Jump to content
The Education Forum
Andy Walker

Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

Recommended Posts

New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....

Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum..

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html

B......

Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'?

Go see for yourself, if you have not by now........and tell us, you are a member.

B.....

Sure looks like it.

An issue that has not yet been addressed is why the cracks would be 'identical' after 15 years? The windshield was kicked out of the limo by the Arlington Glass men and then stored in an SS closet. It was also moved to different places, including the VA building where James Hosty gave his WC testimony and viewed it there. There should be some changes to the cracks.

What is compelling in terms of determining if this is the same windshield that was in the car during the FBI exam is the presence of the long cracks in the windshield that corroborate its being pushed out of the limo, per the Ferguson memo.

That is exactly what Martin Hindrich's informed you of yesterday Pam, on Duncan's site....

Martin has applied for membership here in the EF, so that he can post his own information, re his study, he had not heard back as yet, I am hoping he is allowed to join, as this is his work, none others..and he should have that right if possible.........imo..

Here was his information as posted yesterday to Pamela, & Jerry at Duncan's Forum........I cannot post the photos within his information, in reference so they will follow below....

B....

Quote from: Pamela Brown on Today at 04:02:40 PM

""You may also want to take into account what happened to the windshield during the intervening years. Robert Frazier took CE 350 at 1 a.m. 11.23.63. Subsequent to that, the windshield was kicked out by the feet of the Arlington Glass men, per the Ferguson memo, and then it was put into storage in various places. It was taken to the Veterans Building where James Hosty saw it prior to giving his WC testimony. It had been handled by various people at different times. It would hardly be realistic for the cracks to be precisely the same dimension 15 years later as they were on the night after the assassination. ""

Hi Pamela and welcome aboard.

Thats the reason why i guided Jerry to the last image i've attached.

The prominent cross crack is missing in the HSCA photo.

all the best

Martin

Martin Quote "It appeared to me also that the camera shooting the HSCA photo, was slightely tilted.

Look below please.

The two longest remarkeable cracks are easy to distinguish as good reference.

I've rotated the HSCA photo to an angle which fits approx the angle from the FBI.

Does it help to compare both images?

I'am not sure.

Look at 2 and 3 for instance please, Jerry.

The angle is far from being the same and crack 2 is so prominent and thick in the HSCA photo but not in the FBI photo.

Crack 3 in the HSCA photo is short but in the FBI photo pretty long.

I do not wanna judge, but is it possible the HCSA have tried to reenacte this windshield cracks in 1978?

As far as i know the windshield of the presidential limousine was later removed from the auto and suffered by several additional damages.

Robin posted this image on Lancer.

We should see the remarkable cross crack in the HSCA photo, which happend while detaching the windshield from the limo!?

all the best to you"

Martin

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html

B...

So...in the final photo, which are actually cracks. which are actually grease pencil marks, which are actually shadows from the cracks and which are actually shadows from the grease pencil marks? And what about those perspective transformations??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your article isn't framed as "reconstruction of the crime as nearly

as possible"-- it's framed as debunking a "death knell for the SBT",

It is not. It simply states that IF a bullet went through the windshield from either direction, it IS a death knell for the SBT.

"Definitive" was the word you used, the unmistakable subtext

assumes that a "definitive" death knell has not yet been rung.

You wrote:

"Clearly; the research terrain would be forever changed."

Clearly, the "research terrain" is not informed with an understanding

of the throat entrance wound. That understanding should change the

research terrain, and give the authors something to be "happy" about.

"...debunking a 'death knell' for the SBT" is yours and yours alone.

It's not written that way, and that is not the context.

It certainly is written that way:

Clearly; the research terrain would be forever changed.

Why would the research terrain be "forever changed" by yet

another corroboration of a shot from the front?

There's nothing "terrain changing" here -- except your obvious

inability to argue against the throat entrance wound.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your article isn't framed as "reconstruction of the crime as nearly

as possible"-- it's framed as debunking a "death knell for the SBT",

It is not. It simply states that IF a bullet went through the windshield from either direction, it IS a death knell for the SBT.

"Definitive" was the word you used, the unmistakable subtext

assumes that a "definitive" death knell has not yet been rung.

You wrote:

"Clearly; the research terrain would be forever changed."

Clearly, the "research terrain" is not informed with an understanding

of the throat entrance wound. That understanding should change the

research terrain, and give the authors something to be "happy" about.

"...debunking a 'death knell' for the SBT" is yours and yours alone.

It's not written that way, and that is not the context.

It certainly is written that way:

Clearly; the research terrain would be forever changed.

Why would the research terrain be "forever changed" by yet

another corroboration of a shot from the front?

There's nothing "terrain changing" here -- except your obvious

inability to argue against the throat entrance wound.

You're a riot. Easy to see why you can carry on entire threads by yourself, as I understand you did some months ago on the back wound. I heard about it in email from a friend who found it all quite amusing. <g> Nothing here I care to respond to. I expect most can read and understand what we wrote. I responded about your debunking SBT death knell nonsense ... now you are on to "definitive" and "terrain" and I am not going to get involved, ever again please gawd, in the time consuming task of trying to untie the successive knots you make out of anything someone says. This thread is on whether or not there was a through and through hole in the windshield. Not on any wound. That's why y'all got your own thread started by management for that. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a riot. Easy to see why you can carry on entire threads by yourself,

That has nothing to do with me. When the evidence is

overwhelming on one side of an argument, discussions tend

to be one-sided.

I base my arguments ONLY on the following:

1) The witness testimonies from Dealey Plaza, Parkland, and

Bethesda, which, on the major points, are amazingly consistent.

2) The Dealey Plaza films and photos, which, on the major points,

are amazingly consistent with the witness testimonies.

3) The properly prepared contemporaneous documents/film -- Burkley's

death certificate, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in

pencil, the FBI autopsy report, the lateral neck x-ray, and the

contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors -- are all amazingly

consistent with the photographs and the witness testimony.

4) The location of the defects in the clothing.

That's it.

That's all I ever cite. People get discouraged when they have

to rationalize away so much evidence, so my discussions do

tend to be lop-sided.

The reason I cite the clothing evidence most of the time is because

I can't stand exposing the DP/P/B witnesses to the gratuitous

witness bashing that always attends these discussions.

So, yes, when the authority of evidence speaks so loudly, the

discussion is going to be one-sided.

as I understand you did some months ago on the back wound.

Yes, Barb, you should understand there was a thread about the back

wound since you wrote -- correct me if I'm wrong -- three posts on it before

you declared victory and departed the field.

I heard about it in email from a friend who found it all quite

amusing. <g>

That's funny, I swear I saw the name "Barb Junkkarinen" at the bottom

of the page soon after several of my posts on the back wound thread.

In fact, on July 7 one Barb Junkkarinen visited my bio page. :->

Nothing here I care to respond to.

There's nothing you can respond to. The preponderance

of evidence of JFK's T3-back/throat-entrance wounds is beyond

reasonable doubt.

Your belief in the high-back/throat-exit SBT-lite is based on something

akin to religious faith, just like fundamentalist Christians and their

10,000 year old dinosaurs.

I expect most can read and understand what we wrote.

Your subtext is unmistakable: a shot from the front is an open

question. Don Jeffries scolded you for the exact same thing.

Barb, you're like the little kid caught with her hand in the cookie

jar who claimed to reach for the castor oil. :->

I responded about your debunking SBT death knell nonsense ... now you are

on to "definitive" and "terrain"

Those are your words, Barb, not mine. If there is a problem with your

notions, the fault lies with the manufacturer. :->

If you don't want your unsupported assumptions about the "research

terrain" challenged, may I kindly suggest you not advance those

assumptions in an article posted on this forum?

Everything in your article is subject to discussion, Barb. You're in no

position to foreclose critique of your logical fallacies.

Your article begs the question as to the existence of a frontal shot,

and is thus a proper subject for discussion on this thread.

and I am not going to get involved, ever again please gawd, in the time consuming

task of trying to untie the successive knots you make out of anything someone says.

