Cliff Varnell

Most of the absolute "facts" are out there, and to a great majority they have been discovered and presented by those who for whatever reason decided that these facts represent ONLY multiple assassins, body snatch and alteration specialist, and giant conspiracies which encompass half of the persons surrounding the event.

If one choses to accept these multitudes of explanations for the "facts", then most likely in another 100 years, the subject matter will be only more confused.

I have to agree. It's hard to imagine any new "facts" coming forth at this time - only more elderly men claiming involvement, or sons (or $$ partners) of same.

Apparently, Richard Nixon thought that "elderly man" lead back to

"the Bay of Pigs thing," which, according to Nixon chief-of-staff

H. R. Haldeman in The Ends of Power, was a code-name for

the Kennedy assassination.

I think E. Howard Hunt's pre-mature death bed confession in 2004

should not be summarily dismissed.

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/300407jfktape.mp3

Sorry, Hoover never attempted to make a case linking Oswald to Cuba.

Sure he did.

From David Talbot's Brothers, pg 10, emphasis added:

(quote on)

...(I)t's important to note that [bobby] Kennedy apparently never jumped

to the conclusion that afternoon that Fidel Castro -- the target of so much

U.S. intrigue -- was behind his brother's killing. It was the anti-Castro

camp where Bobby's suspicions immediately flew, not pro-Castro agents.

...Bobby came to this conclusion despite the energetic efforts of the CIA

and the FBI, which almost immediately after the assassination began

trying to pin the blame on Castro's government. Hoover himself

phoned Kennedy again around four that afternoon to inform him that

Oswald had shuttled in and out of Cuba, which was untrue...[T]he

FBI chief failed to convince Bobby that the alleged assassin was a

Castro agent.

(quote off)

The Oswald-as-Castro-agent scenario was headed off at the pass

around 7 o'clock DC time, when who should meet the new President

within minutes of his arrival at the White House?...W. Averell Harriman.

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

(quote off)

Wow. That's some crack investigative team -- "the U.S. government's top

Kremlinologists."

It took them about 5 hours to get to the bottom of this crime -- at least to

the point they could unanimously exclude the Russians as suspects.

Maybe "the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists" should have been handed

the case instead of the FBI!

Seriously folks, W. Averell Harriman was calling the shots in American foreign

policy in November, 1963.

Here's John F. Kennedy describing on tape (11/4/63) the overthrow of Diem

in Vietnam on 11/1/63:

(quote on, emphasis added)

President Kennedy: Opposed to the coup was General [Maxwell] Taylor, the

Attorney General [Robert Kennedy], Secretary [Robert] McNamara to a somewhat

lesser degree, John McCone, partly based on an old hostility to [Henry Cabot] Lodge

[Jr.] which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgment, partly as a result

of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his [CIA] station chief; in favor of the

coup was State, led by Averell Harriman,George Ball, Roger Hilsman, supported

by Mike Forrestal at the White House.

(quote off)

Harriman over-ruled Bobby on the Diem coup.

By November of 1963 Harriman was getting his way in SE Asia (and Cuba.)

As Debra Conway highlights in her 2005 NID Conference presentation,

Harriman's foreign policy agenda was often separate from JFK's.

http://jfklancer.com/dallas05/ppt/conway/versions.ppt.htm

From Brothers, pg 217:

(quote on)

The Pentagon and CIA were taking secret steps to sabotage his [Vietnam]

troop withdrawl plan. And even trusted advisors like Harriman, the

Moscow-friendly globe-trotting tycoon whom Kennedy thought he could

rely on to broker a deal on Vietnam, were brazenly undercutting his peace

initiatives.

(quote off)

By instructing Lyndon Johnson as to the innocence of the Soviets,

Harriman was effectively cutting the legs out from underneath the

Castro-did-it scenario.

The plotters knew that a finger needed to be pointed at the Soviets in

order to keep them off-balance at the U.N. in the initial days after the

assassination. That's why such an extraordinary effort was made to link

Oswald to Valery Kostikov, the KGB assassins-bureau official (allegedly)

at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.

James Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 87: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of

Defense Robert McNamara, April 10, 1962:

(quote on, emphasis added)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved

in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in

overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal

uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures.

Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States

will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint

Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military

intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe

that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize

communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

The hawks were convinced they could strike Cuba and get away with it.

Tim Gratz:

As I understand it both the CIA and the FBI in Mexico City received orders

from DC not to investigate any possible conspiracy, and at least some of the

people in Mexico City who received those orders were livid about them.

The last thing the "powers-that-be" wanted was evidence of a conspiracy that

might lead to a nuclear war.

to invade Cuba and hold the Soviets off at the UN with a pointed finger

of righteous suspicion.

Tim Gratz:

Whether or not he had anything to do with it, no doubt LBJ reaped benefits

from the death of JFK. No doubt LBJ thought he would be a greater president

than JFK kad been. His personal purpose was served by the death of JFK. And

whether he seriously regretted the death or helped plan it, either way LBJ did

not want to start his administration with a war.

If he had Hoover, Helms, LeMay and 100 editorial pages screaming bloody

murder over Castro killing Kennedy, Johnson would have gone along.

Gene, that would be my conclusion as well:

"A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved"

Larry, having just finished reading Talbot's Brothers I'd have to speculate that,

had Oswald been gunned down at the corner of 10th and Patton on 11/22/63,

Minnie and Mickey would be knocking back virgin Cuba Libres at the Havana

Disneyland as we speak.

LeMay, Helms and Hoover sure wanted an invasion, and its hard for me

to imagine how they would have been stopped if Hoover had had a chance

to make his bogus case against Fidel.

