Cliff Varnell

"What made you change your mind, you *&^%&^ Vince????"

Answer: I read Bugliosi's book.

It is what it is.

No where in Bugliosi's book does it mention that the bullet defects in JFK's clothing are about 3 inches below the "back of the neck" location required by the SBT.

Here's what Bugliosi wrote in the CD accompanying the book:

A point that conspiracy theorists have raised over and over in their books is that

the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more than 2 inches lower

in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body. But even if there wasn't

an explanation for this, so what?

The physical evidence doesn't fit the official scenario -- so what?

So what, Vince?

The holes in the clothes match the T3 wound location recorded in the

only back wound medical evidence executed according to proper

autopsy protocol -- Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face

sheet diagram.

So what?

The photographic evidence proves beyond doubt that JFK's jacket

dropped in Dealey Plaza?

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

So what, Vince?

Care to explain how a tailored jacket and a tucked in custom made dress shirt

dropped into an elevated position, Vince?

I agree with you that Oswald didn't act alone. I agree with you that the hole in Kennedy's shirt--all by its lonesome--should be enough to convince someone that the single-bullet theory is hoo-ha, and that there was most likely another shooter.

Excellent!

My work here is done...carry on, Pat...

I saw something written by Palamara a few months ago where he claimed that Bugliosi converted him. He needs to do his homework on Bugliosi's book. It's a carefully crafted deception. Of course it's conclusions could still be true. But one shouldn't base one's conversion on a deliberate deception.

It's conclusions could still be true?

Are you joking, Pat?

I'll let people look at the evidence provided and make up their own minds.

I agree.

There were a series of these vertical beams with the symmetrical cuts.

A hand held torch made those cuts?

That would be some Cool Hand Luke!

Well, this is interesting. I'm watching the programme "World Trade Center - The Rise and Fall of an American Icon" on the History Channel, and they were describing the collapse. It mentioned how the impact point on the south tower (75 - 58) was some 10 or more storeys below the earlier impact on the north tower (94 - 98).

They described how because the impact point on the south tower was lower, the damaged area had to support more load than the north tower and thus collapsed first.

Okay, this is a programme on the History Channel, but it backs up what I thought would be the case - more floors above means supporting greater load.

Please demonstrate how the massive vertical steel tri-cores pancake

collapsed in free-fall speed into their own footprint.

This is like claiming that a lamp-post out on the street could pancake

collapse into its own footprint!

I'll see if I can find an engineer to explain if this is correct or not.

Anyone who questions the official lie is attacked.

It takes extraodinary guts for people to come forward on this.

The 9/11 Lie Machine is ever ready to slander and smear anyone

who dares challenge their belief system.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/o...24thur2-24.html

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?

Dr. Steven Jones et.al. Published in Peer Reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

This thread still gets hits, so perhaps some loose ends should be tied.

According to Craig Lamson there was an asymmetrical shirt/jacket

bunch at the right base of JFK's neck in the Betzner photo. He illustrated

thusly:

What is it actually?

Here's the corresponding Z-frame -- Z186.

Arm/wrist/hand.

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

http://subversivehistory.com/

Provided that one accepts the "lab working notes" as presented by John Hunt as being the factual working notes of Henry Heiberger (which I for one accept), then it becomes quite obvious that Henry Heiberger absolutely lied to me in regards to his physical examination and spectrographic testing of the clothing worn by JFK.

I know someone who went to school with one of Heiberger's daughters.

The impression this person got in talking about the JFK matter with the

younger Heiberger was that something wasn't kosher with the FBI's

examination the clothing -- and Heiberger himself was extremely

protective of his family.

fwiw...

Tom

P.S. The second hole in the coat of JFK:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[i]Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect.[/i]

Is that what we see here? How did a bullet leave a semi-circular

fabric slice and a small hole at the end of that slice?

http://subversivehistory.com/

Is, as has been stated, the initial impact point for the third/last/final/down

in front of James Altgens shot/bullet, as it struck the coat, penetrated through

the coat and liner on an oblique angle and exited to strike JFK in the scalp just

above the edge of the hairline. Thereafter tunneling through the soft tissue

at the base of the neck and striking the skull in a position that is higher than

the scalp entrance, in the vicinity of the EOP of the skull.

So the bullet penetrated the coat but not the shirt and somehow

something from this shot travelled some 85 yards into the teeth

of a hard swirling wind and maintained enough velocity to chip

concrete and wound Tague...

I think you need another hobby, Tom.

All your pet theories are dead.

P.S. I have also attended a course conducted by the FBI in "handwriting analysis" if it is of any consequence!

So Cliff! Are you also even remotely qualified to discuss this subject matter as well?

I didn't write the statement in bold above.

I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me.