I don't recall your involvement in any such efforts.

And it's clear from your position on Kennedy's non-fatal wounds that

you regard a frontal shot an open question.

This is on-topic, Barb, whether you like it or not.

This thread is on whether or not there was a through and through hole in the windshield.

The article is an exercise in gratuitous witness bashing, led by one

Barb Junkkarinen, serial witness basher.

Let's take an inventory of what you regard as

"the research terrain."

1) Every witness who observed a hole in the windshield suffered a

similar erroneous perception.

2) Every witness at Parkland who observed JFK's throat wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

3) Every witness at Bethesda who observed JFK's back wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Amazing coincidence of similar erroneous perceptions, I must say!

Do we see a pattern here?

The difference between the windshield issue and JFK's non-fatal

wounds is that the wound locations are corroborated by official,

contemporaneous documents and the observations of trained

observers.

You employ a double stand when it comes to weighing evidence, Barb,

and it's always rigged to conclude that one witness or another is wrong

about something relating to the conspiracy.

The DP/P/B witnesses are patriotic, heroic Americans who have solemnly

spoken to the truth of the Kennedy assassination, only to be sneered at or

ignored by the US government, the mainstream media, and a bunch of

pet-theory addled nabobs in the "JFK Critical Research Community."

Clint Hill went to the morgue on a somber mission -- to bear witness to

the nature and location of JFK's wounds.

He testified thusly:

"I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to

the right-hand side of the spinal column."

This location matches the hole in the shirt perfectly -- 5.75 inches below

the top of the shirt collar.

But according to Barb & Co., Clint Hill wasn't able to tell the difference

between "about 6 inches" and "3 or 4 inches."

This is an ability most of us develop long before kindergarten.

Clint Hill, highly-trained observer, brave servant of his country,

was sent to bear witness to the facts surrounding the murder of a

US President -- but he was so incredibly incompetent that he made

a mistake few pre-schoolers would make?

Barb Junkkarinen, what you call "research terrain" is nothing but an

obscenity.

Rest assured, your serial witness bashing will stand to challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a riot. Easy to see why you can carry on entire threads by yourself,

That has nothing to do with me. When the evidence is

overwhelming on one side of an argument, discussions tend

to be one-sided.

I base my arguments ONLY on the following:

1) The witness testimonies from Dealey Plaza, Parkland, and

Bethesda, which, on the major points, are amazingly consistent.

2) The Dealey Plaza films and photos, which, on the major points,

are amazingly consistent with the witness testimonies.

3) The properly prepared contemporaneous documents/film -- Burkley's

death certificate, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in

pencil, the FBI autopsy report, the lateral neck x-ray, and the

contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors -- are all amazingly

consistent with the photographs and the witness testimony.

4) The location of the defects in the clothing.

That's it.

That's all I ever cite. People get discouraged when they have

to rationalize away so much evidence, so my discussions do

tend to be lop-sided.

The reason I cite the clothing evidence most of the time is because

I can't stand exposing the DP/P/B witnesses to the gratuitous

witness bashing that always attends these discussions.

So, yes, when the authority of evidence speaks so loudly, the

discussion is going to be one-sided.

as I understand you did some months ago on the back wound.

Yes, Barb, you should understand there was a thread about the back

wound since you wrote -- correct me if I'm wrong -- three posts on it before

you declared victory and departed the field.

I heard about it in email from a friend who found it all quite

amusing. <g>

That's funny, I swear I saw the name "Barb Junkkarinen" at the bottom

of the page soon after several of my posts on the back wound thread.

In fact, on July 7 one Barb Junkkarinen visited my bio page. :->

Nothing here I care to respond to.

There's nothing you can respond to. The preponderance

of evidence of JFK's T3-back/throat-entrance wounds is beyond

reasonable doubt.

Your belief in the high-back/throat-exit SBT-lite is based on something

akin to religious faith, just like fundamentalist Christians and their

10,000 year old dinosaurs.

