Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cliff Varnell

Members
  • Content Count

    5,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cliff Varnell

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Francisco
  • Interests
    Took 22 years to get around to writing this: JFK CONSPIRACY FOR YOUNGER GENERATIONS https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12892-The-Origin-History-of-the-term-quot-Hardcore-Punk-Rock-quot&p=125636#post125636
    *


    Only took me 34 yrs to get around to writing this:
    THE ONLY TOWN THAT MATTERS https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12892-The-Origin-History-of-the-term-quot-Hardcore-Punk-Rock-quot#.XP2wv1ZlDIU

Recent Profile Visitors

25,923 profile views
  1. For all of us who have "Payette says goodbye" in the Ed Forum Drinking Game... Bottoms up, again!
  2. Beto had an excellent night. He looked vice-presidential. Warren/O'Rourke works for me.
  3. The claim is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK three times with 6.5mm FMJ. Such bullets do not leave shallow wounds. That fact absolves Lee Harvey Oswald. That's a fact Lance Payette is incapable of addressing.
  4. Well-worn nutter talking points don't get any more readable with extra helpings of blather. These are among the facts you cannot honestly face: Early in the hours of 11/23/63 the two FBI men at the autopsy cabled FBI HQ with the news that Kennedy suffered a shallow wound in the back, no round found. Hours earlier a neck x-ray showed a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket overlaying the right T1/C7 transverse processes. JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- too low to have injured the spine at T1 -- the round didn't exit and no round was found. He was shot in the throat from the front, no exit, no round found. These wound patterns were not created by 6.5mm Full Metal Jackets.
  5. Lance goes all cap nuts, again. Lance likes to make stuff up and attribute it to others. Lance, that you suffer severe cases of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is obvious in your inability to muster a fact-based argument. You can mischaracterize the arguments of others, but unlike a real lawyer you can't address the evidence.
  6. From your ""experience" the physical evidence found with the body is irrelevant. Consensus witness testimony, contemporaneous notes of multiple witnesses in positions of authority, three properly prepared pieces of medical documentation -- all irrelevant to "Lawyer" Lance. Lance, you cannot objectively claim to know that Oswald wasn't outside watching the "P. parade." The confirmation bias really helps with the cognitive dissonance, eh?
  7. I don't find this erudite -- it's intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. Payette wrote: <quote on> 1. In the Conspiracy Game, there is a distinct approach to the evidence. Say that three eyewitnesses report, respectively, a “purplish” car, a “red” car and a “maroon” car, or that three documents describe a knife wound in “the right shoulder,” “about 4” down from the neck” and “high up in the back.” In the Conspiracy Game, there are three distinct, highly selective approaches to this evidence: a. There were three cars and three wounds on the body, if this will further your Conspiracy Theory. b. There was one red car and one wound 4” down from the neck, if this will further your Conspiracy Theory. (The two eyewitnesses and documents that say otherwise may serve as further evidence of the conspiracy if you’re sufficiently creative!) <quote off> This is an utterly dishonest presentation of the back wound evidence. Which is why Lance doesn't want the subject brought up.
  8. Lance, you brought up T3 in your original post. Remember? No, you don't remember because your crap is unreadable even to you. You referred to a "wound in 'the right shoulder,' 'about 4” down from the neck'". Disingenuous much?
  9. Kirk, the only "epiphany" Lance mustered was the realization he had no substantive responses. He was aiming for "declare victory and depart the field" but ended up with "the dog ate my homework."
  10. Don't forget Glen Bennett. His contemporaneous written notes and day-after report are corroborated by the Willis 5 and Altgens 6 photos, the location of the bullet holes in the clothes, the verified death certificate, the verified autopsy face sheet, and the consensus statements of almost a hundred eye/ear witnesses.
  11. T3, as indicated by the location of the holes in the clothes (and the properly prepared medical documents, contemporaneous statements of 4 Federal officers, the consensus witness statements) as opposed to the T1 wound depicted in the "back of the head" photo.
  12. This is an under-appreciated aspect of the JFKA cover-up. Why was the HSCA open to declaring a 95% chance of conspiracy on the basis of the acoustics evidence when they had already acknowledged the 100% fact of conspiracy on the basis of the clothing evidence? From the HSCA testimony: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0100b.htm Mr. Kenneth Klein: And with respect to the wounds in the President's back, what did the panel learn from that clothing? Dr. Michael Baden: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President. This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath. </q> Note that after Dr. Michael Baden acknowledged the "low" back wound which proved conspiracy 100%, HSCA counsel Klein immediately changed the subject. What has kept official investigations from acknowledging the obvious that JFK was struck in the back at T3? Because to do so would counterfeit both the autopsy conclusions conjured up by Commander Humes after the autopsy and the Fox 5 autopsy photo handled by Secret Service photographer James Fox. In order to press the case for conspiracy due to the T3 back wound one must acknowledge a cover-up within both the US military and the Secret Service. That's a bridge too far for anyone in the US government and the mainstream media.
  13. Where does a PutinTrump loving right-winger get off questioning anyone's patriotism?
  14. Attributing the historical record to me personally is the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty.
×
×
  • Create New...