Cliff Varnell

What I find compelling is accuracy and truth, evidence supported by something other than someone recklessly stringing together a list and claiming it is *precisely* what the evidence shows ... when it is clearly not the case *at all*. How can you actually put out there that S&O's report puts the wound they saw at any particular level? It flatly did not. I find that agenda driven ... and REpelling.

I asked if you have read S&O's report ... you did not answer. But you did put out an erroneous statement about what they said in their report, and you reiterated it in this reply. Either you never read the report yourself, and are willing to run on what others say they said, or you are reckless with the truth. Neither is a good thing.

What an utterly disingenuous attack!

Here's what S & O wrote in the FBI autopsy report:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/History/The_d...-O%27Neill.html

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening

which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches

to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

While "below the shoulders" doesn't provide a specific location for the wound, it is certainly

excludes any wound above the scapula.

During the course of her 20+ years studying the medial evidence, the fact that S & O

prepared wound diagrams for the HSCA seems to have eluded Barb Junkkarinen.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif

Compare that location with the one in the autopsy face sheet, and once

again we can see the abundant redundancy of the T3 back wound evidence.

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif

The sheer volume of mis-information in Barb's post requires me

to serialize my response.

Barb,

It's a game of semantics to scrutinize the word "precisely"

There is nothing imprecise about the definition of "precisely." The semantic game is yours ... and you haven't pulled it off well. Looks silly to whine about your own choice of words when it is pointed out it is flat out wrong.

Don's use of the word "precise" is well chosen and well-corroborated.

Secret Service agent Clint Hill went to the morgue after the autopsy

to bear witness to the nature and location of JFK's wounds.

He testified before the Warren Commission (emphasis added):

I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the

neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4 inches below the top

of the collar.

Hill nailed the location of the wound precisely.

SS agent Glen Bennett was in the motorcade and testified before the WC:

I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. Immediately, upon

hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw

a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot

followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Bennett nailed the location of the wound precisely.

There is an abundant redundancy to the T3 evidence.

The reason I don't distrust the location of the hole in JFK's back in the autopsy photos is because its still too low in my view to align with JFK's 'Adams Apple' and Connally's back wound. When JFK was shot in the throat ... he was turned to his immediate right. So I see no reason to have moved the back wound to a place that doesn't support a lone assassin.

They had no solid idea where to move the back wound, they were guessing.

That's why there are two different wound locations listed in the autopsy

report -- "just above the upper margin of the scapula" (T2), and "14cm below

the mastoid process" (C7/T1). For good measure, Humes came up with a

third location for the Warren Report, the Rydberg drawing.

The T3 back wound is the key to understanding both the "how" of the

assassination and the "how" of the cover-up.

The other reason I don't get hung up on this subject is because I have sat down many times in my suit coat and it rides up slightly every time.

Bingo!

The key word is "slightly."

Lift my arm as high as JFK had his resting on the door, then the coat slides a bit further up the back.

Bingo!

The key phrase here is "a bit."

What you are describing here, Bill, is the "normal ease" of your

clothing as you make "normal movements."

The location of the holes in the clothes corroborate the "normal"

movement of the jacket -- the hole in the shirt is 4" below the collar,

the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the collar.

The jacket rode up a "a bit."

According to LN theory, however, JFK's normal movements

created "gross" movements of his clothing.

That is impossible.

Which is why true-believers like Lamson will make baseless claims

without ever replicating them

So in my view it would be a waste of time for me to involve myself over such nit-picking concerning a hole in the coat in relation to the hole in the back.

Bill Miller

That marks you in distinct contrast to Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi,

Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and Robert Groden -- to name just five

major researchers who have declared the clothing evidence as

definitive proof of conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy.

We're not nit-picking here, Bill. It involves entire classes of evidence

that put the wound at T3.

Let me put it to you this way -- you obviously believe it is important

to establish the legitimacy of the Zapruder film, correct?

Why isn't it at least as important to establish the legitimacy of

properly prepared official documents, such as Burkley's death certificate,

the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report,or the sworn testimonies

of Clint Hill, Glen Bennett, Roy Kellerman, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert,

or the witness statements of James Curtis Jenkins, Dr. John Ebersole,

Jan Gail Rudnicki, Diana Bowron, Edward Reed, Chester Boyers,

and Floyd Reibe?

