Cliff Varnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!