Todd Wayne Vaughan

[Cliff Varnell]

Thanks for the softball pitch.

When you step up to the plate in the JFK Mystery Game, T.Folsom, you're

supposed to carry a bat.

Instead, you offer up...Chad Zimmerman!?

Chad Z. -- my main man!

In addition to his appearance on Discovery Channel's Unsolved History:

"Beyond the Magic Bullet," Chad Zimmerman posts regularly on John McAdam's

alt.assassination.jfk

Chad has acknowledged many times over on aajfk that the following photo,

taken on Houston St., shows JFK's jacket elevated at most ONE INCH (1")

in Dealey Plaza.

Subsequent to that photo -- JFK's jacket dropped. (see below)

That the SBT requires at least 2" of shirt/jacket elevation is a fact

Chad Z confirmed, much to his chagrin, on his Unsolved History segment

The Discovery Channel already resolved this apparent dilemma in their

"Magic Bullet" analysis about two years ago.

No, if you were paying attention and knew the evidence you'd realize that

Chad Zimmerman destroyed the Single Bullet Theory with his "x-ray"

experiments.

It is so bad for Chad that a few months ago he offered me $10,000 if I

could go out to Iowa and prove that his Discovery Channel performance

WASN'T full of xxxx.

That's right. Chad Zimmerman dared me to corroborate his claims on

that program and said he'd pay me $10,000 if I could prove HIM correct.

Here's what he posted on alt.assassination.jfk on March 12, '07, a thread

entitled "Latest Cliff Challenge":

(quote on, emphasis mine)

If Varnell were to go and meet Stan, the JFK stand-in from The Discovery

Channel's 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' episode and returns with the belief that

Stan has the same build as JFK, then I will give Varnell a check for

$10,000.

Tactless? Perhaps. Does it prove my point? Perhaps. Stan was a less than

perfect stand-in for JFK.

But don't take it from me, go ahead and find Stan, Cliff. I look forward to

the public apology for repeatedly claiming otherwise.

Chad

(quote off)

And what was I publicly proclaiming "otherwise"?

I repeatedly proclaimed that Stan was, as Chad claimed on the show,

the "exact" stand-in for JFK.

This proves highly inconvenient to Zimmerman, because his x-ray shows that

the jacket had to ride up at least 2 inches, while Zimmerman can only

ID one inch of JFK jacket elevation in Dealey Plaza.

They left that little fact out of the program.

In that special, they had a double matching Kennedy's dimensions wearing clothing

identical to Kennedys with metallic pins on the location of all wounds.

Wrong on the clothing, T. Folsom, you weren't paying attention.

Stan didn't wear tailored clothing. Zimmerman claims it doesn't make

any difference.

But having the clothing custom-fit makes all the difference in the world

in the amount of available slack in a tucked-in shirt.

While the SBT requires 2" to 3" of shirt/jacket elevation in tandem, a tucked-in

custom made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of available slack.

You see, T. Folsom, I stipulate to everything Zimmerman said and

did in that program -- except his conclusion.

Chad so demolished his own case he was forced to deny that any of his

"x-ray experiments" pertained to John F. Kennedy at all.

When that individual STOOD up the wounds on the back appeared TOO low to

line up with the frontal exit wound to the throat.

Go back and watch it again. xxxxx up your ears when you hear the narrator say:

"The first x-ray agrees with the critics."

Standing in a neutral position, the "wound" on Stan came in at an upper

margin T3.

But Zimmerman's SBT puts a standing "wound" location only an inch below C7/T1,

which is 2+" above T3.

Here's what Zimmerman wrote on his now-defunct website, in a now-defunct

article entitled -- "The Case of the Bunched Jacket"

(quote on, emphasis Chad's)

If the fabric had bunched up only an inch, which is

highly probable given the photos we see of Kennedy

in the motorcade, then it can be EXPECTED that the

bullet would go through the suit some 4 inches below

the collar and impact at the C7-T1 level.

(quote off)

Chad's Discovery Channel experiment debunked this claim.

"The first x-ray agrees with the critics."

Game. Set. Match.

A "neutral" bullet hole location aligned with T3 destroys Zimmerman's SBT,

which only allows for 1" of jacket elevation, contrary to the 2" to 3" the SBT

actually needs.

Zimmerman now has to deny that his "JFK double" was anything like JFK!

However when they placed that double in a sitting position holding his arm in the same position the Zapruder film proves Kennedy was in around the time of the first shot that struck Kennedy his shirt AND jacket were raised up to the point that the marks on the body and the mark in the jacket and shirt matched EXACTLY.

And the jacket rode up over the top of the shirt collar into Stan's hairline!

That's what happens when you jack up a coat 2+", T.Folsom, the jacket collar

rides up over the top of the shirt collar.

The first question an objective investigator would ask is:

Did JFK's jacket collar ride up into his hairline?

Yes it did, on Main St. (photo on left)

http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv

No it did not, on Elm St.

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

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, where it was only elevated

an inch at most.

The SBT thus stands debunked according to the scientific re-enactment

of Chad Zimmerman.

