Cliff Varnell

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

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.

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.)

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.

As has been pointed out ad infinium “the American air defense system”

was primarily geared towards aircraft entering US and Canadian airspace.

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

Intercepts of wayward flights originating in those countries were rare

and tended to take extended periods of time (unless aircraft happened to be

airborne on other missions).

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In 1999 it took 82 minutes for Payne Stewart’s plane to be intercepted

by a fighter already in the air.

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

In 1980 when there were a lot more fighters on scramble alert than in 2001

it took 2 ½ hours to intercept Bo Rein’s plane. The time frames on 9/11 were much

shorter. Claims that pre 9/11 intercepts took 10 minutes are based on (no I'm NOT

making this up) the instructions to a computer game.

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)

Please cite the passage that suggests that. There were numerous people

in the chains of command between the White House and those actually tasked

with carrying out the nation’s air defense. The normal contingent of 14 fighters

was on scramble alert that morning.

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)

I don’t imagine you’d be willing to spell out what you think happened that

morning including everything that they made happen, not happen of happen

differently and the approximate number of people necessary for each anomaly

plus all the people involved in the cover-up.

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.

“Truthers” tend to be schizophrenic regarding the number of people to

have executed the plot. On one hand they insist that “it did not take a wide array

of conspirators” but normally believe in a plot so complex that it would by necessity

require a large number of people in disparate locations, agencies, private companies.

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.

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.

It was not expected that you would understand the significance of that information when it was first posted, just as it is not expected that you will understand it now.

Fortunately, there are those here who now recognize that:

1. For the most part, I seldom make seemingly asinine statements without some evidence to support said statement.

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.

2. It is absolutely no "coincidence" that the purported "control" sample hole which is located at the lower edge of JFK's coat collar is approximately 1 inch to the right of center, penetrates the coat as well as the coat liner on an oblique angle, and is also in direct alignment with the Scalp/EOP entry wound at the lower edge of JFK's hairline in which the wound was reported as being 2.5cm right of the EOP.

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.

3. Henry Heiberger fully gave that information necessary to clearly demonstrate that:

a. The "control" sample which he took up at the coat collar came from UNDERNEATH the coat collar.

b. That he tested TWO SEPERATE and distinctive samples from TWO SEPERATE and distinctive holes/penetrations through the coat of JFK with copper residue being found in the fabric surrounding each of the TWO SEPERATE and distinct holes.

c. You/Cliff have never bothered to investigate anything relative to the forensic facts of the JFK assassination.

d. You/Cliff (along with quite a few others) appear to have never spoken with Henry Heiberger, or for that matter, any other

member(s) of the FBI who were associated with investigation of the JFK assassination.

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.

e. You/Cliff (along with quite a few others) quite apparantly allowed the WC to again pull the wool over your eyes in regards to the spectrographic examination of JFK's coat.

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?

Introduced into evidence during questioning of Dr. Humes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Commission, I would like to have identified for the record three articles on which I have placed Commission Exhibits Nos. 393 being the coat worn by the President, 394 being the shirt, and 395 being the President's tie, and at this time move for their admission into evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The articles of clothing referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 393, 394 and 395 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385.

Mr. SPECTER - Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat?

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.

Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below.

Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?

Commander HUMES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?

Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.

================================================================================

Boy oh Boy will I ever be glad that my educational background is not so limited that I can not read and comprehend the difference between a "control" location which is under the collar as opposed to a penetration through the coat and liner at which the exterior hole begins just below the lower edge of the coat collar.

Not to mention that I was not sufficiently gullible that I allowed Arlen Specter to pull that one over my eyes.

Hey Cliff! Anyone ever explain to you the difference between a 1/2 inch hole and a 1/4 inch hole??????

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.

If not, then perhaps you might make an attempt at reviewing the results of Henry Heiberger's laboratory/spectrographic test results as he received a high (+)/positive for copper at each of the two holes. (The 1/2 inch hole lower down/aka CE399 penetration, as well as the 1/4 inch hole located up at the collar/aka the third/last/final/James Altgens impact location bullet penetration which after exiting the coat on an acute/obtuse angle, struck JFK in the lower edge of the hairline.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

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?

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

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 all of the others who have expended considerable time and effort in thoroughly refuting your "non-bunch" concept of conspiracy.

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.

So, please by my guest and go waste someone else's time with your vaccum cleaner sales pitch.

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.

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

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?

...(Tom Purvis) is an expert at taking over threads. It is a shame because this could have been an interesting discussion. Especially, if Evan and Len would have been willing to contribute.

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.

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

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 has shown an ability to accept them and change in viewpoint, all pointing at some good principles. Why do people not want to ask him polite questions?

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.

FACT!

JFK's coat has TWO seperate and distinct bullet hole penetrations in the back.

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!

1. That penetration which was created by CE399.

2. That penetration which was created by the Third/Last/Final/Altgens location impact in which the bullet struck the coat just below the edge of the coat collar, penetrated through the coat and liner on an obtuse/oblique angle, and then exited the coat to strike JFK in the back of the head at the lower edge of the hairline.

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.

So Mr. "intellectual dishonesty", exactly when was it that you were going to get around to telling us all of this fantastic information relative to the coat.

Been doing it rather single-mindedly for years, thank you.

Even were I "intellectually dishonest", it would still be far better than being completely ignorant of the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts of the assassination.

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.

And, by the way, your "non-bunch" theory has been discredited by virtually every qualified expert who has even taken a look at the subject matter.

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.

[b]"Actually! I consider "half-wit" jerks to be those who launch into great conspiracy scenario's without having even come to understand the most simple aspects of the physical facts"[/b]

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!

Actually! I consider "half-wit" jerks to be those who launch into great conspiracy scenario's without having even come to understand the most simple aspects of...physical facts.

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.

I do not know David von Pein, but I have emailed Dave Reitzes a few times, and always found him to be a very polite and sincere person. While I do not agree with alot of what he says, the level of discussion is always done with great respect.

I have read that he is not interested in joining this forum, because he believes all that will occur from his posting will be alot of namecalling, and to tell you the truth, he is probably right.

Shame.

Kathy

.

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.

Yea, even though he's a nitwit, there's no need to be insulting him by implying he's one and the same as David Reitzes, as I can attest they are two different nitwits who don't have the gonads to sign on here and talk honestly about the assassination of President Kennedy.

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.

If Mack was telling provable lies...

"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.

...won't throw his job away so to satisfy some screwball.

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?

But I don't think Gary is any more or less intellectually dishonest than you, Wim.

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.

If there's one person who deserves his own thread, it's Gary Mack.

How should I start? Gary Mack is the propaganda minister for the cover-up of the JFK assassination!

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.

Of course all the things you mention hold weight, but, they do not remove the possibility, they remove probability. Bullets can often be unpredictable creatures. The only thing that would rule out possibility is to show that the physics and ballistics do not work.

Again the projectile and cartridge were capable of the task.

I actually saw a human hit in the shoulder with the exit wound behind the right knee......So by your logic it would be impossible and yet it was possible.

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.

Because it was possible.

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?

Body position and other factors of the targets have to be considered in its probability, of course.

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 this does not change the fact that given the density of the human tissue and

the ability of the round, it was in fact possible.

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.

The round was in fact capable of this feat.

But was it capable of such an extreme change of trajectory in mid-air?

Was this shot probable......of course not.

Mike

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.

Because it was possible.

It was "possible" that JFK's neck extended 4 inches below the bottom of his

clothing collars?

Was he part giraffe?

Everybody wants to start with the entry wound to Kennedy when dealing with the SBT.

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...

See my exchange with Gary here:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htm

Let me ask you point blank: Is it your statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

GM: Of course it is possible. Is it likely? No, but there's no hard evidence that it is impossible.

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.

Focus on individuals, not the agency they ostensibly represent.

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

Focus on individuals, not the agency they ostensibly represent.

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.

Tony Summers wrote one of the best books on the assassination, CONSPIRACY,

and I have never heard that he has disavowed it. He is definitely not agnostic,

rather just careful to avoid undocumented theories or claims. Or do you know

something we don't?

Tink Thompson is another matter still not fully resolved.

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.

Tony Summers wrote one of the best books on the assassination, CONSPIRACY,

and I have never heard that he has disavowed it. He is definitely not agnostic,

rather just careful to avoid undocumented theories or claims. Or do you know

something we don't?

Tink Thompson is another matter still not fully resolved.

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?

Tony Summers wrote one of the best books on the assassination, CONSPIRACY,

and I have never heard that he has disavowed it. He is definitely not agnostic,

rather just careful to avoid undocumented theories or claims. Or do you know

something we don't?

Tink Thompson is another matter still not fully resolved.

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.