Cliff Varnell

Larry Sturdivan knows nothing about how clothing fits.

Yeah, poor guy. He has to walk around naked every day.

Yeah, poor guy wouldn't know a custom made dress shirt from a hole in the ground.

Because the mastoid process is not a fixed anatomical landmark, it is moveable. It is NEVER used to measure the location of a back wound.

How many back wounds have you ever measured (or ever researched as being measured by autopsists)? Not many, I'll bet.

How many autopsies had Humes ever conducted -- not any, I bet.

And the Mastoid IS considered a "fixed" landmark. Or is Humes lying again here (via his 1996 ARRB testimony)?:

Q -- When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark?

HUMES -- Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it does.

Q -- Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic cavity?

HUMES -- It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to.

Q -- Well, if your head turns to the right or to the left, does the mastoid process distance vary with relationship to--

HUMES -- Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly.

Yes, Humes is lying. The ARRB took him to task for using a movable cranial

landmark to measure a thoracic wound.

What vertebra is 14cm below the mastoid process, Von Pein?

You can't tell us, because you don't know.

Does this diagram show a wound in the back of the neck?

Oh puh-leeeease! Not the "Boswell Dot" thing (again)!

Is the "dot" MORE important to you CT people than the WRITTEN-IN ANATOMICAL MEASUREMENTS RIGHT BESIDE THE STICK MAN??

You're losing credibility...fast...with this argument.

The dot was recorded in pencil -- according to autopsy protocol.

The meaningless measurements from the mastoid were recorded in pen, a violation

of autopsy protocol.

What is the best evidence, that which was properly recorded, or that which was improperly

recorded?

I do care to {tell about those "Mystery Bullets" that replace the SBT}, but not in any conversation with the likes of you.

Yeah, that's what I figured. You haven't the slightest idea where the bullets went. Must have been Kreskin's handiwork. No other sleight-of-hand genius could have managed that trick.

I'm not going to waste my time with you any more than it takes to underscore your

inherent dishonesty.

To claim, as you do, David, that 3" of JFK's jacket and 3" of his shirt bunched up

*in tandem* entirely ABOVE the C7 SBT inshoot at the base of his neck -- but entirely

BELOW the jacket collar at the base of his neck -- is an egregious intellectual dishonesty.

And to base the SBT's "impossibility" on MOVABLE CLOTHING is, in itself, "intellectual dishonesty", IMO.

The jacket moved DOWN in Dealey Plaza -- an irrefutable fact.

JFK on Houston St: no visible shirt collar at the back of the neck.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/altgens2.jpg

JFK at Z186: the shirt collar is visible at the back of the neck -- the jacket DROPPED.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

The physical evidence is consistent with the documentary evidence and the witness

testimony putting JFK's back wound at T3.

Larry M. Sturdivan, in his excellent book, "The JFK Myths", totally agrees on this point.

Larry Sturdivan knows nothing about how clothing fits.

Ask him to replicate the feat -- 6 inches of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above the

SBT inshoot at C7 and entirely below the jacket collar at C6.

Hell, you couldn't replicate that using both hands to pull!

The BODY (SKIN) OF THE PRESIDENT is by far the best measuring stick to the wounds.

Not the clothing. And everybody knows it. You're out on a shaky limb with your "clothing" arguments.

How could the jacket collar occupy the same physical space at the same time as 6 inches

of bunched up clothing fabric?

David, you cannot tell me who shot the autopsy photo you cite. You cannot tell me who developed the photo. There is nothing in the photo to indicate it's Jack Kennedy.

Yep, that didn't take long -- i.e., didn't take long for the proverbial CTer Motto of "It Must Be Fake" to pop into the proceedings.

Why did you snip out the HSCA conclusions that the Fox 5 photo was "deficient," and

"difficult or impossible" to use to determine the location of the wound?

That's a cop-out and you know it. Not to mention a totally-debunked notion (by the HSCA, the Clark Panel, and the autopsy doctors themselves from their 1967 Natl. Archives visit).

It's a measure of your intellectual dishonesty that you snipped out the HSCA conclusions I cited.

The HSCA also concluded that the Fox 5 autopsy photo would have been prima facie

inadmissable in court.

