Bugliosi Has Won !

[William O'Neil]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

did not transit the body.

In that, we are in absolute and total agreement.

Now, if one could only determine exactly what would cause a 2,000 to 2,200 fps projectile to become limited in it's velocity to the extent that it would only penetrate the upper back/shoulder of JFK to a shallow depth.

I will again reiterate:

The fact that the relatively clean-cut/punch-type oval wound of entry in the back of JFK which measured 4mm X 7mm, was declared by Dr. Boswell as being an "atypical" wound, and which had considerable fabric from the coat and shirt worn by JFK carried down into the wound of entry, is an EEI (essential element of information)

The fact that the deformed oval base of CE399 measures exactly 4mm x 7mm is another essential element of information.

The fact that a normal medium to high velocity bullet, striking in a nose first attitude DOES NOT carry fabric from clothing down into the wound of entry is another EEI.

Talk about your 4th graders there Cliff. At least most of them know about round pegs and round holes, oval pegs and oval holes, as well as 4mm X 7mm pegs and 4mm X 7mm holes.

I take it you are thinking bullet tumble, caused by tree branch or seat-back cushion ?

[Guest Mark Valenti]

That's the bedrock - provable fact. Everything else is Sherlock Holmes entertainment.

[Cliff Varnell]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear.

"Suggestive" of what?

That isn't JFK's shirt collar in the red box?

What is it, then?

That isn't a horizontal fold in his jacket in the yellow box?

What is it, then?

The artifact highlighted in the red box isn't larger than the artifact

highlighted in the yellow box?

This is a mystery that we can't divine?

Are you holding out for the *possibility* that the fabric fold

in the yellow box could "possibly" be 3 times larger than the

1/2" of exposed shirt collar?

Instead of denouncing my conclusion with generalities about how photographs

are often mis-read, why don't you actually analyze the Betzner photo and tell

us what is "suggestive" rather than "clear"?

Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

This from a guy who has denied that the following frame from Towner

shows JFK's shirt collar...

I'll take my "tough guy talk" over your empty dismissals of the

obvious, any day.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

So *all* photos are useless as evidence because some people sometimes

mis-interprete some of them?

Photographs are never used in criminal investigations -- is that correct??

But you've convinced yourself, good for you.

I haven't seen any fact-based argument to the contrary.

I see people such as you dismissing the clothing/photographic evidence

out of hand with bland generalities and empty rhetoric.

You *say* that Betzner is "too blurry," but you offer no actual analysis of

the information in the photo.

I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

If you were really confident in your position you'd show us where in the

Betzner photo that 2" to 3" of bunched up- fabric could "possibly" be.

Ah, but it's better to sit on the sideline and kibbutz, eh, Mr. Valenti?

[Cliff Varnell]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

did not transit the body.

In that, we are in absolute and total agreement.

Now, if one could only determine exactly what would cause a 2,000 to 2,200 fps projectile to become limited in it's velocity to the extent that it would only penetrate the upper back/shoulder of JFK to a shallow depth.

I will again reiterate:

The fact that the relatively clean-cut/punch-type oval wound of entry in the back of JFK which measured 4mm X 7mm, was declared by Dr. Boswell as being an "atypical" wound, and which had considerable fabric from the coat and shirt worn by JFK carried down into the wound of entry, is an EEI (essential element of information)

The fact that the deformed oval base of CE399 measures exactly 4mm x 7mm is another essential element of information.

The fact that a normal medium to high velocity bullet, striking in a nose first attitude DOES NOT carry fabric from clothing down into the wound of entry is another EEI.

Talk about your 4th graders there Cliff. At least most of them know about round pegs and round holes, oval pegs and oval holes, as well as 4mm X 7mm pegs and 4mm X 7mm holes.

Please list here the evidence you can provide that CE399 struck JFK in the

back...

[Cliff Varnell]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

William,

I disagree that the provable wound at T3 doesn't matter.

It is important in understanding the cover-up that the autopsists "officially"

identified 3 different back wound locations other than T3.

I'll argue that it is important in understanding the crime itself to establish that the

damage on the neck x-ray -- bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1 -- was caused by the shot

to the throat from the front.

I regard this x-ray as a key piece of evidence, one that is rarely examined.

Some, like Tom Purvis, for instance, argue that this damage was created by

the shot to JFK's back.

That scenario is impossible, given the T3 back wound.

What kind of round leaves an air pocket, but no bullet?

Answer that question and we're well on the way to resolving the case, imo.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

"Suggestive" of what?

That isn't JFK's shirt collar in the red box?

What is it, then?

That isn't a horizontal fold in his jacket in the yellow box?

What is it, then?

The artifact highlighted in the red box isn't larger than the artifact

highlighted in the yellow box?

This is a mystery that we can't divine?

Are you holding out for the *possibility* that the fabric fold

in the yellow box could "possibly" be 3 times larger than the

1/2" of exposed shirt collar?

Instead of denouncing my conclusion with generalities about how photographs

are often mis-read, why don't you actually analyze the Betzner photo and tell

us what is "suggestive" rather than "clear"?

Correct. That is not necessarily JFK's shirt collar. It might be the reflection of the very bright November sun on his suit.

It might be a collar, it might be the sun. It might be a horizontal fold, it might not.

In the purple box JFK's hair looks like a white afro. We know this isn't true - but the fuzziness of the photo makes it seem so.

In the purple box there's what appears to be a white ball on JFK's shoulder. We know this isn't true, but the fuzziness of the photo suggests it.

I'll take my "tough guy talk" over your empty dismissals of the obvious, any day.

It isn't obvious. It only seems that way to you.

Photographs are never used in criminal investigations -- is that correct??

Photographic evidence is important in criminal investigations - and in criminal trials. Juries are given a chance to examine them and make decisions based on their reading of them. If you were a DA pressing this issue in court, my guess is that you would be replaced in a New York minute. There's very little value to these fuzzy photos.

I haven't seen any fact-based argument to the contrary.

You present statements as facts when they are clearly mere opinions. So I'll have to wait until you go first.

I see people such as you dismissing the clothing/photographic evidence out of hand with bland generalities and empty rhetoric.

You *say* that Betzner is "too blurry," but you offer no actual analysis of the information in the photo.

That's because a fuzzy photo offers very little useful information. As I said before, they can suggest theories, but they are not, in and of themselves, facts.

JFK's hair looks grey in this photo too -- I guess his hair must be grey. Unless...the photo...is too fuzzy...to tell for sure...

[William O'Neil]

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

William,

I disagree that the provable wound at T3 doesn't matter.

It is important in understanding the cover-up that the autopsists "officially"

identified 3 different back wound locations other than T3.

I'll argue that it is important in understanding the crime itself to establish that the

damage on the neck x-ray -- bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1 -- was caused by the shot

to the throat from the front.

I regard this x-ray as a key piece of evidence, one that is rarely examined.

