Dealing with deniers

[Cliff Varnell]

But you are correct in that the shirt collar is not visible in Altgens. But the shirt collar is visible in every film and photo taken after Altgens -- which means the jacket collar dropped.

Yes, that's probably true.

Chalk one up for Cliff.

Now, where does Cliff Varnell go from there?

It's not "probably" true, David. It is true. The Nix film shows the jacket dropping.

How could the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck if there were this big bunch of fabric in JFK's shirt a la the airplane photo?

Basic SHIRT/COAT Facts:

1.) There was ONE bullet hole in JFK's upper back (his skin).

2.) There was ONE bullet hole in the back side of JFK's shirt.

3.) There was ONE bullet hole in the back side of JFK's suit coat.

So, ONE bullet must have caused ALL THREE holes, regardless of where on the body and clothing those holes were located.

Correct, Cliff?

Correct, David.

btw, I genuinely appreciate your intellectual honesty in regard to the drop of the jacket collar.

[David Von Pein]

OK, since you answered "correct" to my three-item list above, Cliff -- where do you go from there? Are you going to go down the "Autopsy Pictures Were Faked" path? Or the "Clothing Was Faked" path?

It's got to be one of those two things (from your POV), correct Cliff?

Edited June 22, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

You can't be serious with all of this crap, can you Cliff? That Towner photo is a crappy picture compared to the nearly razor-sharp Croft picture. It's difficult to discern the "fold" in Towner, due to the lousy nature of the picture.

The fold is clearly visible, and clearly smaller than the jacket collar.

Let's walk this back from the Altgens photo. You cannot identify any folds in JFK's jacket in Altgens, correct? JFK's jacket is elevated to occlude the shirt collar but otherwise smooth across his upper back.

Correct?

Shirt/coat fact: the shirt collar is 1.75" at the nape of the neck, the jacket collar 1.25".

The jacket collar is elevated more than 1/2" but didn't extend into the hairline.

Then the jacket collar dropped but the fabric below the collar didn't. Result: a garden variety 3/4" fabric fold.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. That's a fact.

I have no idea where you're really going with these arguments anyway, Cliff, because there can be no doubt at all that President Kennedy's jacket IS BUNCHED UP at a point in time that equates to Z161 of the Zapruder Film (via the Croft photo), which is, indeed, a point in time AFTER the Towner image.

It's the same 3/4" fold we see a few seconds earlier in Towner.

Once you concede the jacket collar dropped the discussion, for all intents and purposes, is over.

[Cliff Varnell]

OK, since you answered "correct" to my three-item list above, Cliff -- where do you go from there? Are you going to go down the "Autopsy Pictures Were Faked" path? Or the "Clothing Was Faked" path?

It's got to be one of those two things (from your POV), correct Cliff?

The HSCA concluded that an excellent case could be made that the autopsy photos are not genuine.

There is no chain of possession for the autopsy photos.

The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol, and are trumped by medical evidence which was properly prepared.

By what alchemy of logic do you contend that improperly prepared materials trump properly prepared materials?

[David Von Pein]

The HSCA concluded that an excellent case could be made that the autopsy photos are not genuine.

Which I guess is why we found a conclusion going in the exact opposite direction from "fake" photos on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7, eh Cliff? .....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

Which is it, Cliff? Did the HSCA want to deliberately confuse everybody reading its report by making "an excellent case" about the autopsy pics being "not genuine" (to quote you) and, at the very same time, printing the above words in Volume 7 of their report?

Edited June 22, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

The HSCA concluded that an excellent case could be made that the autopsy photos are not genuine.

Which I guess is why we found a conclusion going in the exact opposite direction from "fake" photos on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7, eh Cliff? .....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

Which is it, Cliff? Did the HSCA want to deliberately confuse everybody reading its report by making "an excellent case" about the autopsy pics being "not genuine" (to quote you) and, at the very same time, printing the above words in Volume 7 of their report?

You left out this part from Vol. 7:

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.

In 1996 the woman on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos testified to the ARRB that the extant autopy photos are not the ones she developed.

There is no chain of possession for these deficient, improperly prepared photos.

[Cliff Varnell]

David, please note that JFK's shirt collar is visible at the left-back of his neck, correct?

But in Altgens on Houston St. the jacket collar occluded the shirt collar at that location, as you've noted.

Ask yourself: how could the jacket collar drop to a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck if there were multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck?

Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

[Pat Speer]

You are still stuck with the burden of proof -- show us how a tucked-in custom made dress shirt moves while waving to a crowd from a limo.

Why don't YOU do it, Cliff? It's your pet theory that a shirt can't bunch up in unison with a person's suit coat. Looks to me like the burden of proving THAT theory is yours. Which, of course, you can never do, because JFK's "shirt bunching" situation is entirely unique to JFK's body, his clothes, and November 22, 1963.

It's similar to a conspiracy theorist asking an LNer to "prove" for all time the workability of the SBT via on-site rifle tests (which WAS done, fairly well, in Oct. 2004 by the Discovery Channel people in Australia).

David, the highlighted line above is nonsense.

From patspeer.com, chapter 12b:

In 2004, the Discovery Channel began running a new program entitled JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. While appearing authoritative, using scientists and experts to simulate the shooting in Dealey Plaza, the program was rife with errors and/or distortions. Ultimately, it demonstrated reasons to disbelieve the magic bullet theory, but then turned around and claimed the opposite!

They simulated the shots from the sniper's nest by placing their shooter on on an elevated platform, at a distance of 180 feet, the distance they claim the HSCA claimed for the second shot. Well, there are two problems with this: one is that the HSCA claimed the shot came at around Z-190, which according to the Warren Commission’s recreation, would make it roughly 160 feet, and two is that the Dale Myers animation they used as evidence depicted the shot at Z-224, which would make it roughly 190 feet. It’s unclear where they derived their 180 foot measurement, but the Warren Commission, which failed to pick an exact moment for the shot, estimated the length of the shot to be 180 feet.

They then shot through a gelatin block simulating Kennedy's back and neck to see if the exiting bullet would leave an elongated entrance like the one they claimed was on Connally. (Following the well-worn path of Dr.s Lattimer and Baden, previously discussed, they incorrectly believed the bullet was traveling sideways upon impact with Connally). When the bullet headed straight through the gelatin with scarcely a wobble, they decided to add rope into the gelatin to better simulate the "dense sinu" of the human neck. There is a huge problem with this: Dr. Humes et al testified that the bullet striking Kennedy's neck passed between the strap muscles, and not through them. Their second try, not surprisingly, created the wound desired. They then expanded their test to include two gelatin blocks representing Connally's chest, and were similarly pleased with the results.

They then began to shoot at simulated human torsos. After shooting on some empty shells, they placed a target on a fully-simulated torso of the President at a point several inches to the right of the wound seen on the autopsy photos. They claimed this placement came after “triple-measurement.” What they failed to mention was that the autopsy measurements reflected the distance from the shoulder and from the back of the head and that their torso had no head. The HSCA and Clark Panel made estimates as to the distance from the spine, which they clearly ignored. Even so, the shooter missed this target and actually hit the torso very close to where the wound is depicted on the autopsy photos. (See Exhibit 1 on the slide above.) I’d like to think this “miss” was on purpose.

But this was just the beginning of their troubles. Since their “magic bullet,” after traversing simulated torsos of both Kennedy and Connally, failed to explode the simulated wrist to the extent Connally’s was damaged and actually bounced off the simulated thigh, they had to look for it in the surrounding brush. They found a clearly deformed bullet several yards to the right of the torsos. (See Exhibit 2 on the slide above.)

During a slow-motion replay of the shooting, moreover, the narrator stated as a matter-of-fact that the bullet “struck Kennedy in the neck.” Someone should have told the writer that that particular lie, although an all-time favorite, died with the HSCA. At this point, the direction of the program became obvious. While one of the great controversies surrounding the single-bullet theory is whether or not a bullet striking Kennedy in the back from above would exit his throat as purported, the program failed to show a close-up of the bullet's exit from the Kennedy torso. Nevertheless, the profile shot of the bullet's path made it clear the bullet exited from the Kennedy torso's chest, and not its throat. (See Exhibit 3.)

They then conducted a post-mortem to see what went wrong with their simulation. After taking the Connally torso to a doctor for a cat-scan, they concluded that the bullet struck two of Connally’s ribs instead of the one struck by the “magic bullet” and that this was why their bullet was more damaged. Still, the cat-scan revealed more than the producers of the show could possibly have desired.

The cat-scan (Exhibit 4 above) revealed that the two damaged ribs on the Connally torso were the 8th and 9th ribs, some distance below the entrance on Connally’s 5th rib. This demonstrated once again that the bullet trajectory from the sniper's nest didn't quite line-up with Kennedy's and Connally's wounds.

But this wasn't all the cat-scan revealed.

Astonishingly, (and as seen in Exhibit 5) it also revealed that the simulated ribs on the Connally torso were not even connected to the sternum! This meant that there was no bones in the front of the Connally torso to slow or damage the “magic bullet” before it struck the simulated wrist.

Since the purpose of the simulation was purportedly to see if a bullet creating Kennedy's and Connally's wounds might emerge as undamaged as the "magic" bullet, CE 399, removing bone from the purported path of the bullet was undoubtedly deceptive and dishonest.

At this point, I ran a quick replay. I went back to the beginning of the program where they created the torsos and noticed this time that the Kennedy torso had no spine, and that neither torso had shoulder blades. While these bones may have been left out because the producers believed the real “magic” bullet missed these bones, the exclusion of Connally’s front ribs, where the bullet made its exit, was inexcusable. That this was no mistake is confirmed by the statements of their wound ballistics expert. When they were preparing for their torso shoot by shooting at two gelatin blocks simulating Connally's chest, he said "The thorax is not one piece of muscle. It is a piece of muscle, some bone, then an airspace--the lung--and then another piece of tissue after that." It's almost certain he knew perfectly well that the bullet exiting Connally's chest exited through his fifth rib, and not through just "another piece of tissue".

It then became clear. Rather than testing if a bullet hitting the President in the assumed location would go on to hit Connally in his armpit, wrist and thigh, and come out largely unblemished, the program’s creators were testing if such a bullet, after missing Kennedy’s spine, which is doubtful, after exiting Kennedy’s throat, which is doubtful, and after hitting Connally’s ribs in only one place, which is doubtful, would go on to create the other wounds and appear unblemished.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the program’s creators neglected to tell their audience the significance of that which they did discover. That the tumbling bullet in their re-enactment hit two ribs while the bullet striking Connally stuck but one suggested that the bullet striking Connally was not tumbling. This supported the statements of Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally’s doctor, who said the entrance wound was only 1.5 cm long. It was, however, in direct contradiction with all too many single-assassin theorists, including the HSCA’s Dr. Baden, who cite the fact (which is not a fact) that the bullet was tumbling as evidence that the bullet first struck Kennedy. These single-assassin theorists, and the Discovery program under their influence, repeat like a mantra that the entrance in Connally’s armpit was 3 cm, the size of a bullet traveling sideways, and ignore Shaw’s statements that the wound was but 1.5 cm and the inconvenient fact that the corresponding tear in Connally’s jacket was only 1.7 cm. (As discussed in the Ovoid? Oy Vey! section of chapter 11.)

In any event, instead of telling the audience the significance of the bullet hitting two ribs, the Beyond the Magic Bullet program cut to some supposed expert stating that their simulation had taken the “magic” out of the “magic bullet”.

But the program wasn’t over. For their final act they took an autopsy report reflecting the wounds incurred by their simulated torsos to an L.A. County Coroner. Surprisingly, the face sheet created for the Kennedy torso revealed that the bullet exited not from the torso’s throat but from its left chest, and that it probably would have hit its spine (if it had one) and must have hit its sternum (if it had one). (Exhibit 6 above.) Even worse, a probe poked through a skeleton by the doctor to depict the path of the bullet exploded the program’s assertion of replicating the magic bullet, as the probe passed below the clavicle and first rib. (Exhibit 7.) A bullet traveling on such a trajectory would not have bruised the President’s lung, but pierced it, and would have exited far below his throat.

And that wasn't even the worst of it. A close-up on the autopsy report reveals that the simulated Connally back wound, in which two ribs were struck, measured 50 mm x 45 mm. The doctor then describes it as a "keyhole" entrance. This is a far cry from the reportedly "ovoid" entrance on Connally, measuring roughly 38 by 16 mm (1.5 X 5/8 inches), and more than suggests that the bullet striking Connally was not tumbling a la the bullet in the re-enactment, and that the magic bullet theory is suspect.

In conclusion, one might state that the Discovery Channel did recreate the magic bullet, if one is to acknowledge that magic is deliberate deception designed to create the illusion that fantastic events have taken place.

[Craig Lamson]

Once again Varnell posts pure crap. Yes you can measure the fold in JFK's jacket, it's 3+ inches of fabric. How can we tell? the fold is as tall as the jacket collar.

The fold is as tall as the 1.25 inch jacket collar? Not much of the jacket collar would be visible if such were the case.

The fold in this photo is a garden variety 3/4 inch fabric fold. It looks nothing like the slump-bunch in Jean's photo.

Poor Varnell stuck with a totally bankrupt argument and no way out short of actually dealing directly with simple FACTS.

The fold in Towner, Croft all are the same and they all are as tall as the 1.25 inch collar. ALL OF THEM. As such they ALL obscure the jacket collar, just life we see it this Towmer photo.

Varnell, lost in his 'the jacket fell" fantasy, just can't come to grips with this simple fact.

What is it with CT's anyways? None of you can understand simple perspective.....

Edited June 23, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

David, please note that JFK's shirt collar is visible at the left-back of his neck, correct?

But in Altgens on Houston St. the jacket collar occluded the shirt collar at that location, as you've noted.

Ask yourself: how could the jacket collar drop to a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck if there were multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck?

Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

The only thing contrary to the laws of "reality" is Varnell and his "Magic Jacket theory".

[Craig Lamson]

You can't be serious with all of this crap, can you Cliff? That Towner photo is a crappy picture compared to the nearly razor-sharp Croft picture. It's difficult to discern the "fold" in Towner, due to the lousy nature of the picture.

The fold is clearly visible, and clearly smaller than the jacket collar.

Wrong again. The fold is as tall as the jacket collar. You need need glasses VARNELL.

Let's walk this back from the Altgens photo. You cannot identify any folds in JFK's jacket in Altgens, correct? JFK's jacket is elevated to occlude the shirt collar but otherwise smooth across his upper back.

Correct?

Wrong again. You can't tell is there is any folds in JFK's jacket in Altgen because of ht ZERO PHASE ANGLE effect. Correctly put, Varnell is once again playing fast and loose and is simply making things up and then waving his hands pretending his fantasy is reality.

Shirt/coat fact: the shirt collar is 1.75" at the nape of the neck, the jacket collar 1.25".

The jacket collar is elevated more than 1/2" but didn't extend into the hairline.

Then the jacket collar dropped but the fabric below the collar didn't. Result: a garden variety 3/4" fabric fold.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. That's a fact.

Third time a charm? Nope you get it all wrong again. As Towner, Croft and finally Betzner show there is a 3= inch fold of favbic on the back of JFK'S jacket. Proven in an unimpeachable manner by the unbending laws of light and shadow. Of course since Varnell is linign in a fantasy his understanding of how SUNLIGHT works is non existant.

I have no idea where you're really going with these arguments anyway, Cliff, because there can be no doubt at all that President Kennedy's jacket IS BUNCHED UP at a point in time that equates to Z161 of the Zapruder Film (via the Croft photo), which is, indeed, a point in time AFTER the Towner image.

It's the same 3/4" fold we see a few seconds earlier in Towner.

Once you concede the jacket collar dropped the discussion, for all intents and purposes, is over.

Once you concede that the fold is actually (and proven) to be 3+ inches in Towner, Croft and Betzner, yes the discussion will be over.

Reality to Varnell. YOU lost.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

This is a wonderful photo. Look at JFK's hair. The back of his shirt was pushed up, the hair at the back of his head was pushed up. He'd obviously been resting his head.

Is that what caused JFK's shirt to bunch up in the Dallas motorcade, David?

He slumped down in his seat to rest?

For years you have told us a fold such as this is impossible, yet here it is

No it isn't! That fold was created by JFK slumping in his seat.

Sure you did, time and time again. Not enough fabric, not the right movements ( that one is the craziest of them all), JFK was too stylish etc. Why just the other day you posted his whopper!

Craig likes to overlook the fact that JFK preferred shirts with a tapered waist, which means that he had less than the customary 3" to 4" of slack in the back of his shirt.

There is a difference between pulling all the slack out of the shirt and bunching fabric in one location.

I stand by 3/4" of fabric as the amount of fabric that will bunch up at the base of the neck of a tucked in custom-made dress shirt.

And this GEM!

John F. Kennedy's preference was for V-shaped Updated American suits, which featured a tapered waist.

3+" of bulging fabric would destroy the lines of the jacket -- but according to Craig Lamson that was the look JFK preferred.

Or this one...

So according to Craig's repeated claims almost all of the slack in the back of JFK's shirt was bunched up above the base of his neck.

But how did it get there? No one pulled up on the shirt, as required in the example you have so generously provided us, Craig.

LOL! Now Varnell wants to tell us he knows EXACTLY what JFK was doing prior to the taking of this photo, Varnell is the Heinz 57 of made up stuff !

I never said you couldn't create such an exaggerated fold by slumping down in the seat. That is not a "normal" sitting posture, is it?

He was slumping? Really? Got a photo of him slumped in his seat to prove your point are are you just making stuff up again because you are screwed again? ROFLMAO!

It is impossible to create such a fold by making the casual, "normal" movements of JFK in the motorcade.

Really? The image library of the motorcade is chock full of photos of JFK's jacket which prove you wrong.

Your inability to replicate such a "bunch" amplifies my point.

I can "replicate it every time right here on my desk, either by PUSHING or PULLING. Contrary to your silly claims it makes zero difference as to how the fabric folds. It just folds and and its quite easy to move location from 5 inches to 2 inches with zero overlap...meaning a shot could easily pass at 2 inches.

Besides we have perfect examples that show JFK"s jacket with a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back....Those alone destroy you.

...you just can't catch a break can you? ROFLMAO!

Every time you guys post evidence it blows up in your face.

Let's see if David Von Pein can show us where this identical bunch is in the Towner photo.

I guess old JFK, liked a bit more "slack" in his shirts than you though eh Varnell?

I guess he liked to go around with a big cowlick sticking out the back of his head, eh Lamson?

Nice attempt to change the subject, but it, like your silly argument, is an utter failure.

JFK relaxing on an airplane wasn't as dapper as JFK in the motorcade, obviously.

Well we KNOW now that Varnell is toast, he is using the "obviously" non argument....

Edited June 23, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

The fold in Towner, Croft all are the same and they all are as tall as the 1.25 inch collar. ALL OF THEM. As such they ALL obscure the jacket collar, just life we see it this Towmer photo.

But the jacket collar is clearly visible in the Towner photo.

How can Lamson deny this?

There are no folds at all in the jacket in this photo on Houston St.

[Cliff Varnell]

Varnell, lost in his 'the jacket fell" fantasy,

The drop of the jacket is clearly captured in the Nix film, and clearly indicated in the other Dealey Plaza films and photos.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

David, please note that JFK's shirt collar is visible at the left-back of his neck, correct?

But in Altgens on Houston St. the jacket collar occluded the shirt collar at that location, as you've noted.

Ask yourself: how could the jacket collar drop to a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck if there were multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck?

Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

The only thing contrary to the laws of "reality" is Varnell and his "Magic Jacket theory".

Gravity is not a theory. Nor is it magical.

The fraction of an inch drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza was utterly consistent with the nature of reality.

You can't get your shirt to bunch up by waving your arm because such a posture causes the shirt fabric to indent at the shoulder-line.

That reality is replicated trillions of times a day on this planet.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cliff Varnell