New JFK Dallas film surfaces in Dallas

[Pat Speer]

Cliff... I don't take a position one way or the other on the bunching issue at the time the shots were fired. Only that in the new film, at that point in time, it shows to be bunched. I don't think any photographic evidence clearly shows, one way or the other, what condition it was in at the time of the shots. As stated in the above post, we have to look at everything with a critical eye.

JWK

Even if the jacket was bunched a little, it was by no means bunched enough to lift the entrance hole 3 inches up on the back.

[John Geraghty]

The film was shown on the RTE news tonight (Ireland's national telvision network), as was the story of the selling of the window frame.

We're on a bit of a roll publicity wise.

John

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff... I don't take a position one way or the other on the bunching issue at the time the shots were fired. Only that in the new film, at that point in time, it shows to be bunched. I don't think any photographic evidence clearly shows, one way or the other, what condition it was in at the time of the shots. As stated in the above post, we have to look at everything with a critical eye.

JWK

One problem with the overall discussion is the corruption of the word "bunch."

SBT defenders for years have used dual, interchangable definitions of the word:

"bunch" refers both to ANY fold of fabric, and it refers to the 3 inches of upwardly

displaced fabric required by the Single Bullet Theory.

This leads to an argument based entirely on non-sequitur:

1) The SBT requires 3 inches of JFK's jacket (and another 3 inches of his shirt)

to have been upwardly displaced entirely above the SBT's C7 in-shoot, at the

base of JFK's neck.

2) The motorcade photos show there were folds in the jacket.

3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 3 inches above the SBT

in-shoot at C7.

Let's turn a critical eye to your statement, J. William:

I don't think any photographic evidence clearly shows, one way or the other, what

condition it was in at the time of the shots.

The photographic record isn't clear on this issue?

I heartily disagree!

Here's JFK at Love Field.

There is a fraction of an inch of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his neck. The top

of the shirt collar is about an inch below his hairline. If his jacket were elevated an

inch, the top of the jacket collar would ride over the top of the shirt collar but not ride

up into the hairline.

Can we agree on that?

Here's an image that shows exactly what I'm talking about. JFK on Houston St.

The jacket collar clearly rode above the top of the shirt collar (which we cannot

see), and it clearly did not ride up into the hairline.

A couple of seconds later the jacket collar dropped -- that's why we see the shirt

collar at the left-back of JFK's neck in all the Elm St. photo images.

As Pat Speer noted recently on this thread -- so what if the jacket were elevated

a fraction of an inch?

The photo record clearly debunks SBT "bunch."

And that's not an opinion.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

One problem with the overall discussion is the corruption of the word "bunch."

SBT defenders for years have used dual, interchangable definitions of the word:

"bunch" refers both to ANY fold of fabric, and it refers to the 3 inches of upwardly

displaced fabric required by the Single Bullet Theory.

This leads to an argument based entirely on non-sequitur:

1) The SBT requires 3 inches of JFK's jacket (and another 3 inches of his shirt)

to have been upwardly displaced entirely above the SBT's C7 in-shoot, at the

base of JFK's neck.

2) The motorcade photos show there were folds in the jacket.

3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 3 inches above the SBT

in-shoot at C7.

Sure enough, Gary Mack is promoting this non-sequitur to the World.

From a Reuters article on the new film:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070219/pl_nm/kennedy_footage_dc

"I've already seen the footage on a conspiracy Web site -- it's interesting for the conspiracy researchers to study Kennedy's coat which appears to be bunched up on his back," [Gary]Mack said.

He said since Kennedy's jacket was riding high on his back, the entry wound in his body did not match the expected position in his coat -- grist for the conspiracy mill that charges more than three shots were fired.

And what is Gary Mack's proof that JFK's shirt and jacket both were "riding"

3 inches higher than normal on Elm St.?

Can Gary Mack please explain his methodology for determining the amount of

"bunch" shown in the new footage?

Can Gary Mack determine the difference between 1-inch of "bunch" and 3-inches

of "bunch"?

To apply two definitions to the same word and use them interchangably is a logical

fallacy.

Will Gary Mack come on this Forum and defend his use of this non-sequitur?

Can Gary Mack demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar could drop to a normal

position at the base of his neck -- as clearly shown in the Houston St. segment

of the Nix film -- when there were 6 inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched

up at the base of JFK's neck?

Edited February 20, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[John Simkin]

Will Gary Mack come on this Forum and defend his use of this non-sequitur?

Can Gary Mack demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar could drop to a normal

position at the base of his neck -- as clearly shown in the Houston St. segment

of the Nix film -- when there were 6 inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched

up at the base of JFK's neck?

If Gary emails the answers to me I will post them on the forum.

This article appeared in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...2017079,00.html

Ewen MacAskill in Washington

Tuesday February 20, 2007

The Guardian

With a pink hat and a broad smile, Jackie Kennedy looks out on the crowd gathered in downtown Dallas, only 90 seconds before the assassination that was to change the US. You may think you've seen it before, but this image comes from a newly-discovered home movie handed into a Texas museum and released for the first time yesterday.

George Mack, the curator of the Six Floor museum in Dallas that collects material relating to the assassination and to the life of JFK, said the silent 8mm colour film provided the clearest and "the best view of Jackie I have ever seen" on the day.

George Jefferies, 82, an amateur photographer, took the film on the way to work and held on to it for 40 years. He mentioned its existence last year to his son-in-law, who suggested donating it to the museum.

The film captures the motorcade only a few blocks before it reaches Dealey Plaza where Kennedy was shot. The president is seen clearly, sitting by his wife, also smiling at the crowd.

Mr Mack said: "We have had the film restored and enhanced for use in future museum programmes, news broadcasts, and documentaries."

He said that the footage showed Kennedy's coat bunched up at his neck, a detail that will interest conspiracy theorists who have long questioned why the bullet hole in his body and coat had not matched up as expected.

[Cliff Varnell]

Will Gary Mack come on this Forum and defend his use of this non-sequitur?

Can Gary Mack demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar could drop to a normal

position at the base of his neck -- as clearly shown in the Houston St. segment

of the Nix film -- when there were 6 inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched

up at the base of JFK's neck?

If Gary emails the answers to me I will post them on the forum.

.

Thank you, John

He said that the footage showed Kennedy's coat bunched up at his neck, a detail that will interest conspiracy theorists who have long questioned why the bullet hole in his body and coat had not matched up as expected.[/color]

Gary Mack: Thank you for raising this issue to a more prominent place, whether

you respond to my pointed questions or not.

[Myra Bronstein]

Here's a photo of the President's back brace, FWIW. Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket.

Snagged from:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/brace.jpg

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's a photo of the President's back brace, FWIW. Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket.

Snagged from:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/brace.jpg

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't

we see it in every photo of the jacket?

Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture.

It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so.

It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these

fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric.

And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument

for it!

All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained

credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

If Gary emails the answers to me I will post them on the forum.

Gary has indicated to me that he is happy with the information

as presented.

Personally, I think such non-arguments should be exposed.

[Cliff Varnell]

Gary Mack has indicated that he'd like me to post our private exchange, and

I'm happy to do so.

Let's review. Here is the passage from the Reuters article with which

I've taken exception:

"I've already seen the footage on a conspiracy Web site -- it's interesting for the

conspiracy researchers to study Kennedy's coat which appears to be bunched up

on his back," [Gary]Mack said.

He said since Kennedy's jacket was riding high on his back, the entry wound in his

body did not match the expected position in his coat -- grist for the conspiracy mill

that charges more than three shots were fired.

I'll argue that JFK's coat was never "riding" higher than an inch in Dealey Plaza,

and then the jacket dropped.

