Cliff Varnell

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.

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.

its called wine, Don -- the fruit that keeps on giving ...... Lamson is doing more "farewell" gigs than Sinatra...

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! Bingo! It is outside and to the right of JFK's head. Have you gone blind? 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 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: Today Craig Lamson wrote (emphasis his): 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: I call to the stand Craig Lamson: And that's exactly what we see: Do you crib your insults from David Healy? No knock on David, I'm just say'n... Another "last post"? All that digging must be exhausting.

Craig: Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis is spot on. Here's what I wrote: Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below: Identical conclusions. Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped. 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: Craig: Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis is spot on. Here's what I wrote: Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below: Identical conclusions. Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped. Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

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.

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??

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? 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...

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: 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." 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. 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. 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.

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.

And yet you have failed to provide a counter-analysis to the article I cited -- "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza". Again, a presentation of conclusion without making a case. Such is standard fare for Bunch Theorists. Let's bump up our 2008 discussion and let folks see first-hand your degree of intellectual honesty on this issue, Craig. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12303 Glad to see you finally admit you're an LNer. Let's bump up my argument on the "Present State of the Critical Community" thread, give you a chance to rebut my best argument. Craig, you've had hundreds of discussions on the Zapruder film and what -- two? -- discussions on the Dealey Plaza photo evidence of the jacket dropping? You don't have a problem discussing an issue you're correct about, do you, Craig? You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your Betzner #3 analysis. Your world-view won't allow it.

James Fetzer and Jack White know where JFK's back wound was: Third Thoracic Vertebra. Gary Mack, Craig Lamson, and Barb Junkkarinen, however, are all on record attempting to legitimize John Hunt's uber-fraudulent "Bunch Theory" -- the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated over 2 inches in near tandem to match the HSCA-SBT inshoot at C7/T1. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm I'm convinced all the Dealey Plaza films and photos are authentic, but I have to marvel at the spectacle of Bunch Theorists lecturing anyone about common sense and intellectual honesty. Here's a tasty bit from Hunt's near-decade-old essay, "The Case for a Bunched Jacket" -- emphasis mine: That. Essay. Is. Not. Yet. Finished. Almost 10 years later, it's still not finished. (I've seen it -- it's a joke!) Hunt published his conclusions -- to which Mack/Lamson/Junkarrinen subscribe to one degree or another -- but left out any actual case in an essay presented as a "Case." Wow. What common sense intellectual honesty! And what do we make of Craig Lamson's attempt to illustrate Hunt's claim that "a distinctly arched shape" of jacket/shirt bunching rode up above JFK's right shoulder in Betzner #3 (Z186)? Let's check Z186 (can't imagine why Craig didn't think of this): http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg It's JFK's right hand/forearm -- Hunt/Lamson/Mack call it "the Bunch." The fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza is far more obvious than Z-alteration questions. http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ Z-alteration is an unfortunate foot-note in the case, imo; establishing the T3 back wound as a fact is central to understanding both the "how" of the assassination and the "how" of the cover-up. "Bunch Theory" is a far more egregious violation of intellectual honesty than Z-alteration.

You're a national treasure, Tosh. Thank you...and good luck!

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: 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." 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. 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. 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.

Yes, clothing readily moves in amounts up to an inch due to casual body movement. The term of art in clothing design is "normal ease." But the SBT requires 3 INCHES of near tandem shirt/jacket movement, or "gross ease." One inch does not equal three inches. It just doesn't. That such a large segment of the "critical research community" insists on pretending that it does leaves me forever amazed. The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting. The jacket dropped in those 90 seconds...

The holes in the clothes clearly show this. One does not have to look at a single photograph to figure out that the jacket was "bunched up" at the moment JFK was shot in the back. Bullet hole in the back of the shirt: 4" below the bottom of the shirt collar. Bullet hole in the back of the jacket: 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the jacket collar. The jacket was "bunched up" 1/8" -- obviously. The SBT requires about 3" of JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated in near-tandem. 1/8" does not equal 3". These obvious facts appear to have eluded a sizable segment of the "critical research community." The claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in a manner consistent with the SBT is debunked by the photographic evidence, which shows JFK's jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza. http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Don, No doubt about it -- Mr. Purvis is the KING of unintended irony. That this king has no clothes is no secret, however. Calling him out on a regular basis is a waste of time. And yes, it does seem strange to be called a "lone nutter" just because Z-film alterationists have failed to make their case. Like you, I have respect for the Z-film alterationists on the basis of their other work -- but get right down to it, the Dealey Plaza films and photos are "the bedrock evidence in the case."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...757C0A96F948260 Fugitive Vesco Indicted In Drug Conspiracy AP Published: Tuesday, April 18, 1989 etc., etc....

As I commented in my previous post, I can admit when I've made a mistake. Well, I made another mistake in that last post. Pablo Escobar was first indicted in 1984, not 1986. World Encyclopedia Of Organized Crime, pg 336: From the PBS Frontline web page linked above: From the March 23, 1989 Reuters article: That's five guys with multiple indictments issued at various times while they were fugitives. Usama bin Laden hasn't been indicted for the attack on the USS Cole or the attacks of 9/11 because the Justice Department has no hard evidence he was involved. Some people are emotionally incapable of admitting error, as we are going to witness some time soon...

Domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph, Panamanian dictator and drug smuggler Manuel Noriega, and influence peddler Jack Abramoff each received two separate indictments. That's just off the top of my head... Perhaps the best example, in the context of this thread, is Pablo Escobar, the Colombian coke kingpin and terrorist: 1) Indicted in Miami for racketeering and drug smuggling (Nov. 18, 1986) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/ 2) Indicted on March 23, 1989 for drug smuggling and arranging the murder of Colombian Justice Minister Lara Bonilla. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...20and%20Traffic 3) Indicted on August 13, 1992 for plotting to blow up Avianca Airlines Flight 203 in November, 1989. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1020287.html When I'm shown to be wrong about something, I'll readily admit it. We'll see if others are so capable.

Domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph, Panamanian dictator and drug smuggler Manuel Noriega, and influence peddler Jack Abramoff each received two separate indictments. That's just off the top of my head...

I stand corrected on the Cole. My turn as slow kid... From the 9/11 Commission report:

...meet Kettle: Rinse idiocy, and repeat... For the slower kids in class who haven't been paying attention, bin Laden was indicted in '99 for the '98 Embassy bombings, and then indicted in '01 on additional charges relating to the attack on the Cole in '00. The Justice Department routinely piles on indictments whenever the evidence warrants.

Pot... ...meet Kettle: Emphasis mine: Indicted for participation in the crimes of 9/11: Zacarias Moussaoui Khalid Sheik Mohammad Walid bin Attash Ramzi bin al Shibh Ali Abdul Aziz Ali Mustafa al Hawsawi NOT indicted (albeit suspected) for participation in the crimes of 9/11: Usama bin Laden The United States invaded Iraq on the basis of a "suspicion" -- ditto Afghanistan.