Inside the ARRB, Vol. I, by Doug Horne

[Cliff Varnell]

So you're claiming my claiming the wound was at the same level or lower than the throat--something you agree with--was an attempt to muddy some truth--that the back wound was irrefutably at the T3 level--which you in your infinite wisdom have divined. Got it.

No, Pat, I definitely do not agree with you that "the wound as at the same level

or lower." The wound was irrefutably at T3. Why muddy the issue when you obviously

cannot make a fact-based argument for a wound at T1?

It's not my wisdom, finite or not. T3 is where the bullet holes in the clothes

are. It's where the death certificate and the autopsy face sheet -- both signed off

as "verified" -- place it. It's where more than a dozen witnesses place it.

Well, Cliff, news to you. No one outside yourself cares that you think Burkley's quick scrawling of T-3 has any real importance.

Where do you get "quick scrawling"? The death certificate was signed off as "verified."

Is denigrating witnesses your life's mission?

I mean, if he'd said it was at C-7 would that have affected your opinion on the back wound location?

A notation of the wound at C7 would have followed accepted military autopsy protocols.

In that case the notation would carry weight. But the death certificate didn't say C7,

it said T3. Consistent with other physical, documentary and eyewitness evidence.

Of course not.

Why of course not? Any properly prepared piece of medical evidence carries

weight.

Your problem, Pat, is that you've based your entire medical studies on improperly

prepared medical evidence. According to you improperly prepared evidence trumps

properly prepared evidence, a logical absurdity.

You only accept his guess of T-3 because it supports what you want to believe.

Why are you so desperate to personalize this?

The death certificate and the autopsy face sheet are consistent with the holes

in the clothes and the witness statements.

How could everyone who saw JFK's wounds get it wrong all in the same way?

According to Pat Speer everyone who saw the right rear head exit wound

got it wrong.

Everyone who saw the throat entrance wound got it wrong.

Everyone who saw the low back wound got it wrong.

Has there ever in human history been a gathering of incompetents/delusionals/liars

as there was in Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital on

11/22/63?

Okay, there's the Fort Wayne Indiana Tebagger Party...but other than that...

What people care about--and perhaps this is unfortunate--is the autopsy photos.

Here's what that HSCA panel you're fond of quoting said about the autopsy photos

(emphasis added):

(quote on)

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.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to

point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as

scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately

mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As

outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that,

had the case gone to trial, might have been effectively raised by an

astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as

evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity

of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

(quote off)

You don't seem to grasp the significance of point #3 above:

"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."

I believe the photos show the back wound around T-1,

But the HSCA concluded it was "difficult or impossible" to make that determination.

Now, this did not stop them from going ahead and making that determination anyway,

much to their enduring shame.

and that this is too low to support the SBT.

Because the wound was provably at T3, we have no need for your expert opinion

on a fantasy wound at T1.

The HSCA pathology panel agreed, and mused that Kennedy magically leaned forward and back within a split second while behind the sign in the Z-film. The trajectory panel also agreed, and moved the wound upward a few inches in order to make the SBT seem possible.

Do you agree? Does a wound at T-1 support the SBT, or not?

Moot point. The clothing holes, the properly prepared contemporaneous

documents, and the statements of over a dozen witnesses put the wound

in the vicinity of T3.

Because if you agree with me, and feel it does not, then how can you accuse me of confusing the issue and pushing something to which LNs agree, when this is more accurately a description of yourself?

Excuse me? How does pointing out the obvious fact that the wound was

at T3 push something the LNers agree with?

And you're missing a lot of my point -- this involves more than the SBT. You

are attempting to muddy the picture concerning the neck x-ray, which cannot be

properly interpreted unless you consider the actual location of the back

wound.

And yes, your jihad against the First Day Witnesses is no different than an LNers.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Bernice, thanks for posting this!

I think far too much attention has been paid to the remarks about

surgery to the top of the head, and not enough attention has been paid

to the following passage from the FBI autopsy report.

The FBI’s “Sibert and O’Neill Report”

Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

A wound in the back, shallow, no exit, no bullet recovered.

A wound in the throat which, according to the neck x-ray, left a bruised

lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an

air-pocket under the skin overlaying C7 and T1. No exit. No bullet recovered.

The autopsists suspected non-conventional weaponry, and James Sibert called

the FBI Lab to find out if non-conventional weaponry could explain this mystery.

Indeed, non-conventional weaponry wherein the target is paralyzed in two

seconds is consistent with the apparent paralysis JFK suffered in about

two seconds from Z190 to Z230.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

Edited June 26, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

The death certificate and the autopsy face sheet are consistent with the holes

in the clothes and the witness statements.

Nice, except for the pesky and unimpeachable fact that there was a 3+ inch fold in JFK's jacket in Betzner....

Oh silly me, thinking Varnell had the honesty to accept this fact. Of course if he did his fantasy goes down in flames...

[Cliff Varnell]

Back to Captain Queeg Lamson and the elusive Teabagger Bunch...not as popular

as the comedy of Judyth Vary Baker, but a real hoot nonetheless!

The death certificate and the autopsy face sheet are consistent with the holes

in the clothes and the witness statements.

Nice, except for the pesky and unimpeachable fact that there was a 3+ inch fold in JFK's jacket in Betzner....

Oh silly me, thinking Varnell had the honesty to accept this fact. Of course if he did his fantasy goes down in flames...

The Towner photo below clearly shows the top of the jacket fold well below the top

of the jacket collar.

How did JFK's shirt and jacket hike up 3 inches in less than 10 seconds?

Lamson can't produce a photo demonstrating what 3+ inches bunched fabric looks

like, and he can't explain how JFK's shirt and jacket did the Lamson Leap in

10 seconds.

[Craig Lamson]

Poor Varnell, stuck up crap creek with out his "the jacket fell paddle"

No need to try and divine how a fold might or might not have gotten anywhere. Why? Because it’s all speculation. That’s Varnell's stock in trade. Forget the facts, he has a FANTASY to try and protect.

We don't really need to care how the fold on the JFK’s back came to be in Betzner, because it is an unimpeachable fact that it is there. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence demand it.

Of course that is a death knell for Varnell and his decade’s long fantasy. Forget his handwaving and blovation, Forget his sorry attempts to appeal to authority. Speculation will no longer cut it. Varnell MUST now deal in fact.

The fact is that SOMETHING is obscuring the jacket collar in Betzner and creating a dark shape on his left shoulder. It is a FACT that this SOMETHING must be BETWEEN the jacket collar and the camera, because the shadow from JFK's neck MUST extend down and fall over the shirt collar, the jacket collar and the jacket back. WHY? Because the unbendable natural laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence demands it to be so. This is unimpeachable. That shadow stops at the shirt collar. It is not seen falling over the jacket collar and jacket back. Again unimpeachable fact. If we can't see it, something is keeping it from the cameras view.

The ONLY way to obscure the neck shadow the must fall over the jacket collar and the jacket back is for jacket fabric to be folded and to rise to the level of the top of the collar. That fold MUST be 3+ inches to cover the jacket collar. Since the shadow on the jacket collar and jacket back is obscured, it is unimpeachable that the fold exists.

Experimental, empirical testing has confirmed that only a large horizontal fold can create the effect seen in Betzner. And what do we see in Betzner? A large horizontal fold.

It's all unimpeachable.

Of course that’s why we have Varnell wildly waving his hands, stomping his feet and telling flat out falsehoods. He can't deal honestly with the truth that he has been wrong for a decade. His fantasy, in which he is fully vested, has been blown away right from under his feet. His theory is 6 feet under.

All he can try to do is to try and deflect from his personal failure. He is failing at that too. He can't go backwards to his past claims because the argument has moved past his. His speculation and handwaving no longer matter. The argument is now about the UNBENDING NATURAL LAWS OF LIGHT, SHADOW AND ANGLE OF INCIDENCE.

