C-Span: JFK Assassination Theories, Mark Lane and Joan Mellen

[Douglas Caddy]

Douglas, I really could not say in regard to People's papers but I'm sure if she has not, she would be happy to receive copies. My recollection of individual documents is too vague to speculate whether or not they would be in addition to Sardie's document collection which I did forward to Joan. That had extensive material on the Kinser trial, the Estes investigations and a couple of Defense security investigations of Wallace which were extremely thorough.

As for myself, I talked at some length about Peoples with Madeleine Brown, who recounted many of his remarks and observations on Estes and Wallace however I don't recall ever discussing any documents he may have had with her.

-- Larry

Larry:

Joan should contact Barr McClellan about Clint Peoples' archival materials as to my knowledge he is the only person who has examined these in doing research for his book that is scheduled for release later this month.

Doug

[Larry Hancock]

I'll pass the word on to Joan, although I have to say I hope McClellan does a better job with this book than the last....Sardie's work was far superior IMHO

-- Larry

[Cliff Varnell]

It was quite gratifying.

Not at all surprising, Pat.

The JFK Assassination Porn Industry thrives on the notion JFK's back wound was at T1.

Wecht said as much on TV the first night of his Porn Convention.

[Pat Speer]

It was quite gratifying.

Not at all surprising, Pat.

The JFK Assassination Porn Industry thrives on the notion JFK's back wound was at T1.

Wecht said as much on TV the first night of his Porn Convention.

That it was at T1 (or lower, if you prefer) is the smoking gun proving the cover-up. So of course people were pleased to see this. The vast majority of articles and programs in the last month have either pushed that Oswald acted alone, or that he was the only shooter, but may have had some help. It was no doubt refreshing to some to see clear-cut official evidence, laid out in a clinical fashion, proving the back wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory, and that every investigation and TV program to follow has lied about it.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

That it was at T1 is the smoking gun proving the cover-up.

Your website shows JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the base of his neck.

The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, at least two inches below your upper-margin-of-T1 fantasy wound.

How could a couple inches of JFK's jacket and a couple inches of his shirt bunch up entirely above this imagined base of the neck in-shoot without pushing up on the jacket collar?

The supporting evidence for the T3 back wound is significant, to say the least.

You are pushing a historical falsehood, Pat, pure and simple.

[Pat Speer]

That it was at T1 is the smoking gun proving the cover-up.

Your website shows JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the base of his neck.

The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, at least two inches below your upper-margin-of-T1 fantasy wound.

PAT: I don't believe this is true, Cliff. See if you can find a way to demonstrate this. Preferably, ON ANOTHER THREAD!

How could a couple inches of JFK's jacket and a couple inches of his shirt bunch up entirely above this imagined base of the neck in-shoot without pushing up on the jacket collar?

The supporting evidence for the T3 back wound is significant, to say the least.

You are pushing a historical falsehood, Pat, pure and simple.

You've got it wrong as usual. I'm not pushing anything. I told the audience Burkley said it was at T3, and told them why I disagreed (the upper mark in the autopsy photo is more consistent with a 7 x 4 wound than the lower one). I then showed them how the HSCA FPP's placing the wound at T-1 was such a problem for the HSCA that they hired a trajectory analyst to move it back up to where the Warren Commission placed it.

Why are you so threatened by the FACT that a wound at T-1 is inconsistent with the single-bullet theory? Why don't you want people to understand this simple basic fact, that strongly suggests there was more than one shooter?

[Cliff Varnell]

That it was at T1 is the smoking gun proving the cover-up.

Your website shows JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the base of his neck.

The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, at least two inches below your upper-margin-of-T1 fantasy wound.

PAT: I don't believe this is true, Cliff. See if you can find a way to demonstrate this. Preferably, ON ANOTHER THREAD!

How could a couple inches of JFK's jacket and a couple inches of his shirt bunch up entirely above this imagined base of the neck in-shoot without pushing up on the jacket collar?

The supporting evidence for the T3 back wound is significant, to say the least.

You are pushing a historical falsehood, Pat, pure and simple.

You've got it wrong as usual. I'm not pushing anything. I told the audience Burkley said it was at T3, and told them why I disagreed (the upper mark in the autopsy photo is more consistent with a 7 x 4 wound than the lower one).

