Cliff Varnell

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald."

Thus Gary Mack gives away his game.

Mr. Mack spoke those words, as I type this, some three minutes ago, at the end of the Monday, February 18 edition of "Countdown" on MSNBC.

Once more for emphasis:

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack

Contrast this with the truth:

No hard evidence whatsoever leads to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin -- lone or otherwise -- of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Without any room for equvication, Mr. Mack's access to said evidence is reasonable in the extreme.

Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

In my e-mail discussion with Gary Mack last year he claimed that the observable

drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza had no impact on the credibility of Posner's

claim that the jacket (and shirt) were simultaneously elevated in the manner

required by the single bullet theory.

The position of the jacket had no impact on the position of the jacket, Gary?

I think Charles makes is a very interesting point. We know that much was done to confuse those who would come later. The assassination itself was well thought out down to the last detail, but the confusion and lack of communication Tosh describes reeks of planning. And certainly reflects a kind of war within the CIA itself, akin to the factions Oglesby would later write about. A genuine 'coup. Tosh I sure hope WB comes through for Peter with some of the documents you need. All Jay's work, just rotting away.

Dawn

Excellent points, Dawn. Two factions were fighting over the cover-up

post-assassination -- Bundy/Harriman pressed the lone assassin angle

while Hoover/CIA MEXI/US-Mexico Amb Mann pressed the Castro-did-it

story.

For the Yankees the murder of JFK was a contingency that hadn't arrived;

for the Cowboys it was their last shot at retaking Havana.

In this scenario Roselli may have acted as a go-between these two factions.

"Friends of ours want this called off." "Tell them we can't do that."

I know you've been over this a million times, Tosh, but could you go over

your impressions of Roselli and where and when he disembarked?

I'll do my best. Roselli and I were friends and I had flown him to many places. Bimini, the Cayman Islands, Cuba, one time, Las Vegas's Thunderbird Inn, and Santa Barbra CA. and Galveston Texas. Most of what I tell you is at this point from memory and if I fail in some respects its because of memory and memory only. I am nowhere near any of my files and documents so as to give you references. I have always tried to give references or documentation when I have had something to say. ( if there were any references as to documentation. (Most of the Roselli matters were never documented)

The complete record is posted in various places on the net and in forums. Roselli did not hate Kennedy like some have said. I can not speak for the Mafia, but there were divisions among them, Pro and Con in reference to JFK. Roselli was a go between for the CIA, JM/WAVE and MIAMI STATION. He used the name as Col. Rawlston (my spelling) assigned by the CIA. The name Ralston is found in some documentation and he (Roselli) was a "CIA-Cut Out" and worked with John Martino as well as others. Roselli got off at Garland, not Red Bird as some of long ago tried to get me to say. He did not reboard the aircraft at Red Bird after the assassination. I did not see him after he left Garland. Phillips was one of the INDIRECT contacts with Roselli and any information was passed to Martino or Varona from Phillips first and one time later to Tony Varona and HL Hunt and then to Roselli. (or perhaps the other way around, concerning Hunt... however, I believe Hunt never had direct contact with Roselli... only as a cut-out no direct contact. The same for Phillips) Roselli was the "go between", between the CIA and the Mafia. Mahue was also a contact of Col Ralston and Mahue was a cut out for H Hughes. (memory) There was also others in this mix Mc Mahon and a Mc Cord of Tucsom and the Grace Ranch of Arizona.

I meet Roselli at Bay Front Park, Miami Florida around 1960 I think (memory) and John Farrentello and another person who slips my mind at present introduced me to Him. Roselli got me into the Fountain Blu shortly after it opened. (again memory as to the year) I hope this gives you some background as to who Roselli really was and who he was working far.

Thanks! Unlike others I have no reason to dismiss your account. I'm curious

about Robert Bennett -- was this the same Robert Bennett as the current junior

Senator from Utah? Could you go over again your interactions with him?

I think Charles makes is a very interesting point. We know that much was done to confuse those who would come later. The assassination itself was well thought out down to the last detail, but the confusion and lack of communication Tosh describes reeks of planning. And certainly reflects a kind of war within the CIA itself, akin to the factions Oglesby would later write about. A genuine 'coup. Tosh I sure hope WB comes through for Peter with some of the documents you need. All Jay's work, just rotting away.

Dawn

Excellent points, Dawn. Two factions were fighting over the cover-up

post-assassination -- Bundy/Harriman pressed the lone assassin angle

while Hoover/CIA MEXI/US-Mexico Amb Mann pressed the Castro-did-it

story.

For the Yankees the murder of JFK was a contingency that hadn't arrived;

for the Cowboys it was their last shot at retaking Havana.

In this scenario Roselli may have acted as a go-between these two factions.

"Friends of ours want this called off." "Tell them we can't do that."

I know you've been over this a million times, Tosh, but could you go over

your impressions of Roselli and where and when he disembarked?

I think Charles makes is a very interesting point. We know that much was done to confuse those who would come later. The assassination itself was well thought out down to the last detail, but the confusion and lack of communication Tosh describes reeks of planning. And certainly reflects a kind of war within the CIA itself, akin to the factions Oglesby would later write about. A genuine 'coup. Tosh I sure hope WB comes through for Peter with some of the documents you need. All Jay's work, just rotting away.

