Cliff Varnell

Charles, This is something I've given a great deal of thought to over the years. A couple years back I wrote in this forum that obfuscation can be the collateral damage of good research. In the process of developing an argument and learning subjects in greater depth, we do run the risk of "playing into the hand of the other side." But if at the end of that process I stand as a better educated and more forceful advocate for "the side of the angels," then it's a risk I'm willing to take. Besides, I need a bit of a break from my Harriman research.

On the rare occasions when “truthers” get their facts straight they invariably misinterpret and/or overemphasize the importance of them. Like Tom Purvis, Len Colby's capacity for unintended irony is keen. While that has been an important component of "the American air defense system," the PRIMARY defensive activity is outlined in the FAA Standard Intercept Procedure, and, of course, in the airport screening procedures designed to defend against domestic hijackings and sabotage. http://www.standdown.net/FAAstandardinterceptprocedures.htm Which, of course, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue isn't how long the military took to intercept the plane -- the issue is how long it took to implement FAA Standard Intercept Procedures and give the order to scramble. On 9/11, radio contact with Flight 11 was lost at 8:14am. But the FAA didn't implement Standard Intercept Procedure until 8:40am. NORAD issued the scramble order at 8:46am, and the planes were in the air at 8:52am. For Stewart's plane the response time was quicker. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...t99/crash26.htm As noted above, it took 12 minutes for NORAD to put planes in the air once notified by the FAA. Why the 26 minute delay between the loss of Flight 11 radio contact and the implementation of FAA Standard Intercept Procedure? Because of "confusion" caused by the five military training drills that Dick Cheney happened to have scheduled for that day. "It was initially pretty confusing," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said to the 9/11 Commission. This "confusion" infected the actions of everyone involved in America's air defense. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/..._exercises.html http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usaf_911.html This "confusion" extended to the pilots of the jets that were eventually scrambled, who flew at far under top speed, without any apparent urgency. http://attackonamerica.net/ignorad.htm#ignorad I wrote previously: (quote on) The following suggests one man could have single-handedly disabled the American air defense system: Vice President Dick Cheney. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...MustTestify.pdf (quote off) Did you bother to read Dr. Scott's article? Dick Cheney on "Meet The Press" 9/16/01 re his role in the "secret bunker" below the White House: "I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then makedecisions in terms of acting with it." After this apparently indiscreet admission, Cheney consistently lied about his actions that morning. (See Dr. Scott's article above.) FACT: on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of all "training and planning" of military exercises involved in "all federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…" with the goal of making the American defense response "seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive" and "maximize effectiveness." By scheduling at least 5 war game/drills on one day, and then taking supreme command of the American air defense response to the hijacking, Dick Cheney was in a position to sow "confusion" among those involved at the FAA and NORAD. I wrote previously: (quote on) It did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks to succeed, contrary to Feser, Colby, Burton et al. (quote off) You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "compartmentalization" in regards to intelligence operations, wherein people operate on a strict "need to know" basis, thereby unwittingly participating in a conspiracy they know nothing about. You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of CYA, wherein people will unwittingly participate in a cover-up if it means covering their own ass, as in the case of Gen. Richard Myers and NORAD commander Gen. Ralph Eberhardt. Within the US government it only took one man, Dick Cheney, to schedule 5 NORAD training exercises on one day. It took only one other man to put the plot into motion -- the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed. It was Ahmed who ordered $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta. http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum...eikhMahmood.htm Was it by co-incidence that Ahmed was in Washington DC in the days prior to and after 9/11/01? http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html All it took to pull off 9/11 was a two man conspiracy at the top -- Cheney and Ahmed. Cheney and Ahmed had the opportunity to confer in DC, and then Ahmed had the opportunity to give Atta the go order. How utterly disingenuous. This is the corrupt root flaw of Feser's analysis, which lumps into a stew every single statement, observation, and citation by every single person who questions the official story behind 9/11 and JFK -- and then attributes this stew to all. And thus my statement -- "It did not take a wide array of conspirators" -- is attributed to the millions of people who challenge the official story. By lumping everything and everyone together, Feser, Colby et al ditch the need to argue the facts of the case and indulge in their dismissive semantics. If I'm a "truther" what does that make you, Colby? A "lie repeater"? Just as in the Kennedy assassination, the "lie repeaters" abound.

