A Plague on Both Your Houses

[Pat Speer]

engaged in an obfuscationary practice

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world

think he didn't exist.

"Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..."

Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match...

http://originalsevenseconds.com/

I think I got you beat, Cliff. I was the indie buyer for a large music wholesaler with a 30 store chain of its own and had hundreds of meets, greets, and meals with members of N.W.A., Black Flag, Bad Religion, The Replacements, The Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc... not to mention folks like David Cassidy... Roadrunner Records considered me so helpful in breaking Slipknot they sent me a gold record plaque.

But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now.

That's the kind of job which will keep you young, Pat.

To what does the "breaking Slipknot" comment relate?

These guys, fresh from the cornfields of Iowa, have sold millions of records. I'm partly responsible.

[Pat Speer]

I think I got you beat, Cliff.

No chance, pal.

I brought hardcore political punk rock into Reno Nevada beginning in 1979:

formed two hardcore political punk bands 7 Seconds and Section 8 and infused

them with my political fervor; promoted Blag Flag twice in Reno in 1981 when

they couldn't get a show anywhere on the West Coast due to the violence

of their audiences...I could go on, but my innate modesty forbids it...

OK, Cliff, you might have me on the whole punk rock thing, but I spent many an evening in the company of Eazy-E, Ice Cube, Ice-T, Snoop Dogg, etc as well as Bad Religion, Black Flag, X, Mudhoney, etc. I was an invited guest to Nine Inch Nails' and Smashing Pumpkins' first shows in L.A. (Smashing Pumpkins played a midnight show at a drag club in West Hollywood.) I hung out backstage with Einsturzende Neubaten. (Germans have some serious BO.) Prince flew me to Minneapolis to play me his new record. Rodney King drove out to Simi Valley to buy me lunch and pick my brain. (Yes, I actually got in the car with him.)

So I've got Indie/alt cred to burn.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

But as Vincent Salandria pointed out from the very beginning, the proven T3 back

wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

But that fact takes all the fun out of it for guys like John Hunt and Pat Speer

who want to do important work so they deny the fact that JFK was shot in

the back at T3. This affords them the opportunity to be the "experts" who

will finally crack the case!

There is a lot of this kind of glory seeking going on, frankly.

But I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of John Hunt or Pat Speer,

I just question their "motivated reasoning" for denying the obvious

well-corroborated and crucial fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3.

Cliff, you've got it completely backwards. It is your desire to "crack the case" that leads you to claim the back wound is at T3. The HSCA FPP said it was at T1. The measurements created at the autopsy suggests they were correct.

Having the wound at T1, moreover, is so problematic to the single-bullet theory that it led the HSCA's trajectory expert to move the wound back upwards.

So why pretend the wound was at T3, when the only evidence placing it at T3 is a written approximation by one man, a man who never even studied the president's wounds? Why not just accept the approximation at T-1, and PUMMEL the LNT community with the FACT that THEIR version of the single-bullet theory is completely refuted by the government's top "experts"?

http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg

[Cliff Varnell]

I think I got you beat, Cliff.

No chance, pal.

I brought hardcore political punk rock into Reno Nevada beginning in 1979:

formed two hardcore political punk bands 7 Seconds and Section 8 and infused

them with my political fervor; promoted Blag Flag twice in Reno in 1981 when

they couldn't get a show anywhere on the West Coast due to the violence

of their audiences...I could go on, but my innate modesty forbids it...

OK, Cliff, you might have me on the whole punk rock thing, but I spent many an evening in the company of Eazy-E, Ice Cube, Ice-T, Snoop Dogg, etc as well as Bad Religion, Black Flag, X, Mudhoney, etc. I was an invited guest to Nine Inch Nails' and Smashing Pumpkins' first shows in L.A. (Smashing Pumpkins played a midnight show at a drag club in West Hollywood.) I hung out backstage with Eisnturzende Neubaten. (Germans have some serious BO.) Prince flew me to Minneapolis to play me his new record. Rodney King drove out to Simi Valley to buy me lunch and pick my brain. (Yes, I actually got in the car with him.)

So I've got Indie/alt cred to burn.

That's some serious biz cred, my man!