I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through,

losing your pet theories and all.

As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier.

So what?

I have also attended a course conducted by the FBI in "handwriting analysis" if it is of any consequence!

I was not under the impression that you had attended any such course.

The "Statement" is mine, as I just so happen to have attended a multitude of courses of instruction as run by the FBI.

"As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier."

Since I have examples of Robert Frazier's works, rest assured that it is not his!

Since I do not have examples of Henry Heiberger's works, I assume, based on the entire realm of documents, that it is his laboratory "working notes".

Try working on the extremely difficult "What makes a 4mm X 7mm Puncture type wound with relatively clean cut edges and also "punches" fabric down into the wound of entry, for now. It is not too difficult to resolve.

Examination and comparison of handwriting quite probably exceeds the limitations of your grasp for now.

P.S. If "control point" is under the collar, exactly what would one assume that the indication which is just below the edge of the collar represents?

I fail to see the relevance of this gibberish.

JFK's jacket clearly dropped in Dealey Plaza.

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

I see you can't muster any smart remarks about that.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

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.

(emphasis added)

Humes didn't describe the fabric slit accurately.

Anyone can see for themselves.

http://subversivehistory.com/

P.S. I have also attended a course conducted by the FBI in "handwriting analysis" if it is of any consequence!

So Cliff! Are you also even remotely qualified to discuss this subject matter as well?

I didn't write the statement in bold above.

I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me.

I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through,

losing your pet theories and all.

As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of

Robert Frazier.

So what?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JH:

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

http://subversivehistory.com/

TP:

Coat collars "raise"!

Buttoned down shirts with ties holding them, seldom do so!

Jackets fall.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

So! In addition to being on the board for evaluation of "Best Dressed Man", you have now graduated to forensics as well.

Watching your pet theories get slaughtered before your very

eyes must be extremely painful, Tom.

I sympathize completely. No, I really do. I had a pet theory

once, and I had to watch it die when I received irrefutable

evidence against it.

I hope your period of denial and grief is brief, Tom.

Since you, it would appear, now claim to know what bullets do and do not do upon impact with clothing, why not explain exactly why the bullet which struck JFK in the back also "punched" out a perfect "plug" in the back of the shirt which also matches the shape of the bullet base, as well as having made a rather large hole in the coat worn by JFK.

ALL of which would be completely abnormal for a normal entering bullet.

Might want to take into consideration in you answer the fact that JFK's back wound had considerable fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound of entry, which entry was described as "atypical" by Dr. Boswell.

And, along with the fact that a normal bullet entrance does not "punch" out cloth fabric and carry it down into the wound, would have also told you something, provided of course that you actually knew anything about wound ballistics and forensic pathology.

Which I might add, you do not!

Hint: (back wound in JFK measured 4mm X 7mm, was a "punch-type" wound of entry with relatively clean cut edges.)

(Deformed flat base of CE399 measures exactly 4mm X 7mm in size)

Now, the primary question is: Is Cliff smarter than an 5th grader? (who I can assure can figure this one out)

None of this has anything to do with the semi-circular fabric slice

found with the upper defect in the coat.

That semi-circular slice puts the lie to your claims, Tom.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JH:

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent

with any kind of projectile strike.

http://subversivehistory.com/

TP:

Coat collars "raise"!

Buttoned down shirts with ties holding them, seldom do so!

Jackets fall.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Unfortunately, I was not born, nor did I ever develope the capability for X-ray Vision to determine exactly what JFK's shirt was or was not doing underneath his coat.

That's where the "researcher" part of this equation comes in.

Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have about 3/4" of

available slack. JFK wore suits designed by Paul Stuart, who

"suppressed" the waists of his suits in the manner of European

men's fashion designers. This look is called Updated American

Silhouette, wherein the clothing is tailored to fit close to the torso.

But the facts of the case aside, Tom, surely you can observe the

movement of your own clothing?

When you move a little, your shirt moves a little. Your shirts don't

spontaneously leap about your body -- such a claim is an egregious

absurdity.

And you were born with enough sense to state that jacket

collars and shirt collars don't move in tandem.

And yet your "theory" requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have moved

3.5" in tandem, contrary to the nature of reality.

However, I do know enough to recognized that when one stands up in a

vehicle and then sits back down with their back against leather seats,

that one's shirt as well as coat can do a wide variety of things.

Demonstrate how custom shirts and jackets ride up 3.5" .

Replicate your claims using a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt

fit to the Updated American Silhouette style.

You cannot do so, because such is contrary to the nature of reality.

Nor can you identify where JFK's jacket was elevated the 3.5"

your theory requires.

And you certainly can't reconcile this claim with the Dealey Plaza

photos and films which show the jacket dropped!

