Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,563 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
Here is is another interesting point of view....
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html
SEEING THE UNSEEN, Part 2
(This is the long-overdue second part of an examination of the value of critical thinking. Part 1 is here. The final installment will deal with the issue of Global Warming)
Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct.
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 justIt’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency.And though it pains me to say so, this culture is in desperate need of a shave.
IT’S A CONSPIRACY!
as 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?
I want to forgo the niceties of the hot towel and go straight for the jugular on this one. My goal here is not to bust any of these four conspiracy theories; that has all been done much more effectively elsewhere.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 basicWhat I am trying to do here is to build a chain of evidence to show a progressively deteriorating epidemic of world-wide insanity, of truly diseased thinking -- not just a misunderstanding or difference of opinion but real, diagnosable mental illness.facts of the JFK case, and an astonishing gullibility in general.
[snip disingenuous conflating of Moon Hoax with JFK, 9/11]
But these denialists – the Moon Hoaxers and the 9/11 “Truthers” – these are a different breed.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 factsAnd they are cut from precisely the same cloth. That is to say, they suffer from the same disease: an unwillingness to face reality and its consequences.of the JFK case, or 9/11, Proteus is free of the burden of making an actual
argument.
[snip Moon Hoax irrelevancies]
As I was leaving Joe’s, he said something I’m sure he thought was very funny. He said, “Man, I’ll bet a guy like you thinks Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK.”Of course he shot JFK, Joe. Who do you think did it? The American Beef Council?
Joe looked at me the way I had been looking at him. That is to say, he simply could not process that I could hold such a belief in my head.
You’re serious?
I’m dead serious. I recommended Case Closed, by Gerald Posner – without question the best piece of critical reasoning, research and logic I have ever read, bar none.
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."I suspect he did not follow my advice. Books like that are bad for his business.Man, you’re out there, said Joe.
You know, the sad thing is, I’m starting to believe he is right.
A quick aside…
Back around 1989 or so, I had just moved to LA and was working the night shift as a limousine driver. I had a miserable little apartment in North Hollywood. I had heard of a book that had published the autopsy pictures of President Kennedy, and how it contained compelling evidence of a conspiracy. It was called Best Evidence and I bought it.
It doesn’t rain often in Los Angeles, but it rained the night I read that book. Its author, David Lifton, claimed that Kennedy was shot from the front, but then the body was secretly taken from Air Force One to Walter Reed Army Hospital where extensive surgery “reversed” the trajectory of the wounds to make it look like poor patsy Oswald was the real assassin.
When I finally got to the payoff a shot of electricity went through me. I realized that I was now in possession of such history-changing information that I distinctly recall getting up, opening the door and peering out into the rain to see if I was being watched. I felt, truly, for one half-hour that my life might be in danger. I wish I could say I am making this up.
That sense of uncovering deep layers of ancient cover-ups is what drove the sales of The DaVinci Code. There, too, a web of truths, half-truths and outright fabrication spun a story that left the reader with a palpable sense of awe. It made you feel important, like you knew something absolutely essential that very few others ever were privileged to know.
Now most normal people do not look at life from within a pit of failure and despair. Our lives are measured by small successes -- like raising children, serving in the military, doing volunteer work at your church – or just doing the right thing in a thousand small but important ways, like returning money if someone makes you too much change.
These are simply the small, ordinary milestones of a life of value. They give you a sense of identity.
But if I didn’t have that sense of identity rooted in my own small achievements, I wonder how likely it would have been for me to grab onto that sense of sudden empowerment, of being an initiate in some arcane club of hidden wisdom. I wonder what might have happened to me if being the Holder of Secret Knowledge had been my only source of self-esteem… the one redeeming landmark in a life of isolation and failure. Indeed, I wonder what power such a worldview would have over me if I could believe that behind the scenes lurked vast and unknowable dark forces – forces that could topple a president and perhaps even explain why a person of my deep, vast and bountiful talents was not doing a whole lot better in life?
I wonder what might have happened to me then.
Because I did not need to believe in Giant Wheels of Conspiracy grinding John F. Kennedy to dust, I was relieved and not a little embarrassed when I finally read Case Closed. It was – quite vividly – like opening a window in a musty, cluttered, book-filled room and feeling the cool breeze of reason and logic air out the mind.
This is not the place for me to debate whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin that day. That would take an entire book, exhaustively researched, with extensive footnoting and reference to primary sources.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.
There is such a book, it is called Case Closed, and as I said, it performs its function better than any book I have ever read.I am more interested in the psychology of someone who believes in these conspiracy theories. I exempt people who have only heard one side of the story, as I did. Sadly, skepticism doesn’t sell as well as hysteria. With regards to The View, ABC and Disney would rather count their ad money than waste potential revenues placing the truth for sale. If this offends you as much as it does me, you may make your purchases and plan your vacations accordingly.
Intellectually honest people, people without a deep, vested emotional need to believe the worst, are usually relieved to hear the facts that demolish superstitions like the Bermuda Triangle and the Loch Ness Monster. While there may be disappointment at the loss of an unseen world, people who have chosen to live in reality find comfort in the fact that reality is, in fact, made up of the real and not the wished for.
No, what fascinates me is the emotional motive of people who, presented with overwhelming evidence that the events that transpired on November 22nd, 1963 or September 11th, 2001 really happened exactly the way it appeared, continue to spin ever more elaborate webs in order to get to a place they need to be emotionally. Who are you going to believe: them or your own lying eyes?
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?
-
Has anyone read Chuck Barris' autobiography Confessions of a Dangerous Mind or seen the movie of the same title? There is one scene in the movie (I have not read the book) that is set in 1963. Barris is being trained to be a CIA assassin. As he leaves the training session he says goodbye to a fellow operative who he calls "Lee".
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.
-
Cliff,
I thank you, too, for a most challenging reply.
You wrote: "[W]hat 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."
Allow me to explain: On the "Political Conspiracies" site, in a topic titled "Eject! Eject! Eject!" by Craig Lamson, I responded to the author's efforts to deny the truth of conspiracy by fallaciously applying the principle of Occam's Razor in analysis of the JFK assassination thusly:
Mr. Lamson writes:
"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."
Not quite.
The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.
The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."
Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.
The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?
Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."
So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?
Charles
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.
***Perhaps I might have been more artful in my prose: The principle of parsimony does not work when applied to analyses of intelligence operations if the data under scrutiny is limited to the cover stories.
You wrote: "If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operation than the 'official lone-nut' cover-up, am I some kind of 'denier'?"
On the contrary: you are a a speaker and champion of the truth.
I find your focus on the SBT lie to be productive, and I applaud your attitude and tone when expounding upon the subject.
Further, I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the materials found at the website you reference. I am all too familiar with its author and his ... problems.
Charles
A first-rate obfuscationist, that one, even worse, because he's actually done some valuable
work, gems amid the ego-driven dreck.
-
Cliff,
I thank you, too, for a most challenging reply.
You wrote: "[W]hat 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."
Allow me to explain: On the "Political Conspiracies" site, in a topic titled "Eject! Eject! Eject!" by Craig Lamson, I responded to the author's efforts to deny the truth of conspiracy by fallaciously applying the principle of Occam's Razor in analysis of the JFK assassination thusly:
Mr. Lamson writes:
"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."
Not quite.
The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.
The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."
Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.
The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?
Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."
So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?
Charles
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.
***Perhaps I might have been more artful in my prose: The principle of parsimony does not work when applied to analyses of intelligence operations if the data under scrutiny is limited to the cover stories.
You wrote: "If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operation than the 'official lone-nut' cover-up, am I some kind of 'denier'?"
On the contrary: you are a a speaker and champion of the truth.
I find your focus on the SBT lie to be productive, and I applaud your attitude and tone when expounding upon the subject.
Further, I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the materials found at the website you reference. I am all too familiar with its author and his ... problems.
Charles
A first-rate obfuscationist, that one, even worse, because he's actually done some valuable
work, gems amid the ego-driven dreck.
-
The function of Fred Leuchter is to provide scientific context for the Holocaust denial (HD) position.
The imagined strengths of Leuchter's arguments and the methodologies and data that inform them are irrelevant to this operation. The goal all along had been to apply the imprimatur of science to HD, which in turn now serves as a source of respectability for subsequent like-minded "scholars."
In terms of the subject of this forum, we can cite Alvarez, Lattimer, Guinn, and Specter as being chief among first-generation science deniers and the role models for Rahn, McAdam, Posner, Russo, Myers, and now Bugliosi (at least one of whom is known to embrace HD and to treasure his collection of recorded Nazi marches -- no kidding!).
Theirs and their masters' is a war for the minds and hearts not of our generation (we were lost no later than late morning, CST, 11/24/63), but of those to come. It matters not that all of these charlatans have been revealed for who they are and what they represent. Their work has been done.
Don't agree? Then why does the wholly discredited SBT/fiction and the wholly discredited "science" and "evidence" upon which it was predicated continue to wreak havoc with truth and justice?
We can't kill it, first because it has been allowed to be presented as science, and now because we continue to show collegiality and respect for the liars and/or fools who would mire us in endless debate of the long-settled howdunit question.
