Cliff Varnell

I don't have to prove anything about the cup of fabric around the jacket collar caused by the fold of fabric from the back of JFK's jacket in Bentzer and Croft other than show it is THERE to prove your crazy Varnell Magic Jacket Theory wrong.

<removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate

your claims.

Except for this grotesque absurdity:

Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his

hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim

the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars.

<removed>.

Poor Varnell, his long term, but false claim that JFK’s jacket had dropped at Bentzer, lies in tatters on the floor, and he is reduced to breaking the forum rules by calling me <removed> A claim he cannot prove I might add. Boy this is getting to be REAL fun now.

Varnell spewed on his shoes, in desperation:

“<removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate

your claims. “

Photos are not required to illustrate my claim. I have described the situation in a sufficient detail.

The amount of exposed shirt collar, which you have acknowledged:

one half inch.

You are claiming a fold in Betzner which is three times the

size of the exposed shirt collar on only one side of the fold.

Betzner shows no such thing. The claim is <removed>.

Your assertions are not arguments.

That you break the Forum rules constantly yourself marks

you not only as <removed>, but a hypocrite.

Besides, you can’t “read’ a photo anyway so what good would it do you? But never fear Varnell, my webpage thrashing your silly claim will contain plenty of illustrations.

With another smelly hurl Varnell, tossed his cookies again:

“Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his

hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim

the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars.”

Are you so ignorant that you can’t see that both are true? The top edge of the cup of fabric created by the fold in the back of JFK’s jacket extends to a height level with his hairline as seen from the camera, obscuring the jacket and shirt collar.

The above claim is flatly contradicted by Craig Lamson himself:

First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box”

Yes that is correct

You admit there's the shadow on the shirt collar, and yet you claim the

bunch rode into the hairline occluding the shirt collar.

You are claiming the shirt collar was exposed and occluded

simultaneously.

I bet you dance with two left feet.

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

So are you FINALLY admitting that the jacket has NOT fallen and that there is a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric around and behind the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that 3 inches

of JFK's shirt wrapped in 3 inches of his two-layered jacket were

bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7 but entirely below

the jacket collar at C6/C7.

How does 3 (+3) inches of bunched fabric stick straight out of

the back of JFK's neck without folding over?

Contrary to the nature of reality, indeed.

So you DON'T have any intellectual honesty. Good to know.

The photos tell us everything we need to know about the cup of fabric around JFK's jacket collar. That it was there in Bentzer is unimpeachable, as it is in Croft. I can't help it your ignorance will not allowyou to see the truth.

The fold in Croft was entirely above the base of JFK's neck?

Prove it.

I don't have to prove anything about the cup of fabric around the jacket collar caused by the fold of fabric from the back of JFK's jacket in Bentzer and Croft other than show it is THERE to prove your crazy Varnell Magic Jacket Theory wrong.

<removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate

your claims.

Except for this grotesque absurdity:

Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his

hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim

the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars.

<removed>

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

So are you FINALLY admitting that the jacket has NOT fallen and that there is a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric around and behind the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that 3 inches

of JFK's shirt wrapped in 3 inches of his two-layered jacket were

bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7 but entirely below

the jacket collar at C6/C7.

How does 3 (+3) inches of bunched fabric stick straight out of

the back of JFK's neck without folding over?

Contrary to the nature of reality, indeed.

So you DON'T have any intellectual honesty. Good to know.

The photos tell us everything we need to know about the cup of fabric around JFK's jacket collar. That it was there in Bentzer is unimpeachable, as it is in Croft. I can't help it your ignorance will not allowyou to see the truth.

The fold in Croft was entirely above the base of JFK's neck?

Prove it.

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

So are you FINALLY admitting that the jacket has NOT fallen and that there is a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric around and behind the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that 3 inches

of JFK's shirt wrapped in 3 inches of his two-layered jacket were

bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7 but entirely below

the jacket collar at C6/C7.

