facts, Jack!

Right accusation, wrong instance. Here Todd demonstrates how to fabricate witness intent: In his first article TWV wrote (emphasis added): It's more than obvious this spin is pure fabrication. And again: what part of the qualifier "about" don't you understand, Todd?

My mistake. I thought you were referring to this: You have a bad habit of completing Dr. Carrico's thought, which IS a fabrication. As to the former Carrico quote, what part of the word "about" don't you understand? Are you claiming that "just about where your tie would be"is the same as "precisely where your tie would be"? And please note the structure of the latter quotation: "Yes, sir; just where the tie--" People don't speak in semi-colons. I could just as readily read that statement, "Yes, sir. Just where the tie--" Apparently your entire defense of the SBT rests on you finishing Dr. Carrico's thought. As I say, you have nothing.

Just tell your friends to send me a biography and photograph I will register them. See the following for examples: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37 John, I had a very difficult time logging in for quite a while. My old password didn't work and for several months "password retrieval" didn't work at all. I wrote 2 e-mails to Andy and received no reply. I think there is a glitch in the system somewhere...fwiw...

Todd wrote: "Cliff, Did you even read my articles?" Todd, Only the part I quoted. There is only so much implied witness bashing that I can stand in one day, so our discussion is going to have to take place over a period of time. "Yes, sir." "Yes" is an affirmative. "Yes, sir" is an emphatic affirmative. I don't put words in people's mouths. You simply have to. Dulles identified the wound above the tie, Carrico emphatically agreed -- "Yes, sir" -- and later repeated the same observation to Weisberg. I don't see where you have a leg to stand on. But that's not what he testified to in his second statement*. Your clumsy parsing of words carries no weight. What I think is irrelevant. The fact is he testified under oath and emphatically agreed with the description of the wound just above the tie. He reiterated his observations to Weisberg. JFK's head was turned hard to the right circa Z190, so comparisons made with photos NOT showing JFK with his head turned hard to the right are not applicable. My thoughts are that Carrico made it clear in his testimony that he emphatically agreed with the location of the wound above the top of the tie, and that scissors can nick ties. I am far more struck by your questionable behavior -- putting words in Carrico's mouth, ignoring the location of the back wound and the clear indications in the photographic evidence that JFK was struck in the throat from the front. You are cherry picking testimony and parsing words in a very questionable manner, Todd. You are conflating your critique of McKnight with a defense of the SBT. But you cannot defend the SBT on the evidence, can you? But that's not what Carrico testified. This is very questionable behavior on your part, Todd. Seems highly consistent. There is a difference between "examination" and incidental observation. That he didn't "examine" the clothing doesn't preclude observing the clothing in passing and seeing nothing out of the ordinary. What do I make of your parsing, cherry picking, and fabrication of witness testimony? Not much. If this is all you have in defense of the SBT -- you have nothing. ADDED on EDIT * italics

Dr. Livingston is entitled to his opinions, and they are very well qualified, obviously. He is not entitled to his own set of facts, however. Do Dr. Livingston's conclusions match what the witnesses said, what the photographs and films/photos show, what the properly prepared contemporaneous documentation shows? I will argue his analysis fails to match the evidence. It nicked the trachea and then hit the skeleton? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the bones of the neck consist of the base of the skull and the 7 cervical vertebrae? The neck x-ray shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1 - a clear front to back path that left no exit and no bullet or bullet fragment. If a conventional bullet struck bone with enough force to fragment why did it leave a mere hairline fracture of a transverse process? Why didn't the neck x-ray show damage below the apex of the lung? Why didn't the fragment show up on x-ray? And you would have us believe that JFK suffered a ruptured tentorium and yet he maintained a "quizzical" look on his face. Is that consistent? How does this preclude a 3-shot hit? Can you cite any evidence that precludes a 3 head-shot scenario? Strong supporting evidence for the 3-head-shot scenario! I have yet to see any case for Zapruder film alteration between Z186 thru Z255. The actions and reactions of JFK in Z186-255 match what the closest witnesses observed and what other photographs show. 3 head shots. Are you sure Dr. Livingston hasn't claimed that the bullet struck JFK at the back base of the neck? If he does make such a claim, he is passing off arguably the biggest Big Lie in the entire case! Excuse me? I am not in the "corner" of anyone who was not a witness on the scene in Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and Bethesda. I regard the First Day Witnesses as heroes. What researchers write about stands a chance of being significant around 5% of the time, in my experience. The witnesses, on the other hand, have told us what happened. Unfortunately, many researcher/writers fail to listen to the witnesses, and this appears to be the case with Dr. Livingston.

Thanks to both of you, Pat and Tink. "Thorburn" ... yikes is right! But then after "blood soluble" bullets, that apparently can leave an "air pocket" where a "conventional bullet" is unable to leave such a thing in its wake, I shouldn't have been surprised to see that long ago dealt with and relegated to the junk heap Thorburn thing dragged in, I guess. Subcutaneous or interstitial air is caused by either pathology (disease), which does not apply in this case, or by an injury causing a breach in the closed respiratory system, like, say .... a HOLE in the trachea. The air pocket is caused by the breach which allows air to escape into the surrounding tissues .... regardless of whether that injury (breach) was caused by a "blood soluble" or "conventional" bullet .... or a nail or a stick or a rhinestone covered letter opener. The object causes the breach ... the breach allows the air to leak into the tissues and form the air pocket. Bests, Barb :-) Thank you, Barb. Excellent explanation! Of course, the air pocket is only part of the equation. The fact that there was no exit and no bullet and only an air pocket and a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process is consistent with what the prosectors suspected the night of the autopsy. We have a similar situation with the back wound -- shallow, no exit, no bullet. Given Oswald's proven intelligence connections, I find it curious that so many are so reflexively dismissive of evidence which points directly at persons associated with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Cliff the things you say keep getting more and more ludicrous each day And your dismissals grow ever more contentless by the day. My next scheduled discussion of the head wounds isn't until 2011. I'll give you my reasoning then.

I recommend a better understanding of the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos. A shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190 is well indicated by witness statements and Plaza photography. You have no logical basis to summarily dismiss this evidence, no matter what Doug Weldon speculates. John Dugan: You're welcome! I disagree with that part of Gil's analysis. There was a clear shot from Black Dog Man at Z190, Rosemary Willis called BDM a "conspicuous" person who seemed to "disappear the next instant," and the HSCA photographic panel identified a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands. And on what logical basis is this clear and consistent evidence dismissed?

I have no knowledge of this case. I don't cite things I know. I cite statements made by people who were there, I cite photographs taken there, and I cite contemporaneous properly prepared official documents. My knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant. Is the testimony of Rosemary Willis concerning Black Dog Man irrelevant to you? Clear indicator of a shooter, who then "disappeared the next instant" circa Z215 as per Don Roberdeau's "Head Snap" analysis. Is the HSCA photographic panel's identification of a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of Black Dog Man's hands in Willis 5 irrelevant to you? What precludes a separate bullet hitting the windshield? What precludes a separate bullet hitting the windshield? And this is the same bullet that fragmented upon entering the throat? Since when is the apex of the lung harder tissue than windshield glass? Your scenario does not preclude another shot hitting the windshield. How many shots were fired at JFK. 8? A dozen? I don't like your odds, Jim, one shot doing all that damage...:-> Not according to the witness and film evidence: Linda Willis, Clint Hill, Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Betzner 3, Willis 5, Altgens 6 and Z186 thru Z255. Grabbing at his throat. Seized up in two seconds. Quizzical look on his face. Clear evidence of a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190 that clearly misses the windshield. Consistent with prosectors preliminary conclusions and the neck x-ray. The universe of people with access to blood soluble paralytics in 1963 was very small: Richard Helms, Sidney Gottlieb, Charles Senseney, Mitchell L. WerBell 3.