Some, like Tom Purvis, for instance, argue that this damage was created by

the shot to JFK's back.

That scenario is impossible, given the T3 back wound.

What kind of round leaves an air pocket, but no bullet?

Answer that question and we're well on the way to resolving the case, imo.

Cliff, OK , point taken. I was primarily refering to the SBT itself. I also think the throat wound was one of entrance, and it leaves one hard pressed to explain away, in a 3 shot scenario. I think it was the 1st shot to strike JFK, clearly prior to any headshot.

[Cliff Varnell]

"Suggestive" of what?

That isn't JFK's shirt collar in the red box?

What is it, then?

That isn't a horizontal fold in his jacket in the yellow box?

What is it, then?

The artifact highlighted in the red box isn't larger than the artifact

highlighted in the yellow box?

This is a mystery that we can't divine?

Are you holding out for the *possibility* that the fabric fold

in the yellow box could "possibly" be 3 times larger than the

1/2" of exposed shirt collar?

Instead of denouncing my conclusion with generalities about how photographs

are often mis-read, why don't you actually analyze the Betzner photo and tell

us what is "suggestive" rather than "clear"?

Correct. That is not necessarily JFK's shirt collar. It might be the reflection of the very bright November sun on his suit.

Then why is the artifact distinguishable from the sun on his shoulder?

Are you denying that JFK's suit-clothed left shoulder is visible in Betzner?

Are you claiming that the suit on his left shoulder is indistinguishable

from the artifact highlighted in the red box?

Is it a co-incidence that the artifact is the same shape and in the same location

as the shirt collar in Towner?

Or are you denying that the white band around his neck in Towner is shirt collar?

It might be a collar, it might be the sun.

It's the sun shining on the shirt collar, just like 3 seconds earlier in Towner.

It might be a horizontal fold, it might not.

Please illustrate for us at what point in this photo JFK's jacket

becomes "something" other than his jacket?

Are you denying that the artifact between the yellow lines is horizontal?

Are you denying that the artifact between the yellow lines above is suit jacket?

Are you denying that there is shadow in the areas immediately above and

below the artifact?

In the purple box JFK's hair looks like a white afro. We know this isn't true - but the fuzziness of the photo makes it seem so.

In the purple box there's what appears to be a white ball on JFK's shoulder. We know this isn't true, but the fuzziness of the photo suggests it.

So what?

How does that change the FACT that JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in the

Towner film?

Or are you continuing to deny this?

I'll take my "tough guy talk" over your empty dismissals of the obvious, any day.

It isn't obvious. It only seems that way to you.

Oh, no, it is quite obvious that JFK's shirt collar is visible in both the

Towner film and Betzner #3.

I'm not the first to make the observation.

Your empty denials don't change anything.

Photographs are never used in criminal investigations -- is that correct??

Photographic evidence is important in criminal investigations - and in criminal trials. Juries are given a chance to examine them and make decisions based on their reading of them. If you were a DA pressing this issue in court, my guess is that you would be replaced in a New York minute. There's very little value to these fuzzy photos.

You've proven you can repeat your conclusions endlessly, nothing else.

Please share with us the reason for there being a white band around

the back of JFK's neck in Towner even though his gray coat appears blue.

I haven't seen any fact-based argument to the contrary.

You present statements as facts when they are clearly mere opinions. So I'll have to wait until you go first.

We'll have to wait a lot longer than that for your fact-based argument

as to why JFK's shirt collar isn't visible on Elm St.

You don't have one.

I see people such as you dismissing the clothing/photographic evidence out of hand with bland generalities and empty rhetoric.

You *say* that Betzner is "too blurry," but you offer no actual analysis of the information in the photo.

That's because a fuzzy photo offers very little useful information. As I said before, they can suggest theories, but they are not, in and of themselves, facts.

Mark Valenti is on record as claiming that JFK's shirt collar is not

visible in the Towner film, taken about 3 seconds before Betzner.

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

I leave it to the gentle reader to assess Mr. Valenti's credibility on this issue.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Then why is the artifact distinguishable from the sun on his shoulder?

You say it is. I say it may or may not be what you say it is. Maybe the photo was printed poorly? Maybe you have a bad copy? Maybe it is what you say it is? The point being, you can't know for certain and so popping off to people, suggesting that they are criminally negligent, is at the very least, bad form.

Are you denying that JFK's suit-clothed left shoulder is visible in Betzner?

Where you you on the night of...No, Cliff. I'm not denying that. It probably is his shoulder.

Are you claiming that the suit on his left shoulder is indistinguishable from the artifact highlighted in the red box?

I sense you're building toward a crescendo of sorts here. No, I'm not claiming that.

Is it a co-incidence that the artifact is the same shape and in the same location as the shirt collar in Towner?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Or are you denying that the white band around his neck in Towner is shirt collar?

I couldn't say for certain one way or the other. It certainly looks like a shirt collar -- but then again JFK's hair looks grey in the sunlight. What could that possibly mean???

Please illustrate for us at what point in this photo JFK's jacket becomes "something" other than his jacket?

Oy.

Are you denying that the artifact between the yellow lines is horizontal?

Are you denying that the artifact between the yellow lines above is suit jacket?

Are you denying that there is shadow in the areas immediately above and

below the artifact?

No, it does seem to be horizontal. That doesn't mean that it is. It's an extreme blow-up of an already-fuzzy photo. Starting to look like a Picasso painting.

No, logic would dictate that the area is part of the jacket.

No, I'm not denying that it's a shadow. I'm saying you can't possibly know if it's a shadow or not.

How does that change the FACT that JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in the Towner film? Or are you continuing to deny this?

I'm saying, Cliff, and please pay attention this time, that nobody can tell from these grainy, fuzzy photos, if something is a shirt or a jacket being struck by sunlight in these extremely poor-quality photographs. It is not a fact that it's JFK's shirt collar. It's a supposition, a deduction, a reasonable theory. It is not, however, a fact. Facts have threshold standards. Your approach to these photos does not meet those standards.

Oh, no, it is quite obvious that JFK's shirt collar is visible in both the Towner film and Betzner #3. I'm not the first to make the observation.

Your empty denials don't change anything.

Empty denials vs. opinions disguised as facts. It's noteworthy that you are so sure of yourself, way to go, but you can flex that muscle all you want, it's not working in the real world. I am a persuadable person, I can follow logic pretty well. I know what you're suggesting and I'm replying that your certainty is ill-advised.

You've proven you can repeat your conclusions endlessly, nothing else.

Good one! You've proven that you have a sense of humor. You've been promulgating your Holy Theory of the Bunch on the Internet for YEARS, repeating your dogma to anyone willing to host your posts. Doesn't make them true. Just makes them...as you say...kind of endless...

Please share with us the reason for there being a white band around the back of JFK's neck in Towner even though his gray coat appears blue.

Ahem...let's see..um...sunlight? Or it might be a white shirt. All I'm saying is - and I hope it sinks in this time - you can't possibly know for sure. It sure looks like a shirt. But the sunlight, it plays tricks. Especially with fuzzy photos.