How does 3 (+3) inches of bunched fabric stick straight out of

the back of JFK's neck without folding over?

Contrary to the nature of reality, indeed.

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by the

Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1 location is

much too low for the SBT.

JFK's shirt and jacket had to elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches

for the Lone Assassin Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box” Yes that is correct,

Bingo!

Let it be recorded that Craig Lamson has verified my analysis

that JFK's shirt collar is visible in Betzner.

Now, let's see if we can get Craig to do the easy part.

Craig, can you see the object in the red box in the photo below?

That is JFK's jacket riding into his hairline, isn't it?

More insults, baseless assertions, and aggressive gibberish from Craig Lamson...

Oh my god Cliff, are you really this stupid or is it just your warped worldview getting in the way?

You've already confirmed my observations about the shirt collar.

Craig Lamson wrote:

What is possible however, is that the jacket is bunched BELOW the collar

of the coat and that the shirt collar CAN STILL BE SHOWING.

You admit the shirt collar is showing in the Elm St photos.

You can't refute the fact that the jacket collar rode into the hairline on Main St.

So how could the shirt collar be occluded by the jacket on Main St., but visible

on Elm St.?

The jacket dropped. Obviously.

The only "smoke" is your claim that somehow the shirt collar has any significance. Here's a

news flash for you. It does not. Consider your arguement addressed, and discarded.

Consider my argument confirmed by Craig Lamson (see above).

Clearly YOU can't address the fact that there is no shadow falling over JFK's

jacket collar in Bentzer.

In my previous post I pointed out the shadow falling over the shirt collar.

I guess you missed it.

For those who are not riven with Lone Nut Disease, the shadow can

be found to the immediate right of the shirt collar (red box) and to

the immediate right of the small fold (yellow box).

Here, I'll repeat it for you for the FORTH time.

Bentzer shows a large cup of fabric obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This is unimpeachable. Why? Because you can't see the shadow cast by JFK's neck falling over the jacket collar and the back of the jacket.

You're lying. Again.

I really don't care about your shirt collar nonsense.

You obviously don't care to address my actual argument.

I'll repeat it yet again.

Here's JFK on Main St., 90 seconds before the shooting. The object in

the red box was JFK's jacket, which clearly rode up into his hairline.

Below is JFK on Elm St. a split second before the shooting. The object in

the red box was JFK's shirt collar, clearly visible in several Elm St. photos.

(The shadow across his shirt collar is clearly visible on the extreme

right side of the red box.)

The jacket dropped to reveal the shirt collar. The Nix film captures the

moment this occurred.

JFK's jacket dropped significantly, leaving insignificant folds in his jacket.

You can blow all the smoke you want, Captain Craig, but you can't refute this

obvious fact. Hell, you can't bring yourself to honestly face what it is I'm actually

arguing here.

Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens.

And what missing shadow would that be, Craig?

Care to actually analyze the photo?

Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have

so far failed to point out?

I'm going to throw you a bone Varnell, since you keep puking on your shoes.

You say the the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible.

Noooooo, Craig, I've pointed out the visible shirt collar.

What is the white artifact in the red box if not the shirt collar, Craig?

Where did I mention the SHIRT collar Varnell?

I did. I've pointed out the visible shirt collar in Betzner #3.

About a million times.

Do you actually read my analysis?

You analysis is childish and your conclusion ignorant, and now you try to deflect from your failure by posting a strawman!

You just hurled another round on your shoes Varnell, quite par for the course....

Now I guess we need to start again for the third grader Varnell...

Wow.

You say the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible.

You're not telling the truth here, Craig. The jacket dropped to

reveal the visible shirt collar.

If you are going to critique my analysis, you have to understand it.

It isn't that difficult, Craig, so why you insist on mis-understanding it is odd,

to say the least.

Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens.

And what missing shadow would that be, Craig?

Care to actually analyze the photo?

Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have

so far failed to point out?

I'm going to throw you a bone Varnell, since you keep puking on your shoes.

You say the the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visable.