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Irrelevant as to what you "tailor" may have informed you!

Non sequitur:

Tom's theory requires JFK shirt and jacket to have elevated

3.5" in tandem.

Clothing moves.

Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 3.5" in tandem.

This is what LNers do: repeat this non sequitur exclusively and

endlessly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.woopit.com/famous-quotes.html?q...s=Ben%20Johnson

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument.

By: William McAdoo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This from a man determined to maintain his ignorance of either

clothing fit or what the Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows.

Thankfully, this forum also has some extremely intelligent persons on board who, it would appear, are at the threshold of a new learning experience.

And hopefully they will understand that a jacket dropping is not the

same thing as a jacket rising.

And, with luck, these folks will understand that 3/4" does not equal 3.5".

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

(Tom Purvis)

Coat collars "raise"!

And coat collars "fall."

JFK's jacket collar clearly fell in Dealey Plaza.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

The first two images in the link above are from the Houston

St. segment of the Nix film. The first image shows JFK leaning

forward chatting with Nellie, his shirt collar not visible at the back

of his neck.

A split second later he leaned back and his jacket dropped, exposing

the shirt collar.

The third image was taken on Main St. about 2 minutes before the

shooting. Note JFK's head was turned to the right and he was waving

his right arm. Note there was a diagonal fold in the back of the jacket,

and the top of the jacket rode up into JFK's hairline.

The fourth image is Betzner #3 taken at Z186. Same posture: head

turned to the right, right arm waving. Very similar fold in the jacket.

The major difference between the Main St. photo and the Elm St.

photo is the highly visible shirt collar on Elm St.

JFK's jacket obviously dropped.

Buttoned down shirts with ties holding them, seldom do so!

Very good. Custom made shirts do not move the same as

jackets. According to you, Tom, JFK's tucked-in custom made

dress shirt rode up 3.5 inches in tandem with the jacket.

You couldn't replicate this event using two hands to pull.

6.5mm Carcano bullets, when striking normally, only make extremely "small" penetrations through clothing such as coats, shirts, etc:

That the "wadcutter" style flat base of CE399 "punched" out considerable fabric from the coat as well as the shirt upon it's base-first entry into the back, should have told you something*

*It also carried this fabric down into the wound of entry into JFK's back, which happens to be a completely abnormal occurence for such a bullet.

Just perhaps you might actully try something factual and shoot a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a similar coat, and thereafter see what you get.--------Might accidentaly learn something!

P.S. You did check with Henry Heiberger (as well as all of the other FBI Agents in the Spectrographic Analysis Lab), did you not?????

Check with them for what? We can measure the bullet hole in

the jacket and we can observe the Dealey Plaza films and photos

and clearly see JFK's jacket dropping.

If you were interested in actual research, Tom, you would have

researched clothing movement and studied the photographic

evidence.

Yes! It is a "nice" photo.

Makes one wonder exactly why none of the "great" CSI's (self-proclaimed) who also claim to have looked at the evidence have never correlated that not unlike the back wound*, the correlation of the location of the upper/collar puncture through the coat of JFK just may have some bearing on the EOP entry wound.

*(fact that the back wound measured 4mm X 7mm and the deformed base of CE399 measures 4mm X 7mm)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0031b.htm

P.S. The coat of JFK was never examined by the FBI Spectrographic Analysis Lab.

P.P.S. Had a "comparision sample" actually been removed from the coat, then, in accordance with standard procedure, said sample would have been removed directly adjacent to the existing damage (the lower hole), and said location would have had a circle in chalk drawn around the location at which the comparison sample was removed.

P.P.P.S. And now, one knows the "Rest of the Story" as to exactly why no one was allowed to examine JFK's clothing as well as why Arlen Specter asked so many persons as to whether or not that they had either seen or examined same.

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

(Tom Purvis)

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding

hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

Light refreshment, anyone?

Len will have his usual: Kool Aid.

Varnell auto-pilots, bored:

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above

the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

Craig repeats himself yet again:

And I have shown just that with the measurement of Croft.

Here it is again with 3 different points on the jacket represented with a colored "X".

The blue "X" marks a point inside the cupped fold. The pink "X" marks a point

on the right top of the fold, and the purple "X" marks a point on the back of the

jacket.

No where is it established that these points line up vertically. That is the flawed

root logic at work here.

Because we cannot see the bottom of the cupped fold nor can we see the bottom of the

jacket collar, it is not possible to trace a straight line down from the jacket collar.

It is obvious that a 3-dimensional object will be reduced to two dimensions

in a photograph.

Can Craig be any more ludicrous in his analysis?

Indeed.

I wrote in regards to the fit of JFK's clothes:

I'll give you a little hint, Craig. Maybe you could break down and do a little

research.