Looks like this is one of those times. Your scenario is based on the notion that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in near-tandem 3+" and that "qualified experts" have concurred. And yet when I press you on the issue you cannot produce the names of these "qualified experts" nor can you rebut the obvious evidence that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, a fact which makes your scenario physically impossible. Also, in your fantasy scenario the shirt elevated in near-tandem with the jacket 4 inches below the collar, up to the back of JFK's neck. But then the shirt did not move in tandem with the jacket up into JFK's hairline, as there is no corresponding defect right below the collar of the shirt. Into what black hole did the shirt descend after it moved up to the back of JFK's neck, Tom? Not that it matters -- all the Dealey Plaza photos show the shirt and jacket in a normal position on JFK's back. The Dealey Plaza films/photos trump this nonsense you insist on slinging. And yet all the photos and film taken on Elm St. shows JFK's jacket riding below the top of his shirt collar. Your fantasy is trumped by the photographic evidence. But thanks for playing and better luck next time. My sister attended college with one of Heiberger's daughters. Ms. Heiberger related the deep concern SA Heiberger had for the safety of his family in regards to his work on the Kennedy assassination. Draw your own conclusions. You evidently cannot look at the Dealey Plaza motorcade photos without holding your hands over your eyes. If you bothered to actually study the photographic evidence you'd see that the jacket wasn't in the position required by your fantasy. But then that would be the end of your fantasizing, and you can't do that, can you? Hey Tom! Anyone ever explain to you the difference between a 1/2 inch hole and a 1/8 inch hole?????? A 1/4 inch hole and a 1/8 inch hole?????? There is a ruler in this photo that allows one to measure both defects to a high degree of accuracy. http://subversivehistory.com/ The upper defect is 1/8" -- wholly incompatible with a strike by a 6.5mm round. You couldn't replicate the required movement of JFK's shirt, Tom, if you used both hands to pull. The photographic evidence trumps anything that came out of the FBI lab. JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Period. Now: who are those "qualified experts" to whom you referred, Tom?

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put the back wound lower at T3. But physical evidence trumps witness testimony. One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where the bullet entered the back. Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence? Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put the back wound lower at T3. Well, yes! Provided that one accepts the word of a non-pathologist who had absolutely nothing to do with examination of the wounds which JFK incurred. Getting ahead of yourself here, aren't you, Tom? In a previous post you cited un-named "qualified experts" who have established that JFK's suit jacket and tucked-in custom-made dress shirt were elevated in tandem over 3". Please cite these "qualified experts" and their work, before we move on. Also, before we get into the corroborative evidence, you have yet to substantiate your claim that a 6.5mm FMJ round left a 3mm x 3mm defect without touching the shirt. Your Humes/Boswell testimony is moot if you can't defend what you've already written. But you have no actual argument for any of this, do you? Actually! Anyone with the ability for word recognition and comprehension would have grasped the answers long ago when you last brought up this subject matter. And what "answers" would those be? Since these "answers" are so readily grasped, you should have no trouble reiterating them. Along with what "others"? To whom do you refer, and what was the substance of their refutation? This is not an idle point -- it goes straight to the heart of this thread. As noted previously, the trouble with Feser's "The Trouble With Conspiracy Theories" is it ignores the basic facts of both 9/11 and the JFK assassination. Not for nothing do non-conspiracy theorists like Tom Purvis suffer rhetorical meltdowns when confronted with irrefutable physical evidence. There is a sucking sound in this thread, all right. So: tell us who these "qualified experts" are, and what is their argument? I've given up on you actually defending your "two bullet holes in the jacket, one bullet hole in the shirt" nonsense. Apparently it has dawned upon even you that the assertion is absurd.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put the back wound lower at T3. But physical evidence trumps witness testimony. One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where the bullet entered the back. Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence? Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put the back wound lower at T3. Well, yes! Provided that one accepts the word of a non-pathologist who had absolutely nothing to do with examination of the wounds which JFK incurred. Getting ahead of yourself here, aren't you, Tom? In a previous post you cited un-named "qualified experts" who have established that JFK's suit jacket and tucked-in custom-made dress shirt were elevated in tandem over 3". Please cite these "qualified experts" and their work, before we move on. Also, before we get into the corroborative evidence, you have yet to substantiate your claim that a 6.5mm FMJ round left a 3mm x 3mm defect without touching the shirt. Your Humes/Boswell testimony is moot if you can't defend what you've already written. But you have no actual argument for any of this, do you?