I expect most can read and understand what we wrote.

Your subtext is unmistakable: a shot from the front is an open

question. Don Jeffries scolded you for the exact same thing.

Barb, you're like the little kid caught with her hand in the cookie

jar who claimed to reach for the castor oil. :->

I responded about your debunking SBT death knell nonsense ... now you are

on to "definitive" and "terrain"

Those are your words, Barb, not mine. If there is a problem with your

notions, the fault lies with the manufacturer. :->

If you don't want your unsupported assumptions about the "research

terrain" challenged, may I kindly suggest you not advance those

assumptions in an article posted on this forum?

Everything in your article is subject to discussion, Barb. You're in no

position to foreclose critique of your logical fallacies.

Your article begs the question as to the existence of a frontal shot,

and is thus a proper subject for discussion on this thread.

and I am not going to get involved, ever again please gawd, in the time consuming

task of trying to untie the successive knots you make out of anything someone says.

I don't recall your involvement in any such efforts.

And it's clear from your position on Kennedy's non-fatal wounds that

you regard a frontal shot an open question.

This is on-topic, Barb, whether you like it or not.

This thread is on whether or not there was a through and through hole in the windshield.

The article is an exercise in gratuitous witness bashing, led by one

Barb Junkkarinen, serial witness basher.

Let's take an inventory of what you regard as

"the research terrain."

1) Every witness who observed a hole in the windshield suffered a

similar erroneous perception.

2) Every witness at Parkland who observed JFK's throat wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

3) Every witness at Bethesda who observed JFK's back wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Amazing coincidence of similar erroneous perceptions, I must say!

Do we see a pattern here?

The difference between the windshield issue and JFK's non-fatal

wounds is that the wound locations are corroborated by official,

contemporaneous documents and the observations of trained

observers.

You employ a double stand when it comes to weighing evidence, Barb,

and it's always rigged to conclude that one witness or another is wrong

about something relating to the conspiracy.

The DP/P/B witnesses are patriotic, heroic Americans who have solemnly

spoken to the truth of the Kennedy assassination, only to be sneered at or

ignored by the US government, the mainstream media, and a bunch of

pet-theory addled nabobs in the "JFK Critical Research Community."

Clint Hill went to the morgue on a somber mission -- to bear witness to

the nature and location of JFK's wounds.

He testified thusly:

"I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to

the right-hand side of the spinal column."

This location matches the hole in the shirt perfectly -- 5.75 inches below

the top of the shirt collar.

But according to Barb & Co., Clint Hill wasn't able to tell the difference

between "about 6 inches" and "3 or 4 inches."

This is an ability most of us develop long before kindergarten.

Clint Hill, highly-trained observer, brave servant of his country,

was sent to bear witness to the facts surrounding the murder of a

US President -- but he was so incredibly incompetent that he made

a mistake few pre-schoolers would make?

Barb Junkkarinen, what you call "research terrain" is nothing but an

obscenity.

Rest assured, your serial witness bashing will stand to challenge.

BRAVO Mr. Varnell.... Game-Set-Match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a riot. Easy to see why you can carry on entire threads by yourself,

That has nothing to do with me. When the evidence is

overwhelming on one side of an argument, discussions tend

to be one-sided.

I base my arguments ONLY on the following:

1) The witness testimonies from Dealey Plaza, Parkland, and

Bethesda, which, on the major points, are amazingly consistent.

2) The Dealey Plaza films and photos, which, on the major points,

are amazingly consistent with the witness testimonies.

3) The properly prepared contemporaneous documents/film -- Burkley's

death certificate, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in

pencil, the FBI autopsy report, the lateral neck x-ray, and the

contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors -- are all amazingly

consistent with the photographs and the witness testimony.

4) The location of the defects in the clothing.

That's it.

That's all I ever cite. People get discouraged when they have

to rationalize away so much evidence, so my discussions do

tend to be lop-sided.

The reason I cite the clothing evidence most of the time is because

I can't stand exposing the DP/P/B witnesses to the gratuitous

witness bashing that always attends these discussions.

So, yes, when the authority of evidence speaks so loudly, the

discussion is going to be one-sided.

as I understand you did some months ago on the back wound.

Yes, Barb, you should understand there was a thread about the back

wound since you wrote -- correct me if I'm wrong -- three posts on it before

you declared victory and departed the field.

I heard about it in email from a friend who found it all quite

amusing. <g>

That's funny, I swear I saw the name "Barb Junkkarinen" at the bottom

of the page soon after several of my posts on the back wound thread.

In fact, on July 7 one Barb Junkkarinen visited my bio page. :->

Nothing here I care to respond to.

There's nothing you can respond to. The preponderance

of evidence of JFK's T3-back/throat-entrance wounds is beyond

reasonable doubt.

Your belief in the high-back/throat-exit SBT-lite is based on something

akin to religious faith, just like fundamentalist Christians and their

10,000 year old dinosaurs.

I expect most can read and understand what we wrote.

Your subtext is unmistakable: a shot from the front is an open

question. Don Jeffries scolded you for the exact same thing.

Barb, you're like the little kid caught with her hand in the cookie

jar who claimed to reach for the castor oil. :->

I responded about your debunking SBT death knell nonsense ... now you are

on to "definitive" and "terrain"

Those are your words, Barb, not mine. If there is a problem with your

notions, the fault lies with the manufacturer. :->

If you don't want your unsupported assumptions about the "research

terrain" challenged, may I kindly suggest you not advance those

assumptions in an article posted on this forum?

Everything in your article is subject to discussion, Barb. You're in no

position to foreclose critique of your logical fallacies.

Your article begs the question as to the existence of a frontal shot,

and is thus a proper subject for discussion on this thread.

and I am not going to get involved, ever again please gawd, in the time consuming

task of trying to untie the successive knots you make out of anything someone says.

I don't recall your involvement in any such efforts.

And it's clear from your position on Kennedy's non-fatal wounds that

you regard a frontal shot an open question.

This is on-topic, Barb, whether you like it or not.

This thread is on whether or not there was a through and through hole in the windshield.

The article is an exercise in gratuitous witness bashing, led by one

Barb Junkkarinen, serial witness basher.

Let's take an inventory of what you regard as

"the research terrain."

1) Every witness who observed a hole in the windshield suffered a

similar erroneous perception.

2) Every witness at Parkland who observed JFK's throat wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

3) Every witness at Bethesda who observed JFK's back wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Amazing coincidence of similar erroneous perceptions, I must say!

Do we see a pattern here?

The difference between the windshield issue and JFK's non-fatal

wounds is that the wound locations are corroborated by official,

contemporaneous documents and the observations of trained

observers.

You employ a double stand when it comes to weighing evidence, Barb,

and it's always rigged to conclude that one witness or another is wrong

about something relating to the conspiracy.

The DP/P/B witnesses are patriotic, heroic Americans who have solemnly

spoken to the truth of the Kennedy assassination, only to be sneered at or

ignored by the US government, the mainstream media, and a bunch of

pet-theory addled nabobs in the "JFK Critical Research Community."

Clint Hill went to the morgue on a somber mission -- to bear witness to

the nature and location of JFK's wounds.

He testified thusly:

"I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to

the right-hand side of the spinal column."

This location matches the hole in the shirt perfectly -- 5.75 inches below

the top of the shirt collar.

But according to Barb & Co., Clint Hill wasn't able to tell the difference

between "about 6 inches" and "3 or 4 inches."

This is an ability most of us develop long before kindergarten.

Clint Hill, highly-trained observer, brave servant of his country,

was sent to bear witness to the facts surrounding the murder of a

US President -- but he was so incredibly incompetent that he made

a mistake few pre-schoolers would make?

Barb Junkkarinen, what you call "research terrain" is nothing but an

obscenity.

Rest assured, your serial witness bashing will stand to challenge.

