Cliff Varnell

You can't see the white band at the base of JFK's neck? Okay, try this one taken a few seconds earlier, also on Elm St... http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg That's JFK's shirt collar exposed at the back of his neck. Yes, indeed I do see the white shirt collar showing on the left hand side of JFK's neck. Well, keep looking and you'll see that JFK's shirt collar is visible at the back of his neck on Elm St., as well. He was shot less than two inches right of midline and his shirt collar shows at the nape of his neck. And that caused his clothing to split down the middle, the right side riding up three inches and the left side remaining in a normal position? Please share with us your methodology for determining that 3 inches of JFK's jacket and 3 inches of his shirt rode up in tandem in ANY of the motorcade photos. Hell, you couldn't replicate that event using both hands to pull... Again, the Elm St. photos show JFK's exposed shirt collar at the back of his neck -- and the wound was less than two inches right of midline. Forget the evidence, Richard -- just declare your belief in the SBT a religious faith and maybe you'll get a tax exemption.

You can't see the white band at the base of JFK's neck? Okay, try this one taken a few seconds earlier, also on Elm St... http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg That's JFK's shirt collar exposed at the back of his neck.

And proof that JFK's jacket had fallen and his shirt collar was exposed on Elm St. at Z186... See the Houston St. segment of the Nix film as shown on Unsolved History and you can WATCH his jacket fall. Richard, the SBT requires that 3 inches of JFK's shirt and 3 inches of JFK's jacket were "bunched up" entirely above C7 at the base of his neck. And yet his jacket collar fell readily to a normal position toward the base of his neck. You realize, of course, that it is physically impossible for disparate, concrete objects to occupy the same physical space at the same time. So how did the jacket collar and the 6 inches of bunched up clothing occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time?

I listen to the witnesses and look at the pictures. IMO -- aside from the instances where the witness consensus conflicts with the photo evidence -- the witness descriptions and the photos accurately depict what happened that day.

Our jousting over the evidence aside, thank you for these graphics, Ashton.

True of the head wound evidence. Total black hole. (Didn't you go there with your Smoke Pot Diversion Theory, Ashton?) NOT true of the throat wound and the back wound. The physical evidence, the witness testimony, the photographic evidence are generally consistent with the exception of the Fox 5 autopsy photo. JFK was struck from the right front by a projectile that nicked the right side of the trachea, bruised the tip of the right lung, caused a tiny fracture of the right T1 transverse process. The round did not exit and left a metallic debris field in proximity to the transverse process. The photographic record also indicates the throat shot was sound suppressed. JFK acted paralyzed in the limo; the only purpose for such a weapon would be to paralyze. Say "hi" to our little friend... http://www.hobrad.com/acreourm.htm

