Cliff Varnell

The important point to this is not who was responsible for the overthrow

of Diem, but why.

I disagree with the first half; couldn't agree more that "why" is hugely important.

JFK fingered Harriman. I see no reason to dispute his recorded assessment of the

power behind the coup.

Paul: Great thread. Keep going. I thought you might be interested in hearing how Tim Weiner reports the Richardson V. Lodge. Keep in mind that this is how hundreds of thousands of Americans will have this history narrated, as his book is a best-seller right now.

He sees the Diem killing as all Kennedy, no Agency.

..... The secretary of state, the dec of defense, and the director of central intelligence had not been consulted.

All three were dubious about a coup against Diem. 'I should not have given my consent to it,' the president told

himself after the consequences becamem clear. Yet the order went forward.

Here's JFK describing the dynamics behind the coup in a tape

he recorded on 11/4/63, 3 days after Diem's demise.

(quote on)

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 judgement, 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)

Doesn't this seem strangely passive of JFK? It's as if he was just keeping

score instead of calling the plays.

Hilsman told Helms that the president

had ordered Diem ousted. Helms handed the assignment to Bill Colby, the new chief of the CIA's Far East division.

COlby passed it on to John Richardson....'In circumstance believe CIA must fully accept directive of policy

makers and seek ways to accomplish objectives they seek' he instructed Richardson--though the order 'appears

to be throwing away bird in hand before we have adequately identified birds in bush, or songs they may sing'

Then Weiner goes on to portray Lodge as primarily jealous of Richardson's house:

The ambassador resented the agency's exalted status in Saigon. He wrote in his private journal: bigger houses than

diplomats; bigger slaries; more weapons; more modern equipment' He was jealous of the powers held by Richardson

and he scoffed at the caution the station cheif displayed about Conein's central role in the coup plotting Lodge

decided he wanted a new station chief..... So he burned Richardson--"exposed him, and gave his name publicly to the

newspapers,' as Boby Kennedy said in a classified oral history eight months later--by feading a coldly calculated leak to

a journeyman reporter passing through Saigon. The story was a hot scoop. Identifying Richardson by name-- an un-

precedented breach of security-- it said he had 'frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington

because the Agency disagreed with it.... One high official here. a man who has devoted most of his life in the service of

democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure evern the White House could control it.'

The NYT and Washington Post picked up the story. Richardson his career ruined left Saigon four days later; after a decent

interval, Ambassador Lodge moved into his house (pp. 216-217)

Was this "jouneyman reporter" Starnes? What do you think of Weiner's narration which leaves the impression that the CIA in general was against the removal of Diem, but went along, because they were following the orders of Kennedy?

My friend Kim told me it was an article of faith in her family that

Kennedy ordered the overthrow of Diem in order to prevent

reconciliation talks between Diem and Ho.

And there's the view of Madame Nhu, as reported by one of the best journalists of the period. She was a source both well-placed and without obvious motivation to lie or guild the lily on the question of who destroyed her family:

I think it's understandable that my friend Kim and her family were not

so well tuned to the nuances of American foreign policy that they could

draw a distinction between the agendas of JFK and W. Averell Harriman.

As a consequence of the overthrow of Diem, Kim's family was cast into

poverty. They were not allowed to "escape to Rome." The male members

of her family were blacklisted, denied any formal employment. Her father

ran cockfights to make ends meet, and Kim became an operator on the black

market. At the age of 13, she started selling toothpaste to GIs on the street,

eventually making a fortune in black market currency transactions before she

was out of her teens.

The important point to this is not who was responsible for the overthrow

of Diem, but why.

That Diem was overthrown because he was pursuing peace talks with Ho

is not something commonly acknowledged.

"Today's World Report: Truce Moves Reported In Viet Nam," New York World-Telegram & Sun, (Friday), 25 October 1963, p.6: "LONDON - The government of South Vietnam and Communist North Viet Nam are apparently making exploratory contacts that could lead to a truce, diplomatic sources said. There was no official confirmation…Diplomatic sources said the current moves were believed to be aiming at some sort of truce arrangement with possible wider ramifications."

Paul, thanks for digging this out!

My friend Kim told me it was an article of faith in her family that

Kennedy ordered the overthrow of Diem in order to prevent

reconciliation talks between Diem and Ho.

They were right about everything but the perp: WA Harriman.

