Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Cliff Varnell

Members
  • Content count

    4,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cliff Varnell

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Francisco
  • Interests
    In the early 80's I helped weaponize rocknroll (see bio); in the early 90's I helped weaponize collectors' trading cards; since then I've been helping to weaponize the salient fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK: the bullet holes in his clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound.

Recent Profile Visitors

23,004 profile views
  1. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    I can only prove the Fox 5 "back of the head" autopsy photo is fake. Happy?
  2. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    I argue for the authenticity of frames 186 to 255 of the Zapruder film, as well as Betzner #3 (Z186), Willis #5 (Z202), and Altgens #6 (Z255). And the neck x-ray. Covers the period of the throat and back wounds. I'm agnostic about the rest, pretty much. Don't care...
  3. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    You're delusional. I said Fox 5 was fake, the rest of the autopsy photos suspect.
  4. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    And by denying consensus on the T3 back wound the best case for conspiracy is muddled. The autopsists placed the back wound at T3 (the autopsy face sheet), T2 (just above the upper margin of the scapula), and T1 (14cm below the right mastoid process.) How you picked T1 out of that mess is baffling, Pat. And by pretending that the bullet defects in the clothes match a T1 wound -- you are flat-out trying to gaslight us. It's notable that in 2014 you assumed the mantle of Gaeton Fonzi but your 2013 presentation on the back wound ignores the clothing defects entirely.
  5. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    "If the first nail was Fonzi's discussion with Specter--where Specter couldn't get the clothing to rise--the last nail, IMO, was my presentation in Bethesda" Debunking the SBT ain't shi*. There is no glory in pointing out the obvious. The salient facts of the JFK murder: 1) JFK had a shallow entrance wound in his back, no point of exit, and no bullet was found in the body at autopsy. 2) He had a wound of entrance in his throat, no point of exit, no bullet was found in the body at autopsy. What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds? That's the central question. Who were the high level prevaricators? That's the next question. (Vincent Salandria School in the houze!) The SBT is a tertiary concern. at best.
  6. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    It's easy, Pat. There is evidence which was prepared/maintained/produced according to proper autopsy protocols. There is evidence which was was NOT prepared/maintained/produced according to proper autopsy protocols. What's so hard to figure out? All the properly produced evidence conforms to a T3 back wound (the clothing defects, the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the FBI report on the autopsy, plus another dozen witness statements). None of the evidence you cherry pick was properly prepared. None of it! Luckily we have the clothing defects which show exactly where the wound was located. Forget about Fonzi/Specter already? The autopsy doctors recorded 3 different back wound locations, only one of which was recorded according to autopsy protocol -- the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil and signed off as "verified." This destroys your assumptions so you have to pretend the evidence doesn't exist. The final autopsy report lists two different locations for the back wound: "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula..." (T2)..."14 cm below the right mastoid process" (T1). These descriptions violate autopsy protocol, as do the measurements in pen on the autopsy face sheet, and the autopsy photos. You got nuthin'', dude. Classic projection! You fell in love with illogical assumptions. When are you going to reconcile the physical evidence with your claims? Why are you exempt from providing actual proof? Gaeton Fonzi spins in his grave...
  7. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    The properly prepared evidence -- which you ignore -- is a prima facie case for conspiracy, and doesn't require self-aggrandizing "experts" to explain it all. They were trying to turn an obvious case of multiple shooters into a case of a single shooter and there was nothing they could do to make it work. Just because they failed doesn't make it legit. Why assume anything? Why can't you follow the evidence where it goes, instead of making making obfuscatory assumptions? You ignore legitimate evidence and invite study of improperly prepared evidence? WTF? No, you have never agreed to the T3 back wound. You're a major T3 denier. Then why do you deny the T3 back wound?
  8. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    You don't regard the back wound witnesses as legit. You can't reconcile the clothing defects with a wound at T1, in spite of your claims to follow the footsteps of Gaeton Fonzi. You don't regard the properly prepared medical evidence as legit -- Burkley's death certificate, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the FBI report on the autopsy. In fact, the only medical evidence you regard as legit is that which was not produced according to proper autopsy protocols. What is so galling is your insistence that the improperly produced evidence is the ONLY legitimate evidence of the back wound. The day was won 51+ years ago -- all you're doing is muddying the waters. You guys are the Kings of Special Pleading. The material prepared according to prevailing professional protocols are legit -- improperly produced evidence is illegitimate. Your approach -- ignore the properly produced evidence, weigh only the improper material -- is spectacularly wrong-headed.
  9. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research. You did good research getting Griffin to storm out of the room, but your insistence that the autopsy photo is genuine obfuscates the throat entrance wound. All you have to do is say -- "IF the BOH photo were authentic, it debunks the sbt". But you don't say "if," you insist on it as a fact when you claim JFK was shot at T1.
  10. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi interviewed Vincent Salandria. Salandria pointed out the location of the bullet defects in the shirt and jacket were too low to have been associated with the throat wound. This establishes the throat wound as an entrance. Agnostic about the conspiracy charge, Fonzi interviewed Arlen Specter. Within minutes of bringing up the clothing evidence Specter had a nervous breakdown and Fonzi became a "conspiracy believer." At 12:10 Salandria puts his work on the sbt in perspective. How is it Pat Speer blows his own horn but ignores Salandria, who refused to toot his own horn on the sbt?
  11. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence. These experts will have to reconcile the back wound location with the clothing defects. Clothing defects trump autopsy photo. Period.
  12. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    But not too low to be consistent with the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process -- that's the pernicious fiction. I'm not going to give you a gold star for debunking the sbt if you're going to obfuscate the throat entrance wound. And you have to move JFK's clothing up two inches to conform with the autopsy photo. Why is the government exempt from reconciling the wound location in the photo with the clothing defects? Photos can be doctored, witnesses suborned -- but you can't replicate the movement of JFK's clothing indicated by the photo. What makes YOU exempt, Pat? Fonzi didn't need you. How do you make assertions debunked by Fonzi (multiple inches of clothing movement) and then claim to corroborate his work? Is she aware that you claim her husband was wrong about the movement of JFK's clothing? There hasn't been anything since 1966 except the lame claims of LNers and Vichy CTs that JFK was shot at T1. Congrats for getting under Griffin's skin, but Specter couldn't get Fonzi's clothing to rise at all so I don't get your claim JFK's clothing rose 2 inches.
  13. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    No, you claim without proof that the low back wound witnesses would not testify to the inaccuracy of the autopsy photo. Which contradicts your assertion that the photos would be certainly be admissible. Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence, and since the bullet defects in the clothes contradict the wound location in the autopsy photo surely the defense would go with the strongest evidence. Pat, your argument is based on a non sequitur --- because the BOH photo can be used to argue for multiple shooters that proves the photo is authentic. But that does not follow logically. The failure of an attempt to fake evidence of a single shooter does not magically render the evidence authentic. What you insist on obfuscating is the nature of the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process. The low back wound could not have been associated with that fracture, which establishes the throat wound as an entrance. You are attempting to weaken the prima facie case for conspiracy for reasons only you can answer. The defense is probably not going to muddy the case for your convenience, Pat. Gentle reader, please note that Pat Speer cannot argue for the authenticity of the BOH photo, only that it would be admissible in court. Hey Pat -- when are you going to show us how you jack four inches of clothing entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar?
  14. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Because of the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process. The neck x-ray shows an air pocket overlaying the T1/C7 transverse processes.
  15. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    That presents a problem for the State -- first they say the bullet transited his neck, then they're going to say it was a short load? Was the shot to the throat from the front a short load too, since there was no point of exit for that either? And short loads don't explain why there were no bullets in the back/throat.
×