John, it is not my intent to participate in the hijacking of the thread. My purpose here is to demonstrate Feser's fallacious framing of the subject: that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy is not theoretical in the least. That 4+ shots were fired is a readily observed, demonstrable fact given the proven T3 back wound. Feser's framing of the debate as "trouble with conspiracy theories" must be rejected, at least in regards to the JFK assassination. As to 9/11: it is not a theory, but a readily observed fact that the American air defense system failed to intercept the planes that struck the WTC and the Pentagon (for the sake of argument I'll set aside the questions surrounding the strike on the Pentagon.) The following suggests one man could have single-handedly disabled the American air defense system: Vice President Dick Cheney. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...MustTestify.pdf It did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks to succeed, contrary to Feser, Colby, Burton et al. The trouble with "The Trouble With Conspiracy Theories" is that it ignores the basic facts of 9/11 and the JFK assassination in favor of strawman attacks on government-wide conspiracy theories that are the product of Feser's imagination.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put the back wound lower at T3. But physical evidence trumps witness testimony. One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where the bullet entered the back. Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence?

He based his "two bullet holes" in the jacket notion on cherry-picked witness testimony, then when he was presented with clear photographic evidence to the contrary he stuck to his guns beyond all reason. And then he gets arrogant about it! If not for his prior service to his country, Mr. Purvis would have been roasted far more than he has been by me.

Utter hokum. You obviously never studied the jacket and instead rely on mis-characterizing witness testimony. Your game is up, Tom. This close-up is so clear that anyone can study the upper defect and the slice marks in the fabric and understand that it is a puncture hole made by an implement, not a bullet. http://subversivehistory.com/ The two holes do not line up! So a 6.5mm round struck just below the edge of the coat collar and left a 3mm x 3mm defect with a short slice mark to the right and a longer slice mark to the left? And somehow this bullet did not penetrate the shirt! Yes, your knowledge of ballistics is staggering. Been doing it rather single-mindedly for years, thank you. That you can't tell the difference between a 3mm x 3mm puncture hole and a bullet hole reveals the degree of your ignorance. I'll leave it to the gentle reader to make their own conclusion as to your intellectual honesty. It is a readily observed fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Whenever I cite the photographic evidence for all to see, LNers sputter contentless denials, as you have done yet again, Tom. But no actual rebuttals are forthcoming, although Craig Lamson lamely attempted such a year ago, but he didn't stick around very long. And of course there was a "bunch" in the coat -- 1/8". The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar, while the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar. The jacket was elevated 1/8" relative to the shirt. 1/8" does not equal 3" -- only an intellectually dishonest person would make such a claim, imo. Please clue us in on who these "qualified experts" are, Tom. John Hunt? Chad Zimmerman? Please, do inform us as to who these experts are and what their methodologies were in making the determination that JFK's jacket dropped into a grossly elevated position. This, gentle reader, should be good!