I haven't seen any fact-based argument to the contrary.

We'll have to wait a lot longer than that for your fact-based argument as to why JFK's shirt collar isn't visible on Elm St. You don't have one.

Correct. I don't pretend to. I'm just calling you on the fact that you don't either. It's impossible in the absence of better-quality evidence.

Mark Valenti is on record as claiming that JFK's shirt collar is not visible in the Towner film, taken about 3 seconds before Betzner.

Um...actually I'm on record as saying that it's impossible to tell, from a fuzzy photo, exactly what is what and sometimes you have to guess. Because of that very obvious reason, one shouldn't prattle on about Vichy this or Vichy that, hinting that anyone with divergent opinions is somehow flawed or evil.

I leave it to the gentle reader to assess Mr. Valenti's credibility on this issue.

Yes, let's leave it at that.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's boil it down to this:

CV:

Or are you denying that the white band around his neck in Towner is shirt collar?

MV:

I couldn't say for certain one way or the other. It certainly looks like a shirt collar -- but

then again JFK's hair looks grey in the sunlight. What could that possibly mean???

So even though the white band is not the same color as the jacket, or

JFK's tanned skin, it might be jacket because...Mark Valenti doesn't have

any other handy rationale to explain away the obvious.

I don't think you're evil, Mark.

Intellectual dishonesty is a common human failing.

We all suffer from it, sometimes.

You just happen to pick a public forum for yours, that's all.

[Cliff Varnell]

You've been promulgating your Holy Theory of the Bunch on the Internet for YEARS, repeating your dogma to anyone willing to host your posts. Doesn't make them true. Just makes them...as you say...kind of endless...

Goes to show what you don't know, Mark.

I didn't start posting on the Internet until 1997.

The following article by Michael Griffith appeared in 1996.

Very little of what I present is "mine."

To wit:

THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY AND THE HOLES

IN THE BACK OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S SHIRT AND COAT

Michael T. Griffith

1996

@All Rights Reserved

Revised on 9/14/96

In order to attribute the murder of President Kennedy to a

lone gunman, the Warren Commission (WC) found it necessary to

formulate the single-bullet theory. According to this

hypothesis, a single bullet, also known as the "magic bullet,"

struck Kennedy at the base of the neck, exited his throat, passed

through Governor John Connally, causing all of his wounds, yet

emerged in nearly pristine condition, suffering only a slight

flattening at its base and losing no more than three grains of

its substance. This bullet is officially labeled as Commission

Exhibit (CE) 399.

Critics of the Commission's claims were quick to point out

that the holes in the back of Kennedy's coat and shirt refuted

the single-bullet theory, or at the very least showed it was

highly doubtful. They noted that there was a bullet hole in the

coat 5.375 inches from the top of the collar and a corresponding

hole in the shirt 5.75 inches below the top of the collar,

proving that the missile struck the President's back much lower

than where the WC said it did.

Defenders of the single-bullet theory have never been able

to satisfactorily explain how a bullet that entered at or near

the base of the neck could have made the holes in JFK's coat and

shirt. These holes are hard physical evidence that the

single-bullet theory is invalid.

There is a considerable amount of evidence, in addition to

the clothing holes, that JFK's back wound was much lower than

where the WC placed it. In 1979, the medical panel of the House

Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded the back

wound was nearly two inches LOWER than where the Commission had

located it (and where Humes located it in the Ryberg drawing).

However, the clothing holes, along with other evidence, prove

that the wound's actual location was even farther down on the

back than where the Select Committee placed it--that it was, in

fact, 5 to 6 inches below the neckline. What other evidence is

there of the back wound's low location? Here is brief review of

it:

* Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five

to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was

marked "verified."

* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third

thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and

shirt. This document was also marked "verified."

* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the

autopsy, has stated in two separate interviews that the wound was

near the fourth thoracic vertebra. This is even slightly lower

than where the death certificate places the wound.

* Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue

for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the

entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the

right-hand side of the spinal column." Hill's placement of the

wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the

President's shirt and coat.

* The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was

based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy

(James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound BELOW the

shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade).

* Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy,

James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that

the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins has also reported

that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors

determined it had no point of exit. His account is solidly

corroborated by other witnesses.

* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the

autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was

well below the neck.

* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was

present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several

inches down on the back."

* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of

the Warren Commission, chief counsel J. Lee Rankin is quoted as

saying that the bullet entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder

blade. Rankin even referred to a picture which showed that "the

bullet entered BELOW the shoulder blade." (Obviously, Rankin was

referring to the top of the shoulder blade.)

* Recently released files have provided powerful additional

evidence of the back wound's low location. Wound diagrams drawn

for the HSCA by federal agents Roy Kellerman, Francis O'Neill,

and James Sibert, all of whom got very good looks at the body,

were recently released. Each agent placed the back wound well

below the neck and visibly below the level of the throat wound.

WC apologists have provided strained, unconvincing answers

to explain this evidence. Dr. Boswell, they note, later claimed

that he merely made a mistake when he drew the dot for the back

wound's location (even though he did not say this about any other

mark on the diagram). WC apologists also observe that a

handwritten measurement on the face sheet places the wound

somewhat higher than the dot. But, that measurement is written

in darker ink than any other note on the diagram, suggesting that

it was added after the fact. Indeed, the measurement is in

dark blue ink, while the rest of the face sheet is in pencil.

The death certificate, say Commission defenders, is inaccurate

too (even though it was marked "verified," and even though it was

prepared by the President's personal physician, Dr. Burkley).

The FBI report on the autopsy, they argue, is inaccurate as well

(even though it was based on the report of two FBI agents who

attended the autopsy). Rankin, they claim, was referring to

Boswell's face sheet diagram (but Rankin referred to a "picture,"

not to a drawing or a diagram, and the face sheet doesn't show

the detail he described anyway). And, we are told, the several

witnesses who have said the wound was well below the neck are

simply mistaken (even though these witnesses saw the back wound

and gave their descriptions of it at different times, and even

though most of them were medical professionals).

Although these explanations are obviously very weak and

forced, they cannot be demonstrably refuted, since they concern

evidence that is subject to human error. In other words, it is

possible, though unlikely, that Dr. Boswell did mislocate the dot

for the back wound. It is possible, though unlikely, that Dr.

Burkley erred in his description of the wound in the death

certificate. It is possible, though unlikely, that the

description of the back wound in the December 9 FBI report is

inaccurate. It is possible, though seemingly improbable, that

Rankin was referring to Dr. Boswell's face sheet. And it is

possible, though quite improbable, that ALL of the witnesses who

have given a low location for the back wound are mistaken.