Unconvinced, Cliff - you mean all those CIA guys masquerading as journos and cameramen at the storming of the Presidential palace were...Kennedy loyalists? I'm trying hard to convince myself, but, no, it just isn't working!

You think W. Averell Harriman was a Kennedy loyalist?

I don't.

I think Harriman's loyalties resided with the Harriman-Bush Crime Family.

"Today's World Report: Truce Moves Reported In Viet Nam," New York World-Telegram & Sun, (Friday), 25 October 1963, p.6: "LONDON - The government of South Vietnam and Communist North Viet Nam are apparently making exploratory contacts that could lead to a truce, diplomatic sources said. There was no official confirmation…Diplomatic sources said the current moves were believed to be aiming at some sort of truce arrangement with possible wider ramifications."

Paul, thanks for digging this out!

My friend Kim told me it was an article of faith in her family that

Kennedy ordered the overthrow of Diem in order to prevent

reconciliation talks between Diem and Ho.

They were right about everything but the perp: WA Harriman.

on his terms, on the accepted evidence

I can't imagine anything more wrong-headed.

We do not advance the truth by repeating provable lies.

As a line of attack, it needs to be stressed that the autopsy report was a political

document fixed to conform to a political decision to blame the crime on a lone shooter

and 3 shots.

Repeating the talking points of the cover-up is counter-productive, to put it politely.

Again, if the event's raison d'etre is to demonstrate conspiracy, then two LHO's and Z-film authenticity are irrelevant issues.

All that is needed is a presentation of the physical, photographic, audio, medical, eyewitness, and earwitness evidence proving that more than one assassin shot JFK.

Conspiracy is historical fact. Game, set, match.

Keep to "how."

Keep it simple.

If, and only if, a separate and distinct part of the program is devoted to the identification of likely suspects and motives do any other areas of study become relevant.

This is all about intellectual discipline.

STAY ON MESSAGE!

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW?????????

(Sounds like a receiving line at a Native American wedding.)

Charles

But Charles...it is NOT simple.

EVERY point of the Bug must be refuted...and then NEW evidence

presented showing his research is stuck in the sixties.

You and I know that you are correct. But if you keep it too simple

the general public won't care...the basic simple stuff has been

there more than 40 years, and has not sunk in yet with the average

person. Shock treatment is required.

Jack

The basic simple stuff has been there for 40+ years and many, many

CTs ignore it -- just as Bugliosi does.

The holes in the clothes are 2" to 3" too low for the SBT.

Period.

Fonzi gets it. Marrs gets it. Groden gets it. Twyman gets it.

Why argue the fact of conspiracy on anything else?

The burden of proof is on LNers to show how a tucked-in

custom-made dress shirt could ride up 2+" when it only

has a fraction of an inch of slack.

3/4" does not equal 2+".

What the hell more do we need to argue?

That is why Bugliosi refuses to mention

the location of the clothing holes vis a vis the SBT.

Let's not fight him on what he says, let's fight him

on what he disingenuously ignores.

Jim Marrs vs. Vincent Bugliosi would be a one-punch knock-out.

Nothing more outer space than the LN.

Fonzi's my main guy, absolutely.

The "debate" wouldn't last any longer than Ali-Liston II.

JFK's T3 back wound is a fact, folks, and nobody demonstrates that

better than Fonzi.

Apparently Bugliosi walked out of a debate or discussion with Lamar Waldron a few days ago.

Understand Bugliosi is no dummy. He beat Gerry Spence in that jury trial on Oswald's guilt, remember.

But I think he has a much harder bridge to sell in convincing the public that there was no conspiracy in the JFK case.

A debate may never happen but I thought your thoughts would be interesting on who you believe would be the best person to "take on" Vincent in a debate over: Resolved, the JFK assassination involved more than one actor.

And also what would be used as the top four reasons (I wanted to limit it) that prove a conspiracy existed.

I would suggest either Larry Hancock or Pat Speer would reduce Vincent to irrelevancy.

Any other candidates? And if you had to select only one, who would it be?

I am also sure Gerry Hemming could defeat Bugliosi but I want to limit the discussion to current generation researchers/writers.

Gaeton Fonzi or Jim Marrs.

Or my best friend's 6 year old, who could point out the location

of the holes in JFK's clothes.

There's a reason Bugliosi spent 20 years and 1600 pages ignoring the

only extant, direct physical evidence of the nature of JFK's wounds.

The clothing evidence is the Achilles Heel of the LN.

It is interesting that Mr. White and I agree that Fred Thompson could very well be a good president.

I have long had great respect for Sen. Thompson. Please remember, however, that while Nixon ran in 1968 as the "law and order candidate" (do you see any irony there?), Thompson would be the "Law and Order" candidate.

It is interesting that both Thompson and Hilary were young staff members on the Watergate Committee. (Also interesting to see what age does to people and to look at the clothing styles of the seventies!)

I suspect Thompson and Clinton each have some knowledge of the JFK case. As I recall, the Watergate Committee had interviewed Rosselli and that did lead ultimately to the formation of the Church Committee.

Thompson = Bush

Yeah, four more years of Republican treason.

Great.

btw, I got to see an Impeach Cheney banner fly over Willie Mays Field

(Telephone Park) today.

Great day for the "I" words -- Impeach!

Ichiro!

Can you recommend some specific sources on a Mormon/gov't alliance Harry?

Other than google that is.

Myra,

Haven't read it, but sounds interesting, fwiw...

http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/mormon...hecia_ub047.htm

You're all right, Mark.

What's a little bruising rhetoric between Bush haters?

Of course any careful reader will know that I didn't say Haldeman wrote "The Ends of Power" in the service of anything. I never mentioned that book - which I have read by the way.

Well, if you were reading carefully, Mark, you'd notice that I mentioned the book.

In direct response to what I wrote about the book, you condemned Haldeman as

a xxxx and a man "in service of arch conservatism and Richard Nixon."

Since the book, The Ends of Power, was the context at hand -- and since

you've read the book -- please point out where in TEOP Haldeman was "in service

to arch conservatism and Richard Nixon."

If you cannot, your point is moot.

Post-incarceration Haldeman possibly had a different agenda than

pre-incarceration Haldeman, ya think?

You seem to have a hard time digesting what you read.

Let's try another view of TEOP...

The Ends of Power reads like a guy getting even.

Is Haldeman a xxxx? Of course! But he wrote TEOP right after

he got out of prison, and the possibility he wrote TEOP to "come

to Jesus" and set the record straight cannot be categorically dismissed.

What's interesting about Haldeman is that years after the publication

of TEOP Chris Matthews asked him about "the Bay of Pigs thing".

Haldeman insisted his ghost writer Joe DiMona wrote it!

Haldeman denied the entire JFK-assassination subtext of the book, which

is a substantial running thread throughout!

DiMona doused that claim, saying he was writing down what Haldeman

told him.

Apparently, Haldeman felt he'd told too much..

When Haldeman's Diaries were published, TEOP and everything in it

was noticably absent.

I suggest you try to go slower. Or have someone read to you. Okay, that's

two things you've gotten wrong in a short space of time.

This is hysterical. Literally.

A logical leap would be that your powers of interpersonal discernment

suffer equally.

Traded 'em for a bleacher seat at Pac Bell Park for game 5 of

the 2002 World Series.

It was almost worth it.

Self-righteous? Kettle, meet pot.

No, I was sincerely applauding your hyper-self-righteousness.

I think that hyper-self-righteousness is the only proper response to

the Karl Roves and Richard Nixons, those lying sacks of puke-maggot

scum who have done so much damage to our country and to the world.

I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who equate

lying about a blow job to lying about a national security breach.

I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who say the

president has a right to obstruct justice.

IHNBCAR for those who say the Holocaust never happened.

IHNBCAR for those who deny the fact that the JFK autopsy

report was fixed to conform to the pre-determined "3-shot"

scenario.

IHNBCAR for those who say JFK's shirt collar isn't visible in

these two photo images taken at roughly the same time on

Elm St.

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.

Haldeman was a lifelong xxxx in the service of arch-conservatism and Richard Nixon.

Nice condemnation of a book you've never read.

If The Ends of Power was written "in the service of arch-conservatism

and Richard Nixon" -- Mark Valenti is a golfer.

He got his start way back in California, performing illegal services in the cause of near-Nazi beliefs. He was Rove, pre-Rove. What makes you believe anything Haldeman said? For all we know, he was having a good laugh at the expense of conspiracy theorists. That would be more in character for him, not some latter-day truth telling conversion.

Only Nixon knew what he meant by "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" - and it's a stretch to think that Haldeman's bruised ego would make him spill those kind of beans.

Hunt was another lifelong xxxx. It's amazing to me that his words carry weight with anyone - but then again the love of golf is a mystery to me too.

Your hyper-self-righteousness is admirable, no doubt.

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.