Thank you, Chad!

And thank you, T. Folsom...there are no "bats" in the LN dugout, pal.

[Miles Scull]

Thanks for the softball pitch.

When you step up to the plate in the JFK Mystery Game, T.Folsom, you're

supposed to carry a bat.

The SBT thus stands debunked according to the scientific re-enactment

of Chad Zimmerman.

Thank you, Chad!

And thank you, T. Folsom...there are no "bats" in the LN dugout, pal.

Cliff,

Good to see your crushing response to that merry wanderer of the night, Mr. T. (Folsum).

On a point of confusion:

The hole in the shirt was 6 inches below the top of the collar. The collar was, for purposes of argument, 2 inches wide at the back of the neck. So from the bottom of the collar the hole is found 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Now, if the fabric of the shirt rises away from the skin so that the fabric moves up to the area of the lower neck, thus allowing a single bullet to penetrate through the shirt fabric & also to, then, continue on to penetrate the lower neck, then doesn't that necessitate that the fabric must rise at least 4 inches away from the skin to form a kind of a bell curve?

That is a FOUR inch rise!?

[Cliff Varnell]

Thanks for the softball pitch.

When you step up to the plate in the JFK Mystery Game, T.Folsom, you're

supposed to carry a bat.

The SBT thus stands debunked according to the scientific re-enactment

of Chad Zimmerman.

Thank you, Chad!

And thank you, T. Folsom...there are no "bats" in the LN dugout, pal.

Cliff,

Good to see your crushing response to that merry wanderer of the night, Mr. T. (Folsum).

On a point of confusion:

The hole in the shirt was 6 inches below the top of the collar. The collar was, for purposes of argument, 2 inches wide at the back of the neck. So from the bottom of the collar the hole is found 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Now, if the fabric of the shirt rises away from the skin so that the fabric moves up to the area of the lower neck, thus allowing a single bullet to penetrate through the shirt fabric & also to, then, continue on to penetrate the lower neck, then doesn't that necessitate that the fabric must rise at least 4 inches away from the skin to form a kind of a bell curve?

That is a FOUR inch rise!?

Any upward movement of the shirt fabric more than a fraction of

an inch is physically impossible on a tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt.

Back in 1997 I visited a tailor shop a block away from San Francisco's

Union Square.

The shop was called "Mr. Shirt".

The proprietor explained that clothing readily bunches up 3/4".

For the 2" to 3" (or more as per your bell curve analysis) required

by the SBT, Mr. Shirt said: "It isn't possible. There's not enough

slack fabric in the shirt as long as it is tucked in."

This is what LNers must resort to -- claim that JFK left his shirt untucked!

Shirt collar visible on Elm St = SBT debunked.

Just as Jim Moore observed back in 1991.

LNers always make the best SBT debunkers, if you let them.

[Terry Mauro]

Isn't it ironic that now Blakey admits that he was duped by the Agency regarding Joannides and also calls for the release of the Joannides material along with Jeff Morley and others? Funny how time changes things.

********************************************************

"Isn't it ironic that now Blakey admits that he was duped by the Agency regarding Joannides and also calls for the release of the Joannides material along with Jeff Morley and others?"

Yes, but only in recent years, after being castigated by the research community for his egregious oversight in placing Johannides in such an advantageous position so as to block any substantial search of the CIA's records, as well as the obvious stone-walling with which Fonzi was met in his attempts to obtain any viable accounting for the Agency's actions, or in-actions.

Johannides was blatantly in charge of keeping the Agency abreast of any attempts on the part of the HSCA to further their investigation, to the detriment of the Committee, whilst to the advantage of the Agency. Johannides could be counted on to "feed back" information that would, in effect, forewarn the Agency of any avenues of progress being made by the Committee, allowing them ample time to destroy pertinent data, further thwarting the efforts and strides that could have been made, had the CIA not had a "stooge" conveniently situated right in the midst of the Committee's investigation.

Any further caterwauling on the part of Blakey is for the most part, after the fact, and I do not, for one minute believe his protestations of not knowing anything regarding Johannides' prior or past connections. After all, isn't that what he was entrusted to insure for the Committee. He was beyond negligent in his apparent "oversight." Which makes him a part of the "problem." No amount of explanation, on his part, can alter the fact that he, and he alone, allowed this to go down in the annals of history. So, where is the black mark on his career, on his curriculum vitae? Indeed, while we are left with the remaining vestiges having been dealt this dastardly blow. He allowed this to happen on his watch, no less. He will not be so easily redeemed.

[William Kelly]

Hey Todd,

You're already a celebrity with your own thread.

Welcome to the Ed Forum.

I hope you have time to answer my question whether or not you subscribe to Ken Rahn's "Coincidence" Theory of the assassination?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

"No room for conspiracy."

http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html

The Noncons

'Kenneth A. Rahn, Ph.D.,

Mel Ayton

Jean Davison

Patricia Lambert

John McAdams

Dave Reitzes

Johann W. Rush

Lyndal Shaneyfelt

Todd Vaughn

Chance, Not Conspiracy, In The Death Of JFK

Kenneth A. Rahn

19 November 2003

We Americans have been deluged for decades by tales of conspiracy in JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963. As a result, most of us believe that it happened that way. But the facts are very different—Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy alone, then two days later Jack Ruby shot Oswald alone. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the assassination, it is essential to hear the real story of the assassination.