Tom's posts are frequently rich in unintended irony in regards to understanding the simplest facts of the most obvious physical evidence, to wit: Fact: The bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are a good 3 inches below the "back of the neck" inshoot of Tom Purvis' 3-shot scenario. http://subversivehistory.com/ Fact: On Main St. JFK's jacket rode up into his hairline about 90 seconds before the shooting, but then proceeded to drop into a normal position on JFK's back as the limo proceeded thru Dealey Plaza. Fact: At the corner of Main and Houston, JFK brushed the back of his head with his right hand, pushing the jacket down into a horizontal fold across his right shoulder. The jacket collar was below the hairline but above the top of the shirt collar. Fact: On Houston St., JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie Connally and when he leaned back his jacket collar dropped to reveal the shirt collar. Fact: At circa Z178, JFK turned his head to the right and began to wave his right arm, which caused the jacket to fall bit more into the minor fold seen in Betzner #3 (Z186), taken a split second before he was shot. The obvious physical evidence thoroughly debunks Purvis' "back of the neck" scenario. To claim otherwise is an act of intellectual dishonesty, imo.

Kathy, Reitzes relentlessly savaged Martin Shackelford for years on alt.assassination.jfk over the JV Baker fiasco. It was way over the top in terms of vicious disrespect, no matter how wrong Martin was about the ridiculous Ms. Baker. Maybe you missed it. Reitzes loves to dish it out -- but he can't take the heat while defending his LN nonsense.

Indeed. In my experience, the Peinster always puts up a fight no matter how lame and fact-free it is. Dave Reitzes always curls into a ball and never engages the discussion. "That's my opinion, Cliff" -- is as far as he ever got in rebuttal with me. Two different clowns. Same circus.

"There is no hard evidence of conspiracy in the murder of JFK." Gary Mack said something to that effect on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" earlier this year. That claim is a provable mis-statement of fact. There are two kinds of medical evidence in the case: that which was produced according to proper military autopsy protocol, and that which was not produced according to proper military autopsy protocol. The 6FM-favored 3-shot scenario is based on evidence not produced according to proper autopsy protocol. Improperly produced medical evidence trumps properly produced medical evidence? Who's the screwball here, Bill? Gary Mack has touted the Jeffries film, which shows JFK's jacket riding up into his hair-line 90 seconds before the shooting, as an example of clothing "bunch" as required by the SBT. When I pointed out to him that the Towner film, taken on Elm St. seconds before the shooting, showed the jacket clearly riding below the top of the shirt collar -- ergo the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza -- Gary dismissed me saying he had no time to waste on my "theories." So photographic evidence taken 90 seconds before the shooting trumps photo evidence taken a few seconds before the shooting? So who's the screwball?

Regardless of the base for that statement, if you think that I am intellectually dishonest, you would not want me in the place of Gary Mack. My point is that in that position you would want an intellectually honest man, not a man that is contradicting himself or advocating theories that have been proven false or not in line with his personal beliefs. Not if it is about the murder of a democraticly elected President. Wim Big difference between being "intellectually dishonest," which is, after all, the most human of faults and the most universal, and being some kind of minister of propaganda for the cover-up. I don't think anyone is trying to cover anything up -- it's just folks married to their world view, death do they part.

I don't buy it. The JFK cover-up took on a life of its own decades ago, and all of us take our turns obfuscating the evidence. I find there are very few researchers who don't let their egos obfuscate the evidence; I know I've been guilty of this as much as any, re-hashing Dealey Plaza minutia for the sheer joy of rhetorical combat. It's just that Gary Mack has a career that has involved making intellectually dishonest statements about the evidence of conspiracy on national TV. But I don't think Gary is any more or less intellectually dishonest than you, Wim. Basically, I don't think "disinfo agents" exist. I think it was observed long ago that the conspiracy research community would dig so many rabbit holes on its own that "disinfo agents" weren't necessary.

Mike, your comment indicates to me I've been less than cogent in the presentation of my argument, and for that I apologize. The problem with the SBT is not the behavior of the bullet in the body, it's in the behavior of the bullet in mid-air. If a bullet exits a body on an upward trajectory it cannot travel a couple of feet and then make a 90 degree turn downward in mid-air. And yet this is what you are claiming to be "possible." For instance: take out a compass, a medium powered rifle, and a 6.55mm FMJ round. Load the round into the rifle and point to due West. Keeping the rifle pointed due West, fire. Is it possible for the bullet to travel a couple of feet and then take an abrupt mid-air right hand turn 90 degrees and proceed to fly due North? Of course not. But in trying to square the SBT with the physical evidence this is what you are claiming to be "possible." Every time you make this claim Sir Isaac Newton turns in his grave.

It was "possible" that JFK's neck extended 4 inches below the bottom of his clothing collars? Was he part giraffe? Cliff, If I have not made it clear enough, my apologies. There is nothing in the ballistics nor physics that says it is impossible. So it was "possible" that a bullet that struck JFK on a downward trajectory in the vicinity of his 3rd thoracic vertebra (consistent with the holes in the clothes, the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet diagram, the FBI autopsy report, the wound diagrams of several autopsy witnesses, the sworn statements of several autopsy witnesses, and the graphic descriptions of the wound by witnesses who were not sworn), ranged upward in his body to exit his throat, then -- in mid-air! -- changed course again and descended into Connally? Perhaps you could demonstrate this incredible event? Do the holes in the clothes and the mountain of corroborating evidence of the T3 back wound constitute "other factors"? Shouldn't these "other factors" be considered prior to your pronouncements concerning the "possibility" of the SBT? But given the physical evidence we can actually link to JFK, it was in fact impossible, unless you have a satisfactory answer to the problem of the SBT requiring a drastic mid-air change of trajectory. There is no evidence whatsoever that JFK was struck in the back with a FMJ round. None. But was it capable of such an extreme change of trajectory in mid-air? It was impossible given the physical evidence. I'm always struck by the willingness of folks to ignore the actual physical evidence in this case.

It was "possible" that JFK's neck extended 4 inches below the bottom of his clothing collars? Was he part giraffe?

There's a reason for that. The T3 back wound is the easiest fact to prove. A ten year old can grasp the fact that JFK's neck didn't extend 4 inches below the bottom of his clothing collars. Unless, of course, the ten year old is an avid JFK researcher with a fetish for complexity...

The manager of the 6th floor exhibit is indifferent to the physical evidence in the case. The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are 2" to 3" below the SBT's required "back of the neck" in-shoot. http://www.subversivehistory.com/ A year and a half ago Gary Mack generated world-wide attention with his observation that JFK's jacket was "bunched up" in the newly discovered Jeffries film. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/20/usa.filmnews (quote on) (Mack) said that the footage showed Kennedy's coat bunched up at his neck, a detail that will interest conspiracy theorists who have long questioned why the bullet hole in his body and coat had not matched up as expected. (quote off) The films and photos taken over the last 90 seconds before the shooting clearly show that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/ To claim there is no hard evidence against the SBT is a statement of egregious intellectual dishonesty.

Bingo! It appears as a criminal enterprise wherein everyone involved had a common goal incidental to any institutional interests. That goal looks from here like an attempt to put together a Laos-to-Havana-to-US heroin pipeline. You say "theory," I say..."dots"... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry125833

