Cliff Varnell

Gary has indicated to me that he is happy with the information as presented. Personally, I think such non-arguments should be exposed.

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.

If Gary emails the answers to me I will post them on the forum. .Thank you, John Gary Mack: Thank you for raising this issue to a more prominent place, whether you respond to my pointed questions or not.

Sure enough, Gary Mack is promoting this non-sequitur to the World. From a Reuters article on the new film: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070219/pl_nm/kennedy_footage_dc And what is Gary Mack's proof that JFK's shirt and jacket both were "riding" 3 inches higher than normal on Elm St.? Can Gary Mack please explain his methodology for determining the amount of "bunch" shown in the new footage? Can Gary Mack determine the difference between 1-inch of "bunch" and 3-inches of "bunch"? To apply two definitions to the same word and use them interchangably is a logical fallacy. Will Gary Mack come on this Forum and defend his use of this non-sequitur? Can Gary Mack demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar could drop to a normal position at the base of his neck -- as clearly shown in the Houston St. segment of the Nix film -- when there were 6 inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up at the base of JFK's neck?

One problem with the overall discussion is the corruption of the word "bunch." SBT defenders for years have used dual, interchangable definitions of the word: "bunch" refers both to ANY fold of fabric, and it refers to the 3 inches of upwardly displaced fabric required by the Single Bullet Theory. This leads to an argument based entirely on non-sequitur: 1) The SBT requires 3 inches of JFK's jacket (and another 3 inches of his shirt) to have been upwardly displaced entirely above the SBT's C7 in-shoot, at the base of JFK's neck. 2) The motorcade photos show there were folds in the jacket. 3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 3 inches above the SBT in-shoot at C7. Let's turn a critical eye to your statement, J. William: The photographic record isn't clear on this issue? I heartily disagree! Here's JFK at Love Field. There is a fraction of an inch of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his neck. The top of the shirt collar is about an inch below his hairline. If his jacket were elevated an inch, the top of the jacket collar would ride over the top of the shirt collar but not ride up into the hairline. Can we agree on that? Here's an image that shows exactly what I'm talking about. JFK on Houston St. The jacket collar clearly rode above the top of the shirt collar (which we cannot see), and it clearly did not ride up into the hairline. A couple of seconds later the jacket collar dropped -- that's why we see the shirt collar at the left-back of JFK's neck in all the Elm St. photo images. As Pat Speer noted recently on this thread -- so what if the jacket were elevated a fraction of an inch? The photo record clearly debunks SBT "bunch." And that's not an opinion.

James -- thanks for posting this. Clearly shows minimal "bunch." J. William, Mark and Bernice -- I appreciate the adult discourse. I'm obviously going to have to raise the level of my presentation...

Look at the position of his left arm. Compare that with the position of his left arm on Elm St.

There is either white shirt or lighter-than-the-jacket Caucasian skin at the left-back of his neck. It's not clear enough to tell, therefore it's in the eye of the beholder. I believe the position of the sun would create shadows toward the right and rear. Whether this would be sufficient to snuff out the strong contrast between a stark white shirt and a dark jacket, I couldn't say. It's possible. Mark, if you have a copy of Unsolved History: Beyond the Magic Bullet -- check out the Houston St. segment of the Nix film. It shows the jacket collar dropping as JFK leaned back from his exchange of pleasantries with Nellie.

Mark, the right side of the back of JFK's neck was in shadow, no? You marked the white band at the left-back of his neck, no?

Look again. The white shirt collar is clearly visible at the back in the later frames. Ditto Betzner #3 cited in my earlier posts. What could be more obvious? Hit enlarge and look at the white band at the base of his neck...

If that were the case then why doesn't the jacket appear that way in ALL the films and photos? Watch the footage and you'll see that JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the nape of his neck. Look at the Elm St. footage and you'll notice that JFK's shirt collar was visible at the nape of his neck. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. That is an irrefutable fact.

Care to share your expertise in this area? How do you differentiate between a "naturally bunched up" coat and an "unnaturally bunched up coat"? Please demonstrate your acumen and tell us just how much is JFK's coat "bunched up" in this photo, taken less than 90 seconds before the assassination. It shouldn't be too difficult to look at the Altgens #5 photo above -- taken on Houston St -- and see that JFK's shirt collar was not visible at that point in the motorcade. Here's a photo taken within a fraction of a second of the first strike, Betzner #3 taken at Z186: It shouldn't be too difficult to look at JFK in the above photo and see that his shirt collar was quite visible at the back of his neck. If the shirt collar wasn't visible on Houston St. but was visible on Elm St then the jacket actually DROPPED. Of course, many in the research community don't want the Parlor Game to end, so this most obvious evidence of 4+ shots is habitually overlooked.

Excellent analysis, John! I'd speculate that, had he lived, JFK would have been sandbagged into increasing American involvement in Vietnam in spite of his stated intentions otherwise. With the American's Vietnam policy in flux in the fall of '63, the hawks had no need to push the panic button (by killing Kennedy) over SE Asia. Cuba was the more pressing problem for them, imo.

HL Hunt was guilty of expressing eccentric political views and his son Bunker admitted contributing towards the cost of the "Welcome Mister Kennedy" newspaper ad, but no member of the Hunt family contributed to the Wanted for Treason pamphlet and there is no credible evidence that any member of HL Hunt's family ever had any hand, act or part in murder. Among those "eccentric" views was an enthusiasm for "shooting the Communists" out of office. Didn't DeMohrenschildt finger Hunt? Didn't Hunt & Murchison own the Dal-Tex Building, which was never searched? Didn't a man with heavy Mafia connections get picked up in that building? Tell us who would otherwise be the top suspect? Hunt says JFK should be shot out of office; the CIA-connected Oswald-pal DeMohrenschildt says Hunt was in on the shooting of JFK (IIRC); Hunt and Murchison co-owned a building that overlook the Plaza and was never searched by the Dallas Police. How much influence did Hunt have with the DPD? Enough to get away with a couple of murders, I'd say. I'm an Oakland Raiders fan. I have a joyous hatred for the Chiefs.

Paul, I'll argue that wasn't enough for Richardson to be "pro-coup" -- Harriman didn't have confidence that Richardson could help manage the coup according to Harriman's terms. For instance, I doubt if Harriman cared if the SVN generals looked like American puppets, or not. Within the circles of Diem's deposed regime -- according to my sources -- Kennedy was blamed for the whole thing. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that anyone but W. Averell Harriman was at the helm of US foreign policy in 1963. Have you actually read SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, or are you content to flick spitballs at the conclusions one might readily draw from it? Cliff, As you well know, the internal documentary record is not kind to Trento’s interpretation. On 26 August 1963, in the approach to the planned coup against Diem of 28/29 August, the then CIA chief of station in Saigon cabled Langley: “Situation here has reached point of no return. Saigon is armed camp. Current indications are that Ngo family have dug in for last ditch battle. It is our considered estimate that General officers…understand that they have no alternative but to go forward… Situation has changed drastically since 21 August. If the Ngo family wins now, they and Vietnam will stagger on to final defeat at the hands of their own people and the VC. Should a generals’ revolt occur and be put down, GVN will sharply reduce American presence in SVN… It is obviously preferable that the generals conduct this effort without apparent American assistance. Otherwise, for a long time in the future, they will be vulnerable to charges of being American puppets, which they are not in any sense…”* In short, when Lodge first demanded John H. Richardson’s dismissal in mid-September 1963, the latter was unquestionably pro-coup. *Francis X. Winters. The Year of the Hare: America in Vietnam, January 25, 1963 – February 15, 1964 (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1997), p.66. A better title for any intended book concerning Cuba and the murder of JFK? "Someone Should Have Invaded." Perhaps Ashton will do the necessary. Paul

Listening to that 11/4/63 tape, I hear Kennedy emphatically indentifying "Harriman at State" as the first of the pro-coup faction in his Administration. What nonsense!http://www.historyhappens.net/archival/vietnam/vietnam.htm As these documents show, Harriman was involved in the myriad details of US policy in Vietnam throughout the Johnson Administration. The fine hands of W. Averell Harriman and his Bush family retainers have held a chokehold on American foreign policy at least since the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA, Joseph Trento, 2001, pp. 334-335: In 1963, Averell Harriman dictated American foreign policy, not the Kennedys, which is why I don't buy the argument that JFK was killed over his Vietnam policy. JFK could make all the speeches he wanted, issue all the memorandums that filled his heart with content -- and at the end of the day it was W. Averell Harriman who got his way. On 11/22/63 Harriman had no need for regime change in Washington -- he was already calling the shots. I'll argue it was Harriman who pushed for rapprochement with Fidel, with whom he was prepared to make semi-exclusive smuggling deals using the drilling platforms of Zapata Offshore as way stations in the Cuba-to-Florida smuggling pipeline. The Texas boys (Murchison/Hunt) were going to get shut out of this very lucrative smuggling business if Harriman got his way in Cuba. They plotted to kill Kennedy in a manner that would clearly implicate Castro and pave the way for a US invasion of Cuba, with the attendent installation of a wide-open-smuggling-friendly government in Havana, as they had with the Batista regime. Or so I'll continue to argue...

I don't want to appear as a nitpicker, but GHW Bush bailed out of Zapata Petroleum in 1959, retaining Zapata Offshore. Bush's Texas Zapata Petroleum partners, the brothers Liedtke, went on to amass a fortune in the oil business; Zapata Offshore found little success drilling for oil in the Caribbean. Webster Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin describe the Zapata split 1959, in GEORGE BUSH: THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY (Chapter 8: "The Permian Basin Gang 1948-59") [emphasis added] http://www.tarpley.net/bush8.htm Why would the Harriman-backed Bush-Walker group take the short end of the stick? Why would these rapacious capitalists make such an incredibly bad business decision? More from Tarpley & Chaitkin [emphasis added]: Hot corner, indeed. Maintainence boats could run from Florida to the Scorpion and back without Customs inspections. An unscrupulous businessman might be tempted to smuggle illicit goods into the country that way... Hmm...Maybe the Harriman/Bush/Walker guys got the better end of the Zapata Petro break-up, after all.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me. You might want to get a second opinion. Ashton seems to be dominating the phrases. His invitations have been telling and his touches are consistently on target in this thread. As a relative newcomer versus the wily veteran, Ashton seems to be holding his own. Michael, The Parlor Game aspect of my discussions with Ashton are of fleeting interest. Let me put the following into evidence, a passage from the Feb. 4 post by Robert Howard: "A Letter to the American People...on the Unspeakable, by James W. Douglass" This speaks to the failure of the JFK assassination. The "Cuba deal" got messed up. How? The patsy survived to proclaim his innocence, which destroyed the under-pinning of the case against Castro.

Pat Speer: Thanks for chiming in, Pat. I'm following my own advice and re-reading SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED. The book deserves study -- and debating the merits of it with people who haven't read it yet seems like a waste of time, imo. http://www.larry-hancock.com/

Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba. Cliff I agree with you that this was ONE express purpose, but that it was "the " express purpose is your opinion. Kennedy was killed for many reasons. Trying to stand up to the CIA, plans to pull out of Viet Nam. I'd say those were pretty "express" reasons as well. And it was no "rogue" anything; this was the top of the top. Dawn ps Ashton: Of course it's my opinion, Dawn. And I'm not even 100% on it -- I'm 95% convinced that JFK was murdered in a false flag operation designed to incite a US military invasion of Cuba. Have you read SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED? As I've argued in prior posts on this thread, there were a lot of individual agendas served by killing Kennedy. But the one unifying agenda was to overthrow Castro. Do you think that Gen. Curtis LeMay gave a rat's ass about the bureaucratic vulnerability of the CIA? Do you think the anti-Castro Cubans involved gave a rat's ass about Vietnam? And, again, if the goal was merely to end JFK's life why didn't they snuff him in his sleep -- which would have been a hell of a lot easier than what transpired in Dallas.

Stan, did PDS write this before the release of the Operation Northwoods documents in 2001 via James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS? To me this makes a lot of sense. The most sense, actually. Now, who is "Group One"?

I'm sorry, Don, there are other more interesting discussions. If I may be so bold to say -- if you aren't studying SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED you're not studying the JFK assassination.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me. You might want to get a second opinion. Ashton The last time I looked, Fidel Castro was still alive. The Commies still run Cuba. If you have any information to the contrary, Ashton, do share it. Otherwise, I'll stand by my argument that the killing of Kennedy failed in its primary objective -- to provide the pre-text for an invasion of Cuba.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me. You might want to get a second opinion. Ashton I have to agree with Ashton on this. The mugs who shot him really blew it. Yes, they blew it when they didn't gun Oswald down before he could be captured alive & proclaim his innocence. For those familiar with Operation Northwoods, the Joint Chiefs required any anti-Castro false flag operation to be able to submit "irrevocable proof" of Castro's involvement. On the afternoon of 11/22/63, Hoover was prepared to produce "proof" that Oswald had been to Cuba. But you knew that, right, Sid? You are familiar with false flag operations? If ALL they wanted to do was end JFK's life, it would have been much easier and far less expensive to kill him in his sleep at his girlfriend's house. That was well within the capability of Helms/Angleton et al. But that wasn't the idea, just to assassinate JFK. The goal was to pin it on Castro, hence the sheep-dipped Oswald, etc. I have a new policy, Sid: I don't discuss this aspect of the case with anyone who hasn't read Larry Hancock's SOMEONED WOULD HAVE TALKED. Have you read this crucial book, Sid? If not, we're wasting each other's time. I do make one exception to my policy: Ashton Gray, because he's soooo much fun to fence with!

Thank you, John Simkin! Thank you, Andy Walker! This Forum is educating and entertaining and I appreciate all your efforts, gentlemen! I don't think I've written anything yet that wouldn't pass muster with the mods, so I don't think they'll have any trouble from me...