(PART 862)



Your analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos destroys the single bullet theory.

You conceded the clothing wasn't bunched up much at all in the Croft photo, remember?


Quote me saying that, Cliff. Because I sure as heck don't remember ever saying that.

Kennedy's jacket was, of course, "bunched up" in the Croft picture. Anyone with one (bad) eye can easily see that.

Did I say something years ago to you about the clothing not being bunched "much at all"? Is that the key phrase? Or are you misstating my quotes? (Just wondering.)


In this post you acknowledge that, in the past, you've admitted JFK's clothing wasn't bunched up significantly on Houston St.

In this post you acknowledge that JFK's jacket was bunched up "a bit" in the Croft photo.

"A bit" of bunched clothing is a fraction of an inch, David, not 3 inches.

In this post you refine your analysis that JFK's jacket was bunched up "a little bit" since his shirt collar is clearly visible in Croft.

"The jacket collar could be "hiked up" a little bit and still have some of JFK's white shirt visible." -- DVP

This photo destroys the SBT.

The shirt collar is visible. The jacket collar sat in a normal position at the base of his neck. Otherwise, the full band of white shirt collar wouldn't be visible, right?

Your SBT requires 3 inches of shirt bunch-up and a near-equal amount of jacket bunch-up.

How could multiple inches of shirt and jacket bunch up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of his neck?

Only "a little bit" of jacket could be bunched up under those circumstances.

Your acknowledgement of this fact destroys your Zombie Pet Theory, David.


Oh, brother.

Cliff Varnell thinks those previous comments I made somehow mean I can no longer believe (or in any way support) the SBT.

Cliff's middle initial must be D (for "Desperation").


David, do you really believe that both the jacket and the shirt bunched up the same amount, just as the shot was fired? Really?


This stuff about the clothing is so incredibly silly, Ray.

There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket.

So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes.

What's the alternative? Please enlighten me on that one.

Did one bullet pass through the shirt and then a different bullet went through the suit coat? Nobody could possibly argue such a nutty theory.

Or do you think the clothing was faked too?


Now who is being the silly one, David?

I note you never answered my question.

Obviously one bullet caused both holes. Again I ask you, do you really believe that the jacket and shirt both bunched up the same amount? Really?


Of course they bunched up the same amount. Why not? You actually think such a thing is a total impossibility? (Geesh.)

The alternative is to believe that this autopsy photo below is a fake. And, in my opinion, that notion is absurd and preposterous (especially in light of what we find at 7 HSCA 41])....

President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable.

Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct?

And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right?

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

But to hear CTers like Cliff Varnell tell it, that "double bunching" thing is more improbable than flying to the moon in a Cessna. ~big shrug~

It only goes to show--once again--the lengths that some conspiracy hounds will go to in order to inject suspicion and doubt and alleged "conspiracy" into every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case---even though there's no need to inject such things into this particular sub-topic regarding the President's clothing whatsoever.

And btw, a picture was produced by Jean Davison a few years ago (the one below) showing JFK wearing a shirt that is "bunched up" near his neck. But according to some CTers, I guess maybe this is merely an illusion I'm seeing here....

And Cliff Varnell and other Education Forum members know about the above picture, too. It was discussed right here in this thread.

Naturally, Cliff doesn't think it has any relevance at all. But I think Cliff is all wet, and I set him straight here.

FYI / BTW / FWIW....

Here's another photo, culled from Andre Leche's film (which was discovered in late 2013), showing a pretty significant bunching of JFK's jacket on Main Street....


Regarding the photo of JFK speaking to the young lad and showing his shirt bunched up, if he was shot at the collar line, at that moment, you would have three holes in the shirt, once it was laid flat. Just saying.

And the same would apply to the suit coat, if he were shot at the collar line and the coat was bunched up. The bullet would go through the fold, leaving one bullet hole on each side of the fold, and then through the collar of the coat, leaving another hole.

I count three holes, Dave.



The simple answer to your posts above is that JFK's clothes on 11/22/63 were not "bunched" to an extreme degree where "folds" or overlapping of the fabric come into play in the precise locations in the shirt and coat where the bullet penetrated.

Because if such folding of the clothing had occurred at the exact spots where the bullet entered, then--like you suggested--we would have multiple holes in each item (the coat and the shirt). But we've got only ONE hole in each article of clothing. Ergo, no "folding" and no overlapping of fabric.

Also see....


Okay, smart guy, did the bullet go above the collar, or below the collar?


As far as the SKIN wound in JFK's body, the bullet went into his body just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. (At least it looks that way to me.) But it certainly didn't enter way up in the "NECK", and there was no need whatever for Gerald Ford, or any other person connected with the Warren Commission, to want to start "moving" the wound way up into the neck, because, as CE903 demonstrates, a wound way up there in the "neck" of JFK would ruin the SBT trajectory entirely.

As far as the bullet hole in the coat, that hole was located quite a bit down from the collar (due to the bunching of the jacket when the shooting occurred). So, quite obviously, the "collar" isn't involved when discussing the hole in the jacket either.


Obviously one bullet caused both holes [in JFK's shirt and suit coat].


Then what's your point, Ray?

You readily acknowledge that ONE bullet must have passed through the two holes in the clothing. So aren't you therefore saying the exact same thing I am saying here -- i.e., that the two articles of clothing (the shirt and the jacket) WERE, indeed, elevated to the same level when the bullet struck John Kennedy in the back?

Otherwise, how could the one bullet have managed to travel through both of those clothing holes on November 22, 1963?

Please elaborate on how your position ("Obviously one bullet caused both holes") is any different from mine ("There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket. So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes.").

We are BOTH stating the obvious--that one bullet went through both clothing holes. Therefore, in order for that basic fact to be true, the two items of clothing had no choice but to be "lined up" in such a manner on JFK's back to allow the one bullet to pass successfully through both of those garments. Correct?

And since everybody (including Mr. Ray Mitcham) can easily see that JFK's jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" when the shooting occurred (as confirmed by Robert Croft's photograph), then where can you possibly go with your argument that the shirt couldn't have been bunched up to the same level as the jacket?

What am I missing here? Please tell me. Because I truly don't think your position on this is any different from my own.


Are you sure you want to go with "just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders", Dave?

Just making sure....


That seems to be about right when looking at the autopsy photo.

But to be perfectly technical and spot-on accurate, I'd insist upon the precise language of the autopsy surgeons and the detailed measurements they made. Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck said....

"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process." -- Warren Report; Page 540


No, Dave, you stated the bullet was slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. Is that your final answer? Do you want to call a friend?


Oh, good. Bob has decided to be cute. (He thinks he's setting a cunning little trap for that stupid ol' LNer from the Hoosier State named Davey V.P., doesn't he? How clever that boy is.)


The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims, David.

But you and all the other high back wound people have found it impossible.

It's way past time for you people to put up or shut up.


What's not to love about a conspiracy buff with a pet theory to push? Pure entertainment.

Cliff Varnell's dogged refrain, year after year after year, concerning the clothing of JFK is even better than Jack Benny for laughs.

The bottom line is ----

There is no reasonable alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory (Cliff's constant whining about the clothing notwithstanding) -- and even Cliff must surely realize that fact.

So, to use Cliff's own verbiage, maybe it's time for "you [CT] people to put up or shut up" when it comes to demonstrating just exactly how President Kennedy was shot via an anti-SBT theory.

Of course that won't happen---because it CAN'T happen. And that's because the Single-Bullet Theory is rooted in solid ground (and a real bullet too--CE399, which is something the anti-SBT CTers lack completely).


Quote By DVP -- "There is no reasonable alternative to the Single Bullet Theory."

Only in your world, David.

It was "Theory" dreamt up to fit a scenario in which only three bullets were fired, one of which hit a bystander. Unfortunately you can't see that.


Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray?

And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does?

Don't be shy. Let's hear it.


No problem. Multi shooters.




My problem is proving where the shots came from.


Yeah, no kidding. It's difficult to prove something for which there's no evidence at all. Good luck.


One shot was from the front hitting the President in the right temple...


Not a lick of evidence to support that claim.


My theory needs no magic bullet.


Nor does mine.

But you didn't even come close to answering my previous question, which concerned only the SBT.

I'll try again....

"Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray? And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does? Don't be shy. Let's hear it."

[Ray never answered me. Gee, what a surprise.]


I have ONE question about DVP's book [Remember the book? I believe this thread was started to discuss the book]:

Is there any NEW information in the book, or is it a restatement of old information? Because I can get refried beans at just about any Mexican restaurant.


There's some material in the book that I don't think has been published in "book" form in the past.


Stuff about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" myth and the true identity of the "shrugging" SS agent at Love Field [pages 429-434 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"]. (Don Lawton's identity WAS, indeed, revealed in the Gerald Blaine/Clint Hill book "The Kennedy Detail" in 2010, but I don't think the "standdown" topic was discussed in that book. But I'm not positive about that.)

And there's some "new" material (thanks to Gary Mack's e-mails to me) regarding Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's [pages 64-67].

Plus, the book's main author, Mel Ayton, has contacted some sources down in Florida regarding the "Castro/Cuba/Oswald" angle that I believe can be classified as "new" [Chapter 11, "The Castro Connection"; pages 313-343].

But as far as being "new" to people like Mark Knight or Pat Speer or John Simkin or Mark Lane, et al ... the answer to your question, Mark, would be, for the most part, no. Because I doubt that there's much of anything brand-new in the book that you guys haven't seen before. (Sorry, Mark, neither Mel nor I discovered another bullet or a new "bombshell witness". Instead, we have had to mostly rely on that same evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63. Like it or not, that evidence IS the evidence in this case. And it all points in one irresistible direction.)

But for people who don't visit JFK online forums every day of their lives and who don't obsess about the JFK case the way I do or the way "Internet CTers" do, then I'd say, Yes, there are several "new" items of interest sprinkled throughout "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On".

And why in heck the "Add To Cart" button hasn't returned to the book's Amazon page is ticking me off greatly. It should be there by now, but it isn't (as of 1:00 AM EST on 12/15/2014). The ability to purchase it through the "Shopping Cart" at Amazon should definitely occur within the next few days. [It finally did occur on January 7, 2015.]


Since there is a chapter on the Single Bullet Theory, how is that discussion off topic?


The reference to being "off topic" was to the fact that this was sliding more towards rekindling an old "grudge match," in which neither side was ever going to convince the other, than it was towards actually being a civil discussion. Personally, I am no fan of Mr. Von Pein...but I hope that we can keep the discussions here not only civil, but informative. Snide remarks by either party, or a continuous sniping match, does little to raise the level of discourse here.

By now, I think we all know what you believe, Mr. Varnell. And I'm pretty sure we all know what Mr. Von Pein believes. And from where I stand, obviously "never the twain shall meet." So unless there is new evidence on the subject, we return to rehashing old arguments that lead nowhere, as neither of you will ever convince the other, nor concede to the other. I think that, on a thread about a new book, perhaps having the courtesy to first read the book might bring other more enlightening questions to mind.

And besides...I think there's probably more than one old thread here about the bunching/non-bunching of the shirt/jacket that might be revived, if there is some point to it other than wanting to be the man to get in the last word on the subject.

And THAT is what the "back on topic" reference was about.


DVP and I have come to characterize the clothing evidence the same way -- there was "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

This is a significant admission from DVP.

Jim DiEugenio argued and argued with DVP over hundreds of topics and never once did Jim D get any sort of admission of fact from Von Pein.

That I have wrung said admission is a true accomplishment, if I do say so.


I've never specified the EXACT amount of jacket bunching that can be seen in the photos. Why on Earth would anyone do something like that? It's an impossible thing to know. I can't tell precisely how much "bunching" there is in the Croft picture. And neither can you. We can only GUESS.

You, Cliff, are attempting to fine-tune the "bunching" to levels of exactitude that cannot be achieved.

But it is nice to see Cliff admit that at least SOME bunching of JFK's jacket is seen in the Dealey Plaza photographs. (With a shocking admission like that one, perhaps Cliff isn't too far away from becoming an LNer after all.)


The point was to sharpen and underscore David Von Pein's startling, ground-breaking admission that there was no significant bunching of JFK's jacket in Dealey.


And who said a "significant" amount of bunching is needed in order to meet the requirements for the Single-Bullet Theory? Just because YOU say so? "Significant" is a relative term.

Once again, Cliff is pretending to KNOW with exact accuracy the degree of "bunching" that is occurring with respect to both JFK's jacket AND shirt via the photos we have to examine. (And the shirt can't even be seen at all, of course, since the jacket is covering his shirt.)

But such pinpoint precision concerning the bunching cannot be obtained by just looking at the photos. It can only be GUESSED at. But apparently Cliff thinks he can measure to the millimeter the amount of bunched-up fabric that is seen in the photos.

Such silliness the likes which Mr. Varnell is constantly engaging in regarding President Kennedy's clothing ought to be scoffed at by any and all reasonable people examining the JFK case.

Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable.



The verifiable PROOF that Cliff Varnell is dead wrong regarding the bullet holes in JFK's clothing exists in the fact that we KNOW beyond all doubt that ONE single bullet had to have passed through all three bullet holes in question --- the hole in JFK's jacket, the hole in JFK's shirt, and the hole that existed in JFK's upper back (which is located 14 centimeters below his right mastoid process, just like the autopsy doctors said).

Cliff can talk all day long (and he will) about how it's impossible for John Kennedy's clothes to have bunched up to a certain level on JFK's body. But the absolute irrefutable PROOF that the clothing DID, indeed, bunch up to that level on JFK's back exists in this autopsy picture, which has been proven to be genuine (i.e., not faked) by many experts who examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA:

The bullet hole in the above picture is perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and is also perfectly consistent with the autopsy report and with Commission Exhibit No. 903 as well.

And since we know where the bullet entered the BODY of President Kennedy, then the shirt and jacket HAD to have been elevated to the very same level where we find the body/skin wound in the upper back of the President.

The above fact couldn't be any more obvious, of course. But, for some reason, certain conspiracy theorists are still struggling to figure out this elementary math that any third-grader would have no trouble resolving.

If some conspiracy theorists want to continue to pretend that this photo of President Kennedy is a fake, or alternatively, that the wound seen in that picture is really much lower on JFK's back than it appears to be in the photo....they are free, of course, to speculate about such things I guess. But in my opinion, neither option is a reasonable one. Especially when we factor in these findings reached by the Photographic Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations:

"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, 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." -- HSCA Volume 7, page 41

David Von Pein
December 2014