Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Now that everyone can see it, please note how little in the text the clothing evidence figures. ( I have underscored it above.)

Now everyone can see that DiEugenio is attempting to separate the clothing evidence from the T3 back wound. This is weak rhetorical tea, indeed.

Salandria has an entire section devoted to the T3 back wound but DiEugenio only underlines that which relates to the clothing evidence.

Anyone can read Salandria and see that the "core of the case" involves the T3 back wound, a fact DiEugenio and others of like mind seek to obfuscate.

VInce uses a battery of evidence here to prove that there were multiple assassins firing from the back and front.

Far from predominating, the clothing evidence is a part of a mulitleveled mosaic, and it figures in that mosaic rather briefly.

An egregious mis-representation of Salandria's case for the T3 back wound -- evidence which goes to the core of the case.

Now the second part of the essay if about this long and the clothing evidence figures at about the same rate.

So when I said it takes up about five percent of the text, that is being generous. Overly so. If one did an actual word count, it would probably be less than three per cent.

More rhetorical vapor. Does Salandria argue that CE399 or Connally's wounds go to "the core of the case."?

No. He assigns that significance to the T3 back wound, which is physically represented by the clothing defects.

In fact, the strength of this article is how quickly VInce has absorbed the medical evidence in the JFK case in the early part of 1965, since the volumes were just issued like six months earlier.

No objecitve person can say that the clothing evidence predominates any aspect of the essay. It simply does not.

No objective person can argue that Salandria didn't designate the T3 back wound as evidence that "goes to the core of the case."

It does not even predominate the part of the essay dealing with the low back wound.

The low back wound and the fact of conspiracy derived from it was the point of Salandria's argument.

Are you really so agenda-driven that you can't comprehend this?

That's it for me.

Case Closed.

PS: Mike, you should have done this weeks ago.

We know why Varnell didn't.

The question is: why is Jim DiEugenio disputing the T3 back wound. Puts him in the company of Gary Mack, John McAdams et al.

What is your agenda with this, Jim?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Varnell has so little respect for what VInce actually wrote,

DiEugenio has so little respect for what Salandria's actually wrote -- or so little grasp -- that he ignores the case Salandria makes for the T3 back wound: the testimony of 3 SS SAs + the clothing evidence.

The Back Wound

Here we must shift our attention backward. We will examine the Commission's inference concerning a bullet which allegedly entered the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck. We urge the reader to keep his mind open on the question of whether the back hit we are about to discuss has an exit on the front of the neck or whether it has an exit at all. Nothing we have examined so far would prove the Commission's conclusion that this shot in the back of the President exited from the front.

At this point in the exposition, each reader will have in mind Bennett's oft-repeated testimony that he observed a missile "hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder" (W-111). Special Agent Clinton L. Hill saw the President's body being worked on at the morgue in Bethesda during the course of the autopsy. He stated to the Commission that just before the body was placed into a casket "I saw an opening in the back, about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" (II, H-143).

Special Agent Roy H. Kellerman testified about his experience at Bethesda during the autopsy studies there.

There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we--were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go?" He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." (II, H-93)

If Colonel Finck was correct, if there were indeed no lanes of exit from such a wound, then that is the end of the Commission's theory that one assassin fired all the shots at the assassination site. Such a finding of no outlet would make the back wound a separate hit. It would make the front neck wound a separate hit. It would place one gunman in front of the President. It would add one bullet to the three shells found in the Depository Building, thereby making four, and thereby requiring another gunman to accomplish all the shooting in the maximum allowable time. But while Colonel Finck at the autopsy in Bethesda was making this judgment on the dreadful night of November 22nd, 1963, the United States Government was proclaiming to the world that one man and one man alone had performed all the gory work in Dealey Plaza. This conclusion, in the light of the opinions of the autopsy experts, was utterly out of joint with the facts apparent at that time. At best, it was premature.

All the above testimony of Special Agents Bennett, Hill, and Kellerman indicates a hit in the back of the President roughly four to six inches below the inferior neckline. Material supporting evidence was found in the clothing of the President. FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier testified about the President's clothing as follows:

I found on the back of the shirt a hole, 5 3/4 inches below the top of the collar, and as you look at the back of the shirt 1 1/8 inch to the right of the mid-line of the shirt, which is this hole I am indicating ... [T]he coat hole is 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar. The shirt hole is 5 3/4 inches, which could be accounted for by a portion of the collar sticking up above the coat about a half inch. (V, H-60)

The bullet which made these holes would have only originated from behind the President, who was sitting erect, facing front, in the Presidential limousine. Both the Commission and the writer are in perfect agreement here. 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.

The writer concludes from the evidence of Special Agents Bennett, Kellerman, and Hill that there was a wound in the President's back some 4 to 6 inches down from the neck line. The writer feels that the missile hole 5 3/4 inches below the top of the shirt collar and 1 1/8 inches to the right of the midline of the shirt, dramatically supports the testimony of these Special Agents. The missile hole in the President's coat: 5 3/4 inches below the top of the collar corroborates their testimony in a solid and impressive way. The Commission, however, concluded otherwise. Despite all the above evidence, the Warren Commission found that the hit in the back of the President was above the wound at the necktie knot. "The autopsy disclosed that the bullet which entered the back of the President's neck hit no bony structure and proceeded in a slightly downward angle" (W- 91). We submit that the Commission was in grievous and obvious error.

The Warren Commission had to recognize that a bullet in the back 5 3/4 inches below the top of the shirt which did not exit, would end the lone assassin theory. For, if this bullet did not exit, the front neck wound constitutes a separate entry from the front. To add one bullet is to add one gunman, who cannot have fired from the Texas Book Depository Building. One gunman cannot be in more than one place at the one time.

An attempt was made to refute the evidence of the three Special Agents who stuck to the truth as they had seen it. The Warren Commission, trying to rebut this impressive evidence, hit rocks which caused its integrity to founder forever on the shoals of self-contradictory exhibits and finally fabrication and withholding evidence. Having made these charges, we will proceed to prove each of them.

The T3 back wound trumps pet theorist bloviating any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, you should have done this weeks ago.

We know why Varnell didn't.

Jim, I did do it two weeks ago. I provided links to Salandria's famous 1998 COPA speech and his groundbreaking article for the Legal Intelligencer. I posted some excerpts from same.

I did not reproduce the articles in full like you did with the Liberation article. Anyone that wanted to know what Salandria wrote and said about the evidence only had to click their mouse.

I've read the arguments you've advanced to Cliff in the last two days. I believe that I have advanced essentially the same arguments for the last two weeks.

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.

All I had to do was show that there is no evidence that Salandria was referring specifically to the clothing evidence when he said conspiracy was blatantly obvious. That is what I did. I used Salandria's words.

Repeatedly I accused Cliff of moving the discussion away from this simple premise and that is what I believe he did. I know Cliff begs to differ. I have no desire to reopen my argument with him.

I don't think most members read or care about this stuff anyway I do wish it would have happened on a Salandria thread instead of a McAdams thread.

And Jim, I will reply to this in the near future: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=231539

It's going to take a little time to dig some things up, but I will do it. Right now, I'm a little burnt out on this topic. I know you understand..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My usual burgundy

[

Craig Lamson et all claim that multiple inches of jacket fabric, multiple inches of shirt fabric, and JFK's un-tied down jacket collar all occupied the same physical space at the same time.

This is prima facie impossible. But you and Gary Mack regard this argument as valid!

Says more about you and Gary Mack than it does about the evidence in a murder case.[/b][/color]

It's really quite amusing to see cliff in a state of total meltdown and reduced to creating complete falsehoods from thin air, much like he did in his now infamous 3/4of an inch of slack falsehood.

Sadly for cliff, it has been proven using the extant photos. He is simply creating a falsehood with his silly claim of things "being in the same physical space at the same time. There is a word that perfectly describes cliff but I'm unable to use it due to forum rules. So lets just use cliffs own term to describe his telling of falsehoods...He has 'oversold'. This is well documented. cliff once again is just plain wrong.

Regardless of his repeated attempts to oversell, it is a proven and uncontested fact that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. cliff proves his incompetence every time he tries in vain to claim otherwise. The unbendable properties of sun and shadow destroy his every time. End of story.

Intellectual honesty requires that this proven fact be used when considering other evidence about the back wound. It cannot exist in isolation.

Please return to the regularly scheduled program of CT's eating their own. It's entertainment at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please return to the regularly scheduled program of CT's eating their own. It's entertainment at its finest.

Entertainment at it's finest? Lamson needs to get out more.

This is a guy that gets repeatedly drummed here, and the best he can do is announce game set and match....over and over and over.

