Cliff Varnell

This one: http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/altgens2.jpg I've seen it listed as Altgens #2 and Altgens #4. The films/photos I cited show that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza; the information contained therein stands un-disputed by questions of authenticity.

Jack, I'm curious to know if you have any reason to suspect (or conclude) fakery in any of the following: 1) Willis #5 2) Betzner #3 3) The Towner film 4) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film 5) The Altgens photo from the west side of Houston St. Thanks in advance.

You left out the important ones. The bullet defect in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. The bullet defect in his jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar. Here's the Towner film, which shows JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the base of his neck, on Elm St. http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg Betzner #3 at Z186 shows the same thing. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg For a bullet to have struck JFK in the back of the neck at C7 as per the SBT, the shirt and jacket had to have been bunched up in tandem at least 3 INCHES. That's at least 6 INCHES of fabric bunched up entirely ABOVE the C7 inshoot at the base of JFK's neck -- and entirely BELOW the jacket collar at the base of JFK's neck. That is flat out physically impossible. You couldn't replicate such an event using BOTH hands to tug, Thomas.

No slight taken whatsover, Michael! I enjoy the point-by-point back and forth and it's a great way to research. I'm sure Pat feels the same way... Your citation of the excellent BREACH OF TRUST sent me back for a closer read... My only disagreements with Gerald McKnight are over Hoover's grasp of the basic facts of the case, which McNight characterizes as "tenuous," and the veracity of Specter's claim to have used the autopsy photo to fix the chalk mark on the back of the jacket. The first point goes back to the Tolson memo of 11/29/63 where Hoover mangled THE most obvious facts. I think Hoover knew damn well that Oswald didn't fire from the fifth floor. Hoover knew that the FBI hadn't proven that Oswald could fire 3 shots in 3 seconds with a bolt action rifle. Hoover knew that if Connally dodged the second shot and it hit JFK then the shot came from the front. And I think Hoover knew that if the chalk mark were placed according to the autopsy face sheet that snot nosed Specter kid and the rest of those WC runts would look like idiots. I think Hoover frequently mangled the facts of the case in the manner of a petulant schoolboy venting contempt for his lessons.

The Commission DID know the precise location of the back wound. This was established at the Executive Session on 1/27/64. Specter came on board mid-March and they kept him in the dark on Rankin's autopsy photo, it seems, although I can't believe he didn't get a look at the clothing. Specter DID NOT finish his report with *any* confidence. On May 24, 1964, Arlen Specter's "baby" arrived stillborn in the re-enactment because the FBI had marked the actual wound location on the jacket, and Specter was demonstrating a trajectory 5+" higher -- and act of public humiliation that has to rank up with the all time greats. How can you be "confident" when you're pointing a trajectory 5+ inches above the wound? I absolutely agree! I've yet to see anything in BOT that contradicts my arguments. On the contrary, McKnight shares my view that the assassination was designed to provide a pre-text to invade Cuba. The problem is not so much with Pat Speer's analysis of the record, the problem is with the record itself, as presented by Specter. Specter claims he saw an autopsy photo that showed a wound in the back of the neck and on that basis he marked a wound on the jacket 5+" lower, and then ignored it? The man is lying.

Pat Speer wrote: > Cliff, Specter never tells us why or how he got Kelley to show him the photo, > only that he saw it. Specter's WC memos show he was greatly concerned by > the inaccuracy of the Rydberg drawings. Humes testified repeatedly that the > wounds could best be understood by analyzing the photos. Specter walks him > through these questions. These were clearly answers Specter wanted on the > record. It is obvious from this that Specter wanted the WC to test the SBT with > the actual entrance wound. I believe whole-heartedly he was hoping the trajectory > would work, and that, after finding that it didn't, turned completely chicken. Pat, this Specter/Humes dog and pony show -- I don't buy it. Arlen Specter has a real Passion for Mendacity. Here's a bit from Edward Jay Epstein's 1965 interview with Specter: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diary/specter.htm (quote on) Q. Did you see autopsy photos? A. No, I never saw them. Q. Did [WC Senior Counsel Francis] Adams? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Why were autopsy photos not available to you? A. Ask Rankin. (quote off) Okay, let's ask Rankin. WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin and Rep. Wade Boggs in the WC Executive Session of January 27th, 1964: (quote on) Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds...ince we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So...how could it turn... Boggs: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length. (quote off) The WC had the evidence of the low back wound, and thus conspiracy, well in hand by January, 1964. Obviously, they'd seen the clothes, mistaking the Parkland nurses' slits in the front shirt collar band for bullet defects; they had the autopsy face sheet; they had the FBI autopsy report putting the back wound "below the shoulder"; they had Burkley's death certificate listing the wound about the level of T3; and, apparently, Rankin had an autopsy photo showing a wound that matched the holes in the clothes, the three contemporaneous official documents, and the witness statements of 2 FBI men and 4 SS SAs. The WC Executive Session of 1/27/64 laid out the problem the Warren Commission and the FBI were hired to solve: how to package an obvious conspiracy and sell it to the public as a lone assassin. In March of '64 Specter huddled with Humes and they came up with the Single Bullet Theory, and its corollary, Clothes Bunch Theory, another fraud that continues to have its adherents today. It was a job that Specter clearly didn't relish, and he wanted the record to show that he was an intrepid hunter of the truth, instead of the hack xxxx-for-hire that he was. > As far as Hoover's role in the re-enactment...is this just a hunch, or have you > seen memos detailing his role? The testimony of all the FBI men was that they > were working on the re-enactment at the WC's request, and that they only measured > angles they were asked to measure, etc. Curtis Gentry, J. EDGAR HOOVER -- THE MAN AND THE SECRETS, pg. 552: (quote on) From its inception, Hoover treated the Warren Commission as an adversary. He publicly offered it his full cooperation -- after all, it was a creation of the President -- but instructed his agents to volunteer nothing beyond what was requested, and then only after prior approval of FBIHQ. (quote off) > This explains why the left-right angle was not measured. It's clear Specter was > under orders not to dig too deeply, as proven by the Redlich memo, and he followed > orders. It wasn't Specter's job "to dig." He wasn't there to investigate, he was there to create a scenario they could sell to the public. Hoover was so pissed off at the WC's cursory look into Oswald's FBI connections that he set Specter up in that ludicrous photo op and turned the hot shot from Philly into a total buffoon. With one stroke -- making sure during the reenactment that JFK's actual back wound location was marked on the jacket -- Hoover reinforced perceptions in the West Wing and at Langley that whatever the outcome of the Warren Commission, it had to be favorable to J. Edgar Hoover. Or so I speculate.

Reverting to newsgroup style point-by-point. Pat Speer wrote: > Cliff, the C7/T1 entrance is a LN invention. The FPP put it at T1...period. T1 is an LN invention as well. Are we supposed to believe that Arlen Specter studied the angles and trajectories of the Single Bullet Theory and then referenced 3 DIFFERENT locations for the back wound for the re-enactment? He had the autopsy face sheet location, the autopsy photo location (presumably), and finally pointed at the top of JFK's jacket collar. 3 locations in the span of 5 & 3/8". Call me conspiratorial, but I don't think Specter was on that long a leash with Hoover. > All their drawings and descriptions place it at T1. And they concluded the Fox 5 autopsy photo was "more confusing than informative," "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of wound locations," and "obviously deficient as scientific evidence." That's the argument for T1, which I find intellectually indefensible. > As far as whether it was T3 or T1 in the re-enactment has no bearing. It has bearing on my point. I'm skeptical of any version of events that posits Hoover had no operational input on what his men were doing in the re-enactment. > Specter BEGGED the WC to give him access to the autopsy photos so he could test > the proper location, precisely so he wouldn't be made to look like an idiot later. And they went ahead and made an idiot out of him anyway. > When Warren agreed to let Humes look at the photos, but then changed his mind, > it fell on Specter to back-door the WC and arrange for Kelley to show him the photo. This is Specter's story, right? You know you have to be careful swallowing a xxxx's spin, don't you? > He saw the photo. He admits this. Why in heck would he not then use this info > when conducting the re-enactment? Why in the hell would he mark a wound location 5+" below his SBT inshoot? > Perhaps they marked the jacket based on the face sheet and that Specter then > looked at the photo and said "close-enough." And then compared the autopsy photo to the Ryberg drawing and said, "Close enough," again? Good enough for gummit work not once, but twice? > This is beside the point. It's not beside MY point. > The point is he suspected the Rydberg drawing was inaccurate before the re-enactment, > he then looked at the photo and CONFIRMED that it was inaccurate, and yet he ended up > using the entrance on the Rydberg drawing to measure the angle. He knew it was inaccurate the moment he compared it to the holes in the clothes, probably one of the first things he checked after he got the job! Arlen Specter's job was to promote a lie, and his understanding of his role began before Rydberg entered the picture. It was Rydberg's job to promote a lie, but he did so at Humes' direction. Specter understood the job set out for him long before the re-enactment. I'd sift his auto-biography with fine mesh, and a face mask. > This is preposterous and possibly criminal. The FBI made many mistakes, > but the May 24 re-enactment was all WC. Using the autopsy face sheet, the autopsy photo, and the Rydberg drawing all as a reference for the wound location? Hoover had to okay this nonsense.

Correction: It was inded the autopsy face sheet that was used to mark the low back wound. Why would Specter himself mark a wound location 5+ inches below his SBT trajectory? Cliff, if you re-read the testimony of Frazier, Shaneyfelt, and Kelley, you'll see that the re-enactment was run by the Commission, basically Specter. It was he who decided what angles were to be measured, etc. He pushed for the use of the autopsy photos in peforming the re-enactment. He saw an autopsy photo on the day of the re-enactment. This autopsy photo was of the back wound, the very photo necessary for him to accurately mark the back wound on the FBI stand-in. This back wound was marked acurately. It follows then that he used the autopsy photo he saw in the re-enactment. Pat, this is where we disagree. If Arlen Specter claims the re-enactment back wound was based on the autopsy photo he's lying. Flat out mendacity. The mark on the jacket in the re-enactment is NOT in the accepted wound location on the Fox 5 autopsy photo. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg The "official" back wound in this photo -- which is, after all, an improperly produced autopsy photo of poor quality and suspect authenticity -- is at C7/T1. The location of the back wound in the reenactment is T3 or lower. http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif Check out the photo in TKOAP pg 125. Specter looks like a total clown, like an idiot, holding this pointer 5+ inches above the wound location. Do you think anyone VOLUNTEERS for such duty?

Correction: It was inded the autopsy face sheet that was used to mark the low back wound. Why would Specter himself mark a wound location 5+ inches below his SBT trajectory?

Cliff, the May 24 re-enactment was the WC's baby and the FBI was just taking orders. In the Examining the Examinations section of my presentation, on the Movement of the Back Wound slide, I get into it and examine Specter's role in the re-enactment. Pat, I like your presentation of the photos here. http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/PhotoAlbum30.html Slide 0013. The re-enactment was Hoover's baby until Specter took over afterwards, however. The FBI marked the back wound according to the bullet hole in the jacket. Specter used a pointer-rod to demonstrate the trajectory of the SBT. In the photo published on pg 125 of Groden's THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT Specter pointed to an inshoot at the top of JFK's collar -- even though the hole in the jacket was 5 & 3/8 inches below! There was no "higher white mark," as per your analysis, however -- not that I can see, FWIW. Hoover's FBI blatantly -- dare I say disrespectfully! -- contradicted/debunked the SBT on the very day it was publicly presented by Specter and the WC. The SBT arrived to the world stillborn. I suspect that Hoover was sending LBJ and the CIA and the WC a message: the cover-up succeeds only by the grace of one J. Edgar Hoover.

Put the assassination in the context of an Operation Northwoods type operation and the actions of Hoover and the FBI become clear: Hoover WANTED to prove a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy. The assassination was DESIGNED to look like a conspiracy traceable to Castro. I'd speculate that Hoover, a natural political ally of JCS hard-liners like Gen. Curtis LeMay, wasn't happy that his Bureau had to clean up the mess in Dealey Plaza, and was prepared for Johnson to change his mind about calling it a "lone nut" assassination. Documents uncovered by Anthony Marsh and John Hunt indicate that the evidence collection in the FBI Lab was kept fluid the morning of 11/23/63, in order, I'd speculate, to accomodate either Plan A (Castro conspiracy) or Plan B (lone nut). Here are the contemporaneous notes of FBI Lead Examiner Robert Frazier: http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/436461A.gif Note the evidence marked #1, #2, #3 was later changed to Q11, Q12, Q13 -- and even later all three were grouped as Q14. Here are Frazier's notes in preparation for his WC testimony, note line #5 where Frazier cites the distribution of master evidence lists with "the Q & K #s blanked out." http://tinyurl.com/dlusf Although as FBI Lead Examiner Robert Frazier was in charge of assigning Q and K numbers as the evidence came in, Frazier denies assigning the official Q and K numbers on 11/23/63, a fact corroborated by his own notes. LBJ didn't get around to calling Hoover until 10:01 am 11/23/63, about 15 hours after the FBI was assigned to the case. http://tinyurl.com/oakca Hoover found the evidence of Oswald in Mexico City "confusing" and practically begged LBJ to look at the possiblity of the involvement of a "second person." I'd speculate that Hoover was savagely disappointed in Plan B, and it was hard for him to get on board. I think he slyly leaked out evidence of conspiracy, like this FBI re-creation that shows the back wound in its proper location (4 inches below the bottom of the jacket collar), in order to remind LBJ and the CIA of the leverage he held over them. http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF The reasons JFK was killed can be summed up in two words: Cuba, Vietnam. They got their "damned war" in Vietnam, but the only reason there's no Disneyland in Havana today is because some Dallas cop failed to shoot Oswald the afternoon of 11/22/63.

Pat Speer wrote: So, to an American who remembers the seventies and eighties, an era of "what is The Post exposing now?" implying or stating that Ben Bradlee is a CIA schill makes about as much sense as saying that Michael Moore is a CIA schill. William Turner talked about his enormous FBI file. I'd venture to say that Bradlee's file is almost as large. (quote off) Pat, I remember a different 70's and 80's, with all due respect. At least Rolling Stone was still hip in those days, sorta. http://tinyurl.com/r3yon Some of us cut our teeth on this: http://www.namebase.org/sources/BX.html So it didn't come as a surprise when Katherine Graham personally whitewashed Reagan/Bush era CIA-connected drug smuggling by her 11th hour blocking of the publication of the following... http://www.serendipity.li/cia/c_o_mena.html Here's a story from 1989 that the Washington Post relegated to page 23 with a few short paragraphs: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1499 Think about it...Former Reagan National Security Advisor John Poindexter et al were barred from entering Costa Rica because they'd set up a drug smuggling network on Costa Rican soil. I have to give the Washington Post credit -- they were the ONLY paper to carry the story. On page 23. Pat, if the South Koreans, say, announced that former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was barred from entering South Korea because he'd helped set up a drug smuggling network -- on what page would the Washington Post carry THAT story?

I hail from San Francisco. I'm a poker dealer by profession and I've been calling LNer bluff on the usenet groups for nine years. I'm a big fan of Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi and I think the JFK case is much simpler than most folks make it out to be.