BRAVO Mr. Varnell.... Game-Set-Match

Oh please! Just like your pals Costella, Fetzer, and company, old falsehood teller Varnell is a run away and hide kinda guy when boxed into a corner.

You need to buy a clue davie...yours has expired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, when adults are talking you shouldn't interrupt.

Didn't Dr. Thompson tell you to keep this stuff off his thread?

Evan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig, when adults are talking you shouldn't interrupt.

Didn't Dr. Thompson tell you to keep this stuff off his thread?

Evan?

What. WHO brought up the clothing evidence AGAIN in the thread little mr. fibberhead? Oh Yea..the childish and cowardly Cliff Varnell....who would have guessed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig, when adults are talking you shouldn't interrupt.

Didn't Dr. Thompson tell you to keep this stuff off his thread?

Evan?

What. WHO brought up the clothing evidence AGAIN in the thread little mr. fibberhead? Oh Yea..the childish and cowardly Cliff Varnell....who would have guessed....

Evan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig, when adults are talking you shouldn't interrupt.

Didn't Dr. Thompson tell you to keep this stuff off his thread?

Evan?

What. WHO brought up the clothing evidence AGAIN in the thread little mr. fibberhead? Oh Yea..the childish and cowardly Cliff Varnell....who would have guessed....

Evan?

EVAN???? Crying in your soup again cliffy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig, when adults are talking you shouldn't interrupt.

Didn't Dr. Thompson tell you to keep this stuff off his thread?

Evan?

What. WHO brought up the clothing evidence AGAIN in the thread little mr. fibberhead? Oh Yea..the childish and cowardly Cliff Varnell....who would have guessed....

It's no wonder he has to try and bait people into discussion by posting laundry lists of comments and attributing them as their beliefs, their thoughts, their assessment, probably figuring if he puts them on the defensive, they will feel forced to respond... even when he has to, again, crash into another thread to do it. But he's wrong... as he finally seemed to get from others on another forum when all who tried to discuss with him finally gave up and ignored him. Life is too short, and currently too many other things going on, to waste time untying his knots. Who would want to discuss anything with someone who has to resort to those sort of tactics and does nothing but make pronouncements in the first place?

BTW ... I love the word "fibberhead." <g>

Happy Sunday!

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRAVO Mr. Varnell.... Game-Set-Match

Oh please! Just like your pals Costella, Fetzer, and company, old falsehood teller Varnell is a run away and hide kinda guy when boxed into a corner.

You need to buy a clue davie...yours has expired.

LOL! Even the most clueless know there is no game, no set and no match when there is only one player on the court flailing a tennis racket around in the air without even a ball.<g>

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's no wonder he has to try and bait people into discussion by posting laundry lists of comments and attributing them as their beliefs, their thoughts, their assessment,

Did I get anything wrong?

You're on record as claiming the round hit JFK at a posterior

location level with, or slightly below, the throat wound and

exited the throat.

You know, kind of like the first two legs of the Single Bullet Theory,

which your article referenced.

If I have this wrong, of course I'll apologize. I wouldn't

wish this ridiculous assessment on anybody.

probably figuring if he puts them on the defensive, they will feel forced to respond

But Don Jeffries made the exact same point I did about

your begging the question on the frontal shot/SBT issues.

This isn't about me, Barb, it's about what you wrote and

your inability to defend it.

... even when he has to, again, crash into another thread to do it.

But he's wrong... as he finally seemed to get from others on another

forum when all who tried to discuss with him finally gave up and ignored him.

Factually incorrect. I had wonderful collegial discussions

with LNers Judy M, Ron Judge, Joe Durnavich, Rod Spencer,

and for a while there even John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman.

I treat people the way they treat me.

Life is too short, and currently too many other things going on, to waste time untying his knots. Who would want to discuss anything with someone who has to resort to those sort of tactics and does nothing but make pronouncements in the first place?

BTW ... I love the word "fibberhead." <g>

Happy Sunday!

Barb :-)

So Clint Hill was grossly incompetent in the morgue

the night Kennedy died?

Your placement of the back wound leaves no other

conclusion, does it?