Varnell has no more cards to deal. He’s finished.

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff, you just don't get it.

You are absent 30+ years experience looking at shadows, properties of light and angle of incidence to even understand what your eyes are telling you. Leave it to Craig. He knows best.

When in actual fact he's like the ER doctor who told me in 2006 that my femur that was broken in three places was actually a "dead-leg." Sometimes "credentials" don't mean a damn thing.

Lee

Tell you what Lee, have a go at proving me wrong. God knows Cliff needs the help. It's really quite simple. The unbendabvle lasws of light and shadow and angle of incidence dictate a certain and specfic arrangement of fabric on JFKS back to produce the effect as seen in Betzner and as highlighted in the photo below. A 3= inch fold of fabricv fits the bill perfectly.

If I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it.

All you need to do is show us something else that can produce the exact same effect that is NOT a 3+ inch fold of fabric.

Have at it Lee. Heck ANYBODY have at it. Cliff needs the help...badly.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, you have zero evidence that Burkley ever inspected Kennedy's wounds long enough or closely enough to establish the thoracic level at which the back wound resided. And none of the other witnesses noted at which level it resided. In short, there is no reason to believe the wound was at T-3, as opposed to T-1, other than you find it inconvenient to your theory...

Your refusal to acknowledge we agree on the significance of the back wound but for one detail--I agree with the majority of the experts to look at the wound and say it was at T-1, T-2 at the lowest, and you strangely insist it was at T-3--only showcases your obsession with your pet...

As does your insistence that you don't agree with me that the back wound was at or lower than the throat wound, when, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking the throat wound could be as low as T-4, you do...

So, I ask once again--do you think the wound being at T-1 supports the single-bullet theory?

If so, then why do you think every single-bullet theorist--from Humes to Lattimer to Canning to Myers to McAdams--has lied about its location?

P.S. the back wound location can not be established by the neck x-ray. Where do you get this stuff?

Edited June 27, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Poor Varnell, stuck up crap creek with out his "the jacket fell paddle"

When are you going to show us what 3+ of elevated shirt + jacket fabric

looks like?

And the fabric must be "bunched," not "pulled" which is the exact opposite

movement.

Why don't you explain to us how the top of the fold in Towner went from the

bottom of the jacket collar to the top of the collar in 10 seconds?

No need to try and divine how a fold might or might not have gotten anywhere. Why? Because it’s all speculation. That’s Varnell's stock in trade. Forget the facts, he has a FANTASY to try and protect.

We don't really need to care how the fold on the JFK’s back came to be in Betzner, because it is an unimpeachable fact that it is there. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence demand it.

Show us what 3+" of bunched shirt and jacket look like.

Why is that so hard for you to produce, Craig? Don't roll the fabric, or pull the fabric,

replicate your claims with "bunched" fabric and show us what it looks like.

What's the matter, Craig? Find the task impossible?

Edited June 27, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Back to Captain Queeg Lamson and the elusive Teabagger Bunch...not as popular

as the comedy of Judyth Vary Baker, but a real hoot nonetheless!

The death certificate and the autopsy face sheet are consistent with the holes

in the clothes and the witness statements.

Nice, except for the pesky and unimpeachable fact that there was a 3+ inch fold in JFK's jacket in Betzner....

Oh silly me, thinking Varnell had the honesty to accept this fact. Of course if he did his fantasy goes down in flames...

The Towner photo below clearly shows the top of the jacket fold well below the top

of the jacket collar.

How did JFK's shirt and jacket hike up 3 inches in less than 10 seconds?

Lamson can't produce a photo demonstrating what 3+ inches bunched fabric looks

like, and he can't explain how JFK's shirt and jacket did the Lamson Leap in

10 seconds.

Cliff, you just don't get it.

You are absent 30+ years experience looking at shadows, properties of light and angle of incidence to even understand what your eyes are telling you. Leave it to Craig. He knows best.

When in actual fact he's like the ER doctor who told me in 2006 that my femur that was broken in three places was actually a "dead-leg." Sometimes "credentials" don't mean a damn thing.

Lee

Craig's primary purpose here is push-back against the argument that JFK

was murdered by a right-wing conspiracy. The facts of the case do not

matter to Mr. Lamson.

That the Towner photo shows an insignificant fold of fabric ten seconds

before the shooting does not matter to him.

That he cannot replicate his claims does not matter to him.

He pretends to objectivity while trying leverage to his "credentials" to

assume the mantle of "authority."

This is beyond intellectual dishonesty -- it's politically motivated intellectual

corruption.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, you have zero evidence that Burkley ever inspected Kennedy's wounds long enough or closely enough to establish the thoracic level at which the back wound resided.

Once we subtract the fact that the death certificate was signed off as "verified,"

subtract the location of the holes in the clothes, &the properly prepared portion

of the autopsy face sheet signed off as "verified," &the wound diagrams of Sibert,

O'Neill, Greer, Kellerman, &the WC testimony of Clint Hill, &Glenn Bennett's

contemporaneous notes, &Chester Boyers sworn affidavit, &James Curtis Jenkins'

statements to David Lifton, &John Ebersole's statement to David Mantik, &Floyd Reibe's,

Diana Bowron's, Gail Jan Rudnicki's, Edward Reed's statements to Harrison Livingston --

subtract all of that and yes, we have zero evidence Burkley was sentient that day...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15770&view=findpost&p=190014

And none of the other witnesses noted at which level it resided.

Ebersole put it at T4, but that's beside the point. Burkley's death

certificate was a properly prepared, contemporaneous document which matches

another properly prepared contemporaneous document, the portion of the autopsy

face sheet filled out in pencil.

Both marked "verified."

In short, there is no reason to believe the wound was at T-3, as opposed to T-1, other than you find it inconvenient to your theory...

In short, you are projecting. There is no credible reason to believe the wound

was at T1, and your attempts to polish the autopsy turds find no purchase in fact.

Your refusal to acknowledge we agree on the significance of the back wound but for one detail--I agree with the majority of the experts to look at the wound and say it was at T-1, T-2 at the lowest, and you strangely insist it was at T-3--only showcases your obsession with your pet...

You look to the majority of experts while ignoring the overwhelming majority

of actual witnesses? Not only are you insisting that improperly prepared

evidence trumps properly prepared evidence, but the opinions of "experts" trump

actual eyewitnesses.

Simply amazing...

As does your insistence that you don't agree with me that the back wound was at or lower than the throat wound, when, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking the throat wound could be as low as T-4, you do...

Dr. John Ebersole and the autopsy face sheet put the wound closer to T4 than T3.

And somehow this becomes "my" theory?

I find it interesting that you have a penchant for ascribing to one Cliff Varnell

the witness statements of those on the scene on 11/22/63. I wasn't there, so why

you put this evidence on me is a mystery.

Very strange rhetorical approach, I must say.

So, I ask once again--do you think the wound being at T-1 supports the single-bullet theory?

John McAdams claims it does.

Why are you ignoring the facts of the case to give ammunition to John McAdams?

If so, then why do you think every single-bullet theorist--from Humes to Lattimer to Canning to Myers to McAdams--has lied about its location?

Everyone who puts the wound at T-1 or higher is lying misinforming about its location.

P.S. the back wound location can not be established by the neck x-ray. Where do you get this stuff?

I didn't say the back wound location was established by the x-ray. I said it

was crucial to know the back wound was at T3 in order to correctly analyze

the neck x-ray.

This issue involves more than the SBT, Pat.

What caused the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process,

and the subcutaneous air pocket overlaying C7 and T1?

Since the back wound was at T3 we can say for certain that it was

a throat entrance projectile.

Solves all manner of "mysteries" in the case. False mysteries.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Poor Varnell, stuck up crap creek with out his "the jacket fell paddle"

When are you going to show us what 3+ of elevated shirt + jacket fabric

looks like?

Here you go again Cliff...I have no idea what the shirt looks like (neither do you

And the fabric must be "bunched," not "pulled" which is the exact opposite

movement.

So you say, yet you have offered nothing but your endless speculation that this must be the case. How about offering the proof for a change instead flapping your arms like a dodo bird?

BTW, explain in detail WHY a fold will look different if it is created by simply laying one section of fabric on top of another, if the fold is pulled upwards or if the fold is pushed upward. You will need to provide us with cites to back your claims. The standard VARNELL handwaving will no longer apply.

In any case, I have no clue HOW the fabric moved ( neither do you, since you were not there) but here you go..again.

see above for photo

Why don't you explain to us how the top of the fold in Towner went from the

bottom of the jacket collar to the top of the collar in 10 seconds?

Did it? Its YOUR claim that the jacket was not folded to the top of the collar in Towner. WHy not PROVE that to be the case? This shoud be quite intersting. Prove the fold in Towner is NOT the same as ths fold....

See Betzner photo above

No need to try and divine how a fold might or might not have gotten anywhere. Why? Because it’s all speculation. That’s Varnell's stock in trade. Forget the facts, he has a FANTASY to try and protect.

We don't really need to care how the fold on the JFK’s back came to be in Betzner, because it is an unimpeachable fact that it is there. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence demand it.

Show us what 3+" of bunched shirt and jacket look like.

Here you go AGAIN.. I have no idea what the shirt looks like (neither do you.

Why is that so hard for you to produce, Craig? Don't roll the fabric, or pull the fabric,

replicate your claims with "bunched" fabric and show us what it looks like.

But I have Cliff, you just don't like the results. Not if you can refute them with something other than your norrmal handwaving ignorance, please do. I for one would find it quite entertaining. But you won't of course, because you can't You have no more cards to deal, and your argument is dead.

What's the matter, Craig? Find the task impossible?

Been there done that Cliff, you just can't deal with the truth

All of this funny little Varnell side show leaves us right where we started before Varnell tried so poorly to deflect from his failed position.

There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. NOTHING else can produce the effect seen in Betzner BUT a 3+ inch fold of fabric. This is UNIMPEACHABLE.

Despite his continued attempts to spin the argument away from this final point. it still remains unchallenged.

Vanell cannot impeach this fact.

There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back In Betzner.

Varnell has lost.

It's game over cliffy, and THATS entertainment!

Edited June 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

When are you going to show us what 3+ of elevated shirt + jacket fabric

looks like?

Here you go again Cliff...I have no idea what the shirt looks like (neither do you

We sure do know what the shirt looks like. It has a bullet hole in it 4" below

the bottom of the collar.

The jacket has a bullet hole in it 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

You are claiming that the jacket was elevated 3+ inches. Therefore the shirt

also had to be elevated 3+ inches.

Is this too complicated for you?

The Towner photo, taken 10 seconds before Betzner, clearly shows an insignficant

fold in the back of the jacket.

Since YOU are the one making the claim that the shirt and jacket were elevated

3+ inches 10 seconds later -- show us what 3+ inches of bunched shirt and

jacket look like.

Explain how the shirt and jacket jacked up JFK's back in 10 seconds.

YOU make the claim, the burden of proof is on YOU.

Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like.

And since no one pulled up on JFK's clothing, don't use your hands.

What's the matter, Craig? Find it impossible?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

If you think what the HSCA said about the autopsy photos is enough to give one pause, wait until you see what Stringer said about the pictures of what purports to be Kennedy's brain.

Its in Horne Vol. 3, and I think this may be the highlight of the whole series so far.

Can't wait to hear the hue and cry about that.

Jim, I haven't read IARRB, but everything I read about it gives me the impression that Horne

does not address the killing of JFK, but rather the cover-up of the killing. Any kind

of "alteration" theory addresses the cover-up, not the killing.