Noooooo, Craig, I've pointed out the visible shirt collar.

What is the white artifact in the red box if not the shirt collar, Craig?

Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens.

And what missing shadow would that be, Craig?

Care to actually analyze the photo?

Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have

so far failed to point out?

Ferrie was also interested in obtaining a Douglas C-47 Skytrain transport (also known as a "Gooney Bird.") He may also have been interested in narcotics at this time.

Stephen, do you have any additional info on Ferrie's interest in narcotics?

Over the clicks of shuffled ball bearings, Captain Craig cracks:

In this case I'm giving people the likes YOU a chance to actually show some intellectual honesty before bursting your bubble. I've told you were to look and if you were the truth seeker you claim you would have done the work, or at least asked the right questions. But you didn’t which is really quite telling and gives us some wonderful insight to your character or lack thereof. Thanks for being so illuminating.

Watch out, Pamela -- it's only a matter of time before Craig accuses

you of stealing the strawberries...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w

I'll probably have plenty of time to do that while I wait for him to try to construct a cogent argument. :-0

I'm not making an argument, and you would know that if you had done the research. I'm simply stating cold, hard fact.

You have done the research...correct? And if not, why are you making comments about things you know nothing about?

So Pam, where IS that shadow?

Maybe Varnell can help you. Oh wait, Varnell doesn't have a clue where the shadow is either.

Fact: amount of shirt collar exposed at the back of JFK's neck -- 1/2"

The top shadow is a fabric indentation similar to the fabric indentation

seen two minutes earlier on Main St.

Same posture -- head turned to the right, right arm waving -- but

on Main St. the jacket rode into the hairline and on Elm St. the fold

was well below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket dropped.

Obviously.

Over the clicks of shuffled ball bearings, Captain Craig cracks:

In this case I'm giving people the likes YOU a chance to actually show some intellectual honesty before bursting your bubble. I've told you were to look and if you were the truth seeker you claim you would have done the work, or at least asked the right questions. But you didn’t which is really quite telling and gives us some wonderful insight to your character or lack thereof. Thanks for being so illuminating.

Watch out, Pamela -- it's only a matter of time before Craig accuses

you of stealing the strawberries...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w

The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186...

The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186...

The photos are quite clear and the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. JFK's jacket still had a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck.

Here's the deal, Craig: you're supposed to click the heels of your

ruby pumps after each recitation of your mantra, and you're

only supposed to repeat it three times, not four plus!

This won't get you back to Kansas, but it will take you to Bunchkin Land!

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Pamela?

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur) Of this there is simply no doubt. Given this fact that the last clear photo of JFK at the z186 range clearly shows this fold, how do you support the claim that the "jacket dropped in Dealy Plaza"? Is it not true that for the t3 shot location the jacket MUST have dropped?

Added on edit:

Thanks to Varnell, for pointing out my error, I was actually making my reply to Pamala and not Barb. I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

How can adding definition to a murky area possibly be construed to equal being a 'puppet/slave to a worldview'? Please, enlighten us.

I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue. So far, nothing anyone has said has persuaded me that it even is worthy of prolonged debate. There is an inconsistancy between the evidence on JFK's jacket and that which the govt wants us to believe. Why not leave it at that? It is simply one example of the mess that has been forced on us.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't think you can use bullying tactics to make things more persuasive. That is, in fact, an indication that you believe your argument is weak.

Exactly what "defination"have you provided? I can't see anywhere that you have found, for example that there is a fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. You continue to state:

" I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue."

How can it NOT be an isssue IF you are in fact on an honest search for the truth, and not just bumbling along "BELIEVING"? You pretty much said it all. I got it correct.

Here's a news flash for you Pam. I don't "believe". I deal in fact. The facts here are simple and unimpeachable. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186.

Now what is that so called inconsistancy between JFK's clothing and ... how did you put it ... " that which the govt wants us to believe."

The intellectual dishonesty on display is staggering...

