Cliff Varnell

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?

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

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: 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

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!

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...

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!

You're addressing Pamela, Craig. But go ahead. Everything you claim is a crock, so you may as well be consistent. 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.

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...

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 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.

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: 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: 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: To claim that Ebersole, Boyers, Reed and Jenkins fabricated or hallucinated the low back wound is witness-bashing pure and simple.

Factually incorrect. "Horizontal Trajectory Buries SBT" thread on aajfk June 16, 2006, Barb Junkkarinenwrote (emphasis mine): 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?

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?

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 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. 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): 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: 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.

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. Bingo! The key word is "slightly." 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 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

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

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.

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. Bingo! The key word is "slightly." 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 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.

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

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... The same as the skin above his shirt collar on the left side of his neck, last time I looked. 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! 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? Like the skin above the top of his shirt collar? Kennedy was the first black President! Whowudddathunkit? Here's something fricking amazing: Varnell: Lamson: 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). 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. Let us know when this begins. In fact, photograph it, otherwise there's no reason to take your word for anything.

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. 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." 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. 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? 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... 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. 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? 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. The bullet hole in the shirt is at least two inches below the location in the autopsy photo.