Dawn

Excellent points, Dawn. Two factions were fighting over the cover-up

post-assassination -- Bundy/Harriman pressed the lone assassin angle

while Hoover/CIA MEXI/US-Mexico Amb Mann pressed the Castro-did-it

story.

For the Yankees the murder of JFK was a contingency that hadn't arrived;

for the Cowboys it was their last shot at retaking Havana.

I have serious problems with some of this.

I snipped the parts I agreed with, which is most of the article.

Josiah Thompson:

If altered, the Zapruder film would be an example of a more general phenomenon: the alteration of physical evidence by the authorities in a criminal case. Yes, it does happen. Not often. In fact, it's almost unique. For the last twenty-four years, I've made my living as a defense investigator in criminal cases. Some of these cases were quite celebrated and had quite large stakes on the table for the authorities. In these twenty-some years of experience, I've seen it happen only once or twice. But it does happen.

It happened in the Kennedy assassination. The Fox 5 "back of the head" photo is a fake,

just as the HSCA suspected.

So let’s ask ourselves: What conditions would have to be satisfied in order for it to make any sense for someone to alter or fabricate physical evidence?

Let’s try a hypothetical case.

Let’s suppose that a particular letter is found at a crime scene. Let's say that that letter was the output of a computer at a remote location. Let's also say that the investigating officer for the authorities had some incentive to change the wording in the letter. If you were that investigating officer, what questions would you ask yourself? Wouldn't you first ask whether there were other copies of the letter? Had the writer kept a copy in a safe place or given it to someone else? Was the text of the letter kept on the computer? Even if it had been deleted from the hard drive of the computer was there a backup somewhere? The alteration of evidence in a criminal case is a desperate act. Would you take that chance if you knew that irrefutable evidence of the alteration might turn up somewhere else? And how could you ever be sure?

Now let’s take for an example a photograph of a crime.

First, you'd have to know exactly how you wanted to alter it. Secondly, you'd have to be sure no other copies — no negative hidden away, no second copy residing in someone else's possession — existed. Thirdly, you'd have to be sure that no other photographs taken by anyone else would later surface to expose the alteration.

This doesn't appear to have been a problem with the autopsy photos. The

bigger the lie, the more obvious it is, the easier it is to sell.

This autopsy photo shows an intact back of the head:

Below, the photo (F2) of the top of the head shows brain material extruding from a

location behind the right ear, a clear contradiction of the other photo (F5).

(snip)

With the sequential, detailed exposure of the fallacious arguments presented in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, it becomes ever more clear that Fetzer’s latest book is not just about the Kennedy assassination. Rather, it is about THE BIG CONSPIRACY of which the Kennedy assassination is only a part. The United States failed to go to the moon and constructed the moon photos on a sound stage. It was not an airliner but a DOD missile that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

The most photographed building in the world can't produce a clear photo showing

an airliner flying into the Pentagon.

What happened to the wings of that plane, Tink?

There are legitimate questions surrounding the events of Nine Eleven.

Senator Wellstone’s plane was brought down by an electro-magnetic pulse weapon and even the space shuttle may have been downed by a similar weapon. These are views which Fetzer and some of his contributors have either proclaimed or backed. Fetzer’s book not only exemplifies bogus science put to work in the service of a cult belief, it also offers a whole reservoir of urban myths surrounding the Kennedy assassination.

For true believers, it is not just the Zapruder film whose authenticity is a "hoax": (1) Other films and photos of the events in Dealey Plaza have been fabricated in whole or in part. (2) Physical evidence has been planted. (3) Bullets and cartridge cases have been changed while in government possession. (4) X-rays and photos of the President’s body have been altered

It's physically impossible for JFK's back wound to have been in the location

indicated on the Fox 5 photo.

The holes in the clothes trump Fox 5.

and a fake brain has been substituted for the real brain. (5) The President’s body itself has been radically altered before being subjected to autopsy. (6) Two — not three — cartridge cases were found on the Sixth Floor of the Depository with a third added later. (7) A bullet made a through-and-through hole in the windshield and this hole was covered up by the Secret Service. And only for the truly paranoid

These comments overlook legitimate questions that deserve to be answered.

There are solid, scientifically grounded reasons for believing that all the shots fired that day in Dealey Plaza did not come from the Texas School Book Depository. In the last few years, the work of Dr. Donald Thomas on the acoustics evidence has rocked earlier skepticism of this evidence back on its heels.

And here's where Tink takes us down a rabbit hole no better than the

one Jim takes us down with his Zap alteration theories.

Why on earth do folks bend over backwards to make an open and shut case

as complicated and weak as possible?

No, it's not the acoustics evidence that establishes 4+ shots in Dealey Plaza,

it's the holes in JFK clothes, matching his T3 back wound.

It doesn't take an expert to analyze this evidence -- I'm sure a bright 5 year

old could manage it.

It now appears that the chance of the sound impulse of the so-called "grassy knoll" shot being caused by random noise is not 1 in 20 but rather 1 in 200,000. Even more to the point, by applying the work of Dr. Michael Stroscio on the Zapruder film to the acoustics evidence, Thomas has been able to show a correlation between the sound and timing of five shots on Dallas Police Channel #1 and the timing of apparent shots in the Zapruder film. New analyses by Drs. Art Snyder and Erik Randich concerning neutron activation tests done on various bullet fragments show great promise. None of this meticulous, hard work would find a place in Fetzer’s work. Rather, it appears in obscure peer-reviewed journals.

Its obscurity is well-deserved. The NAA was a scam Hoover ran and everybody

falls over themselves acting like it's important. Talk about farce and tragedy!

Once and for all: the SBT fails in its trajectory, the back wound was too low.

There is no need for "peer review" of NAA because the point is moot.

At least Fetzer only pushes one utter-waste-of-time rabbit hole, here Thompson

pushes two.

What is particularly odious to me is that Fetzer’s work attempts to mimic the hard work of an earlier generation of private citizens who carried out a meticulous and rigorous investigation of the Kennedy case. It was nearly forty years ago, long before Professor Fetzer and his cohorts came on the scene. Calvin Trillin wrote about it in an article in The New Yorker entitled "The Buffs"(6/10/67; pp. 41-71).

There was Mary Ferrell in Dallas, Penn Jones just outside Dallas, Sylvia Meagher in New York City, Paul Hoch in Berkeley, Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, Vince Salandria and myself in Philadelphia,

I'd suggest Tink call Vince and get the low down on how custom-made dress

shirts only have a fraction of an inch of available slack.

It's the prima facie case for conspiracy, after all...

Men like Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush aren't all bad.

Sure, overlooking a couple of million dead Vietnamese, a million dead Iraqis,

millions of addicts who got hooked on Reagan's contra coke, etc.

Johnson was planning to go to war and recognized the need to pacify blacks

before sending a disproportionate number of them off to 'Nam.

I could go on.

Didn't Hitler love his Mom? Not such a bad sort...

2. That, just prior to having struck the scalp of JFK, that the bullet also passed through the coat, just at the bottom junction of the coat collar, just prior to having impacted the skull, that the coat collar had to have been slightly raised and the "tangent" penetration through the coat was a result of the position of the head of JFK as well as the coat at the time of impact.

There is no bullet defect in the coat immediately below the collar. The defect there

is quite small. There is no corresponding hole in the shirt.

JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck at the moment

of the first shot. Otherwise, how would the shirt collar be visible at the back of

his neck in the Houston/Elm films and photos?

The jacket was indeed raised 1/8 inch -- hardly the 3 inches Mr. Purvis posits elsewhere.

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

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.

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

One has a definitive choice in this matter in that they can:

1. Take the work of some "newbie" who claims to be a researcher, yet:

a. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the autopsy surgeons.

b. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the FBI Agents from the FBI Ballistics Lab.

c. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the FBI Agents from the FBI Spectrographic Lab.

d. Was dumb enough to let Arlen Specter "slip" this one "into the record" with absolutely no verification.

e. Never done any "ballistic testing" to demonstrate exactly why there was considerable difference between the two and totally distinctive bullet hole penetrations through the coat of JFK.

Beware, gentle reader, those who claim to do research but choose to ignore the

primary sources.

I have a photo of the upper back of JFK's jacket from the National Archives which

shows this defect in such detail I can count the threads. It was photographed

along with a handy one-inch ruler for accurate measurements.

The "high" defect is similar to a scorpion in that there is a 6-thread wide/5-thread

high (3/32") roundish hole from which a 1/4" semi-circular fabric slice curves slightly,

like a tail.

This is not a bullet hole.

Mr. Purvis, if you took the time to do real research instead of always

seeking to shore up absurd little theories you might have discovered this on your

own.

or:

Take the time to research here on this forum, as well as elsewhere, the facts of what is stated:

The tangential/angular penetration through the coat worn by JFK, which is located at the edge of the coat collar, and which hole completely penetrates the outer fabric as well as the inner liner, is the result of a bullet which passed through the coat and thereafter struck JFK in the head at the lower edge of the hairline.

Only in the fevered imaginations of pet theorists.

The reason as to why this bullet DID NOT strike the shirt collar is due primarily to the fact that the coat collar was slilghtly raised/elevated, as well as the fact that JFK was leaning well forward at the time of impact, with the coat collar remaining raised while the shirt collar remained tightly buttoned around his neck.

I guess we'll have to take Mr. Purvis' word for this, since he cannot produce any actual

evidence from the photographic record for any of this.

For the sentient among us, however, there are the Elm St. films/photos

which clearly show the shirt collar at the back of the neck.

Unless, of course, Mr. Purvis suggests that JFK's jacket was a see-thru variety?

JFK on Elm St with his shirt collar clearly visible at the back of his neck:

It is absolutely no coincidence that the hole through the coat at the collar as well as the penetration into the scalp of JFK at the edge of the hairline, compliment each other.

You don't need a weatherman to know how hard the wind blows.

Now Cliff!

For the reading enjoyment/entertainment of all here, please share with us all of those conversations which you have had with FBI Agents Frazier; Gallagher; Heilman; Heiberger;, etc;; in regards to the issue of the examination of the coat and this PURPORTED sample location/aka FACTUALLY bullet penetration.

So what kind of bullet leaves a 3/32" diameter hole?

Thrill us with your acumen, Mr. Purvis.

2. That, just prior to having struck the scalp of JFK, that the bullet also passed through the coat, just at the bottom junction of the coat collar, just prior to having impacted the skull, that the coat collar had to have been slightly raised and the "tangent" penetration through the coat was a result of the position of the head of JFK as well as the coat at the time of impact.

There is no bullet defect in the coat immediately below the collar. The defect there

is quite small. There is no corresponding hole in the shirt.

JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck at the moment

of the first shot. Otherwise, how would the shirt collar be visible at the back of

his neck in the Houston/Elm films and photos?

The jacket was indeed raised 1/8 inch -- hardly the 3 inches Mr. Purvis posits elsewhere.

#1 Don't get "Sucked" into Never-Never Land by some on this forum.. There are good researchers working here and I think you will see why they work in the shadows. I will be brief and state what I believe:

#2 I believe the "Texas Clan" had the means, motive, and opportunity, to kill the President. AND they did it.

#3 I believe LHO did not fire a shot. That he did not kill anyone that day.

#4 I believe that Castro and the mafia, or the CIA as an agency, as such, had nothing to do with the assassination. However, I do believe that "The Texas" mafia (if I may use the term) is the whole key to finding the truth about that day.

#5 I know a "team" was sent to Dallas to STOP or Abort the pending hit. I know some of this information was available to the Pentagon and in good faith they acted. That does not mean the United States Government plan and carried out the assassination. BUT the Texas group used its contacts within the then current administration to jockey into position to make the hit and then lead the investigations into "Never-Never Land". And its worked for over forty years. Various personal within the CIA were aware of this pending hit as well as military Intel and called upon its sources (pro and con) to launch two separate missions. One to hit-- one to stop. Two groups fighting with each other for control of America's resources for special interest.

Can I prove this? Hell No.

For what it's worth, Tosh's account is consistent with the preliminary conclusions

I've drawn after almost 17 years of research in the case.

The key player in the Texas group: Hoover's buddy, Clint Murchison Jr.

Key player in the "abort" group: co-founder of the CIA, W. Averell Harriman.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush4.htm

These two men and their respective allies sought a radical re-ordering of

the global heroin market, production of which at the time was dominated

by the Corsican Mafia. For Murchison it was about money and right wing

politics; for Harriman it was about money and eugenics (the heroin scourge

being a holocaust by another means).

http://www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm

As of November 1, 1963, the masters of the American intelligence community

were in firm control of American foreign policy in SE Asia and Cuba, the key

points in the proposed new heroin pipeline. On that date two Presidents were

brought under the heel of the Jupiter Island Mob (Harriman, C. Douglas Dillon,

Robert A. Lovett): Diem in Vietnam, and Kennedy.

Diem was murdered. Kennedy was steam-rolled into approving the overthrow

of Diem.

My preliminary conclusion is that the Jupiter Island Mob co-sponsored the JFK

assassination with the Texas Clan -- but after the overthrow of Diem, Harriman

et al had effective control over US foreign policy and no need to kill Kennedy.

They wanted to keep the assassination as a contingency plan.

In this scenario, Tosh Plumlee's account makes perfect sense.

"This is how it works: you have 'pet theories,' I have 'preliminary conclusions.'"

Having listened to Walk Brown on black op radio recetly, I think that he would be an excellent candidate to rebut Bugliosi on the minutae of the case. Walt is working on an exhausting timeline of the case, running to tens of thousands of pages.

He will be speaking at the Dealey Plaza UK conference in March, so maybe I can catch his ear then.

John

Good news about Walt Brown's Timeline work. Everyone to their Timelines!

I'm not sure if we need anybody to rebut Bugliosi on the minutae of the case, however.

Bugliosi did a good job of that himself. It only requires persistent observation of

Bugliosi's concession that the physical evidence (the bullet holes in JFK's clothes)

doesn't match the lone gunman scenario.

He ignores this fact in his book, but grudgingly acknowledges in the accompanying CD.

A 5 year old could point it out.

Forrest Gump would immediately get it -- I wonder if Tom Hanks can.

The term "Abort" was first told to me by a CIA case officer in West Palm Beach Florida before JFK's trip to Dallas and again on the flight to Dallas. To me that meant prior knowledge.

Tosh, do you recall how long before the assassination you first heard about an Abort mission?

Specifically, was it before or after November 1 '63?

TIA...

Wonderful, thank you for everything, that'll save me a lot of time.

Case Closed.

Your welcome. My pleasure.

"Post the photo you think shows "gross" movement". - no, there are plenty to see on many sites.

Then you should have no trouble posting one.

"..whether his shoes were tied or his fly zipped up,...Wouldn't you think the nurses and doctors had more pressing concerns?"

Certainly (one would hope so anyway), however there are interviews with nurses and doctors noting the clothing and its removal. Did any nurses or doctors comment on whether his shirt was neatly tucked in or not? I haven't read any such comments. inference : it cannot be known, only speculated upon. ?.

Irrelevant. His shirt may have been pulled out when he was removed from the limo.

If you are going to claim that JFK went around with his shirt tail out you have

to do more than declare "it cannot be known."

The burden of proof is yours.

Otherwise, the claim is absurd on its face.

Cliff, you have piqued my curiosity about this.

I was done with image analysis as Dons' map is demonstrably faulty, Allans' snipers nest ignores the proper placement of the pipes and the West Survey has been cut up and sticky taped together, ie all previous analysis has been a waste of time as the foundations are flawed, ie the conclusions flawed.

And what does this have to do with the principles of clothing fit and

John F. Kennedy's obvious adherence to those principles?

There may be a way of looking at this. However, I can foresee problems :

[

- the photos of the shirt are not scaled.

So what? We can measure the location of the clothing holes and observe

the jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza.

Please cite your evidence that JFK's tailors didn't follow the principles of clothing fit.

- the shirt is creased and the compounds in the blood that draws wound edges together when blood contacts air has contracted the shirt in the bloodied areas.

- the photos are obliquely taken and proper perspective correction could be difficult

I have no idea what you're talking about.

- Kennedy's right shoulder was 'over developed' through steroids

Factually incorrect. He had fleshy pads on the back of his neck.

- the length of skin/back from belt to neck creases may be unknown.

Hurt much bending over backwards for irrelevancies?

- others?

I can bat 'em down as fast as you manufacture 'em.

However I think one can faintly percieve where the belt was on the shirt, and the blood on collar and neck crease matches. But not now, It's good night for now.

What's good for right now?

As noted earlier in this thread, Salandria's analysis has yet to be honestly challenged.

You're welcome. I'll try to throw in a few more Q marks in the future.

____________

That would be helpful, thank you.

At love field there a numerous far stretchng hand shakes, with the right arm. They strike me as 'gross'. ?

Post the photo you think shows "gross" movement.

____________

"Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?"

"If I say this is a silly question are you going to accuse me of being "negative"?"

Nope, I'd say you're being silly.

Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?

No, there was no comment upon whether his shoes were tied or his fly zipped up,

either.

Wouldn't you think the nurses and doctors had more pressing concerns?

"If you have no expertise in this area, why do you make definitive statements

about that which you have no knowledge?" - non sequiteurs mixed with misrepresentations. Statements, definitive statements... there's a difference. The Forum is full of statements, I suppose one could characterise them as definitive or not as suits the occasion. I raise matters that puzzle me hoping to have them corrected or confirmed. Sans the negativities, you do answer. Thank you.

You're welcome. Usually when one raises matters that puzzle them they use

one of these -- "?" I didn't get the impression you were puzzled, at all.

"For all his "twisting and stretching" in the limo, none of JFK's movements in the

limo were "gross." "

- I wrote, in toto: "One must not forget in this matter the likelyhood the last 'tuckin' was on Airforce One, followed by numerous stretchings, bendings, twistings, getting in and out of Limo to shake hands with kids," ie. likely 'gross movements', supported by the initial handshaking pre limo entry photos at the airport.

Shaking hands is not a "gross" body movement. I'm curious why you would characterize

it as such. Have you ever noticed someone's tucked-in, custom-made shirt becoming

untucked when they shake someone else's hand?

Here's the Fort Worth photo again. A "normal" extension of the arm was accompanied

by "normal" folds in the clothing.

Perhaps as a whole there might be a bit of 'grossness' there, certainly no retucking AFAIK. Who knows what the state of his shirt tail was by the time they got to DP?

The shirt tail was tucked in, John. That's what shirt tails do. Salandria understands

this because he grew up with it. It's not at all the mystery you appear to want to

make of it.

Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?

If I say this is a silly question are you going to accuse me of being "negative"?

"why do you make the assumption..."

I don't. I state : "general statements by tailors not taking these matters into account...et.c."

"...are always taken into account by tailors." - citation please.

I will repeat the citation I posted, adding the emphasis:

Clothes And The Man -- The Principles of Fine Men's Dress, Alan Flusser, pg 79:

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.

The reason guys spend extra money for custom-made clothes is so that their

shirts stay tucked in when they move around.

"...how did the back brace have one iota of impact..." - assumption that one wishes to be comfortable and therefore loose shirt.

Do you understand the concept -- "clothing fit"?

The tailor's craft is to allow enough room for the wearer to move comfortably

while still looking good. Allowing extra material for the back brace does not

translate into extra slack.

The amount of slack remains the same, back brace or no -- 3/4".

Someone, (Michael perhaps?) posted a photo last year of JFK in a shirt. It was

loose and comfy looking to me.

Of course it was. A custom-made shirt is always comfy -- and 3/4" of slack

will do the trick.

"Please cite your expertise in this area..." - non-existent.

If you have no expertise in this area, why do you make definitive statements

about that which you have no knowledge?

For myself, I share something in common with Salandria, as this is a personal

matter with me, as well: my sister is one of the world's top textile conservators,

and a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics Circle Award for Costume Design.

This is the expertise she has imparted:

In clothing design, there are two categories of clothing/body movement:

"normal movements" and "gross movements." Normal body movements are

casual, and correspond with fractions of an inch of "normal" clothing movements.

"Gross movement" occurs when the body is extended; "gross" body movement

corresponds with multiple-inch movements of clothing.

For all his "twisting and stretching" in the limo, none of JFK's movements in the

limo were "gross."

The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropping; the tailoring of his shirt precluded

"gross" movement of the fabric. The SBT thus stands debunked...anyone's bruised pet

theories notwithstanding.

One must not forget in this matter the likelyhood the last 'tuckin' was on Airforce One, followed by numerous stretchings, bendings, twistings, getting in and out of Limo to shake hands with kids, plus the thick back brace and the wrapping around it under the shirt/coat. ie general statements by tailors not taking these matters into account are not as valid as they may otherwise seem.

And why do you make the assumption that tailors are "not taking these matters into

account"?

These "numerous stretchings, twistings, getting in and out of the limo to shake hands"

are always taken into account by tailors -- do you think these activities were the sole

province of John F. Kennedy?

And how did the back brace have one iota of impact on the fit of JFK's shirt?

Please cite your expertise in this area, John.

Author John Kelin on the background of early JFK assassination researcher

Vincent Salandria:

Praise From A Future Generation, Kelin, pg 33:

Salandria's father was a tailor who took great pride in the custom-fitted suits and

overcoats he produced in his shop, where he worked long hours each day. His

mother worked alongside her husband as a seamstress...

Vincent Salandria grew up with a significant sense of clothing fit. How could he not?

This background makes him singularly qualified to make the following assessment of

the clothing evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy:

Kelin, pg 483 (emphasis in the original):

Vincent Salandria remains certain that the holes in the back of Kennedy's

custom-made jacket and custom-made shirt do line up precisely with

the wound in Kennedy's back, and the placement of the wound high on the

back is fraudulent.

Following the release of the Warren Report, supporters of the "official story"

had to defend the claim that JFK's clothing "bunched up" 4 to 5 inches to match

the "back of the neck" wound posited by the WC's lone gunman scenario.

Following the release of the HSCA report, the SBT wound was lowered

to the base of the neck, and the discrepancy between the holes in the

clothes and the "new" SBT was two to three inches.

Both SBT wound locations are clearly fraudulent.

Anyone with a working understanding of clothing "fit," as Salandria obviously would,

knows that a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt normally moves in fractions of an inch.

Clothes And The Man -- The Principles of Fine Men's Dress, Alan Flusser, pg 79:

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.

The bullet hole in JFK's jacket is 4.125 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is an even 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was "bunched up" .125 of an inch (1/8") vis a vis the shirt.

The SBT requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have been "bunched up" two to three

inches in tandem, an event its defenders have never replicated. As a San Francisco

shirt-maker "Mr. Shirt" explained to me when I visited his downtown shop early in

August of 1997 -- bunch fallacy "cannot be -- there isn't enough fabric."

Kelin, pg 482:

The early critics, and Vince Salandria in particular, argued that this discrepancy

[between the holes in the clothes and the alleged SBT inshoot] overturns the

Warren Commission's entire case.

Salandria and the early critics have yet to be honestly challenged on this point.

Since the jacket was "bunched" 1/8" vis a vis the shirt, it is not enough to

merely point out the obvious -- the jacket was "bunched."

Those who promote "bunch fallacy" never get beyond non sequitur.

Praise From A Future Generation, pg 298:

For Salandria the holes shown in the President's shirt and jacket

had a personal dimension. His father had been a tailor who was proud of

his profession; Salandria couldn't accept the explanation that Kennedy's

tailor would make a shirt and jacket so ill-fitting it would bunch up as he

waved to the crowd. Yet this is the explanation [Arlen] Specter offered to

Gaeton Fonzi. "Wave your arm a few times,"Specter said..."[W]hen you

sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities

are that, uh, that it gets, that uh, this, this, this is about the way a jacket

rides up..." And the shirt? "Same thing."

Kelin, pg. 483:

"Specter made a fool of himself with Fonzi in trying to defend the single

bullet theory," [salandria] recalled in 2007, in discussing the Jefferies

film. "If he could not defend the single-bullet concept, then it is not

defensible."

When Arlen Specter made a fool of himself in his confrontation with Fonzi,

it wasn't the first time such a humiliation befell him over the same issue.

J. Edgar Hoover certainly inflicted such during the notorious FBI "reanactment."

Many other "bunch fallacists" and their defenders have commited laughable acts

of intellectual buffoonery and fraud. There is no need to inventory those here.

Suffice to say:

1) JFK's tucked-in, custom-made dress shirt was designed not to "bunch up" more

than a fraction of an inch.

2) The claim that JFK's jacket was elevated 2" to 3" in the Jefferies film is rendered

moot by the Dealey Plaza films and photos which show the jacket actually dropping.

The visible shirt collar and slight (fraction of an inch) jacket fold seen in Betzner #3

(Z186) is similar to the visible shirt collar and slight fold seen in JFK's clothing in a

similar posture (arm elevated) at Fort Worth that morning.

Fort Worth:

Elm St. (Z186):

3) Vincent Bugliosi refused to address the salient fact of conspiracy in his book,

Reclaiming History, but he did, however, address the issue in the CD which

accompanied 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 lone assassin scenario doesn't square with the physical evidence -- so what?

I can't imagine a greater monument to Salandria's analysis than to have Bugliosi

concede the point.

Knowing John Kelin I am sure the book is terrific and fills a void in JFK research.

BK

Yes, I'm sure it will.

As I say, I'll be overjoyed if it helps fill THE void in JFK research: the failure of the

JFK research community to effectively advance -- or even acknowledge! -- the

irrefutable physical evidence of conspiracy...

John Kelin's book Praise From A Future Generation fills THE Void and much more.

I'll be discussing this more in a separate thread, "Salandria & the Salient Fact of Conspiracy"...

From the Introduction (emphasis mine):

My thanks also go to writer Gaeton Fonzi, who supplied me with a transcript

of his historic 1966 interview with Arlen Specter.

John, just got the book...A pleasure to see my research raison d'etre so introduced.

There is a problem about motive. The American government paid Butto large sums of money to go back to Pakistan. Bush's intention was for Butto to work as a "democratic front" for Musharraf. Butto's death has therefore caused political problems for Bush. I therefore fail to see the sense of the CIA being involved in the death of Butto. She was Bush's type of foreign politician - corrupt.

The problem here, John, is that a consistent theme of neo-con polemics has been the CIA's pursuit of different policies and agendas. Bush is, when all is said and done, a transient politician, and thus of little consequence.

John, being "pro-American" and being "pro-Bush" are two entirely different things.

Afghanistan now produces more heroin than the world can fix, snort, or smoke; Pakistan is

a main route for heroin. When it comes to the "politics of heroin" all ideological concerns

are off the table. As in all thriving black markets, aspiring middle-men (or -women) are

often assassinated.

Normally I'm not one to quote Robert Novak, but this is interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7123002237.html

Paul, the Bush Crime Family has been anything but transient -- in fact, the Harriman/Bush

Crime Family has been dictating American foreign policy (often alternating with Rockefeller

creatures like Kissinger or Brezinski) at least since the end of WW2.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush4.htm

Hi Cliff,

This may be self-evident given the book I wrote, but as far as I'm concerned the assassination was essentially solved by the end of the sixties. Considering Oswald's background, and considering who was in control of the evidence (and everything that happened to it and virtually everything we know about it) I can really draw only one conclusion.

I have much to say on this, but I will await the book...

The matter of the clothing holes is addressed in my book. I do not, however, present it in any analytical sense or try to refute people like John Hunt. I merely present the evidence circa the mid-sixties, and let it, I hope, speak for itself.

Let us all hew closely to this approach. The burden of proof was on the

Bunch Theorists and they failed spectacularly.

Hunt is self-refuting; those who pimp Hunt's "historical criticism" do so for their

own agenda, the truth notwithstanding.

The "historical criticism" belongs to Fonzi, not Hunt.

The facts and photos speak for themselves: there is no fabric bulge at the base of

JFK's neck in Betzner #3, otherwise the sunshine would have caught it as it did the

shirt collar above the base of the neck.

As you probably know, the issue of a bulge in JFK's clothing rose its ugly head again in early 2007 with the release of the Jefferies film. We added a section to the book as a result. The film brought out the usual apologists and they got the usual lopsided press attention.

I have lots to say about this as well, but will keep my powder dry for the nonce.

In any case, my principal interest at this stage remains the earliest critics. Thanks for your interest and thanks for providing the "source of [your] pessimism." As to your comment that the JFK case might have been better off if you'd picked a better hobby, I disagree...but YOU might have been better off! Heh-heh.

The women in my life could not agree more!

I think The Last Investigation is one of the best books on the case, easily the best in the flood of post-JFK film books. For what it's worth, Rex Bradford tells me that the Mary Ferrell Foundation intends to re-publish this book in the not-too-distant future.

Best,

John

If HBO were smart they'd option TLI for a movie, not that Bug dreck...

bump

Please let me know what you think of the book once you get it and read it.

John Kelin

John,

I can't wait!

Please pardon the reflexive pessimism of my earlier posts. As Michael Hogan

correctly pointed out, Salandria (and Fonzi) would have to be included in

any book on the early researchers.

As to the source of my pessimism, a history...

I first became interested in this case in 1975 when I read about it in Creem

(America's Only Rock & Roll Magazine!) In 1977 I read Carl Oglesby's The Yankee

and Cowboy War. That book made a lot of sense, and sated for a time my curiosity

in the case.

Between 1991 and 1997 I was an avid reader of JFK assassination literature. I read

The Last Investigation in 1994 and whole-herartedly agreed with Fonzi's conclusion

that the physical evidence -- the bullet holes in JFK's clothing -- was the smoking-gun

in making the case for conspiracy. But when I got on the internet in 1996 I found that

the only other researcher to make that point, other than Fonzi, was Jim Marrs.

It seemed to me that the case had veered off into these highly complex controversies,

such as the police dictabelt and the contradictory head wound evidence. Surely the

case for conspiracy could be readily made in such a manner that a kindergartener

would grasp it.

In 1997 I started to post my own research into the clothing evidence on internet

groups.

I sometimes wonder if the JFK case would have been better off if I'd picked another

hobby.

In response to my postings, two pieces of utter fraud have been produced in rebuttal,

both of which reached a far, far greater audience than I ever have.

My two usenet antagonists: John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman.

Zimmerman went on the Discovery Channel's Unsolved History to claim

that he could pin-point "exactly" the high back wound using a stand-in for JFK

and an x-ray machine. His experiment contradicted his earlier claims about

the location of JFK's third thoracic vertebra, a fact he failed to note in the show.

His prior analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos concluded that JFK's jacket was

only elevated an inch in Dealey Plaza, and his x-rays verified the fact that the

clothing had to be elevated at least two inches. He touted this as evidence in

support of the SBT, all the while knowing it was a lie.

At the end of November 1999 John McAdams triumphantly posted to his site

John Hunt's article, The Case for a Bunched Jacket.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm

In this article John Hunt concluded that JFK's shirt and jacket were "bunched up"

over 2" in near-tandem at the time of the shot in the back.

John McAdams declared this analysis "definitive." By varying degrees, Hunt's work was

smiled upon by such notables as Gary Mack, Martin Shackelford, and Debra Conway.

Here's the opening paragraph:

The Single Bullet Theory (SBT) in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

lives or dies at the mercy of a number of evidentiary hurdles it must overcome on

its way to legitimacy. If the SBT fails on any level, that would be tantamount to proof

of conspiracy in the assassination of the President. Various commentators have argued

that the positions of the bullet holes in the clothing worn by the President prove that a

single bullet could not have passed through that clothing and the President's body in

such a way as to continue its path into the body of Governor John Connally. In this

essay I shall use several different types of evidence to show that these commentators

are wrong, and that their arguments fail to disprove the Single Bullet Theory.

And what evidence does Hunt produce to conclude that JFK's clothing was sufficiently

"bunched" to account for the SBT trajectory?

From the article, emphasis added:

The limits of space, combined with the clear and convincing photographic evidence

yet to come, obviate the need to elaborate on all of the eyewitness testimony. This

testimony is both contradictory and subject to interpretation. Further, my research

indicates that the difference between the impact point of a "smoothly oriented" jacket

shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot is little more than two inches. The reader is

invited to contact me via e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the

aforementioned figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not

yet finished.

Not yet finished? In what scientific or academic discipline does one get away with

publishing one's conclusions and then leave out the case upon which those

conclusions were based?

As it turns out, Hunt's "evidence" is nothing more than his tortured analysis of

the Dealey Plaza photos and the witness testimony. He describes the highly

visible shirt collar in Willis #4 and then claims that the jacket in Croft #3 was

up to the level of JFK's ear. He describes a "distinctly arched shape," i.e. convex,

on JFK's left shoulder in Betzner #3 while showing a blow up of Willis #5 showing a

concave curvature at the left base of JFK's neck. Hunt refers to his "home experiment"

wherein he managed to get his jacket to ride up a couple of inches, but he failed to

note that in the same experiment his shirt didn't ride up at all.

This is a work of academic fraud, well blessed by several leading figures in JFK

research...

...and Wikipedia:

From the Wikipedia entry for "John F. Kennedy Assassination," emphasis added:

The [autopsy] report addressed a second missile which "entered Kennedy's upper

back above the shoulder blade, passed through the strap muscles at the base of

his neck, bruising the upper tip of the right lung without puncturing it, then exiting

the front (anterior) neck," in a wound that was destroyed by the tracheotomy incision.

(45) This autopsy finding was not corroborated by the President's personal physician,

Dr. Burkley, who recorded, on the death certificate, a bullet to have hit Kennedy at

"about" the level of the third thoracic vertebra (Image). Supporting this location along

with the bullet hole in the shirt worn by Kennedy (Image) and the bullet hole in the suit

jacket worn by Kennedy (Image) which show bullet holes between 5 and 6 inches

(12.5-15 cm) below Kennedy's collar (Image). However, photographic analysis of

the motorcade, including a new pre-assassination film released in 2006 (color film),

shows that the President's jacket was bunched below his neckline, and was not lying

smoothly along his skin, so the clothing measurements have been subject to historical

criticism as being untrustworthy on the matter of the exact location of the back wound.

(46)

(46)http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched2.htm

So a "case" presented as an academic exercise which refuses to provide a methodology

is now to be regarded as "historical criticism"?

Other than Jim Fetzer referring to John Hunt as "intellectual scum," Hunt has not

been taken to task by anyone of note in the JFK research community.

Indeed, his views appear to have been widely adopted, and the clothing evidence

is rarely cited.

Such is the source of my initial pessimism concerning your book, John, which

extends to the JFK research community as a whole.

Nothing personal!

For the record, the Dealey Plaza films and photos show JFK's jacket dropping:

I think any bright 5 year old could see that JFK's shirt collar was occluded

in the first Nix frame, and visible in the second. Ergo, the jacket dropped,

contrary to the arguments of all LNers and a sadly large number of "CTs".

Thankfully, I hear the hooves of the Cavalry approaching -- your book, John,

which I hope will re-focus attention on this crucial evidence.