Seems to me the people railing on Fetzer and White for their mistaken

claims about the Zapruder film need to look at their own mistaken

claims about the medical evidence re the back wound.

This is what Barb J doesn't get.

deleted dupe

Maybe YOU can help old Varnell out, he sure needs it. Bentzer has him stumped. He thinks he sees a 1/8 inch fabric bunch (ever try to make a "bunch" that’s only 1/8 of an inch...oh well that’s another story)

Or a 7/8" bunch!

Doesn't matter, any fraction of an inch ease of the fabric destroys Lamson's

fantasy. Hell, any ease of fabric under two inches destroys his delusions.

and a pointy black hand and arm.

And a black left-back of JFK's neck. Don't forget that one.

Poor guy, he's based his entire internet persona over the last few years on his

arrogant claim that Bentzer proves that JFK's jacket fell and thus he has proven

more than one shooter.

That, and the "close to the torso" fit of his suit and jacket, the death certificate

(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"), the FBI autopsy

report, the wound diagrams of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, the WC testimony

of SS agent Clint Hill -- who went to the morgue right after the autopsy for the

express purpose of bearing witness to the location of the wounds -- and SS agent

Glen Bennett.

Not to mention the highly specfic and detailed description of the back wound by

autopsy-attendee James Curtis Jenkins, the specific placement of the low wound

by Chester Boyers and Dr. John Ebersole, to say nothing of the statements of

Diana Bowron, Edward Reed, Jan Gail Rudnicki and Floyd Reibe.

But according to Craig Lamson all these people had the exact same hallucination.

Craig, you are making a spectacle of yourself that is amazing to watch!

Cliff,

Just so I understand correctly...

The red line in this image:

represents the point where JFK's hand (which is in front of his head at the point when this image was taken) is obscured by his head/neck area, correct?

Frank, let's study frame Z186.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

Looks to me like the hand/arm is to the immediate right

of JFK's head -- right where Craig said the hand HAD to be.

The reason I don't distrust the location of the hole in JFK's back in the autopsy photos is because its still too low in my view to align with JFK's 'Adams Apple' and Connally's back wound. When JFK was shot in the throat ... he was turned to his immediate right. So I see no reason to have moved the back wound to a place that doesn't support a lone assassin.

They had no solid idea where to move the back wound, they were guessing.

That's why there are two different wound locations listed in the autopsy

report -- "just above the upper margin of the scapula" (T2), and "14cm below

the mastoid process" (C7/T1). For good measure, Humes came up with a

third location for the Warren Report, the Rydberg drawing.

The T3 back wound is the key to understanding both the "how" of the

assassination and the "how" of the cover-up.

The other reason I don't get hung up on this subject is because I have sat down many times in my suit coat and it rides up slightly every time.

Bingo!

The key word is "slightly."

Lift my arm as high as JFK had his resting on the door, then the coat slides a bit further up the back.

Bingo!

The key phrase here is "a bit."

What you are describing here, Bill, is the "normal ease" of your

clothing as you make "normal movements."

The location of the holes in the clothes corroborate the "normal"

movement of the jacket -- the hole in the shirt is 4" below the collar,

the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the collar.

The jacket rode up a "a bit."

According to LN theory, however, JFK's normal movements

created "gross" movements of his clothing.

That is impossible.

Which is why true-believers like Lamson will make baseless claims

without ever replicating them

So in my view it would be a waste of time for me to involve myself over such nit-picking concerning a hole in the coat in relation to the hole in the back.

Bill Miller

That marks you in distinct contrast to Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi,

Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and Robert Groden -- to name just five

major researchers who have declared the clothing evidence as

definitive proof of conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy.

We're not nit-picking here, Bill. It involves entire classes of evidence

that put the wound at T3.

Let me put it to you this way -- you obviously believe it is important

to establish the legitimacy of the Zapruder film, correct?

Why isn't it at least as important to establish the legitimacy of

properly prepared official documents, such as Burkley's death certificate,

the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report,or the sworn testimonies

of Clint Hill, Glen Bennett, Roy Kellerman, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert,

or the witness statements of James Curtis Jenkins, Dr. John Ebersole,

Jan Gail Rudnicki, Diana Bowron, Edward Reed, Chester Boyers,

and Floyd Reibe?

