Cliff Varnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't we see it in every photo of the jacket? Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture. It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so. It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric. And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument for it! All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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