I find this of minor importance. We already know who directed the cover-up.

From Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4186&pid=31073&mode=threaded&start=#entry31073

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

(quote on)

On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the

identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the

duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick.

(quoite off)

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the

lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence

in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open.

Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the

highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime

of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia

nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to

using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do

its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending

that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who

was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was

prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the

Mafia and/or renegade elements.

Bundy was a blue-blood who took orders from other blue-bloods.

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pgs 334-5:

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York,

W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960,

President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate

“with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of

all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide

William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting

the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments

secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor,

was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president.

He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the

White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

And who showed up at the White House mere minutes after LBJ's arrival

the evening of 11/22/63?

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

The Oswald-lone-nut cover-up was created at the highest levels of the American

ruling elite, and all Horne is doing is mucking around in the lower levels of

this cover-up and pretending its a big deal.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

Cliff:

If you think what the HSCA said about the autopsy photos is enough to give one pause, wait until you see what Stringer said about the pictures of what purports to be Kennedy's brain.

Its in Horne Vol. 3, and I think this may be the highlight of the whole series so far.

Can't wait to hear the hue and cry about that.

Jim, I haven't read IARRB, but everything I read about it gives me the impression that Horne

does not address the killing of JFK, but rather the cover-up of the killing. Any kind

of "alteration" theory addresses the cover-up, not the killing.

I find this of minor importance. We already know who directed the cover-up.

From Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforu...art=#entry31073

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

(quote on)

On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the

identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the

duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick.

(quoite off)

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the

lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence

in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open.

Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the

highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime

of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia

nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to

using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do

its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending

that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who

was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was

prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the

Mafia and/or renegade elements.

Bundy was a blue-blood who took orders from other blue-bloods.

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pgs 334-5:

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York,

W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960,

President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate

“with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of

all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide

William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting

the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments

secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor,

was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president.

He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the

White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

And who showed up at the White House mere minutes after LBJ's arrival

the evening of 11/22/63?

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

The Oswald-lone-nut cover-up was created at the highest levels of the American

ruling elite, and all Horne is doing is mucking around in the lower levels of

this cover-up and pretending its a big deal.

Since you haven't read Horne's book you wouldn't know that he does indeed mucks around over the missing

AF1 radio communication tapes, and doesn't pretend anything is a big deal.

BK

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

If you think what the HSCA said about the autopsy photos is enough to give one pause, wait until you see what Stringer said about the pictures of what purports to be Kennedy's brain.

Its in Horne Vol. 3, and I think this may be the highlight of the whole series so far.

Can't wait to hear the hue and cry about that.

Jim, I haven't read IARRB, but everything I read about it gives me the impression that Horne

does not address the killing of JFK, but rather the cover-up of the killing. Any kind

of "alteration" theory addresses the cover-up, not the killing.

I find this of minor importance. We already know who directed the cover-up.

From Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforu...art=#entry31073

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

(quote on)

On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the

identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the

duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick.

(quoite off)

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the

lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence

in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open.

Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the

highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime

of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia

nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to

using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do

its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending

that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who

was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was

prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the

Mafia and/or renegade elements.

Bundy was a blue-blood who took orders from other blue-bloods.

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pgs 334-5:

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York,

W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960,

President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate

“with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of

all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide

William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting

the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments

secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor,

was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president.

He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the

White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

And who showed up at the White House mere minutes after LBJ's arrival

the evening of 11/22/63?

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

The Oswald-lone-nut cover-up was created at the highest levels of the American

ruling elite, and all Horne is doing is mucking around in the lower levels of

this cover-up and pretending its a big deal.

Since you haven't read Horne's book you wouldn't know that he does indeed mucks around over the missing

AF1 radio communication tapes, and doesn't pretend anything is a big deal.

BK

Doesn't he assert that the killing itself was designed around the framing of Oswald

as a lone nut?

Correct me if I'm wrong.