Brothers reads to me like the 3rd book in a trilogy, in a manner

of speaking.

The first two books:

The Last Investigation and Someone Would Have Talked

Larry-- you, Fonzi and Talbot are like 3 blind men describing a snake.

Know whattamean?

Keep up the great great work.

Cliff, we'll never agree on this.

Irrelevant.

My purpose here is to show how readily your conclusions are debunked.

You're entitled to your own set of opinions, Pat, but not you, nor Bugliosi,

Posner, McAdams, Rahn et al, are entitled to your own set of facts.

You "argue" your case from the same set of debunked evidence they do.

You're obsessed with trying to prove the bullet entered at T3,

historical fact that John F. Kennedy was shot in the back about the level of

the third thoracic vertebra.

In a broader context, I'm part of the "reality-based" community of people who

are impervious to oft-repeated US Gov't lies, whether those lies be the claim that

JFK was shot at the base of the neck, or the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed

weapons of mass destruction after 1991.

It's all part of an on-going information war, in which I am but a humble soldier.

no matter what the photos show.

Here we go.

Your persistent mis-characterization of the evidence leads you to exaggerate.

There is only one photo (1) that shows the back wound, Pat.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

Photo, singular.

This is what the HSCA concluded about the autopsy photographs -- and

please note that the photo of the "back wound" was singled out as especially

deficient as evidence.

(HSCA Vol. 7, quote on, emphasis mine)

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of

negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to

obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to

point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs

as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately

mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish

as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case

gone to trial, might have been effectively raised by an astute defense

anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any

event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would

have rested with the prosecution.

(quote off)

Pat, you have no proof that the Fox 5 autopsy photo is authentic.

You cannot tell us who took the photograph.

You cannot tell us who developed the photograph.

You cannot point out anything in the photograph that indicates that it's

even JFK in the first place.

The HSCA concluded the photo was "obviously deficient" as evidence,

but that doesn't stop you from pimping Fox 5 like a high class hooker.

I'm obsessed with trying to correct the media and government's impression of the evidence, and find it better and more logical to use evidence already accepted by the government, including the photos and the HSCA FPP's interpretation of the back wound, to do so.

The HSCA clearly put the burden of proof for authentication on those who

would put it into the evidence.

That's you, Pat.

And Bugliosi, Posner et al. It is a burden none of you even pretend to carry.

The HSCA reached a conclusion as to a C7/T1 back wound on the basis of a

photograph they couldn't bring themselves to authenticate, which renders

your conclusions tenuous at best.

You have no reason to believe Burkley's assessment of T3 is more accurate than the doctors' and yet you swear by it nonetheless.

Are you having intellectual difficulty processing the following ARRB

testimony of Dr. Pierre Finck?

(quote on)

JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to

determine the accurate location of this posterior wound.

(quote off)

The Death Certificate was a contemporaneous document filled out according to

this "correct and only" protocol, using T3 as a landmark, and was signed off

as "verified."

You consistently cite contradictory, non-contemporaneous evidence, all of which

violated several autopsy protocols.

That's all you have, and you declare this "obviously deficient" evidence

as Holy Writ!

Unfortunately for your position, the holes in the clothes match the T3 location,

a fact you dismiss, literally, with a wave of your hand and an airy non-sequitur:

clothing moves, therefore JFK's shirt and jacket rode up 2" in tandem.

That you can't replicate this event should arouse your skepticism, but

it doesn't.

The fact that the Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropping should

arouse your skepticism, but it doesn't.

Your pose as an objective researcher is betrayed by your egregious

distortion of the evidentiary record.

It's not as if anyone saw him inspecting Kennedy's body with a ruler, or that he even claimed to do so.

in the clothes, the autopsy diagram, the FBI autopsy report, and the witness

descriptions of more than a dozen people who got a prolonged look at the

wound.

You apparently read DiEugenio's review with little understanding.

In your elevation of Burkley, you conveniently ignore or forget that Burkley hid the Harper fragment, which had evidence of internal and external beveling and was suggestive that the large exit was in fact an entrance and an exit, from the doctors.

Spare me your strawman. I'm "elevating" the Death Certificate because

it was a contemporaneous document filled out in strict accordance to

military autopsy protocol, and because it is corroborated by irrefutable

physical evidence, and further corroborated by two other contemporaneous

documents and the witness statements of over a dozen people.

It was Burkley's presence and orders that stopped the doctors from being as thorough as they would have liked at the autopsy. He verified their autopsy report, for chrissakes.

Any theory that has him an innocent truth-teller and the doctors part of a conspiracy from the beginning has to be met with skepticism.

And anyone who has actually read Breach of Trust without grasping

the fact that the autopsy report was fixed to conform to a pre-determined

"official" 3-shot scenario has, I hate to say it, some kind of reading impairment.

Isn't it interesting that Humes came up with 3 different back/neck wound

locations and that doesn't arouse your "skepticism"?

Pat Speer:

(quote on)

As far as the measurements, the 14 cm measurements place the wound

too low on the body and too close to the spine to support the SBT. That

Humes and Boswell should have measured from the spine is not in dispute.

They had virtually no experience in tracking or measuring bullet wounds.

(quote off)

And yet you cite their politically corrupted conclusions as if mandated by

God in Heaven!

The 14cm measurement was incorrectly taken and improperly recorded,

and you know that.

But this does not arouse your skepticism, since, after all, the U.S. Gov't

accepts this, and, according to you, it is "intellectually dishonest" to contradict

the U.S. Gov't, at least in regard to the location of JFK's back wound.

According to Pat Speer, non-contemporaneous documents trump

contemporaneous documents, incorrectly taken measurements trump

correctly recorded wound locations, and the conclusions of the U.S. Gov't

automatically trump all hard physical evidence to the contrary.

Hilarious!

Pat Speer:

(quote on)

In my videos, I have repeatedly used the 14 cm measurements to demonstrate

that Specter and the doctors were dishonest in their creation and introduction of

the Rydberg drawings.

(quote off)

Since they were dishonest in their creation of the Rydberg drawing,

why would you assume they were infallibly honest in the autopsy

report?

You assign indelible credibility to guys you argue are liars!

Pat Speer:

(quote on)

Now you want me to believe and tell people that the 14 cm measurements are

themselves a lie. Based upon my most recent attempts to locate the back wound

using these measurements, I am more inclined to think the 14 cm measurements

suggest a wound at T2 than that the measurements themselves are incorrect.

Dr. Boswell, after all, told the ARRB that the wound in the photo appeared

to be around T2.

(quote off)

Out of one side of your mouth you insist this guy was a xxxx, and

out of the other side of your mouth you insist he was infallible.

The only autopsy doctor with the expertise to take the measurements was

Finck, and he flat-out dismissed the evidentiary value of those same

measurements before the ARRB.

The HSCA drew a conclusion based on a photograph they insisted had

very little evidentiary value, and was of questionable authenticity.

LNers must promote this thin self-contradictory gruel,

or else they cease to be LNers.

What's your excuse, Pat?

Along with Someone Would Have Talked and Brothers, Breach of Trust is one of the three most important books written about the assassination over the last five years.

If I were to recommend a book to a newbie for first reading, I'd pick

Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation.

I would then recommend the newbie read, in succession:

Someone Would Have Talked, by Larry Hancock

Breach of Trust, by Gerald McKnight

Brothers, by David Talbot

The exposure of the existence of Operation Northwoods in James Bamford's

2001 Body of Secrets renders moot, imo, much prior speculation as

to the motives for the crime.

Imo, it is hard to escape the reasonable conclusion (w/evidence "preponderant"

enough for a civil case, but not for a criminal case) that JFK was murdered by

right-wing super-hawks in a bid to frame Castro for a crime so egregious the

US would then have a "moral right" to invade Cuba.

This false flag attack failed, of course. And the cover-up certainly had an

improvised quality, as McKnight so powerfully demonstrates.

Now that is really absurd. One of the MOST CHALLENGED "facts" is

the location of the "back/neck/T3/SBT" wound. How can you say

that is a correct "fact".?

Jack

Challenged by what?

Contradictory, improperly taken and recorded autopsy measurements?

An autopsy photo of such poor quality and questionable authenticity

that the HSCA speculated that the burden of proof of authentication

lay with those would put it into evidence?

The claim that, (1) since clothing moves, (2) therefore, JFK's shirt and

jacket elevated 2" to 3" in tandem -- in spite of the fact that the "tightly

tailored" shirt only had a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the

motorcade photos show the jacket dropping from Main St. to Betzner #3

at Z186.

The talking points of the JFK cover-up are thus readily stripped away.

That John F. Kennedy was shot in the back about the level of his

third thoracic vertebra (as per the overwhelming preponderance

of contemporaneous evidence) is a readily established historical FACT.

Clearly you misunderstood me. I spoke of the ONLY FACTS ABOUT

WHICH NOBODY DISAGREES...I mean EVERYONE.

Clearly there are many believers in the SBT. None of them believe

that your statements are FACTS.

On the other hand, there is a difference between perception and

reality. Reality, truth, facts are synonymous. But some people do

not accept reality, truth and facts, but rely on twisted logic and

misplaced loyalties and see UNTRUTHS AS TRUTH.

You and I believe what you have described as fact is true. But

not everyone believes that. But NOBODY denies that JKF was

killed on 11-22 on Elm Street by a bullet to the head. Even LNs

admit that is true! Reread my posting; that is all I said, and it

is unarguable.

Jack

That being the case, I'll stop arguing...

I bought and read McKnight's book when it came out, and learned a lot from it. I'd already known about Burkley and T3, etc.

But you didn't apparently know about Finck and this analysis of autopsy protocol.

In his ARRB interview, Finck stated that "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the

correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this

posterior wound."

Burkley's Death Certificate was filled out according to this proper protocol.

It was marked "verified."

The autopsy report measurements from the acroniom process are

incorrectly taken and, even worse, contradicted by the other wound

description "just above the upper margin of the scapula."

The autopsy report lists two seperate wound locations, Pat, and

you picked the most incorrect of the two to promote as an

unassailable historical fact.

The historical fact I think you've lost sight of is that the autopsy report

and the measurements on the autopsy face sheet are NOT contemporaneous

documentation, and thus were subject to overwhelming political influence.

People were told WW3 would result if the 3-shot scenario wasn't "proven."

The final autopsy report was submitted after a political decision was

reached by the powers that be that Oswald acted alone and fired three

shots.

Now that is really absurd. One of the MOST CHALLENGED "facts" is

the location of the "back/neck/T3/SBT" wound. How can you say

that is a correct "fact".?

Jack

Challenged by what?

Contradictory, improperly taken and recorded autopsy measurements?

An autopsy photo of such poor quality and questionable authenticity

that the HSCA speculated that the burden of proof of authentication

lay with those would put it into evidence?

The claim that, (1) since clothing moves, (2) therefore, JFK's shirt and

jacket elevated 2" to 3" in tandem -- in spite of the fact that the "tightly

tailored" shirt only had a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the

motorcade photos show the jacket dropping from Main St. to Betzner #3

at Z186.

The talking points of the JFK cover-up are thus readily stripped away.

That John F. Kennedy was shot in the back about the level of his

third thoracic vertebra (as per the overwhelming preponderance

of contemporaneous evidence) is a readily established historical FACT.

Though I am responsible for producing all images of BADGEMAN following

the discovery by Gary Mack, I have never claimed:

...that badgeman killed the president, even though it is a man firing a gun

...that his shot hit anything

...that the man is a Dallas policeman, though he is dressed like one

...that the badgeman image is genuine, though it appears to be

I can conceive a scenario where a faked image was dangled before

researchers and then used later to try to discredit them.

In the JFK case, ONLY ONE FACT IS CERTAIN. The president's head was

struck by gunfire on Elm Street in Dallas on 11-22-63 at about 12:30 as

he was riding in a limousine, killing him.

Any "fact" beyond that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jack

Factually incorrect.

That John F. Kennedy was struck in the back about the level of his third thoracic

vertebra (T3) is a FACT that is "challenged," to use the sword very loosely,

only by an endless stream of non sequiturs.

ATTN: Pat Speer...

Review: Breach of Trust

By James DiEugenio

(emphasis added):

Incredibly, JFK's personal physician was never called to testify. Commission assistant counsel Specter never interviewed Burkley or asked him to prepare a statement on his observations of the president's wounds or any information he might have relating to the assassination. The FBI and the Secret Service never mentioned him before or after they submitted their respective reports...to the Warren Commission. (p. 177) One of the reasons that may have given Specter pause before deposing Burkley was the fact that he had signed President Kennedy's death certificate. This document placed the back wound at the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Which is much lower than where the Gerald Ford-revised Warren Report placed it: at the base of back of the neck. And at this level, a bullet headed downward would not be able to exit the throat. Since Specter's main function was to enthrone the single bullet theory, the last thing he wanted was to place in the record a debate over this document. What makes the document even more interesting is the point of reference used for the wound placement. It is more accurate than what the pathologists used. Dr. Finck located the point in an odd way. He measured from the mastoid process to the acromin, or tip of the right shoulder. These are not fixed body landmarks. In his ARRB interview, Finck stated that "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound." (p. 179) Like Burkley did. As the author notes, one has to wonder if Finck's measuring points were deliberately chosen in order to disguise just where the posterior entrance was. If so, then Burkley was not in on this obfuscatory design. Which made him a most valuable witness. Further, Burkley's placement is corroborated by much more evidence than the Warren Report's, e.g. the holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket, observations by both FBI and Secret Service agents, the autopsy face sheet, and, as we shall see, the FBI reenactment in Dallas.

And yes, had that been the only thread on the same subject, I would not have done so. As you had said, the same subject was occurring in many threads. That was what I had based my decision on.

Kathy, just for future reference you might note that the reason this

topic was occurring in many threads was because T. Folsom was on

the run.

He asked 11 questions and had them stuffed down his throat.

He was looking for an "out," anyway.

Thanks for the softball pitch.

When you step up to the plate in the JFK Mystery Game, T.Folsom, you're

supposed to carry a bat.

The SBT thus stands debunked according to the scientific re-enactment

of Chad Zimmerman.

Thank you, Chad!

And thank you, T. Folsom...there are no "bats" in the LN dugout, pal.

Cliff,

Good to see your crushing response to that merry wanderer of the night, Mr. T. (Folsum).

On a point of confusion:

The hole in the shirt was 6 inches below the top of the collar. The collar was, for purposes of argument, 2 inches wide at the back of the neck. So from the bottom of the collar the hole is found 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Now, if the fabric of the shirt rises away from the skin so that the fabric moves up to the area of the lower neck, thus allowing a single bullet to penetrate through the shirt fabric & also to, then, continue on to penetrate the lower neck, then doesn't that necessitate that the fabric must rise at least 4 inches away from the skin to form a kind of a bell curve?

That is a FOUR inch rise!?

Any upward movement of the shirt fabric more than a fraction of

an inch is physically impossible on a tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt.

Back in 1997 I visited a tailor shop a block away from San Francisco's

Union Square.

The shop was called "Mr. Shirt".

The proprietor explained that clothing readily bunches up 3/4".

For the 2" to 3" (or more as per your bell curve analysis) required

by the SBT, Mr. Shirt said: "It isn't possible. There's not enough

slack fabric in the shirt as long as it is tucked in."

This is what LNers must resort to -- claim that JFK left his shirt untucked!

Shirt collar visible on Elm St = SBT debunked.

Just as Jim Moore observed back in 1991.

LNers always make the best SBT debunkers, if you let them.

Thanks for the softball pitch.

When you step up to the plate in the JFK Mystery Game, T.Folsom, you're

supposed to carry a bat.

Instead, you offer up...Chad Zimmerman!?

Chad Z. -- my main man!

In addition to his appearance on Discovery Channel's Unsolved History:

"Beyond the Magic Bullet," Chad Zimmerman posts regularly on John McAdam's

alt.assassination.jfk

Chad has acknowledged many times over on aajfk that the following photo,

taken on Houston St., shows JFK's jacket elevated at most ONE INCH (1")

in Dealey Plaza.

Subsequent to that photo -- JFK's jacket dropped. (see below)

That the SBT requires at least 2" of shirt/jacket elevation is a fact

Chad Z confirmed, much to his chagrin, on his Unsolved History segment

The Discovery Channel already resolved this apparent dilemma in their

"Magic Bullet" analysis about two years ago.

Chad Zimmerman destroyed the Single Bullet Theory with his "x-ray"

experiments.

It is so bad for Chad that a few months ago he offered me $10,000 if I

could go out to Iowa and prove that his Discovery Channel performance

WASN'T full of xxxx.

That's right. Chad Zimmerman dared me to corroborate his claims on

that program and said he'd pay me $10,000 if I could prove HIM correct.

Here's what he posted on alt.assassination.jfk on March 12, '07, a thread

entitled "Latest Cliff Challenge":

(quote on, emphasis mine)

If Varnell were to go and meet Stan, the JFK stand-in from The Discovery

Channel's 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' episode and returns with the belief that

Stan has the same build as JFK, then I will give Varnell a check for

$10,000.

Tactless? Perhaps. Does it prove my point? Perhaps. Stan was a less than

perfect stand-in for JFK.

But don't take it from me, go ahead and find Stan, Cliff. I look forward to

the public apology for repeatedly claiming otherwise.

Chad

(quote off)

And what was I publicly proclaiming "otherwise"?

I repeatedly proclaimed that Stan was, as Chad claimed on the show,

the "exact" stand-in for JFK.

This proves highly inconvenient to Zimmerman, because his x-ray shows that

the jacket had to ride up at least 2 inches, while Zimmerman can only

ID one inch of JFK jacket elevation in Dealey Plaza.

They left that little fact out of the program.

In that special, they had a double matching Kennedy's dimensions wearing clothing

identical to Kennedys with metallic pins on the location of all wounds.

Wrong on the clothing, T. Folsom, you weren't paying attention.

Stan didn't wear tailored clothing. Zimmerman claims it doesn't make

any difference.

But having the clothing custom-fit makes all the difference in the world

in the amount of available slack in a tucked-in shirt.

While the SBT requires 2" to 3" of shirt/jacket elevation in tandem, a tucked-in

custom made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of available slack.

You see, T. Folsom, I stipulate to everything Zimmerman said and

did in that program -- except his conclusion.

Chad so demolished his own case he was forced to deny that any of his

"x-ray experiments" pertained to John F. Kennedy at all.

When that individual STOOD up the wounds on the back appeared TOO low to

line up with the frontal exit wound to the throat.

"The first x-ray agrees with the critics."

Standing in a neutral position, the "wound" on Stan came in at an upper

margin T3.

But Zimmerman's SBT puts a standing "wound" location only an inch below C7/T1,

which is 2+" above T3.

Here's what Zimmerman wrote on his now-defunct website, in a now-defunct

article entitled -- "The Case of the Bunched Jacket"

(quote on, emphasis Chad's)

If the fabric had bunched up only an inch, which is

highly probable given the photos we see of Kennedy

in the motorcade, then it can be EXPECTED that the

bullet would go through the suit some 4 inches below

the collar and impact at the C7-T1 level.

(quote off)

Chad's Discovery Channel experiment debunked this claim.

"The first x-ray agrees with the critics."

Game. Set. Match.

A "neutral" bullet hole location aligned with T3 destroys Zimmerman's SBT,

which only allows for 1" of jacket elevation, contrary to the 2" to 3" the SBT

actually needs.

Zimmerman now has to deny that his "JFK double" was anything like JFK!

However when they placed that double in a sitting position holding his arm in the same position the Zapruder film proves Kennedy was in around the time of the first shot that struck Kennedy his shirt AND jacket were raised up to the point that the marks on the body and the mark in the jacket and shirt matched EXACTLY.

And the jacket rode up over the top of the shirt collar into Stan's hairline!

That's what happens when you jack up a coat 2+", T.Folsom, the jacket collar

rides up over the top of the shirt collar.

The first question an objective investigator would ask is:

Did JFK's jacket collar ride up into his hairline?

Yes it did, on Main St. (photo on left)

http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv

No it did not, on Elm St.

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, where it was only elevated

an inch at most.

The SBT thus stands debunked according to the scientific re-enactment

of Chad Zimmerman.

Thank you, Chad!

And thank you, T. Folsom...there are no "bats" in the LN dugout, pal.

It's still fun, isnt' it.

T. Folsom,

Several of us have pointed out to you that the holes in JFK's clothing are

2" to 3" too low for the SBT.

You haven't yet responded.

So how is that "fun" working out for you, so far?

If you hope to divine a response to the physical evidence of conspiracy,

one that doesn't involve claiming that clothing only moves in multi-inch

increments, you're wasting your time.

But hey -- that's what hobbies are all about anyway, eh?

That, at least is my story.

Bugliosi spent 20 years and 1600 pages ignoring the fact that the bullet

holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are 2" to 3" below the location

required by the Single Bullet Theory.

You've spent almost 35 years ignoring the most obvious physical evidence

in the case?

That is some sort of achievement, I guess...

I posed the following eleven question to Bill Miller and they were ignored. I am always curious to get a general feel of exactly WHAT the conspiracy nuts out there really think happened. My general experience in studying the assassination since 1973 has been that conspiracy nuts are very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers. Here are eleven questions I would like to have a few people tackle. Then we can start discussing the evidence after the responses start to pile up.

The JFK Mystery Game, Lone Nut Version!

How fun!

Can I play?

1. Was Oswald involded in ANY way during the assassination?

He was the designated Castro-dipped patsy.

2. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the upper back?

Probably the Dal-Tex, perhaps the SW corner of the TSBD 6th Fl. A minor

mystery.

3. Where was the shot fired from that caused Kennedy's throat wound?

Black Dog Man position circa Z197. Everything dealing with the throat

wound is important.

4. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the back?

Probably the TSBD 6th FL SW corner, perhaps the Dal-Tex. A minor mystery.

5. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the wrist?

Probably the TSBD 6th FL SW corner, perhaps the Dal-Tex. A minor mystery.

6. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the left thigh?

Probably the TSBD 6th FL SW corner. A minor mystery.

7. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the head?

From behind the picket fence atop the grassy knoll.

8. Where did the shot originate that dented the chrome frame of the limousine?

The most minor of all minor mysteries.

9. How many shots were fired that day in Dealey Plaza?

4+

This historical fact is, as Don Jeffries noted, established by the location of the

holes in the clothes.

The claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were "bunched up" in tandem

2" to 3" is debunked by the fact that a tucked-in custom-made

dress shirt, worn with a slender-cut European style jacket, only has

about 3/4" of available slack. No where near the 2" to 3" required

by the single bullet theory.

Even more important, Dealey Plaza films and photos show JFK's

jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

On Houston St., in the Nix film, JFK's jacket rode above the

top of his shirt collar until he leaned back from his exchange

with Nellie Connally, seconds before the assassination.

10. Why don't the Dallas doctors recollections of the wounds match the Bethesda autopsy findings?

Why don't the autopsy findings match the autopsy findings?

The autopsy report lists two separate locations for the back wound,

"just above the upper margin of the scapula" -- T2; and "14cm

below the right mastoid process" -- C7/T1.

11. Where was Oswald at the time of the assassination?

Digging out change to buy a Coke.

Let the nuts start cracking.

Let the non sequiturs start flow'n...

There are minor mysteries in the murder of JFK.

Because LNers have "answers" to these minor mysteries, while conspiracists

don't, means the Lone Nut scenario of the assassination must be accurate?

Is this the non sequitur being pimped here?

At the end of the day that's all LNers have -- non sequiturs repeated endlessly.

I bring these stories to the Forum's attention in order to illustrate -- if further illustration truly is necessary at this late date -- just how difficult it always will be to weigh the value of "confessions" -- pseudo or otherwise.

Charles

True enough, Charles.

Take the purported confessions of David Sanchez Morales, David Atlee Phillips,

and E. Howard Hunt.

Morales made a drunken confession, according to close personal friends.

Phillips made a death-bed confession to his brother, according to his nephew.

E. Howard Hunt recorded a death-bed confession that fingered both Phillips

and Morales.

To this I apply the "Ian Fleming" rule of thumb:

One confession is a case of "happenstance."

Two is a case of "coincidence."

Three: evidence of "enemy action"!

it would now seem like they wanted it public and horrible to evoke maximum horror and hatred against Castro to fuel the resulting Cuba invasion.

Which may have included the deliberate shooting of Connally just for good measure. Though LBJ and Hoover thought Connally was shot from the front accidentally.

LBJ: How did it happen they hit Connally?

HOOVER: Connally turned to the President when the first shot was fired and I think in that turning, it was where he got hit.

LBJ: If (Connally) hadn't turned, (the President) probably wouldn't have got hit (with the second shot)?

HOOVER: I think that is very likely. . . .

LBJ: He would have been hit three times.

(From 11/29/63 phone conversation - i.e., a week after the assassination the President and FBI Director still didn't know that OSWALD ALONE shot JFK, from BEHIND - it's almost like they're still talking about a CONSPIRACY).

I'd speculate that Hoover was trying to keep the Castro-conspiracy angle alive,

even at that late date.

Cliff

I thought the point that I was attempting to make is that "The Body" is/was the "best evidece".

The first thing you cited was the acoustics evidence.

What does that have to do with "The Body"?

The contemporaneous reports from the autopsy are indeed valuable.

Unfortunately, they are contradicted by the final autopsy report.

The historical fact that the final autopsy report was fixed to conform

to the pre-determined 3-shot scenario is crucial to any understanding

of the case, Charlie.

Perhaps you'd prefer there not being a clear picture of how this crime

was covered up?

To those who do not discount the veracity of appx. 40 Dealey Plaza eye witnesses,

How does this readily establish the fact that 4+ shots were fired?

The holes in the clothes readily establish that fact -- LN/VCT non sequiturs

to the contrary.

the original "expert" reporting of the Parkland Team,

The contemporaneous notes on the throat entrance wound are crucial.

Unfortunately, only one person at Parkland reported to seeing the

back wound -- Diana Bowron, who, it should be pointed out, was the

target of witness intimidation by none other than Lyndon B. Johnson.

All discussions of the head wound discrepancies between Parkland,

Bethesda, the FBI autopsy report, and the x-rays are an utter waste

of time.

I can't believe that anyone thinks anything can be gleaned from

this morass of conflicting evidence.

and many who viewed the autopsy (and some who participated in it): I place these inputs far above whether, or whether not, the clothing bunched.

The clothing evidence is challenged by non sequitur -- all the evidence

you cite is contradicted by evidence other people cite.

The clothing evidence is challenged by non sequiturs repeated endlessly.

There is enough evidence which is "pro conspiracy fact" to have PROVEN what occurred, even had JFK been NAKED !

You propose going into a gun battle armed with dull knives.

The clothing evidence is so unchallenged Bugliosi ignores it

for the entire 1600 pages.

Bugliosi ignores it because it is the Achilles Heel of the LN.

And then there are the capitulatory types like Charlie Black who also

propose we bury the clothing evidence...for reasons Charlie still can't

quite elucidate...

Why, when most accept my preceeding acknowledgements,

is there any reason to further discuss the clothing.

Because Bugliosi found reason to ignore it.

You agree with Bugliosi, for reasons I've yet to fathom, frankly.

I tend to think Ruby was telling the truth to the Warren Commission Cliff, not that they wanted to hear it.

Ruby was telling as much of the truth as he could and still avoid dying in jail...oops!

He talked too much, mayhaps...

Myra, a book I'd recommend for you is the James Ellroy novel, AMERICAN TABLOID.

I don't buy into Ellroy's vision of the assassination itself (limited "rogue" CIA

involvement), but he captures a terrific sense of the sheer treachery at

work between mobsters, anti-Castro operatives, right wing zealots, crooked Feds.

A good member of the John Birch Society like H. L. Hunt wouldn't think twice

about framing up any number of right-wing riflemen as patsies if he thought

it would help protect his interests.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...piracy_Believer

Good one, Gaeton. Now, if we can get everyone to respond to Bugliosi's bs, maybe we can get a few media types to take notice.

"Good one, Gaeton"...??

Fonzi demolished your T1 back wound theory, Pat.

Did you miss his observation of "tightly tailored clothing"?

JFK wore slender-cut European style suits -- his tucked in shirt

only needed a fraction of an inch of slack for him to look good

and move comfortably.

This is what Fonzi demonstrated to Arlen Specter back in 1966.

Like Arlen, you ignore this evidence, Pat.

In fact, you put the back wound in the exact same place Bugliosi does.

No where in RECLAIMING HISTORY does Bugliosi refer to it as a neck

wound -- always "upper back," i.e. T1.

You and Bugliosi pimp the same bs, Pat.

Good one, Gaeton, indeed.

EXCELLENT LIST OF PERPS.

Indeed. Interesting how we all come up with the same names.

There are going to be minor variations on the list -- I'd include the

back-up patsies E. Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson, Jack Lawrence.

...

Harrelson, of course. Should be on the list.

So you think he was patsy fodder eh Cliff?

Jack Lawrence is new to me so I'm reading about him at Spartacus.

I think Charles Harrelson was a career patsy. Went to prison for

a crime he didn't commit. I think the plotters allowed for a contingency

wherein JFK's murder was to be blamed on the John Birch Society,

and I'd speculate Harrelson was sheep-dipped to play the part of a right

wing killer, just as Oswald was framed as an agent of Fidel.

However, the afternoon of 11/22/63, the "official" decision was one lone nut

and three shots.

I think this photograph captures the moment "Ed Lansdale" signaled

to E. Howard Hunt that all was well, in spite of the police escort.

Note that Old Tramp approaches the man Gen. Victor Krulak fingers

as Ed Lansdale totally hidden behind the short tramp.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/LastScan58.jpg

http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

Like Harrelson, E. Howard Hunt was groomed to take the fall for

something eventually.

Not only did Everett do time for Watergate, it appears he lost his wife as

part of the bargain as well.

If the JFK assassination had gone seriously awry and somebody at CIA

had to go down -- it would have been Howard.

Didn't Nixon pin the JFK assassination on him, essentially?

"Bad for Hunt, bad for the CIA, bad for the country"...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Cliff. The subject of patsies is a really interesting one to me, and one that I think is under researched (aside from Lee Oswald of course). Given that the murder was first planned for Chicago and then Miami, there obviously had to be patsies for those cities. In fact I think I recall reading the Chicago patsy's name recently, maybe here... argh. Don't remember. But given how complex and long-term the Oswald frame was, patsy processing for the various patsy candidates around the country (world?) must have been a huge operation.

And that's just for the JFK murder. Then there were the patsies for RFK, MLK, John Lennon, George Wallace, etc.

It seems like patsies were a mix of CIA employees and non-CIA, MKULTRA and non-MK-ULTRA, for example:

CIA, non-MKULTRA: Oswald

CIA?, MKULTRA: Mark David Chapman

Non-CIA, MKULTRA: Sirhan

Non-CIA, non-MKULTRA: James Earl Ray

Then again I think the FBI took the lead on the MLK and Malcolm X murders so they probably didn't have access to the CIA MKULTRA tool. And the Malcolm X murder had a very different MO; the FBI infiltrated his bodyguards I believe. Tho' some chump did go to prison ultimately.

So you think the right wing patsies were plan B, huh?

More like Plan C.

Plan A -- frame Oswald as an agent of Fidel.

Plan B -- frame Oswald as a Lone Nut

Plan C -- blame the John Birch Society.

When Nixon called Hoover late that afternoon, Nixon asked,

"Was it the right wing nuts?"

Jack Ruby also went on and on about the John Birch Society

in his Warren Comm. interview.

I would think so because having a left wing patsy suits the perps agenda much better, ideally giving them an excuse to invade Cuba and further demonize Commies (i.e., labor unions). In fact I'd think they'd be very reluctant to use a right wing patsy and waste such a golden opportunity.

The John Birch Society is yet another interesting subject. I consider them guilty as a group. And many individual members are guilty for sure IMO:

HL Hunt, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Edwin Walker.

Then again again, a patsy is not necessarily innocent.

Fonzi regarded the clothing holes as

the strongest evidence in the case for conspiracy.

Others have come along and made the same assertion -- Jim Marrs,

Noel Twyman, Robert Groden (who refered to the clothing evidence

as "uncontested.")

As noted in the Griffith article I posted above, excellent analyses

of the clothing evidence have also come from Harold Weisberg,

Josiah Thompson, and Jim Moore.

Cliff: Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Has anyone ever done a detailed analysis of the chain of custody of JFK's shirt and jacket from the time the nurses removed them at Parkland hospital until they were entered into evidence?

John Canal did an excellent time-line on the McAdams group a while back,

but I'm not having any luck tracking it down.

IIRC, the Parkland nurses gave the clothes to SS SA Will Greer.

Greer took the clothing with him to Bethesda the night of 11/22/63, and then

early the following morning stored the clothing in a locker at the White House.

The FBI subsequently took possession of the clothing, eventually turning it

over to the National Archives.

There is a clear, clean chain of possession as near as I can tell.

Not familiar with the complete range of evidence here (photographic, eye-witness, etc.), but is there any evidence that JFK's shirt collar moved from its normal position at the neck? The collar was fastened by a button & cinctured by a tie, wasn't it? If the collar remained in its normal position, then would the back wound of a lower neck bullet penetration cause damage to the collar at the rear? If the bullet missed the collar, then it would have either struck above the collar or below the collar. So, if the collar showed no damage then it must have moved up or down along the neck. If it had remained in its normal position & not have moved it must have been damaged. Was it?

The bullet missed the shirt collar by 4 inches.

Shirt collars don't move much, due to being buttoned up and cinched

with a tie, as you noted.

According to Dr. Charles Carrico the throat wound was just above the tie

and just below the adams apple -- indicating that the shirt collar was in its

normal position below the adams apple.

If the shirt collar moved, it was a matter of a few millimeters.

We can see the same thing by comparing the back of the shirt

collar with the hairline.

Here's JFK at Love Field.

The distance from the lower margin of his jacket collar to the upper

margin is 1 & 1/4". The distance from the lower margin of the shirt

collar to its upper margin is 1 & 3/4".

From the top of the jacket collar to the top of the shirt collar is 1/2"

(or a millimeter or two less because his head was tilted back a little.)

I think it is reasonable to estimate the distance from the top of the

shirt collar to JFK's hairline as roughly 1" give or take a few millimeters.

Here's JFK in the motorcade:

The top of his clothing collars were about an inch below the hairline.

The question becomes: how far could the collar have moved up (or down) the neck so as to remain undamaged by a neck bullet penetration?

If the collar rose up, then where in the shirt fabric below the collar would a hole be found? Well, if the collar rose up the neck 6 inches (how long was the neck?), then a neck bullet penetration would create a hole in the shirt 6 inches below the collar top if the fabric remained flat against the skin.

If the the collar rose up along the neck 1 inch only (for argument example), then the fabric must have bunched up & come away from the skin. If the collar is 2 inches in width (up & down) at the collar rear, then at least 8 inches of shirt fabric below the collar must have bunch up & have risen away from the skin. Considered two dimensionally, the "bunched-up" shirt fabric might have resembled a bell curve. The bullet penetrates at the apex of the bell curve & does not contact the bell curve slopes on either side of the apex. The bullet penetrates just below the collar & into the neck (lower neck), but the actual bullet hole is located 4 inches below the collar's base. For the bullet to create such a hole at such a shirt locus & still penetrate the neck, a bell curve of fabric must have been created with 4 inch side slopes, 4 up & 4 down. [This is called the magic slope theory.] Otherwise, more damage to the shirt than a single hole would have been been found in the fabric because of the fabric layering or folding which must have occurred sans the bell curve model.

Cliff

Is this analysis correct?

The bullet had to penetrate below the "bell curve" of the fabric, and, as you astutely

point out, it had to be entirely below the slope of the curve.

This factor of the "magic slope" makes it even more difficult for Bunch Fallacists

to replicate their 2" - 3" simultaneous tailored-shirt/jacket "bunch up."

The movement of JFK's clothing required by the "high back wound" crowd has

never been replicated by any member of said crowd.

They just keep repeating their non sequiturs over and over: clothing moves,

therefore JFK's shirt and jacket moved up in tandem 2" to 3".

I'll give it to Bugliosi -- instead of repeating a Bunch Non Sequitur, he absolutely

ignored the problem the SBT has with the bullet holes in the clothes.

He simply pretends the multi-inch discrepancy doesn't exist.

So far, only Gaeton Fonzi has called Bugliosi on this.

Bugliosi only "wins" if people don't call him on this glaring omission.

EXCELLENT LIST OF PERPS.

Indeed. Interesting how we all come up with the same names.

There are going to be minor variations on the list -- I'd include the

back-up patsies E. Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson, Jack Lawrence.

...

Harrelson, of course. Should be on the list.

So you think he was patsy fodder eh Cliff?

Jack Lawrence is new to me so I'm reading about him at Spartacus.

I think Charles Harrelson was a career patsy. Went to prison for

a crime he didn't commit. I think the plotters allowed for a contingency

wherein JFK's murder was to be blamed on the John Birch Society,

and I'd speculate Harrelson was sheep-dipped to play the part of a right

wing killer, just as Oswald was framed as an agent of Fidel.

However, the afternoon of 11/22/63, the "official" decision was one lone nut

and three shots.

I think this photograph captures the moment "Ed Lansdale" signaled

to E. Howard Hunt that all was well, in spite of the police escort.

Note that Old Tramp approaches the man Gen. Victor Krulak fingers

as Ed Lansdale totally hidden behind the short tramp.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/LastScan58.jpg

http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

Like Harrelson, E. Howard Hunt was groomed to take the fall for

something eventually.

Not only did Everett do time for Watergate, it appears he lost his wife as

part of the bargain as well.

If the JFK assassination had gone seriously awry and somebody at CIA

had to go down -- it would have been Howard.

Didn't Nixon pin the JFK assassination on him, essentially?

"Bad for Hunt, bad for the CIA, bad for the country"...