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur)

I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

Looking at your illustration of your "spinal location" I see that

JFK's spinal column was immediately below his right ear.

I'd never noticed this before!

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Barb?

You're addressing Pamela, Craig.

But go ahead. Everything you claim is a crock, so you may as well be

consistent.

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's

jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar

a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff

keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur)

This is incredible!

Craig Lamson can't tell the difference between a location at

the back of the head and a location at the side of the neck!

The photo was taken behind JFK, whose head was turned

to the right.

The red arrow points to the nape of JFK's neck, where the shirt

collar is clearly visible.

While you are at it, maybe you should study these and learn something…more

of that wonderful disinfectant known as TRUTH!

Craig Lamson continues to claim that JFK's shirt collar isn't visible

in the Elm St. images below.

Like untreated syphilis, Lone Nutism apparently goes to the brain

and causes blindness...

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

How many times do I have to tell you I am a CT? Rhetorical. I do not believe in the SBT. I believe JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets. I do not, in any way, think Varnell's theory about JFK's clothing is "the most compelling evidence" against the SBT. That you do ... makes me wonder just how well you know and have researched the evidence ... yourself.

The unintended irony of Barb's gibe at Don Jeffries is...rich!

Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and Robert Groden

have all declared the clothing evidence as definitive or "uncontested" evidence

of a conspiracy to murder JFK.

All Varnell is doing is reiterating what was established back in the 60's!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/f...th_Specter.html

The work of the aforementioned researchers has apparently eluded Barb J.'s

"20+ years" of study on the case.

Burkley did specify a thoracic level and said "verified" ... verified when ... and

how? There's no record of any mention of a thoracic level by anyone ... not

the pathologists, not Sibert & O'Neil nor any other witnesses.

Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik

in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison

Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)...In the same book,

Dr. Gary Aguilar is quoted as saying:

Ebersole was consistent about his identifying the location as to the right

of the 4th vertebra...Boswell's face sheet shows it there also.

Other witnesses provided specific descriptions of the wound consistent

with T3 or lower...

Chester H. Boyers was the Chief Petty Officer in charge of the

Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963, and attended

the autopsy. This is from Boyers signed affidavit:

Another wound was located near the right shoulder

blade, more specifically just under the scapula and

next to it.

Autopsy X-ray technician Edward Reed said in an interview he

found a wound "between the scapula and the thoracic column."

(KTT, pg 720).

Autopsy attendee James Curtis Jenkins:

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...

through the 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.

To claim that Ebersole, Boyers, Reed and Jenkins fabricated or

hallucinated the low back wound is witness-bashing pure and simple.

(T)he wound was where the wound was on the body. And I am well on the record,

for years and years, as saying it was at about T2 ... not C7/T1.

Barb :-)

Factually incorrect.

"Horizontal Trajectory Buries SBT" thread on aajfk June 16, 2006,

Barb Junkkarinenwrote (emphasis mine):

After 20+ years of studying the medical evidence and other evidence

.... and talking to a few pathologists directly, I find it highly unlikely that

the throat was an entrance for any "projectile"..... it was most likely the

exit for a back bullet that entered at a nearly horizontal to slightly

upward angle and traversed that way and exited ..... not into JBC.

Barb's bullet path is identical to the slightly "upward trajectory"path of

the HSCA's C7/T1 back wound. (HSCA Volume VII page 175).

Barb clearly subscribes to the C7/T1 HSCA back wound location.

Otherwise, after studying the medical evidence for 20+ years, how could

Barb Junkkarinen not know where the throat wound was?

Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period.

Well Don, unless you now think Bentzer has been altered, there is no doubt what so ever that there was quite a large "bunch", or cupped fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, below the jacket collar. That’s signed, sealed and delivered, despite the ignorant rantings of Varnell. Unimpeachable. This fold is large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck...

If the fold was below the jacket collar how could it occlude

the shirt collar which was clearly above the jacket collar?

And how could it occlude the shirt collar when the Elm St. photos

clearly show the shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck?