Cliff Varnell

No one can factually refute anything I've cited. Every cold case homicide investigation in history commences with a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered with the body, the contemporaneous written notes of people in position of authority, the verified and authenticated medical evidence, and robust consensus witness statements. You can't intellectually challenge any of this.

So you've drawn conclusions prior to investigation. How does your determination to remain ignorant of the root facts of the case -- the First Day Evidence File -- lead to the conclusion of a single shooter? A case study in intellectual dishonesty.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm Black Dog Man had a "very distinct straight line feature" "near the region of his hands". BDM was a "conspicuous person" who happened to "disappear the next instant." If BDM was the throat shot shooter, the round had to have hit the right side of JFK's larynx, deflect down the right side of the trachea, burst blood vessels in the neck, cause a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and leave an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes. I'll always be on the fence on this issue. The post-mortem fakery angle has been exhaustively studied by Lifton and Horne, while the only name researcher who's looked into the high-tech angle is Greg Burnham.

Yes, McAdams would want people to debate theories and when the nutters can't refute the facts they pretend the facts don't exist.

The autopsy conclusions were not contemporaneous. I've already answered this question in detail. So you think the back of your neck is 4 inches below the bottom of your collar? Wrong. "In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President. This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath." [1 HSCA 196] I've already posted the source of this information. I posted links to the historical record. You can't process information that doesn't conform to your bias. Bad beat.

The spin you put on this stuff must be dizzying.

I've confronted Mr. Baker many times with the evidence and he shows no indication he can process the fact that the back of his neck isn't four inches below the bottom of his shirt collar. 6.5mm FMJ don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.

Not my suggestion. It's what the doctors speculated the night of the autopsy. The rounds didn't exit. The historical record indicates two possibilities -- the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy, or the rounds were high-tech blood soluble. https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf <quote on> Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved not only designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy? Colby: Well, there was an attempt— Church: Or the dart. Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit. Church: As a murder instrument, that is about as efficient as you can get, is it not? Colby: It is a weapon, a very serious weapon.</q> https://citizentruth.org/cia-heart-attack-gun/ From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact.<quote off> From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.... Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic).</q>

So if you go to work and you step outside the front door for a minute you're no longer at work? You're no longer at the site of your employment because you're standing outside the front door?

On the fence is the place to be, Chris. There are arguments on both sides. From the 1975 Church Committee testimony of William Colby, Director of the CIA. Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people? Colby: We have indeed. Church: Does this pistol fire the dart? Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.] Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently? Colby: Almost silently; yes. Church: What range does it have? Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters. I don't know what to make of the t&t windshield defect. I can't imagine anyone planning to put a bullet into the windshield. My best guess -- errant shot from a nervous shooter. JFK appears to be paralyzed after the throat shot. What's the simplest explanation for someone acting paralyzed? No matter how skilled and cold-blooded these shooters had to have been, it's another level of tension when the target is the US President. What if the first shot only wounds the target and he ducks down? Scorpion logic -- paralyze the prey first.

Funny thing is there'd been no slams on McAdams for over 24 hours when Tracy bailed. Holding the First Day Fact Pattern up to a nutter is like garlic before vampires. They want to debate theories. That's a game for losers. The facts collected in the first 24 hours of the assassination have a unified consistency: two wounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets. Lots of Pet Theorist "CT"s can't stand these root facts any more than nutters.

Should the State dictate such an arbitrary application of editorial discretion illegal? It's a free speech issue -- the First Amendment guarantees I can post anything I want on a privately owned internet forum? And this outrages you? Why would anyone care about Hunter Biden? Oh? https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/08/07/reports-facebook-fires-employee-who-shared-proof-of-right-wing-favoritism/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/tech/facebook-right-wing-misinformation/index.html Richard, I question your understanding of what today's students think. What do you define as "dissent" -- someone protesting environmental damage, or someone sticking up for the polluters? Hmm. You don't know if debate clubs exist but you know what they'd say? Here's the top 500 HS debate clubs. https://www.speechanddebate.org/rankings/ Bravo! I'm with you all the way on all of that.

And this is different from American society in the 1950's -- how? What consensus among the young would that be? And you don't think a lot of young people have developed a healthy skepticism of what they read on Wikipedia? The thing about kids today is they have ready access to more than seven decades of post -WW2 anti-establishment youth culture -- the Beats and the Jazz players in the 50's, LSD and anti-war in the 60's, punk rock in the 70's and hardcore punk rock in the 80's and 90's, woke hip hop from the 80's on. I find boomer researchers far more brain washed than the kids I know. See LIFE Magazine Nov. 25, 1966 -- "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" https://www.originallifemagazines.com/product/life-magazine-november-25-1966/ There is no reasonable doubt about conspiracy. The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound, as Gaeton Fonzi established on June 28, 1966 when he confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence and the author of the SBT suffered a nervous breakdown. The LIFE Magazine article rehabilitated both Arlen Specter and the SBT while promoting Connally's Z-film conspiracy case. The Big Lie is the parlor game -- "Answer the Question of Conspiracy" Micro-analyzing the acoustics, the NAA, the provenance of CE399, the head wound/s and other lesser proofs keep this parlor game going, even tho the researchers have the best intentions!

I stopped throwing rocks at a beehive because I didn't want to get stung.

The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy by E. Martin Schotz https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMS.html

Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria. https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WCTandAS.html They induced Arlen Specter to have a nervous breakdown over the clothing evidence. The high water mark of JFKA research: start with the T3 back wound and the fact it's too low to associate with the throat wound. Follow the evidence from there. The ones who haven't should find another subject to study. Do us all a favor.

6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue. Oswald had an unchallenged alibi as recorded by FBI SA James Hosty -- he'd gone outside to watch the P. parade. Like I said, this is a tutorial not a debate.

Not "who" -- "what." What's the unified evidence of the T3 back wound? The bullet holes in the clothes, the contemporaneous written notes of a half dozen witnesses in position of authority, the statements of a total of 16 T3 witnesses. The unified evidence of the throat entrance wound? The contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors, the cervical x-ray, the statements of 14 eye witnesses. The First Day Fact Pattern is common knowledge. Confirmation bias prevents you from processing information that destroys the LN. Bad beat. When the JFKA Critical Master Class finally arrives at a consensus over the T3 back wound I'll stop feeling a barely concealed contempt for the many big-name nay-sayers. You don't get it. I don't care about theories. Conspiracy theories are for losers!

So he hasn't spent tens of thousands of hours of study and hundreds of thousands of written words on the JFKA? Bring him here. I'll discuss the facts of the case, not the theories. It won't be a debate -- it'll be a tutorial.

I haven't said a word about McAdams. I responded to your challenge. I did you one better than a unified conspiracy theory -- a unified First Day Fact Pattern. It's a fact: the night of the autopsy the doctors openly suspected JFK was hit with the kind of high tech weaponry developed for the CIA at Fort Detrick MD.

There isn't a professional investigator in the world who'd disregard the physical evidence recovered with the body, the contemporaneous written reports of people in position of authority, the consensus eye/ear witness statements, the authenticated/verified medical evidence. But you ignore all of those things, Tracy.

No, you're just making up stuff because you have no answer for the First Day evidence. I don't present any theories, just facts gathered on the First Day. You have no rebuttal, so you wave your hands. I don't have to convince anyone. Either you are capable of making a simple physical observation or you're not. Confirmation bias is a bitch, ain't it, Tracy?

Nope, just another cocky non-response from the nutter gallery. What kind of person is incapable of observing the movement of their own clothing? A lone nutter.

The Lone Nut is a cult. It requires a true belief impervious to obvious fact.

It's all there in the First Day file, Clarice -- everything you need to catch them, those men you seek.