Bingo! It appears as a criminal enterprise wherein everyone involved had a common goal incidental to any institutional interests. That goal looks from here like an attempt to put together a Laos-to-Havana-to-US heroin pipeline.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50287 QUOTE: "I did say to Lisa Pease that I don't think a conspiracy has been proven - for the good reason that there is no definite, uncontested proof of conspiracy. Perhaps there was a plot, and my writings show that I'm very open to that possibility. But there's nothing finite, or indeed anything hard enough to "go to the bank" on. Any open-minded person ought to accept that." This is hardly a disavowal or change of mind! I agree with Tony that NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. Jack Interesting. It's a proven fact that the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the respective collars. http://www.subversivehistory.com/ Is it not a proven fact that for the official 3-shot scenario requires JFK to have been shot at the back base of his neck? Yes, that is a proven fact. The Single Bullet Theory does not work given a wound below the neck. Is there any evidence that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated nearly 3 inches in tandem at the time of the shooting? No, the photographic evidence is to the contrary. http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/ Anyone who claims that conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is not a PROVEN FACT is either unfamiliar with the basic physical facts of the case, or has been rendered cognitively impaired as a result of egregious intellectual dishonesty. Cliff, You are talking about proof required to win an argument on an internet forum, while I'm talking about evidential proof that can be admitted into a court of law. BK The clothing evidence would readily be admitted into a court of law. Why would you think otherwise? Absolutly, Except that a real serious Grand Jury would require the bodies of the victims to be exhumed and a proper, forensic autopsy performed that would determine the exact measurements on the body, rather than the shirts or jacket. BK A little late for measuring the actual back wound, I dare say. Since the 3-shot scenario requires JFK to have been shot in the back of the neck, the holes in the clothes stand as prima facie evidence of 4+ shots. It does not require an "exact" measurement of the back wound to debunk the single bullet theory. After all, the "low" back wound also appears in the only medical evidence produced according to proper military autopsy protocol: in Burkley's death certificate (signed off as "verified") and the location of the back wound recorded in pencil on the autopsy face sheet (also signed off as "verified.") None of the medical evidence of the well-traveled "high" back wound was recorded according to autopsy protocol. I would argue that a Grand Jury only needs to see the holes in the clothes, the photographic evidence that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report, the wound diagrams sworn to by the FBI SAs attending the autopsy, the sworn testimony of four secret service agents, and the statements of more than a half-dozen Bethesda medical witnesses -- and the "probable cause" standard is more than satisfied. To argue the case for conspiracy on any other grounds is to present a weak case, imo.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50287 QUOTE: "I did say to Lisa Pease that I don't think a conspiracy has been proven - for the good reason that there is no definite, uncontested proof of conspiracy. Perhaps there was a plot, and my writings show that I'm very open to that possibility. But there's nothing finite, or indeed anything hard enough to "go to the bank" on. Any open-minded person ought to accept that." This is hardly a disavowal or change of mind! I agree with Tony that NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. Jack Interesting. It's a proven fact that the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the respective collars. http://www.subversivehistory.com/ Is it not a proven fact that for the official 3-shot scenario requires JFK to have been shot at the back base of his neck? Yes, that is a proven fact. The Single Bullet Theory does not work given a wound below the neck. Is there any evidence that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated nearly 3 inches in tandem at the time of the shooting? No, the photographic evidence is to the contrary. http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/ Anyone who claims that conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is not a PROVEN FACT is either unfamiliar with the basic physical facts of the case, or has been rendered cognitively impaired as a result of egregious intellectual dishonesty. Cliff, You are talking about proof required to win an argument on an internet forum, while I'm talking about evidential proof that can be admitted into a court of law. BK The clothing evidence would readily be admitted into a court of law. Why would you think otherwise?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50287 QUOTE: "I did say to Lisa Pease that I don't think a conspiracy has been proven - for the good reason that there is no definite, uncontested proof of conspiracy. Perhaps there was a plot, and my writings show that I'm very open to that possibility. But there's nothing finite, or indeed anything hard enough to "go to the bank" on. Any open-minded person ought to accept that." This is hardly a disavowal or change of mind! I agree with Tony that NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. Jack Interesting. It's a proven fact that the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the respective collars. http://www.subversivehistory.com/ Is it not a proven fact that for the official 3-shot scenario requires JFK to have been shot at the back base of his neck? Yes, that is a proven fact. The Single Bullet Theory does not work given a wound below the neck. Is there any evidence that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated nearly 3 inches in tandem at the time of the shooting? No, the photographic evidence is to the contrary. http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/ Anyone who claims that conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is not a PROVEN FACT is either unfamiliar with the basic physical facts of the case, or has been rendered cognitively impaired as a result of egregious intellectual dishonesty.