Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

MH:

I repeatedly charged Cliff with reproducing only Salandria's quotes about the clothing. Just as you say above.

Please keep in mind that I had a very narrow and defined burden of proof.

Salandria told Fonzi in 1975: "all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy."

Cliff made the claim that Salandria was referring specifically to the clothing evidence.

Although Cliff obviously doesn't agree, I knew he could not prove this. After all, Salandria's words over the years speak for themselves.

I thought that this was one of your better moments also.

Its pretty obvious now that I posted the entire article that you were right.

I can lead the horses to water, but I cannot force them to drink.

Salandria, for the umpteenth time:

It would seem, also, that there is no room for disagreement with respect to where the missile which impacted on the President's back entered. But, alas, on this score, the disagreement between the writer and the Commission is sharp and goes to the core of the case.

Apparently there is room for disagreement, or so it appears that Mr. DiEugenio is claiming.

For the sake of argument, it can be postulated that either JFK's back wound was at T3 -- or it wasn't. If it was, then that location is obviously too low to accommodate the single-bullet scenario.

This is a clear-cut case against the SBT, requires no expert analyses, could easily be grasped by little kids.

And yet somehow over the years the T3 back wound became a "model T," "passe", even though the back wound location greatly clarifies the nature of the throat entrance wound and impeaches the conclusions of the WC at the same time.

Such a powerful piece of evidence, which adds so greatly to our understanding of JFK's back and throat wounds, is now regarded as out of fashion.

Pity. I thought this was a sad state of affairs in 1997, and nothing in the interim has altered that conclusion one iota.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

For all the newbies and lurkers, anything that Vincent Salandria has written or said about the JFK assassination is a MUST READ. Salandria was cued in that the JFK assassination was a full blown coup d'etat from Day 3, November 25, 1963, when Oswald was assassinated, too. Salandria was right.

I repeat, Salandria is one of the must read JFK researchers/commentators on the JFK assassination:

1) "Correspondence with Vincent Salandria" - by Michael Morrissey -

http://www.amazon.com/Correspondence-Vincent-Salandria-Michael-Morrissey/dp/1430326646

(some sharp intellectuals give you high quality analysis of JFK assassination and cover up)

2) "False Mystery: Essays on the Assassination of JFK" by Vincent Salandria -

http://www.amazon.com/False-Mystery-Essays-Assassination-JFK/dp/0975494104

(anything by Salandria is golden)

3) History Will Not Absolve Us by Martin Schotz: http://www.amazon.com/History-Will-Not-Absolve-Orwellian/dp/0965381404/ref=pd_sim_b_1

(this book is a classic)

When you read Salandria, you are getting blue-chip, top drawer analysis of the 1963 Coup d'etat. Here is some other more stuff I recommend:

1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination by Phillip Nelson

2) JFK and the Unspeakable:Why He Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass

3) Brothers: the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot

4) The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh

5) Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty by Russ Baker.

6) Google the essay “LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK” by Robert Morrow.

7) Google “National Security State and the Assassination of JFK by Andrew Gavin Marshall.”

8) Google “Chip Tatum Pegasus.”

9) Google “Vincent Salandria False Mystery Speech.”

10) Google “Murray Rothbard the JFK Flap”

11) Google “Preserving the Legacy by Mat Wilson”

11) Google “Bertrand Russell 16 Questions on the Assassination”

12) Watch on You Tube the extremely important videos The Men Who Killed Kennedy, episodes 7, 8, and 9 which focus on the role of Lyndon Johnson.

13) Watch on You Tube Jesse Ventura’s show on the JFK assassination.

14) Watch the movie JFK director’s cut by Oliver Stone.

15) Watch on You Tube “Evidence of Revision.” – 8 hours of fantastic and rare footage relating to the JFK assassination.

Another key point: Lee Harvey Oswald was U.S. intelligence and he shot NO ONE on 11/2263. Re: Oswald's intelligence connections read 1) "Oswald and the CIA" by John Newman 2) "Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and US Intelligence" by Philip Melanson 3) "History Will Not Absolve Us" by Martin Schotz (Chapter V Oswald and U.S. Intelligence by Christopher Sharrett) 4) "Me and Lee" by Judyth Vary Baker (Oswald's mistress in New Orleans, summer 1963) 5) Google “Lee Harvey Oswald’s reading habits summer 1963”

Edited by Robert Morrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was about the Salandria-Fonzi conversation and your unproven interpretation of it.

You keep dragging the discussion as far as you can from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

Regarding JFK's bullet wound in the back: it was at T3 as per JFK doctor's account. It was about 5 and 3/4 inches down from his collar and it did not exit. And it most certainly did NOT exit from his throat; that is just ridiculous.

Really, like Salandria states, if you just look at the Zapruder film, JFK's throat wound from the front, and his non-exiting back wound that obviously did not exit through the throat, one can EASILY deduce that JFK was OBVIOUSLY shot from shooters from the front and back.

LBJ, Hoover, the FBI, the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles all knew this ... no search was ever made for the "extra" shooter from the front ... therefore what we have with the JFK Assassination is OBVIOUSLY A COUP D'ETAT WITH THE GOVERNMENT MURDERING JOHN KENNEDY AND THE GOVERNMENT COVERING IT UP.

This has been clear to anyone who is intellectually honest for decades.

Edited by Robert Morrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was about the Salandria-Fonzi conversation and your unproven interpretation of it.

You keep dragging the discussion as far as you can from that.

I think the only way to prove it one way or another is ask Vincent Salandria -- was he referring to the back-wound/clothing evidence when he said that conspiracy was blatantly obvious all along.

If he tells me I'm wrong -- I'll wear a LeBron James jersey for a whole afternoon.

If he tells me I'm anywhere close to being acutely attuned with his state of mind in 1975 -- then Mike Hogan must wear a Stephen Curry jersey for a whole afternoon.

Mike, I still think you and Jim D are great, our little disagreement here aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he tells me I'm wrong -- I'll wear a LeBron James jersey for a whole afternoon.

If he tells me I'm anywhere close to being acutely attuned with his state of mind in 1975 -- then Mike Hogan must wear a Stephen Curry jersey for a whole afternoon.

These jerseys gotta be home-made, of course. I think I have the better end of that deal -- the Heat have a better logo...I mean, a bridge that isn't even built yet, that's the Warriors logo. Seriously.

Good luck with that, Mike! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderators,

Could we move this discussion over to the Vincent Salandria thread Mike started not too long ago?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderators,

Could we move this discussion over to the Vincent Salandria thread Mike started not too long ago?

Thanks in advance.

As the person who started this thread, I agree. (Please..)

--Tommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding JFK's bullet wound in the back: it was at T3 as per JFK doctor's account. It was about 5 and 3/4 inches down from his collar and it did not exit. And it most certainly did NOT exit from his throat; that is just ridiculous.

Really, like Salandria states, if you just look at the Zapruder film, JFK's throat wound from the front, and his non-exiting back wound that obviously did not exit through the throat, one can EASILY deduce that JFK was OBVIOUSLY shot from shooters from the front and back.

LBJ, Hoover, the FBI, the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles all knew this ... no search was ever made for the "extra" shooter from the front ... therefore what we have with the JFK Assassination is OBVIOUSLY A COUP D'ETAT WITH THE GOVERNMENT MURDERING JOHN KENNEDY AND THE GOVERNMENT COVERING IT UP.

This has been clear to anyone who is intellectually honest for decades.

Right...So how can that be if the jacket is folded up 3+inches, which is unimpeachable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drummed? How in hte world would you EVER know?

Easy. Simply by the weakness of your rhetoric and the lack of sophistication in your insults.

Right...Truth be damned.

Exactly.

Good to know that the truth has no value to Hogan. He is yet another slave to a warped ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drummed? How in hte world would you EVER know?

Easy. Simply by the weakness of your rhetoric and the lack of sophistication in your insults.

Right...Truth be damned.

Exactly.

Good to know that the truth has no value to Hogan. He is yet another slave to a warped ideology.

What qualifies as "better" evidence, Mr. Lamson: a death certificate, establishing a wound at T-3, or your photographic interpretation of film? I did not say "best" evidence deliberately, but that's another matter. Please advise, and thanks in advance. Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What qualifies as "better" evidence, Mr. Lamson: a death certificate, establishing a wound at T-3, or your photographic interpretation of film? I did not say "best" evidence deliberately, but that's another matter. Please advise, and thanks in advance. Daniel

How about UNINMPEACHABLE fact? The fold on the back of JFK's back is not the product of opinion onr interpretation. And of course that is why is is so damning and feared.

I don't get to have an "opinion' nor can I "interpret" how sunlight works.

It simply works like it works and I (and everyone else) has to live with that.

I don't get to have an "opinion' nor can I "interpret" how geometry works.

It simply works like it works and I (and everyone else) has to live with that.

I don't get to have an "opinion' nor can I "interpret" of the angles of incidence present at the moment Betzner was taken..

It simply is what it is and I (and everyone else) has to live with that.

I don't get to have an "opinion' nor can I "interpret" how a straight line works.

It simply works like it works and I (and everyone else) don't get to bend it.

Unlike all the other evidence for the back wound that has been debated with endless opinions for decades, the data that proves the fold in Betzner is fact based on unbending and well proven principles, not opinion. And of course that's why it is unimpeachable.

I could care less about the SBT, in-shoots and exit wounds, T3 or face-sheets. Weight them to your hearts content. But unless you factor in the 3+ inch fold of fabric found in Betzner, your "interpretation" is fatally flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drummed? How in hte world would you EVER know?

Easy. Simply by the weakness of your rhetoric and the lack of sophistication in your insults.

Right...Truth be damned.

Exactly.

Good to know that the truth has no value to Hogan. He is yet another slave to a warped ideology.

Let us not forget that much maligned *warped* ideology: the WCR. You're stuck with it dude, actually, for that you've earned my pity. Why (if they choose to) professional image compositors (light magicians - sleight of hand alters of reality) can run circles around lone nuts and non-alteration film-photo fanatics on a regular basis. That's why its called an art-form, Studley.

Appears you nutters (and .john mcadams) have forgot your primary argument. Focus hon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that much maligned *warped* ideology: the WCR. You're stuck with it dude, actually, for that you've earned my pity. Why (if they choose to) professional image compositors (light magicians - sleight of hand alters of reality) can run circles around lone nuts and non-alteration film-photo fanatics on a regular basis. That's why its called an art-form, Studley.

Appears you nutters (and .john mcadams) have forgot your primary argument. Focus hon!

More and more empty words from dave. [sarcasm]What a huge surprise [/sarcasm]

WCR? Who cares dave? You ? I don't.

Why not bring some of that "professional" expertise into play here dave? Show us YOUR skills... LOL! Maybe they can help out old cliff. He sure needs it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way, as I said, VInce's work today is primarily an historical marker. Almost no one uses it to demolish the SBF.

Simply because so many people have found new and better and more efficient ways to do that.

People like Cranor,

Can she demonstrate her case to a 6 year old in less than a minute?

Sure she can! Like all good researchers who debunk the SBS, Cranor makes the prima facie case.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/NeckAndTorsoXrays/NeckAndTorsoXrays.htm

Milicent Cranor (emphasis added):

There is a long history of selectivity in the reporting of images on the x-rays of the neck and torso of the late John F. Kennedy. These images were used to help support the conclusion that a bullet entered the base of Kennedy's neck. The alleged locations of the neck and throat wounds – if connected – combine to form a line that retraces back to the sixth floor of the Depository Building in Dallas. A wound at a lower location does not work with this scenario. Many witnesses, including Kennedy's own physician, George Burkley, said the wound was much lower...

Michael Baden, Head of the Medical Panel, appeared to contradict the conclusion of an entrance at C-7 when he said the location of the wound corresponded to the location of holes in the clothing:

"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." [1 HSCA 196]

The hole in the jacket was 5.5 inches below the upper margin of the jacket collar, and the hole in the shirt, 5 3/4 below the upper margin of the shirt collar [7 HSCA 83] about where witnesses said the back wound was – well below the base of the neck. But this impression is then counteracted by claims that Kennedy was leaning forward when he was shot. The HSCA reinforced this claim with an extremely misleading drawing of Kennedy in profile, leaning way forward, with a bullet entering the base of his neck at C-7. [7 HSCA 100] The spine itself leans forward at about 45 degrees. This posture is supposed to show how the back wound became higher than the throat wound. When the body is viewed in the anatomic position, i.e., ramrod straight, the back wound is lower than the throat wound. But films show that, before he was hit, Kennedy was sitting up, his face tilted slightly upward as he faced the crowd. He was not ramrod straight, but he was certainly not as bent over as he appears in the HSCA drawing.

It would take her about a minute to explain the signficance of the T3 back wound to a little kid.

JFK's back wound is, after all, the most efficient rebuttal to the single-bullet scenario (SBS).

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...