Cliff Varnell

I received another email from John Kelin today. He asked me to pass it along to all of you:

Someone wondered whether 1) Vince Salandria is in the book, and 2) Gaeton Fonzi is in the book. The answer to both is: Yes. I interviewed Gaeton four or five years ago and he was kind enough to supply me with a transcript of his historic Specter interview, the one he refers to in THE LAST INVESTIGATION. It makes up what I think is a very effective section of my book. I've also got a copy of his PHILADELPHIA magazine article that came from that 1966 interview -- I probably got that from him, too, but it might have come from Vince. It too figures into this section.

And yes, Bill Kelly, you may have either the credit or the blame for the fact that my book exists. As a reticent person I would not on my own have gone up to Vince after his speech, but you dragged me along with you. And that meeting made all the difference. I neglected to note this in the book's Intro, which morphs into a lengthy acknowledgments section. I should have. I do so now, in this much narrower arena.

Thanks in advance, Courtney.

John Kelin

Thank you, John Kelin!

I ordered the book last Sunday and anticipate its arrival like a little kid waiting for Xmas.

The entire transcript of the Fonzi-Specter encounter -- a lovely slice of research heaven!

Words cannot express my gratitude, sir!

I wasn't "promoting" anything any more than Jack White was with his statement

about Mary.

Yes. And this is what I said about that:

The book is 608 pages and obviously well-researched and documented. As I said to Cliff about Salandria, Mary Ferrell HAS to be in that book. Just because she was not listed in the publicity blurb is no reason to believe she could have been omitted.

Jack had the good sense to ignore me.

You're a good guy Cliff, and I agree with many of your views including those about Salandria, Fonzi and Larry Hancock.

All the best wishes for a good Christmas and New Year.

The same to you, my friend!

I take your point as to my hastiness in this instance, and I will be purchasing John Kelin's book.

Happy Holidays all!

Cliff,

If you want to go back and forth on this, I will. I was going to leave it alone until you brought up my reference to you and poker totally outside of the context of the example I was making.

This thread was supposed to be about John Kelin's book and the early researchers. Not Jefferson Morley, Anthony Summers, or Vincent Bugliosi. Nor is it about the current state of research, and your views of same.

My point was to show how far from the original research we've come, and I

wonder if this situation extended to John Kelin's book on the original

researchers. I see people come on this Forum patting the original researchers

on the back while utterly ignoring their research.

I'm trying to find out if this is true of Mr. Kelin's book.

Cliff Varnell: I asked a question about Salandria, and stated my reason for asking it.

Michael Hogan: Cliff, you didn't ask a question at all. You made several statements. And you made

an unwarranted assumption that Salandria might not be in the book:

"Vincent Salandria wrote a nice blurb for the book, but I didn't get the

impression that Salandria was in the book.

If that's the case I may not buy it."

The "if" would seem to raise a question, would it not?

You're splitting hairs, Michael.

Cliff Varnell: I asked two questions about the book, and explained why I asked those questions.

Michael Hogan: You did not.

Both my use of the word "if" and my use of "?" certainly smack of questions.

John Kelin asked if he'd left anybody out and I asked -- "Gaeton Fonzi?"

Cliff, John Kelin did not ask if he'd left anybody out. He said he hoped that he didn't. To me there is a difference.

If you want to characterize what people say without quoting them, at least be accurate.

I stand corrected. Another distinction without a difference, imo.

The reason "the war drags on" is because "instant-expert" newbies and their

"new perspectives" ignore the earliest research in the case.

Yet when a new book comes out on that very subject, you threaten not to buy it.

Having spent the better part of a grand to attend the "Cracking the Case" conference

I'm a little leery about claims made by anybody.

That's why I'm discussing it here, Michael.

We've gone backwards, Michael. All I want to know is if I'm going to spend

money on something that is actually going to move us forward again

Cliff, you seem to have a particular view as to what constitutes evidence in this case. If you expect Kelin's book to move everyone forward in lockstep with you, I'd wager you're bound to be disappointed. Save your money.

It would be nice if Kelin moved in lockstep with Salandria and Fonzi, since

they point out the prima facie case for conspiracy.

I'm hoping he does. Then I'll spend my dough on his book.

See how easy this is?

Cliff Varnell:Due diligence. Works for me...

Michael Hogan: Normally your posts do exhibit due diligence. However, I didn't see any from you

at the beginning of this thread. You could have spent a minute or two with Google before promoting

the idea that Salandria might not appear in the book simply because of what you read on Amazon.

That would have been due diligence Cliff.

I wasn't "promoting" anything any more than Jack White was with his statement

about Mary.

And I still haven't seen my question about Fonzi answered.

I see no harm in bringing this up, frankly, and I'll be delighted beyond words to

be wrong. But as Michael Hogan pointed out earlier, I have a poker background,

and to be brutally honest I sense a bluff at work. Not from John, necessarily, but

from the JFK research community as a whole.

At first you said you would not buy the book if Vincent Salandria was omitted. Just as a player factors in more than his own cards, I would have expected you to do a little Googling at the very least before making what in my estimation was simply an uninformed judgement based solely upon a promotional blurb from an Amazon webpage. When shown that Kelin's book was closely tied to Salandria, there was virtually no comment from you.

I asked a question about Salandria, and stated my reason for asking it.

The question was answered.

I said Oliver Stone should have made "JFK" about Salandria, not Garrison.

What more do you want, Michael?

Now you're doing the same thing with Gaeton Fonzi.

Yes. John Kelin asked if he'd left anybody out and I asked -- "Gaeton Fonzi?"

(Meagher refers to him as Gaetano Fonzi). Take Bill Kelly's advice and buy the book. It looks silly to criticize non-existent omissions, or omissions you can't be sure exist.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with asking questions of those who have read the book?

If such omissions exist I'll save my money. If such omissions don't exist, I'll buy it.

That's why I asked the questions in the first place.

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! (emphasis added)-- the

irrefutable physical evidence of conspiracy (a failure in which I share, btw.)

What do the following have in common?

The Warren Report

The HSCA Final Report

The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT

The 2005 Cracking the Case Conference at Bethesda

Bugliosi's Reclaiming History

No where in any of the above was the discrepancy noted between the physical evidence

(the bullet holes in JFK's clothing) and the SBT.

From Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher:

The holes in the President's coat and shirt are also powerful evidence of a wound well below the neckline. The holes are about 5.5 inches below the top of the collar, while the wound is supposedly about 5.5 inches below the tip of the mastoid process. The discrepancy is substantial....

The Warren Commission may accept Hume's implausible speculations but it does not dispose of reports by eyewitnesses that the wound was four or six inches below the neck. Nor is it understandable that the Commission has failed to mention the discrepancy between the alleged location of the wound and the holes in the clothing in its Report...

The nature and location of the [back] wound are factors central to the theory of the crime....

(Emphasis added)

And yet several decades later there was a conference in Pittsburgh devoted to the Single

Bullet Theory which featured "CT" speakers who place the back wound at the base of the

neck.

Another conference advertised as "Cracking the Case" didn't address the issue at all, and a

couple of published authors there questioned whether there was a conspiracy at all.

The earliest research is readily ignored by people who come on this Forum to praise it.

That is my objection here, Michael.

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure....

Well said. I have not read the book, but that is what I expected after reading Peter McGuire's post and Dawn Meredith's comments. A quick Google of John Kelin's name convinced me that his book was going to be a worthwhile and welcome addition. I fail to understand Cliff's negativity about a book he hasn't even read.

My negativity is directed at the current state of JFK research.

My negativity is directed toward sites like Lancer which characterize the SBT as

"not probable" rather than "flat out impossible."

I asked two questions about the book, and explained why I asked those questions.

I find nothing out of line with asking questions about the contents of a book.

Thankfully, there have been many accomplished authors that appear on the Education Forum to discuss and answer questions about their books. It must be tedious for some of them to have to debate issues with members that haven't even bothered to buy or read the book.

No where near the tedium I feel when the "case for conspiracy" is argued on

points that require advanced college degrees to verify.

And that's where we are today for the most part, Michael. Just look at Morley's

recent work -- what does he emphasize? The NAA.

We've gone backwards, Michael. All I want to know is if I'm going to spend

money on something that is actually going to move us forward again.

If Kelin covers this evidence I'll buy his book. If he doesn't, I won't.

Due diligence. Works for me...

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure. I'd like to see it turned into an HBO movie...oh, that's right, HBO has poured all its money and credibility into Bugliosi's book telling us these early researchers were all sorely misguided and/or cranks.

The war drags on.

Right on time. Case in point.

Vincent Bugliosi regards the final autopsy report as a legitimate medicolegal document,

and he places the back wound at T1.

Pat Speer regards the final autopsy report as a legitimate medicolegal document and

he places the back wound at T1.

This is a view shared by any number of "CT"s like John Hunt and Stu Wexler.

Of course, none of them can defend this position to save their lives, but it doesn't

stop them from dragging the case into meaningless black hole controversies like

the location of the head wounds and the NAA.

The reason "the war drags on" is because "instant-expert" newbies and their

"new perspectives" ignore the earliest research in the case.

Once the "smoking gun" evidence is acknowledged the need for the Parlor Game

"question of conspiracy" is moot. The pity is so many don't want that Parlor Game

to end, and so here we are plagued with issues that should have been settled over

40 years ago.

Sad.

I was with John Kelin after Salandria gave his electrifying speech at Dallas COPA in 1998, and asked him for a copy of his speech, when John got permission to post it at Fair Play.

That meeting, I am sure, is what sparked JK to write this book.

And before people start to berate the book for not including certain people and stories, I suggest you get the book and read it before begin criticizing it for any speculative omissions.

I'm responding to John's comment -- "I hope I'm not forgetting anyone."

Since the name Gaeton Fonzi has not come up in this thread, I think my question

is valid.

If Fonzi and his encounter with Specter are not in the book, then my criticism is

justified, imo.

I see no harm in bringing this up, frankly, and I'll be delighted beyond words to

be wrong. But as Michael Hogan pointed out earlier, I have a poker background,

and to be brutally honest I sense a bluff at work. Not from John, necessarily, but

from the JFK research community as a whole.

Let us not forget this from Vincent Salandria, as written up by Fonzi in TLI, pg 28,

emphasis mine:

(quote on)

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly, "All the critics, myself included,

were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort

micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious,

it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...We must face that fact -- and not

spend anymore time micro-analyzing the evidence. That is exactly what they want

us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will

happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you

down."

(quote off)

At the time (1975) Fonzi speculated that Salandria was a little crazy -- turns out

he was highly prescient.

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 (a failure in which I share, btw.)

What do the following have in common?

The Warren Report

The HSCA Final Report

The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT

The 2005 Cracking the Case Conference at Bethesda

Bugliosi's Reclaiming History

No where in any of the above was the discrepancy noted between the physical evidence

(the bullet holes in JFK's clothing) and the SBT.

I attended the Cracking the Case Conference. On the first day Anthony Summers

basically apologized for the title of his book Conspiracy because, (I paraphrase)

"The question is not what kind of conspiracy existed, but if a conspiracy existed."

Jeff Morley, sitting next to Summers on stage, nodded his head wisely.

I almost fell off my chair.

Color me jaundiced, but I think we've all been misled. Indeed.

Hi everyone.

I received an email from John Kelin: (snip)

I would be very happy to discuss/describe/defend/whatever the book, which is, I humbly submit, an homage to the first generation critics: Ferrell, Lane, Salandria, Feldman, Meagher, Field, Martin, Jones, Marcus, Weisberg, Sauvage, Castellano, Arnoni, and Marguerite. (I hope I'm not forgetting anyone.)

Gaeton Fonzi?

Specifically, his encounter with Arlen Specter in 1966 as described in the following

article and in The Last Investigation:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/F...th_Specter.html

(quote on)

The Warren Commission Report says the entrance wound caused by the bullet which

came out Kennedy’s throat was “approximately 5½ inches” below the back of the

right ear. Yet photographs of the Presidents jacket and shirt, which were part of the

FBI supplemental report of January 13th, make it difficult to believe that is the truth.

These photographs were not part of the Warren Commission Report and were left out

of the 26 volumes of supporting evidence. Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing

was in the Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and

the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained.

And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was

5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back

seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth

fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be

determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter

bullet,” said the Report.

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches

below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had

the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound

described in the Commission’s autopsy report—placed below the back of the right

ear—and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that

difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up

from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your

arm a few times, he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here,

the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the

coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example,

but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of

the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It…it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could

be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that…aaah…that it gets…

that…aaah…this…this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back…sit back now…

all right now…if…usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but

if…but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where

your jacket sits…it’s not…it’s not…it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and

the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt…after all,

we lined up the shirt…and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the

tie, came right about here in a slit in the front…”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes…aaah…well, I forget exactly

where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to…aaah…understand the…

aah…the angle of decline which…”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that…that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up,

that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I…I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look

at that shirt.”

It is difficult to believe that Arlen Specter didn’t take a very close look at that shirt—and

that jacket—at the time of the investigation and that these factors didn’t indelibly stick in

his mind: Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House,

and if it is possible—but not probable—that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to

ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a

tightly-buttoned shirt could have done the same thing.

(quote off)

The Single Bullet Theory was demolished in 1966 by Gaeton Fonzi, who exposed

Arlen Specter and his Single Bullet Theory as a fraud.

If this encounter isn't covered in Mr. Kelin's book it's a grievous omission, imo.

I checked it out at Amazon.

Vincent Salandria wrote a nice blurb for the book, but I didn't get the

impression that Salandria was in the book.

If that's the case I may not buy it.

Cliff, certainly a veteran poker man such as yourself can make the assumption that Salandria is in the book.

He has to be.

That's what I'd figure, but he wasn't mentioned in the Amazon blurb.

Hell, I think Oliver Stone picked the wrong guy for "JFK" -- Salandria would have

made a better subject than Garrison, imo.

I am about 200 pages into this book and I can't say enough good things about it! Another must read, folks.

Thanks Dawn. I just ordered it; you convinced me to do it sooner than later. If you say it's a must read, I know I can count on that. And thanks to Peter for the heads-up that Kelin's book was available.

The First Generation Critics as they've come to be known were a small but remarkable group of men and women. Gosh, that seems such a long time ago....

I checked it out at Amazon.

Vincent Salandria wrote a nice blurb for the book, but I didn't get the

impression that Salandria was in the book.

If that's the case I may not buy it.

I've performed the same litmus test countless times. To be brief: Since anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination case who does not conclude that the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime, how can we respect a historian, biographer, journalist, or other self-described "serious" author or academic who embraces the LN lie?

Charles,

May I suggest a corollary: Anyone who has read Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust

and still regards the JFK final autopsy report as a genuine medicolegal document is both

intellectually dishonest and a participant, witting or unwitting, in the cover-up of JFK's

murder.

Man redons coat. McKnight and Wecht attempt to move coat up so the hole reaches C6.

The bunching issue is discussed with the best available photograph used by advocates of that theory.

JFK wore a tucked in custom made dress shirt.

The hole in the dress shirt is 4" below the bottom of the shirt collar

and the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the jacket collar.

The jacket was elevated 1/8" vis a vis the shirt.

In order to get both of those bullet holes to align with C7 the shirt and

the jacket had to be elevated in tandem about 3 inches.

Neat trick for a custom-made dress shirt -- which only requires a fraction

of an inch of slack.

Neat trick for the jacket -- which the Dealey Plaza films and photos show

dropping in Dealey.

You can't get a dress shirt and jacket to move the same.

You can't get 3 inches of a jacket to elevate entirely above C7 at

the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the

base of the neck.

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

on Elm St.

"Bunch Theory" is a scam perpetrated by frauds.

Not even Bugliosi could bring himself to defend this nonsense.

SO...YOU DO BELIEVE CHENEY? Then how can you characterize it as unimportant?

(I assume that is what you mean by UTTER BOLLOCKS)

Jack

You assume correctly.

Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with

Jim Marrs back in 2002.

I wrote (emphasis added):

Hey Jim,

I'd like to ask your permission to use the following quote from your e-mail:

(Jim Marrs, quote on)

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder

blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission

smokescreen, namely that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't

be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because

hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up.

Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is

that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin

theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the

government....period.

(quote off)

That sums it up to a T.

Much regard,

Cliff Varnell

Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added):

Howdy Cliff,

Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this,

the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window

dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has

the staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what

changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.

Best regards,

Jim Marrs

The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty.

The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively,

irrefutably.

We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line

of historical fact.

Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion,

fwiw...

I have known Jim Marrs for more than thirty-five years, and talk to him

frequently. His email to you was a polite "Texas brush-off"...essentially

agreeing with you THAT ONLY ONE PROOF IS NEEDED to prove the

conspiracy. The single bullet theory is a good one to choose; if you

can prove it, nothing else is necessary. Jim agrees with you on that.

But he does NOT believe that in studying the case. He has studied

EVERY ASPECT OF THE CASE since it happened. HE WILL NOT AGREE

WITH YOU THAT HE COULD HAVE STOPPED WITH THE SINGLE BULLET

THEORY. You present one email from Jim. I present knowing him

nearly forty years.

Jack

Jack, I had taken a similar view as Jim Marrs' on the clothing evidence

at the beginning of my internet research back in 1997.

That was the starting point. It has nothing to do with "stopping

research in the case." It has everything to do with investing one's

time in areas more fruitful than others.

I find the NAA controversy a pernicious waste of time.

The acoustics evidence is a national joke, since the T3 back wound

establishes 4+ shots.

The controversy over the head wounds is probably the biggest black

hole discussion in the entire case.

Jim Garrison set the JFK investigation back several years.

And this is just to name the major areas I regard as a waste of time.

Alteration post-Z255 is a rabbit hole I choose not to go down.

SO...YOU DO BELIEVE CHENEY? Then how can you characterize it as unimportant?

(I assume that is what you mean by UTTER BOLLOCKS)

Jack

You assume correctly.

Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with

Jim Marrs back in 2002.

I wrote (emphasis added):

Hey Jim,

I'd like to ask your permission to use the following quote from your e-mail:

(Jim Marrs, quote on)

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder

blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission

smokescreen, namely that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't

be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because

hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up.

Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is

that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin

theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the

government....period.

(quote off)

That sums it up to a T.

Much regard,

Cliff Varnell

Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added):

Howdy Cliff,

Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this,

the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window

dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has

the staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what

changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.

Best regards,

Jim Marrs

The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty.

The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively,

irrefutably.

We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line

of historical fact.

Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion,

fwiw...

Cliff, you are not paying attention.

I said in Altgens 6, Cheney is in the expected location; I am not disputing that.

Great! Then we appear to have little conflict. I have yet to see any argument

that the films and photos I cited are anything but authentic.

I wish you the best in your research, Jack.

In his testimony, he said that immediately after Altgens 6, he accelerated and passed

the limo, and LOOKED BACK and saw the head shot. This is contrary to

Zapruder and Nix. WHY DO YOU DISBELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY?

Why do you ascribe to me a belief I have never, ever stated?

I have not disputed any part of ANYONE's testimony, and as an avid

defender of the witness testimony and the witnesses, I urge you to

cease characterizing my arguments as such.

Why do you say

that it is unimportant?

Jack

I think 95% of what is said and written about the case is utter bollocks.

And that includes 9 years of my own work on the usenet groups.

This is not meant to be taken personally, Jack.

Since Cheney doesn't say anything that impeaches the authenticity of Altgens #6...

Cliff,

Me old Harriman sparring partner, might be worth checking the Houston Chronicle interview with Chaney published in the paper's edition of 24 November 1963. According to Mark Lane's testimony to the WC, citing that interview, Chaney said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour…when the first shot was fired” (2H43).

Anyone got a copy of that Chronicle interview to confirm or refute Lane's version?

And is Chaney really behind the presidential limo at the moment of Altgens #5? Looks very like he's alongside it to me, looking to his left!

He died, incidentally, reportedly of a heart attack, in 1976.

Paul

Paul, I hold out the possibility that the first shot Chaney heard was not necessarily

the first shot fired or the first shot to hit JFK.

I see nothing in Altgens #6 (Elm St) in conflict with Chaney's testimony, no matter

how we may characterize his location.

John,

I think we're both convinced that our respective approaches are the

most effective way to attack the cover-up of John F. Kennedy's murder.

The vast differences (and perhaps even conflicts) in our methodologies

do not deter from our common goal.

Cliff,

I share Jack's frustration that you would want to restrict your attention to the photographic evidence prior to the shots.

Prior to the throat shot and 3.4 seconds after.

From the Adolphus Hotel on Main St. to Altgens #6.

After Z255 -- have at it, my friends, and may the Goddess bless.

It's almost like focussing your attention on the Main Street part of the motorcade,

That's the start -- just west of the Adolphus.

or Love Field. I doubt that those have any alterations.

Music to my ears, John.

However, that is your choice, and it is an interesting one.

Everything we need to know about "how" JFK was murdered can be

found in that sequence. Main St. to the kill zone.

The "how" strongly indicates the "who," from whom we can readily deduce

the "why."

I agree with you that there is far less direct proof (perhaps no direct proof to this point in time) for alteration prior to the shots. (Jack may disagree, in terms of the discrepancies in bystanders on Houston and on Elm that he has documented; I have not spent the time to check his analyses on that.) (I'm also excluding the evidence of the Z film as a whole being faked, such as the incorrect Stemmons sign; the frames in question occur before Z255, but I don't think you're talking about the fixtures in Dealey Plaza, but rather actions before a particular point in time.)

Correct. JFK's actions in the limo.

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

Z225-237.

Nellie was right there and described the hand motions at the throat.

There is much in Z that is circumstantial, such as the non-reactiveness of the bystanders on the north side of Elm; the two bystanders on the south side of Elm (including the man that flops his arms down) that keep looking up to the corner and ignore the presidential limousine completely; and so on.

It's an interesting point. To tell you the truth, there has not been nearly as much work done on the time prior to the shots as during the shots. Which makes sense, when you only have a finite amount of time available ... but it does show that more might need to be done.

John

With all due respect -- do you have to?

I'm a big fan of Dealey Plaza witness testimony, John. This is a great work you

have produced.

I'm also a big fan of the photo evidence I have cited, as well as contemporaneous

documents at Parkland and Bethesda, and near-contemporaneous documents such

as the death certificate and the FBI autopsy report (but NOT the final autopsy report,

which was a political document!)

One of the great myths of the JFK assassination is that there was absolutely

NO legitimate official investigation into the crime on 11/22/63.

This is not true.

"Somewhere between 11pm and midnight," the autopsists huddled and

speculated that JFK was struck in the back with a round that dissolved

in his body. The FBI men took this speculation seriously enough that one

of them called the firearms unit at the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence

of blood soluble rounds -- the Magic Bullet was presented, instead. Because

the FBI guy gave it a corny name -- "ice bullet" -- this scenario is roundly

pooh-poohed.

That's a mistake.

The historical record shows the CIA with such a weapon in '63, the Dealey Plaza

films and photos show JFK turning paralyzed within 3 seconds -- all according to the

CIA playbook -- and the throat x-ray shows an "air pocket" at the very back of the

neck but no exit. Nellie described the motions at the throat and Jackie described

a "quizzical look" and asked: "What are they doing to you?"

They were paralyzing him for the head shot -- obvious to me.

I'm not a Co-Incidence Theorist.

my argument potentially remains with you and other alterationists,

Clarification: the Fox 5 autopsy photo has been proven to be faked, just

as the HSCA suspected.

I resist being put into any one "camp" in the alteration debates, most

of which I've managed to avoid.

(snip)

Read the testimony of motorcop Cheney, who is seen in Altgens

looking DIRECTLY AT JFK, who has just been hit by the first

shot. He testified HE IMMEDIATELY SPEEDED UP and A MOMENT

AFTER HE SPEEDED UP and AFTER PASSING THE LIMO, he LOOKED

BACK, over his shoulder AND SAW THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD EXPLODE.

In other words, Cheney was in front of the limo at the time

of the head shot. He is very explicit about looking BACK at

the time of the head shot. Please show me films and photos

which show this. Zapruder does not. Nix does not.

So your view is that he is lying or mistaken? Why would he

make this up? Why would he lie? How could he be mistaken?

How could he forget what he saw?

(I think that Cheney was one of the first police witnesses

to die, as I recall.)

There are others. Read for yourself. These are witness

statements, no embellishments. Dispute them, not me.

Jack

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6.

My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier.

If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point.

If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're

throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo.

Why limit the authenticity of photos ONLY to those BEFORE the Altgens

SIX photo?

Because that is the crucial sequence which shows:

1) The drop of JFK's jacket on Houston St. and the continued drop

on Elm St. Couple this readily observable phenomenon with the

location of the holes in the clothes and any further discussion of the

"Lone Assassin Theory" is moot.

The holes in the clothes and the Dealey Plaza photo evidence corroborate

the T3 back wound recorded in the death certificate.

We can dispense with discussion about the NAA and other black hole

"debates" about the "question of conspiracy."

2) It shows JFK reacting to a shot to the throat from the front and

becoming paralyzed in less than 3 seconds. This event finds much

corroboration in the witness testimony.

Altgens himself said he did not take Altgens FIVE and EIGHT.

I thought Altgens said he did not remember taking #5. Not the same

as a flat-out denial, eh?

The Houston St. segment of the Nix film appears to agree with Altgens #5 -- I

have no reason to suspect its authenticity.

FIVE is on Houston Street. EIGHT is after the event is over. So you are

willing to talk about FIVE, but not EIGHT.

Correct. Utter waste of time in my opinion.

Based on Cheney's statement, ALTGENS SEVEN CANNOT BE GENUINE

EITHER, since it does not show Cheney ahead of the limo, as he testified.

CHENEY SAID HE SPEEDED UP IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FIRST SHOT

(Altgens SIX). Please argue with Cheney, not me.

Jack

Since Cheney doesn't say anything that impeaches the authenticity of

Altgens #6, my argument potentially remains with you and other

alterationists, but I'm still waiting for the argument that the photos

I cited are not authentic.

(snip)

Read the testimony of motorcop Cheney, who is seen in Altgens

looking DIRECTLY AT JFK, who has just been hit by the first

shot. He testified HE IMMEDIATELY SPEEDED UP and A MOMENT

AFTER HE SPEEDED UP and AFTER PASSING THE LIMO, he LOOKED

BACK, over his shoulder AND SAW THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD EXPLODE.

In other words, Cheney was in front of the limo at the time

of the head shot. He is very explicit about looking BACK at

the time of the head shot. Please show me films and photos

which show this. Zapruder does not. Nix does not.

So your view is that he is lying or mistaken? Why would he

make this up? Why would he lie? How could he be mistaken?

How could he forget what he saw?

(I think that Cheney was one of the first police witnesses

to die, as I recall.)

There are others. Read for yourself. These are witness

statements, no embellishments. Dispute them, not me.

Jack

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6.

My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier.

If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point.

If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're

throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo.

John, thank you for your views on the topic.

My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255,

specifically relating to the clothing evidence.

I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos

and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point.

There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness

testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot.

Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have

a "sinister explanation."

I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate.

Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and

photos are the bedrock evidence in the case."

I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to

doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

Cliff...apparently:

1. You are not familiar enough with the photo evidence

I'm familiar enough with the evidence I cited.

In fact, the question I put to John was one I put to you, Jack, some time ago.

You expressed the conclusion that any photo showing Zap and Sitz had been

altered. You also expressed doubt about Altgens 5 (the Houston St photo),

since apparently Ike Altgens doesn't remember taking it.

Well, I don't buy the Zap/Sitz Dance, and maybe Ike Altgens simply forgot.

Other than that, you expressed no suspicions concerning the films/photos I cited.

When, in an earlier post, John said he had a more powerful argument for alteration,

I asked him just as I asked you (see above).

Apparently, John's analysis doesn't include arguing for alteration in the films/photos

I cited above.

2. You have not read John's treatise on witness testimony

Looking for John's SMOKING GUN, I read it three times.

There are numerous smoking guns, but the one he has

discovered would convince any jury that the films are

altered,

Apparently, these films to which you refer do not include the Houston St.

segment of the Nix film, or the Towner film.

because a half-dozen highly qualified and

unimpeachable witnesses testify uniformly about an

event WHICH HAPPENED, but clearly DOES NOT APPEAR

in any photos.

Okay, I'll ask again: other than the Zap/Sitz Dance and the Houston St. photo

maybe/maybe-not taken by Ike Altgens -- what evidence of alteration do you

find in the following:

1) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

2) The Towner film

3) Willis 4 & 5

4) Altgens 5 & 6 (Houston St/Elm St.)

5) Betzner 3

And a bonus round!

6) Croft 3

These witnesses testified separately and

had NO REASON TO FABRICATE THE EVENT; it was really

an insignificant moment in the telling of what happened in

the motorcade, and IF IT HAPPENED as these reliable

witnesses describe IT NECESSARILY MUST APPEAR

IN MANY FILMS AND PHOTOS. The event does NOT appear,

therefore the content of such films is necessarily false.

In the face of indisputable evidence, remaining agnostic

is not an option.

Jack

That's what the Sunday school teacher used to tell me.

All the photos and films I cited occurred at and prior to Z255.

What's missing from them, Jack?

John, thank you for your views on the topic.

My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255,

specifically relating to the clothing evidence.

I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos

and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point.

There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness

testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot.

Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have

a "sinister explanation."

I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate.

Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and

photos are the bedrock evidence in the case."

I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to

doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

Meanwhile, back to actual evidence:

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

Actually, there ARE some good videos out there...such as the Pat Speer videos on the gunshot wounds, for example.

Except that Pat Speer has no clue where the wound in the back

was located, and doesn't seem to "get" the throat wound either.

Anyone who treats the final autopsy report as a genuine medicolegal

document should find another hobby, imo.

I don't know if there will be enough to convince you that something is amiss with the photographic evidence (I don't know how strongly you believe in its authenticity),

John

John,

I'm interested to know if there are any reasons to question the authenticity

of the following Dealey Plaza photos and films:

The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

The Towner film

Altgens 5 & 6

Willis 4 & 5

Betzner 3

...Thank you.

This is beautiful indeed, Chris. Thanks!

JFK's gleaming white shirt collar at the back of his neck is clear as day.

Arguably the most under-rated piece of evidence in the entire case.

The SBT cannot be reconciled with the holes in JFK's clothing and the

Towner film showing the jacket collar in a normal position at the base

of JFK's neck.