Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
They could hit JFK from that sweet spot behind the fence
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.
-
As I've made clear, and will say again, I believe the only possible answer is that it was, in fact, a premeditated, carefully timed diversion.
President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared . . . the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence.'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.
-
Ashton,
There is quite a bit to substantiate shooters on the North side of Elm.
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"]
-
Ashton, I dig the outside-the-box thinking but this one has a lot of problems.
[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.
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.[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?
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.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?
-
By the way, merely as an ancillary to the above, I've postulated that the infamous puff of smoke from the picket fence area was an effect created specifically to divert attention directly away from the angle of fire described above, and to send people running precisely in the opposite direction—where nothing and nobody would be found to be.
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.
-
JFK's back wound was at T3 and to contend otherwise is, in my opinion,
intellectually dishonest.
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.
-
Richard, in my online presentation at the link below, i get into the "bunching" theory and show that the amount of bunching visible in the photos is nowhere near the amount necessary to raise the jacket entrance to the back of Kennedy's neck. Instead, it raises it to the level of the back wound on the autopsy photos, considerably too low to support the magic bullet theory unless Kennedy was leaning forward. And the Zapruder film proves he wasn't.
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?
-
One shooter (as I also believe) the bullet that entered the back(JFK) had to exit the throat. If it didn't the go on to hit JBC, where did it go?
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?
-
Cliff, you cannot trust the Z-FIlm.
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.
You know and I know that Drs.Humes,Boswell, and Finck were incompetent fools.Here is the x-ray Cliff. I see nothing at T3
What did they say at the autopsy? The wound was shallow.
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.
That bullet travelled through strap muscles and those muscles closed back up after the bullet passed. They kept probing for a bullet; they wanted a bullet.And they found no exit. Graphic descriptions of the low, non-transiting back wound
are cited elsewhere on this thread .
Well, there was no bullet to be found! It exited the throat, and they didn't know that until the following day. You want me to believe that a bullet travelling 1,700-1,800 fps is going to leave a shallow entry wound in the back!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.
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.
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...
-
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.
You know and I know that Drs.Humes,Boswell, and Finck were incompetent fools.Here is the x-ray Cliff. I see nothing at T3
What did they say at the autopsy? The wound was shallow.
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.
That bullet travelled through strap muscles and those muscles closed back up after the bullet passed. They kept probing for a bullet; they wanted a bullet.And they found no exit. Graphic descriptions of the low, non-transiting back wound
are cited elsewhere on this thread .
Well, there was no bullet to be found! It exited the throat, and they didn't know that until the following day. You want me to believe that a bullet travelling 1,700-1,800 fps is going to leave a shallow entry wound in the back!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.
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.
-
You know and I know that Drs.Humes,Boswell, and Finck were incompetent fools.Here is the x-ray Cliff. I see nothing at T3
What did they say at the autopsy? The wound was shallow.
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.
That bullet travelled through strap muscles and those muscles closed back up after the bullet passed. They kept probing for a bullet; they wanted a bullet.And they found no exit. Graphic descriptions of the low, non-transiting back wound
are cited elsewhere on this thread .
Well, there was no bullet to be found! It exited the throat, and they didn't know that until the following day. You want me to believe that a bullet travelling 1,700-1,800 fps is going to leave a shallow entry wound in the back!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.
-
In the Eye Of History
William Matson Law
Interview with James Sibert
Sibert: Well I - that single bullet theory - when they had me come up to the AARB deposition there at College Park, I said, "Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I'm not an advocate of the single-bullet theory." I said, "I don't believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302." And I said, "Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas."
Law: You don't believe in the single bullet theory. Period.
Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can't put enough sugar on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.
And from Paul O'Connor in the same book:
O’Connor: When we started an autopsy, the first thing we always did…was to weigh and measure the body. We’d check for any scars, contusions, any abnormalities, and so on. But in this case, we didn’t turn the body over to look at the back while we were doing that. Finally we turned the body over, and there was a bullet wound—an entrance wound—in his back, on the right side of his spinal column. To emphasize where it was in proximity to the rest of his body: if you bend your neck down and feel back, you feel a lump and that’s the seventh cervical vertebra. This bullet wound was about 3 inches down and an inch or two to the right of the seventh cervical vertebra. I remember there was a big gush of surprise that nobody actually thought about turning him over right away, you know after we had done our initial investigation of the president’s body. Dr Humes took his finger and poked it in the hole---the bullet wound hole, the entrance wound hole---and said it didn’t go anywhere. There was a very big argument, a lot of consternation, that he shouldn’t have stuck his finger in the hole.
Let's add this graphic, detailed account of autopsy attendee James Curtis Jenkins:
(quote on)
I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could
see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest
cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an
indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was
no entry into the chest cavity...it would have been no way
that that could have exited in the front because it was then
low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the junction of
the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from
the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.
(quote off)
From BEST EVIDENCE.
-
I find it hard to believe that anyone these days, with the amount of information out there, would STILL believe in the SBT.
RJS
Excellent cite of O'Connor's description of the wound as being 3 inches down
from C7 -- matches the consensus testimony, the contemporaneous
documents, the holes in the clothes, and the Dealey Plaza photos that show
JFK's jacket dropping an inch right before he was shot.
I know why LNers insist on a C7/T1 back wound -- they couldn't
be LNers otherwise -- by why a CT would buy into it mystifies me.
-
No sir,not my pet theories. Everything that happened from the time JFK stepped off the plane at Love Field up until this day, has been all theory. No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.
Yes and no.
We can say with 100% certainty that at least 4 shots were fired
because JFK's proven T3 back wound was too low to allow any
possibility of the Single Bullet Theory.
We cannot say with 100% certainty who commanded and controlled
the assassination, but I'll argue that we know to 95% certainty that
the troika of Ed Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales
organized and controlled the assassination for the express purpose of
pinning the hit on Castro in prelude to an invasion of Cuba.
Although these men are rightly characterized as CIA operatives, I'll
argue that these individuals did not work "for" any particular institution
or group but rather drew upon the sympathy their goals engendered within
many institutions and groups.
My advice to you, Richard, is read McKnight's BREACH OF TRUST.
You will not give so much weight to "evidence" provided by the FBI
and the Warren Commission.
-
Mr. Purvis,
I don't fistfight or flamefest vets, & since the latter seems inevitable,
I'll discuss the JFK assassination with others.
Thank you for your past service to our country.
I don't fistfight or flamefest vets,
JFK's back wound was at T3 and to contend otherwise is, in my opinion,
intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual Dishonesty = xxxx!
No, not necessarily. It means "in denial." That you choose to take this so
personally is telling.
If we are to assume that you ARE NOT "intellectually dishonest", then we mustassume that one would have to be totally ignorant of the actual facts to claim the T3
"factoid".
If I thought we could have a collegial discussion of the facts of the
case, I would continue a conversation with you.
But you haven't indicated that such a thing is possible, so I'll discuss the case
with others.
-
Mr. Purvis,
I don't fistfight or flamefest vets, & since the latter seems inevitable,
I'll discuss the JFK assassination with others.
Thank you for your past service to our country.
-
Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
In event that one can not discredit the presented facts, there is little left other than an attempt to discredit the individual who presents the facts.Usually a "losing" debate tactic among the more knowledgeable and educated.
Thank you, Michael.
I prefer to discuss facts, but since Tom Purvis can't face the fact
that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza he has no rhetorical
recourse but ad hominem.
-
Here is the x-ray Cliff. I see nothing at T3
What did they say at the autopsy? The wound was shallow.
-
No sir,not my pet theories. Everything that happened from the time JFK stepped off the plane at Love Field up until this day, has been all theory. No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.
No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.
In event you search around, perhaps you may find one here.
As regards Cliff, as a "new guy" to the forum it is recognized that you would have had absolutely no idea as to what would occur when you brought up the obvious "bunch/fold" in JFK's coat.
Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_G._McAdoo/
Tom
P.S. Welcome, & hope that you have thick skin!
*****
This is the first response from Tom Purvis since waaaay back at Lancer in '02.
Tom didn't address the evidence then -- and he won't address it now.
-
The "official x-ray" shows the bullet path high in the neck, not at T-3.
That's a path from the throat entrance wound. Bruised the tip of the lung,
left a tiny fracture of the tip of the right T1 transverse process.
DID NOT EXIT.
It also left a field of small metallic debris.
Look, Richard, before we go into this I'd advise you consider that 95%
of what the first-day witnesses in Dealey, at Parkland, and at Bethesda
say is pure gold.
Listen to those who were there, Richard, never suppose many
people suffered mass hallucinations just because what they
say is inconvenient to your pet theories of the assassination.
-
Cliff,if I understand you correctly, you are saying the bullet to the back never exited?
All I know is what they said at the autopsy -- the bullet didn't exit.
The bit about the bullet exiting didn't come up until later when it
became a political necessity to cover up the real nature of the crime.
That the now famous magic bullet was extracted from JFK's back the night of the autopsy?I don't think any bullet was extracted from JFK's back.
-
Just seconds before JFK hit.
The implication here is a total non sequitar:
(1) The "high back wound" theory requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have
been elevated in tandem 2+".
(2) There were folds in JFK's jacket at Z161 (the Croft photo shown here).
(3) Therefore, JFK's clothing was elevated 2+".
This is nonsense. The jacket wasn't elevated more than a fraction of
an inch on Elm St.
By Z176 JFK's posture had changed, he'd turned his head to the right and
had started to wave his right arm.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z176.jpg
Betzner #3, taken at Z186, certainly trumps Croft -- and Betzner #3
shows a vertical/diagonal fold at the left base of JFK's neck.
A vertical fold means the fabric is pushed SIDEWAYS.
This vertical/diagonal fold in Betzner is similar to the diagonal fold
in the jacket on Main St., the photo on the left:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/tkoap.jpg
Same posture on Main St as in Betzner: JFK's head turned to the right, right arm
waving.
In the Main St. photo the shirt collar IS NOT VISIBLE.
At Betzner-Z186 the shirt collar IS VISIBLE.
The jacket DROPPED. The fabric was pushed SIDEWAYS.
JFK's back wound was at T3 and to contend otherwise is, in my opinion,
intellectually dishonest.
Who were the shooters?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...