Cliff Varnell

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.

"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. 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?

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.

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.

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.

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

It was "possible" that JFK's neck extended 4 inches below the bottom of his clothing collars? Was he part giraffe?

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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: 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?

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

It's conclusions could still be true? Are you joking, Pat?

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!

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! 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

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/

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... 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/ 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.

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.