David Von Pein

That's a lie and you know it.

At the time they were considering such cloak-&-dagger solutions, they hadn't yet confirmed the existence of the bullet wound in JFK's throat. Once that wound was confirmed by the autopsy doctors to be a bullet hole (via Dr. Perry), the solution was obvious to Humes, et al.

And that batch of pure silliness, which involves two different gunmen firing low-velocity bullets into the man they are hoping to kill with those bullets, is somehow MORE believable and sensible to you than to believe that JFK's shirt was able to "bunch up" to approximately the same level as the jacket? Incredible.

I guess this means you're not going to answer my "What do you think happened?" question, huh? (To be expected, of course.)

Let me try the simple approach yet again (maybe Cliff will suddenly have a "Eureka" moment).... ONE hole in the shirt. ONE hole in the jacket. ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process). --equals-- ONE bullet travelled through all 3 of the above holes. What's your alternative solution, Cliff? I want to hear it? If the SAME bullet didn't go through both clothing holes and the only skin wound in JFK's upper back, then what do YOU think happened? I'm going to guess that you believe this photo below is a fake, right? And you think the "real" wound was located much lower on Kennedy's back, right? (You might have answered those inquiries previously in a discussion(s) that I have archived at my site, but I haven't memorized all of your fantasy-filled posts, so I can't currently remember.)

Battling Varnell (again and again).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-589.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. Cliff Varnell -------------------- "Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable." -- DVP; December 16, 2014

When do you plan on defending this bold and incorrect statement of yours?.... "Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy." Not a single thing you said above about "protocol" proves that the "14cm. from mastoid" measurement wasn't taken at the time of the autopsy. Try again, Mr. Fantasist. Because your last effort was quite lame.

I haven't the slightest idea why the conspiracy fantasist named Varnell uttered the above crap. Dr. Humes testified as follows to the Warren Commission (emphasis is my own) [at 2 H 361].... "We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion." But I guess Cliff must think the above statement made by Humes was nothing but a lie. And I guess Cliff thinks Dr. Humes continued to peddle that same lie three years later in this 1967 CBS-TV interview.... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOb3Z2UU9VUkdiSU0/view In addition, the HSCA in the late 1970s examined the original autopsy photographs depicting President Kennedy's upper-back wound and concluded that the "midpoint" of the entry wound in JFK's back was located "13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process" (7 HSCA 85), which is within one-half centimeter of Humes' 1963 measurement. (One possible explanation for that difference could be that the autopsy surgeons measured the distance to the bottom margin of the wound, vs. measuring it only to the wound's "midpoint".)

ONE hole in the shirt. ONE hole in the jacket. ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process). Surely there must be some small children in your neighborhood who can explain this easy math to you, Cliff.

Once again, we're treated to Cliff's extraordinary X-ray vision. He can SEE that JFK's shirt is not bunched-up at all. Not even a fraction of an inch. The level of Varnell's arrogance is close to becoming legendary.

Don't ya love it when a JFK conspiracy fantasist just makes up things that he cannot possibly know with such "one-eighth of an inch" precision?

A JFK conspiracy theorist.

Who cares? We know (and can easily see) that another part of that same jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" on JFK's back.

Don't ya love Cliff Varnell's amazing supernatural ability to be able to see right through JFK's jacket in the Croft picture? How did you manage to do that, Cliff? Please tell us your secret for seeing through solid objects in order to promote a theory that you know you can never prove if your life hung in the balance. I anxiously await Cliff's spectacularly inept reply.

Indeed. Such as this photo below (which is the photo that Cliff loves to hate)....

Interestingly enough, Dr. Henry Lee was born on November 22 (in 1938). Here is all of his (lengthy) testimony during the O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1995: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM0S2Fsr5Xp8UhNGRSFKC2Q/search?query=Henry+Lee+Testimony

"What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the victims in President Kennedy's car....and yet, after the bullets stopped flying and the fragments and/or whole bullets were examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street? Short of conspiracy theorists coming right out and calling Vincent Guinn a bald-faced l-i-a-r when he revealed his NAA results in 1978 (and even taking into account the newer NAA studies that have been done since '78 that have cast doubt on the exactitude of Guinn's determinations), I cannot see how the conspiracists of the world can fight the above-mentioned "odds" problem." -- DVP; September 5, 2007

Dead wrong. I've never once said that Dr. Perry or Dr. McClelland were lying. And I'm certainly not saying (or even implying) such a thing now. Perry was simply wrong about the throat wound being a wound of entry. And McClelland was wrong about some things too. But I've never called either one of those doctors a l-i-a-r. Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp (which we can hear her admit in her own voice in the 1967 interview found here [fast forward to 17:07], where she says that "Oswald was entirely innocent" of not only killing President Kennedy, but she also says she thinks LHO was also innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder and the Walker shooting attempt as well), then by mere implication she pretty much had no choice but to believe that a large amount of the physical evidence against Oswald was faked, manufactured, or manipulated in some manner ---- otherwise Oswald is guilty. Simple as that.

It only damning in the mind of a rabid conspiracy theorist who will always look at everything with an eye toward a conceived conspiracy. (Know anybody who fits that bill around here?) And this assertion below by Jim D. should convince him that he's not being at all reasonable or realistic about the topic of Malcolm Perry and the throat wound.... "...someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be..." But Jim couldn't care less about a realistic approach to the evidence; he's too invested in promoting conspiracy, no matter how silly he sounds while doing it.

It's interesting to take note of which pieces of physical evidence that most Internet conspiracy theorists consider to be not fake or manufactured to frame a guy named Oswald. Since the clothing holes in JFK's shirt and suit coat are situated lower than the actual bullet hole in the skin of President Kennedy's upper back, conspiracists like Cliff Varnell feel free to travel down the "Something Here Doesn't Look Right" road of conspiracy. But if many of the CTers are right when they claim that virtually all other pieces of physical evidence in this case have been faked and falsely manufactured in order to frame a guy named Oswald, then I'm just wondering why those crackerjack Patsy Framers didn't fake JFK's shirt and suit jacket too. It would seem that nothing was beyond the capabilities of those ace evidence manipulators, e.g.: per most CTers, the unseen "they" were able to get into the TSBD and up to the sixth floor to rearrange all the ballistics evidence up there so it would perfectly fit the Oswald-Did-It narrative; they were able to break into Ruth Paine's garage and plant some backyard photos depicting the Patsy with the same rifle they managed to plant on the sixth floor; they managed to plant two identifiable bullet fragments in JFK's limousine that traced back to that same rifle they planted in the TSBD; and on and on. But they forgot about faking the clothing evidence. ~~~slaps forehead~~~ But, then too, nobody's perfect all the time, right? Not even Presidential assassins and cover-uppers. So I guess Cliff is willing to cut the otherwise super-efficient evidence manipulators a little slack when it comes to the shirt and coat. Right, Cliff? End result (per many conspiracy theorists): JFK's shirt and coat were just about the only pieces of physical evidence in this case that weren't tampered with in some way by the authorities. (Plus, there are the Oswald fingerprints on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest. Most CTers don't think those prints were planted, but only because they feel comfortable utilizing the "He Worked There" cop-out of an excuse to explain why Lee Harvey Oswald's prints were the only ones found on those boxes, excluding the prints of policemen.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/John F. Kennedy's Clothing

But the Secret Service has to look at things in a different way. They have to consider (in advance, if at all possible) how a particular action (or invitation) might impact the President's security and safety.

Sure, but why do it when it can so easily be avoided by simply not mailing out one invitation?

You don't really have to prove "intent" either. The prosecuting lawyer's only burden of proof is to prove that the defendant committed the crime he was charged with committing. And Vincent Bugliosi most certainly met his burden of proof (with plenty of room to spare) when it comes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the 2007 book "Reclaiming History". And only an outer-fringe conspiracy theorist who is hell-bent on pretending Oswald was innocent could possibly argue otherwise.

The only reason Vince's book is that long is because of the conspiracy theorists that VB was responding to. (As if Jim didn't know that.)

Not true. (If you're referring to the Triple Underpass bridge, that is.) Because that bridge on Elm Street had two Dallas policemen on it when JFK's car drove underneath it on 11/22/63.