Pat, you're pushing the fiction that the wound was at T1.

You're engaging in egregious special pleading when you only give one piece of T3 evidence to the audience, while studiously ignoring the physical evidence, the properly prepared documentary record in full, and the 15 eye-witnesses to the low back wound.

You're pushing the validity of an obviously worthless autopsy photo.

The title of your speech proves high irony will never die.

I then showed them how the HSCA FPP's placing the wound at T-1 was such a problem for the HSCA that they hired a trajectory analyst to move it back up to where the Warren Commission placed it.

It's a lie. A pernicious, zombie lie.

Why are you so threatened by the FACT that a wound at T-1 is inconsistent with the single-bullet theory?

Because the SBT is a minor issue.

You are obfuscating the nature of the throat wound. Entrance, minor damage, no exit, no bullet recovered.

You're burying the significance of the neck x-ray, completely snowed under by your pet theorizing.

Why don't you want people to understand this simple basic fact, that strongly suggests there was more than one shooter?

You insult my intelligence when you suggest people need an expert to guide them in this matter.

I think people can look at bullet holes in the clothing four inches below the collars and figure out that it's too low to be associated with the throat wound.

You turn an open and shut case into a cock-eyed rabbit hole based on a historical lie.

[Cliff Varnell]

The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, at least two inches below your upper-margin-of-T1 fantasy wound.

PAT: I don't believe this is true, Cliff. See if you can find a way to demonstrate this. Preferably, ON ANOTHER THREAD!

Chad Zimmerman took an x-ray of a guy similar weight/height as JFK and found that a point 4 inches below the collar lined up with T3.

The inferior margin of a jacket collar rests at C6/C7 or C7. You've got a wound at T1, Pat.

You need both the shirt and jacket to move up entirely above the T1 in-shoot without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Physically impossible.

Burden of proof on YOU.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Chris Newton]

Peoples followed Estes and Wallace for 25 years. It would be a difficult task to disregard what Peoples learned and concluded about these two men, first as a Texas Ranger and later as a U.S. Marshal.

Doug,

Joan Mellon doesn't discount anything in regards to what Peoples found out about Estes and Wallace. She states unequivocally that Wallace was a "hit-man" for Johnson. What she does note is that in regard to the unidentified print (from the TSBD) that the FBI supplied a new high resolution photograph which was not a match for Wallace. Now, I don't know if anyone compared the "new" photo with the old reproduction of the finger print or not, to see if they are in fact the same piece of evidence being presented.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Chris Newton

[Paul Brancato]

It seems to me that the Mac Wallace print in the TSBD is a misdirection, whether its his or not. If it was his, would we then believe that the WC at least had the origin of the kill shots correct? If it was not, then would it belong to some as yet unidentified shooter who fired the fatal head shot? I would answer both questions in the negative. The shots to the throat and to the head came from somewhere in front. Do we need proof of Mac Wallace shooting from somewhere that day in order to think that LBJ was in on the conspiracy? I don't.

[Chris Newton]

Paul,

I find it hard to believe that shots came from that window and the crowd directly below the window acts if nothing serious has occurred. Nonetheless, someone created the pseudo snipers nest and hid the rifle. That person (or persons), handled the boxes and the weapon and in theory may have left prints somewhere. I can imagine that someone would wipe a weapon and not think about prints left on boxes. If proof were found that Johnson's henchman was on the sixth floor on 11/22/63 it doesn't mean he was a shooter but it would prove conspiracy and Johnson involvement without doubt.

I too think the headshot came from the front, by the way.

[Blair Dobson]

this thread is all over the place...

[David Lifton]

It was quite gratifying.

Not at all surprising, Pat.

The JFK Assassination Porn Industry thrives on the notion JFK's back wound was at T1.

Wecht said as much on TV the first night of his Porn Convention.

Cliff: I tried to send you a private message, but it would not go through. If you would send me your email address, I have something that may be of interest to you.

Send it to me at dlifton@earthlink.net

Thank you

DSL

12/5/13; 6 AM

Los Angeles, California

[Paul Brancato]

Chris - your snipers nest point is well taken.