Cliff Varnell

Here's why... Moore gave an excellent debunking of "bunch theory" -- and managed to destroy the SBT while remaining an LNer. From CONSPIRACY OF ONE, ppg 154-55 (emphasis added): LNers and other practitioners of the JFK Mystery Game care to ignore the obviousness of the above. Takes all the fun out of pet theories to acknowledge something so prosaic, eh?

Let us continue at our leisurely pace, gentle reader, and apply Craig Lamson's unfiltered observations to the Nix frames taken on Houston St. Craig puffed out his chest and pronounced the following his "RAZOR" that was to allegedly demolish my observation of JFK's jacket drop. True statement! Here's an example of JFK with his head slightly tilted forward and an increased amount of shirt collar was exposed at the back of his neck. Here's JFK with his head slightly tilted back and a descreased amount of shirt collar is visible. But note in the Nix film when JFK is leaning forward his shirt collar was NOT visible. A bare fraction of an second later he leaned back and the shirt collar WAS visible. Lamson's analysis obviously doesn't apply.

Two frames from the Houston St. segment of the Nix film. The shirt collar wasn't visible in the earlier frames of the Nix. And then the shirt collar was visible... JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, the exact opposite of the "ride up" of the shirt and jacket as required by the Single Bullet Theory The SBT thus stands debunked.

By all means! Perhaps Craig will explain how by turning his head to the right JFK exposed the entire left side of his shirt collar to a camera that was behind him.

Cliffs opinion is simply not grounded in fact, like most of what you post Duane. The photo images speak for themselves. JFK on Main St. with the jacket occluding the shirt collar at the BACK OF THE NECK JFK on Elm St. with the shirt collar visible at the BACK OF THE NECK. Craig, you think that repeating yourself over and over changes the fact that the jacket dropped in Dealey. The only person you're fooling is yourself.

You are done, yes, as in -- intellectually bankrupt. Me, I'm just warming up. JFK is in the red box. The green line points to the visible shirt collar AT THE BACK OF HIS NECK. The frame was taken behind JFK, with his head turned to the right. By turning his head to the right, the left side of his neck was turned away from the camera. To claim as you do, Craig, that the visible shirt collar in the Towner film is entirely at the side of his neck betrays acute intellectual dishonesty.

Are you denying that the Towner film shows the shirt collar at the back of the neck? If you are, you're not telling the truth. Any one can see it. Fine. The jacket and shirt collars were in a normal positionat the base of the neck. The jacket rode up over the top of the shirt and jacket collars at the back of JFK's neck on Main St. But the Towner film shows the shirt collar AT THE BACK OF THE NECK. Are you denying this? Yes or no? While you're at it, please share your methodology for making the determination that the jacket was elevated more than one inch in Dealey Plaza. Sure. !.5" of "bunch" on Main St., 1" of "bunch" on Houston St., a fraction of an inch of "bunch" on Elm St. How does a fraction of an inch reconcile with the SBT, which needs 2+"? Is this your idea of "clear thinking"-- pimping the same old non sequitur ad nauseum ad infinitum? 1 more time.JFK on Main St., jacket over the top of the shirt collar AT THE BACK OF THE NECK: JFK on Elm St, shirt collar visible AT THE BACK OF THE NECK Are you denying that JFK's shirt collar was visible at the BACK OF HIS NECK on Elm St? Yes or no? What are you blathering about? In my previous post I stipulated to YOUR description of Jefferies. I then posted a frame from Jefferies that illustrated the points to which you and I BOTH will (for the sake of argument) agree upon. Do you need a re-run on this, too? Refresh your memory? You wrote: Yes, the jacket was elevated "to the extent that it obscures the jacket and shirtcollar when viewed from behind." I then posted a frame from the Towner film -- a view from behind -- that clearly shows the shirt collar. Why was the shirt collar "obscured" on Main St. but visible on Elm St.? Because the jacket dropped. The jacket was no longer "elevated to the extent" that was anywhere near what the SBT requires. Obviously. That nonsense about "slight tilting" hasn't made your last couple of posts. Giving up on the "slight tilt" rationale, Craig? I stipulate to your analysis of Jefferies. Any objective comparision of the Jefferies with Towner blows YOUR assumptions right out of the water. Bingo! Shoot yourself in both feet, blow off your nose, declare victory and depart the field. Just repeat over and over like all the other intellectually dishonest LNers that if there is "bunch" in a jacket -- that "bunch" is consistent with the SBT no matter what. You all do this. It's so much fun to watch!

Craig, you continue to pimp the same old non sequitur. 1) The SBT requires 2+" of JFK's jacket and 2+" of his shirt to have elevated entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1. 2) The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket had folds in the upper back. 3) Therefore 2+" of his jacket and 2+" of his shirt were elevated entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1. Tell us, Craig, when are you going to outline your methodology for making the determination that ANY of the motorcade photo images show a 2+" elevation of the jacket?...Craig? Or do you think if you repeat your conclusion over and over that alone will establish it's credibility? As to the fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, let's cut to the chase, indeed... The image below is from the Jefferies film, and shows the jacket riding OVER the top of the shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck. This is how Craig describes it: So, according to Craig's analysis, the shirt and jacket collars were already in normal positions at the base of JFK's neck but the jacket elevation "obscures the jacket and shirt collar when viewed from behind." Here's a frame from the Towner film -- a view from behind. JFK's shirt collar was clearly visible at the back of the neck and his right shoulder-line was smooth. JFK on Main St. -- shirt collar occluded, the "bunch" was above the shoulder-line. JFK on Elm St. -- shirt collar highly visible AT THE BACK OF THE NECK, the right shoulder-line was smooth. JFK's jacket CLEARLY dropped about an inch, going from a half-inch or so above the top of the shirt collar to a half-inch or so below the top of the shirt collar. Craig, all you can describe with your "slight tilt" dodge are movements of the collars measured in millimeters. Then you turn around and assume that these "slight" millimeter changes account for the multi-inch discrepancy between the bullet holes in the clothes and the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck. Your claim that a "slight tilt" of the head would account for the 1 inch-plus difference between the position of the jacket on Main and the position of the jacket on Elm St. is debunked by the photo on the left, taken on Main St. JFK's jacket rode up into his hairline, but his posture was similar to the posture shown in the Towner frame -- head turned to the right, right arm waving. Tell us Craig, where is the "tilt" of the head that explains why the shirt collar was occluded on Main St. AT THE BACK OF THE NECK (a fact to which you stipulate) but visible on Elm St. AT THE BACK OF THE NECK. Gentle reader, take the RAZOR to Craig's claim thusly: 1) Put the tip of your forefinger at the bottom of your hairline at the nape of your neck. 2) Lean your head back until your finger tip touches the top of your shirt collar. 3) Find the Dealey Plaza photo that shows JFK in that position. The first two you'll be able to do. The third one you won't. Enjoy!

I listened to Ian Punnett interview Saint John Hunt on coasttocoastam on Saturday night... I find it ironic that if what Howard Hunt maintains is true, that I considered him a close friend n the early 1970's while never divining of his knowledge of LBJ’s role in the Kennedy assassination, and that some dozen years later, through my representation of Billie Sol Estes, I was provided additional information linking LBJ to the killing, which I have previously disclosed in this Forum. Mr. Caddy, Thank you for the alert to the Coasttocoast broadcast. I visited Saint John Hunt's website ( http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/ ) several times & found that the link there to the full tape did not work. My guess is that he is still constructing his site. However, if there is an overlooked problem you might want to advise Saint of this, since you have e-mail commo with him. "..., I was provided additional information linking LBJ to the killing, which I have previously disclosed in this Forum." Could you please supply a URL or link to the Forum thread(s) or posts where you disclosed this information here in the Forum? Thanks! Yes, my information on LBJ can be found in the Forum’s topic Douglas Caddy – Question and Answer, using the link below: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5892 One of the mysteries of Nixon’s Oval Office tapes was his use of the coded phrase “Bay of Pigs,” which he closest aides assumed he meant the Kennedy assassination. On one of his tapes, Nixon remarked about the danger of exposing Hunt to additional publicity because of the “scab” that covered certain activities of Hunt. In light of Saint John’s revelations, it may be that Nixon was worried about Hunt being linked directly to the Kennedy assassination. I don't think the word "worried" applies, frankly. Didn't Nixon try to leverage his knowledge of Hunt's BOP scabs to get Helms/CIA to intercede with the FBI in the Watergate investigation? Didn't Nixon order the CIA to turn over its files on the Bay of Pigs and the assassinations of Diem and Trujillo? Three times he asked, with no appreciable response? I think Nixon being "worried" about the Kennedy assassination is what got him into dutch with Helms in the first place.

So Hunt was a "bench-warmer"? I think Old Tramp Hunt was a back-up patsy, just like Jack Lawrence, and life-long back up patsy Tall Tramp Charles Harrelson. http://prisonplanet.com/audio/300407jfktape.mp3

Nice insult, Craig...Take long to think it up? Your insult would have more punch, btw, if you quoted me directly. Since it takes intellectual courage to make a point by point rebuttal of what your opponent actually wrote, you're safer not quoting me directly at all. Then why don't you quote me directly?After all, I love directly quoting the amusing prattle of you and Proteus. Ricidule carries no bite, otherwise. Btw, you don't seem to have fully processed the fact that the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket are 4 inches and 4 & 1/8 inches respectively below the bottom of the collars. The Single Bullet Theory requires an in-tandem elevation of the shirt and jacket more than two inches, more like three inches if the results of the "Unsolved History" Australian SBT Team are taken into account (chest exit suggests SBT inshoot higher than C7/T1). The near identical location of the holes in the clothes is the core issue, Craig. It ain't what *I* sez -- it's what the films show. JFK had the same posture in both of these films as the limo passed the camera. http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg On Main St. his jacket collar rode up to his hairline, about an inch above the top of the shirt collar. On Elm St. the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck. Occam's Razor -- the jacket fell. Out of one side of your mouth you describe jackets and shirts moving independently, while out of the other side of your mouth you claim JFK's shirt and jacket moved in tandem multiple inches. Highly entertaining, this "critical thinking" of yours. Your contentless dismissals aside, I make no claims. I cite the easily observed fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. I make it based on what? The shirt collar was occluded on Main St., visible on Elm St. How is this phenomenon explained? That is the issue at hand. More precision in framing the argument, please.What are the reasons for the shirt collar being occluded on Main St. but visible on Elm St.? Correct! Thank you for making this key point, Craig. Your observation is contrary to the requirements of the Single Bullet Theory, which assumes the shirt and jacket elevated 2+ inches IN TANDEM. You stipulate to the fact that the collars moved independently; care to reconcile that fact with your SBT, which requires the shirt and jacket below the collars to have moved multi-inches in tandem? Facts: The jacket has padded shoulders, the shirt does not. The jacket has an addition layer of lining, the shirt is a single layer of thin cotton. The shirt was tucked into belted trousers -- the jacket was not. The shirt was buttoned to the neck -- the jacket was not. The shirt collar was held in place with a knotted tie -- the jacket collar was not. Shirts and jackets don't move the same -- the SBT assumes that JFK's did. Your observation goes a long way to demolishing that assumption. (Don't shake your head right now, Craig -- it might fall off.) Correct! Excellent observation, Craig. Key word: "slightly" Slight, casual movements of the body cause slight movements of the clothing, measured in millimeters. The SBT posits a multi-inch movement of the jacket and shirt. Pointing out "slight" movements is inconsistent with your SBT, Craig. Here is an excellent example of what you describe, a fact consistent with my argument. This is JFK in Fort Worth with his head tilted slightly up... Normally, the amount of exposed shirt collar at the nape of JFK's neck would be 1/2", but in that photo it was a few millimeters less. This is a fact, not an assumption, as follows: Distance of the lower margin of JFK's jacket collar to it's upper margin: 1.25" at the nape of the neck. Distance of the lower margin of JFK's shirt collar to it's upper margin 1.75" at the nape of the neck. 1/2" = 12.5mm. Craig Lamson, you are on record defending the theory that JFK's shirt and jacket elevated in tandem some 50 - 75mm, but you cite millimeter movements of clothing that can be accurately measured in single digits. Slight, casual movements cause slight movements of clothing. Thank you for making this key point, Craig. The SBT doesn't posit "slight" movements of clothing. You need 2+ inchs of clothing elevation, Craig -- where in the Dealey Plaza photos can you identify more than a fraction of an inch of jacket elevation? Thrill us with your photo-analytic abilities, Craig. Tell us, on what basis are we to buy the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were both elevated 2" to 3" in this photo, taken on Houston: The jacket was flat on his back, no bulge -- the jacket collar rode above the top of the shirt collar but not all the way into the hairline. Amount of jacket elevation? About an inch, give or take a few millimeters. The Towner film shows a normal amount of exposed shirt collar. The jacket collar dropped an inch, but the back of the jacket below the collar remained elevated a fraction of an inch. A fraction of an inch is not the same thing as multiple inches. But you'll shamelessly pimp this non sequitur until your last breath: 1) The Single Bullet Theory requires 2 to 3 inches of shirt and jacket elevation in tandem, entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck. 2) JFK's jacket was "bunched" in the Croft photo (Z161). 3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2 to 3 inches entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck. (Yes Craig, that is your foot you just shot off. But you've got plenty of ammo and plenty of toes and yer nose left.) "Without the entire jacket dropping." So, your argument that JFK's jacket was bunched up significantly, 2 - 3 inches, is the observation that the jacket moved "without the entire jacket dropping"? How does the entire jacket not dropping equal the jacket bunching up multiple inches? A fraction of an inch of jacket elevation is ALL you can honestly identify, Craig. HOW COULD the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the base of his neck if there were 2+" of jacket and 2+" of shirt bunched up entirely above the in-shoot at the base of his neck? How do disparate, solid objects occupy the same physical space at the same time? The burden of proof is on you to show where in these photos the shirt and jacket were elevated the 2" to 3" your theory requires. Same with the shirt, right? Are you claiming here that the shirts of your clients gave you the same trouble as their suit jackets? Did the fabric around the shoulders of the shirt move just like the fabric around the shoulders of the jacket? No, if you claim it did you'd be lying. The reasons you get bulging jackets and puckered collars is because the jacket isn't tucked into the pants, and the jacket has thicker shoulders. The shirt is tucked into the pants, the shirt doesn't have padded shoulders Btw, you couldn't replicate the movement of clothing required by the SBT even if you reached over and yanked. Don't pull a muscle trying to replicate your theory, Craig. So yes, you are correct to argue that the jacket moves independently of the shirt, which would be the intellectually honest conclusion to draw. But you draw the opposite conclusion when you cite the SBT, Craig. Intellectually indefensible. Craig: (quote on) They simply do not "DROP" with out taking some sort of action. (quote off) Like when JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie, as captured in the Nix. (Coming soon -- "Six From the Nix") Craig: (quote on) As long as the arm is raised the jacket will buckle...fact of life. Also as the subject leans back into his chair the fabric gets trapped in the up position. You need to move the subject away from the seatback and PULL the fabric down. Then you need quite a few pieces of gaffer tape and other sundry devices to keep the bunched jacket manageable. Did JKF use gaffer tape to “drop” his jacket? I think not. (quote off) Please show us where in this photo JFK's jacket "buckled." And please tell us if you use gaffer tape to keep the shirt from riding up. Did you find that the shirt moved JUST LIKE the jacket, and you had a hard time with that too, Craig? Is that what you're going to claim? No, the jacket moved independently of the shirt. The shirt was tucked in, etc. How does this bolster your argument that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2 - 3 inches in tandem? Craig: (quote on) So tell me Cliff. Did you apply the RAZOR to your argument? Looks like the intellectually honest answer would be NO! (quote off) You haven't quoted me making any assumptions. As soon as you directly quote me making a statement that assumes anything, we can argue the point. Craig: (quote on) Why don’t we apply it now? What we know…the collar of the jacket and the collar of the shirt change positions relative to each other. (quote off) Your lack of specificity is inartful, to say the least. What we know: that on Main St. JFK's jacket's bunched up into his hairline, but on Elm St. the jacket collar rode in a normal position at the base of his neck. Craig comes in for the kill: (quote on) Was it caused by: The jacket dropping? The head moving slightly? (quote off) Where have you established that a slight movement of the body will result in anything more than a slight movement of the clothing? That is a key fallacious assumption of yours. Just because there is a slight movement or bunch of the clothing you absurdly assume it involves 2" to 3" of elevated fabric. Craig: (quote on) The jacket collar moving while the bunched fabric remains in the same position? Or a combination of all the above? (quote off) Let's go over them again. 1) The jacket drops. Self-explanatory. 2) The head moved slightly. This involves a slight movement of the clothing. 3) The jacket collar drops but some of the back of the jacket doesn't drop. How does a fraction of an inch of remaining jacket elevation translate into 2" to 3" of elevation of both the shirt and the jacket? Craig: (quote on) Your argument requires a second , as of yet imaginary, shooter…two wounds that are entrance only, and a jacket, “pinned in place” by a raised arm and a body against a seatback to “DROP” (quote off) When you put quotations around words you imply they are mine. I never spoke of a jacket pinned in place. I just track its movements in the motorcade films and photos. Out of one side of your mouth you sanctimoniously invoke "intellectual honesty" while out of the other side of your mouth you carny-bark non-sequitur, as follows. (quote on) The other possibilities listed only require the bunched fabric of the jacket and shirt to not move beyond what is requires for the SBT. (quote off) Where have you established that the clothing moved the multiple inches required by the SBT? Why can't you apply your analysis to specific motorcade photos? What is required by the SBT is multiple inches of shirt and jacket moving in tandem without pushing up on the jacket collar. You can't identify anything like that in the Dealey Plaza films and photos. (Craig concludes with this amazing expression of self-delusion): (quote on) It seems to me that the RAZOR slices and dices your argument to pieces. Of course understanding this requires you summon the intellectual honesty required to overcome the power of yourprejudices. (quote off) Before you can take the RAZOR to my argument you have to quote me directly and in full. Until then, you're just blowing smoke absent anything but the same old dreary lies.

And were Phillips' brother, niece and nephew also similarly dispatched? The guy was fingered as Bishop by his own family did any of his family say they saw him talking to Lee Oswald in Dallas? Veciana saw Maurice Bishop with Oswald. Veciana's composite sketch of Bishop was identified by Phillips' family as Phillips. To sow confusion, no doubt...(snerk)

And were Phillips' brother, niece and nephew also similarly dispatched? The guy was fingered as Bishop by his own family, for crissakes.

What is bullcrap? i apologise, i just had an episode of being fed up. my bad No prob -- I know the feeling!

What is bullcrap?

I must be in the Twilight Zone. From what I know about Gary Mack, he's an absolute sell-out. I guess he couldn't find something else to do for a living. His museum acquires things about the Assassination, which they squirrel away. But his biggest assassination venture was taking people for an open limo ride down Elm Street. The Ultimate Thrill. Gary discovered Badgeman. This is a cop behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll, shooting at Kennedy. HardHatMan is beside him. He has heckled a Professor talking about conspiracy in the past. He is paid to say Oswald did it alone. I don't understand why you have such admiration for him. Kathy Collins Hi Kathy, I hope this does not come across poorly. I certainly don't mean to sound mean. The Museum acquires Assassination materials, but any researcher is welcome to make an appointment to see whatever they are looking for if they have it. The materials are not "squirreled away", they are kept there. With respect to Badgeman, as cool as that find was, the image is not considered hard evidence, as I understand it. It is just not "clear enough." http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htm I realize that alot of people get upset because they feel he has sold out. I don't see that at all. He is kind enough to come here and assist us. That is not selling out, nor is that turning his back on the research community. Over and over, I have seen, here as well as Lancer, a poster with a question, and a little while later, the poster says "I just received an email from Gary Mack...", and it is information that the person needed. I think that's great. He is not hiding anything--he's sharing it. I can't think of a better person to be in his position. Oh, and in actuality, the people responsible for it having to be said that "Oswald acted alone" is us---we have not proven anything, The fact that a conspiracy of 2 or more people killed Kennedy was established by Gaeton Fonzi back in '66. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html Check out the part about Fonzi confronting Arlen Specter over the clothing evidence. You want the solution to the case? Read: THE LAST INVESTIGATION, by Gaeton Fonzi SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, by Larry Hancock BREACH OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight Then study the following three links, keyword: Lansdale... http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g..._CIA_Agent.html http://www.prouty.org/photos.html The assassination of JFK was a failed attempt to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba.

This clown wouldn't know Occam's Razor from the butter knife his Mom uses for his pb&j. The first place you utilize Occam's Razor is YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, to rigorously eliminate the "assumptions" that may be contained within. This takes a degree of intellectual honesty unavailable to Proteus, who doesn't appear to have ever looked outside the box of his own incredibly gullible belief system. To make the knee-jerk claim -- "Conspiracy!" -- to explain every event is justas formulaic as making knee-jerk denials of conspiracy. Every case has to be evaluated on its own facts. To lump Moon Hoax or Chemtrails with the JFK assassination or 9/11 is formulaic thinking at its worst -- the assumption that all investigations into official malfeasance derive from the same "mindset." Isn't it amazing that criminal conspiracies exist at all levels of society -- except, if you buy what Proteus is pimping, at the very top? Is Proteus so enamored of Authority Figures that he cannot imagine any of them conspiring to commit crimes? Oh yes, those writers who conform to Proteus' prejudices do a great job of "busting" conspiracy theories. As far as JFK goes, any actual critical thinking shows otherwise. Take Posner. According to Proteus' hero the recently released Jefferies film shows JFK's jacket "precisely" in the position required by the Single Bullet Theory to align the holes in the clothes with an inshoot at the base of the neck. At four inches below the clothing collars, the bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are at least 2 inches below the in-shoot level of the SBT. http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv Hey Craig, you're the photo analysis expert -- care to note the fact that JFK's shirt collar wasn't visible at the back of his neck in this film, taken 90 seconds before the shooting? Now please follow JFK as he turned the corner onto Elm St. in the Towner film: http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg Can you see JFK's shirt collar at the back of his neck on Elm St, taken within 4 or 5 seconds of the shooting? Nothing "theoretical" here. It is a readily observed FACT that JFK's shirt collar was NOT visible at the back of his neck in footage taken on Main St., but the shirt collar WAS VISIBLE in the footage taken on Elm St. Hmmmm...gee...what could possibly explain that phenomenon? Hey Craig -- did JFK's jacket collar turn magically transparent? No, of course not, that's silly. Did the shirt hike up his neck a couple of inches? No, because he was shot in the throat below the adams apple and there are no bullet holes in the front of the shirt. Besides, a shirt collar is held in place with a button and a knotted tie, while a jacket collar obviously is not. Could it be that... JFK's jacket collar actually DROPPED? Yes, the Houston St. segment of the Nix film shows exactly that. So Posner's claim in "Case Closed" -- that JFK's clothing was "bunched up" in Dealey Plaza -- is debunked by the motorcade films and photos that show just the opposite occuring. The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. But Proteus couldn't bother with the most basic facts of the case. Puts him in company with a surprising number of "CTs." But all Proteus succeeds in doing is displaying his own ignorance of the basicfacts of the JFK case, and an astonishing gullibility in general. [snip disingenuous conflating of Moon Hoax with JFK, 9/11] Unfortunately, Proteus is part of the same old breed of suckers who buy at face value any specious "argument" coming from any figure of "Authority." First is was Lifton, then it was Posner. And because it is so much simpler to lump all these disparate events into one easily disposable bag, he doesn't have to make any effort at research in order to claim he's a superior "critical thinker." Pure psychological projection. Because he is unwilling to face the basic factsof the JFK case, or 9/11, Proteus is free of the burden of making an actual argument. [snip Moon Hoax irrelevancies] Right. The bullet holes in the clothes are 2+ inches below the SBT in-shoot, and the Dealey Plaza films and photos clearly show the jacket dropped. And yet due to Posner's "critical analysis" Proteus will buy the lie that the jacket was "bunched up" multiple inches, despite all evidence to the contrary. P.T. Barnum made a fortune off of guys like this. It appears that Proteus needs authority figures to tell him it's all "okay." Egregious bullxxxx. A four year old could watch the Jefferies, Nix and Towner films and see that the jacket dropped. The holes in the clothes are too low. The SBT is a lie. And those who repeat this lie, like Proteus, simply cannot summon the intellectual honesty required to overcome the power of their prejudices. A Posner devotee citing "intellectual honesty"! I love it. It is SO entertaining to watch these blow-hards make fools of themselves. Proteus is emotionally incapable of believing what his own eyes would show if he bothered to open them and look at the Dealey Plaza films and photos -- the jacket dropped. The holes in the clothes are well below the throat wound. If the jacket was "precisely" in the position required by the SBT in the Jefferies film, as per the Poz, it sure as hell wasn't in that position on Elm St. Anyone with functioning eyeballs can see the difference. Proteus' precious LNT is demolished by the analysis of his own hero, Posner! The universe has a wicked sense of humor, wot?

It's been awhile since I saw the movie, but IIRC it was the George Clooney case officer character who passes by two guys at the CIA training camp and he says, "Hi Jack. Hi Lee." Or something to that effect, fwiw, etc.

Charles, Going into this discussion I figured that you and I were either on the same page, or poles apart. Happily, the former is the case. You see, I'm preparing a website called occamsrazorjfk.net... The utility of Occam's Razor is the elimination of assumption from an argument, or own or other's. We wield William's blade to (1) strengthen our arguments by paring off our own assumptions, (2) and to demolish opposing arguments based on unsupported assumption. For defenders of the SBT to invoke the principle of parsimony, solely because it is "simpler" to fire 3 shots than 4, is the height of irony. There is nothing "simple" about an impossibility. Bullets do not make mid-air course changes on their own power. Multi-inches of bunched up clothing fabric cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time as a jacket collar. This is the non sequitur at the heart of the LNT, in regards to the crucial physical evidence -- the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket. 1) The Single Bullet Theory requires 2+ inches of JFK's jacket and 2+ inches of his shirt to have elevated in tandem entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1. 2) The motorcade photos show that JFK's jacket sometimes had folds in the upper back. 3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket each elevated 2+ inches entirely above C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck. LNers and Vichy CTs trot out this wholly unsupported assumption dressed as an example of Occam's Razor...Ludicrous in the extreme! The jacket actually dropped about an inch in Dealey Plaza -- a fact which directly debunks the theory/fallacy of multi-inch clothing elevation required by the SBT. Here's a little poem about the Jefferies and Towner films... I call this little poem -- "A Fact Cannot Be Plagiarized" - The jacket up on Main St. To fit the S.B.T? http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv The jacket down on Elm St. Four plus shots, conspiracy. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg - JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the nape of his neck in the Jefferies film, taken 90 seconds before the shooting. But JFK's shirt collar was visible in the Towner film, taken just a few seconds before the shooting. Perhaps Craig Lamson (if he's reading) will apply Occam's Razor to this observation. As a supporter of the SBT (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, Mr. Lamson, if you are reading), will you offer a "simple" explanation as to how JFK's jacket collar could fall to a normal position at the base of his neck if there were 2+" of his jacket and 2+" of his shirt bunched up at that same location -- at the base of his neck? I don't blame you should you decide not to answer, Mr. Lamson. Any answer other than an intellectually honest one may draw expressions of ridicule and contempt. A first-rate obfuscationist, that one, even worse, because he's actually done some valuable work, gems amid the ego-driven dreck.

Charles, Going into this discussion I figured that you and I were either on the same page, or poles apart. Happily, the former is the case. You see, I'm preparing a website called occamsrazorjfk.net... The utility of Occam's Razor is the elimination of assumption from an argument, or own or other's. We wield William's blade to (1) strengthen our arguments by paring off our own assumptions, (2) and to demolish opposing arguments based on unsupported assumption. For defenders of the SBT to invoke the principle of parsimony, solely because it is "simpler" to fire 3 shots than 4, is the height of irony. There is nothing "simple" about an impossibility. Bullets do not make mid-air course changes on their own power. Multi-inches of bunched up clothing fabric cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time as a jacket collar. This is the non sequitur at the heart of the LNT, in regards to the crucial physical evidence -- the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket. 1) The Single Bullet Theory requires 2+ inches of JFK's jacket and 2+ inches of his shirt to have elevated in tandem entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1. 2) The motorcade photos show that JFK's jacket sometimes had folds in the upper back. 3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket each elevated 2+ inches entirely above C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck. LNers and Vichy CTs trot out this wholly unsupported assumption dressed as an example of Occam's Razor...Ludicrous in the extreme! The jacket actually dropped about an inch in Dealey Plaza -- a fact which directly debunks the theory/fallacy of multi-inch clothing elevation required by the SBT. Here's a little poem about the Jefferies and Towner films... I call this little poem -- "A Fact Cannot Be Plagiarized" - The jacket up on Main St. To fit the S.B.T? http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv The jacket down on Elm St. Four plus shots, conspiracy. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg - JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the nape of his neck in the Jefferies film, taken 90 seconds before the shooting. But JFK's shirt collar was visible in the Towner film, taken just a few seconds before the shooting. Perhaps Craig Lamson (if he's reading) will apply Occam's Razor to this observation. As a supporter of the SBT (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, Mr. Lamson, if you are reading), will you offer a "simple" explanation as to how JFK's jacket collar could fall to a normal position at the base of his neck if there were 2+" of his jacket and 2+" of his shirt bunched up at that same location -- at the base of his neck? I don't blame you should you decide not to answer, Mr. Lamson. Any answer other than an intellectually honest one may draw expressions of ridicule and contempt. A first-rate obfuscationist, that one, even worse, because he's actually done some valuable work, gems amid the ego-driven dreck.

Charles, what is "the Occam's Razor operation"? I don't see any need to cede the principle of parsimony to the forces covering up the JFK assassination. If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operationthan the "official lone-nut" cover-up, am I some kind of "denier"? Seems clear to me the original "cover-up" plot was to blame the whole thing on Castro. The assassins lost control of the cover-up when Oswald was captured alive. I'm all about ridicule and contempt -- I've got plenty of it archived on Google groups over the last full decade. My deepest animosity is reserved for CT pet theories based on blatantly false LN talking points. In fact, I do not divide the world in LN/CT. I divide the world into those who acknowledge the historical fact that JFK was shot in the back at the level of his 3rd Thoracic Vertebra (T3), and those who peg it at T1 or above. The latter group includes all LNers and a shocking number of CTs. e.g., this piece of utter fraud: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_ev...ing3--Hunt.html It's info war. The fact of conspiracy is/was readily established by thelocation of the holes in the clothes. Gaeton Fonzi established this fact over 40 years ago and yet people bandy about the utterly pernicious notion of "Question of Conspiracy" and a legion of private armchair detectives doggedly set out to "answer" this purported "question." But there hasn't been any "Question" about it, not since Fonzi first published photos of the shirt and it's too-low-for-SBT bullet hole back in 1966. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html I can't help it -- I feel contempt for arguments against the SBT based on anything other than the clothing evidence. That whole business with the NAA analysis was a cock-up between Single Bullet Theorists who posit a "high back wound" whether they were CT or LN. This is part of an e-mail exchange I had with Jim Marrs back in '02: This is Jim's reply to my request. Sadly, the cover-up has taken on a life of its own. 95% of what is written about the JFK assassination is "window dressing" -- and I don't spare myself from this assessment.

Gerald Posner shot himself in the foot last 2/21 on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. From the Gray Lady's website: Gerald Posner: Here's the Jefferies film, taken 90 seconds out. The jacket was "precisely" in the position consistent with the trajectory of the SBT, according to Posner, and please note the shirt collar wasn't visible at the nape of JFK's neck. http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv Here's the Towner film, taken 4+ seconds out. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg The shirt collar is clearly visible at the nape of JFK's neck. The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza -- the exact opposite of the "bunch up" theory to which all LNers must subscribe. The Single Bullet Theory stands debunked by Posner's own analysis.

[Cue Everett Ulysses McGill, Coen Brother's film, "O Brother Where Art Thou?"] "Pete, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." -- The view that a lone assassin shot Kennedy is an article of faith in mainstream journalism/academia. Even those who harbor private doubts would never risk being branded a "conspiracy theorist" by voicing an opinion contrary to the received knowledge that Oswald did the deed all by his lonesome. They pass this "conventional wisdom" down from generation to generation of reporters and historians. In order to be an LNer one must have faith in the essential decency of the American government, at least as it was in 1963. Such a faith is impervious to logic. Witness Ken Rahn, Prof at the University of Rhode Island. He goes on and on about the "physical evidence" but refuses to discuss the implications of the bullet defects in JFK's clothing. If you ask an average citizen if Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy 80% will say yes. 95% of the journalists and historians will say no. Cognitively impaired? Hell yes -- blinded by faith.

Thank you, Michael. From the website... (quote on) Adamson asserts that de Mohrenschildt, prior to his death, told a close friend that a number of oilmen, FBI and CIA agents were behind the JFK assassination. (quote off) One of those oilmen appears to have been the 41st President of these United States. George Herbert Walker Bush pops up all over -- maybe even standing in front of the TSBD on Eleven Twenty Two. Poppy. Every detail of the plot Poppy worked on or otherwise knew about was reported back to W. Averell Harriman, or so I'd speculate. I'll argue that the "New York guys," Harriman-Rockefeller-Morgan, approved of the JFK assassination as a contingency plan. They all wanted Cuba back -- badly. Allen Dulles would have been the other Yankee "eyes-'n-ears" on the assassination-planning team. But in May of '63 Harriman opened back channel discussions with Castro; McGeorge Bundy took point. http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-2.html If the JFK assassination had been successful -- the patsy pinned on Castro and thus precipitating a US invasion in "retaliation" -- then the New York boys and the Texas boys would all have profited from the return of a smuggler-friendly Cuban gov't, as they had with Batista. I'll argue that Harriman was looking to cut a deal with Castro that would effectively cut the "Texas boys" out of the loop as far as ramping up the Cuba-to-Florida smuggling funnel. Harriman did his best to warn Kennedy to stay out of Dallas, I'd speculate. As quoted in Larry Hancock's SOMEONED WOULD HAVE TALKED, Marty Underwood, Democratic National Committee Political Advance Man: (quote on) We were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be assassinated in Dallas; there were no if's, and's, or but's about it. (quote off) I'll argue going forward that Harriman was the source of these leaks, that Harriman had no need to change the status quo in Washington since he was the dominant force in American foreign policy, not JFK. After all, Harriman ordered the overthrow of Diem over Bobby's objections. Harriman had his own State Dept. foreign policy shop and Kennedy was dancing to his tune. Iow, around the Harriman house NSAM 263 was used as toilet paper. Even had he lived, JFK would have faced a Gulf of Tonkin Incident right before the kick-off of the '64 Prez campaign, and the US military would have been drawn into SE Asia as per Harriman's orders -- or so I'd have to speculate. For a bead on Harriman I strongly recommend Debra Conway's work "Versions of Truth": http://www.jfklancer.com/dallas05/ppt/conw...ersions.ppt.htm

So ol' George was doing an "oil deal" with Papa Doc? He spent 14 years in Haiti on this "oil deal"? Just one little problem with this scenario -- if there's oil in Haiti no one has ever bothered to drill for it. How does one spend 14 years on an "oil deal" that never drilled for oil? Cliff, The idea was to build an oil refinery in Haiti. Peter, I'm not sure if DeMohrenschildt was part of that deal. According to Edward Jay Epstein it was an "oil exploration deal" that DeM arranged with Duvalier. A point of correction: DeM spent not 14 years in Haiti working on this non-existent "oil exploration," but 10+. http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diary/dem.htm (quote on) In late 1961— De Mohrenschildt could not pinpoint the date— he said had a lunchtime meeting in downtown Dallas with one of these connections; J. Walter Moore. Moore steered their conversation to the city of Minsk, where, as Moore seemed to know even before he told him, De Mohrenschildt had spent his childhood. Moore worked for the CIA's domestic contact service in Dallas. He told De Mohrenschildt about an ex-American Marine who had worked in an electronics factory in Minsk for the past year, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was returning to the Dallas area. Although no specific requests were made by Moore, De Mohrenschildt gathered that Moore would be appreciative to learn more about Oswald's activities in Minsk.At this time, he was extremely busy trying to arrange for Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator, to approve his oil exploration deal in that country. Some help from the U.S. Embassy in Haiti would be greatly appreciated by him, he suggested to Moore. Although he recognized that there was no quid pro quo, he hoped that he might receive the same sort of tacit assistance that he had previously received in Yugoslavia. "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years, if Moore had not sanctioned it," he explained to me. "Too much was at stake." (quote off) DeM and Charles also acquired a stake in a sisal plantation, but according to Gaeton Fonzi this was "a derelict operation they never went near." (THE LAST INVESTIGATION, pg 313 fn) So the question remains -- why did George DeMohrenschildt spend 10+ years in Haiti when there was no oil to show for this "oil exploration deal"? So in '63 and '64 a series of visitors arrived in Haiti with plans to invest large sums of money in that country. These visitors lacked a "conventionally traceable business background," but they all had close connections to Haitian government officials. And by the end of the decade Haiti would be one of the main conduits for heroin smuggling into the U.S. Co-incidence?