The Law of Unintended Consequences

[David Lifton]

Here are some more "reminders" of the strength of the evidence for the conclusions that the Zapruder

film was faked, including, of course, with respect to painting-in "the black patch" at the back of JFK's

head. We have the witnesses, the physicians, plus the X-rays studies--and it is visible in frame 374!

It was "over" for the other side when David Mantik determined that the blow-out to the back of the skull

had been "patched" by using some material that was far too dense to be human bone, where the outline of

the patched area "P" closely corresponds to the wound as described my dozens and dozens of witnesses.

At the risk of making myself even more unpopular, until independent experts review the data and confirm (or refute) Mantik's theory of X-ray alteration it will remain just that; a theory.

FWIW I don't really get the alteration argument.

I mean, presumably the purpose of altering the X-rays would be to make them conform to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy and Warren reports.

[snip, to focus on the issue at hand]

No, Martin, that is incorrect, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. The purpose of altering the medical evidence was not to make it "conform to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy report" (your language) but rather to fabricate a false (but "politically correct") story of how the crime occurred. That is precisely why the primary data--what lawyers call the "best evidence"--had to be altered. I am referring of course to the President's body, which contained (a) certain wounds and (b ) bullets or bullet fragments. It is that primary data that had to be altered to create a false story of how the crime occurred. Secondarily, the issue then became how to create corroborating evidence (in the form of X-rays and photographs) without that material giving away (i.e., revealing) the fact that the body had been altered.

Not to understand this is to have an incorrect conception of what happened, and why.

Had the President's body been altered under "ideal" conditions--i.e., if it was a "perfect medical forgery"--then there would have been no need to worry about the photographs and X-rays. In fact, that's not what occurred; consequently, the photographs and X-rays in fact posed a threat, and that's why that material had to be modified (and "edited") as necessary.

But this fundamental misunderstanding--revealed in the language that the medical evidence had to be altered to make it "confirm to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy report" harks back to a similar thought conveyed in a debate I had in 1993 on the radio in Chicago with another WC critic (and published author). He said that altering the wounds on the body, or removing bullets, was "an enormously dangerous thing to get into. It is especially dangerous to get into before you know exactly what you have to have." And then he added: "At that time [meaning, at that "early" hour] you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show." (The speaker was Josiah Thompson, and the date was 4/3/93, when we were both on the Steve Dahl show, on WLUP in Chicago).

Again, this kind of reasoning is flawed, because it does not accurately reflect the timeline of events, and jumbles cause and effect. A plot that follows a dual track--i.e., treats the President as (a) a person to be killed and then (b ) after death, as a "target" to be altered, is a plot which wields enormous leverage; because the (false) "solution to the crime" can then be (and was, in this case) constructed a short while after the murder, as an integral part of the overall plan. That's what "best evidence"--both the concept in law, and the title of my work--is all about.

In other words, what we are dealing with, in Dealey Plaza, is a "designer shooting," with the pre-selected patsy already "in place." What remains to be done is murder the president, and then alter the evidence to change the story of how he died. Just about everything else is "built into" the set-up.

Only if one understands that the President's body --not the Bethesda autopsy report--is the primary evidence (the "best evidence") in this murder case, is it then possible to understand the enormous leverage wielded by those who intend to capitalize on just that legal fact, and not only murder the president, but, in addition, then alter the body so as to construct a false story as to how he died.

To repeat: the President's body was not altered to make the wounds "conform" to the autopsy report; rather, the body was altered to create a false autopsy report. Viewed that way, the Bethesda autopsy protocol was (to those who were witting) a stage-managed fraud.

There is a major difference between those two points of view--the one you stated,and the one that is advanced in BEST EVIDENCE and which I have recapped here.

The two concepts are entirely different. One reflects a before-the-fact strategy of strategic deception; the other, a rather superficial and clumsy "after-the-fact" cover-up.

For whatever reason--and frankly, after all these years, I do not understand it--many people have no problem believing that an autopsy report can be falsified by military doctors who collude and who are just "following orders" both at the time of the examination, and then when they sit down to write their report; but those same folks have a lot of problem with the idea that a murder plot could be (and in this case was) carried out with a dual track view (or stereo view) of the body: as a person to be killed, and then (also) as a target to be altered.

But that's what the evidence indicates happened in the JFK case, and that's why, when the alteration was sloppily done, so much "corroborating evidence" also had to be altered.