I have put the following questions to Gary:

And what is Gary Mack's proof that JFK's shirt and jacket both were "riding"

3 inches higher than normal on Elm St.?

Can Gary Mack please explain his methodology for determining the amount of

"bunch" shown in the new footage?

Can Gary Mack determine the difference between 1-inch of "bunch" and 3-inches

of "bunch"?

To apply two definitions to the same word and use them interchangably is a logical

fallacy.

Will Gary Mack come on this Forum and defend his use of this non-sequitur?

Can Gary Mack demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar could drop to a normal

position at the base of his neck -- as clearly shown in the Houston St. segment

of the Nix film -- when there were 6 inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched

up at the base of JFK's neck?

Here is what Gary wrote to me privately this morning:

Cliff,

Reuters writer Ed Stoddard wondered how and why the Jefferies film might be studied by conspiracy "buffs," so I told him that some conspiracy "researchers" would look at how Kennedy's coat was bunched and whether that helped explain one of his wounds. I used the term "bunched" because that is the term most researchers have used over the years. Stoddard's paragraph is an accurate account, in my opinion. Here it is: "The president's coat is clearly if briefly seen bunched up on his back -- a detail that will be scrutinized by conspiracy theorists who see evidence of a plot in, among other things, the fact the bullet wounds on his jacket and body did not appear to match."

Gary Mack

I responded with the following:

Gary,

Thank you for responding.

It is unfortunate that "most researchers" have applied logically

fallacious dual definitions to the word "bunch."

The word is used to describe ANY fold in JFK's jacket; and the word

is used to characterize the 3 inches of elevated fabric required by the

Single Bullet Theory.

This leads to an argument that is nothing more than a non sequitur:

1. The SBT requires 3 inches of JFK's jacket to have been elevated.

2. The motorcade films and photos show folds in JFK's jacket.

3. Therefore, JFK's jacket was elevated 3 inches.

Your use of the term "bunch" perpetuates this fallacious logic.

Let's look at the basic physical facts:

1. The bullet defect in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the

shirt collar (5 & 3/4" below the top of the collar.)

2. The bullet defect in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom

of the jacket collar (5 & 3/8" below the top of the collar.)

In order for the jacket defect to match the shirt defect, the

jacket had to be "bunched up" 1/8" vis a vis the shirt.

I hate to say it, but "most researchers" don't have a clue what

a fraction of an inch fabric "bunch" looks like.

In Stoddard's article he attributes the following to you:

(quote on)

He said since Kennedy's jacket was riding high on his back,

the entry wound in his body did not match the expected

position in his coat -- grist for the conspiracy mill that charges

more than three shots were fired.

(quote off)

Gary, whether you like it or not, Mr. Stoddard has painted you

as a Bunch Theorist.

But I don't think you're prepared to actually argue that any of

the motorcade footage shows the jacket elevated more than an

inch.

I invite you to look at the clearer version of the Houston St.

segment of the Nix film (as shown on Unsolved History).

As JFK leaned back from his exchange with Nellie, his jacket

collar dropped, and we clearly see the white band of his shirt

collar.

The Towner film clearly shows the white band of the shirt collar

on Elm St -- ditto Betzner #3 at Z186.

How could there be 6 inches of shirt and jacket fabric "bunched"

up entirely above the SBT's C7 in-shoot, at the base of JFK's neck,

when the jacket collar dropped to a normal position at the base

of his neck?

Gary responded with the following:

Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is that the article is fine as is.

Gary

In response to the above, I posted the following on this thread:

Gary has indicated to me that he is happy with the information

as presented.

Personally, I think such non-arguments should be exposed.

Gary then IM'd the following:

Cliff,

You posted my opinion about the article, but not the answer I sent you.

Will you be posting it soon as you indicated?

Consider it posted, Gary.

But the central question remains un-answered:

How could 6 inches of clothing fabric ride up above the SBT C7 in-shoot

at the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the

base of JFK's neck?

This scenario -- disparate, solid objects occupying the same physical

space at the same time -- is contrary to the nature of reality.

And thus, the SBT stands debunked.

Bunch Theorists like Gary and John Hunt et al NEVER defend their claims,

they are content to merely repeat them over and over and over...

[Myra Bronstein]

Here's a photo of the President's back brace, FWIW. Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket.

Snagged from:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/brace.jpg

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't

we see it in every photo of the jacket?

Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture.

It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so.

It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these

fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric.

And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument

for it!

All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained

credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me.

Good god Cliff. All I did was post a photo of the infamous back brace and clearly state:

"Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket."

In other words I wasn't promoting anything or taking a stand one war or another, for or against.

Just posting a photo of one thing President Kennedy wore when he was murdered that is rarely seen.

[Jack White]

The "coat bunch" is a non-issue. It is impossible for the coat

to rise up enough to make the single bullet theory work.

It is a desperation non-issue like Thompson's "gap" in the

Moorman photo.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's a photo of the President's back brace, FWIW. Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket.

Snagged from:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/brace.jpg

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't

we see it in every photo of the jacket?

Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture.

It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so.

It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these

fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric.

And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument

for it!

All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained

credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me.

Good god Cliff. All I did was post a photo of the infamous back brace and clearly state:

"Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket."

In other words I wasn't promoting anything or taking a stand one war or another, for or against.

Just posting a photo of one thing President Kennedy wore when he was murdered that is rarely seen.

Myra, I was making an observation about your comment.

I'm not attributing anything to you one way or the other.

It seems like a simple question: if the back brace had an impact on

the position of the jacket, why doesn't this impact show in all the

photos and films, not just a couple?

Edited February 20, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Myra Bronstein]

Ok, just supposin' here. Speculating about the timing of the film release complete with reinforcement of the party line, to "remind" the public (as Poppy Bush so helpfully did at Ford's funeral) that Lee Oswald is IN FACT the lone assassin. Never mind the reality that the man was never tried let alone convicted. And of course articles about the film consistently slip in the sneering little jab about "conspiracy theorists" to discredit those who think.

Further supposin' that the film could have been "discovered" at any point and held until it'd be most advantageous to party liners.

Since, as many have said here, the film doesn't appear to offer much if any of value to the body of evidence in the open case of President Kennedy's murder, then it's possible it was strategically released to prep the public for the heavy duty propaganda to come....

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-A...TF8&s=books

"Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" (Hardcover) by Vincent Bugliosi (Author)

# Hardcover: 1632 pages

# Publisher: W. W. Norton (May 29, 2007)

"Book Description

The book that lays all questions to rest.

Polls reveal that over 75 percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald; some even believe Oswald was entirely innocent. In this absorbing and historic book—the first ever to cover the entire case—Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to believe such lies about an event that changed the course of history.

The brilliant prosecutor of Charles Manson and the man who forged an iron-clad case of circumstantial guilt around O. J. Simpson in his best-selling Outrage, Bugliosi is perhaps the only man in America capable of "prosecuting" Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy. His book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence, reexamination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American nightmare. At last we know what really happened. At last it all makes sense. 32 pages of illustrations."

(Calling Mark Lane... Red alert.)

Just supposin'.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

It seems like a simple question: if the back brace had an impact on

the position of the jacket, why doesn't this impact show in all the

photos and films, not just a couple?

Same reason the jacket moves into different positions - he shifts, the jacket shifts. He lifts his arm, the jacket shifts. He pivots, the jacket shifts. The brace, wrapped motionless around his body, might affect the jacket when he was in certain positions but not in others. That seems simple enough.

Cliff, you've been thinking about this "bunching" issue for at least five years that I can tell via Google -- are there *any* clear photos of JFK, taken from behind, that show the coat *not* bunching or riding up?

I'm not talking about Love Field photos, when he first sat down. I mean, up close and easy to see photos of JFK in the motorcade itself that show his jacket smooth on his upper back.