[CV]: Save it for the tourists, Ashton, this is Cliff yer talk'n to... Bowers had PLENTY of other things to say in that chunk of testimony I cited. The last bit there pertaining to people streaming in from different directions seems particularly salient, since it touches upon your Smoke Pot Diversion Theory. Let's review: (quote on) Mr. BOWERS - A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes. (quote off) At this juncture, I need to correct a statement I made in an earlier post -- I wrote that 7 people stated they saw a puff of smoke on the knoll. The correct number is 8. Now, I agree wholeheartedly with you, Ashton, that these men saw a puff of smoke, and I place great weight on consensus witness testimony. However, all 8 of the smoke witnesses stood on the railway overpass overpass looking east into the whole of Dealey Plaza. While 3 of them did go around the corner to check out the "sweet spot", they weren't part of the stampede toward the knoll. What made all of those other people charge the knoll? I'm not sure how far you can push a theory that boycotts that explanation. [CV]: The Two Men and the Two Cops were there before and after the shooting, and they weren't part of the "commotion." [CV]: Y'wudda flunked it! All that Bowers testimony and all you retained was stuff about the Two Men? Big fat F... [CV]: You let your assumptions get away from you. [CV]: Yes, and the point being that, at the "time of the commotion," dark clothing was indistinguishable from the trees, from Bowers' vantage point. This is important because there were a lot of cars behind the fence, and men dressed as policemen would find ready cover in the shadows behind automobiles. [CV]: Did you ever stop to think that POSSIBLY Lee Bowers thought he saw a cop shoot JFK but he wasn't sure because of the shadow of the trees and he was quite leery of making such an accusation? No need to dwell on that long, either... [CV]: Bingo! Those two guys weren't part of the "unusual" "commotion" and "milling." That was other guys. Behind the cars. In the sweet spot. [CV]: Allow me to introduce two of Dallas' finest, Officer J. W. Foster and Officer J. C. White. Foster was posted to the east side of the overpass tracks, White faced to the west -- as per Bowers' testimony. What does Officer White have to tell us? (WC, quote on) Mr. Ball. Will you state your name, please. Mr. White. J. C. White. Mr. Ball. What is your residence? Mr. White. 2803 Klondite. Mr. Ball. And your occupation? Mr. White. Policeman. Mr. Ball. Did you receive a letter from the Commission? Mr. White. No, sir. Mr. Ball. For a request to--- Mr. White. No, sir. Mr. Ball. You were asked to come here by your--- Mr. White. Captain. Mr. Ball. Which captain? Mr. White. Lawrence. Mr. BALL. Now, the Commission was established to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. We want to ask you some questions about information that you might have that might aid us in that investigation...During the course of our investigation in Dallas we discovered that you and the man that you were working with that day, Mr. J. W. Foster, knew of some facts that might aid us in the investigation. We asked Chief Curry if we could have you come up here and testify, and I guess that is the reason you are here. You are willing to testify, are you not? Mr. White. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Tell us whatever you know about it. Mr. White. I don't know. Mr. Ball. Well, I can ask you. Mr. White. Okay. Mr. Ball. I will ask you questions. Where were you born? (quote off) Wow! This guy was the inspiration for Sargent Schultz, the quickest "I don't know" in legal history! This is the good part: (quote on) Mr. Ball. Did you see the President's car come into sight? Mr. WHITE. No, sir; first time I saw it it has passed, passed under the triple underpass. Mr. Ball. You were too far away to see it, were you? Mr. WHITE. There was a freight train traveling. There was a train passing between the location I was standing and the area from which the procession was traveling, and--a big long freight train, and I did not see it. Mr. Ball. You didn't see the procession? Mr. White. No, sir... ...Mr. Ball. Did you hear any shots? Mr. White. No, sir. Mr. Ball. Didn't? Mr. White. No, sir. Mr. Ball. First time you saw the President's car it was going underneath? Mr. White. Yes, sir... ...Mr. Ball. All right, now, you heard no sound of no rifle fire or anything? Mr. White. No, sir. Mr. Ball. Freight train was going through at the time? Mr. White. Yes, sir. Mr. Ball. Making noise? Mr. White. Yes, sir; noisy train. (quote off) One little problem with Officer White's testimony: there was no freight train, as the Dealey Plaza films and photos clearly show. Either Officer White struggled with the internal demons of non-existent freight trains, or he was a big fat xxxx. White's partner on the overpass, J. W. Foster, gave testimony which conflicted with the perceptions of others, although that, in and of itself, was not necessarily sinister. From Foster's WC: (quote on) Mr. Foster. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Had you seen anybody over at the railroad yard north and west of the bookstore before you heard the shots fired? Mr. FOSTER. No; other than people that had come up there and I sent them back down the roadway. Mr. Ball. I See. People had attempted to get on the overpass there? Mr. Foster. Yes, sir. Mr. Ball. And you had sent them away? Mr. Foster. Yes, sir. (quote off) Bowers saw a couple of guys standing around the corner by the fence -- Foster didn't see 'em. Bowers testified that Foster and White stayed in place after the shooting -- Foster testified that he left immediately for the TSBD, the area where he thought the shots originated from. Railroad workers Sam Holland and James Simmons -- two of our reliable gunsmoke witnesses -- stood near Foster and were adamant that shots rang out from the "sweet spot" on the knoll. All of this pertains to the kind of cover the knoll shooters had 11/22/63. I'm not accusing White and Foster, the cops closest to the crime scene, of being the foxes guarding the "sweet spot" hen house -- more like headless chickens. They seeeee nuth-een! For whatever reason, the plotters felt comfortable with these two guys at their backs. [CV]: Sam Holland before the WC...roll tape! (quote on) Mr. Holland. Well. immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence. Mr. Stern. That is the picket fence? Mr. Holland. That is the picket fence. Mr. Stern. On the north side of Elm Street? Mr. Holland. Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was just a big-it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles and I couldn't see up in that corner. I ran on up to the corner of this fence behind the building. By the time I got there there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office. (quote off) Oh my, all those policemen and plainclothesmen johnny on the spot, Texas style rapid response y'all. Check out this map of the "sweet spot" that Sam Holland prepared showing details of the shooter location. Check out this bit from Sam's WC: (quote on) Mr. MORRISON - Mr. Holland, is there anything you might add to this? Mr. HOLLAND - Well, the only thing that I remember now that I didn't then, I remember about the third car down from this fence, there was a station wagon backed up toward the fence, about the third car down, and a spot, I'd say 3 foot by 2 foot, looked to me like somebody had been standing there for a long period. I guess if you could count them about a hundred foottracks in that little spot, and also mud upon the bumper of that station wagon. (quote off) James Simmons also testified under oath, at the Clay Shaw trial. (quote on) Q: Now at the time you heard the second and third shot did you notice anything unusual in the area of the grassy knoll? A: Well, after I heard the shots I looked to see if I could see where they were coming from and underneath the trees up on the grassy knoll by the fence I detected what appeared to be a puff of smoke or wisp of smoke. Q: From which direction did these noises appear to come from? A: In front and the left. Q: Were -- will you step down and point out on the aerial photograph the location in which you heard the shots coming from and the area in which you saw the puff of smoke? A: I was facing this way and the sound appeared to come from this general direction over along here, and there is a row of trees along the fence and towards the end of the fence there is a small building and just this side of it a few feet is where I saw the smoke... ...Q: Mr. Simmons, about how long after the last shot would you say you went back in the parking lot area behind the fence? A: Immediately. Q: Immediately, and about how long did you stay back there? A: We were back there several minutes. Q: Could you tell us about how many? A: I would say 15 or 20 minutes... ...Q: Now the area behind the fence where you have described as being a place where you went you say that was a parking lot? A: Yes, sir. Q: Where quite a few cars were parked in it? A: Yes, sir, there was. Q: Was this a muddy day? A: Yes...I went around -- there is a fence like I say here, and I went around the railing on top the overpass and walked around behind the fence. Q: And when you got behind the fence did you see anything unusual to you? A: Well, I was one of the first ones there and uh, when we got there there was no one there but it had rained that morning and there were several footprints back and forth along the fence. Q: What drew your attention to these particular footprints, Mr. Simmons? A: Well, 'cause there were so many of them. Q: Did you see any footprints in any other area but this area? A: On the fence, on the fence. On the fence there was a wooden brace or rail and there were muddy footprints on it. (quote off) Muddy footprints, mud on the fence, mud on the bumper...and mud all over Jack Lawrence, arrested after they discovered the car he'd borrowed from work behind the picket fence...boy, when those CIA '63 boys set ya up -- you wuz SET UP! Lucky for Jackie boy they went for the Lone Assassin Scenario, or his ass was grass...But I digress... I ain't gonna work on Marcy's farm no more... ...They sing while you slave and I just get board. [snip] Let's ask Bowers...from his WC: (quote on) Mr. BALL - Now, you were on duty on November 22, 1963, weren't you? Mr. BOWERS - That's correct. Mr. BALL - Close to noon, did you make any observation of the area around between your tower and Elm Street? Mr. BOWERS - Yes; because of the fact that the area had been covered by police for some 2 hours. (quote off) The comings and goings of police officers wouldn't be a big deal, Ashton. CLIFF VARNELL: Now that, Ashton, is the sum total of comments I made about Lee Bowers. And the above, Cliff, is the sum total of my answer. CLIFF VARNELL: I made one statement of fact -- that Bowers had the best view of the back of the fence. Then let's go have a drink. I'll buy. CLIFF VARNELL: I then asked you if you caught the key points in the testimony -- two questions, neither of which had to do with the two men. Then I formed a conclusion -- the back of the fence offered natural cover. Then I've changed my mind: you buy. CLIFF VARNELL: Where in all of that do you get some "tortured twisting of Bowers testimony"? Ashton? Asked and answered, counselor. CLIFF VARNELL: Ashton Gray continues: I think that alone gets the most under the most people's skin. CLIFF VARNELL: You've been hanging out with Pat Speer too much, Ashton. Ouch. Hittin' below the belt, Cliff. Now you're definitely buying. (And you know Speer never writes that well.) Do go on, though... CLIFF VARNELL: All I pointed out was the reasonable speculation that two gunmen dressed as cops shot JFK from the knoll. Okay. I don't consider it at all reasonable. Where did they come from? How did they get there? Were they carrying rifles? Where did they go? And what are you going to do about "Hard Hat Man"? He wasn't in police uniform—according the popular Legend of Badge Man and Hard Hat Man. How can you posit that three men can get in and out of these exposed spaces in broad daylight, shoot the President of the United States two or three times, and walk away carrying rifles, when the positions are absolutely surrounded by potential witnesses in every direction, as I've demonstrated repeatedly. Yet you blow this off like it's nothing. [CV]: And the nature of their concealment has been discussed at length. All eyes were on the limo and the shooters were behind all the potential witnesses except for Bowers -- and Bowers described "something out of the ordinary" at that location. At what point does it remain tenable to dispute everything everyone says? [CV]: I was refering to Black Dog Man in particular. [CV]: In the direction of the diversionary shots from the north east corner of the Plaza. [CV]: Assuming the investigation is on the up and up...tough assumption, ain't it? [CV]: I'm not insisting you accept anything. I'm arguing from the witness testimony and the photographic evidence to establish my own points. What you regard as ludicrous the world class sniper Craig Roberts found obvious, so I don't know how much room for persuasion you have, frankly. [CV]: A highly trained sniper disagrees. And you're assuming that the plotters wanted to mask evidence of a conspiracy. [CV]: Accepted. [CV]: Since when are cops walking around is a majorly suspicious event? Holland and Simmons testified to the large number of cars. Bowers testified that dark clothing was indistinguishable from the shadows of the trees. Bowers testified to a "milling around" that didn't involve the other four men -- so what makes you think the shooters got into place without Bowers seeing them? [[CV]: I said nothing of AJ Millican (Hard Hat Man). Why would I? [CV]: I only expect unsupported assumptions I can refute with actual evidence. [CV]: Please see Sam Holland's statement that a good dozen "policeman and plainclothesman" were in the vicinity when he got there, and that he left his spot on the overpass immediately. There were cops around before the shooting, there were a lot of cops around right after the shooting. Holland was a lot closer to the "sweet spot" than Bowers and he couldn't see in there initially, either. [CV]: What about your Smoke Pot Diversion Theory? Or your theory about there being no shots from the knoll? Or your incipient No Throat Wound Theory, or, as I like to call it, the Parkland Hospital Mass Hallucination Theory. I don't feel that I'm promoting any theories, either, particularily. I just point to the witness testimony and the photographs and try to apply a little common sense. [CV]: Well and good but garbage-in garbage-out applies as well. [CV]: Irrelevent. The question is -- do these tests of yours hold up to the facts of the case? I argue they do not. Again, I've brought this up already twice, have you ever actually been in Dealey Plaza, dear Ashton? [CV]: Did Diana Bowron have a gig with the Rand Corporation, too? Something about those John F. Kennedy wounds! Everyone who saw them suffered incredible hallucinations... CLIFF VARNELL: Pour a double... You buyin'? Ashton Only the odd numbered rounds...

Any Cuban involved in this deal had the same name: Patsy...

This is odd. I cited Bowers' testimony, but I didn't make any reference to the two men, tortured or otherwise. Here are the observations I posted as to the Bowers' testimony. 1. "Here's the guy with the best view of the scene at the back of the fence during the shooting sequence..." 2. "Catch that bit about the dark dressed man not being distinguishable from the trees?" 3. "And the two cops watching east/west on the triple underpass?" 4. "The back of the fence offered natural cover." Now that, Ashton, is the sum total of comments I made about Lee Bowers. I made one statement of fact -- that Bowers had the best view of the back of the fence. I then asked you if you caught the key points in the testimony -- two questions, neither of which had to do with the two men. Then I formed a conclusion -- the back of the fence offered natural cover. Where in all of that do you get some "tortured twisting of Bowers testimony"? Ashton? Ashton Gray continues: Now, gentle reader, whenever you see a sentence that starts out like this and there is no direct quotation -- time to get out the hip waders. You've been hanging out with Pat Speer too much, Ashton. All I pointed out was the reasonable speculation that two gunmen dressed as cops shot JFK from the knoll. I never claimed that the two cops Bowers saw were the same guys, but that fact isn't going to stop you when you're in full strawman mode, is it? Wow...I don't recall ever saying anything of the like. I merely pointed out the police presence in the vicinity of the knoll, and that shooters dressed as cops could easily blend in. I guess when you have no facts to cite in a (one-sided) discussion the only recourse is to strawmen. Sorry if your pet theory doesn't match the facts of the case, Ashton -- you still haven't explained how the throat wound got there if it wasn't caused by a strike from the right front. But hey -- don't let the facts of the case get in the way of a fun theory, right, Ashton? Where do you get this crap, Ashton? I didn't say anything about the two "drudges." They were not the point of my citation of Bowers testimony. Pour a double or roll a fatty and chill. Sheesh...

I buy Badgeman, a few feet west of the corner. Well, since your designated fence-corner "sweet spot" is just a few feet from the alleged—but always fun—"Black Dog Man" position, while I was there I thought I ought to set up the motorcade where it was at the time of the throat shot, and take a peek. Here ya' go: I don't know about you, but I was having a bit of trouble picking the target out of the crowd, so I made him a bright sort of [G.W. BUSH] nyewkyuhler[/G.W. BUSH] green for you. Hope it helps. And now here's what I think in general: I think it's time we all snap out of over 40 years of mass shock and mass hypnosis, and get a reality check. Ashton Let's address the throat shot, first... Not so difficult a shot for a quick bead artist, Mr. BDM up behind the wall. This is Willis #5 taken at Z202, no foliage, no civilians, no motorcycle cops. The shot to the throat came from the right front unless you want to argue for the Single Bullet Theory... [cue "Twilight Zone"] The plotters were not taking any chances, however, and I speculate that another paralytric round hit JFK at Z227 in the back just below the upper margin of his shoulder blades less than two inches to the right of his spine. Now, as to the issue of mass shock and mass hypnosis -- I agree 100%. The JFK research community has hypnotized itself into thinking that the case hasn't already been solved.

I don't buy it. The assassination was designed to look like a conspiracy. They could hit JFK from that sweet spot behind the fence and if anybody got too wise they had a patsy named Jack in custody. Pure speculation, of course, but methinks if Oswald had been gunned down on Friday afternoon two guys in particular would have been sweating bullets -- Fidel Castro and Jack Lawrence. I think Jackie boy blew chunks back at the auto dealership cuz he realized he'd been set up. When Oswald was captured alive, the Castro-did-it scenario was pretty much dead. Plan B wasn't what the plotters had in mind. Cliff, Can you elaborate a little on your thoughts about Jack Lawrence? How do you think he was involved? I have always thought that he was involved in some way in the assassination, although alot of people wont agree with that. [just my opinion] I might get laughed out of here with this thought but here goes. In looking at people involved in the assassination, i always try to see who is who and put faces on people. One thing that struck me a while ago was, that to me anyway, Jack Lawrence looked strikingly similar to the Umbrella Man. I havent come across many photos of him, but the one that John has listed in his JFK assassination site under "Conspirators" is a well know photo of him. If you look at that photo, with the sport coat, shirt, hair, nose, etc...... [to me anyway], he looks very much like him. I know it may sound far fetched, but i havent come across many other people who look like the UM that were supposedly in DP that day. All of the photos i have seen of the UM that day, all look similar to Mr. Lawrence. Ok, ok, everybody stop laughing. Lol! Dont laugh me out of here too quickly. I just got in here! I figured i would go out on a limb and post what i thought. thanks--Smitty My advice as always is, as much as possible, follow the evidence to a conclusion and not visa verse. I think Jack Lawrence was in the patsy chain. He may have been sheep-dipped in ways he never knew. I think there had to have been contingency pasties on ice in case the lone-shooter scenario didn't come into play. I don't know Umbrella Man. I don't think JFK was hit in the throat with a flechette from an umbrella. I think Mitch WerBell adapted the blood-soluble paralytic technology pioneered by Charles Senseney to a sound suppressed firearm that struck JFK from the Black Dog Man position in the throat at Z199, nicked the trach, bruised the lung tip, fractured the tip of the right T1 transverse process, then dissolved, leaving a field of metallic particles, this technology using iron as a bonding agent. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf That's what I think fwiw...

Cliff: do you think you could locate that "sweet spot behind the fence" for me? (Don't get rude, Cliff. This ain't a D.C. lawyer you're talking to here.) I'd like to aim my virtual camera from this alleged "sweet spot." So far, I'm having a lot of trouble finding any spot behind that fence that doesn't have a motorcycle cop and/or spectator in the line of fire. You seem to know where it is, though. Help me out. Ashton The eastern corner of the fence. Ever been to Dealey? The joint is small, I'm tell'n ya.

I don't buy it. The assassination was designed to look like a conspiracy. They could hit JFK from that sweet spot behind the fence and if anybody got too wise they had a patsy named Jack in custody. Pure speculation, of course, but methinks if Oswald had been gunned down on Friday afternoon two guys in particular would have been sweating bullets -- Fidel Castro and Jack Lawrence. I think Jackie boy blew chunks back at the auto dealership cuz he realized he'd been set up. When Oswald was captured alive, the Castro-did-it scenario was pretty much dead. Plan B wasn't what the plotters had in mind.

The throat shot could only have come from that direction.

TO CLIFF VARNELL: I haven't mentioned the throat wound. I don't expect to any time in the foreseeable future. ^^^ Wise choice. Rock on...

And the throat wound, Ashton? Can you honestly argue that that was an exit wound? [cue "Jaws"]

[AG]: Oh. Well, then, Cliff, why don't y'all trot back over to the TSBD and all the other places that have been kicked to death for over thirty years that don't "have a lot of problems." [CV]: As I indicated in my post, I don't discount shots from the County Courts Building. [AG]: Me, I think I'm just going to continue to loiter around the County Courts building for a while. [CV]: By all means! I'm an Ashton Gray fan. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em, & I don't care if anyone thinks I'm stepping on their toes. [AG]: Well, now, that's an interesting way to put it. Didn't know I was betting my life on it. Very kind of you to apprise me of the fact here in front of God and everybody. [CV]: There's been a mis-understanding here, for which I take full responsibility. I should have stated: "...but it is another thing for the conspirators to BET THEIR LIVES on such a nebulous occurence." I was not accusing you of murdering JFK, no... [AG]: And I think I'll just go on standing right where I am anyway. I'm kind of enjoying the view and counting the passersby who keep telling me I should move along. [CV]: This passerby wants you to stay put, but I'm only pointing out a flaw in your argument -- who in their right mind is going to risk the gallows on the ASSUMPTION that all those people are going to bite on this "puff of smoke" mis-direction you posit? Read 'em and weep, pal: Ashton Gray Ashton, all you're showing here is the five card board! We ALL know they charged the knoll. That's not the issue. You haven't shown your hand down, yet. Your hole cards: the number of people who testified to seeing the puff of smoke on the knoll. My hole cards: the number of people who heard gun shots from the knoll. I'm all in, Ashton. Sure you wanna call?

Ashton, I dig the outside-the-box thinking but this one has a lot of problems. It's one thing to think that everybody in the Plaza MIGHT run toward a puff of smoke and totally ignore the direction of the sound of gun fire, but it is another thing to BET YOUR LIFE on such a nebulous occurrence. IOW, if you think it a lock that everybody would run to a puff of smoke, I'd be happy to play poker with you anytime. Also, you're assuming that the plotters were keen to mask evidence of a conspiracy. I contend they WANTED the assassination to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy. It was only when the patsy survived to be captured alive that it became necessary to mask, distort, and deep-six the evidence of conspiracy. And thirdly -- there WERE people behind the fence. A guy flashing false SS credentials, fresh foot-prints in the mud, a "commotion" behind the fence according to Lee Bowers. Ashton, your essential point may be correct -- that the head shot did not come from the knoll. But the head wound evidence is a black hole out of which no light can escape.

This struck a nerve in a couple of places, and deserves a closer look, this question of intellectual dishonesty, especially as it relates to the physical evidence of conspiracy. Here is a textbook example of JFK research intellectual dishonesty: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_ev...hing--Hunt.html John Hunt's "The Case for a Bunched Jacket" wherein he wrote: (quote on) [M]y research indicates that the difference between the impact point of a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot is little more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet finished. (quote off) ...Is not yet finished??? The title of this scholarly work is -- "The Case for a Bunched Jacket" -- but the actual "case" is not yet finished? That was 7 years ago. The argument that JFK's back wound was at T1 or above is inherently intellectually dishonest because these researchers cannot identify more than a fraction of an inch of clothing displacement in the Elm St photos and yet their pet theories require the shirt and jacket to have elevated 2+" in tandem.

And in all intellectual honesty please share with us your methodology for determining the amount of "bunched up" fabric we see in Croft #3. I get .75" to 1" -- tops. How about you, Pat? How did you determine that JFK's jacket was bunched up the 2" your T1-entry theory requires? Fair question, isn't it?

Aren't you making an unsupported assumption that the back shot was a conventional round? When you start your argument with the assumption your conclusion is correct -- it's circular logic, Richard. And keep in mind, as you push your pet theories, that you dismiss out of hand the testimony of the half-dozen people who described the throat wound as an entrance and the 15 who put the back wound at T3 or below. 20 different people got a hands on view of these wounds (Parkland nurse Bowron saw both) and they all got it wrong? Mass hallucination? Mass incompetence? Mass prevarication?

What did they say at the autopsy? The wound was shallow. You know and I know that Drs.Humes,Boswell, and Finck were incompetent fools. Humes, Boswell and Richard Lipsey are the only people to describe the back wound above T3. Humes came up with 3 different locations himself: just above the upper margin of the scapula (around T2), 14cm below the mastoid process (C7/T1), and in the Rydberg drawing the back wound was around C6. But the bullet holes in the clothes are 4" below the bottom of the collars, well below the base of the neck. The Dealey Plaza photos clearly show the jacket dropped. And they found no exit. Graphic descriptions of the low, non-transiting back wound are cited elsewhere on this thread . That's why we can eliminate a round travelling 1700-1800 fps. Never happened. Listen to the folks who saw the back and throat wounds and the facts of the case will point to the perps, imo. Cliff,why is the entry wound in JBC back elongated and the same length as 399? The entry wound is not circular it is Elongated! The WC got it right. Richard, JFK's back wound was oval, as well, 7mm x 4mm. If JBC's back wound was oval because the bullet hit something first, what did the bullet that struck JFK hit first? ... 95% of the first day witness testimony is gold. 95% of the photographic evidence is gold. Follow the evidence to a conclusion, not the reverse. [ADD] There seems to be one instance where the photographic evidence and the consensus witness statements conflict: the movement of the limosine in the Zap. I venture no explanation for this discrepency. Cliff, you cannot trust the Z-FIlm. I think it's okay thru Z227. That's the only part of it I cite in my analysis. After that...I prefer to stay out of that black hole...

What did they say at the autopsy? The wound was shallow. You know and I know that Drs.Humes,Boswell, and Finck were incompetent fools. Humes, Boswell and Richard Lipsey are the only people to describe the back wound above T3. Humes came up with 3 different locations himself: just above the upper margin of the scapula (around T2), 14cm below the mastoid process (C7/T1), and in the Rydberg drawing the back wound was around C6. But the bullet holes in the clothes are 4" below the bottom of the collars, well below the base of the neck. The Dealey Plaza photos clearly show the jacket dropped. And they found no exit. Graphic descriptions of the low, non-transiting back wound are cited elsewhere on this thread . That's why we can eliminate a round travelling 1700-1800 fps. Never happened. Listen to the folks who saw the back and throat wounds and the facts of the case will point to the perps, imo. Cliff,why is the entry wound in JBC back elongated and the same length as 399? The entry wound is not circular it is Elongated! The WC got it right. Richard, JFK's back wound was oval, as well, 7mm x 4mm. If JBC's back wound was oval because the bullet hit something first, what did the bullet that struck JFK hit first? ... 95% of the first day witness testimony is gold. 95% of the photographic evidence is gold. Follow the evidence to a conclusion, not the reverse. [ADD] There seems to be one instance where the photographic evidence and the consensus witness statements conflict: the movement of the limosine in the Zap. I venture no explanation for this discrepency.

What did they say at the autopsy? The wound was shallow. You know and I know that Drs.Humes,Boswell, and Finck were incompetent fools. Humes, Boswell and Richard Lipsey are the only people to describe the back wound above T3. Humes came up with 3 different locations himself: just above the upper margin of the scapula (around T2), 14cm below the mastoid process (C7/T1), and in the Rydberg drawing the back wound was around C6. But the bullet holes in the clothes are 4" below the bottom of the collars, well below the base of the neck. The Dealey Plaza photos clearly show the jacket dropped. And they found no exit. Graphic descriptions of the low, non-transiting back wound are cited elsewhere on this thread . That's why we can eliminate a round travelling 1700-1800 fps. Never happened. Listen to the folks who saw the back and throat wounds and the facts of the case will point to the perps, imo.