However, the holes in JFK's coat and shirt are indisputable,

and their location is not subject to human error. In the face of

this dilemma, lone-gunman theorists have had no choice but to

claim that not only was the President's coat "bunched up" on his

back when the bullet struck, but that his tailor-made shirt was

somehow similarly "bunched" at the same time. This theory, they

say, explains how the bullet could have made the holes in the

coat and in the shirt.

This theory is wholly untenable. Among other things, there

is photographic evidence that shows JFK's coat was NOT bunched at

the probable time of the first hit, i.e., between frames 188 and

210 of the Zapruder film (and absolutely no later than frame

224). In addition, the odds that the shirt would have followed

the coat up the back almost millimeter by millimeter are

astronomically remote. Let us now consider the bunched-clothing

theory in more detail.

---------------------------

The Bunched-Clothing Theory

---------------------------

Jim Moore, Josiah Thompson, Gaeton Fonzi, and Harold

Weisberg have written some excellent analyses on the invalidity

of the hunched-clothing hypothesis. I will quote at length from

their fine research on the subject. It should be pointed out

that Jim Moore is a lone-gunman theorist.

In the paragraphs that follow, we will learn three important

facts: One, photographic evidence refutes the claim that JFK's

coat was bunched when the bullet probably struck. Two, it is

tantamount to impossible that his tailor-made shirt would or

could have followed the coat up the back so closely. And, three,

when a coat or shirt bunches to the degree suggested by

lone-gunman theorists, the bunched material doubles over, which

means the alleged magic bullet would have created TWO holes in

the coat and/or in the shirt, not just one hole in each item.

Before we examine what Moore, Thompson, Fonzi, and Weisberg

have written on this topic, I would first like to comment on Dr.

John Lattimer's claim that there is photographic evidence that

supports the bunched-clothing theory. In his May 1972 article on

the JFK assassination in RESIDENT AND STAFF PHYSICIAN, and in his

1980 book KENNEDY AND LINCOLN, Lattimer reproduced a picture of

Kennedy in the motorcade which he claimed supported the idea that

the coat was bunched when the shot struck. This photo appears to

show the President's coat "humped-up behind his neck," by about 1

to 1.5 inches. However, this picture was taken well before the

motorcade had even entered Dealey Plaza (where the shooting

occurred), and, more importantly, the coat is not bunched up

enough to account for the location of the clothing holes. To be

sure, there are some motorcade photos that show Kennedy's coat

slightly to moderately bunched, while other motorcade pictures

show the coat resting flat on Kennedy's back. But a photograph

taken of the President's back at almost the exact moment of the

first hit shows his coat was not bunched at that crucial time.

In order for the clothing holes to have been caused by a

bullet that struck at or near the base of the neck, the coat (and

the shirt) would have had to be bunched by no less than 2 inches,

at the bare minimum, and more probably by 3-5 inches. (If one

accepts the WC's placement of the wound, then "at the base of the

neck" is the appropriate description. But if one accepts the

HSCA's placement, then "near the base of the neck" is the

appropriate description. In either case, the coat and shirt

would have had to be bunched by an absolute minimum of 2 inches.)

Furthermore, as mentioned, there is photographic evidence which

shows that JFK's coat was not bunched when the bullet struck.

Additionally, even if we assume that the coat was sufficiently

bunched during any of the times suggested for the first hit, we

would still have to deal with the virtual impossibility that

Kennedy's tailor-made shirt would or could have followed the coat

up the back almost millimeter by millimeter, and without doubling

over. One of Dr. Lattimer's own diagrams illustrates the fact

that in order for the coat to have been bunched enough to account

for hole's location, the hunched-up part of the coat would have

had to extend up to, or even slightly beyond, the collar of the

shirt.

Jim Moore:

Since the back of the President's shirt shows a

six-by-six millimeter hole in roughly the same

location as the hole in the jacket, the mute

evidence seems to indicate a lower point of entry

than would be possible if the bullet had been

fired from above and behind, and had coursed

through the President's neck to exit his

throat. . . .

Through the years, there have been several

attempts to justify the position of the clothing

holes with the entry wound on the President's

back. . . .

A good example is the hypothesis first advanced

by Dr. Lattimer and published in KENNEDY AND

LINCOLN. . . .

TIME magazine writer Ed Magnuson clearly had

Lattimer's research at hand when he wrote in a

1975 article: "Since Kennedy was seen in the

Zapruder film to be waving before he was first

struck in the back of the neck, the experts

believe that his raised right arm bunched up the

top of the jacket; unfolded, the jacket thus shows

a hole lower than the one in his back."

The article included a convenient diagram so

that readers could see the obvious plausibility of

the bunched-jacket theory. The problem with

Lattimer's argument is not in the theory itself,

but rather, in the photos he used as reference.

The picture published in his book was taken from

the motorcade's press bus, very likely at the

outset or in the first minutes of the procession

from Love Field.

Two other photos exist (both readily available

to Lattimer) showing the President's back at the

time of the first shot. These, then, would be

much better evidence than one showing his jacket

bunched at the beginning of the motorcade. The

photos taken at the moment of the assassination

were a color slide by Phil Willis and a black-and-

white still by Hugh Betzner. Both were shot from

the south curb of Elm Street, and both depict the

back of President Kennedy's head, since the

limousine has already passed both photographers

and is headed down the slope of Elm Street. Also

visible in both photographs are the President's

shoulders and upper back. THE BETZNER PHOTO

CLEARLY SHOWS THE PRESIDENT'S SHIRT COLLAR, WHICH

WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE WERE HIS JACKET BUNCHED.

Although not as evident in the Willis slide, THE

COLLAR IS ALSO DETECTABLE AND THE JACKET APPEARS

FLAT.

There is another problem with Lattimer's

explanation, although it requires some thought up-

front. Were it not for the photographic evidence,

I could accept the theory of the bunched suit

jacket. BUT WHAT ABOUT A BUNCHED SHIRT? HARDLY

POSSIBLE, SINCE THE PRESIDENT'S SHIRTS WERE

CUSTOM-MADE AND CAREFULLY FITTED. Indeed, the law

of averages also works against Lattimer, for in

his scenario, the shirt would have to be bunched

inside the jacket almost to the same degree as the

coat. THE ODDS AGAINST THIS MILLIMETER-FOR-

MILLIMETER CORRESPONDENCE BOGGLE THE IMAGINATION.

(Moore 154-155, emphasis added)

One might wonder how Moore can still accept the

single-bullet theory when he rejects the traditional

bunched-clothing scenario. Moore has his own hunched-clothing

theory, but it is even more implausible than the traditional one.

Moore speculates that Kennedy was not wounded by the alleged

magic bullet until Zapruder frame 235. According to Moore, the

bullet struck between frames 235 and 237: "Leaning forward with

his hands in front of his face, his suit jacket and shirt were

both elevated, thus accounting for the differing positions of the

wound in his back when compared with the holes in his clothing"

(Moore 156).

What about the fact that by frame 225 Kennedy has his right

arm near his chest and his left arm up to his diaphragm, and is

in the process of bringing his hands up to the area of his neck?