Not to have done so --i.e., not to have been thorough in creating the corroboration--would have placed the entire plan in jeopardy. Not to have done so would not only have led to a politically non-viable "solution" to the Kennedy assassination, but individuals could have (and would have) possibly been identified and indicted for obstruction of justice. So once this path was chosen, there was no turning back. Because the "body alteration"--hurriedly and sloppily performed--had left such a mess in its wake.

DSL

1/13/12; 4:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 13, 2012 by David Lifton

[Craig Lamson]

You saying you see it is like the Alterationists saying they see a black patch, no? If you can't replicate it, it never happened.

What a clear example of your inability to read and comprehend.

In the case of the so called "black patch" There is no dispute that there is SOMETHING at the back of JFK's head. The question is what created it.

In the case of Croft, there is no dispute that there is a fold. EVEN YOU AGREE TO THAT POINT.

What is important in Croft as it pertains to Betzner is the neck shadow. And this not a case where I say "I see it". I provide exacting data that supports this existence. UNIMPEACHABLE data. I hold myself to the same standards as I expect from the "black patchers"

Your so called logic fails yet again.

Then we get to this real gem of varnellian logic...

"If you can't replicate it, it never happened"

Clearly we can't replicate the birth of Cliff Varnell. so it never happened. ROFLMAO!

Quit now Cliff, you will never win this. There is no neck shadow in Betzner. Just a 3+" fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

My point is that Lamson's argument is irrelevant, because we KNOW where the bullet entered the body, namely, 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column at a downward angle. And it was a shallow shot with no point of exit. My point is that we've "been there, done that"! Have you not read "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I've cited here repeatedly? Unless you take exception to the evidence I present there, Lamson has no case. He has sometimes even seemed to acknowledge as much by saying that HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH. Well, so what? As I have observed, EVEN IF HE WERE RIGHT ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH--which I doubt--IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.

I explicitly discuss the "bunching", argument, too, so I simply don't understand why you are wasting the time and space here to prove what has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN! What expectations or requirements for scholarship are not meet by a study that was presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal? If this is simply a game between you and Lamson, say so. Because it cannot be more than that. You are completely right about its importance, but wrong in wasting more time and space on AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN SETTLED. So what have I left out? What is left to be proven? And it serves as a distraction from other important questions that are still debatable. Give us a break. If you can, let it go!

Jim

No other single piece of evidence so efficiently demolishes the lone assassin scenario. That's been my opinion of the clothing evidence since Fonzi wrote it up in The Last Investigation.

The high-watermark of the case for conspiracy...in 1966!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

Researchers have been bouncing the rubble ever since.

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff,

My point is that Lamson's argument is irrelevant, because we KNOW where the bullet entered the body, namely, 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column at a downward angle. And it was a shallow shot with now point of entry. My point is that we've "been there, done that"! Have you not read "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I've cited here repeatedly? Unless you take exception to the evidence I present there, Lamson has no case. He has sometimes even seemed to acknowledge as much by saying that HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH. Well, so what? As I have observed, EVEN IF HE WERE RIGHT ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH--which I doubt--IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.

I explicitly discuss the "bunching", argument, too, so I simply don't understand why you are wasting the time and space here to prove what has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN! What expectations or requirements for scholarship are not meet by a study that was presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal? If this is simply a game between you and Lamson, say so. Because it cannot be more than that. You are completely right about its importance, but wrong in wasting more time and space on AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN SETTLED. So what have I left out? What is left to be proven? And it serves as a distraction from other important questions that are still debatable. Give us a break. If you can, let it go!

Jim

No other single piece of evidence so efficiently demolishes the lone assassin scenario. That's been my opinion of the clothing evidence since Fonzi wrote it up in The Last Investigation.

The high-watermark of the case for conspiracy...in 1966!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

Researchers have been bouncing the rubble ever since.

It is unimpeachable that there was a 3+" fold of fabric at Betzner. WHERE DID IT GO?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I don't want to get into a prolonged exchange with David Lifton. He is right that there are elements here that anyone could dispute, which he is disputing. Fine. Surely he understands that, if the FBI was contacting the newspapers in Dallas and New York to insert the sentence that, "The doctors did not know if the wounds were caused by one bullet or two", as we learned from Connie Kritzberg and can find in The New York Times, so a lot of time and effort was being spent on sowing seeds of ambiguity and confusion. The question should not be whether there are bit and pieces that could be disputed but whether there is anything here that tends to confirm other elements of these events that has significance for major issues, like the limo stop and Chaney's motoring forward. There are, as I accent.

David knows a great deal about the assassination and the film, but sometimes his ability to reason dumbfounds me. If he no longer believes that all the shots were fired from in front, he should tell us, because that position is absurd. He now declares that there cannot be a motorcade assassination without the escort officers being involved. That is equally absurd. Who would have knowingly ridden into an ambush so close to the limo and run the risk of having, not just JFK's head blown off, but their own? They protested the reduction of the escort to four. They objected to being instructed not to ride forward of the rear wheels. They reported the limo stop and other aspects of the shooting that undermine and contradict the official account. Their own testimony by itself demonstrates that the film is a fake.

There is more, such as the personal relationships between Jean and Mary and some of the escort officers who rode with the limo. It is obvious that they were unaware that the assassination was going to take place, but, as you can read in Jean's book, were concerned afterward that their lives might be in jeopardy if they spoke out about it. They gave their initial interviews when it would have been all but impossible to control them, where their naivete is apparent. I think that David has strong feelings about me that affect his reasoning and warp it into making arguments that are not compelling or well-founded only because he wants to undermine my posts. That is trivial and silly, but he has done it before and will do it again. He has much to offer, but sometimes squanders it, as he does here. More's the pity!

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Josiah,

Thank you for explaining the origin of your material.

Yes, I did post the article.

It was from the Houston Chronicle dated 11-24-1963.

The link if needed:

http://24.152.179.96:8400/D1E14/Chaney.png

chris

I just took a careful look at this particular interview, which I don't remember seeing before. In any event, just giving it a "close reading" (a term James Angleton might have used) makes me realize the terrible opportunity lost to history, because the WC attorneys either were told to "lay off," or simply did not realize the importance of aggressively pursuing the early accounts of the motorcycle patrolmen who flanked the car in this affair.

Let me state, at the outset, my bias. Almost certainly, you cannot have a "motorcade assassination" (and that's what this was) without the motorcycle escort being complicit--at the very least, they had to be paid off, and instructed to "hang back," "do nothing," "go slow" etc.

Take a close look at this particular interview, apparently conducted on 11/23, and there are many avenues which would have been ripe for further questioning.

Immediately below is the interview, with my interjections.

Below that, for those who are interested, is an unblemished typed version.

OK. . here's the one with my interjections:

FIRST SHOT

WAS A MISS,

OFFICER SAYS

Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely.

DSL COMMENT: How the heck does Chaney know that the "first shot missed entirely." What is the source of that idea?

The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve.

DSL COMMENT: Chaney was not "in front" - - - why did he say he was??

The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building

DSL Comment: How does Chaney know that??

. . . about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car.

DSL Comment: . . And how does Chaney know that, on 11/23, when this interview supposedly took place?

. . . From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated.

Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting.

“When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder.

DSL INTERJECTION: This is nonsense. And similar to Roy Kellerman's false statement that JFK reached behind his shoulder with his right hand--an action not shown on the Z film, and which obviously did not take place. Chaney's report about JFK "looking back over his left shoulder" raises a similar issue. These bozo's did't realize there would be enough of a filmed record to establish that JFK did no such thing.

A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him.

“It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato.

DSL COMMENT: Highly original. . but no one reports any such thing.

Blood went all over the car.

“There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’”

DSL Comment: As a matter of fact, that's not quite the statement reported by others. But more important, AP Reporter Jack Bell says that Kellerman actually stuood up in the car, and motioned the lead car to move ahead --again, something not visible on the Z film, and something not reported by Chaney.

Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out.

DSL COMMENT: Well, this is interesting. So Chaney is, basically, a "car-stop witness."

A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building

DSL Comment: Its not clear which officer this would be. Almost certainly, not Officer Baker, who would have been well behind Chaney. So who is this "other" officer who, says Chaney, "ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." Is this a made-up fiction, or exaggeration? Or are we dealing with another event that has been erased from the film? In any event, it should have been the basis for serious questioning.

“I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area.

DSL comment: Well, at least he says he did that--which (as I recall) is confirmed by Chief Curry, and Sorrels, the issue being exactly when it occurred.

“I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said.

“A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said.

DSL Interjection: Was this at Parkland? If so, not according to Clint Hill, who said it was in the rear seat. So. . is this another Chaney exaggeration? Or false statement? Or was there in fact a piece of skull bone actually lying on the floor of the car? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know. Chaney died long ago, and , more important, the WC attorney didn't realize the importance of calling him as a witness, and questioning him closely, with a record of his prior statements (such as this one) sitting in front of them.

Too bad.

HERE IS THE WHOLE INTERVIEW, RETYPED, and without my interjections:

FIRST SHOT

WAS A MISS,

OFFICER SAYS

Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely.

The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve.

The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car. From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated.

Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting.

“When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him.

“It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car.

“There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’”

Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out.

A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building

“I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area.

“I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said.

“A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said.

* * *

http://24.152.179.96...1E14/Chaney.png

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad, man! Have you never read David's studies in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998)? Do you have any understanding of the nature of science? You did something very good by inviting Patrick Block to contribute here. For that, I thank you!

David Mantik's research was so thorough and painstaking that I must infer that you are not familiar with scientific studies, because his was a model of "good science". They had to "patch" it up because it was powerful proof of a shot from in front.

Am I right to presume that you do not also dispute the witness reports of a blow-out to the back of the head (from Dealey Plaza, from Parkland, and even from Bethesda)? I take it you see the pattern of locating the wound at the back of his head.

And that you also do not dispute the observations of the physicians at Parkland, all experienced in dealing with gunshot victims, where Dallas was the homicide capitol of the world at the time? And how they confirm the witness reports?

Because if you accept this, how can you have any doubt that the blow-out to the back of the head must have been patched? How else can you explain that it was not evident on the X-rays? Do you appreciate the convergence of evidence here?

And do you appreciate that, since there was a massive blow-out to the back of his head (which Clint Hill peered into lying across their bodies in the car), they had to patch it, too, but, rushed for time, they missed touching up frame 317?

It is always possible to move the goalposts by insisting on stronger and stronger standards for belief. That is what Tink and Lamson specialize in. No matter how much proof you adduce, it is never enough. They always ask for more.

Look at Lamson in relation to Varnell. I have pointed out that, EVEN IF LAMSON WERE RIGHT, it makes no difference to the location of the back wound, because the holes in the shirt and the jacket align with the other evidence we have.

Since I am sure you have not read David's studies, have you read "Reasoning about Assassinations"? If you dispute David's findings, which are open to replication, do you also dispute the location of the back wound as I have proven it?

With regard to frame 374, perhaps you have trouble visualizing what should be apparent. The bluish-grey open wound has the shape of a cashew and extends slightly to the right of his head, which, like our own, is round. Do you see it?

You have heard the phrase, "gray matter", in referring to the brain? That is because neurons look gray. Putting the witnesses and the Parkland reports and David's work together, they mutually support what most of us see in frame 374.

At the risk of making myself even more unpopular, until independent experts review the data and confirm (or refute) Mantik's theory of X-ray alteration it will remain just that; a theory.

FWIW I don't really get the alteration argument.

I mean, presumably the purpose of altering the X-rays would be to make them conform to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy and Warren reports. But numerous experts - including Dr. Mantik - have pointed out that they don't. Would it have been so difficult for those with the expertise to fill in the alleged exit hole in the occiput to leave an entry hole 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP? Would that not be one of their number one aims?

Dr. Mantik believes a 6.5 mm fragment was added to the back of the skull in the anterior X-ray to add support for a rear-entering bullet fired from "Oswald's" rifle. Why would this fragment be added to the wrong place - 4 inches above where the bullet allegedly entered? In fact, why would it be added at all? The experts agree that a bullet leaving a perfectly round slice (from the center) of itself behind at the the site of entry is a physical impossibility. Therefore, the appearance of this fragment does not support the official story at all but in fact casts serious doubt on it! Are we to believe that the conspirators - who, to pull of the task, would have to be in the highest levels of government - trusted this crucial task to men who had no understanding of terminal ballistics?

I don't buy it. But if Mantik's work is confirmed by other experts I'll happily hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David's post here and above (about Specter) are sterling examples of the importance of his contributions to the study of the assassination. Let there be no doubt that I admire BEST EVIDENCE (1980) and completely agree about the theft of the body, its removal from the ceremonial casket, its secret transportation (probably first to Walter Reed and then to Bethesda), the multiple "casket entries", the surgery to the head, the alteration of the throat wound, and the revision of the autopsy report. What I would like from David is more about why the HSCA did not come to grips with the stunning inconsistencies between the Parkland observations, the Bethesda autopsy report, and its own grossly inadequate study.

David's interview with Tink in 1993 is quite remarkable. "He said that altering the wounds on the body, or removing bullets, was "an enormously dangerous thing to get into. It is especially dangerous to get into before you know exactly what you have to have." And then he added: "At that time [meaning, at that "early" hour] you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show." But more thought was given to the cover-up than to the assassination itself. Killing JFK was not the problem; it was covering it up. They had a "three shot, lone assassin" script. David shattered the illusion and my books confirmed it--as INSIDE THE ARRB (2009) does so again "in spades". Lifton got it right.

Here are some more "reminders" of the strength of the evidence for the conclusions that the Zapruder

film was faked, including, of course, with respect to painting-in "the black patch" at the back of JFK's

head. We have the witnesses, the physicians, plus the X-rays studies--and it is visible in frame 374!

It was "over" for the other side when David Mantik determined that the blow-out to the back of the skull

had been "patched" by using some material that was far too dense to be human bone, where the outline of

the patched area "P" closely corresponds to the wound as described my dozens and dozens of witnesses.

At the risk of making myself even more unpopular, until independent experts review the data and confirm (or refute) Mantik's theory of X-ray alteration it will remain just that; a theory.

FWIW I don't really get the alteration argument.

I mean, presumably the purpose of altering the X-rays would be to make them conform to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy and Warren reports.

[snip, to focus on the issue at hand]

No, Martin, that is incorrect, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. The purpose of altering the medical evidence was not to make it "conform to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy report" (your language) but rather to fabricate a false (but "politically correct") story of how the crime occurred. That is precisely why the primary data--what lawyers call the "best evidence"--had to be altered. I am referring of course to the President's body, which contained (a) certain wounds and (b ) bullets or bullet fragments. It is that primary data that had to be altered to create a false story of how the crime occurred. Secondarily, the issue then became how to create corroborating evidence (in the form of X-rays and photographs) without that material giving away (i.e., revealing) the fact that the body had been altered.

Not to understand this is to have an incorrect conception of what happened, and why.

Had the President's body been altered under "ideal" conditions--i.e., if it was a "perfect medical forgery"--then there would have been no need to worry about the photographs and X-rays. In fact, that's not what occurred; consequently, the photographs and X-rays in fact posed a threat, and that's why that material had to be modified (and "edited") as necessary.

But this fundamental misunderstanding--revealed in the language that the medical evidence had to be altered to make it "confirm to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy report" harks back to a similar thought conveyed in a debate I had in 1993 on the radio in Chicago with another WC critic (and published author). He said that altering the wounds on the body, or removing bullets, was "an enormously dangerous thing to get into. It is especially dangerous to get into before you know exactly what you have to have." And then he added: "At that time [meaning, at that "early" hour] you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show." (The speaker was Josiah Thompson, and the date was 4/3/93, when we were both on the Steve Dahl show, on WLUP in Chicago).

Again, this kind of reasoning is flawed, because it does not accurately reflect the timeline of events, and jumbles cause and effect. A plot that follows a dual track--i.e., treats the President as (a) a person to be killed and then (b ) after death, as a "target" to be altered, is a plot which wields enormous leverage; because the (false) "solution to the crime" can then be (and was, in this case) constructed a short while after the murder, as an integral part of the overall plan. That's what "best evidence"--both the concept in law, and the title of my work--is all about.

In other words, what we are dealing with, in Dealey Plaza, is a "designer shooting," with the pre-selected patsy already "in place." What remains to be done is murder the president, and then alter the evidence to change the story of how he died. Just about everything else is "built into" the set-up.

Only if one understands that the President's body --not the Bethesda autopsy report--is the primary evidence (the "best evidence") in this murder case, is it then possible to understand the enormous leverage wielded by those who intend to capitalize on just that legal fact, and not only murder the president, but, in addition, then alter the body so as to construct a false story as to how he died.

To repeat: the President's body was not altered to make the wounds "conform" to the autopsy report; rather, the body was altered to create a false autopsy report. Viewed that way, the Bethesda autopsy protocol was (to those who were witting) a stage-managed fraud.

There is a major difference between those two points of view--the one you stated,and the one that is advanced in BEST EVIDENCE and which I have recapped here.

The two concepts are entirely different. One reflects a before-the-fact strategy of strategic deception; the other, a rather superficial and clumsy "after-the-fact" cover-up.

For whatever reason--and frankly, after all these years, I do not understand it--many people have no problem believing that an autopsy report can be falsified by military doctors who collude and who are just "following orders" both at the time of the examination, and then when they sit down to write their report; but those same folks have a lot of problem with the idea that a murder plot could be (and in this case was) carried out with a dual track view (or stereo view) of the body: as a person to be killed, and then (also) as a target to be altered.

But that's what the evidence indicates happened in the JFK case, and that's why, when the alteration was sloppily done, so much "corroborating evidence" also had to be altered.

Not to have done so --i.e., not to have been thorough in creating the corroboration--would have placed the entire plan in jeopardy. Not to have done so would not only have led to a politically non-viable "solution" to the Kennedy assassination, but individuals could have (and would have) possibly been identified and indicted for obstruction of justice. So once this path was chosen, there was no turning back. Because the "body alteration"--hurriedly and sloppily performed--had left such a mess in its wake.

DSL

1/13/12; 4:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

pages back i think it was David Joseph ? asking about Toni Fosters movements in films.here is Toni in the Nix film, from John Dolva, thank you.sorry Kathy I do not see Toni's head turn to the right so that she does not observe the limo that was mentioned....b

Edited January 13, 2012 by Bernice Moore

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

My point is that Lamson's argument is irrelevant, because we KNOW where the bullet entered the body, namely, 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column at a downward angle. And it was a shallow shot with now point of entry. My point is that we've "been there, done that"!

You're right, Jim. But one can say that about other issues in this thread as well. When I saw the critique Craig was making of Mr. Block's argument, it seemed to me that Craig was employing a double standard which deserved a hard look.

As I've noted before -- in a field littered with dead horses I choose to beat the one that proves the case prima facie.

I can explain my work to a little kid. You cannot do so with your work, can you?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

You saying you see it is like the Alterationists saying they see a black patch, no? If you can't replicate it, it never happened.

What a clear example of your inability to read and comprehend.

Same old rhetoric. Same ducking of the basic physical facts. Sigh

In the case of the so called "black patch" There is no dispute that there is SOMETHING at the back of JFK's head. The question is what created it.

In the case of Croft, there is no dispute that there is a fold. EVEN YOU AGREE TO THAT POINT.

What is important in Croft as it pertains to Betzner is the neck shadow. And this not a case where I say "I see it". I provide exacting data that supports this existence. UNIMPEACHABLE data.

You provide nothing but rhetoric. Unless you can show us how you elevate a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck your rhetoric is meaningless.

It is no different than what you accuse the Alterationists of.

I hold myself to the same standards as I expect from the "black patchers"

No, you demand "extraordinary proof" and yet you cannot physically replicate your own claims in regards to the movement of clothing -- using a coat and shirt.

Your so called logic fails yet again.

More empty rhetoric. Show us. Why can't you physically demonstrate in the real world how such an event could occur?

This marks almost 5 years of utter failure to replicate in the real world the claims you make.

Then we get to this real gem of varnellian logic...

"If you can't replicate it, it never happened"

Clearly we can't replicate the birth of Cliff Varnell. so it never happened. ROFLMAO!

Babies are born every day, last I looked. The act of child-birth is replicated constantly. I'm not asking you to make a demonstration with JFK's clothing -- you have to demonstrate in the real world how you can bunch up a half-foot of clothing fabric above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar.

But you have found all attempts end in FAILURE. So you are left repeating yourself over and over.

Quit now Cliff, you will never win this. There is no neck shadow in Betzner. Just a 3+" fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket.

A fold you have founds physically impossible to replicate. So you repeat yourself over and over. You are employing an egregious a double standard.

Show us what a half-foot wad of clothing fabric looks like at the base of the neck.

Show us or scoot along .

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff,

My point is that Lamson's argument is irrelevant, because we KNOW where the bullet entered the body, namely, 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column at a downward angle. And it was a shallow shot with now point of entry. My point is that we've "been there, done that"!

You're right, Jim. But one can say that about other issues in this thread as well. When I saw the critique Craig was making of Mr. Block's argument, it seemed to me that Craig was employing a double standard which deserved a hard look.

As I've noted before -- in a field littered with dead horses I choose to beat the one that proves the case prima facie.

I can explain my work to a little kid. You cannot do so with your work, can you?

You don't HAVE any work Cliff.

You can't come to grips with the fact that a simple shadow lays to you waste. No need to prove how or when a fold may or not be created. If there is no neck shadow falling over the shirt/jacket collar ant the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner the 3+"fold is present. It renders your decades long fantasy moot. Laws of sun and show simple DESTROYS you and you can't find a way out. Your DEFEAT is complete. Learn to live with. TOAST!

Prima facie? Not even close, your evidence is prima fakie.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, on at this specific topic, what is there I have explained that "a little kid" would not understand? More to the point, what is there about this topic as I explain it in "Reasoning about Assassinations" that you would not understand?

Why not say to Lamson, "If the photo has not been faked, then there was some bunching; but it doesn't make any difference to the location of the wound in his back, because the holes and the other evidence align"? End of story.

Cliff,

My point is that Lamson's argument is irrelevant, because we KNOW where the bullet entered the body, namely, 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column at a downward angle. And it was a shallow shot with now point of entry. My point is that we've "been there, done that"!

You're right, Jim. But one can say that about other issues in this thread as well. When I saw the critique Craig was making of Mr. Block's argument, it seemed to me that Craig was employing a double standard which deserved a hard look.

As I've noted before -- in a field littered with dead horses I choose to beat the one that proves the case prima facie.

I can explain my work to a little kid. You cannot do so with your work, can you?

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

It is unimpeachable that there was a 3+" fold of fabric at Betzner. WHERE DID IT GO?

It's there because Craig Lamson says it's there. Can Craig ever go beyond these endlessly repeated assertions and demonstrate in the real world how clothing moves in the manner he describes?

No, Craig merely pronounces himself an expert on light and shadow and blows hot air.

If you can't replicate it, Craig, it never happened.

The "replication" of my birth and yours, Craig, is on-going, btw. Your inability to replicate your claims is also on-going.

[Cliff Varnell]

Well, on at this specific topic, what is there I have explained that "a little kid" would not understand?

Anything not relating to the physical evidence. Physical evidence can be demonstrated. A five year old may have difficulty with the intellectual frame-work of your reasoning, don't you think?

More to the point, what is there about this topic as I explain it in "Reasoning about Assassinations" that you would not understand?

I'm 57, not 5.

Why not say to Lamson, "If the photo has not been faked, then there was some bunching; but it doesn't make any difference to the location of the wound in his back, because the holes and the other evidence align"? That's the end of the story.

That's good. But I prefer to point to something I can physically demonstrate. Multi-inch bunch up of the clothing below the collar pushes up on the collar. In Croft the collar was not pushed up, ergo the clothing below it had minor, insignificant bunching.

I can show that to a "little kid" in less than a minute.

It will take you a little longer to get the tyke on board "Reasoning about Assassinations."

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK. But you do appreciate that all the films that overlap with the Zapruder have also been "fixed"? that her moves were probably simplified? that she was close enough to be fully aware of the location of the limo? that she also has peripheral vision? that there is no good reason to question what she had to say, where the shots she reported "from the rear" were from the DalTex, since none were fired from the 6th floor?

In reworking these films, many changes, omissions and alterations were made. Not only were the limo stop and Chaney motoring forward removed, but Jean and Mary were frozen on the grass, when they reported that they stepped into the street. If they were frozen in place, why would you doubt Toni's movements may have been altered, too? Do you acknowledge that the testimony of the witnesses OVERRIDES the films?

I just do not understand all of this questioning of the witnesses to the limo stop. Have you EVER KNOWN ANYONE who would report a limo stop (or a traffic accident or whatever) IF IT HAD NOT HAPPENED? And do you appreciate the incredible improbability of sixteen or more witnesses reporting a LIMO STOP THAT HAD NOT OCCURRED? Figure out the probability of anyone doing that and multiply it times itself 16 times!

Suppose (and this is a ridiculous assumption) that one time in ten, a person reports the occurrence of an event like this when it has not happened. (That would make them a loon, but set that aside for the sake of argument.) Since there were at least sixteen witnesses (ignoring those who saw it slow dramatically), the probability of sixteen witnesses reporting a non-occurring limo stop is equal to 1/10 times itself sixteen times, which is equal to 1/10,000,000,000,000,000.

pages back i think it was David Joseph ? asking about Toni Fosters movements in films.here is Toni in the Nix film, from John Dolva, thank you.sorry Kathy I do not see Toni's head turn to the right so that she does not observe the limo that was mentioned....b

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer