Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Cliff Varnell]

David:

Now that you are done venting your spleen over everyone who disagrees with your theory, let me pose a question:

Are you still trying to discredit Glenn Bennet and Diana Bowron, who both saw the hole in Kennedy's back before the Secret Service swept the body out of Parkland?

They are both good witnesses for our side, right? But not for your theory. So are you still going to try and smear them?

There's a blood lust in many quarters of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community to turn witnesses into perps.

In the case of the back-wound-fabrication theory Bennet had to have been in on both the planning of the killing and the execution of the cover-up, since his contemporaneous notes were taken independent of the "control of the body."

The notion that the people who planned JFK's murder also controlled the cover-up is factually unsupportable.

There were two cover-ups afoot in the hours after the assassination -- Fidel was behind it, or Oswald acted alone. The latter quickly prevailed at the highest levels of the US government. It would not surprise if the people pushing the Fidel-did-it line were JFK's killers as well.

But David Lifton seems to argue that body alteration was the plan all along, rather than a rushed, make-it-up-as-we-go-along contingency. In which case a lot of valuable witnesses are cast as perps, which is a real shame, in my book.

[Paul Rigby]

David:

Now that you are done venting your spleen over everyone who disagrees with your theory, let me pose a question:

Are you still trying to discredit Glenn Bennet and Diana Bowron, who both saw the hole in Kennedy's back before the Secret Service swept the body out of Parkland?

They are both good witnesses for our side, right? But not for your theory. So are you still going to try and smear them?

Bowron came from Derbyshire in the UK, the same county as Maurice Oldfield, the MI6 station-chief in Washington, 1960-63. I've long wondered if there was a family - or professional - connection. Bowron's WC testimony left me scratching my head the first time I read it: Was Texas/the US really so short of nurses, even specialists in the emergency room, that it needed to hire in the UK? Curious.

Mr. SPECTER - Thank you. Are you a native of Dallas, or of some other area?

Miss BOWRON - I am a native of England.

Mr. SPECTER - And how long have you been in Dallas?

Miss BOWRON - Since August 4, 1963.

Mr. SPECTER - And what are the circumstances surrounding your employment here at Parkland Memorial Hospital?

Miss BOWRON - I answered an advertisement in August and came over on a year's contract and to work in the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER - Are you a registered nurse?

Miss BOWRON - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And what is your educational background?

Miss BOWRON - I went to private boarding school and to secondary school, and then I went through nurses' training for 3 years and 3 months in England. I finished in February of last year.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowron.htm

Bennett's testimony is about as trustworthy as Kellerman's (or Greer's).

[Cliff Varnell]

David:

Now that you are done venting your spleen over everyone who disagrees with your theory, let me pose a question:

Are you still trying to discredit Glenn Bennet and Diana Bowron, who both saw the hole in Kennedy's back before the Secret Service swept the body out of Parkland?

They are both good witnesses for our side, right? But not for your theory. So are you still going to try and smear them?

Bowron came from Derbyshire in the UK, the same county as Maurice Oldfield, the MI6 station-chief in Washington, 1960-63. I've long wondered if there was a family - or professional - connection. Bowron's WC testimony left me scratching my head the first time I read it: Was Texas/the US really so short of nurses, even specialists in the emergency room, that it needed to hire in the UK? Curious.

Mr. SPECTER - Thank you. Are you a native of Dallas, or of some other area?

Miss BOWRON - I am a native of England.

Mr. SPECTER - And how long have you been in Dallas?

Miss BOWRON - Since August 4, 1963.

Mr. SPECTER - And what are the circumstances surrounding your employment here at Parkland Memorial Hospital?

Miss BOWRON - I answered an advertisement in August and came over on a year's contract and to work in the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER - Are you a registered nurse?

Miss BOWRON - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And what is your educational background?

Miss BOWRON - I went to private boarding school and to secondary school, and then I went through nurses' training for 3 years and 3 months in England. I finished in February of last year.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowron.htm

Bennett's testimony is about as trustworthy as Kellerman's (or Greer's).

It wasn't Bennet's testimony that matters, it was his contemporaneous notes. He wrote up seeing the back wound independently of the actions of those who were controlling the body and the cover-up.

Kellerman described the probing of the back wound with no exit, and said that the three-shot scenario didn't happen, too many shots.

Why didn't these guys go with the "official version"?

[Cliff Varnell]

Emphasis added:

Again: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house.

And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession.

That, ultimately, is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window.

DSL

1/22/11, 3:40 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Apples and oranges.

Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK.

The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK.

The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged.

The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Rigby]

Oh no RIgby's back.

Yeah I know what you mean Paul.

Glen won't say Greer shot Kennedy.

Still trying to keep the focus away from the SS, are you, Jim?

Reckon its working?

[Daniel Gallup]

David:

Now that you are done venting your spleen over everyone who disagrees with your theory, let me pose a question:

Are you still trying to discredit Glenn Bennet and Diana Bowron, who both saw the hole in Kennedy's back before the Secret Service swept the body out of Parkland?

They are both good witnesses for our side, right? But not for your theory. So are you still going to try and smear them?

Jim, I don't think anyone is out to smear Bowron and Bennett. In BE Lifton claims between Willis 5 and Algens photo taken around Z 255, that Bennett was facing to the right. I find the arugment on 284-5 of BE calm, calculated, and detached, the way an investigator should proceed. These claims can be easily checked; have you done so? On Bowron, what makes me nervous about her testimony to the back wound is that it comes so late after the assassination -- not from her WC testimony where she said she saw only the one wound, but years later to Harrison Livingston. When Lifton wrote BE, for example, Bowron had made no comment about the back wound, prompting him to ask if the nurses, Bowron and Henchcliffe, who washed the body, would have missed it (192). Nurse Henchcliffe, to my knowledge, made no mention of the wound, nor the orderly David Sanders who assisted them. Nurses Pat Hutton and Doris Nelson may also have been with the body at that time; in sum it is very odd that after washing the body there was no report of the back wound. All of this, at the very least, should be raising eyebrows. Respectfully, Daniel

[Cliff Varnell]

Jim, I don't think anyone is out to smear Bowron and Bennett. In BE Lifton claims between Willis 5 and Algens photo taken around Z 255, that Bennett was facing to the right. I find the arugment on 284-5 of BE calm, calculated, and detached, the way an investigator should proceed. These claims can be easily checked; have you done so?

Bennet was turned to the right-front in both those photos. I think Lifton severely underestimates Bennet's field of vision. Besides, we don't know when JFK was struck in the back. Bennet put it between the first shot and the head shot. As I say, great conspiracy witness.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Daniel Gallup]

Emphasis added:

Again: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house.

And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession.

That, ultimately, is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window.

DSL

1/22/11, 3:40 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Apples and oranges.

Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK.

The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK.

The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged.

The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue.

The more elaborate theories of which you speak, argue that it's not "apples and oranges," but instead the plotters plan to murder the president included their intention of hiding their involvment and framing a patsy. This could only happen through the planting of evidence and removing evidence of frontal shots from the President's body, which meant bullet retrieval and wound obliteration/alteration/fabrication. If you accept evidence planting and if you accept some degree of wound alteration, how do you suppose this was pulled off as if on the fly? As if around 1:00 p.m., when the President was declared dead, no one had any idea of how and whom to frame, and then it just "came" to the plotters to plant evidence and falsify the wounds? In other words, if you accept wound alteration, it seems to this reader you open yourself up to the idea that there were larger machinations going on, considered before hand, as part of the crime. As OReilly would say, "Tell me where I'm going wrong." Best, Daniel

[David Lifton]

David:

Now that you are done venting your spleen over everyone who disagrees with your theory, let me pose a question:

Are you still trying to discredit Glenn Bennet and Diana Bowron, who both saw the hole in Kennedy's back before the Secret Service swept the body out of Parkland?

They are both good witnesses for our side, right? But not for your theory. So are you still going to try and smear them?

Jim, as if often the case, you again display your ignorance of the record.

Bowron testified she saw two wounds—one at the back of the head, and the other at the front of the throat.. Here is the key quote from her deposition:

Specter: Did you notice any other wound on the President’s body?

Bowron: No, sir.

Citation: 3/24/64; Vol 6 p 136

End of story.

FYI: I have no idea how Harry Livingstone got Borwon to say something else, in the 1990s, but I do know how Livingstone behaves, in general, because I have a clear record of his screwball questioning of Paul O’Connor, who called me up personally to complain about his behavior, and his attempts to get O’Connor to deny the basic element of his own experience that evening: that Kennedy’s body arrived in a body bag. Then an associate of his, dismayed at his behavior, sent me the transcripts.

So, I’m sorry DiEugenio—its back to basics. You’re a history teacher—right? Why don’t you start with the testimony of Bowron taken by Specter in March, 1964, and not information that Harry claims to have elicited 30 years later.

As to Glenn Bennett, I addressed this question in BEST EVIDENCE: Glenn Bennett was not looking at Kennedy at the time—that is clear from Willis Slide 5. More important, even Specter was suspicious, and if you follow the correspondence trail, Bennett’s handwritten statements were not provided to the Warren Commission until May, 1964.

But neither Bennett nor Bowron are really the issue. Because my post does not address the entry wounds, but rather the large head wound and the throat wound, for which there is plentiful evidence --in each of those two cases--on which to base a conclusion on the basic issue: whether there was body alteration.

That is the key issue.

DSL

1/22/10, 1:10 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Ron Ecker]

In BE Lifton claims between Willis 5 and Algens photo taken around Z 255, that Bennett was facing to the right.

Lifton also explains that Bennett's "original notes," written on AF1 on 11/22/63, were forwarded with a letter from SS chief Rowley to the WC, with Rowley explicitly pointing out to the WC that the notes referred to the back wound before the nature of JFK's wounds was generally known. Apparently we have only the word of Rowley that these were original notes written on 11/22/63, notes conveniently referring to a wound that Bennett alone saw occur when not even looking in that direction.

[David Lifton]

To Cliff Varnell:

Let me assure you that I have no desire to turn witnesses into perps. But its just a plain fact that, in the Kennedy case, and in dealing with some of the key agents, you're dealing with a non-reactive Secret Service.

The notion that those who planned Kennedy's murder planned in advance to control the body is eminently supportable. Its the opposite position--that this is all "after the fact"--that is both illogical and unsupportable.

By the way: the bullet planted on the stretcher was an act that occurred within 30 minutes of JFK's arrival at Parkland Hospital: that does not sound to me like a "make-it-up-as-we-go-along contingency". At Parkland Hospital, before Kennedy's death was announced?

And what about the fact that a bullet also "fell to the floor" or some such thing, in connection with the JC medical treatment (per Nurse Wester). Is that also part of the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along-contingency."

Of course, we haven't here addressed such larger issues as: Do you really believe that Lee Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, ended up in the Texas School Book Depository by accident? (And that is just one critical thread to the story; Or is that to be considered coincidence?)

And if your response is that someone dreamed up the idea of having his person "on site," then how, may I ask, was he supposed to be implicated, if there was not preparations made, in advance, to do so?

Do you think the plan was to yell "Hey, Castro did it!" and that then the entire Government would just fall into line, and falsify the evidence, out of convenience? And in a supposed "rush to falsify" to avoid international complications? (Some plot!)

No, I'm not turning witnesses into perps. I'm seeking a logical explanation of the events.

DSL

1/22/11; 1:25 PM

[Cliff Varnell]

Emphasis added:

Again: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house.

And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession.

That, ultimately, is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window.

DSL

1/22/11, 3:40 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Apples and oranges.

Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK.

The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK.

The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged.

The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue.

The more elaborate theories of which you speak, argue that it's not "apples and oranges," but instead the plotters plan to murder the president included their intention of hiding their involvment and framing a patsy.

They were framing a patsy...as what? An operative in a Communist conspiracy commissioned by Castro, or as a wacko lone nut?

Lifton argues that it was the intention of the killers to frame Oswald as a lone nut, but I'd argue that there is much more significant evidence that the killers intended to frame Oswald as an agent of a Communist conspiracy.

This could only happen through the planting of evidence and removing evidence of frontal shots from the President's body, which meant bullet retrieval and wound obliteration/alteration/fabrication.

NOT if Oswald was part of a Communist conspiracy. If the killers could have made that scenario the "official" version then there would have been no need for "obliteration/alteration/fabrication," would there? They could have explained the evidence of multiple shooters by claiming that Oswald had Commie confederates still at large.

If you accept evidence planting and if you accept some degree of wound alteration, how do you suppose this was pulled off as if on the fly?

Three-card monte with the caskets, quick pre-autopsy surgery to the head and throat.

As if around 1:00 p.m., when the President was declared dead, no one had any idea of how and whom to frame, and then it just "came" to the plotters to plant evidence and falsify the wounds?

You're assuming that the plotters ordered the wounds falsified. I contend that the plotters wanted to prove conspiracy-- as long it involved Fidel.

When Oswald was captured alive, the plotters lost control of the cover-up.

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, ppg 311-2, emphasis added:

SUMMARY [Chapt. 15]

Among the difficulties in understanding the Kennedy conspiracy, perhaps the most challenging is reconciling the many elements that appear to be contradictory. This has been made even more difficult for those who have viewed the "cover-up" as an extension of the conspiracy. That difficulty disappears if we first view the conspiracy to frame Oswald as a Castro(or both Cuba and Soviet associated) conspirator, a plan that came totally unraveled when Oswald was taken into custody. And second, we see that the so-called "cover-up" was an independent, largely unplanned and highly reactive effort to ensure that a Lee Oswald would [take] the fall by himself--as a lone nut.

We may have a [more] descriptive term than "cover-up", see how much sense it makes when you picture it as "damage control."

* The plot was to show the US President being killed by a Castro sponsored conspiracy.

* The plotters were unable to execute their full plan due to Oswald's capture.

* Due to Oswald's role as an intelligence dangle and his contact with Kostikov, the initial appearance was still that Oswald might have been acting as a Communist dupe.

* Both the FBI and CIA were aware of the Kostikov implications; when, how, and if they shared this information with the new President is unclear.

* Lyndon Johnson personally led the official cover-up to eliminate any public suggestion of conspiracy while leveraging confidential information and the threat of war to make the cover-up work.

* The "lone nut" was a creation of the official cover-up, not of the Kennedy plot.

* The plotters' follow-on efforts to maintain conspiracy were overwhelmed by Johnson.

Johnson's motivation in the cover-up remains uncertain, partially because the historical record has been sanitized to remove any items that would reveal a discussion of conspiracy...

In other words, if you accept wound alteration, it seems to this reader you open yourself up to the idea that there were larger machinations going on, considered before hand, as part of the crime. As OReilly would say, "Tell me where I'm going wrong." Best, Daniel

Of course there were "larger machinations" involved -- it took a lot of effort to put Oswald into a position to be framed as a Communist agent. He didn't co-operate sufficiently, and his capture thwarted the larger plot.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[David Lifton]

Emphasis added:

Again: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house.

And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession.

That, ultimately, is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window.

DSL

1/22/11, 3:40 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Apples and oranges.

Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK.

The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK.

The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged.

The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue.

CLIFF,

IMHO: You have erected an entirely artificial distinction between what's after-the-fact and what's "before the fact". I understand the necessity to categorize when analyzing a complex factual situation, but I respectfully submit that your categories are not just wrong, but thoroughly incorrect. Because of that, your analysis fails to perceive patterns, and detect data, that is "before the fact".

I can't do justice to this in an email.

I'd be curious as to your view as to how "the perps" who designed this to look like a Castro conspiracy, expected the medical and ballistics evidence to support that thesis, without considerable preparation and some advance planning in that area. Surely, you don't believe they intended to simply exclaim "Castro did it!" and then expect numerous government agencies and people to fall in line? (Or do you in fact believe something along those lines?). Perhaps you can inform us.

DSL

[Cliff Varnell]

To Cliff Varnell:

Let me assure you that I have no desire to turn witnesses into perps. But its just a plain fact that, in the Kennedy case, and in dealing with some of the key agents, you're dealing with a non-reactive Secret Service.

Some of those guys stated/testified to facts that contradicted the official version. If there was a seamless conspiracy to employ these guys and help set-up a lone nut patsy, why do the statements/testimonies of Kellerman, Bennet and Clint Hill directly contradict the three-shot scenario?

The notion that those who planned Kennedy's murder planned in advance to control the body is eminently supportable. Its the opposite position--that this is all "after the fact"--that is both illogical and unsupportable.

Assertions are easy to make; actual arguments are another matter.

By the way: the bullet planted on the stretcher was an act that occurred within 30 minutes of JFK's arrival at Parkland Hospital: that does not sound to me like a "make-it-up-as-we-go-along contingency". At Parkland Hospital, before Kennedy's death was announced?

Framing Oswald as a shooter isn't the same thing as framing Oswald as a lone shooter.

The part that was "make-it-up-as-we-go-along" was the framing of Oswald as a lone shooter, not Oswald as one of several Castro agents.

And what about the fact that a bullet also "fell to the floor" or some such thing, in connection with the JC medical treatment (per Nurse Wester). Is that also part of the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along-contingency."

How does that set up Oswald, or anyone, as a lone shooter?

Of course, we haven't here addressed such larger issues as: Do you really believe that Lee Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, ended up in the Texas School Book Depository by accident? (And that is just one critical thread to the story; Or is that to be considered coincidence?)

Of course not. He was sheep-dipped as a Communist agent, and if he hadn't been captured alive they might have made it stick-- in which case JFK's body would not need to be altered.

And if your response is that someone dreamed up the idea of having his person "on site," then how, may I ask, was he supposed to be implicated, if there was not preparations made, in advance, to do so?

Implicated as a Castro agent. Implicated as one shooter in a conspiracy of Commies. The wounds didn't need to be altered until the word came from the White House Situation Room a few hours after the killing that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Do you think the plan was to yell "Hey, Castro did it!" and that then the entire Government would just fall into line, and falsify the evidence, out of convenience?

No, Oswald needed to be killed soon after Kennedy for the plotters to start yelling, "Hey, Castro did it!" Then Hoover could have brought out his phony Oswald file as suggested in the following:

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 288:

4:19 PM, Hoover memo related that he had told RFK that the killer has "Communist leanings" and is a "very mean-minded individual." Hoover also related and confirmed again in a 5:15 PM memo that the subject Oswald "went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for." It is true that Hoover did pass on what appears to be some early misinformation about real time events in Dallas but it is hard to interpret the Cuba reference as a mistake since it would have had to come from Oswald's files. Hoover does not mention Oswald's activities in Mexico City or New Orleans or any suspicious contacts or connections.

Yeah, if Oswald had been hit on 11/22/63 Hoover would have been yelling -- "Hey, Castro!"

But Oswald was captured alive, which queered the play.

And in a supposed "rush to falsify" to avoid international complications? (Some plot!)

That was improvised, just like the rest of the cover-up.

No, I'm not turning witnesses into perps. I'm seeking a logical explanation of the events.

DSL

1/22/11; 1:25 PM

Doesn't make sense to me to plan on falsifying wounds when the whole plot was designed to look like a conspiracy.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Emphasis added:

Again: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house.

And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession.

That, ultimately, is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window.

DSL

1/22/11, 3:40 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Apples and oranges.

Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK.

The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK.

The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged.

The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue.

CLIFF,

IMHO: You have erected an entirely artificial distinction between what's after-the-fact and what's "before the fact". I understand the necessity to categorize when analyzing a complex factual situation, but I respectfully submit that your categories are not just wrong, but thoroughly incorrect. Because of that, your analysis fails to perceive patterns, and detect data, that is "before the fact".

That's fair. I have the same critique of your assertions, that you fail to perceive the pattern of setting Oswald up as a Communist agent.

If they wanted to set up a lone nut why didn't they go out and find one, instead of a political guy?

I can't do justice to this in an email.

I'd be curious as to your view as to how "the perps" who designed this to look like a Castro conspiracy, expected the medical and ballistics evidence to support that thesis, without considerable preparation and some advance planning in that area.

The genuine medical and ballistic evidence pointed to multiple shooters, which does support the thesis that JFK was murdered by a Communist conspiracy.

It wasn't until the decision came down to frame Oswald as a lone nut that the medical evidence needed falsification.

Surely, you don't believe they intended to simply exclaim "Castro did it!" and then expect numerous government agencies and people to fall in line? (Or do you in fact believe something along those lines?). Perhaps you can inform us.

DSL

See my previous post. The CIA had Oswald tied to Kostikov. He wasn't set up to be the lone nut agent of Fidel, after all.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Cliff Varnell