Moore opines that a shot was fired during the split-second break

in the foliage of the oak tree, at frame 186, that this shot

missed, that it hit the curb near the limousine, and that when it

struck the curb it knocked pieces of concrete fragments toward

President Kennedy's face. Moore believes that prior to frame

235, JFK was simply trying to protect his face after being

"pelted" or "forcibly struck" by the bits of concrete that

were sent flying by the supposed miss at frame 186 (Moore

157-158, 197-199).

There are serious problems with Moore's scenario. First and

foremost, his theory does not explain how the shirt could have

followed the coat up the back to such a degree, nor how it could

have done this in almost exact correspondence with the coat.

Moreover, even the WC rejected the idea that the alleged lone

gunman fired a shot during the split-second break in the foliage,

or during any other time when the limousine was beneath the oak

tree (WCR, pp. 98-105). As the Commission correctly reasoned, it

is hard to imagine why the gunman would have taken such a poor,

risky shot when he was about to have a much better view of the

limousine in less than two seconds. Furthermore, Secret Service

agent Roy Kellerman, who was riding in the presidential car, told

the Commission he was absolutely positive he heard President

Kennedy say "I'm hit!" just after the first shot that Kellerman

heard, which was well before frame 225.

In Moore's opinion, the postulated spraying of JFK's face

with bits of concrete would have been similar to James Tague's

experience. Tague believed he was struck in the face by a piece

of concrete or by a fragment from the bullet that struck the

curb, which had been sent streaking toward him when a bullet hit

the curb over 20 feet from where he was standing. The object

that hit Tague was traveling so fast that it cut his face.

According to Moore, the alleged missed shot at frame 186 struck

the curb at a spot that was very close to the limousine, and that

pieces from the curb pelted Kennedy in the face. If so, one

would expect that at least one of those pieces of concrete would

have cut JFK's face. However, Kennedy's face was undamaged--no

cuts were seen or reported.

Even assuming that the supposed lone gunman fired while the

limousine was beneath the oak tree, and even assuming that JFK

was only trying to protect his face prior to frame 235, would the

position of his arms as seen in frames 235-237 have raised his

coat and shirt high enough to account for the holes in them?

While it is possible that the coat could have bunched up markedly

during these frames, it seems unlikely that the shirt could

have done this. The President's shirt, as Moore himself notes,

was tailor-made and carefully fitted. Even when JFK raised his

elbows slightly above his shoulders--as he did in frame 235--this

should not have caused his shirt to climb up his back to any

significant degree, and it almost definitely would not have

pulled his shirt up by 2 to 5 inches. (To put it another way, it

is a virtual certainty that the shirt could not have hunched up

far enough on his back to produce a hole 5.75 inches from the top

of the collar.) A decently fitted tailor-made shirt, as JFK's

surely was, will allow a man to wave his hand above his head

(which will bring his elbow well above his shoulders) without

pulling his shirt 2 to 5 inches up his back. (I would invite the

reader to do his or her own experiment at home. Put on a dress

shirt that fits you reasonably comfortably, raise your arm well

above your head as if to wave, and see how little, if at all,

your shirt moves up your back.)

It should be remembered, also, that Kennedy was sitting

during the time in question, so his lower back was pressing at

least the very bottom part of the shirt against the seat, which

would have prevented the shirt from moving markedly up his back,

even if the shirt had been so poorly fitted that this was

possible in the first place.

There is also the fact that when a jacket or shirt bunches

up to any significant degree, the bunched material doubles over.

In fact, in the photo reproduced by Lattimer, in which JFK's coat

is somewhat bunched on his back, the bunched part of the jacket

is doubled over. If Kennedy's coat had been bunched to the

degree suggested by Moore between frames 235 and 237, the bullet

would have made two holes in the coat as a result of the doubling

over of the cloth. Similarly, if the shirt had followed the coat

up the back, as required by Moore's theory, the bunched material

would have doubled over and the bullet would have produced two

holes in the shirt as well.

By and large, Moore's fellow lone-gunman theorists reject

his bunched-clothing theory because it creates too many timing

problems. Some WC apologists now hold to the untenable view that

the first hit occurred at frame 224 and that the preceding shot,

which they say missed, was fired between frames 158 and 166.

They put the first hit at frame 224 because this is when they

believe Connally shows signs of being injured at frame 224,

which would mean that the bullet transited Kennedy at virtually

the same exact moment (or between frames 223 and 224). But

Connally himself, after carefully studying the Zapruder film,

insisted that he was NOT hit prior to frame 231 (he chose frame

234 as the moment of impact). Other researchers opine that the

first hit occurred at around frame 190, and this view is

supported by strong evidence from the Zapruder film. The HSCA's

photographic panel concluded that the first hit on Kennedy

occurred at around frame 188. Virtually all WC defenders reject

Moore's idea that the first hit occurred between frames 235 and

237. In terms of any version of the bunched-clothing theory, a

first hit at frame 224 is just as problematic and implausible as

a first hit at frame 235. And a first hit at around frame 190 is

equally problematic for the bunched-clothing theory.

There are other problems with a hit at frame 224. For

example, if the first hit came at this time, and if the miss came

between frames 158 and 166, how are we to account for the

wounding of James Tague, who was standing over 400 away from the

area where the missed shot would have landed? Are we to believe

Gerald Posner's theory that after allegedly striking the curb

near the Book Depository Building, the bullet, or a large

fragment from it, traveled over 400 feet and still hit the

sidewalk near Tague hard enough to send a piece of concrete

streaking toward him with sufficient force to cover over 20 feet

and then cut his face? Or, if it is assumed that a bullet

fragment struck Tague's face directly, what, then, caused the

mark on the curb near Tague? The closest fragment that WC

defenders can offer is a fragment from the head shot. But the

head shot occurred over 200 feet from Tague's location, and this

fragment would have just finished plowing through a human skull

and would have had to somehow fly over the bubble-top support bar

and the windshield en route to Tague, who, again was standing

well over 200 feet away. What's more, if the gunman fired at the

President's car between frames 145 and 166, in which case he

would have been shooting at it from a distance of less than 140

feet, how could he have managed to miss THE ENTIRE LIMOUSINE?

Furthermore, if the first hit came at frame 224, why didn't

Connally show any dramatic signs of being wounded until over half

a second later? Some can see signs of "distress" in Connally

prior to Z231, but this is hardly the reaction we would expect

from a man who had just had a bullet plow through his chest,

smash and splinter a rib, exit his chest, shatter the radius bone

in his right wrist, and then plant itself in his thigh.

Naturally, since Connally believed he had just heard a gun shot,

he was undoubtedly "distressed." But there are no signs that he

has been hit until several frames after Z224. In frame 238,

Connally's cheeks puff up, a pained expression appears on his

face, his hair becomes disarranged, and his shoulder is driven

nearly 20 degrees downward, obviously in response to the bullet's

impact a few frames earlier. Dr. Charles Gregory explained that

the puffing of Connally's cheeks was an involuntary reaction to

the bullet's passing through the chest, and that therefore the

missile must have struck the Governor no more than one-quarter to

one-half a second earlier. Connally himself, after studying the

Zapruder film for hours, concluded he was NOT hit prior to frame

231.

In any event, as stated above, in terms of any

bunched-clothing theory, a first hit at frame 224 is just as

problematic and implausible as a first hit at frame 235.

Let us now examine what Josiah Thompson, Gaeton Fonzi, and

Harold Weisberg have said about the bunched-clothing hypothesis.

Josiah Thompson:

How can the official autopsy's description of a

neck entrance wound be brought into correspondence

with the holes in the President's clothing? Some

have suggested that the President's shirt and coat

may have been bunched at the time he was hit by

the first shot. Edward Epstein discussed this

suggestion in INQUEST:

It is possible that President Kennedy's

jacket was in some manner raised more than

six inches, so that the hole in it coincided

with the purported entrance wound in the

"back of the neck." (The Zapruder film,

however, gives no indication of this.) It

was, however, virtually impossible for the

hole in the shirt to have coincided with an

entrance wound in "the back of the neck."

This could only have happened under either of

the following two conditions: (1) the entire

shirt, collar included, was raised six

inches; or (2) a portion of the shirt was

raised over the collar line (and thus doubled

over). Obviously a closed shirt collar could

not have been raised six inches on the neck,

and therefore, for the shirt hole to have

coincided with the purported entrance wound

(which was above the collar line), the shirt

would have to have been doubled-up over the

collar. Since only one bullet hole was found

in the back of the shirt, this could not have

been the case.

Although Epstein's estimate that the clothing

must have been raised "more than six inches" is

exaggerated (3 to 4 inches would suffice), his

essential point seems well taken. For a shirt to

move that distance it would have to have been

doubled over; a bullet hit through the fold would

have caused two holes, while the shirt showed only

one.

We have stronger evidence, however, than this.

For Phillip Willis took a photograph showing the

President's back at almost the exact moment when

the wounding bullet struck. I have studied the

original slide under a microscope. Although it is

not apparent on black-and-white copies, the color

original slide shows clearly that the President's

clothing was NOT bunched at the time he was

wounded in the back. (Thompson 280-281, original

emphasis)

Gaeton Fonzi:

I'll never forget asking [former WC counsel

Arlen]Specter about that [the discrepancy between

the Commission's location for the back wound and

the holes in JFK's coat and shirt]. . . .

"Well," he said, "that difference is accounted

for because the President was waving his arm." He

got up from his desk and attempted to demonstrate

his explanation on me, pulling my arm up high over

my head. "Wave your arm a few times," he said,

"wave at the crowd." He was standing behind me

now, jabbing a finger into the base of my neck.

"Well, see, if the bullet goes in here, the jacket

gets hunched up. If you take this point right

here and then you strip the coat down, it comes

out at a lower point."

A lower point?

"Well, not too much lower on your example, but

the jacket rides up."

If the jacket were "hunched up," I asked,

wouldn't there have been two holes as a result of

the doubling over of the cloth?

"No, not necessarily. It . . . it wouldn't be

doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be

doubled over at most any point, but the

probabilities are that . . . aaah . . . that it

gets . . . that . . . aaah . . . this . . . this

is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back

. . . sit back now . . . all right now . . . if

. . . usually, as your jacket lies there, the

doubling is right up here, but if . . . but if you

have a bullet hit you right about here, which is

where I had it, where our jacket sits . . . it's

not . . . it's not . . . it ordinarily doesn't

crease that far back."

What about the shirt?

"Same thing."

Was Specter saying there is no inconsistency

between the Commission's location of the wound and

the holes in the clothing?

"No, not at all. That gave us a lot of

concern. First time we lined up the shirt . . .

after all, we lined up the shirt . . . and the

hole in the shirt is about right, right about the

knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit

in the front. . . ."

But where did it go in the back?

"Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid

down, comes . . . aaah . . . well, I forget

exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn't

higher, enough higher to . . . aaah . . .

understand the . . . aaah . . . the angle of

decline which. . ."

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in

the front?

"Well, I think that . . . that if you took the

shirt without allowing for its being pulled up,

that it would either have been in line or somewhat

lower."

Somewhat LOWER?

"Perhaps. I . . . I don't want to say because

I don't really remember. I got to take a look at

that shirt."

I found it very difficult to believe that Arlen

Specter didn't take a very close look at that

shirt--and that jacket--at the time of

investigation and that these factors didn't

indelibly stick in his mind: Kennedy was one of

the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the

White House, and if it is possible--but not

probable--that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy

enough to ride up five or six inches in the back

when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a

tightly buttoned shirt could have done the same

thing. (Fonzi 25-27, original emphasis)

Harold Weisberg:

JFK's "humped up" jacket is one of the cock-

and-bull stories made up by the Commission's

former assistant counsels and apologists in

pretended response to damning facts appearing on

the Boswell autopsy face sheet or body

chart. . . .

Neither [Dennis] Breo nor [George] Lundberg

asked Boswell, "How do you know the jacked had

humped up on his back?" IF they had, however,

Boswell would not have been able to show him any

of the many pictures of JFK taken at that time

that shot any such "hump." As is also alleged in

this canard, supposedly the jacket had a

horizontal fold on the back, created when JFK

raised his arm to wave to the crowd. In fact, as

the Zapruder film shows, when he was shot, his arm

was not raised. Only his forearm was, and that

would not have caused such a fold.

The President, a natty dresser, wore clothes

tailored for him. The shirt, for example, was

made for him by Charles of New York. His clothing

was not off-the-rack, like the jackets and shirts

most of us wear.

The "humping up" of his shirt was even less

possible because he was sitting on his shirttails.

(Weisberg 213, original emphasis)

-------------

Bond Photo #3

-------------

A WC supporter recently said the following about Bond photo

number 3:

Take a look at Bond #3 (center left side of

Robert Groden's book THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT,

p. 11) and compare the posture of JFK to Connally

(as well as the suit coat hunching) and tell me

that JFK is not slouched forward.

Is this what this picture shows? No, it isn't. In this

photograph, Kennedy's coat is barely bunched at all (certainly

not enough to align the clothing holes with a wound at or near

the base of the neck), and JFK is slouching even LESS in this

photo than he is in Croft photo #3.

While certain photos of the motorcade do indeed show that

Kennedy's coat was bunched at times, other photos show that at

other times the coat lay smoothly on his back, and not a single

picture shows Kennedy's coat hunched up to the degree required by

the bunched-clothing theory. Dr. Lattimer, a WC supporter,

illustrated in a drawing in his abovementioned article in

RESIDENT AND STAFF PHYSICIAN that Kennedy's coat would have had

to bunch up ABOVE the shirt collar in order to account for the

location of the bullet holes in the coat and shirt (see Figure 2

therein). But no photograph of the motorcade shows Kennedy's

coat bunched to such a degree.