Seems to me the people railing on Fetzer and White for their mistaken

claims about the Zapruder film need to look at their own mistaken

claims about the medical evidence.

This is what Barb J doesn't get.

You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy.

It has been easy! You consistently slip up and make objective

observations and every time you do, you under-cut your own case.

That's what makes this discussion so entertaining!

It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186.

And yet, there it is, bigger than life -- JFK's shirt collar in Betzner (blue line):

Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is,

Why, did the hand move, or is it still immediately to the right

of JFK's head?

Now, let's check with the Zapruder film.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

Yep. JFK's hand is still in that same location, above the top

of the right shoulder, to the immediately right of JFK's head.

Craig might consider a pair of effective eye-wear. Just a suggestion...

or what tone it is.

The same as the skin above his shirt collar on the left side of his neck,

last time I looked.

Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being

a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy

is a world of hurt

You're right, Craig! That fold on the left side of JFK's jacket may

have been four, even five times larger than 1/8 inch!

But any fold smaller than two inches destroys your fantasy, Craig.

Keep digging, buddy. The entertainment value is pure gold.

Gentle reader, we have the latest installment of Craig Lamson's

"farewell tour" on the back wound debate!

You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not...

... I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few.

I think both the Zapruder film and the moon photos are authentic.

But we can't expect you to be honest about this, can we?

I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them!

On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo.

Like the skin above the top of his shirt collar?

Kennedy was the first black President!

Whowudddathunkit?

Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking"

Here's something fricking amazing:

Varnell:

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his

jacket, similar to image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Lamson:

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.

It is the exact same observation.

But Craig Lamson is so lacking in basic intellectual honesty that he

can't admit it, and so polluted with LN dogma he can't tell the difference

between a fabric bulge (convex, as in the Jefferies film) and a fabric

indentation (concave, as in the Adolphus Hotel photo below).

People have a choice, look at facts,

More than a dozen people who witnessed the back wound describe

it as in the vicinity of T3.

But in Craig Lamson's perverted world view they had to suffer the

same hallucination.

and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about

where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which

destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain

worldview.

I’ll take reality.

Let us know when this begins.

In fact, photograph it, otherwise there's no reason to take your word

for anything.

Kennedy wore a backbrace.

I raised this issue with a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics

Circle Award for Costume Design, a woman who is one of the

world's top textile conservators.

She was emphatic in her declaration that the back brace

had nothing to do with the fit of the shirt. "Fit" is the marriage

of style and comfort, and the extra material tailored into the

shirt to accomodate the back brace did not translate into extra

slack.

A photo posted (by Steve Thomas I think) showed him without a jacket

and the shirt was very loose and comfy looking with a belt on.

Yes, that's why guys pay all that money for custom-made clothing --

so it looks loose and comfy.

Total amount of slack fabric for a tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt: 3/4". It may have been even less for Kennedy because he

wore a suit style called "Updated American Silhouette," in which

the jacket features a "suppressed waist-line", meaning the shirt

and jacket were "tailored close to the torso."

The brace makes half of his trunk 'slippery'.

Factually incorrect. The brace was around his waist only. The buckles

and stays on the brace would have helped to keep the shirt pinned in

place, according to autopsy attendee James Sibert.

He went in and out of the car many times pre DP and post Lovefield.

Factually incorrect. Where did JFK get out of the limo during the

motorcade?

And why would getting in and out of the limo cause JFK's shirt

to become un-tucked, anyway?

His jacket and shirt collar cannot be an indicator of the position

of his shirt at any time.

Demonstrably incorrect.

The bottom of the shirt collar rested at the C6/C7 vertebral level,

according to chiropractors with whom I've discussed the case.

How did 2+ inches of jacket and 2+ inches of shirt bunch up entirely

above C7/T1 without pushing up on the clothing collars?

Two disparate, concrete objects cannot occupy the same physical space

at the same time. It's impossible.

That's why we have car crashes...

However, the bloodied shirt shows many folds.

None of them consistent with a gross 2+-inch shirt fold.

There are no significant folds in the area immediately above

the bullet defect in the shirt.

Any time he sat back down in the seat the shirt could very well ride up.

A non sequitur, goes like this:

1) The SBT needs JFK's shirt to have ridden up 2+ inches.

2) Shirts can ride up.

3) Therefore, JFK's shirt could have ridden up 2+ inches.