Parallel strands of chance brought President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald together. Oswald moved to Dallas just when the Texas School Book Depository was hiring seasonal workers. He needed work badly, and one of his wife’s neighbors had a brother who had just started work there. She suggested that Oswald try it, too. His wife’s landlady got him an interview the next day, and he was hired. He began on October 16th, weeks before a motorcade through Dallas had been decided on.

Kennedy was brought to Oswald by three strokes of chance. The first was the last-minute cancellation of Kennedy’s honorary degree by Texas Christian University in Forth Worth. That created a slot only partially filled by a breakfast event there. To complete the schedule JFK decided on a motorcade in Dallas, the second stroke of chance.

The third stroke was choosing the venue for the luncheon on the 22nd. Kennedy and the Secret Service preferred one location, but Governor Connally insisted on the Dallas Trade Mart and won out. With the first location, the motorcade would have passed through the middle of Dealey Plaza at high speed and with Mrs. Kennedy between Oswald and JFK. The new site required driving slowly along the edge of the plaza, in the opposite direction and right in front of the depository. This brought Kennedy within easy shooting range and made him a slower, unshielded target. The route first appeared in the papers only three days ahead of time.

Although these sequences of events were improbable, they were no more so than any sequence we could name. Unpredictable events occur every minute every day, but we focus on the tiny fraction that yield spectacular results. We should not forget all the public events where presidents have not been shot, including Kennedy’s six previous motorcades on the same trip.

Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10 a.m. transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour’s further interrogation by the chief postal inspector—who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police—and another by Oswald’s last-minute request for a dark sweater for TV.

Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him Sunday morning for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day). Save for every event in these two unplanned series, Ruby could not have killed Oswald. Extraordinary sequences to be sure, but with no room for conspiracy.

Clearing Oswald and Ruby removes the major impetus for thinking conspiracy. But couldn’t there have been some level of conspiracy? If not, then two important predictions follow. All evidence offered for conspiracy will fail, and conspiracy theories proposed anyhow will vary widely in specifics because they are all ungrounded in reality.

The evidence for conspiracy has in fact failed. JFK’s dramatic rearward lurch (Oliver Stone’s famous “back and to the left”), purportedly caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll, starts too late and develops too slowly to be from a bullet. The “magic,” or “pristine,” bullet, too “undamaged” to pass through both men, was deformed in precisely the manner expected for jacketed bullets hitting flesh. (It also had such overwhelming penetrating power that it was used for decades to hunt elephants.) The ephemeral shooter on the knoll turns out to be the product of echoes, confusion, and overactive imagination applied to single grainy print. The acoustical evidence allegedly revealing a shot from the knoll was actually recorded by a microphone miles away from Dealey Plaza.

Also as predicted, conspiracy theories have been all over the map. In more than 100 conspiracy scenarios over the last 40 years, theory-makers have claimed there were anywhere from 3 to 10 shots fired by 2 to 6 gunmen working for 30 to 40 different combinations of instigators. They fired rifles, pistols, and even poison darts out of umbrellas. They shot from the depository, the adjacent Dal-Tex Building, the knoll, the railroad overpass, the roofs of at least two buildings, a storm drain, the curb, and even from inside the presidential limousine. They worked independently or in teams under radio control. Nearly 70 people were said to be in Dealey Plaza for nefarious purposes, leaving room for hardly anyone else. Sponsors include Cuba, Russia, China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Great Britain, Israel, the Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mafia, oil-rich Texans, the FBI, the CIA, the left wing, the right wing, and the “invisible Nazi substructure.” Such chaotic thinking is the hallmark of ungrounded fantasy. It should come as no surprise that the JFK conspiracy case is going nowhere, despite loud claims to the contrary. After 40 years of unremitting search, the critical evidence remains largely as it was days after the assassination: JFK was killed by two bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle.

Forty years of failed speculation are enough. It is time to admit there was no conspiracy and there was never any serious evidence for it. The real story of the assassination is this: Kennedy was killed by one misfit guy, a cheap but effective rifle, a good vantage point from the building where he worked, and a run of fortuitous events.

It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy.

The author is Professor Emeritus at the University of Rhode Island. Co-signed by Steve Barber, John Cahill, Jean Davison, Joe Durnavich, Joel Grant, Martin Kelly, David Reitzes, Rob Spencer, and Larry Sturdivan (in alphabetical order). The group represents 200 years of study into all the facts of the JFK assassination.

Edited December 1, 2009 by William Kelly

[Dean Hagerman]

Nice bump Bill

Thanks for showing me the real Todd Vaughan

All along I thought he was a real researcher and had a grasp on the photographic evidence

Now I see he is just a McAdams groupie

At least I now know why he is trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush

Its not because he thinks im wrong, its because he is a LNer with McAdams ties

[Craig Lamson]

Nice bump Bill

Thanks for showing me the real Todd Vaughan

All along I thought he was a real researcher and had a grasp on the photographic evidence

Now I see he is just a McAdams groupie

At least I now know why he is trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush

Its not because he thinks im wrong, its because he is a LNer with McAdams ties

Lets see, we have a Jack White groupie complaing about a McAdams groupie. How funny is that!

Sadly for you and jacko, Todd just exposed your ignorance. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter wher it comes from.

Unless of course if your entire positon is based on blind belief. If thats the case, right or wrong files right out the window.

Lordy Lordy, deano BELIEVES!

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Hey Todd,

You're already a celebrity with your own thread.

Welcome to the Ed Forum.

I hope you have time to answer my question whether or not you subscribe to Ken Rahn's "Coincidence" Theory of the assassination?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

"No room for conspiracy."

http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html

The Noncons

'Kenneth A. Rahn, Ph.D.,

Mel Ayton

Jean Davison

Patricia Lambert

John McAdams

Dave Reitzes

Johann W. Rush

Lyndal Shaneyfelt

Todd Vaughn

Chance, Not Conspiracy, In The Death Of JFK

Kenneth A. Rahn

19 November 2003

We Americans have been deluged for decades by tales of conspiracy in JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963. As a result, most of us believe that it happened that way. But the facts are very different—Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy alone, then two days later Jack Ruby shot Oswald alone. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the assassination, it is essential to hear the real story of the assassination.

Parallel strands of chance brought President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald together. Oswald moved to Dallas just when the Texas School Book Depository was hiring seasonal workers. He needed work badly, and one of his wife’s neighbors had a brother who had just started work there. She suggested that Oswald try it, too. His wife’s landlady got him an interview the next day, and he was hired. He began on October 16th, weeks before a motorcade through Dallas had been decided on.

Kennedy was brought to Oswald by three strokes of chance. The first was the last-minute cancellation of Kennedy’s honorary degree by Texas Christian University in Forth Worth. That created a slot only partially filled by a breakfast event there. To complete the schedule JFK decided on a motorcade in Dallas, the second stroke of chance.

The third stroke was choosing the venue for the luncheon on the 22nd. Kennedy and the Secret Service preferred one location, but Governor Connally insisted on the Dallas Trade Mart and won out. With the first location, the motorcade would have passed through the middle of Dealey Plaza at high speed and with Mrs. Kennedy between Oswald and JFK. The new site required driving slowly along the edge of the plaza, in the opposite direction and right in front of the depository. This brought Kennedy within easy shooting range and made him a slower, unshielded target. The route first appeared in the papers only three days ahead of time.

Although these sequences of events were improbable, they were no more so than any sequence we could name. Unpredictable events occur every minute every day, but we focus on the tiny fraction that yield spectacular results. We should not forget all the public events where presidents have not been shot, including Kennedy’s six previous motorcades on the same trip.

Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10 a.m. transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour’s further interrogation by the chief postal inspector—who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police—and another by Oswald’s last-minute request for a dark sweater for TV.

Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him Sunday morning for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day). Save for every event in these two unplanned series, Ruby could not have killed Oswald. Extraordinary sequences to be sure, but with no room for conspiracy.

Clearing Oswald and Ruby removes the major impetus for thinking conspiracy. But couldn’t there have been some level of conspiracy? If not, then two important predictions follow. All evidence offered for conspiracy will fail, and conspiracy theories proposed anyhow will vary widely in specifics because they are all ungrounded in reality.

The evidence for conspiracy has in fact failed. JFK’s dramatic rearward lurch (Oliver Stone’s famous “back and to the left”), purportedly caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll, starts too late and develops too slowly to be from a bullet. The “magic,” or “pristine,” bullet, too “undamaged” to pass through both men, was deformed in precisely the manner expected for jacketed bullets hitting flesh. (It also had such overwhelming penetrating power that it was used for decades to hunt elephants.) The ephemeral shooter on the knoll turns out to be the product of echoes, confusion, and overactive imagination applied to single grainy print. The acoustical evidence allegedly revealing a shot from the knoll was actually recorded by a microphone miles away from Dealey Plaza.

Also as predicted, conspiracy theories have been all over the map. In more than 100 conspiracy scenarios over the last 40 years, theory-makers have claimed there were anywhere from 3 to 10 shots fired by 2 to 6 gunmen working for 30 to 40 different combinations of instigators. They fired rifles, pistols, and even poison darts out of umbrellas. They shot from the depository, the adjacent Dal-Tex Building, the knoll, the railroad overpass, the roofs of at least two buildings, a storm drain, the curb, and even from inside the presidential limousine. They worked independently or in teams under radio control. Nearly 70 people were said to be in Dealey Plaza for nefarious purposes, leaving room for hardly anyone else. Sponsors include Cuba, Russia, China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Great Britain, Israel, the Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mafia, oil-rich Texans, the FBI, the CIA, the left wing, the right wing, and the “invisible Nazi substructure.” Such chaotic thinking is the hallmark of ungrounded fantasy. It should come as no surprise that the JFK conspiracy case is going nowhere, despite loud claims to the contrary. After 40 years of unremitting search, the critical evidence remains largely as it was days after the assassination: JFK was killed by two bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle.

Forty years of failed speculation are enough. It is time to admit there was no conspiracy and there was never any serious evidence for it. The real story of the assassination is this: Kennedy was killed by one misfit guy, a cheap but effective rifle, a good vantage point from the building where he worked, and a run of fortuitous events.

It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy.

The author is Professor Emeritus at the University of Rhode Island. Co-signed by Steve Barber, John Cahill, Jean Davison, Joe Durnavich, Joel Grant, Martin Kelly, David Reitzes, Rob Spencer, and Larry Sturdivan (in alphabetical order). The group represents 200 years of study into all the facts of the JFK assassination.

Bill,

How are you? Well I hope. It's been some time since we rode the rails together.

A thread all about (or mostly about, or partially about) me? I should be flattered. But looking at most of the drivel that has been said about me I'm quite obviously and understandably (I hope) not. Nice to see that you don't seem to be part of that.

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t subscribe to Ken Rahn's "Coincidence" Theory of the assassination (you’ll notice I’m not listed as a co-signer at the end of the article - Rahn actually wrote and published the article before I had even heard of him and his group), at least not in the context of his using a “coincidence” explanation to completely dismiss all possibilities of conspiracy in this case. That said, of course I believe that coincidences do often normally occur in this world and certainly there are coincidences in the JFK assassination. Do I believe that there is "No room for conspiracy." ? Absolutely not and my mind remains more than open.

Now, as for Todd Wayne Vaughan and the Ken Rahn Group…

Back in October of 2004 I attended a weekend get together put together by some of the Non-Con members in a hotel conference room in Toledo, Ohio, which was close enough to where I lived at the time as to be only a few hours’ drive (http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html) . This was a rather informal event that I primarily attend this to discuss the Acoustics aspect of the case and because Steve Barber, a good and long-time friend of mine was also going to attend and I thought it would be a great chance to touch base with him (Steve wound up cancelling at the last minute - actually while the meeting was underway).

I was asked by Rahn at the end of that weekend if I wanted to join the Non-Cons. I stated at that time that I did not want to be a member of the “Non-Cons” for the reason that while I believe there was probably only 1 shooter in Dealey Plaza, I am (and remain very much so) open to the possibility of a conspiracy and did not like the idea of aligning myself with a group whose “Non-Cons” name in and of itself outright dismissed all possibilities of a conspiracy. I therefore did not join the group, did not provide any of the biographical material on myself that Rahn had requested for their website, and specifically stated and made clear that I did not want to appear on any list of members. I did however agree to join their email group, provide Rahn with my email address, and have been a member of that group ever since. I’m also a member of Paul Hoch’s email group that includes both CT’ers and LN’er of all statures.

Thanks to your post here today I see now at http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, (a site I’ve not been to in years) that despite my clearly stated desires and my agreement with Rahn my name appears in their list of members - though with no bio since I deliberately provided him with none and misspelled to add insult to injury! Certainly the last time I visited that site several years ago my name did not appear.

So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website.

Todd

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Nice bump Bill

Thanks for showing me the real Todd Vaughan

All along I thought he was a real researcher and had a grasp on the photographic evidence

Now I see he is just a McAdams groupie

At least I now know why he is trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush

Its not because he thinks im wrong, its because he is a LNer with McAdams ties

Dean,

For my “affiliation” with Ken Rahn’s Non-Con group, see my reply above to Bill Kelly.

For my being a “real researcher”, I’ll ask that you to define exactly what a ‘real researcher” is.

As for my “grasp on the photographic evidence”, I’ll put my “grasp on the photographic evidence” up against yours any day of the week.

As for your claim that I’m a McAdams groupie, nothing could be farther from the truth. I began researching this case long, long before McAdams showed up.

As for me having “ties” to McAdams, I’ve met him once and had a scant few email exchanges with him, both several years ago.

And last but not least, the only reason I’m “trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush” is because I believe you are wrong.

Yours,

The Real Todd Vaughan

[Dean Hagerman]

Nice bump Bill

Thanks for showing me the real Todd Vaughan

All along I thought he was a real researcher and had a grasp on the photographic evidence

Now I see he is just a McAdams groupie

At least I now know why he is trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush

Its not because he thinks im wrong, its because he is a LNer with McAdams ties

Dean,

For my “affiliation” with Ken Rahn’s Non-Con group, see my reply above to Bill Kelly.

For my being a “real researcher”, I’ll ask that you to define exactly what a ‘real researcher” is.

As for my “grasp on the photographic evidence”, I’ll put my “grasp on the photographic evidence” up against yours any day of the week.

As for your claim that I’m a McAdams groupie, nothing could be farther from the truth. I began researching this case long, long before McAdams showed up.

As for me having “ties” to McAdams, I’ve met him once and had a scant few email exchanges with him, both several years ago.

And last but not least, the only reason I’m “trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush” is because I believe you are wrong.

Yours,

The Real Todd Vaughan

Ok

I will take your word on not being involved with McAdams

A real researcher is someone who does not flip flop from CTer to LNer

And I gladly except your challange on the photographic evidence

How would you like to move forward on this challange?

I hope you have a better game plan then your new found friend Craigster did for a challange

With all due respect im going to put the photographic beat down on you

Lets get it on

[Craig Lamson]

Nice bump Bill

Thanks for showing me the real Todd Vaughan

All along I thought he was a real researcher and had a grasp on the photographic evidence

Now I see he is just a McAdams groupie

At least I now know why he is trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush

Its not because he thinks im wrong, its because he is a LNer with McAdams ties

Dean,

For my “affiliation” with Ken Rahn’s Non-Con group, see my reply above to Bill Kelly.

For my being a “real researcher”, I’ll ask that you to define exactly what a ‘real researcher” is.

As for my “grasp on the photographic evidence”, I’ll put my “grasp on the photographic evidence” up against yours any day of the week.

As for your claim that I’m a McAdams groupie, nothing could be farther from the truth. I began researching this case long, long before McAdams showed up.

As for me having “ties” to McAdams, I’ve met him once and had a scant few email exchanges with him, both several years ago.

And last but not least, the only reason I’m “trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush” is because I believe you are wrong.

Yours,

The Real Todd Vaughan

Ok

I will take your word on not being involved with McAdams

A real researcher is someone who does not flip flop from CTer to LNer

And I gladly except your challange on the photographic evidence

How would you like to move forward on this challange?

I hope you have a better game plan then your new found friend Craigster did for a challange

With all due respect im going to put the photographic beat down on you

Lets get it on

My game plan is perfectly intact. Discuss the photographic evidecne based on sound photographic principle, and not the stupidity of dealing with "bunnies in

the clouds".

You on the other hand, post "bunnies in the clouds", and get upset that I won't disccus your "visions".

Then when you are tasked to provide some simple empirical evidence on a sound photographic prionciple (the branches) all we get is ignorance as opinion. Yea...photographic beatdown...what a hoot!

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Hey Todd,

You're already a celebrity with your own thread.

Welcome to the Ed Forum.

I hope you have time to answer my question whether or not you subscribe to Ken Rahn's "Coincidence" Theory of the assassination?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

"No room for conspiracy."

http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html

The Noncons

'Kenneth A. Rahn, Ph.D.,

Mel Ayton

Jean Davison

Patricia Lambert

John McAdams

Dave Reitzes

Johann W. Rush

Lyndal Shaneyfelt

Todd Vaughn

Chance, Not Conspiracy, In The Death Of JFK

Kenneth A. Rahn

19 November 2003

We Americans have been deluged for decades by tales of conspiracy in JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963. As a result, most of us believe that it happened that way. But the facts are very different—Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy alone, then two days later Jack Ruby shot Oswald alone. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the assassination, it is essential to hear the real story of the assassination.

Parallel strands of chance brought President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald together. Oswald moved to Dallas just when the Texas School Book Depository was hiring seasonal workers. He needed work badly, and one of his wife’s neighbors had a brother who had just started work there. She suggested that Oswald try it, too. His wife’s landlady got him an interview the next day, and he was hired. He began on October 16th, weeks before a motorcade through Dallas had been decided on.

Kennedy was brought to Oswald by three strokes of chance. The first was the last-minute cancellation of Kennedy’s honorary degree by Texas Christian University in Forth Worth. That created a slot only partially filled by a breakfast event there. To complete the schedule JFK decided on a motorcade in Dallas, the second stroke of chance.

The third stroke was choosing the venue for the luncheon on the 22nd. Kennedy and the Secret Service preferred one location, but Governor Connally insisted on the Dallas Trade Mart and won out. With the first location, the motorcade would have passed through the middle of Dealey Plaza at high speed and with Mrs. Kennedy between Oswald and JFK. The new site required driving slowly along the edge of the plaza, in the opposite direction and right in front of the depository. This brought Kennedy within easy shooting range and made him a slower, unshielded target. The route first appeared in the papers only three days ahead of time.

Although these sequences of events were improbable, they were no more so than any sequence we could name. Unpredictable events occur every minute every day, but we focus on the tiny fraction that yield spectacular results. We should not forget all the public events where presidents have not been shot, including Kennedy’s six previous motorcades on the same trip.

Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10 a.m. transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour’s further interrogation by the chief postal inspector—who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police—and another by Oswald’s last-minute request for a dark sweater for TV.

Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him Sunday morning for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day). Save for every event in these two unplanned series, Ruby could not have killed Oswald. Extraordinary sequences to be sure, but with no room for conspiracy.

Clearing Oswald and Ruby removes the major impetus for thinking conspiracy. But couldn’t there have been some level of conspiracy? If not, then two important predictions follow. All evidence offered for conspiracy will fail, and conspiracy theories proposed anyhow will vary widely in specifics because they are all ungrounded in reality.

The evidence for conspiracy has in fact failed. JFK’s dramatic rearward lurch (Oliver Stone’s famous “back and to the left”), purportedly caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll, starts too late and develops too slowly to be from a bullet. The “magic,” or “pristine,” bullet, too “undamaged” to pass through both men, was deformed in precisely the manner expected for jacketed bullets hitting flesh. (It also had such overwhelming penetrating power that it was used for decades to hunt elephants.) The ephemeral shooter on the knoll turns out to be the product of echoes, confusion, and overactive imagination applied to single grainy print. The acoustical evidence allegedly revealing a shot from the knoll was actually recorded by a microphone miles away from Dealey Plaza.

Also as predicted, conspiracy theories have been all over the map. In more than 100 conspiracy scenarios over the last 40 years, theory-makers have claimed there were anywhere from 3 to 10 shots fired by 2 to 6 gunmen working for 30 to 40 different combinations of instigators. They fired rifles, pistols, and even poison darts out of umbrellas. They shot from the depository, the adjacent Dal-Tex Building, the knoll, the railroad overpass, the roofs of at least two buildings, a storm drain, the curb, and even from inside the presidential limousine. They worked independently or in teams under radio control. Nearly 70 people were said to be in Dealey Plaza for nefarious purposes, leaving room for hardly anyone else. Sponsors include Cuba, Russia, China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Great Britain, Israel, the Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mafia, oil-rich Texans, the FBI, the CIA, the left wing, the right wing, and the “invisible Nazi substructure.” Such chaotic thinking is the hallmark of ungrounded fantasy. It should come as no surprise that the JFK conspiracy case is going nowhere, despite loud claims to the contrary. After 40 years of unremitting search, the critical evidence remains largely as it was days after the assassination: JFK was killed by two bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle.

Forty years of failed speculation are enough. It is time to admit there was no conspiracy and there was never any serious evidence for it. The real story of the assassination is this: Kennedy was killed by one misfit guy, a cheap but effective rifle, a good vantage point from the building where he worked, and a run of fortuitous events.

It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy.

The author is Professor Emeritus at the University of Rhode Island. Co-signed by Steve Barber, John Cahill, Jean Davison, Joe Durnavich, Joel Grant, Martin Kelly, David Reitzes, Rob Spencer, and Larry Sturdivan (in alphabetical order). The group represents 200 years of study into all the facts of the JFK assassination.

Bill,

How are you? Well I hope. It's been some time since we rode the rails together.

A thread all about (or mostly about, or partially about) me? I should be flattered. But looking at most of the drivel that has been said about me I'm quite obviously and understandably (I hope) not. Nice to see that you don't seem to be part of that.

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t subscribe to Ken Rahn's "Coincidence" Theory of the assassination (you’ll notice I’m not listed as a co-signer at the end of the article - Rahn actually wrote and published the article before I had even heard of him and his group), at least not in the context of his using a “coincidence” explanation to completely dismiss all possibilities of conspiracy in this case. That said, of course I believe that coincidences do often normally occur in this world and certainly there are coincidences in the JFK assassination. Do I believe that there is "No room for conspiracy." ? Absolutely not and my mind remains more than open.

Now, as for Todd Wayne Vaughan and the Ken Rahn Group…

Back in October of 2004 I attended a weekend get together put together by some of the Non-Con members in a hotel conference room in Toledo, Ohio, which was close enough to where I lived at the time as to be only a few hours’ drive (http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html) . This was a rather informal event that I primarily attend this to discuss the Acoustics aspect of the case and because Steve Barber, a good and long-time friend of mine was also going to attend and I thought it would be a great chance to touch base with him (Steve wound up cancelling at the last minute - actually while the meeting was underway).

I was asked by Rahn at the end of that weekend if I wanted to join the Non-Cons. I stated at that time that I did not want to be a member of the “Non-Cons” for the reason that while I believe there was probably only 1 shooter in Dealey Plaza, I am (and remain very much so) open to the possibility of a conspiracy and did not like the idea of aligning myself with a group whose “Non-Cons” name in and of itself outright dismissed all possibilities of a conspiracy. I therefore did not join the group, did not provide any of the biographical material on myself that Rahn had requested for their website, and specifically stated and made clear that I did not want to appear on any list of members. I did however agree to join their email group, provide Rahn with my email address, and have been a member of that group ever since. I’m also a member of Paul Hoch’s email group that includes both CT’ers and LN’er of all statures.

Thanks to your post here today I see now at http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, (a site I’ve not been to in years) that despite my clearly stated desires and my agreement with Rahn my name appears in their list of members - though with no bio since I deliberately provided him with none and misspelled to add insult to injury! Certainly the last time I visited that site several years ago my name did not appear.

So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website.

Todd

"So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website."

And have now done so.

[William Kelly]

Hi Todd,

Holy Toledo!

Yea, there's been a lot of water flowing under the bridge since that train trip. Was that the one from Dallas or New Orleans to Chicago the night Clinton was elected? Kenn Thomas was also on that train. I think I'm going to call my memoirs - after the case is solved, On the Train of the Assassins.

And many thanks for your assistance and sharing records from the Ford Library when you were there. I still owe you one for that.

As for Ken Rahn, I've only met him once, and I like him as a person, but he irritates me as much as Prof. Fetzer, both espousing correct thinking. I certainly wouldn't want to be hold up in a motel in Toledo with either of them.

Give my regards to Steve and tell him to avoid Heavy Metal, it's bad for the ears.

I am kind of dissapointed however, that you don't subscribe to the Coincidental Theory because I wanted to have a discussion about it.

While there has been much made of the "coincidential" nature of Ruby's fatal final tac across town to kill Oswald, the answer is - they held on to Oswald until Ruby was in position, and as Gary Mack adds the coup d'grace - the car to be used to transport Oswald was not in place, which itself might not have been such a coincidence.

Three other "coincidences" come into serious play: 1) How Oswald met the Paines, 2) How Oswald found the Magazine St. apartment in New Orleans; 3) How Oswald got the job at the TSBD.

And the more I look into these three events, the less coincidental they are.

You can go back debating the anomalies in the photo evidence now.

All the best,

Bill Kelly

Edited December 2, 2009 by William Kelly

[Peter Fokes]

Back in October of 2004 I attended a weekend get together put together by some of the Non-Con members in a hotel conference room in Toledo, Ohio, which was close enough to where I lived at the time as to be only a few hours’ drive (http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html) . This was a rather informal event that I primarily attend this to discuss the Acoustics aspect of the case and because Steve Barber, a good and long-time friend of mine was also going to attend and I thought it would be a great chance to touch base with him (Steve wound up cancelling at the last minute - actually while the meeting was underway).

I was asked by Rahn at the end of that weekend if I wanted to join the Non-Cons. I stated at that time that I did not want to be a member of the “Non-Cons” for the reason that while I believe there was probably only 1 shooter in Dealey Plaza, I am (and remain very much so) open to the possibility of a conspiracy and did not like the idea of aligning myself with a group whose “Non-Cons” name in and of itself outright dismissed all possibilities of a conspiracy. I therefore did not join the group, did not provide any of the biographical material on myself that Rahn had requested for their website, and specifically stated and made clear that I did not want to appear on any list of members. I did however agree to join their email group, provide Rahn with my email address, and have been a member of that group ever since. I’m also a member of Paul Hoch’s email group that includes both CT’ers and LN’er of all statures.

Thanks to your post here today I see now at http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, (a site I’ve not been to in years) that despite my clearly stated desires and my agreement with Rahn my name appears in their list of members - though with no bio since I deliberately provided him with none and misspelled to add insult to injury! Certainly the last time I visited that site several years ago my name did not appear.

So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website.

Todd

Hi Todd,

Thanks for the interesting story about the origins of the Non-Cons Group. Do you have any idea why the group would ignore your specific instruction not to appear on any list of members? Was it simply because you gave them your email? Let us know when the webpage has been corrected!

Regards,

Peter Fokes

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Back in October of 2004 I attended a weekend get together put together by some of the Non-Con members in a hotel conference room in Toledo, Ohio, which was close enough to where I lived at the time as to be only a few hours’ drive (http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html) . This was a rather informal event that I primarily attend this to discuss the Acoustics aspect of the case and because Steve Barber, a good and long-time friend of mine was also going to attend and I thought it would be a great chance to touch base with him (Steve wound up cancelling at the last minute - actually while the meeting was underway).

I was asked by Rahn at the end of that weekend if I wanted to join the Non-Cons. I stated at that time that I did not want to be a member of the “Non-Cons” for the reason that while I believe there was probably only 1 shooter in Dealey Plaza, I am (and remain very much so) open to the possibility of a conspiracy and did not like the idea of aligning myself with a group whose “Non-Cons” name in and of itself outright dismissed all possibilities of a conspiracy. I therefore did not join the group, did not provide any of the biographical material on myself that Rahn had requested for their website, and specifically stated and made clear that I did not want to appear on any list of members. I did however agree to join their email group, provide Rahn with my email address, and have been a member of that group ever since. I’m also a member of Paul Hoch’s email group that includes both CT’ers and LN’er of all statures.

Thanks to your post here today I see now at http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, (a site I’ve not been to in years) that despite my clearly stated desires and my agreement with Rahn my name appears in their list of members - though with no bio since I deliberately provided him with none and misspelled to add insult to injury! Certainly the last time I visited that site several years ago my name did not appear.

So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website.

Todd

Hi Todd,

Thanks for the interesting story about the origins of the Non-Cons Group. Do you have any idea why the group would ignore your specific instruction not to appear on any list of members? Was it simply because you gave them your email? Let us know when the webpage has been corrected!

Regards,

Peter Fokes

Peter,

My post wasn't about the origins of the Non-Con group - it was about my experience with them after they had already formed.

I sent Ken an email about this and he replied back. He wasn't sure how my name ended up on the website's list and said he must have made a mistake. He will take care of the problem at the end of the month when he returns to the US.

Thanks.

Todd

Edited December 2, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan