Cliff Varnell

Thank you, Duncan, I rolled through this thread looking for one reasonable response, and found one. And according to the Pat Speers and Gary Macks of the world, clothing cannot be regarded as "hard evidence"? We can wait forever for a "reasonable response" to the clothing evidence, but non sequiturs are all we are ever going to get. Right, Pat?

Delete before the bump...(Lamson's hits just keep on comin'!)

Cliff, isn't that autopsy photo what its all about? Let the photo be in question ... the Feds are stuck with it and the hole in JFK's back if being shot at a downward angle as Humes gave it to be shows that it couldn't have exited JFK's throat above the adams apple ... if I understand it right. That's exactly the point -- do you understand it right? Do you? Could you explain it to a child if you're not sure you understand it right? There is a big rumpus over that issue. There is no such controversy involving the clothing holes and the motorcade photos. The holes in the clothes are 2-3" below the SBT inshoot. The motorcade photos redundantly show JFK's jacket dropping. Open and shut case a child could grasp. Oh Why -- oh Goddess in Heaven -- does everyone here insist on making things complicated?

Charles, Notice that Gary Mack is happy to rehash the "official" case until the cows come home? Notice that Gary Mack will not address the physical evidence (clothing holes + motorcade photos.) That should tell you something. While you're down that rabbit hole with Mack, say hi to the Mad Hatter for me and tell him I can't make tea.

Duncan, Our disagreement aside, you are posting some awesome images here. Thank you very much, sir.

I am not sure why the coat riding up or not is important when there is an autopsy photo showing the hole in the back. Can we all agree that the skin of the back doesn't ride up? Bill Miller According to the HSCA the authenticity of that photo is in question. There was a clear chain of possession for the clothing -- there is none for the autopsy photos. The Fox 5 photo shows a wound in a location where it is physically impossible to align the holes in the clothes given the clear evidence in the motorcade photos that the jacket dropped.

Excellent. Now what "external or internal" force prevailed upon JFK in the limo on Elm St. to cause 3 inches of his jacket to bunch up in tandem with 3 inches of his tucked in custom made dress shirt? You couldn't replicate this event if you reached over your shoulder and tried to pull the fabric up! Well, since shirts don't move on their own power and all JFK was doing was sitting in a car on top of his shirt tail -- how did 2-3" of his shirt make the journey up his back to align with the SBT trajectory? All you've done is agree with my central points. I thank you.

Sure it is refutable. The COLLAR dropped, not the bulge in the jacket which remains even AFTER the back shot. You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff. Its visable in EVERY image you have posted (and Duncans as well). Ditto Craig..He needs new glasses Duncan Please present your proof that the "bulge" you see involves multiple inches of fabric opposed to a fraction of an inch of fabric. Is it too much to ask of you?

With your fine help I think we can open everyone's eyes, Craig. You see, gentle readers and fellow researchers, Craig Lamson is a professional Jacket Wrangler. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig Lamson was the finest Jacket Wrangler in the biz. When folks come into his place of business and want to be photographed at their finest its Craig's job to make sure the suit jacket doesn't ride up at the back of the guy's neck. So what does Craig do? Craig tapes the bottom of the jacket down so it doesn't ride up. Does Craig also have to tape the shirt down? Of course not. A shirt is tucked in. The wearer sits on the tail of the shirt. Shirts and jackets do not move the same way, as Craig knows better than anyone. Since JFK's jacket and shirt had to move 2-3" in near-tandem to satisfy the Single Bullet Theory, Craig knows better than anyone that this never happens. Don't you, Craig?

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions. What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts. Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck. And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St. One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time. Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality. I'm not sue I buy the bunching theory or not, but there IS room for different opinions, given various pictures that show it bunched in one place and not in another. There is room for an "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and 2-3" of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of JFK's jacket occupied the same physical space at the same time? The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the jacket collar could readily drop to the exact same place as 4-6" of bunched up clothing fabric. The claim is absurd.

Shirts move on their own power? Explain how a shirt moves on its own power, Duncan. Demonstrate. Explain how a fraction of an inch of fabric equals 3 inches of fabric. I await with great anticipation your demonstration of these things you claim. The Betzner photo was taken behind JFK. At that moment his head was turned to the right. How on earth do you take a lateral photo of a guy when you're standing directly behind him and a bit to the left and his head is turned to the right? Excellent! That is the Jefferies film frame I've been looking for! Thank you, sincerely. Compare the position of the jacket collar at the back of JFK's neck on Main St. (the Jefferies film) with the position of the jacket on Elm St. The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT. Sure it is refutable. The COLLAR dropped, not the bulge in the jacket which remains even AFTER the back shot. You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff. Its visable in EVERY image you have posted (and Duncans as well). Of course there is a bulge, Craig. The hole in the shirt is 4" even below the collar. The hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the collar. The jacket bulged 1/8". Here is a photo of JFK at Fort Worth that morning with very small fraction-of-an-inch "bulges"... This is the same thing we see in Betzner at Z186 -- visible shirt collar, fraction of an inch "bulge." Unless you want to claim that clothing "bulges" ONLY in increments of 2+" you're going to have to acknowledge (at some point) that clothing normally moves in fractions of an inch. Besides, Craig, your own experience with jackets is that they move independently of tucked in shirts. Or did you have to tape the shirts down also when you taped the jackets down for your photo shoots? Of course you didn't tape the shirts down. The shirts don't move with the jackets, do they, Craig?

Shirts move on their own power? Explain how a shirt moves on its own power, Duncan. Demonstrate. Explain how a fraction of an inch of fabric equals 3 inches of fabric. I await with great anticipation your demonstration of these things you claim. The Betzner photo was taken behind JFK. At that moment his head was turned to the right. How on earth do you take a lateral photo of a guy when you're standing directly behind him and a bit to the left and his head is turned to the right? Excellent! That is the Jefferies film frame I've been looking for! Thank you, sincerely. Compare the position of the jacket collar at the back of JFK's neck on Main St. (the Jefferies film) with the position of the jacket on Elm St. The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions. What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts. Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck. And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St. One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time. Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality. The truth of the matter is, that in order to prove the jacket position , we would require photographs of the Jacket at the exact time of the shot in question. We don't have this evidence, things move, including cloth materials, so everything you said is just guesswork..Now that's a fact. Duncan This photo was taken at Z186 within a split second of the shooting. If you can't see JFK's shirt collar in this photo I suggest an eye exam. Here another photo taken a few seconds earlier -- brutally obvious shirt collar, no? If you want to claim that a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt with a fraction of an inch of available slack can spontaneously jump 3 inches up a man's back on its own power the burden of proof is on you and all those who make such a claim. After you, Duncan...

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions. What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts. Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck. And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St. One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time. Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality.

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?

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?

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?

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: It happened in the Kennedy assassination. The Fox 5 "back of the head" photo is a fake, just as the HSCA suspected. 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) 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. 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. These comments overlook legitimate questions that deserve to be answered. 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. 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. 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...

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...

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. Only in the fevered imaginations of pet theorists. 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: You don't need a weatherman to know how hard the wind blows. So what kind of bullet leaves a 3/32" diameter hole? Thrill us with your acumen, Mr. Purvis.

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.

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.'"

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.

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...