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, you've got it completely backwards. It is your desire to "crack the case" that leads you to claim the back wound is at T3.

Pat,

First of all, others have "cracked the case" already. The dots connect themselves.

See Salandria, Vincent. Fonzi, Gaeton.

See Hancock, Larry. Or McKnight, Gerald.

See Bamford, James. And Scott, Peter D.

Once you adsorb the information these gentlemen have to share,

and once you realize that properly prepared medical evidence trumps

improperly prepared medical evidence, then the case falls neatly into

place.

Second of all, the T3 back wound isn't my claim, Pat.

None of this is about me (except for the punk rock bit.)

It is the observation of more than a dozen witnesses who had

prolonged views of the stationary body. It is the location indicated

by hard, physical evidence: the bullet holes in the clothes. It is the

location recorded in properly prepared medical documents.

It is the observation of a great American hero, Clint Hill.

In my opinion there were two great American heroes in Dealey Plaza who

tried to prevent Kennedy from getting shot.

Clint Hill and Tosh Plumlee.

We don't have documentation for Tosh -- if you buy his rap you buy it, that's it.

Clint Hill, however, is a world renown bona fide American hero. He performed two

acts of brave service to his country on 11/22 -- but in general Clint Hill only gets

credit for one.

The first we all know about -- the dash to the limo and the rescue of the

First Lady.

The second thing he did in the line of duty was even more significant.

From Clint Hill's sworn statement (emphasis added):

At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman

to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy

had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I

viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline

on the back just to the right of the spinal column.

Pat, let's just think about this for a moment. In service to his country and to

historical truth itself, Clint Hill observed a back wound six inches down from the

neckline.

This matches the location of the hole in the shirt, 5.75" below the top

of the collar.

Is T1 six inches below the neckline? Of course not!

Could Clint Hill have mistaken "about 4 inches" for "about 6 inches"?

When he was three years old, maybe!

Do you know the difference between "about six inches" and "about

four inches," Pat? I know I do! And to argue that Clint Hill didn't

is pure witness bashing.

There are more than a dozen other guys who, while serving their country,

observed the low back wound at Bethesda.

These men -- and one woman, Diana Bowron at Parkland -- have had their

honor, their credibility, even their honesty challenged for 46+ years and I for

one am sick of it.

The HSCA FPP said it was at T1.

They never saw the body. The studied an autopsy photo that they

singled out as "deficient as scientific evidence" but went ahead and

based their conclusion on that!

So you have a panel of guys who never saw the body conclude

the wound was at T1 on the basis of a photograph they conceded

was improperly prepared and prima facie inadmissible in court.

From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings (emphasis added):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of

negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were

positioned in such a manner to make it DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN

ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS of critical features (such as the WOUND IN THE

UPPER BACK) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

And by what stretch of logic does the HSCA FPP T1 conclusion trump the

often graphic descriptions of the low back wound by more than a dozen

people who had prolonged views of the wound?

The measurements created at the autopsy suggests they were correct.

Those measurements you're citing -- what was it, 13.5 cm below the mastoid

process? -- were written in PEN on the autopsy face sheet.

The other notations on the face sheet -- the dot consistent with

T4, the signed verification -- were written in PENCIL.

According to proper autopsy protocol the notations must be made

in PENCIL.

By what stretch of logic do you conclude that IMPROPERLY

prepared autopsy evidence trumps PROPERLY prepared

autopsy evidence?

So why pretend the wound was at T3, when the only evidence placing it at T3 is a written

approximation by one man, a man who never even studied the president's wounds?

Are you claiming that George Burkley never saw the wounds?

He was the only one present at both Parkland and Bethesda!

I don't mean to get nasty here, Pat, but do you only study evidence that comports

with your theories?

Are you wholly unfamiliar with the autopsy face sheet diagram, which was properly

marked "verified" in PENCIL?

Are you wholly unfamiliar with the facts concerning Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman and

Will Greer being sent to the morgue to view the wounds? All of them put the

wound lower down his back!

Sibert and O'Neill also prepared wound diagrams consistent with the lower back

wound.

Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the Boss about four

inches down from the right shoulder."

The bullet holes in the shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the collar. Like Clint Hill,

Glen Bennett nailed the location of the wound exactly!

James Curtis Jenkins, autopsy-attendee, in BODY OF EVIDENCE pg 713:

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through

the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was

making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry

into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited

in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the

junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart]

or the bronchus in the lungs.

Here's a guy who had his nose in JFK's chest cavity and graphically described

the low, non-transiting wound.

Did he hallucinate it, Pat?

Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik in 1992 that the

back wound was at T4! (KILLING THE TRUTH, Livingstone, pg 721).

Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology

Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is from Boyers signed

affidavit:

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more

specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

"Under the scapula" is consistent with T3.

Then we have the holes in the clothes and the fact that custom-made

dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the

Dealey Plaza photos show JFK's jacket dropping.

That's concrete physical evidence of the T3 wound, well corroborated

by the properly prepared medical evidence and the witness statements

of more than a dozen people who had a prolonged view of the wound.

Why not just accept the approximation at T-1, and PUMMEL the LNT community with

the FACT that THEIR version of the single-bullet theory is completely refuted by the

government's top "experts"?

1) Because it is a blatant lie, a product of the cover-up we are working to expose.

2) Because you are then taking a prima facie case for conspiracy and putting

it on a shelf which requires "experts" to evaluate.

Why are you attempting to water down conspiracy evidence in order to

support what is obviously a total fabrication?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, you've got it completely backwards. It is your desire to "crack the case" that leads you to claim the back wound is at T3.

Pat,

First of all, others have "cracked the case" already. The dots connect themselves.

See Salandria, Vincent. Fonzi, Gaeton.

See Hancock, Larry. Or McKnight, Gerald.

See Bamford, James. And Scott, Peter D.

Once you adsorb the information these gentlemen have to share,

and once you realize that properly prepared medical evidence trumps

improperly prepared medical evidence, then the case falls neatly into

place.

Second of all, the T3 back wound isn't my claim, Pat.

None of this is about me (except for the punk rock bit.)

It is the observation of more than a dozen witnesses who had

prolonged views of the stationary body. It is the location indicated

by hard, physical evidence: the bullet holes in the clothes. It is the

location recorded in properly prepared medical documents.

It is the observation of a great American hero, Clint Hill.

In my opinion there were two great American heroes in Dealey Plaza who

tried to prevent Kennedy from getting shot.

Clint Hill and Tosh Plumlee.

We don't have documentation for Tosh -- if you buy his rap you buy it, that's it.

Clint Hill, however, is a world renown bona fide American hero. He performed two

acts of brave service to his country on 11/22 -- but in general Clint Hill only gets

credit for one.

The first we all know about -- the dash to the limo and the rescue of the

First Lady.

The second thing he did in the line of duty was even more significant.

From Clint Hill's sworn statement (emphasis added):

At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman

to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy

had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I

viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline

on the back just to the right of the spinal column.

Pat, let's just think about this for a moment. In service to his country and to

historical truth itself, Clint Hill observed a back wound six inches down from the

neckline.

This matches the location of the hole in the shirt, 5.75" below the top

of the collar.

Is T1 six inches below the neckline? Of course not!

Could Clint Hill have mistaken "about 4 inches" for "about 6 inches"?

When he was three years old, maybe!

Do you know the difference between "about six inches" and "about

four inches," Pat? I know I do! And to argue that Clint Hill didn't

is pure witness bashing.

There are more than a dozen other guys who, while serving their country,

observed the low back wound at Bethesda.

These men -- and one woman, Diana Bowron at Parkland -- have had their

honor, their credibility, even their honesty challenged for 46+ years and I for

one am sick of it.

The HSCA FPP said it was at T1.

They never saw the body. The studied an autopsy photo that they

singled out as "deficient as scientific evidence" but went ahead and

based their conclusion on that!

So you have a panel of guys who never saw the body conclude

the wound was at T1 on the basis of a photograph they conceded

was improperly prepared and prima facie inadmissible in court.

From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings (emphasis added):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of

negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were

positioned in such a manner to make it DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN

ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS of critical features (such as the WOUND IN THE

UPPER BACK) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

And by what stretch of logic does the HSCA FPP T1 conclusion trump the

often graphic descriptions of the low back wound by more than a dozen

people who had prolonged views of the wound?

The measurements created at the autopsy suggests they were correct.

Those measurements you're citing -- what was it, 13.5 cm below the mastoid

process? -- were written in PEN on the autopsy face sheet.

The other notations on the face sheet -- the dot consistent with

T4, the signed verification -- were written in PENCIL.

According to proper autopsy protocol the notations must be made

in PENCIL.

By what stretch of logic do you conclude that IMPROPERLY

prepared autopsy evidence trumps PROPERLY prepared

autopsy evidence?

So why pretend the wound was at T3, when the only evidence placing it at T3 is a written

approximation by one man, a man who never even studied the president's wounds?

Are you claiming that George Burkley never saw the wounds?

He was the only one present at both Parkland and Bethesda!

I don't mean to get nasty here, Pat, but do you only study evidence that comports

with your theories?

Are you wholly unfamiliar with the autopsy face sheet diagram, which was properly

marked "verified" in PENCIL?

Are you wholly unfamiliar with the facts concerning Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman and

Will Greer being sent to the morgue to view the wounds? All of them put the

wound lower down his back!

Sibert and O'Neill also prepared wound diagrams consistent with the lower back

wound.

Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the Boss about four

inches down from the right shoulder."

The bullet holes in the shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the collar. Like Clint Hill,

Glen Bennett nailed the location of the wound exactly!

James Curtis Jenkins, autopsy-attendee, in BODY OF EVIDENCE pg 713:

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through

the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was

making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry

into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited

in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the

junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart]

or the bronchus in the lungs.

Here's a guy who had his nose in JFK's chest cavity and graphically described

the low, non-transiting wound.

Did he hallucinate it, Pat?

Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik in 1992 that the

back wound was at T4! (KILLING THE TRUTH, Livingstone, pg 721).

Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology

Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is from Boyers signed

affidavit:

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more

specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

"Under the scapula" is consistent with T3.

Then we have the holes in the clothes and the fact that custom-made

dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the

Dealey Plaza photos show JFK's jacket dropping.

That's concrete physical evidence of the T3 wound, well corroborated

by the properly prepared medical evidence and the witness statements

of more than a dozen people who had a prolonged view of the wound.

Why not just accept the approximation at T-1, and PUMMEL the LNT community with

the FACT that THEIR version of the single-bullet theory is completely refuted by the

government's top "experts"?

1) Because it is a blatant lie, a product of the cover-up we are working to expose.

2) Because you are then taking a prima facie case for conspiracy and putting

it on a shelf which requires "experts" to evaluate.

Why are you attempting to water down conspiracy evidence in order to

support what is obviously a total fabrication?

Cliff, you are the one who is trying to water down conspiracy evidence by needlessly arguing against the official findings when the official findings suggest more than one shooter. If T-1 is consistent with the single-bullet theory, why does EVERY single-bullet theorist move the wound upwards? The only witness you cited to claim the wound was at T-3 was Burkley. In all other cases, you have interpreted what they said as T-3. But the Sibert and O'Neill drawings, for example, place the wound exactly where it was on the face sheet, in line with the shoulder tip, which is T-1, T-2 at the lowest. You're not even logical. Clint Hill said "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column." You then bizarrely insist there was no way he could mistake 4 inches with 6 inches. This is ludicrous. People make this kind of mistake all day long. You then prop up Bennett's approximation of "about 4 inches down from the right shoulder", and assume he means 4 inches down on the clothes. Well, what does Bennett mean by shoulder...the shoulder tip? The higher point where the shoulder muscles attach the neck? It is all too vague. YOU interpret Hill's "about 6 inches" and Bennett's "about 4 inches" to be the same location only because YOUR pet theory demands it.

The back wound photo proves the bullet entrance was too low to support the single-bullet theory. As demonstrated in my videos, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Arlen Specter suborned perjury during the testimony of Thomas Kelley. Pretending this photo is a fake, or too confusing, or of no value, is just ridiculous. Not only would this photo have been allowed into evidence should the case have come to trial, it would have been the key piece of evidence convincing a jury that Oswald could not have acted alone.

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat Speer wrote:

Cliff, you are the one who is trying to water down conspiracy evidence by needlessly

arguing against the official findings

Pat, let me roll that thought around in my noggin a little..."needlessly

arguing against the official findings"...are we still talking about the JFK

assassination?

When the "official findings" are lies we debunk the lies.

That's how we learn about the cover-up.

We don't repeat the lies of the cover-up just because we've made

ourselves "expert" in their fraudulent analyses, do we?

(Well, that's what Grandstanders have been doing since Tink Thompson

started the trend in 1966!)

when the official findings suggest more than one shooter.

"Suggest"?

Both the low back wound and the throat entrance wounds are prima facie

evidence of 2+ shooters.

It does not require "experts" to see that the SBT doesn't work with the

back wound that low.

Your "suggestion" is we ignore the people who actually saw the body, ignore the

evidence of the clothing defects, ignore the properly prepared medical

evidence and embrace improperly prepared evidence that even its supporters

allow is "deficient."

If there is actual logic involved in your thinking it eludes me, frankly.

If T-1 is consistent with the single-bullet theory, why does EVERY single-bullet theorist

move the wound upwards?

John McAdams for years argued that T1 works for the single bullet theory.

Why press a lie when the truth is so much more clear-cut?

The only witness you cited to claim the wound was at T-3 was Burkley.

Care to re-read the testimony?

Dr. Ebersole put it at T4, etc...

In all other cases, you have interpreted what they said as T-3.

Boyers put it below the upper margin of the scapula -- that's T3, Pat.

Jenkins described the wound as well below the throat wound which

corresponded to C7/T1.

Hill's description matches the bullet hole in the shirt and Bennett's

description matches the bullet hole in the jacket.

This is to say nothing of the statements of Jan Rudnicki, Floyd Riebe, Will Greer,

Roy Kellerman, Diana Bowron, and Edward Reed -- all indicating a location lower

on the back.

But the Sibert and O'Neill drawings, for example, place the wound exactly where it was on the face sheet, in line with the shoulder tip, which is T-1, T-2 at the lowest.

Look at where they put the back wound in relation to the throat wound:

well below.

The throat wound corresponded to C7/T1 and all of these witnesses

put the back wound well below that location.

You're not even logical. Clint Hill said "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column." You then bizarrely insist there was no way he could mistake 4 inches with 6 inches. This is ludicrous. People make this kind of mistake all day long.

They do? Anyone over 2 years old, Pat? And how many Secret Service agents

trained to make accurate observations are going to make that mistake, Pat?

Clint Hill was sent on a solemn mission to view JFK's wounds. Do you think

he was so totally out of it that he'd blow it that badly? Do you think he didn't

take this solemn charge seriously enough to be as accurate as possible?

This is the kind of witness bashing I decry. Grandstanders must impugn

the competency of every witness who saw the throat and back wounds.

Incredible!

You then prop up Bennett's approximation of "about 4 inches down from the right shoulder",

and assume he means 4 inches down on the clothes.

No, Pat. I point out the fact that the bullet hole in the jacket is four

inches below the bottom of the collar.

This is consistent with Bennett's report.

You have no rebuttal so you're trying to characterize these facts as opinion.

Well, what does Bennett mean by shoulder...the shoulder tip? The higher point where the shoulder muscles attach the neck? It is all too vague. YOU interpret Hill's "about 6 inches" and Bennett's "about 4 inches" to be the same location only because YOUR pet theory demands it.

No, Pat, I'm pointing out the consistency of Hill and Bennett and the factual location

of the holes in the clothes:

Bullet hole in the shirt: 5.75" below the top of the collar, consistent with Hill's

testimony of "about 6 inches" below the neckline.

Bullet hole in the jacket: 4.125" below the bottom of the jacket collar, consistent

with Bennett's testimony of "about 4 inches below the shoulder-line."

You have no physical evidence, you have no witness testimony, you have

nothing but serial, incessant witness bashing.

Everyone who saw JFK's wounds got it wrong?...So we need experts...?

Bollocks!

The back wound photo proves the bullet entrance was too low to support the single-bullet theory.

Sure, once we've trotted out the Grandstanding Experts who then can analyse

JFK's lean, the grade of Elm St., the position of Connally and blah blah blah.

The proven back wound at T3 requires no experts.

The throat entrance wound requires no experts.

Which is why you and Tink Thompson et al peddle this crap.

You guys want to be the "experts."

Edited January 11, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, you are the one who is trying to water down conspiracy evidence by needlessly arguing against the official findings

Pat, I think you need to ask yourself why you are needlessly bashing

witnesses who make the "official findings" moot.

[Cliff Varnell]

To further illustrate my point that "Government Disinformation Agents"

are the product of bogeyman-mongering, let's flip the argument around

this way:

Imagine George H. W. Bush huddling with David Atlee Phillips to design a

campaign of infiltration and contamination of the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Critical Research Community -- what would they do?

If I were them, I'd create 2 main factions.

1) The first faction would attack the credibility of the folks who witnessed

the prima facie evidence of conspiracy: the throat entrance wound

and/or the low back wound. "I am unwilling to say, unambiguously,

that the throat wound was an entry hole. Sounds reasonable to me..."

one would declare.

This group would staunchly defend the authenticity of the Dealey

Plaza photo evidence.

2) The second faction would attack the authenticity of the Dealey

Plaza photo evidence -- and stick up for the witnesses. "The entire

Zapruder film is fake," many would declare.

Then I'd have these two factions battle it out over a long line of issues,

generally pitting the Witness Evidence versus the Photo Evidence in

storms so intense that members of the Community start to line up

on one side or the other...

...Thus generating the impression that the witness testimony conflicts

with the photo evidence at key points (which it doesn't).

Then, for good measure I'd put the very best extant evidence

in the case -- JFK's shirt and jacket, the concrete, measurable evidence

of 4+ shooters -- and put it in the hands of some joker who just likes

to argue and set him loose for a decade on various JFK newsgroups

going over the clothing evidence tit-for-tat, point-by-point, driving the

best evidence in the case down a rabbit hole of False Equivalency.

To top it off, I'd make this clown a punk rocker, or a gambling house

degenerate, or both! And I'd make sure he had an arrogant, know-it-all

attitude and a penchant for ridicule.

Now that, gentle reader, is a Disinfo Campaign for the ages!

Edited January 12, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

To further illustrate my point that "Government Disinformation Agents"

are the product of bogeyman-mongering, let's flip the argument around

this way:

Imagine George H. W. Bush huddling with David Atlee Phillips to design a

campaign of infiltration and contamination of the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Critical Research Community -- what would they do?

If I were them, I'd create 2 main factions.

1) The first faction would attack the credibility of the folks who witnessed

the prima facie evidence of conspiracy: the throat entrance wound

and/or the low back wound. "I am unwilling to say, unambiguously,

that the throat wound was an entry hole. Sounds reasonable to me..."

one would declare.

This group would staunchly defend the authenticity of the Dealey

Plaza photo evidence.

2) The second faction would attack the authenticity of the Dealey

Plaza photo evidence -- and stick up for the witnesses. "The entire

Zapruder film is fake," many would declare.

Then I'd have these two factions battle it out over a long line of issues,

generally pitting the Witness Evidence versus the Photo Evidence in

storms so intense that members of the Community start to line up

on one side or the other...

...Thus generating the impression that the witness testimony conflicts

with the photo evidence at key points (which it doesn't).

Then, for good measure I'd put the very best extant evidence

in the case -- JFK's shirt and jacket, the concrete, measurable evidence

of 4+ shooters -- and put it in the hands of some joker who just likes

to argue and set him loose for a decade on various JFK newsgroups

going over the clothing evidence tit-for-tat, point-by-point, driving the

best evidence in the case down a rabbit hole of False Equivalency.

To top it off, I'd make this clown a punk rocker, or a gambling house

degenerate, or both! And I'd make sure he had an arrogant, know-it-all

attitude and a penchant for ridicule.

Now that, gentle reader, is a Disinfo Campaign for the ages!

That's certainly accurate speculation.

The conspirators who really killed JFK don't have to do anything other than make sure that the case is not handled like a normal homicide in which a grand jury reviews the evidence and indicts those suspects for trial.

That's all they have to do.

BK