DVP has a book coming out

[David Von Pein]

Cliff,

When you have to resort to claims of so much fakery and dishonesty on the part of God knows how many people to make your case, I know I've won the battle. Every single thing you just said in your last post is pure fantasy....and even you must know it.

Bye.

Edited December 17, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

When you have to resort to claims of so much fakery and dishonesty on the part of God knows how many people to make your case, I know I've won the battle. Every single thing you just said in your last post is pure fantasy....and even you must know it.

Bye.

It's all in the House report. Even you must know it.

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added)

(quote on)

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to

point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as

scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately

mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish

as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case

gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious

to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the

onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested

with the prosecution.

(quote off)

Edited December 17, 2014 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

That's all very nice, Cliff. But I will remind you of what that very same HSCA concluded about those very same autopsy photographs and X-rays.....

"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 Vol. 7, p.41

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm

If you, Cliff, want to continue to pretend that this photo of President Kennedy is a fake, or alternatively, that the wound seen in this picture is really much lower on JFK's back than it appears to be in this photo....well, you're free to speculate about such things I guess. But in my opinion, neither option is a reasonable one....

Edited December 17, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

From "Forgive my Grief- Part 1" by Penn Jones. ( page 186)

"One of the personnel had the crassness to ask Mrs Kennedy, as she was leaving the hospital, if he could keep President Kennedy's undershirt! This, apparently, is the reason the undershirts of neither the President nor Governor Connally are shown in the Warren Report exhibits. When we related this story to an FBI representative who called upon us, the agent replied "Yes, but we got that back" But the recovery apparently was not made until after the Warren Report had been printed"

What happened to the President's undershirt? Did it have a bullet hole in the same position as the shirt and jacket?

[Cliff Varnell]

From "Forgive my Grief- Part 1" by Penn Jones. ( page 186)

"One of the personnel had the crassness to ask Mrs Kennedy, as she was leaving the hospital, if he could keep President Kennedy's undershirt! This, apparently, is the reason the undershirts of neither the President nor Governor Connally are shown in the Warren Report exhibits. When we related this story to an FBI representative who called upon us, the agent replied "Yes, but we got that back" But the recovery apparently was not made until after the Warren Report had been printed"

What happened to the President's undershirt? Did it have a bullet hole in the same position as the shirt and jacket?

JFK didn't wear under-shirts.

[Cliff Varnell]

That's all very nice, Cliff. But I will remind you of what that very same HSCA concluded about those very same autopsy photographs and X-rays.....

"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 Vol. 7, p.41

This view was solidly contradicted by the same people elsewhere in Volume 7.

See: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21167&p=293298

Physical evidence trumps improperly prepared photos with no chain of possession.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm

If you, Cliff, want to continue to pretend that this photo of President Kennedy is a fake, or alternatively, that the wound seen in this picture is really much lower on JFK's back than it appears to be in this photo....well, you're free to speculate about such things I guess. But in my opinion, neither option is a reasonable one....

Your opinion is irrelevant, David. Physical evidence trumps photos every time.

You observe just "a little bit" of jacket bunching on Elm St. JFK was shot in the back at T3, and shot in the throat from the front.

It's that simple.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Cliff Varnell

[Ray Mitcham]

From "Forgive my Grief- Part 1" by Penn Jones. ( page 186)

"One of the personnel had the crassness to ask Mrs Kennedy, as she was leaving the hospital, if he could keep President Kennedy's undershirt! This, apparently, is the reason the undershirts of neither the President nor Governor Connally are shown in the Warren Report exhibits. When we related this story to an FBI representative who called upon us, the agent replied "Yes, but we got that back" But the recovery apparently was not made until after the Warren Report had been printed"

What happened to the President's undershirt? Did it have a bullet hole in the same position as the shirt and jacket?

JFK didn't wear under-shirts.

Have a look here, Cliff

http://www.getkempt.com/the-past/style-icons-wearing-undershirts.php

[Cliff Varnell]

From "Forgive my Grief- Part 1" by Penn Jones. ( page 186)

"One of the personnel had the crassness to ask Mrs Kennedy, as she was leaving the hospital, if he could keep President Kennedy's undershirt! This, apparently, is the reason the undershirts of neither the President nor Governor Connally are shown in the Warren Report exhibits. When we related this story to an FBI representative who called upon us, the agent replied "Yes, but we got that back" But the recovery apparently was not made until after the Warren Report had been printed"

What happened to the President's undershirt? Did it have a bullet hole in the same position as the shirt and jacket?

JFK didn't wear under-shirts.

Have a look here, Cliff.

http://www.getkempt.com/the-past/style-icons-wearing-undershirts.php

That's a T shirt. He's not wearing it under anything in that photo.

JFK had a propensity to sweat and changed his shirts 4 to 6 times a workday.

He was on Shirt #2 when he was shot, having changed on the flight from Fort Worth to Love Field.

[Ray Mitcham]

From "Forgive my Grief- Part 1" by Penn Jones. ( page 186)

"One of the personnel had the crassness to ask Mrs Kennedy, as she was leaving the hospital, if he could keep President Kennedy's undershirt! This, apparently, is the reason the undershirts of neither the President nor Governor Connally are shown in the Warren Report exhibits. When we related this story to an FBI representative who called upon us, the agent replied "Yes, but we got that back" But the recovery apparently was not made until after the Warren Report had been printed"

What happened to the President's undershirt? Did it have a bullet hole in the same position as the shirt and jacket?

JFK didn't wear under-shirts.

Have a look here, Cliff.

http://www.getkempt.com/the-past/style-icons-wearing-undershirts.php

That's a T shirt. He's not wearing it under anything in that photo.

JFK had a propensity to sweat and changed his shirts 4 to 6 times a workday.

He was on Shirt #2 when he was shot, having changed on the flight from Fort Worth to Love Field.

The blurb says it is an undershirt. If he sweated a lot that would be an even greater reason for him to wear an undershirt.

Why would Penn Jones mention an undershirt and the response from the FBI agent if it didn't take place?

Re your quote "he never wore undershirts"

Greer to the W.C.

"I had been with him so many times and I knew he didn't normally wear an undershirt because I had heard him one time previously, I offered him a coat.

He said, "I have an undershirt on today," it was at some ballgame."

Edited December 18, 2014 by Ray Mitcham

[Cliff Varnell]

From "Forgive my Grief- Part 1" by Penn Jones. ( page 186)

"One of the personnel had the crassness to ask Mrs Kennedy, as she was leaving the hospital, if he could keep President Kennedy's undershirt! This, apparently, is the reason the undershirts of neither the President nor Governor Connally are shown in the Warren Report exhibits. When we related this story to an FBI representative who called upon us, the agent replied "Yes, but we got that back" But the recovery apparently was not made until after the Warren Report had been printed"

What happened to the President's undershirt? Did it have a bullet hole in the same position as the shirt and jacket?

JFK didn't wear under-shirts.

Have a look here, Cliff.

http://www.getkempt.com/the-past/style-icons-wearing-undershirts.php

That's a T shirt. He's not wearing it under anything in that photo.

JFK had a propensity to sweat and changed his shirts 4 to 6 times a workday.

He was on Shirt #2 when he was shot, having changed on the flight from Fort Worth to Love Field.

The blurb says it is an undershirt. If he sweated a lot that would be an even greater reason for him to wear an undershirt.

Why would Penn Jones mention an undershirt and the response from the FBI agent if it didn't take place?

The FBI guy was blowing smoke up Penn's posterior.

Re your quote "he never wore undershirts"

I stand corrected. "He normally didn't wear an under-shirt."

I'm not sure how many points that scores you, Ray.

You're not getting any points out of the following...

Greer to the W.C.

"I had been with him so many times and I knew he didn't normally wear an undershirt because I had heard him one time previously, I offered him a coat.

He said, "I have an undershirt on today," it was at some ballgame."

What, did the cut and paste function fail you, Ray?

Here's the entire germane passage from Greer's WC testimony (emphasis added):

Mr. GREER. After they had made the President's body ready for removal, I was in the emergency room, and a nurse got two shopping bags and I held them and she put the President's suit, his belongings into the two bags including his shoes and socks, and his pants and jacket which they had torn and the shirt they had torn, they had torn it to take it off him, and the nurse put these into the two bags and I got custody of them right then from the nurse at the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER. Were there any other items of wearing apparel such as shorts or undershirt?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; his shorts and that brace he wore, whatever it was, and his sox and shoes, and shirt, and his trousers, and his suit coat.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to state with certainty that there was no undershirt?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; there was no undershirt. I am sure there was no undershirt. I would have to say it to the best of my recollection, there was no undershirt. I had been with him so many times and I knew he didn't normally wear an undershirt because I had heard him one time previously, I offered him a coat. He said, "I have an undershirt on today," it was at some ballgame. He normally didn't wear an undershirt.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Cliff Varnell

[Ray Mitcham]

The blurb says it is an undershirt. If he sweated a lot that would be an even greater reason for him to wear an undershirt.

Why would Penn Jones mention an undershirt and the response from the FBI agent if it didn't take place?

The FBI guy was blowing smoke up Penn's posterior.

And you know this, how?

Re your quote "he never wore undershirts"

I stand corrected. "He normally didn't wear an under-shirt."

I'm not sure how many points that scores you, Ray.

Not after scoring any points, Cliff.

You're not getting any points out of the following...

Greer to the W.C.

"I had been with him so many times and C because I had heard him one time previously, I offered him a coat.

He said, "I have an undershirt on today," it was at some ballgame."

What, did the cut and paste function fail you, Ray?

Here's the entire germane passage from Greer's WC testimony (emphasis added):

Mr. GREER. After they had made the President's body ready for removal, I was in the emergency room, and a nurse got two shopping bags and I held them and she put the President's suit, his belongings into the two bags including his shoes and socks, and his pants and jacket which they had torn and the shirt they had torn, they had torn it to take it off him, and the nurse put these into the two bags and I got custody of them right then from the nurse at the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER. Were there any other items of wearing apparel such as shorts or undershirt?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; his shorts and that brace he wore, whatever it was, and his sox and shoes, and shirt, and his trousers, and his suit coat.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to state with certainty that there was no undershirt?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; there was no undershirt. I am sure there was no undershirt. I would have to say it to the best of my recollection, there was no undershirt. I had been with him so many times and I knew he didn't normally wear an undershirt because I had heard him one time previously, I offered him a coat. He said, "I have an undershirt on today," it was at some ballgame. He normally didn't wear an undershirt.

I quoted the part which said he had worn an undershirt, which you said he never wore.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Ray Mitcham

[Cliff Varnell]

The blurb says it is an undershirt. If he sweated a lot that would be an even greater reason for him to wear an undershirt.

Why would Penn Jones mention an undershirt and the response from the FBI agent if it didn't take place?

The FBI guy was blowing smoke up Penn's posterior.

And you know this, how?

You asked a speculative question, which I answered. Why "would" -- the speculative nature of the question is obvious.

I wasn't present for the conversation between Penn and the FBI guy, no.

Re your quote "he never wore undershirts"

I stand corrected. "He normally didn't wear an under-shirt."

I'm not sure how many points that scores you, Ray.

Not after scoring any points, Cliff.

You're not getting any points out of the following...

Greer to the W.C.

"I had been with him so many times and C because I had heard him one time previously, I offered him a coat.

He said, "I have an undershirt on today," it was at some ballgame."

What, did the cut and paste function fail you, Ray?

Here's the entire germane passage from Greer's WC testimony (emphasis added):

Mr. GREER. After they had made the President's body ready for removal, I was in the emergency room, and a nurse got two shopping bags and I held them and she put the President's suit, his belongings into the two bags including his shoes and socks, and his pants and jacket which they had torn and the shirt they had torn, they had torn it to take it off him, and the nurse put these into the two bags and I got custody of them right then from the nurse at the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER. Were there any other items of wearing apparel such as shorts or undershirt?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; his shorts and that brace he wore, whatever it was, and his sox and shoes, and shirt, and his trousers, and his suit coat.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to state with certainty that there was no undershirt?

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; there was no undershirt. I am sure there was no undershirt. I would have to say it to the best of my recollection, there was no undershirt. I had been with him so many times and I knew he didn't normally wear an undershirt because I had heard him one time previously, I offered him a coat. He said, "I have an undershirt on today," it was at some ballgame. He normally didn't wear an undershirt.

I quoted the part which said he had worn an undershirt, which you said he never wore.

What part of "I stand corrected" requires explanation?

Why would you leave out the money quote -- he wasn't wearing an under-shirt on 11/22/63 -- if you weren't playing rhetorical gotcha?

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, have you ever studied the laws regarding the admission of photographic evidence? I have. As I recall, all it takes is for someone present at the scene--it doesn't even have to be the photographer--to say the photograph accurately represents what they saw. That's it. As a result, the "prosecution" if you will, would have had no problem getting the autopsy photos into evidence, should they have wanted to place them into evidence. The historical record, of course, suggests that the opposite would have occurred, and that the defense would have tried to place them into evidence, and the prosecution would have fought this all the way to the Supreme Court.

And why would this be? Privacy? Hogwash. They would fight it because the photos would prove that 1) the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate, and Warren and Specter, at the very least, knew this in 1964, and 2) the Clark Panel moved the head wound to help support the single-assassin theory, and re-interpreted a photo showing the back of the head to be a photo showing the front of the head in the process.

While the HSCA panel's report claims there are problems with the photos, you have to view this in context, and realize that they were giving their friends on the Clark Panel--and themselves--plausible deniability--should it later be exposed that the cowlick entry was a myth.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, have you ever studied the laws regarding the admission of photographic evidence? I have. As I recall, all it takes is for someone present at the scene--it doesn't even have to be the photographer--to say the photograph accurately represents what they saw. That's it.

You're gonna have a hard time finding eye witnesses who described an intact back of the head and a back wound at the lower margin of the base of the neck.

You're gonna have a hard time explaining how this posterior wound has an inferior margin abrasion collar.

Also, there is no chain of possession for the autopsy photos.

Without a chain of possession what chance in court would these photos have?

As a result, the "prosecution" if you will, would have had no problem getting the autopsy photos into evidence, should they have wanted to place them into evidence. The historical record, of course, suggests that the opposite would have occurred, and that the defense would have tried to place them into evidence, and the prosecution would have fought this all the way to the Supreme Court.

And why would this be? Privacy? Hogwash. They would fight it because the photos would prove that 1) the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate, and Warren and Specter, at the very least, knew this in 1964, and 2) the Clark Panel moved the head wound to help support the single-assassin theory, and re-interpreted a photo showing the back of the head to be a photo showing the front of the head in the process.

While the HSCA panel's report claims there are problems with the photos, you have to view this in context, and realize that they were giving their friends on the Clark Panel--and themselves--plausible deniability--should it later be exposed that the cowlick entry was a myth.

I view the "claims of problems with the photos" within the context of there being genuine problems with Fox 5.

Either the Fox 5 photo is fake or the clothing holes were faked.

Which is it, Pat?

Can't have both. You can't have 2+" of jacket and 2+" of shirt jacked up entirely above the "T1 wound" without pushing up on the jacket collar.

As always -- burden of proof on the "T1" folks...

Edited December 20, 2014 by Cliff Varnell