Simply put, not only do the holes in the rear of President

Kennedy's shirt and coat prove that his back wound was much lower

than lone-gunman theorists claim it was, but they also constitute

strong evidence that the single-bullet theory is invalid.

----------------------------------------------------------------

MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH (CompuServe ID: 74274,650; Internet address:

mtgr...@ironrod.win-uk.net) is a two-time graduate of the Defense

Language Institute in Monterey, California, and is the author of

four books on Mormonism and ancient religious texts. His

articles on the JFK assassination have appeared in DATELINE:

DALLAS, in DALLAS '63, and in THE ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES. He

is also the author of the book COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT

THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand Prairie, TX: JFK-

Lancer Productions and Publications, 1996).

Bibliography

------------

Fonzi, Gaeton, THE LAST INVESTIGATION, New York: Thunder's

Mouth Press, 1993.

Moore, Jim, CONSPIRACY OF ONE, Ft. Worth: The Summit Group,

1991.

Thompson, Josiah, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, New York: Bernard

Geis, 1976.

Weisberg, Harold, NEVER AGAIN, New York: Carroll & Graf

Publishers, 1995.

[Charles Black]

WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?

Do some of you always misdirect what I consider some very intelligent discussions, that attempt to deal with the BASIS of what is currently occurring and effecting the JFK assassination study, and the current forces which are impacting it, into a RE-

RE-RE-RE- REDUNDENCY of subjects, that have been probably hashed over and discussed some 33,000 times, and that are now, nor will probably NEVER, be determineable of resolution.

If you wish to discuss items such as the fold or bunching of JFK's clothing, why don't you reopen one of the 33,000 posts on the subject OR begin a new 33,001 ?

This is why this investigation has stalled !

Why don't some of you clear your minds and ATTEMPT something NEW...such as A FRESH THOUGHT that might perhaps be "all your own". Or if you want to have personal discussions use the EMAIL.

Not a threat but a warning. This type of schoolyard ridiculousness has already caused some very knowledgeable researchers to no longer participate as they once did. Persons with even a modicum of intelligence very quickly tire of these "Go Nowhere" discussions/foolish arguments.

Not that most will do anything but cheer, but I too am about to eject myself from this labyrinth.

I truly and absolutely meant to be "insulting"....so I feel that I should be reported to the "moderators". Free speech does not give one the right to attempt to covertly hide anothers free speech by the use of camouflaging tactics and misdirection. The pity is these attempts are absolutely "productive only" as a delay.

Someone will soon probably fly to Dallas to Re-Re- Re-recreate the timing of Oswalds theoretical dash invisibly down the steps, "faster than a speeding bullet"...OR...post another Thesis on the unreliability of some 50 or 60 eyewitness reports.

This forum needs much more of this "creativity" as we "step into the future" !

In that I truly don't consider myself an "idiot", please spare me another essay which will explain that forum topics, by the very nature of forum procedure, swerve off subject. Instead why don't you consider "moderating" a procedure that might help keep subjects focussed !

An increasingly disgusted

Charles Black

[Cliff Varnell]

WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?

Why all the hand-wringing?

On the vitriol scale my discussion with Mark Valenti here is mild.

In answer to your question, "why?"...

From the thread "Gaeton Fonzi & Update on Bugliosi Book, From

Bernard McCormick," McCormick wrote (I cleaned the spelling up):

Emphasis mine:

As for Bugliosi's assertion that Fonzi came to his investigative work

with a bias, I rise to support Fonzi. I was there that day in Wildwood, N.J.,

when the two of us, while working on a light piece (the title was "The

Working Man's Riviera") were diverted to meet a Philadelphia lawyer

who was insisting the Warren Commission was a cover up. Vincent Salandria

was unusual at that time in that he had actually studied the 26 volumes of

evidence. Neither Fonzi nor I had even read the official report, a summary

which had been praised by the New York Times. But no one at the Times

had read the 26 volumes of evidence, because they had not yet been

released. Such endorsements made the commission's work accepted by

the public, including Fonzi and me. We did not know enough to have any bias.

Salandria wanted to meet Fonzi because of his reputation as an investigative

reporter. Fonzi invited me along for the fun. Both of us expected to meet a

a man unnervingly intense. gaunt, obsessive. But when he began running us

through the evidence. we were startled at the blatant contradictions. Keep

in mind, this was just the initial physical stuff - the position of the holes in

JFK's shirt, the wounds, the pristine "single bullet" that had to wound both

Kennedy and Gov. John Connolly to limit the deed to a single shooter.

40 years ago, in the initial stages of the JFK research community,

people like Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi needed no more

proof to establish the fact of conspiracy than point out the bullet

holes in JFK clothes.

And that's what they did -- Fonzi regarded the clothing holes as

the strongest evidence in the case for conspiracy.

Others have come along and made the same assertion -- Jim Marrs,

Noel Twyman, Robert Groden (who refered to the clothing evidence

as "uncontested.")

As noted in the Griffith article I posted above, excellent analyses

of the clothing evidence have also come from Harold Weisberg,

Josiah Thompson, and Jim Moore.

Now, can anybody tell me what the following have in common:

The Warren Report

Bugliosi's new book

The 2005 "Cracking the Case" Conference in Bethesda

The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT

None of the above -- two LN entities, two CT -- ever addressed the

issue of the significant discrepancy between in the bullet holes in the

clothes and the wound location required by the Single Bullet Theory.

The evidence that Salandria and Fonzi put forth first 40 years ago,

prima facie evidence of at least four shots, has been relegated to

very minor status by today's JFK research community.

And thus we get statements like this:

Charlie Black:

Do some of you always misdirect what I consider some very intelligent discussions, that attempt to deal with the BASIS of what is currently occurring and effecting the JFK assassination study, and the current forces which are impacting it, into a RE-RE-RE-RE- REDUNDENCY of subjects, that have been probably hashed over and discussed some 33,000 times, and that are now, nor will probably NEVER, be determineable of resolution.

If you wish to discuss items such as the fold or bunching of JFK's clothing, why don't you reopen one of the 33,000 posts on the subject OR begin a new 33,001 ?

This is why this investigation has stalled !

No, that's not why.

We have well-meaning people, like Charlie and Mark and Pat Speer, demoting

or denigrating the most powerful, irrefutable evidence in the case.

We have conferences advertised as Cracking the Case that argue the

fact of conspiracy on highly technical grounds, while ignoring the simple

physical evidence that readily establishes at least four shots.

I swear, I left the Cracking the Case Conference with the sense that,

in order to understand the JFK assassination, one had to have an advanced

degree in acoustic science, metallurgy and cranial anatomy -- and memorize

a couple of miles of Weisberg's FBI files.

CTs appear content to ignore the clothing evidence in order to delve

into arcane areas searching for their Holy Grail -- the answer to the

"Question of Conspiracy."

The LNers are more happy to ignore the clothing evidence.

LNers rejoice when a CT declares of the clothing evidence -- "that are now, nor

will probably NEVER, be determineable of resolution."

Music to an LNers ears!

This attitude that the clothing evidence is some big mystery that will never

be resolved lets the LNers off the hook.

All they do is repeat non sequiturs until the cows come home, point

to every fold in fabric as consistent with their case.

But that intellectually dishonest rhetorical dodge is enough for many CTs to

throw up their hands and declare the issue unresolvable.

Which is utter and complete nonsense.

1600 pages of "Reclaiming History" and Bugliosi ignores the incompatability

of the SBT with the physical evidence -- and not one CT calls him on it.

Why don't some of you clear your minds and ATTEMPT something NEW...such as A FRESH THOUGHT that might perhaps be "all your own". Or if you want to have personal discussions use the EMAIL.

Not a threat but a warning. This type of schoolyard ridiculousness has already caused some very knowledgeable researchers to no longer participate as they once did. Persons with even a modicum of intelligence very quickly tire of these "Go Nowhere" discussions/foolish arguments.

Spare me, Charlie.

I rise to support Fonzi.

Edited June 21, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas H. Purvis]

WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?

Do some of you always misdirect what I consider some very intelligent discussions, that attempt to deal with the BASIS of what is currently occurring and effecting the JFK assassination study, and the current forces which are impacting it, into a RE-

RE-RE-RE- REDUNDENCY of subjects, that have been probably hashed over and discussed some 33,000 times, and that are now, nor will probably NEVER, be determineable of resolution.

If you wish to discuss items such as the fold or bunching of JFK's clothing, why don't you reopen one of the 33,000 posts on the subject OR begin a new 33,001 ?

This is why this investigation has stalled !

Why don't some of you clear your minds and ATTEMPT something NEW...such as A FRESH THOUGHT that might perhaps be "all your own". Or if you want to have personal discussions use the EMAIL.

Not a threat but a warning. This type of schoolyard ridiculousness has already caused some very knowledgeable researchers to no longer participate as they once did. Persons with even a modicum of intelligence very quickly tire of these "Go Nowhere" discussions/foolish arguments.

Not that most will do anything but cheer, but I too am about to eject myself from this labyrinth.

I truly and absolutely meant to be "insulting"....so I feel that I should be reported to the "moderators". Free speech does not give one the right to attempt to covertly hide anothers free speech by the use of camouflaging tactics and misdirection. The pity is these attempts are absolutely "productive only" as a delay.

Someone will soon probably fly to Dallas to Re-Re- Re-recreate the timing of Oswalds theoretical dash invisibly down the steps, "faster than a speeding bullet"...OR...post another Thesis on the unreliability of some 50 or 60 eyewitness reports.

This forum needs much more of this "creativity" as we "step into the future" !

In that I truly don't consider myself an "idiot", please spare me another essay which will explain that forum topics, by the very nature of forum procedure, swerve off subject. Instead why don't you consider "moderating" a procedure that might help keep subjects focussed !

An increasingly disgusted

Charles Black

If you wish to discuss items such as the fold or bunching of JFK's clothing, why don't you reopen one of the 33,000 posts on the subject OR begin a new 33,001 ?

Primarily due to the fact that most have previously responded to all of this "Bunch" of BS, and have no intention of again responding.

Therefore, in order to get into the (any) conversation, Cliff must interject the only thing which he (thinks) he knows anything about.

This is why this investigation has stalled !

Certainlly to a great degree, this is the factual truth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, not unlike Will Rogers:

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/123

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!" -

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So goes the fate of the CT Community!

Does anyone here honestly think that responsible thinking persons are going to take seriously groups of people who, as a community, expouse body kidnapping and wound alteration to JFK's body?

Does anyone here honestly think that responsible thinking persons are going to take seriously groups of people who, as a community, expouse multiple assassins with shooters hiding in manholes; on top of virtually every building; in multiple window locations; behind every fence; on top of railroad overpasses; "Black-Dog Man"; "Badge-Man"; etc; etc; etc;.

Does anyone here honestlly think that responsible thinking persons are going to take seriously groups of people who, as a community, expouse that up to hundreds of personnel were involved in the plot to assassinate JFK, of which each and every security force in the US is included? Yet, to this date, no one has talked and this great conspiracy can not be found to have actually existed?

Does anyone here honestly think that responsible thinking persons are going to take seriously groups (or singular persons) of

people who directly ignore the massive amount of evidence as to the location of the upper back/shoulder/lower neck wound of JFK, and base some false premise on a statement made by someone who was not physically involved in the autopsy of JFK, when in fact all autopsy surgeons have relatively and accurately demonstrated the location of this wound? As well as the primary Autopsy Surgeon having absolutely refuted the "non-participant" claim of the wound location?

When a member of the CT community yells that JFK's body was kidnapped and the wounds altered, the CT Community tacity accepts such persons into their community without openly stating exactly how demonstratedly false, stupid, and totally unsupportable such claims are.

Thus, even responsible thinking CTer's are painted as a group in with such highly intelligent thoughts and theories.

Does anyone here honestly think that responsible thinking persons are going to take seriously groups of people who, due to their refusal to discredit their own kind, allow such persons into their community and ultimately "taint" even reliable and factual evidence.

The nice thing about how Bugliosi has won is that he truly did not even have to show up for the fight.

All that he had to do was wait long enough and the CT community thereafter totally discredited themselves as well as any true and factual evidence which they may have actually uncovered.

Somewhere in this CT barrel of apples exist tremendous factual evidence regarding the assassination of JFK.

Unfortunately, it is so covered by the other rotten apples that few are willing to risk biting into another rotten apple, merely in the hope that there remains something of substance there other than a bad/rotten taste in their mouth.

Police your own!

Or, one could allow Mr. Varnell with all of his expertise and investigative ability confront Mr. Bugliosi, and thereafter live (for a short time) in some fantasy world that the "Bunch/fold---------Unbunch-----------Rebunch/Refold" bullet striking at T3 can fight and win your battle for you.

Do some of you always misdirect what I consider some very intelligent discussions,

Truthfully Charles, I am under the impression that you already know the answer to that one.

[Cliff Varnell]

Or, one could allow Mr. Varnell with all of his expertise and investigative ability confront Mr. Bugliosi, and thereafter live (for a short time) in some fantasy world that the "Bunch/fold---------Unbunch-----------Rebunch/Refold" bullet striking at T3 can fight and win your battle for you.

Tom, Charlie has indicated a certain resentment over having

his thread hijacked to this issue.

I agree with him.

I'm starting a new thread entitled I Rise To Support Fonzi.

Nowhere in the book RECLAIMING HISTORY does Bugliosi address

the issue of the clothing holes.

Maybe he does on the CD, but he conveniently ignored the issue in his book.