Then and Now

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't really think I've "abandoned" anything.

I must respectfully disagree. You may not recall me, but I spoke with you for a

bit at Cracking the Case in '05. When I brought up the subject of your examination

of Willis #5 under a microscope, you rolled your eyes and said very dismissively:

"Well, if you think that's evidence..."

Pieces of evidence get their importance and keep that importance as the focus

shifts to other, more complicated pieces of evidence.

But that's not what has happened at all.

The clothing defects, as prima facie evidence of conspiracy, have been largely

shelved in favor of highly complex arguments which have not advanced

the case an inch.

I find it very sad that, among the current generation of researchers, the most

vociferous champion of the clothing evidence is some Haight St. punk-rock poker

house degenerate (that's me) who would never have an ounce of credibility

in the mainstream media.

The new work on NAA by Randich and Grant show that any attempt to link bullet

fragments by trace element composition is fruitless.

Who cares? Given JFK's proven T3 back wound, the SBT fails on its

trajectory. The NAA is moot. It was nothing but a Hoover scam in the first

place, if my reading of its history is correct.

Basically, that takes NAA off the table.

Why the hell was it on the table in the first place?

It was an FBI bluff and a significant part of the JFK research community

bit on it hook-line-&sinker.

The acoustics is something else entirely and my own bet is that Don Thomas is

very close to justifying that evidence.

After almost 30 years on the table? Who cares? The clothing defects establish

at least 4 shots, and it doesn't take 30 years and advanced degrees to figure

out that a fraction of an inch of fabric does not equal 2-3 inches of fabric.

The Zapruder film alteration discussion has proved divisive because of the tactics used

and should now be over. The claim failed. Actually, the Dealey Plaza photos can tell us

an enormous amount about what happened. They repay close study.

Absolutely!

The DP photo-films are the "bedrock evidence in the case."

I saw a guy give a presentation to that effect a couple of years ago, and I had

to go up to him afterwards and shake his hand...

Edited March 4, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

I don't really think I've "abandoned" anything.

PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN COURT UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY A WITNESS WHO CAN VOUCH FOR THE PHOTOS AUTHENTICY AND PROVENANCE. - BK

I must respectfully disagree. You may not recall me, but I spoke with you for a

bit at Cracking the Case in '05. When I brought up the subject of your examination

of Willis #5 under a microscope, you rolled your eyes and said very dismissively:

"Well, if you think that's evidence..."

Pieces of evidence get their importance and keep that importance as the focus

shifts to other, more complicated pieces of evidence.

But that's not what has happened at all.

The clothing defects, as prima facie evidence of conspiracy, have been largely

shelved in favor of highly complex arguments which have not advanced

the case an inch.

I find it very sad that, among the current generation of researchers, the most

vociferous champion of the clothing evidence is some Haight St. punk-rock poker

house degenerate (that's me) who would never have an ounce of credibility

in the mainstream media.

The new work on NAA by Randich and Grant show that any attempt to link bullet

fragments by trace element composition is fruitless.

Who cares? Given JFK's proven T3 back wound, the SBT fails on its

trajectory. The NAA is moot. It was nothing but a Hoover scam in the first

place, if my reading of its history is correct.

Basically, that takes NAA off the table.

Why the hell was it on the table in the first place?

It was an FBI bluff and a significant part of the JFK research community

bit on it hook-line-&sinker.

The acoustics is something else entirely and my own bet is that Don Thomas is

very close to justifying that evidence.

After almost 30 years on the table? Who cares? The clothing defects establish

at least 4 shots, and it doesn't take 30 years and advanced degrees to figure

out that a fraction of an inch of fabric does not equal 2-3 inches of fabric.

The Zapruder film alteration discussion has proved divisive because of the tactics used

and should now be over. The claim failed. Actually, the Dealey Plaza photos can tell us

an enormous amount about what happened. They repay close study.

Absolutely!

The DP photo-films are the "bedrock evidence in the case."

I saw a guy give a presentation to that effect a couple of years ago, and I had

to go up to him afterwards and shake his hand...

[Pat Speer]

Josiah, I think the difference between then and now is that then people were discovering things together, now people are arguing over closely-held opinions. I came to assassination research as a blank slate 5 years ago, and immersed myself in studying the film and photographic evidence under the assumption it was not altered. And I made a number of what I believe are discoveries, including:

1. Dr. Baden testified with an autopsy photo upside down.

2. The shape of a drainage hole in the mystery photo proves it was taken of the back of the head.

3. The 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray is actually behind the eye and not on the back of the head as purported.

4. The EOP entrance described at autopsy is apparent on the autopsy photos.

5. The EOP entrance is visible on the x-rays.

6. The Zapruder film shows Kennedy react to a shot just as he heads behind the sign.

7. The HSCA's trajectory analyst moved Kennedy's wounds and shrunk Kennedy's skull to make the shots point back to the sniper's nest.

7. Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony was altered to hide his mentioning of subsonic ammunition.

And that's just a sampling. And yet few "veteran" assassination researchers have looked through my online book at patspeer.com or have acknowledged any of my possible discoveries, even to argue that I'm wrong.

As I said, the difference between then and now is that then people thought they were learning, now people think they know and aren't all that concerned with what others think. It's sad but true. I can feel it happening to myself. While I used to look at alteration claims independently, I now look at such claims under the assumption they are nonsense.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

4. The EOP entrance described at autopsy is apparent on the autopsy photos.

5. The EOP entrance is visible on the x-rays.

7. The HSCA's trajectory analyst moved Kennedy's wounds and shrunk Kennedy's skull to make the shots point back to the sniper's nest.

Pat, I have not yet looked at the medical part of your site, only because, despite my abominable handwriting, I would never make a doctor. But I am puzzled by the seeming contradiction between points 4 & 5, which indicate a head entry wound from the sniper's nest, and point 7 which suggests that evidence was faked up to make it APPEAR that he was shot from the SN.

Is it your ultimate conclusion that the head shot came from the rear?

[Pat Speer]

4. The EOP entrance described at autopsy is apparent on the autopsy photos.

5. The EOP entrance is visible on the x-rays.

7. The HSCA's trajectory analyst moved Kennedy's wounds and shrunk Kennedy's skull to make the shots point back to the sniper's nest.

Pat, I have not yet looked at the medical part of your site, only because, despite my abominable handwriting, I would never make a doctor. But I am puzzled by the seeming contradiction between points 4 & 5, which indicate a head entry wound from the sniper's nest, and point 7 which suggests that evidence was faked up to make it APPEAR that he was shot from the SN.

Is it your ultimate conclusion that the head shot came from the rear?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: The head shot at 313 impacted at the supposed exit, but was most likely fired from the rear. The x-rays indicate the bullet broke up at the supposed exit BEFORE any impact high on the back of the head. Spitz and Fisher (of the HSCA and Clark Panels) state in their forensic text (which is pretty much considered the forensic bible), Medicolegal Investigation of Death, that one of the best ways to determine a skull entrance wound from an exit wound is that scalp will be missing at the entrance wound. The autopsy report notes that a lot of scalp was missing from the large defect. So how did the HSCA FPP get around this? Did they state that this was a special case, and that one would expect scalp to be missing in such a circumstance? Nope. They added in a footnote that although the autopsy report said scalp was missing from the large defect, they ASSUMED the autopsists were simply wrong about this. That's right, not only did the Clark and HSCA panels say the doctors incorrectly recorded the location of the entrance wound, but that their description of it was completely wrong as well!

Anyhow, the HSCA panel is full of beans on this point because the autopsy photos show scalp to be missing from the defect and eyewitnesses reported seeing scalp on the floor of the limo. More telling. Dr. Clark's original report from Parkland noted the same missing scalp noted by the autopsy doctors...

So...the large defect was an entrance...but where was the exit... Well, Dr. Clark said it looked to be a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, and the Harper fragment has internal and external beveling, indicating it was adjacent to an entrance and exit...

I explain it all as best I can in chapters 13 thru 18 of patspeer.com if anyone's interested.