(When I write "we" I surely generalize; know that I know.)
On another thread there recently was an attempt to restart the Occam's Razor operation.
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 operationI was one of many who pointed out the stupidity of such an approach to analysis of the intel op that was/is the JFK assassination and coverup.than 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.
But to my knowledge I'm the only contributor to state that I treat the OC argument with utter contempt in the JFK case, I harbor disrespect and scorn for its proponent, and to respond in any other fashion would be to play into the hands of truth deniers.I am not arguing that we must avoid responding to the truth deniers. Rather, I am urging all of us to characterize our responses with a mixture of well-deserved ridicule and contempt. Don't merely point out how, for instance, the SBT has been proven to be a fiction; further indicate the true motivations of those who would continue to embrace discredited, wholly ridiculous theories in service to the darkest imaginable poltical, cultural, and social agendas.
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 theThis is war.Charles
location 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:
Hey Jim,I'd like to ask your permission to use the following quote from your e-mail:
(quote on)
Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder
blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission
smokescreen, namely that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't
be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because
hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up.
Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is
that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin
theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the
government....period.
(quote off)
That sums it up to a T.
Much regard,
Cliff Varnell
(emphasis added)
This is Jim's reply to my request.
Howdy Cliff,Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this,
the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window
dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has the
staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what
changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.
Best regards,
Jim Marrs
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:Single Bullet, Single GunmanFebruary 21, 2007, Wednesday
By GERALD POSNER (NYT); Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 21, Column 1, 576 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Gerald Posner Op-Ed column says newly-revealed home
movie made by George Jefferies shows Pres and Mrs Kennedy in Dallas motorcade
seconds before assassination, and reveals that president's coat was bunched up in
way that explains position of bullet holes in jacket and shirt; explains that issue has
long fueled conspiracy buffs; urges others who may have similar movies to reveal
them, since even most innocuous-seeming artifacts can sometimes put enduring
controversies to rest.
The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip, as the camerafocuses on the backs of the president and the first lady, Kennedy's suit is significantly
bunched up, with several layers creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey
Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy's suit jacket was precisely in the position to
misrepresent the bullet's entry point. (emphasis added)
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.
-
Is it appropriate to use a given scholar's "take" on the assassination as a litmus test for his or her work in other areas?
dgh: absolutely call it credibility... Manchester included
I eagerly await your thoughts.
Charles
Agreed. My basic premise: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.[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.
-
No one has published more research on George de Mohrenschildt than Bruce Campbell Adamson. Currently he offers eleven books on de Mohrenschildt and his connections:
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
-
During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.
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"?
In 1964, Mohammed Fayed visited Haiti and handed out a business card"that associated him with a Kuwait oil company. ... Fayed recieved exclusive contracts which gave him control of the oil industry, shipping and the port. He agreed to invest $1 million within two years in an oil refinery and $5 million within four years on a variety of harbor-improvement programs. In addition to his oil concession he was named sole shipping agent for 12 steamship companies serving Haiti. Besides these agent fees he collected wharfage fees that previously went to the government, and he quickly increased these fees. Among his other accomplishments, he became a Haitian citizen in a matter of months although normally a ten-year residency is required. To improve the harbor, Fayed set out buoy markers, hired a British harbor master, and put lights on the pier.
He ran into opposition from the West India Trans-Atlantic Conference and the United States-Gulf-Haitian conference of shippers, who protested to Duvalier. At a meeting of the conference Fayed did not show up and Duvalier said he was searching world capitals for Fayed and acknowledged that a large sum of money had left Haiti with him. Fayed's bank accounts were frozen too late. The local manager of a bank where he did business was ousted from the country on the excuse that he had expressed antigovernment views.
The arrival of Fayed and other foreign investors in Haiti prompted Richard Elder of The New York Times to write:
'Both business and dilomatic circles have been paying close attention to the arrival over the past year of a series of visitors who let it be known that they plan to invest large amounts of money here. These visitors have in common a lack of much conventionally traceable business background and close connections with one [Haitian]government official or another.'
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?
Fayed's connection was Clemard Charles, Duvalier's banker. Charles received a government concession on automobile insurance and Fayed assisted him with it..... Fayed's oil concession went to him only after an American company, the Valentine Petroleum and Chemical Corporation, had its representative expelled from the country and its contract to build a refinery canceled. Valentine had an investment guarantee from the U.S. Agency for International Development, and tried to sue the United States to collect $817,000 in damages. (The president of the company said that the United States offered him a settlement 'so small it's ridiculous.' "From Papa Doc: Haiti and Its Dictator. Bernard Diederich and Al Bart, The Bodley Head, 1969, pp. 383-385
Peter Fokes
-
During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.
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.
-
During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.
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?
-
During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.
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)
-
During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.
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)
-
During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.
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?
-
I too have believed for a long time that he was shot in the throat. But it didn't happen. The only time that JFK COULD have been shot in the throat, was very early in the game, at the beginning of the Zapruder film. Why? Because after that, he slumps forward and his throat is not exposed anymore. It doesn't make sense for ANY shooter, not even a trigger happy one, to shoot from the front that early, if the plan was to frame a patsy from BEHIND.
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.Moreover, it would be an EXTREMELY risky shot right thru the windshield (glass breaks the line of vision, and could also deflect the bullet path). The bullet hole, crack or whatever it was in the windshield, was the result from a missed bullet from behind over JFK's head. Just as the nick in the chrome lining was.Additionally, his head and throat would be exposed for only a very short time, with no time to follow and aim. And the other passengers were in the way, JFK was the most rear passenger in the limo, hence an additional risk to hit someone else in the car.
Finally, there was no wound of exit, neither a bullet found, found for such a shot.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...The throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment , maybe even a drop of mercury from JF's mercury explosive bullet. The tiny perforations in JFK's face, as observed by embalmer Thom Robinson, were also the result of mercury drops.Lastly, what you guys and dolls don't know is that I have an interview with Thom Robinson, wherein he states that the gaping hole in JFK's skull was probed with a tiny probe and that one of those probes from INSIDE the skull came out at the throat wound !
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.
That's why he told me that he has always been very quiet about this, but that he has chuckled for all those years at the conspiracy buffs who claim JFK was shot in the throat from the front. He knew better since 1963. And I know better since I spoke to him. I should have known better earlier by listening to Jimmy, instead of to the JFK research community, and what they have brainwashed themselves with. I too was a victim of what I wanted to believe, and looked so self-evident.James Files was right all along. He was the ONLY shooter from the front, and even he was not supposed to shoot. But he did, because JFK had not been hit in the head. Failure was never an option in a operation that Jimmy took part in, not even at age 21. That's what made him such a valuable asset for the Chicago mob and the CIA.
Chuckle...
Jackie Kennedy saw him get hit. She emerged from behindNo witness (and there were many, looking right at him) saw him being shot at that moment.the freeway sign looking right at him and crying out --
"What are they doing to you?"
The first hit was in his back and made his arms fly up. Moreover , with a patsy behind, it would be plain stupid to fire the first shot from the front.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?"
-
Found online:
KRUSCHEV REMEMBERS page 551-552:
Nikita Kruschev quotes the report of his Foreign Minister Anatoly Dobrynin who met with Robert Kennedy in Washington during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
"Robert Kennedy looked exhausted. One could see from his eyes that he had not slept for days. He himself said he had not been home in six days and nights."
Quoting RFK:
"The President is in a grave situation and he does not know how to get out of it. We are under very severe stress. In fact we are under pressure from our military to use force in Cuba..."
"..Even though the President is very much against starting a war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will.
That is why the president is appealing directly to Chairman Kruschev for his help in liquidating this conflict. If the situation continues much longer, the President is
not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American Army could get out of control."
Then Kruschev writes:
"I hadn't overlooked this possibility.We knew that Kennedy was a young President and the security of the United States was indeed threatened. For some time we had felt there was a danger that the President would lose control of his military, and now he was admitting this to us himself."
----------------------------------------
And, in Arthur Krock's New York Times column that appeared October 3, 1963, just a few weeks before Kennedy was to be murdered, there is this interesting note attributed to Richard Starnes of Scripps-Howard (dateline: Saigon):
"ACCORDING TO A HIGH UNITED STATES SOURCE HERE, TWICE THE C. I. A. FLATLY REFUSED TO CARRY OUT INSTRUCTIONS FROM AMBASSADOR HENRY CABOT LODGE [AND] IN ONE INSTANCE FRUSTRATED A PLAN OF ACTION MR. LODGE BROUGHT FROM WASHINGTON BECAUSE THE AGENCY DISAGREED WITH IT."
Strauss goes on to quote a "very high American official who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy":
THE C. I. A.'S GROWTH WAS "LIKENED TO A MALIGNANCY" WHICH THE "VERY HIGH OFFICIAL WAS NOT SURE EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE COULD CONTROL"ANY LONGER." "IF THE UNITED STATES EVER EXPERIENCES [AN ATTEMPT AT A COUP TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT] IT WILL COM FROM THE C. I. A. AND NOT THE PENTAGON." THE AGENCY "REPRESENTS A TREMENDOUS POWER AND TOTAL UNACCOUNTABILITY TO ANYONE."
Maxwell Taylor was in Vietnam at the time of this story.
If the quotes are from Taylor as some believe,
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":
IF THE UNITED STATES EVER EXPERIENCES A '7 DAYS IN MAY' IT WILL COME FROMTHE C. I. A. AND NOT THE PENTAGON
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...
-
The jacket dropped. Not a theory, an easily observed fact.
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.
Cliff Varnell:Gary,
You're not interested in the well documented historical fact that
JFK's jacket collar dropped to a normal position at the base of his
neck in Dealey Plaza?
Gary Mack:I didn't say I was not interested.
To which I responded:
Good! We'll agree to disagree about every other pointand just stick with something we both agree on:
That JFK's jacket collar drop in Dealey Plaza is interesting.
Have you watched for the drop in a clear copy of Nix?
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?
-
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.
Here you go.Didn't touch this one as it becomes more blurry in previous/successive frames.
Left it in PNG format, so no compression.
If you can't open it let me know and I'll .jpg for you.
chris
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.
-
Cliff,
If you know what specific frame from the movie you need, just specify.
Here's one from the movie and the photo by Jim Towner.
I enlarged them somewhat.
If it helps,
chris
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.
-
Cliff,
If you know what specific frame from the movie you need, just specify.
Here's one from the movie and the photo by Jim Towner.
I enlarged them somewhat.
If it helps,
chris
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:Cliff,My observation of the Towner film, which you call "analysis," does
nothing to Posner's opinion one way or the other, no matter how
hard you try to spin it.
Gary
cc: Gerald Posner
Gary,You stipulate to seeing the shirt collar at the
back of JFK's neck in the Towner film less than
five seconds before the shooting.
Gary responded:
Fair enough.Read again. I never said I saw the shirt collar "at the back."I saw "part of his shirt collar" and was referring to the side.
Had you bothered to ask, I would have clarified.
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.
Last week I had the following exchange with Gary Mack, curator ofthe 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
Cliff Varnell:
The Towner film was taken less than 10 seconds before the shooting.
The Towner film trumps the Jefferies film in evidentiary value -- doesn't it?
Gary Mack:When I look at a good copy of Towner, I see the suit IS bunched
even though part of his shirt collar is still visible. I think there's a blowup
version in the Discovery Channel "Death In Dealey Plaza" program.
That show uses the Museum's transfer of the original film, not that
crappy Groden version. Take a look - the bulge that's very clear in
Jefferies is still there in Towner.
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,Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy'ssuit jacket was precisely in position to mis-represent the bullet's entry point.
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!
-
From Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher, Bobbs-Merrill 1967, p 142:The holes in the President's coat and shirt are also powerful evidence of a wound well below the neckline. The holes are about 5.5 inches below the top of the collar, while the wound is supposedly about 5.5 inches below the tip of the mastoid process. The discrepancy is substantial. Yet Dr. Humes testified that the holes and the wound "conform quite well." He conceded that they gave the appearance "when viewed separately....as being somewhat lower," and proceeded to belabor a hypothesis that the discrepancy resulted from the fact that "the President was extremely well-developed, an extremely well-developed muscular young man with a very well-developed set of muscles....I believe this would have a tendency to push the portions of the coat which shows the defects somewhat higher on the back of the President than on a man of less muscular development." (2H 365)This explanation is singularly unconvincing and guaranteed to stir the wrath of Mr. Kennedy's tailor. The President's coat fit him with elegance, as photographs show. Governor Connally is also a large, well-developed, well-muscled man, but his wounds and the holes in his clothing correspond almost exactly. Was his tailor more gifted than Kennedy's?The Warren Commission may accept Hume's implausible speculations but it does not dispose of reports by eyewitnesses that the wound was four or six inches below the neck. Nor is it understandable that the Commission has failed to mention the discrepancy between the alleged location of the wound and the holes in the clothing in its Report.....
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
Cliff Varnell:The Towner film was taken less than 10 seconds before the shooting.
The Towner film trumps the Jefferies film in evidentiary value -- doesn't it?
Gary Mack:When I look at a good copy of Towner, I see the suit IS bunched
even though part of his shirt collar is still visible. I think there's a blowup
version in the Discovery Channel "Death In Dealey Plaza" program.
That show uses the Museum's transfer of the original film, not that
crappy Groden version. Take a look - the bulge that's very clear in
Jefferies is still there in Towner.
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:
Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy'ssuit jacket was precisely in position to mis-represent the bullet's entry point.
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!
The MEN Who Killed Kennedy
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.