Or was Kennedy's "neckline" about six inches above the base

of his neck? :rolleyes:

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a riot. Easy to see why you can carry on entire threads by yourself,

That has nothing to do with me. When the evidence is

overwhelming on one side of an argument, discussions tend

to be one-sided.

I base my arguments ONLY on the following:

1) The witness testimonies from Dealey Plaza, Parkland, and

Bethesda, which, on the major points, are amazingly consistent.

2) The Dealey Plaza films and photos, which, on the major points,

are amazingly consistent with the witness testimonies.

3) The properly prepared contemporaneous documents/film -- Burkley's

death certificate, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in

pencil, the FBI autopsy report, the lateral neck x-ray, and the

contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors -- are all amazingly

consistent with the photographs and the witness testimony.

4) The location of the defects in the clothing.

That's it.

That's all I ever cite. People get discouraged when they have

to rationalize away so much evidence, so my discussions do

tend to be lop-sided.

The reason I cite the clothing evidence most of the time is because

I can't stand exposing the DP/P/B witnesses to the gratuitous

witness bashing that always attends these discussions.

So, yes, when the authority of evidence speaks so loudly, the

discussion is going to be one-sided.

as I understand you did some months ago on the back wound.

Yes, Barb, you should understand there was a thread about the back

wound since you wrote -- correct me if I'm wrong -- three posts on it before

you declared victory and departed the field.

I heard about it in email from a friend who found it all quite

amusing. <g>

That's funny, I swear I saw the name "Barb Junkkarinen" at the bottom

of the page soon after several of my posts on the back wound thread.

In fact, on July 7 one Barb Junkkarinen visited my bio page. :->

Nothing here I care to respond to.

There's nothing you can respond to. The preponderance

of evidence of JFK's T3-back/throat-entrance wounds is beyond

reasonable doubt.

Your belief in the high-back/throat-exit SBT-lite is based on something

akin to religious faith, just like fundamentalist Christians and their

10,000 year old dinosaurs.

I expect most can read and understand what we wrote.

Your subtext is unmistakable: a shot from the front is an open

question. Don Jeffries scolded you for the exact same thing.

Barb, you're like the little kid caught with her hand in the cookie

jar who claimed to reach for the castor oil. :->

I responded about your debunking SBT death knell nonsense ... now you are

on to "definitive" and "terrain"

Those are your words, Barb, not mine. If there is a problem with your

notions, the fault lies with the manufacturer. :->

If you don't want your unsupported assumptions about the "research

terrain" challenged, may I kindly suggest you not advance those

assumptions in an article posted on this forum?

Everything in your article is subject to discussion, Barb. You're in no

position to foreclose critique of your logical fallacies.

Your article begs the question as to the existence of a frontal shot,

and is thus a proper subject for discussion on this thread.

and I am not going to get involved, ever again please gawd, in the time consuming

task of trying to untie the successive knots you make out of anything someone says.

I don't recall your involvement in any such efforts.

And it's clear from your position on Kennedy's non-fatal wounds that

you regard a frontal shot an open question.

This is on-topic, Barb, whether you like it or not.

This thread is on whether or not there was a through and through hole in the windshield.

The article is an exercise in gratuitous witness bashing, led by one

Barb Junkkarinen, serial witness basher.

Let's take an inventory of what you regard as

"the research terrain."

1) Every witness who observed a hole in the windshield suffered a

similar erroneous perception.

2) Every witness at Parkland who observed JFK's throat wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

3) Every witness at Bethesda who observed JFK's back wound

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Amazing coincidence of similar erroneous perceptions, I must say!

Do we see a pattern here?

The difference between the windshield issue and JFK's non-fatal

wounds is that the wound locations are corroborated by official,

contemporaneous documents and the observations of trained

observers.

You employ a double stand when it comes to weighing evidence, Barb,

and it's always rigged to conclude that one witness or another is wrong

about something relating to the conspiracy.

The DP/P/B witnesses are patriotic, heroic Americans who have solemnly

spoken to the truth of the Kennedy assassination, only to be sneered at or

ignored by the US government, the mainstream media, and a bunch of

pet-theory addled nabobs in the "JFK Critical Research Community."

Clint Hill went to the morgue on a somber mission -- to bear witness to

the nature and location of JFK's wounds.

He testified thusly:

"I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to

the right-hand side of the spinal column."

This location matches the hole in the shirt perfectly -- 5.75 inches below

the top of the shirt collar.

But according to Barb & Co., Clint Hill wasn't able to tell the difference

between "about 6 inches" and "3 or 4 inches."

This is an ability most of us develop long before kindergarten.

Clint Hill, highly-trained observer, brave servant of his country,

was sent to bear witness to the facts surrounding the murder of a

US President -- but he was so incredibly incompetent that he made

a mistake few pre-schoolers would make?

Barb Junkkarinen, what you call "research terrain" is nothing but an

obscenity.

Rest assured, your serial witness bashing will stand to challenge.

I am also uncomfortable with the attempts to dismiss the windshield bullet hole witnesses. This simply blocks research rather than allowing it to move forward to determine what relevance their statements have to the events.

Using witness-bashing to stop research in areas that lead to conspiracy is one of the heavy-handed tactics of the WCR defenders. Rather than simply weighing and evaluating what the witness says and then encouraging everyone to think for themselves, the apologists 'discredit' and then judge. The end result is inevitably that 'all roads lead only to the WCR.'

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am also uncomfortable with the attempts to dismiss the windshield bullet hole witnesses. This simply blocks research rather than allowing it to move forward to determine what relevance their statements have to the events.

Using witness-bashing to stop research in areas that lead to conspiracy is one of the heavy-handed tactics of the WCR defenders. Rather than simply weighing and evaluating what the witness says and then encouraging everyone to think for themselves, the apologists 'discredit' and then judge. The end result is inevitably that 'all roads lead only to the WCR.'

You keep saying this, Pamela, both here and on the mod group .... over and over and over, yet you never attempt to actually discuss any witness who you think has been dismissed or bashed, you never point out which witness statements you think have relevance to the events.

Pointing out that a witness placed the damage in the wrong part of the windshield is not gratuitous bashing and dismissal, for example.

Putting forth what ones have found and inviting discussion ... which IS encouraging others to think for themselves and voice their opinions ... is not any "heavy-handed tactic."

Presenting new information, as in this case, the Taylor affidavit, does move research forward.

Nothing here was about the WC, certainly not about defending it. The WC had no way of knowing that years later someone would fail to either read thoroughly, or comprehend completely, the Taylor Report and would cite it as evidence of a hole through the windshield. Or that for 29 years following THAT, others. including you, would have picked that up and run with it, continuing to promote that mistaken notion sans any additional full reading and understanding of what the document actually says themselves.

You do nothing but criticize others, leaving nothing but a trail of innuendo, not so veiled allegations and labels ... and inflammatory rhetoric about "WC defenders." Regardless of the subject. This is just one more in a long line where you have done the exact same thing.

Your nose is out of joint at me over my undertaking some fact checking on Judyth Baker's story a year and a half ago. Since you are one of her biggest defenders, and one who has actually given her money, you couldn't stand that, especially since, at every turn, claims she makes crash headlong into documented facts. Anything that mentions John Hunt's work has the same effect on you after the trouncing you took in a quite long discussion a few years ago involving the Dallas evidence going to the FBI lab in D.C. This is not the place or time to revisit any of that ... this is about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield, but the back alley agenda and any tactics are yours ... and is obvious to anyone who knows your history in some of those discussions. Most people here don't.

I wish I had a dollar for every post you have done since our windshield article came out that says nothing on topic, but merely fans flames, casts innuendo and steers any hope of actual discussion about what was presented further and further off course. Perhaps that is what you want.

If you think witnesses have been dismissed unfairly, then discuss the witnesses and what you disagree with in what we wrote. If you have additional insight or information ... bring it out.

Pick one. Let's go. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...