Nonsense. Did JFK fail to tuck his shirt in when he changed it

minutes before landing at Love Field, John?

There cannot be a conclusive statement about its position when shot

except by matching the blood stains on his body and on the shirt.

Demonstrably incorrect. The motorcade photos clearly show

JFK's jacket dropping significantly in Dealey Plaza.

I must regretfully submit that those who deny this obvious fact

are either unfamiliar with the evidence or engaged in intellectual

dishonesty.

Such a match shows the entry wound as shown on the back autopsy photo.

The bullet hole in the shirt is at least two inches below the

location in the autopsy photo.

So, Bill, where was the wound found in the skin of JFK's body?

Please relate the location of the wound to its vertebral level, as

per autopsy protocol.

And perhaps you could cite the supporting evidence for this placement?

You must be joking by dragging me into this crap. I refer to the autospy photo showing the hole in JFK's back. And whether I called it the 2nd vertebra - the third - or between the twiddly-bob and the whatch-ma-callit .... its where the hole is seen in the photo of JFK's back.

Which happens to be at C7/T1 -- the location cited by HSCA-Single

Bullet Theorists like John Hunt.

With all due respect, Bill, you don't know where the back wound was

anymore than Mack, Lamson or Junkarrinen.

Big problems with the Fox 5 autopsy photo. It has been declared

to be likely prima facie inadmissible in a court of law by the very same

HSCA panel who used it as the basis for their Single Bullet Theory.

But that photo has NOT been proven to be a photo of John F. Kennedy.

The HSCA concluded as much. There is nothing in the photo to indicate

it was Kennedy. The woman on record as having developed the

photograph has testified under oath the extant autoposy photos were not

the ones she developed.

The HSCA condemned the autopsy photos for being obviously

deficient as scientific evidence, and singled out the back wound

photo as being especially deficient.

From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings (emphasis mine):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives

is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during

autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs as scientific

documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described

elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner

that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction

of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT

OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS OF

CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE WOUND IN THE UPPER

BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying

the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the

date and place of the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste,

inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably

rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to

be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary

circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to

introduce such poorly made and documented photographs

as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second

thoughts about using certain of these photographs since

they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately,

they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been

content to point out the OBVIOUS DEFICIENCES OF THE

AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Some have questioned their very authenticity. These

theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of

the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another

decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of

wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation

of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a

macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, HAD THE

CASE GONE TO TRIAL, might have been effectively raised

by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the

photographs as evidence. IN ANY EVENT, THE ONUS OF

ESTABLISHING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD HAVE RESTED WITH THE

PROSECUTION.

That's why the issue isn't so simple, Bill.

We don't have the body. But we have the physical evidence (the clothes,

the Dealey Plaza photos), the properly produced official documents (the

death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report) and the

witness statements uniformly putting the wound at T3 or lower.

The failure of the JFK research community to arrive at a consensus

on this issue insures its continued dysfunction and collective

ineffectiveness.

Those who promote bogus evidence -- the autopsy report and the Fox 5

autopsy photo were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol -- are

guilty of obfuscation of a far greater magnitude than the Z-alterationists.

Let's skip the predictable debates over who is seeing what in a particular photo or film; as the endless threads on film alteration have shown, photo analysis can be very subjective.

Don, luckily Craig and I are on the same page in regards to the

essential photo analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos.

Here's the neat summation with which I concluded my essay,

"JFK's jacket fell in Dealey Plaza":

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his

jacket, similar to image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Craig corroborated this analysis -- visible shirt collar, small visible folds -- when

he 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.

That JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza is a readily observed fact

which defies any subjective interpretation to the contrary.

Answer the simple question- how do you explain why Boswell's marked location on his original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's location on the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's location in their FBI report all matched precisely with the location where we find the holes in both JFK's coat and shirt? Were they all "bunched up" too?

The evidence is so clear here that there is nothing to debate.

Going forward, I intend to make a fairly thorough inventory of the

witness statements and documentation of the T3 back wound.

Indeed, there is nothing to debate.

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the wound was where the wound was on the body.

Barb :-)

Barb, thats what I was going to say because who cares if the clothing bunched ... the skin and muscles didn't bunch. The wound is where ever the hole is found in the skin .. seems simple enough to me.

Bill

So, Bill, where was the wound found in the skin of JFK's body?

Please relate the location of the wound to its vertebral level, as

per autopsy protocol.

And perhaps you could cite the supporting evidence for this placement?

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the 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 :-)

With all due respect, Barb, over on aajfk you penned a tribute to

John Hunt's research that was couched in language God's children

usually reserve for the Divine.

By being his #1 cheerleader, you're certainly on record as attempting

to legitimize Hunt's research.

And your placement of the back wound at T2, while not as egregious as

Hunt's "Bunch Theory," attempts to legitimize one of the fraudulent wound

locations listed in the autopsy report -- "Situated on the upper right posterior

thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter

oval wound."

Just above the upper border of the scapula is consistent with T2.

And it's wrong by at least an inch.

A T2 inshoot implies its own "Bunch Theory" -- that JFK's shirt and jacket

rode up a good inch.

Tucked-in custom made dress shirts -- especially those designed for the

"Updated American Silhouette"-style suits favored by JFK -- only have a

fraction of an inch of available slack.

Is your "Bunch Theory" less obfuscationary than the one embraced by

Hunt/Mack/Lamson/Rahn?

Yes, but any attempt to legitimize the fraudulent autopsy report is a far

more egregious obfuscation than Z-alterationist theory.

Use the ignore button Don. Or better yet why don't you go join Cliff and study that

jet black hand of JFK in Bentzer, he seems to need the help understanding tonality

in black and white photography. You two are made for each other.

Craig, you'd be well advised to leave Don out of our little game

of whack-a-twit.

All Don has to do -- and has done repeatedly -- is point to the

mountain of corroborating evidence of the T3 back wound and

your silly pseudo-analysis is blown away.

3 properly recorded official documents put the back wound in the

vicinity of the third thoracic vertebra (or lower) -- the Death

Certificate, the autopsy face sheet, and the FBI autopsy report.

Over a dozen witnesses describe the wound in the "low" location

consistent with T3-T4.

Did everyone who witnessed the back wound suffer an identical

hallucination?

Stop. Digging.

Btw, this is on top of the fact that your arguments are ridiculous.

its called wine, Don -- the fruit that keeps on giving ......

Lamson is doing more "farewell" gigs than Sinatra...

Let’s show your massive ignorance and end this stupidity for good.

You claim to see JKF's hand in Betzer and you offer your best "photo analysis"

via some crudely drawn lines.

As opposed to your crudely drawn lines?

Let's revisit your Betzner fantasy:

Let's start from left to right. Your "crudely drawn line" pretends to trace the

shape of this bunny rabbit clothing bunch, but your line ignores the

shadow and fold patterns on the left side of the back, and even cuts the

corner off of the visible shirt collar!

Sadly, for you, the position of the hand as you claim, is simply not possible if

as you claim, that 186 is the compliment. Why? Because the LOS will not work.

Oh the angle might work if you were say one of the MC cops behind the limo,

but that’s not the angle Bentzer had. He was way up the street, and from his

angle the hand in is photo MUST be seen outside and to the RIGHT of JFK's head.

Bingo!

It is outside and to the right of JFK's head. Have you gone blind?

Bentzer is pretty poor but it sure looks like that is exactly where it is, not where you place it. Also if we are to believe that fantasy Cliff posits about the shape he has drawn on the Bentzer print as being...how did he put it...JFK's hand/arm, then it was JFK, and not B.J. Clinton who was our first "black" president!

It's a black and white photo, if you haven't noticed.

And I guess you haven't noticed the shadow patterns on the man in the foreground.

Here's the whole Betzner #3:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1

The right side of the man's head in the left foreground was in shadow. Ditto JFK.

I do have to hand (pun intended) to you Cliff, you have some mighty powerful fantasies!

And to add to your misery, your "neck hand" still can't account for the lump at the back of JFK's neck. Oh yea, Cliff wants to call it a shadow but there are quite a few example of similar necks, in similar positions in the same lighting that don't show this "shadow"

It's yet another example of cliffy seeing bunnies in the clouds.

I see the same things you do. But you only admit this intermittently when

you let your guard down.

3 examples of Craig Lamson's unwitting corroboration of my analyses:

A year ago Craig placed into evidence Towner #1, a photo I had shown to two

clothing experts in 1997, one of whom immediately and emphatically declared

that the fold in the jacket was 3/4" of fabric.

Towner #1 is "Image 8" in the following:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Craig concurred with this analysis by saying (I paraphrase) -- "There's not

much to see" in Towner #1.

Indeed, a 3/4" fold is not much to see at all.

In my photo essay "JFK's Jacket Dropped in Dealey Plaza" I wrote:

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his jacket,

similar to image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Today Craig Lamson wrote (emphasis his):

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.

This is an identical analysis.

There had to be visible "bunch" in the jacket due to the respective locations

of the bullet defects in the shirt and jacket.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8" -- consistent with what we see in Betzner.

Now on this thread Craig has presented the Betzner LOS succinctly:

He was way up the street, and from his angle the hand in is photo MUST be

seen outside and to the RIGHT of JFK's head

Of course no one in their right mind will expect Cliff to be intellectually honest

and admit his gross error. He can't, he is fully vested in his fantasy.

So Cliff, show us how the LOS from Bentzer to JFK puts his hand where you

drew your goofy lines...Inquiring minds want to know.

I call to the stand Craig Lamson:

He was way up the street, and from his angle the hand in is photo MUST be

seen outside and to the RIGHT of JFK's head

And that's exactly what we see:

Or better yet just do the honest thing and admit your error, that is if you

have the nads to do so.

Do you crib your insults from David Healy? No knock on David, I'm just say'n...

That was your last leg. And my last post. DO your best to rebut it, as I know

you will but you will fail. The world can decide.....

Another "last post"?

All that digging must be exhausting.

Me:

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Craig:

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis

is spot on.

Here's what I wrote:

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his jacket, similar to

image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:

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.

Identical conclusions.

Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the

collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.

Give it up Cliff.

Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

What an amazing display of tortured logic there Cliff, you have outdone yourself.

Since you are a twit, ans this latest post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sincey ou are tweaking YOURSELF, well then I guess you do have a worthwhile hobby. I hope it works out for you because your hobby attempting to be a photo analysis is not looking good. The depth of your ignorance is stunning!

Anyways carry on, you don't need my help making you look like a fool, you are soing a bang up job all by yourself.

I have jus more post for you, to put you out of your misery....keep yor eyes peeled. You might want to dig that holoe just a litle deeper, bucause it will be the final resting place for your argument.

Welcome back to the discussion...sort of. Nothing but insults and un-argued

conclusions, but par for the course.

Funny how there's no way in hell you're going to discuss this and now I gotta

watch my back because you're gonna come up with some super-duper analysis

that has been evading you for the last two or three years?

Keep digging, Craig, this is a blast!

Me:

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Craig:

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis

is spot on.

Here's what I wrote:

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his jacket, similar to

image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:

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.

Identical conclusions.

Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the

collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.

Give it up Cliff.

Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

Bye Bye Cliff, enjoy your impossible "neck hand"

What I'm enjoying is another in a series of "bye byes"...

Lemme get this straight...You're claiming that it is "impossible"

for the red line below to outline JFK's hand/arm?

(Not "neck/hand," which is your fantasy.)

Zap 186 shows the hand in just that location.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

And do you have any idea how badly you've contradicted yourself

on the other thread??

RNFLMAO! Keep it up Cliffy, Heres a bit of advice for you, when you are in a hole the best course of action is to STOP DIGGING! But of course you can't help yourself, why I'll bet you see bunnies in clouds too...

So it's not "bye bye"?

I didn't think so.

Bye Bye Cliff, enjoy your impossible "neck hand"

What I'm enjoying is another in a series of "bye byes"...

Lemme get this straight...You're claiming that it is "impossible"

for the red line below to outline JFK's hand/arm?

(Not "neck/hand," which is your fantasy.)

Zap 186 shows the hand in just that location.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

And do you have any idea how badly you've contradicted yourself

on the other thread??

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

Craig, see:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

...Craig?

Gentle reader, it's apparent that Craig "moved on" before he could make

a case in rebuttal of "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Now he's lecturing Z-alterationists about "intellectual honesty."

The unintended irony is rich.

The rebuttal is that you simply don't know what it is you are seeing in the images, to put it bluntlyu you zare a p_ss poor at photo analysis.

Yeah, you keep saying that but you haven't addressed my post on the

"Present State of the Critical Community" nor have you addressed

"JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza."

Like John Hunt -- you expect us to take your word for it, Craig?

Arguing wiht you is like arguing with a brick wall, other than the fact that the brick wall has more intellectual honesty.

What is rich is that you see a narm and wrist AT THE BACK of JFK's head!

You arbitrarily drew a line at the back of JFK's head and upper torso that

doesn't match the shadow pattern on the back of JFK's clothing!

Here's the unadorned close-up:

The bulge above his shoulder at the right base of his neck is

hand/arm and obviously not at the back of his head.

Unless, of course, you honestly think JFK's head extended a couple

of inches to the right of his right ear...

If you've worn a dress shirt, undergarment,* suit coat, and tie, you know in your heart that it takes a couple inches of fabric rise above the belt line to produce the 1" (aprx. - I was being conservative) creased uprise behind the suit collar that I described.

David, with all due respect, you are grossly over-stating the mount of slack

fabric in a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt. And you are still significantly

under-stating the amount of elevated fabric required by the SBT.

Let's consult the expert on fine men's dress -- Alan Flusser:

CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS

(Alan Flusser) pg 79:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit

comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the

jacket...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six

inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around.

The "lines of the jacket" were even more important in the case of

John F. Kennedy, who wore a suit style called "Updated American Silhouette."

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-pa...-american-style

The main feature of this style was the "suppressed waistline" -- which meant that

the shirt and jacket were designed to fit "close to the torso."

So there is more than an inch of play in the fabric, and if you've dressed for

the public you've fretted over this stuff the way women used to fret over

stocking seams.

There's far more than an inch of fabric in play in a suit jacket due to the

simple fact that the wearer does not sit on the tail of the jacket, as he

does with the shirt. There is only a fraction of an inch of slack in a

custom-made dress shirt for the reason Flusser cited -- 3/4" to be exact,

according to a San Francisco shirt-maker with whom I've discussed the

issue.

JFK went through several earlier limo stops in which he made some more

animated motions than we see in film shot closer to Dealey, and he's animated

enough in the later footage to produce bunching as we see in the Jeffries film.

No need to speculate. Let's take a look at the photographic evidence and

see if your analysis holds water.

Here's a photo on Main St. about 2 minutes before the shooting, taken 30

seconds before the Jefferies film. Please note the position of JFK's jacket,

the fold in the back of the jacket, and JFK's posture.

The jacket rode up to JFK's hairline; the diagonal fold in the jacket was an

indentation; JFK was turned to the right and waved his right hand.

Right?

Now here's a frame from the Jefferies film. Note that the jacket rode up to

JFK's hairline, and the "bunch" is a bulge.

Here's the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston about

one minute before the shooting. Note the position of the jacket well below the

hairline, and the horizontal/diagonal indentation in the jacket across the

right shoulder-line.

Here are two frames from the Houston St. segment of the Nix film. In the

first frame JFK was leaning forward chatting with Nellie, and in the second

frame he had just sat back in his seat. Please note that the shirt collar was

not visible in the first frame, but was visible in the second.

So already we can see that JFK had knocked his jacket down in a matter

of seconds by first brushing the back of his head with his right hand (Weaver),

and then by leaning forward to talk to Nellie and then sitting back (Nix).

The jacket was knocked down again at circa Z178 when JFK turned his head

to the right and began to wave his right arm.

This posture is very similar to JFK's posture in the first Main St. photo: head

turned to the right, right hand waving. The indentation in the back of the

jacket is also similar, as we can see in Betzner #3 taken at Z186:

The back of JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in film and photos taken on

Elm St. The jacket rode up to the hairline in film and photos taken on

Main St.

It should be obvious, David, that the jacket dropped in Dealey.

I'm violating high rules of masculine stoicism to argue this, but this I do for truth.

Seems to me you're arguing that JFK's clothing violated the principles of fine

men's dress, and that dropping down is the same as riding up.

There's no truth in any of that whatsoever.

I'm bumping this up for the benefit of Craig Lamson.

He has dismissed the above analysis as "poor" -- but he has

neglected to make a case for such a conclusion.

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

Craig, see:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

...Craig?

Gentle reader, it's apparent that Craig "moved on" before he could make

a case in rebuttal of "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Now he's lecturing Z-alterationists about "intellectual honesty."

The unintended irony is rich.