From HSCA Vol 7:

(quote on, emphasis added))

In the main, these shortcomings [of the autopsy photos] bespeak of haste,

inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs tobe 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 DEFICIENCES 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)

Your "14cm below the right mastoid process" is at best a guess.

It's not a "guess" at all. Why would you even say such a silly thing?

Because the mastoid process is not a fixed anatomical landmark, it is moveable. It is

NEVER used to measure the location of a back wound.

It comes directly from Boswell's Face Sheet, and all of the doctors' WC testimony (and HSCA testimony).

Does this diagram show a wound in the back of the neck?

I suppose ALL of that stuff is "fake" too...right? Including the original Boswell Face Sheet with the "14 cm. from tip of RT. Mastoid Process" written in by hand?

That face sheet shows a low back wound. Do your homework.

The face sheet diagram was filled out in pencil according to autopsy protocol, and

was marked "verified." The measurements from the mastoid process were recorded

in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol, using a moveable anatomical landmark, also

a violation of autopsy protocol.

Or is it your contention that Boswell, et al, just lied when they claimed they measured the wound from the Mastoid?

Since they could move it around, what difference does it make?

Is there any end in sight for the massive cover-up? I guess everybody must be involved....from Hoover and Burkley...right on down the line.

Burkley recorded the back wound at T3!!

Do your homework, Von Pein. You cite the HSCA as verifying the authenticity

of the autopsy photos, but the HSCA clearly questioned the authenticity of

the autopsy photos.

You cite the autopsy face sheet, but the autopsy face sheet diagram put the wound

at T3 or below.

You cite the autopsy report, but the autopsy report but the wound in the back, not the neck.

You can't cite one piece of medical evidence for the SBT that isn't self-contradictory or

produced against proper protocol.

Not...one...piece.

JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza, the SBT thus stands debunked.

Oh goodie. The clothing crap again (just for good measure I guess).

Oh goody -- more of Von Pein wilting in the face of the physical evidence.

No rebuttal at all -- just an appeal to the authority of Larry Sturdivan, that noted

clothes horse.

Care to tell the world where those 3 or 4 bullets disappeared to that must replace the dreaded SBT?

I do care to, but not in any conversation with the likes of you.

And "guessing" won't work remember. You hate "guessing", because you said this above (remember?)......

"Your '14cm below the right mastoid process' is at best a guess."

Nothing wrong with guessing, as long as one can discern speculation from proven fact.

David R. Von Pein, what do you make of the testimony of Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert?

Their observations are interesting, indeed. But as far as those observations undercutting the LN/SBT position....no way. They do not.

No way? Since when is the base of the neck "below the shoulder"?

Dale Myers' computer animation shows an SBT inshoot about an inch below the bottom

of the clothing collars.

But the holes in JFK's clothes are 4" below the bottom of the collars.

These two photos show JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the base of his neck.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

Note the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar at Love Field.

Ditto in Betzner at Z186.

To claim, as you do, David, that 3" of JFK's jacket and 3" of his shirt bunched up *in tandem*

entirely ABOVE the C7 SBT inshoot at the base of his neck -- but entirely BELOW the jacket

collar at the base of his neck -- is an egregious intellectual dishonesty.

You probably weren't paying attention to Chad Zimmerman's segment on Unsolved History.

In his final experiment, the jacket collar jumped up into his stand-in's hairline. Btw, Chad

has disavowed every claim made in that presentation of his.

The fact of conspiracy is readily established: JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position

at the base of his neck at the time he was shot.

The SBT thus stands debunked.

But for the Parlor Game portion of our discussion, let's continue...

The Official Autopsy Report trumps O'Neill and Sibert and always shall.

The Official Autopsy Report (WCR pg 540) put the wound in the vicinity of T2, NOT the back

of the neck.

(quote on)

Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the

scapula there is a 7 X 4 millimeter oval wound.

(quote off)

Humes fudged the location of the back wound from "below the shoulder" (FBI Autopsy Report)

to "just above the upper border of the scapula."

As this diagram shows, T2 is "just above the upper margin of the scapula."

Those two FBI men weren't doing the autopsy -- Humes, Finck, and Boswell were. And whose signatures are attached to that Report (the most important report any of them would ever sign in their lives)? -- Certainly not the sigs of the two FBI men. It was Humes, Finck, and Boswell.

Question -- Do you, John, truly believe that all three autopsy doctors would deliberately sign-off on a false Autopsy Report of the POTUS that each of them KNEW was nothing but a pack of lies??

To believe that ALL THREE autopsy doctors were (to a man) lying rotten cover-up scumbags is to believe in the most preposterous of CT fantasies (IMO).

They were military men acting under orders.

Interesting that Humes, Finck and Boswell were the only good eyewitnesses to the wounds, according to you.

The half-dozen people who described the throat entrance wound at Parkland suffered a mass hallucination?

The dozen-plus people who described a back wound consistent with T3 also suffered a mass hallucination?

As I say, your intellectual dishonesty is egregious.

And this statement from the FBI agents' report.......

"During the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below his shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column."

....certainly does nothing to discredit the SBT. If it does...how so?

The neck is not below the shoulders.

The neck is not part of the "upper thorax."

David, where do you come up with this stuff?

How is that general wound description much different than what we see here? .....

Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:

(quote on, emphasis added))

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 POSTIONED

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.

(quote off)

Less than 20 years after the release of that report Saundra Kay Spencer, the woman on

record as having developed the extant autopsy photos, testified under oath that she did

not develope the extant autopsy photos.

David, you cannot tell me who shot the autopsy photo you cite.

You cannot tell me who developed the photo.

There is nothing in the photo to indicate it's Jack Kennedy.

Your "14cm below the right mastoid process" is at best a guess; as an autopsy photo

the above was improperly produced, of poor quality, "more confusing than informative"

(HSCA), and of questionable authenticity.

It's a moot point, though.

JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza, the SBT thus stands debunked.

Slattery,

Ever serve your country in the military?

Just curious...

Never had the privilege.

Another neo-con chickenhawk...Never had the guts to fight the battles

you advocate?

Another self-hating Western appeaser

I'm a self-loving American patriot battling the the Cheney/Bush Treason syndicate.

As far as Bin Laden & Co. go, I equate them with Frankenstein's monster.

The House of Bush and the House of Saud I equate with Dr. Frankenstein.

We need to destroy the monster and jail its creators.

Slattery,

Ever serve your country in the military?

Just curious...

Never had the privilege.

Another neo-con chickenhawk...Never had the guts to fight the battles

you advocate?

Slattery,

Ever serve your country in the military?

Just curious...

According to Dr. Slattery, just how many suspiciously timed deaths must occur before we amateur sleuths are entitled muse aloud, without being branded as delusional Bush-haters?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand

by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally

treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

True patriots question their government -- moral traitors drink the "Official Story" Kool-Aid

and run around calling patriots "kooks."

Brendan,

I have an off-topic question for you, if you don't mind...

Vince Foster -- suicide, or murder?

5. That is one of the photos which Altgens SAID HE DID NOT TAKE. I see no

fakery in the image, but is it an Altgens picture?

Jack

This one:

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/altgens2.jpg

I've seen it listed as Altgens #2 and Altgens #4.

The films/photos I cited show that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza;

the information contained therein stands un-disputed by questions of authenticity.

Investigate before saying things that are not true.

Jack

Jack, I'm curious to know if you have any reason to suspect (or conclude) fakery

in any of the following:

1) Willis #5

2) Betzner #3

3) The Towner film

4) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

5) The Altgens photo from the west side of Houston St.

Thanks in advance.

It truly does not get much more simple than these facts!

You left out the important ones.

The bullet defect in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet defect in his jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

Here's the Towner film, which shows JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the

base of his neck, on Elm St.

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

Betzner #3 at Z186 shows the same thing.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

For a bullet to have struck JFK in the back of the neck at C7 as per the SBT, the shirt

and jacket had to have been bunched up in tandem at least 3 INCHES.

That's at least 6 INCHES of fabric bunched up entirely ABOVE the C7 inshoot at the

base of JFK's neck -- and entirely BELOW the jacket collar at the base of JFK's neck.

That is flat out physically impossible. You couldn't replicate such an event using

BOTH hands to tug, Thomas.

Cliff,

By no means did I intend to slight anything you have written. I hope it didn't appear that way.

Without a doubt, Specter performed an incredible disservice to America. His duplicity during the investigation, and stubbornly clinging to his falsehoods for more than four decades is inexcusable.

Mike Hogan

No slight taken whatsover, Michael! I enjoy the point-by-point back and forth

and it's a great way to research. I'm sure Pat feels the same way...

Your citation of the excellent BREACH OF TRUST sent me back for a closer

read...

My only disagreements with Gerald McKnight are over Hoover's grasp of the basic

facts of the case, which McNight characterizes as "tenuous," and the veracity

of Specter's claim to have used the autopsy photo to fix the chalk mark on the

back of the jacket.

The first point goes back to the Tolson memo of 11/29/63 where Hoover mangled

THE most obvious facts.

I think Hoover knew damn well that Oswald didn't fire from the fifth floor.

Hoover knew that the FBI hadn't proven that Oswald could fire 3 shots in 3 seconds

with a bolt action rifle.

Hoover knew that if Connally dodged the second shot and it hit JFK then the shot came

from the front.

And I think Hoover knew that if the chalk mark were placed according to the

autopsy face sheet that snot nosed Specter kid and the rest of those WC runts

would look like idiots.

I think Hoover frequently mangled the facts of the case in the manner of a petulant

schoolboy venting contempt for his lessons.

In his indispensable book Breach of Trust, Gerald McKnight writes:

That same day (April 30, 1964 Executive Session-Autopsy Pictures of President Kennedy) before the Commission had convened, Rankin had received a memo from Specter laying out in the strongest terms the argument that it was imperative that the autopsy pictures and X-rays be made available to selected members of the staff before the reenactment. Specter noted that it was "essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so the angle may be calculated."

Otherwise, Specter wrote, he could not finish his part of the report with any confidence.(1)

Comments made well after the Warren Report was published revealed that Specter, Belin, and probably others on the staff were incredulous and resentful over the Commission's treatment of the autopsy material.(2)

1) A copy of Specter's memo can be found in HSCA, Vol. 11, 92-93

2) Specter to Humes, 12/11/1967, 4 series, box 50, NARA

Gerald McKnight devotes much more to this aspect of the investigation. His analysis of the "Single Bullet" fabrication is complete, documented, and devastating.

In my opinion, Breach of Trust is an instant classic and an invaluable resource.

I absolutely agree! I've yet to see anything in BOT that contradicts my arguments.

On the contrary, McKnight shares my view that the assassination was designed

to provide a pre-text to invade Cuba.

Based upon what I have read I would have to say Pat Speer's analysis of the record is accurate and well reasoned.

The problem is not so much with Pat Speer's analysis of the record, the problem is with the

record itself, as presented by Specter.

Specter claims he saw an autopsy photo that showed a wound in the back of the neck and

on that basis he marked a wound on the jacket 5+" lower, and then ignored it?

The man is lying.

Pat Speer wrote:

> Cliff, Specter never tells us why or how he got Kelley to show him the photo,

> only that he saw it. Specter's WC memos show he was greatly concerned by

> the inaccuracy of the Rydberg drawings. Humes testified repeatedly that the

> wounds could best be understood by analyzing the photos. Specter walks him

> through these questions. These were clearly answers Specter wanted on the

> record. It is obvious from this that Specter wanted the WC to test the SBT with

> the actual entrance wound. I believe whole-heartedly he was hoping the trajectory

> would work, and that, after finding that it didn't, turned completely chicken.

Pat, this Specter/Humes dog and pony show -- I don't buy it.

Arlen Specter has a real Passion for Mendacity.

Here's a bit from Edward Jay Epstein's 1965 interview with Specter:

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diary/specter.htm

(quote on)

Q. Did you see autopsy photos?

A. No, I never saw them.

Q. Did [WC Senior Counsel Francis] Adams?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Why were autopsy photos not available to you?

A. Ask Rankin.

(quote off)

Okay, let's ask Rankin.

WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin and Rep. Wade Boggs in the WC Executive Session of

January 27th, 1964:

(quote on)

Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds...ince we

have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below

the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet,

according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go

through. So...how could it turn...

Boggs: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

(quote off)

The WC had the evidence of the low back wound, and thus conspiracy, well in hand

by January, 1964.

Obviously, they'd seen the clothes, mistaking the Parkland nurses' slits in the front

shirt collar band for bullet defects; they had the autopsy face sheet; they had the FBI

autopsy report putting the back wound "below the shoulder"; they had Burkley's death

certificate listing the wound about the level of T3; and, apparently, Rankin had an autopsy

photo showing a wound that matched the holes in the clothes, the three contemporaneous

official documents, and the witness statements of 2 FBI men and 4 SS SAs.

The WC Executive Session of 1/27/64 laid out the problem the Warren Commission and

the FBI were hired to solve: how to package an obvious conspiracy and sell it to the

public as a lone assassin.

In March of '64 Specter huddled with Humes and they came up with the Single Bullet

Theory, and its corollary, Clothes Bunch Theory, another fraud that continues to have

its adherents today.

It was a job that Specter clearly didn't relish, and he wanted the record to show that he

was an intrepid hunter of the truth, instead of the hack xxxx-for-hire that he was.

> As far as Hoover's role in the re-enactment...is this just a hunch, or have you

> seen memos detailing his role? The testimony of all the FBI men was that they

> were working on the re-enactment at the WC's request, and that they only measured

> angles they were asked to measure, etc.

Curtis Gentry, J. EDGAR HOOVER -- THE MAN AND THE SECRETS, pg. 552:

(quote on)

From its inception, Hoover treated the Warren Commission as an adversary. He publicly

offered it his full cooperation -- after all, it was a creation of the President -- but instructed

his agents to volunteer nothing beyond what was requested, and then only after prior

approval of FBIHQ.

(quote off)

> This explains why the left-right angle was not measured. It's clear Specter was

> under orders not to dig too deeply, as proven by the Redlich memo, and he followed

> orders.

It wasn't Specter's job "to dig."

He wasn't there to investigate, he was there to create a scenario they could sell to the

public.

Hoover was so pissed off at the WC's cursory look into Oswald's FBI connections

that he set Specter up in that ludicrous photo op and turned the hot shot from Philly

into a total buffoon.

With one stroke -- making sure during the reenactment that JFK's actual back wound

location was marked on the jacket -- Hoover reinforced perceptions in the West Wing

and at Langley that whatever the outcome of the Warren Commission, it had to be

favorable to J. Edgar Hoover.

Or so I speculate.

Pat, this is where we disagree.

If Arlen Specter claims the re-enactment back wound was based on the autopsy photo he's lying.

Flat out mendacity.

The mark on the jacket in the re-enactment is NOT in the accepted wound location on the

Fox 5 autopsy photo.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

The "official" back wound in this photo -- which is, after all, an improperly produced autopsy

photo of poor quality and suspect authenticity -- is at C7/T1.

The location of the back wound in the reenactment is T3 or lower.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif

Check out the photo in TKOAP pg 125. Specter looks like a total clown, like an idiot, holding

this pointer 5+ inches above the wound location.

Do you think anyone VOLUNTEERS for such duty?

Reverting to newsgroup style point-by-point.

Pat Speer wrote:

> Cliff, the C7/T1 entrance is a LN invention. The FPP put it at T1...period.

T1 is an LN invention as well. Are we supposed to believe that Arlen Specter studied

the angles and trajectories of the Single Bullet Theory and then referenced 3 DIFFERENT

locations for the back wound for the re-enactment?

He had the autopsy face sheet location, the autopsy photo location (presumably),

and finally pointed at the top of JFK's jacket collar.

3 locations in the span of 5 & 3/8".

Call me conspiratorial, but I don't think Specter was on that long a leash with Hoover.

> All their drawings and descriptions place it at T1.

And they concluded the Fox 5 autopsy photo was "more confusing than informative,"

"difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of wound locations," and

"obviously deficient as scientific evidence."

That's the argument for T1, which I find intellectually indefensible.

> As far as whether it was T3 or T1 in the re-enactment has no bearing.

It has bearing on my point. I'm skeptical of any version of events that posits

Hoover had no operational input on what his men were doing in the re-enactment.

> Specter BEGGED the WC to give him access to the autopsy photos so he could test

> the proper location, precisely so he wouldn't be made to look like an idiot later.

And they went ahead and made an idiot out of him anyway.

> When Warren agreed to let Humes look at the photos, but then changed his mind,

> it fell on Specter to back-door the WC and arrange for Kelley to show him the photo.

This is Specter's story, right? You know you have to be careful swallowing a xxxx's

spin, don't you?

> He saw the photo. He admits this. Why in heck would he not then use this info

> when conducting the re-enactment?

Why in the hell would he mark a wound location 5+" below his SBT inshoot?

> Perhaps they marked the jacket based on the face sheet and that Specter then

> looked at the photo and said "close-enough."

And then compared the autopsy photo to the Ryberg drawing and said, "Close enough,"

again?

Good enough for gummit work not once, but twice?

> This is beside the point.

It's not beside MY point.

> The point is he suspected the Rydberg drawing was inaccurate before the re-enactment,

> he then looked at the photo and CONFIRMED that it was inaccurate, and yet he ended up

> using the entrance on the Rydberg drawing to measure the angle.

He knew it was inaccurate the moment he compared it to the holes in the clothes,

probably one of the first things he checked after he got the job!

Arlen Specter's job was to promote a lie, and his understanding of his role began

before Rydberg entered the picture. It was Rydberg's job to promote a lie, but he

did so at Humes' direction. Specter understood the job set out for him long before

the re-enactment.

I'd sift his auto-biography with fine mesh, and a face mask.

> This is preposterous and possibly criminal. The FBI made many mistakes,

> but the May 24 re-enactment was all WC.

Using the autopsy face sheet, the autopsy photo, and the Rydberg drawing

all as a reference for the wound location?

Hoover had to okay this nonsense.

The FBI marked the back wound according to the bullet hole in the jacket.

Correction:

It was inded the autopsy face sheet that was used to mark the low back wound.

Why would Specter himself mark a wound location 5+ inches below his SBT

trajectory?

Cliff, if you re-read the testimony of Frazier, Shaneyfelt, and Kelley, you'll see that the re-enactment was run by the Commission, basically Specter. It was he who decided what angles were to be measured, etc. He pushed for the use of the autopsy photos in peforming the re-enactment. He saw an autopsy photo on the day of the re-enactment. This autopsy photo was of the back wound, the very photo necessary for him to accurately mark the back wound on the FBI stand-in. This back wound was marked acurately. It follows then that he used the autopsy photo he saw in the re-enactment.

Pat, this is where we disagree.

If Arlen Specter claims the re-enactment back wound was based on the autopsy photo he's lying.

Flat out mendacity.

The mark on the jacket in the re-enactment is NOT in the accepted wound location on the

Fox 5 autopsy photo.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

The "official" back wound in this photo -- which is, after all, an improperly produced autopsy

photo of poor quality and suspect authenticity -- is at C7/T1.

The location of the back wound in the reenactment is T3 or lower.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif

Check out the photo in TKOAP pg 125. Specter looks like a total clown, like an idiot, holding

this pointer 5+ inches above the wound location.

Do you think anyone VOLUNTEERS for such duty?

The FBI marked the back wound according to the bullet hole in the jacket.

Correction:

It was inded the autopsy face sheet that was used to mark the low back wound.

Why would Specter himself mark a wound location 5+ inches below his SBT

trajectory?

I'd speculate that Hoover was savagely disappointed in Plan B, and it was hard for him

to get on board. I think he slyly leaked out evidence of conspiracy, like this FBI re-creation

that shows the back wound in its proper location (4 inches below the bottom of the jacket

collar), in order to remind LBJ and the CIA of the leverage he held over them.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF

The reasons JFK was killed can be summed up in two words: Cuba, Vietnam.

They got their "damned war" in Vietnam, but the only reason there's no Disneyland in

Havana today is because some Dallas cop failed to shoot Oswald the afternoon of 11/22/63.

Cliff, the May 24 re-enactment was the WC's baby and the FBI was just taking orders. In the Examining the Examinations section of my presentation, on the Movement of the Back Wound slide, I get into it and examine Specter's role in the re-enactment.

Pat, I like your presentation of the photos here.

http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/PhotoAlbum30.html

Slide 0013.

The re-enactment was Hoover's baby until Specter took over afterwards, however.

The FBI marked the back wound according to the bullet hole in the jacket.

Specter used a pointer-rod to demonstrate the trajectory of the SBT.

In the photo published on pg 125 of Groden's THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT

Specter pointed to an inshoot at the top of JFK's collar -- even though the hole

in the jacket was 5 & 3/8 inches below!

There was no "higher white mark," as per your analysis, however -- not that I

can see, FWIW.

Hoover's FBI blatantly -- dare I say disrespectfully! -- contradicted/debunked

the SBT on the very day it was publicly presented by Specter and the WC.

The SBT arrived to the world stillborn. I suspect that Hoover was sending LBJ

and the CIA and the WC a message: the cover-up succeeds only by the grace of

one J. Edgar Hoover.

Put the assassination in the context of an Operation Northwoods type operation

and the actions of Hoover and the FBI become clear: Hoover WANTED to prove

a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy.

The assassination was DESIGNED to look like a conspiracy traceable to Castro.

I'd speculate that Hoover, a natural political ally of JCS hard-liners like Gen. Curtis LeMay,

wasn't happy that his Bureau had to clean up the mess in Dealey Plaza, and was prepared

for Johnson to change his mind about calling it a "lone nut" assassination.

Documents uncovered by Anthony Marsh and John Hunt indicate that the evidence

collection in the FBI Lab was kept fluid the morning of 11/23/63, in order, I'd speculate,

to accomodate either Plan A (Castro conspiracy) or Plan B (lone nut).

Here are the contemporaneous notes of FBI Lead Examiner Robert Frazier:

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/436461A.gif

Note the evidence marked #1, #2, #3 was later changed to Q11, Q12, Q13 -- and

even later all three were grouped as Q14.

Here are Frazier's notes in preparation for his WC testimony, note line #5 where

Frazier cites the distribution of master evidence lists with "the Q & K #s blanked out."

http://tinyurl.com/dlusf

Although as FBI Lead Examiner Robert Frazier was in charge of assigning Q and K

numbers as the evidence came in, Frazier denies assigning the official Q and K

numbers on 11/23/63, a fact corroborated by his own notes.

LBJ didn't get around to calling Hoover until 10:01 am 11/23/63, about 15 hours after the

FBI was assigned to the case.

http://tinyurl.com/oakca

Hoover found the evidence of Oswald in Mexico City "confusing" and practically begged

LBJ to look at the possiblity of the involvement of a "second person."

I'd speculate that Hoover was savagely disappointed in Plan B, and it was hard for him

to get on board. I think he slyly leaked out evidence of conspiracy, like this FBI re-creation

that shows the back wound in its proper location (4 inches below the bottom of the jacket

collar), in order to remind LBJ and the CIA of the leverage he held over them.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF

The reasons JFK was killed can be summed up in two words: Cuba, Vietnam.

They got their "damned war" in Vietnam, but the only reason there's no Disneyland in

Havana today is because some Dallas cop failed to shoot Oswald the afternoon of 11/22/63.

Pat Speer wrote:

So, to an American who remembers the seventies and eighties, an era of "what is The Post exposing now?" implying or stating that Ben Bradlee is a CIA schill makes about as much sense as saying that Michael Moore is a CIA schill. William Turner talked about his enormous FBI file. I'd venture to say that Bradlee's file is almost as large.

(quote off)

Pat,

I remember a different 70's and 80's, with all due respect.

At least Rolling Stone was still hip in those days, sorta.

http://tinyurl.com/r3yon

Some of us cut our teeth on this:

http://www.namebase.org/sources/BX.html

So it didn't come as a surprise when Katherine Graham personally whitewashed Reagan/Bush era CIA-connected drug smuggling by her 11th hour blocking of the publication of the following...

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/c_o_mena.html

Here's a story from 1989 that the Washington Post relegated to page 23 with a few short paragraphs:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1499

Think about it...Former Reagan National Security Advisor John Poindexter et al were barred from entering Costa Rica because they'd set up a drug smuggling network on Costa Rican soil.

I have to give the Washington Post credit -- they were the ONLY paper to carry the story. On page 23.

Pat, if the South Koreans, say, announced that former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was barred from entering South Korea because he'd helped set up a drug smuggling network -- on what page would the Washington Post carry THAT story?

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