It may not be entertainment, but it's amusing as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the arguments you've advanced to Cliff in the last two days. I believe that I have advanced essentially the same arguments for the last two weeks.

Are you disputing Salandria's characterization of the T3 back wound as evidence which "goes to the core of the case"?

Are you disputing the T3 back wound location, as Jim D. appears to be doing?

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

Except that Cliff has made it very clear that he has been referring to JFK's T3 back wound.

It seems to me that since neither of you gentleman can lay a glove on the fact that Salandria referred to the T3 back wound as evidence which "goes to the core of the case," you must attempt to de-couple the clothing evidence from the back wound.

As Salandria noted, the round which struck JFK in the back also created those clothing defects.

The clothing evidence cannot logically be taken out of the context of the T3 back wound.

But that's all you guys have. Rhetorical vapor.

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.

Sigh. Yes, as the physical representation of the T3 back wound. It is the T3 back wound which "goes to the core of the case." That you guys so willfully choose to ignore this is beyond me.

You and Jim D. must try to keep the clothing evidence separate from the back wound, or else your arguments don't hold water.

Although Cliff obviously doesn't agree, I knew he could not prove this.

I've proven over and over that Salandria regarded the back wound as prima facie evidence of 4+ shots and evidence "which goes to the core of the case."

I wish I had a dime for everytime I cite this, only to be ignored by you and Mr. D.

After all, Salandria's words over the years speak for themselves.

Indeed. Which is why he prepped Gaeton Fonzi for his confrontation with Arlen Specter and was thrilled with the results of Fonzi rubbing Specter's face in the clothing evidence.

When the Jeffries film was released in 2007, how did Salandria and Fonzi respond?

By citing Fonzi's confrontation with Specter.

The clothing-evidence/T3-back-wound was prima facie evidence of conspiracy then, and it remains so today.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, you don't even know what "the core of the case" is. Your posts no longer make any sense to me. Now you're speaking about yourself in the third person.

Rhetorical vapor that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, you don't even know what "the core of the case" is.

Sure I do. It's the unchallenged fact that 2+ shooters fired at JFK and the USG covered it up. The T3 back wound is the evidence which addresses these points most directly.

Not CE399. Not Connally's wounds.

The T3 back wound.

Your posts no longer make any sense to me. Now you're speaking about yourself in the third person.

Always worked for Ricky Henderson.

Rhetorical vapor that.

Clothing evidence = T3 back wound. The most efficient argument against the SBT is the T3 back wound.

What is so difficult to understand?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please return to the regularly scheduled program of CT's eating their own. It's entertainment at its finest.

Entertainment at it's finest? Lamson needs to get out more.

This is a guy that gets repeatedly drummed here, and the best he can do is announce game set and match....over and over and over.

It may not be entertainment, but it's amusing as hell.

Drummed? How in hte world would you EVER know?

This place is FILLED to the brim with photographic ignorance. And you can't even buy a clue....

Your incompetence is showing Hogan.

Hide away in your books while the real world passes you by. Watching that is PURE entertainment....

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please return to the regularly scheduled program of CT's eating their own. It's entertainment at its finest.

Entertainment at it's finest? Lamson needs to get out more.

This is a guy that gets repeatedly drummed here, and the best he can do is announce game set and match....over and over and over.

It may not be entertainment, but it's amusing as hell.

Drummed? How in hte world would you EVER know?

This place is FILLED to the brim with photographic ignorance. And you can't even buy a clue....

Your incompetence is showing Hogan.

Hide away in your books while the real world passes you by. Watching that is PURE entertainment....

Try getting out in the real world. Entertainment at it's finest? You need a better life, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please return to the regularly scheduled program of CT's eating their own. It's entertainment at its finest.

Entertainment at it's finest? Lamson needs to get out more.

This is a guy that gets repeatedly drummed here, and the best he can do is announce game set and match....over and over and over.

It may not be entertainment, but it's amusing as hell.

Drummed? How in hte world would you EVER know?

This place is FILLED to the brim with photographic ignorance. And you can't even buy a clue....

Your incompetence is showing Hogan.

Hide away in your books while the real world passes you by. Watching that is PURE entertainment....

Try getting out in the real world. Entertainment at it's finest? You need a better life, man.

Is that the best you can do Hogan, crib? Sheesh.

Oh yea, CT kooks are FINE entertainment indeed...

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.

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.

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.

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...