Three words:

Updated American Silhouette.

Google it.

Craig sputtered:

And now we get to the root of your problem. You can't tell us exaclty how

the shirt fit JFK. You offer text from books explaining how things SHOULDor MIGTH work,

but you offer us nothing on how things ACTUALLY worked. Did JFK's shirt only have 3/4 inchs

of slack? You can't tell us, so you speculate and claim it as fact. What is the true nature of the

fit of JFK's jacket and shirt? UNKNOWN, despite of the mountain of words offered by Cliff.

The bottom line is that you have no clothing evidence Cliff, only endless speculation thinly disguised as fact. Very intellectually dishonest.

If Craig Lamson understood the meaning of the phrases "clothing fit" and

"Updated American Silhouette" then he would know EXACTLY how JFK's

clothing fit him.

But Craig isn't interested in facts, he's interested in pimping his Lone Nut true

belief against all sense and reason.

Clothing fit is the marriage of style and comfort. By choosing to wear Updated American

style suits -- pioneered by fine men's clothing designer Paul Stuart -- JFK chose a style

that featured a slender waist line, as influenced by European designers. Paul Stuart took

the classic Ameican "Ivy League sack" suit and "suppressed" the waist-line, defined as

"tailored closely to the shape of the torso."

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

From the above article:

The Updated American style gained a boost when John F Kennedy, the popular new

senator and later president, wore suits and jackets from Paul Stuart.

Because Craig has a reading comprehension problem, he ascribes to me the

analysis of Mr. Shirt, who adamantly insisted that tucked-in custom-made shirts

only require 3/4" of slack.

Because Craig Lamson is as much an intellectual snob as he is intellectually

dishonest, he maintains that clothing experts have no actual expertise and that

they are just "some guys" with opinions that count for nothing.

After all, Mr. Shirt isn't a photographer and can't know everything about everything,

as Mr. Lamson does...<snicker>

However, we know that JFK didn't go around with his shirt tail out and his shirts only

had enough slack as was required for him to sit comfortably. This is one the central

principles of fine men's dress, a fact Craig Lamson must deny in order to press his silly

theories.

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

(Alan Flusser) pg 79:

(quote on)

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.

(quote off, emphasis added)

The reason that Craig won't attempt to replicate his absurd claims is because

his claims are impossible to replicate.

I don't really think I've "abandoned" anything.

I must respectfully disagree. You may not recall me, but I spoke with you for a

bit at Cracking the Case in '05. When I brought up the subject of your examination

of Willis #5 under a microscope, you rolled your eyes and said very dismissively:

"Well, if you think that's evidence..."

Pieces of evidence get their importance and keep that importance as the focus

shifts to other, more complicated pieces of evidence.

But that's not what has happened at all.

The clothing defects, as prima facie evidence of conspiracy, have been largely

shelved in favor of highly complex arguments which have not advanced

the case an inch.

I find it very sad that, among the current generation of researchers, the most

vociferous champion of the clothing evidence is some Haight St. punk-rock poker

house degenerate (that's me) who would never have an ounce of credibility

in the mainstream media.

The new work on NAA by Randich and Grant show that any attempt to link bullet

fragments by trace element composition is fruitless.

Who cares? Given JFK's proven T3 back wound, the SBT fails on its

trajectory. The NAA is moot. It was nothing but a Hoover scam in the first

place, if my reading of its history is correct.

Basically, that takes NAA off the table.

Why the hell was it on the table in the first place?

It was an FBI bluff and a significant part of the JFK research community

bit on it hook-line-&sinker.

The acoustics is something else entirely and my own bet is that Don Thomas is

very close to justifying that evidence.

After almost 30 years on the table? Who cares? The clothing defects establish

at least 4 shots, and it doesn't take 30 years and advanced degrees to figure

out that a fraction of an inch of fabric does not equal 2-3 inches of fabric.

The Zapruder film alteration discussion has proved divisive because of the tactics used

and should now be over. The claim failed. Actually, the Dealey Plaza photos can tell us

an enormous amount about what happened. They repay close study.

Absolutely!

The DP photo-films are the "bedrock evidence in the case."

I saw a guy give a presentation to that effect a couple of years ago, and I had

to go up to him afterwards and shake his hand...

The film alteration argument has failed, in my book.

Zap alteration argument is not only a waste of time, it clouds the important

evidence to be found in the Dealey Plaza film-photos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Please understand that the only part of 911 conspiracy thinking that I reject outright is the claim that "controlled demolitions" brought down the two towers and WTC7.

Did Newton get it wrong with his First Law?

Care to tell us how the massive steel vertical tri-cores pancake-collapsed

in free-fall speed directly in the path of greatest resistance?