Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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

Fantasy becomes you cliff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Fantasy becomes you cliff...

3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner...unimpeachable. As YOU well know.

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.

Actually! What would/and should hold the most weight would be that verification by all three of the autopsy surgeons who examined the wound (to include insertion of their little finger) that the wound was SUPRA-clavicle.

That means "above" for those who appear to have difficulty with this item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually! What would/and should hold the most weight would be that verification by all three of the autopsy surgeons who examined the wound (to include insertion of their little finger) that the wound was SUPRA-clavicle.

That means "above" for those who appear to have difficulty with this item.

No difficulty at all.

What would hold the most weight would be the earliest accounts of these autopsy surgeons, which were recorded according to proper military autopsy protocol.

The portion of the autopsy face sheet which was filled out in pencil -- as per proper autopsy protocol -- shows the wound in a location consistent with the holes in the clothes and other witness accounts. That portion of the face sheet was signed off as "verified," in pencil.

According to JFK autopsy surgeon Dr. Pierre Finck, "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the

correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

The only accurate written descriptions of the back wound appeared in the death certificate prepared by JFK's personal physician and the FBI report on the autopsy.

Burkely's death certificate located the wound at the Third Thoracic vertebra, in accordance with proper military autopsy protocol.

The FBI report on the autopsy described the wound as "below the shoulder."

The "supra-clavicle" wound locations referred to by Thomas Purvis involved three separate wound locations for one wound.

The autopsy report lists two separate locations for the back wound:

1) "just above the upper border of the scapula" (T2)

2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process" (C7/T1)

Neither of these wound locations are consistent with proper autopsy protocol, and they aren't consistent with each other!

Autopsy surgeon Humes helped develop an even more absurd neck wound location for the WC.

Thomas Purvis seems to believe that improperly prepared autopsy material trumps properly prepared autopsy material.

By what alchemy of logic do you arrive at that conclusion, Tom?

Much less explain how multiple inches of JFK's jacket, multiple inches of his shirt, and his jacket collar all occupied the same physical space at the same time.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much less explain how multiple inches of JFK's jacket, multiple inches of his shirt, and his jacket collar all occupied the same physical space at the same time.

How varnellian. "overselling." again

The SAME physical space? Wow fantasy does become you cliff.

Edited by Craig Lamson

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...