Cliff Varnell

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.

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.