David Von Pein Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) It's always all about the clothes, isn't it Cliff? The case lives or dies by the jacket and the shirt, right? Even though you know that the jacket and the shirt are MOVABLE OBJECTS on the body of John F. Kennedy. Edited May 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 It's always all about the clothes, isn't it Cliff? The case lives or dies by the jacket and the shirt, right? Physical evidence in any murder case is of paramount interest -- except JFK's case. Even though you know that the jacket and the shirt are MOVABLE OBJECTS on the body of John F. Kennedy. David, turn your head to the right, glance down on your right shoulder-line, slowly raise your right arm and wave. Observe the fabric of your shirt indent. When you raise your arm your clothing indents. Same with JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 The clothes! The clothes! ALWAYS the clothes! NOTHING else matters! Only the garments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Note to Greg Burnham: This is their "rebuttal." Funny thing is, many "serious critics" agree with Von Pein on the back wound. Go figure. The clothes! The clothes! ALWAYS the clothes! NOTHING else matters! Only the garments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Note to Greg Burnham: This is their "rebuttal." Funny thing is, many "serious critics" agree with Von Pein on the back wound. Go figure. The clothes! The clothes! ALWAYS the clothes! NOTHING else matters! Only the garments! The back wound IS where it IS, Cliff. And there's nothing on this green Earth that either you or I can do to change the location of the ONE AND ONLY BULLET HOLE in John Fitzgerald Kennedy's upper back. It's right here in the autopsy picture below---for all to see 24/7. But, for some reason, you think it's much more reasonable to rely on the holes in the movable clothing of JFK to pinpoint the exact spot of the bullet's entry. Go figure. ~big shrug~ .... Edited May 23, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 And away we go! We are now so far from the original topic, one would almost think a concerted effort has been made to derail this thread. Lord knows DVP certainly is unable to refute the argument about the vertebrae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 And away we go! We are now so far from the original topic, one would almost think a concerted effort has been made to derail this thread. Lord knows DVP certainly is unable to refute the argument about the vertebrae. I just chimed in to point out that the issue isn't in doubt. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Hmm, is that a "black patch" on the back of JFK's head, where a gaping wound should be? (Never mind. Belongs in a different thread!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) And away we go! We are now so far from the original topic, one would almost think a concerted effort has been made to derail this thread. Lord knows DVP certainly is unable to refute the argument about the vertebrae. I just chimed in to point out that the issue isn't in doubt. JFK was shot in the back at T3. That's okay, Cliff. Most of us on this forum have the attention span of a three year old and DVP makes the most of this when he is presented with undeniable proof the SBT could never have happened. Diversion beats having to face reality any day of the week. Anyways, I hope my little explanation shows that the SBT is not only dead in the water, it was always a non-starter. Edited May 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Robert, I disagree that most of us on this forum have the attention span of a three year old. The Prayer man thread demonstrates that. Members are not required to respond to every member. It is perfectly acceptable to just debate and converse with members of a like mind. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Robert, I disagree that most of us on this forum have the attention span of a three year old. The Prayer man thread demonstrates that. Members are not required to respond to every member. It is perfectly acceptable to just debate and converse with members of a like mind. James James I don't care if they respond or not. It's when a thread turns into a circus, I get a little annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 One of the purposes of this thread is to examine the reality of the SBT. In November 1963 we had the body of JFK by which to verify what actually happened. If we still had the body - and it was in the condition it was in in November 1963 - we could verify whether the Warren Commissions conclusions are valid. However we do not have the body and there is no chance we will ever be allowed to exhume the body. All we have - in the form of physical evidence - are the clothes JFK wore and the publicly released autopsy images. What this thread is about is whether it is possible to verify that what the Warren Commission said happened, actually did happen? Basically can what is described as the SBT be verified. True we have all the autopsy protocols and testimony. But this is not about that. This is about whether these documents and conclusions can be verified. Leaving aside what it actually was - as far as the SBT is concerned the entrance wound is wound that JFK received on his back. According to the Warren Commission a bullet was fired from the sixth floor east window and struck JFK in the back. However where in the back did this bullet strike. Today we only have three pieces of evidence:- JFK’s Jacket. JFK’s shirt. Autopsy image Best Evidence Autopsy image 5 There are now questions as to exactly how on the body both the shirt and jacket were positioned. Therefore - for verification purposes - both the jacket and the shirt are compromised to an extent. That leave the autopsy image. Unfortunately it is also compromised. The quality of the image leaves much to be desired, the ruler is unreadable and it is not even clear what it is demonstrating. And to make matters worse, when the image was taken JFK was on his left side. He was not lying flat on the table. However the autopsy image has data that allows some verification. The Back Wound:- The human skeleton is the same whoever we are examining. Every human being has a skeletal rib structure and spine. Every human being has a scapula and every human being has a clavicle. The relationship of each of these to the other structures is the same in every human being. The autopsy image, mainly because of the position the body has been placed in, highlights various anatomical and geographical points in the human body. The blue line at A2 points to the same point described as A1 on the Skelton. That point is the edge of the scapula spine. The skeleton shows you where that is positioned on a human body. B2 and B1 highlight highlight the scapula’s inferior angle. Where James Boswell has his hand is the clavicle bone. The red dotted line on both the highlights this on the body as well as the skeleton. So we can - with confidence - make a number of points. the entrance wound is below the Clavicle. And the entrance wound is above the scapula spine. But where is it? There is evidence that evidence that suggested the bullet struck at T3.That is unlikely. The spine is adjacent to T4. And the wound is well above that. I suspect - as the diagram suggests - it is somewhere between T3 and T2. However it could be as low as T3. One thing is beyond dispute: the entrance wound is below, and well below, the clavicle. That means the wound is below the top of the lung. According to the Warren Commission this bullet struck the body from a height well above 60ft [ the height of the sixth floor window + the decline of the car as it travels down Elm Street ]. In addition it struck the body below the clavicle. Therefore how is it possible that this bullet can strike the body on a declining angle yet this bullet has to exit from a point on the body that is considerable higher from this bullet’s point of entrance? James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Here is Vincent Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi 1975: "I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..." What was blatantly obvious? The bullet holes in the clothes were too low. What did the HSCA use to make a case for conspiracy? The acoustics evidence-- which kept people busy for a very long time. Just like all the other rabbit holes in the case like the head wound/s, Oswald, the windshield, Zap alt... Am I going to take the bait and challenge your claim that Vince was talking about the "clothing" evidence alone? Nope. Am I going to take the bait and ask you to provide a citation in support of your claim that Vince was talking about the "clothing" evidence alone? Nope. That's exactly what you want me to do. You think you can keep me busy for so much longer. Wrong. Which side of this case are you really on? Now I finally know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Sorry for going a bit down the rabbit hole, Robert. I hope that what I offered earlier had some merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) JFK’s Jacket. JFK’s shirt. Autopsy image Best Evidence Autopsy image 5 There are now questions as to exactly how on the body both the shirt and jacket were positioned. James, are these legitimate questions or endlessly repeated non sequiturs? Therefore - for verification purposes - both the jacket and the shirt are compromised to an extent. With all due respect, you're begging the question. James, please repeat a movement which occurs billions&billions of time a day on this planet: Casually raise your right arm. As you raise your arm observe the movement of your shirt along your right shoulder-line. The fabric of your shirt will indent. That occurs every time you do it. Why would JFK be any different? Here's the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston. JFK's raised arm pushed a section of his jacket flat on his shirt-covered back -- verifying no multiple inch bunch up of the shirt. Every time you raise your arm to casually wave you verify the position of JFK's clothing. The Fox 5 autopsy photo wasn't prepared according to proper autopsy protocol. There is no chain of possesion for it. Fox 5 has no value as scientific evidence in an autopsy, according to the HSCA. And it features a wound with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Contentless declarations to the contrary count for nothing. Edited May 23, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now