Cliff Varnell

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? From THE GREAT HEROIN COUP, by Henrik Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) [by 1970] [t]here were five main heroin export routes to the U.S.A., two by air and three by sea. The shipping lanes emanated from Barcelona, Lisbon, and Antwerp and either ended in Brazil/Paraguay, Haiti and the French West Indies, or went directly to the east coast of the United States. Heroin smuggled into the U.S. from the French Antilles and Haiti, like that from Paraguay, went via Florida or Mexico... Heroin leaving Haiti, the Antilles, Nassau, and the Paraguay-based Ricord Mob wound up in Florida, where Santo Trafficante, Jr. and the Cuban Mafia controlled the drug business in an axis that became the U.S.A.'s most powerful narcotics organization. (quote off) The real importance of Cuba. The GREAT HEROIN COUP, Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) The tight control over the U.S. heroin market by the Cotronis of Montreal and Trafficante of Tampa was a legacy of Meyer Lanksy and Lucky Luciano's reorganization of the U.S. heroin market. Lanksy built himself a fantastic empire headquartered in Havana, and literally governed Cuba over the head of dictator Fulgencio Batista. Lansky became the world's uncrowned narcotics king. His decisions affected everyone, including the bigwigs in France and Italy. He invested in the Marseilles labs and had the Corsicans reorganize themselves more efficiently. When Castro drove him from Cuba, Lansky created a similar gambling paradise in Nassau. (quote off) Alfred W. McCoy, THE POLITICS OF HEROIN, pp 40-41: (quote on) [Mafia capo di tutti capi Lucky] Luciano's 1947 visit to Cuba laid the groundwork for Havana's subsequent role in international narcotics smuggling traffic. Arriving in January, Luciano summoned the leaders of American organized crime, including Meyer Lansky, to Havana for a meeting and began paying extravagant bribes to prominent Cuban officials as well..."Cuba was to be made the center of all international narcotics operations." Harry J. Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics... ...By the early 1950s...[santo Trafficante Jr.]'s official position in Havana was that of manager of the Sans Souci Casino, but he was far more important than his title indicates. As his father's financial representative, and ultimately Meyer Lansky's, Santo controlled much of Havana's tourist industry and became quite close to the pre-Castro dictator Fulgencio Batista. Moreover, it was reportedly his responsibility to receive the bulk shipments of heroin from Europe and forward them through Florida to New York and other major urban centers where their distribution was assisted by local Mafia leaders. (quote off) So with all that heroin being funneled from Europe thru Cuba into Florida, who do we find camped out in the Florida Straits in 1957 and 1958? Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency, with his Zapata Off-Shore oil exploration company, an off-shoot of Zapata Petroleum, the oil company Bush co-owned with the Liedtke brothers until 1959. From GEORGE BUSH: THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin http://www.tarpley.net/bush8.htm (quote on) The first asset of Zapata Offshore was the SCORPION, a $ 3.5 million deep-sea drilling rig that was financed by $1.5 million from the initial stock sale plus another $2 million from bonds marketed with the help of Uncle Herbie [Walker]. The SCORPION was the first three-legged self-elevating mobile drilling barge... The SCORPION was delivered early in 1956, and was commissioned at Galveston in March, 1956, and was put to work at exploratory drilling in the Gulf of Mexico during the rest of the year. ...As for the SCORPION, during part of 1957 it was under contract to the Bahama-California Oil Company, drilling between Florida and Cuba. It was then leased by Gulf Oil and Standard Oil of California, on whose behalf it started drilling during 1958 at a position on the Cay Sal Bank, 131 miles south of Miami, Florida, and just 54 miles north of Isabela, Cuba. Cuba was an interesting place just then; the US-backed insurgency of Fidel Castro was rapidly undermining the older US-imposed regime of Fulgencio Batista. That meant that SCORPION was located at a hot corner. (quote off) Odd thing about Zapata Offshore -- it never made any money. Tarpley and Chaitkin describe the odd dynamic between Bush and the "New York guys" (Harriman/Walker/Bush) and the Liedtkes of Oklahoma. (quote on) During 1957 a certain divergence began to appear between Uncle Herbie Walker, Bush, and the "New York guys" on the one hand, and the Liedtke brothers and their Tulsa backers on the other. As the annual report for that year noted, "There is no doubt that the drilling business in the Gulf of Mexico has become far more competitive in the last six months than it has been at any time in the past." Despite that, Bush, Walker and the New York investors wanted to push forward into the offshore drilling and drilling services business, while the Liedtkes and the Tulsa group wanted to concentrate on acquiring oil in the ground and natural gas deposits. The 1958 annual report notes that with no major discoveries made, 1958 had been "a difficult year." It was, of course, the year of the brutal Eisenhower recession. SCOPRPION, VINEGAROON, and NOLA I, the offshore company's three drilling rigs, could not be kept fully occupied in the Gulf of Mexico during the whole year, and so Zapata Offshore had lost $524,441, more than Zapata Petroleum's own loss of $427,752 for that year. The Liedtke viewpoint was reflected in the notation that "disposing of the offshore business had been considered." The great tycoon Bush conceded in the Zapata Offshore annual report for 1958: "We erroneously predicted that most major [oil] companies would have active drilling programs for 1958. These drilling programs simply did not materialize..." (quote off) So the Oklahoma boys kept the oil production side of the business and the New York guys kept the never profitable Zapata Off-shore. Did Zapata Off-shore's "drilling services business" include sending maintenance boats out to the drilling platforms and back to the mainland without customs checks of any kind? It was an ideal set-up for anyone inclined to run smuggling operations. The Liedtke's went on to great success with Zapata Petroleum; George Bush got out of Zapata Off-shore in 1966 to devote full-time to Texas politics. Why would shrewd businessmen like Bunny Harriman and George Herbert Walker pour money into an unprofitable business, Zapata Offshore, and favor that business over one that had so much more potential, Zapata Petroleum? George Bush got in bed with the CIA from the git-go, co-founding (with the Liedtke brothers) Zapata Petroleum along with a CIA operative named Thomas J. Devine. http://realnews.org/rn/content/zapata.html Devine officially worked on a CIA operation called WUBRINY. From the 11/29/75 CIA memo: (quote on) “Mr George Bush [the CIA director-designate] has prior knowledge of the now terminated project WUBRINY/LPDICTUM which was involved in proprietary commercial operations in Europe.” (quote off) An Agency man code-named WUBRINY/1 relates in these memos meeting a George DeMohrenschildt and a Clemard Joseph Charles in April of 1963. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...c.do?docId=8627 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=32361 It appears that WUBRINY was involved in commercial operations in both Europe and Haiti.

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? From THE GREAT HEROIN COUP, by Henrik Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) [by 1970] [t]here were five main heroin export routes to the U.S.A., two by air and three by sea. The shipping lanes emanated from Barcelona, Lisbon, and Antwerp and either ended in Brazil/Paraguay, Haiti and the French West Indies, or went directly to the east coast of the United States. Heroin smuggled into the U.S. from the French Antilles and Haiti, like that from Paraguay, went via Florida or Mexico... Heroin leaving Haiti, the Antilles, Nassau, and the Paraguay-based Ricord Mob wound up in Florida, where Santo Trafficante, Jr. and the Cuban Mafia controlled the drug business in an axis that became the U.S.A.'s most powerful narcotics organization. (quote off) The real importance of Cuba. The GREAT HEROIN COUP, Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) The tight control over the U.S. heroin market by the Cotronis of Montreal and Trafficante of Tampa was a legacy of Meyer Lanksy and Lucky Luciano's reorganization of the U.S. heroin market. Lanksy built himself a fantastic empire headquartered in Havana, and literally governed Cuba over the head of dictator Fulgencio Batista. Lansky became the world's uncrowned narcotics king. His decisions affected everyone, including the bigwigs in France and Italy. He invested in the Marseilles labs and had the Corsicans reorganize themselves more efficiently. When Castro drove him from Cuba, Lansky created a similar gambling paradise in Nassau. (quote off) Alfred W. McCoy, THE POLITICS OF HEROIN, pp 40-41: (quote on) [Mafia capo di tutti capi Lucky] Luciano's 1947 visit to Cuba laid the groundwork for Havana's subsequent role in international narcotics smuggling traffic. Arriving in January, Luciano summoned the leaders of American organized crime, including Meyer Lansky, to Havana for a meeting and began paying extravagant bribes to prominent Cuban officials as well..."Cuba was to be made the center of all international narcotics operations." Harry J. Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics... ...By the early 1950s...[santo Trafficante Jr.]'s official position in Havana was that of manager of the Sans Souci Casino, but he was far more important than his title indicates. As his father's financial representative, and ultimately Meyer Lansky's, Santo controlled much of Havana's tourist industry and became quite close to the pre-Castro dictator Fulgencio Batista. Moreover, it was reportedly his responsibility to receive the bulk shipments of heroin from Europe and forward them through Florida to New York and other major urban centers where their distribution was assisted by local Mafia leaders. (quote off) So with all that heroin being funneled from Europe thru Cuba into Florida, who do we find camped out in the Florida Straits in 1957 and 1958? Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency, with his Zapata Off-Shore oil exploration company, an off-shoot of Zapata Petroleum, the oil company Bush co-owned with the Liedtke brothers until 1959. From GEORGE BUSH: THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin http://www.tarpley.net/bush8.htm (quote on) The first asset of Zapata Offshore was the SCORPION, a $ 3.5 million deep-sea drilling rig that was financed by $1.5 million from the initial stock sale plus another $2 million from bonds marketed with the help of Uncle Herbie [Walker]. The SCORPION was the first three-legged self-elevating mobile drilling barge... The SCORPION was delivered early in 1956, and was commissioned at Galveston in March, 1956, and was put to work at exploratory drilling in the Gulf of Mexico during the rest of the year. ...As for the SCORPION, during part of 1957 it was under contract to the Bahama-California Oil Company, drilling between Florida and Cuba. It was then leased by Gulf Oil and Standard Oil of California, on whose behalf it started drilling during 1958 at a position on the Cay Sal Bank, 131 miles south of Miami, Florida, and just 54 miles north of Isabela, Cuba. Cuba was an interesting place just then; the US-backed insurgency of Fidel Castro was rapidly undermining the older US-imposed regime of Fulgencio Batista. That meant that SCORPION was located at a hot corner. (quote off) Odd thing about Zapata Offshore -- it never made any money. Tarpley and Chaitkin describe the odd dynamic between Bush and the "New York guys" (Harriman/Walker/Bush) and the Liedtkes of Oklahoma. (quote on) During 1957 a certain divergence began to appear between Uncle Herbie Walker, Bush, and the "New York guys" on the one hand, and the Liedtke brothers and their Tulsa backers on the other. As the annual report for that year noted, "There is no doubt that the drilling business in the Gulf of Mexico has become far more competitive in the last six months than it has been at any time in the past." Despite that, Bush, Walker and the New York investors wanted to push forward into the offshore drilling and drilling services business, while the Liedtkes and the Tulsa group wanted to concentrate on acquiring oil in the ground and natural gas deposits. The 1958 annual report notes that with no major discoveries made, 1958 had been "a difficult year." It was, of course, the year of the brutal Eisenhower recession. SCOPRPION, VINEGAROON, and NOLA I, the offshore company's three drilling rigs, could not be kept fully occupied in the Gulf of Mexico during the whole year, and so Zapata Offshore had lost $524,441, more than Zapata Petroleum's own loss of $427,752 for that year. The Liedtke viewpoint was reflected in the notation that "disposing of the offshore business had been considered." The great tycoon Bush conceded in the Zapata Offshore annual report for 1958: "We erroneously predicted that most major [oil] companies would have active drilling programs for 1958. These drilling programs simply did not materialize..." (quote off) So the Oklahoma boys kept the oil production side of the business and the New York guys kept the never profitable Zapata Off-shore. Did Zapata Off-shore's "drilling services business" include sending maintenance boats out to the drilling platforms and back to the mainland without customs checks of any kind? It was an ideal set-up for anyone inclined to run smuggling operations. The Liedtke's went on to great success with Zapata Petroleum; George Bush got out of Zapata Off-shore in 1966 to devote full-time to Texas politics. Why would shrewd businessmen like Bunny Harriman and George Herbert Walker pour money into an unprofitable business, Zapata Offshore, and favor that business over one that had so much more potential, Zapata Petroleum?

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? From THE GREAT HEROIN COUP, by Henrik Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) [by 1970] [t]here were five main heroin export routes to the U.S.A., two by air and three by sea. The shipping lanes emanated from Barcelona, Lisbon, and Antwerp and either ended in Brazil/Paraguay, Haiti and the French West Indies, or went directly to the east coast of the United States. Heroin smuggled into the U.S. from the French Antilles and Haiti, like that from Paraguay, went via Florida or Mexico... Heroin leaving Haiti, the Antilles, Nassau, and the Paraguay-based Ricord Mob wound up in Florida, where Santo Trafficante, Jr. and the Cuban Mafia controlled the drug business in an axis that became the U.S.A.'s most powerful narcotics organization. (quote off) The real importance of Cuba. The GREAT HEROIN COUP, Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) The tight control over the U.S. heroin market by the Cotronis of Montreal and Trafficante of Tampa was a legacy of Meyer Lanksy and Lucky Luciano's reorganization of the U.S. heroin market. Lanksy built himself a fantastic empire headquartered in Havana, and literally governed Cuba over the head of dictator Fulgencio Batista. Lansky became the world's uncrowned narcotics king. His decisions affected everyone, including the bigwigs in France and Italy. He invested in the Marseilles labs and had the Corsicans reorganize themselves more efficiently. When Castro drove him from Cuba, Lansky created a similar gambling paradise in Nassau. (quote off) Alfred W. McCoy, THE POLITICS OF HEROIN, pp 40-41: (quote on) [Mafia capo di tutti capi Lucky] Luciano's 1947 visit to Cuba laid the groundwork for Havana's subsequent role in international narcotics smuggling traffic. Arriving in January, Luciano summoned the leaders of American organized crime, including Meyer Lansky, to Havana for a meeting and began paying extravagant bribes to prominent Cuban officials as well..."Cuba was to be made the center of all international narcotics operations." Harry J. Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics... ...By the early 1950s...[santo Trafficante Jr.]'s official position in Havana was that of manager of the Sans Souci Casino, but he was far more important than his title indicates. As his father's financial representative, and ultimately Meyer Lansky's, Santo controlled much of Havana's tourist industry and became quite close to the pre-Castro dictator Fulgencio Batista. Moreover, it was reportedly his responsibility to receive the bulk shipments of heroin from Europe and forward them through Florida to New York and other major urban centers where their distribution was assisted by local Mafia leaders. (quote off)

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? From THE GREAT HEROIN COUP, by Henrik Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) [by 1970] [t]here were five main heroin export routes to the U.S.A., two by air and three by sea. The shipping lanes emanated from Barcelona, Lisbon, and Antwerp and either ended in Brazil/Paraguay, Haiti and the French West Indies, or went directly to the east coast of the United States. Heroin smuggled into the U.S. from the French Antilles and Haiti, like that from Paraguay, went via Florida or Mexico... Heroin leaving Haiti, the Antilles, Nassau, and the Paraguay-based Ricord Mob wound up in Florida, where Santo Trafficante, Jr. and the Cuban Mafia controlled the drug business in an axis that became the U.S.A.'s most powerful narcotics organization. (quote off)

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?

That was Plan B. Plan A was to frame Castro. The assassination of JFK was DESIGNED to look like a conspiracy. Looks like a clear shot from Black Dog Man at Z199. Consistent with a blood soluble round, consistent with the damage found on the x-ray. I'd never reach a firm conclusion on the basis of a single witness. But that's me...Wim, how did the exiting fragment leave a hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process and a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1? This is arguably the most ignored evidence in the case. Chuckle... Jackie Kennedy saw him get hit. She emerged from behindthe freeway sign looking right at him and crying out -- "What are they doing to you?" The ultimate patsy lived in Havana. It was supposed to look like a conspiracy, with who knows how many patsies in the waiting.

Gil, Fwiw, I'm with you. Your analysis is consistent with my view that JFK was struck in the throat circa Z199 by a blood soluble round which nicked his trachea, bruised the tip of his right lung, caused a hairline fracture of the right tip of his T1 transverse process, and, upon dissolution, left a subcutaneous air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. The blood soluble paralytic developed for the CIA by Charles Senseney was roughly the size of a .22 and left the victim paralyzed in two seconds. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf This is consistent with the paralysis JFK exhibited after Z237. He stopped trying to cough up the bullet due to this paralysis. Some have noted his left forefinger pointing to the north side of Elm St as if he were pointing to the shooter, but now I'd conclude that he was using his left forefinger to loosen his tie and subsequently froze in that position. I find this scenario consistent with Jackie's testimony that JFK had a "quizzical" look on his face, and Kellerman's report that Jackie cried out -- "What are they doing to you?"

I promoted this view for years. I was wrong. When one reads the original Starnes dispatch it is clear that those quotes came from a variety of sources within the US military command in Vietnam, the US Embassy in Saigon, and, Arthur Krock speculated, the United States Information Agency. The money quote was originally attributed to a "US official": I don't think this came from a military man, given it's context in the original Starnes article. The Taylor-leaked-forewarning scenario was My Pet Theory. And, like Tony Soprano, I know what it's like to lose a pet...

Although Gary Mack accuses me of promoting a "theory," Gary has acknowledged the jacket drop as a fact -- at least, that's how I would interpret the following exchange between us last Friday. To which I responded: Alas, Gary did not respond to that last question. Gary's comment appears to acknowledge the historical fact that JFK's jacket collar dropped to a normal position at the base of his neck in Dealey Plaza -- instantly debunking the theory that there were 6 inches of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up at the base of his neck. Gary's comment -- note the double negative -- appears to reveal a degree of interest in this crucial historical fact. Isn't it interesting that Gary Mack would make a big deal about the un-proven degree of "bunching" seen in Jefferies but downplay as a "theory" a fact he can see with his own eyes?

Thank you, Chris! I see white shirt collar at the left back of JFK's neck in that frame. I don't see white shirt collar at the back in Jefferies. I see white shirt collar in Towner -- more than ever! And, of course, there's the white shirt collar in Betzner a split second before JFK was first struck. The jacket dropped. Not a theory, an easily observed fact.

Thank you, Chris! Wow! That's the best I've ever seen the Towner film. The shirt collar is clearly visible at the back of his neck, and the bowed out "bulge" is also quite visible. No matter if the "bulge" is similar to the one in Jefferies -- the jacket clearly dropped from its position in Jefferies. And how is it the "bulge" didn't pick up any sunshine in Betzner #3. Funny how a 1/2" shirt collar caught sunshine but 6 inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric remained in shadow. Chris, do you have access to a good copy of the Nix film? And could you post a frame from the Towner film after the first motorcycle cop passes? TIA... Cliff, Probably the best I have of this request. Don't know what the white lines are in Towner, but I got the best I could without it going across his back. Both enlarged and slightly enhanced for contrast. chris Fantastic! Thanks Chris! One thing Gary Mack is right about -- the Groden copies of these films are crap. New detail in the Nix frame -- the dimpled jacket, and a slight jacket bulge. His shirt collar is not visible in that frame. Also, compare the two Towner frames. In the earlier frame, the "tip" of the jacket bulge pokes above the right shoulder-line. In the later frame, the right shoulder-line is smooth. And, of course, the shirt collar is clearly visible at the back of the neck in Towner. Chris, during a later frame in the Nix film JBC is positioned equally between Jackie and JFK. In that frame the shirt collar is visible. Could you grab that frame? TIA, my friend.

Thank you, Chris! Wow! That's the best I've ever seen the Towner film. The shirt collar is clearly visible at the back of his neck, and the bowed out "bulge" is also quite visible. No matter if the "bulge" is similar to the one in Jefferies -- the jacket clearly dropped from its position in Jefferies. And how is it the "bulge" didn't pick up any sunshine in Betzner #3. Funny how a 1/2" shirt collar caught sunshine but 6 inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric remained in shadow. Chris, do you have access to a good copy of the Nix film? And could you post a frame from the Towner film after the first motorcycle cop passes? TIA...

Gary Mack has written in reply to this post: I replied thusly, in part: Gary responded: Fair enough.I have twice offered to retract my characterization of Gary's description of "part of his shirt collar" in Towner if Gary would kindly point out to me where in the Towner film the shirt collar is NOT visible at the back of JFK's neck. I await Gary's response, although I'm not holding my breath. In the later frames of the Towner film, the MOST prominent aspect of JFK is his shirt collar at the back of his head. Posner's analysis of Jefferies is debunked by the documented drop of JFK's jacket, which Gary Mack has observed. The two key stipulations in this analysis are: 1) JFK's shirt collar was visible at the back of his neck on Elm St. 2) The "bunch" seen on Elm St. was a "bulge." The importance of the visible shirt collar should be obvious -- it means the jacket dropped in order to expose the shirt collar. The significance of the fabric "bulge" should also be obvious. A bulge is a "swelling outward." Middle-aged "bulge" means the waist-line expands -- it does not mean that the stomach rides up into the chest. "Out" and "up" are not the same thing. Gary Mack's analysis corroborates the observation that the jacket dropped, and the fabric below the collar was a "bulge" outward, not a "bunch" upward. This is Gerald Posner on the Op-Ed page of the NY Times, Wednesday, February 21, 2007: By noting the visible shirt collar and outward fabric bulge on Elm St, Gary Mack has destroyed Posner's SBT, which requires JFK's jacket to ride up into his hairline. As Gary Mack has corroborated (albeit unintentionally), the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Thank you, Gary!

Thank you, Michael. It should also be noted that Robert Groden in The Killing of a President referred to the bullet hole in the shirt as "uncontested" evidence of conspiracy. The early researchers got it right.

Last week I had the following exchange with Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, in regards to the newly released Jefferies film, taken 90 seconds before the shooting. The Jefferies film shows the jacket riding up into JFK's hairline. http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv Gary and I compared the Jefferies film with the Towner film: http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg The two key stipulations in this analysis are: 1) JFK's shirt collar was visible at the back of his neck on Elm St. 2) The "bunch" seen on Elm St. was a "bulge." The importance of the visible shirt collar should be obvious -- it means the jacket dropped in order to expose the shirt collar. The significance of the fabric "bulge" should also be obvious. A bulge is a "swelling outward." Middle-aged "bulge" means the waist-line expands -- it does not mean that the stomach rides up into the chest. "Out" and "up" are not the same thing. Gary Mack's analysis corroborates the observation that the jacket dropped, and the fabric below the collar was a "bulge" outward, not a "bunch" upward. This is Gerald Posner on the Op-Ed page of the NY Times, Wednesday, February 21, 2007: By noting the visible shirt collar and outward fabric bulge on Elm St, Gary Mack has destroyed Posner's SBT, which requires JFK's jacket to ride up into his hairline. As Gary Mack has corroborated (albeit unintentionally), the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Thank you, Gary!

According to Jim Marrs this "insignificant" matter of the holes in the clothes is the single most important piece of evidence in the case. Gaeton Fonzi has also endorsed the holes in the clothes as key to demolishing the Lone Nut theory (THE LAST INVESTIGATION.) Ditto Noel Twyman in BLOODY TREASON. Meanwhile, Gerald Posner claims that the Jefferies film on Main St. shows the jacket in the precise location required to reconcile the holes in the clothes with the SBT in-shoot 3 inches higher. Note the jacket rode over the top of the shirt collar. http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv But the Towner film images on Elm St. -- taken within 5 seconds of the shooting -- clearly show the shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg Jacket up on Main St. Jacket down on Elm St. Ergo, the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, the SBT thus stands debunked. What could be more simple, obvious, un-debatable?

Bingo! A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt -- especially the slim cut Euro number favored by JFK -- only has a fraction of an inch of available slack to allow the wearer to move comfortably and look good. Lone Nutters and their Vichy-CT partners (hi John Hunt!) couldn't get a tucked-in shirt to ride up 3 inches if they reached back and pulled with both hands. The corroborating evidence of the T3 back wound is mountainous: 3 official contemporaneous documents and the witness statements of more than a dozen people who got a good, prolonged look at the wound. JFK's back wound was at T3 -- no theory, just fact.

Ash, The Jefferies film is important only because it allowed LNers like Gerald Posner to step into an evidentiary trap. According to Posner, the Jefferies film shows JFK's jacket in the "precise" location required by the SBT. In Jefferies, the jacket rode up over the top of the shirt collar. But in the Towner film -- taken within a few seconds of the shooting -- the shirt collar is clearly visible. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg Ergo, the jacket dropped, and by Posner's own analysis the SBT is debunked. The JFK cover-up has destroyed itself over this issue, mark my words. I don't think it's the end of the cover-up at all, really. Why not? All it takes is for an aroused citizenry to demand the mainstream media give coverage to the Towner film -- which according to Posner's own analysis destroys the SBT. What evidence could be more simple, concrete, irrefutable? Jacket up on Main St, jacket down on Elm St. Jacket down = 4+ shots and thus a conspiracy covered-up at the highest level of the US government. How does it get any more simple and obvious than that? That's the point. Rome wasn't built in a day and the JFK cover-upwon't be destroyed in a day. Posner made a serious mis-step -- he drew a conclusion from a film that is obviously trumped by another film. We need to rub the Towner film in the noses of the Big Liars like the New York Times. So? It's an information war. Posner claims the jacket was up on Main St., but the Dealey Plaza films and photos show the jacket dropped. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. The German people had to come to terms with their Nazi past. The Soviet people had to come to terms with their Stalinist past. The American people need to come to terms with the fact that the 35th President of the United States was murdered as the result of a conspiracy, which was covered up at the highest levels of the US government. The well documented drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza is the handiest cudgel with which we can beat this fact into the heads of the mainstream media. I don't care how long it takes: that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy is not a theory, it is an easily observed historical fact.

Ash, The Jefferies film is important only because it allowed LNers like Gerald Posner to step into an evidentiary trap. According to Posner, the Jefferies film shows JFK's jacket in the "precise" location required by the SBT. In Jefferies, the jacket rode up over the top of the shirt collar. But in the Towner film -- taken within a few seconds of the shooting -- the shirt collar is clearly visible. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg Ergo, the jacket dropped, and by Posner's own analysis the SBT is debunked. The JFK cover-up has destroyed itself over this issue, mark my words.

This isn't Betzner. This is Willis #5. John Hunt did some good work rotating the photo to match the horizon line... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Willis.jpg

Croft shows a 3/4" jacket fold bowed OUT. But Croft is irrelevant due to the fact that JFK's posture changed circa Z176 when he turned to the right and raised his right arm to wave. This posture change knocked the 3/4" fold down about a half-inch. Please note the fabric was bowed OUT in Croft, but there is SHADOW in that location in Betzner. IOW, the sunshine would have caught the fabric if it had been bowed out. Betzner #3 trumps all other photos. The jacket was elevated 1/8" in a location consistent with the well-corroborated wound at T3. Who's gonna tell the Times? I feel like the Dennis Hopper character in APOCALYPSE NOW... "Who's gonna tell 'em?? ME?? Wrong!!"

It's telling that Posner scoffs at taking actual measurements. Does dear Gerald recognize the difference between 3 millimeters and 3 inches, especially in this context? Nothing grainy about this photo, taken at Love Field, which shows JFK's 1.25" jacket collar at the nape of his neck. It shows the top of the jacket collar a fraction of an inch below the top of his shirt collar. It shows the top of the shirt collar about an inch below the hairline. Why does Posner scoff at these measurements? Because the SBT requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated in tandem a good 3 inches -- a location well above JFK's hairline. That's 6 inches of clothing fabric "bunched up" entirely above the C7 SBT in-shoot. Is that what the Dealey Plaza photos show? And what is Posner's methodology for making this "precise" determination?He doesn't have any. We are expected to take his word for it. What do the motorcade photos actually show? The photo on the right is of JFK in Fort Worth 11/22/63, the photo on the left was taken on Main St. within seconds of the "new" footage. Note that JFK's shirt collar is visible in the photo on the right, but not in the left. Note JFK's posture on Main St. -- head turned to the right, right arm waving. This posture is similar to his posture in Betzner #3 at Z186. In Betzner -- as with all the Elm St. images -- the shirt collar is clearly visible at the left back of his neck. It has been pointed out that the white band at the base of JFK's neck may be skin -- either way, the jacket is clearly elevated no more than a fraction of an inch. The obvious conclusion: JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza! Any good copy of the Houston St. segment of the Nix film shows the jacket collar dropping, exposing the shirt collar. (I'm currently working on getting these images up.) This is the Bunch Non Sequitur, upon which Lone Assassin Theory is based: 1) The SBT requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated 3 inches each in tandem. 2) Some motorcade photos show JFK's jacket "bunched up." 3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 3" in tandem. Will Gerald Posner -- or John Hunt, for that matter -- defend this with any sort of fact based argument? Of course not. They never do.

Same reason the jacket moves into different positions - he shifts, the jacket shifts. He lifts his arm, the jacket shifts. He pivots, the jacket shifts. The brace, wrapped motionless around his body, might affect the jacket when he was in certain positions but not in others. That seems simple enough. Mark, take a look at your own clothing when you move. If you move a little, your clothing moves a little. If you move a lot, your clothing moves a lot. Bunch Theory is predicated on the notion that JFK's clothing moved a lot when he only moved a little. The back brace was wrapped around his waist, not his shoulders. James Richards posted one earlier in this thread. I'd contend the Altgens #5 photo I've posted twice now shows a smooth jacket. The jacket collar rode up over the top of the shirt collar -- and then the jacket collar dropped. I guess I'm going to have to break down and develope a site where these photos are compared. I thought it was an obvious point, but I guess I thought wrong...

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't we see it in every photo of the jacket? Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture. It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so. It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric. And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument for it! All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me. Good god Cliff. All I did was post a photo of the infamous back brace and clearly state: "Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket." In other words I wasn't promoting anything or taking a stand one war or another, for or against. Just posting a photo of one thing President Kennedy wore when he was murdered that is rarely seen. Myra, I was making an observation about your comment. I'm not attributing anything to you one way or the other. It seems like a simple question: if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket, why doesn't this impact show in all the photos and films, not just a couple?

Gary Mack has indicated that he'd like me to post our private exchange, and I'm happy to do so. Let's review. Here is the passage from the Reuters article with which I've taken exception: I'll argue that JFK's coat was never "riding" higher than an inch in Dealey Plaza, and then the jacket dropped. I have put the following questions to Gary: Here is what Gary wrote to me privately this morning: I responded with the following: Gary responded with the following: In response to the above, I posted the following on this thread: Gary then IM'd the following: Consider it posted, Gary. But the central question remains un-answered: How could 6 inches of clothing fabric ride up above the SBT C7 in-shoot at the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of JFK's neck? This scenario -- disparate, solid objects occupying the same physical space at the same time -- is contrary to the nature of reality. And thus, the SBT stands debunked. Bunch Theorists like Gary and John Hunt et al NEVER defend their claims, they are content to merely repeat them over and over and over...