Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Criticism of DVP


Recommended Posts

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

This is really getting weird. How about "more than one shooter"?

And those multiple shooters fired separate bullets into JFK's upper back and throat----with neither bullet exiting the other side of his body?? And then a third bullet struck John Connally at almost the exact same moment? And then all three bullets disappear?*

Now THAT'S weird, Ron.

* This assumes you believe CE399 touched no victim on Nov. 22. A fairly safe assumption on my part.

Your safe assumption is fairly good actually. How did Jack Ruby get 399 after it went through two people and then plant it at Parkland hospital? Since JFK's throat wound came from the front it's not likely 399 came through that same opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Robert,

This chart you have used is at the heart of any criticism of the SBT. It is what distinguishes theory - as proposed by the Warren Commission - and reality. I believe your chart may not be completely accurate, but it is more than sufficient for this debate.

As you suggest, assuming a straight line from entrance ( the red dot ) to exit ( the blue dot), then this bullet has to accomplish massive damage to JFK lower head.

Updated SBT apologists do accept that some damage was done to either C7 or T1. But this is just nonsense. If the bullet followed this path it could cause considerable damage to the spine.

Link CAT Scan

The%20direct%20Route_zpsqikvxf8l.jpg

John Nichols chart that I have posted a number of times - and was pointed out to me by Pat Speer - is so important.

In order for the bullet to avoid such damage the bullet would need to enter either 3 inches or 28º to the right. It would not avoid all damage a number of the important arteries would still be likely to be in its direct path.

And of course as this bullet exited it would be traveling in the direction of Nellie Connally and not John Connally.

Link to John Nichols Chart

JohnNichols_zps58646e8f.jpg

Your chart is important because it distinguishes the difference between theory and reality.

James.

Thank you, James. As you stated, what I am showing here is not new, but it is one of, if not the, crucial weakness of the SBT, and it needs to be brought into the light regularly.

While SBT aplogists may waffle over whether it was the right transverse process of C7 or the right transverse process of T1 that was fractured by a bullet, the fact remains that the Warren Commission accepted the medical evidence from the autopsy that it was T1 that was fractured.

cxfront.jpg

Cervical vertebrae shown from the front.

CxNormBack.jpg

Cervical vertebrae seen from the rear, with thoracic vertebra T1 seen below cervical vertebra C7.

The projections to the left and right on the vertebrae are called "transverse processes". Make careful note that, while the cervical vertebrae are quite uniform in their transverse processes, the transverse processes of T1 project much further than those of C7.

Given that the medical evidence shows no damage to the right transverse process of C7, and that there is not enough room for a bullet to pass between the transverse processes of C7 and T1 (especially a bullet travelling downward from the 6th floor), it is safe to surmise that the bullet was on a course that would take it just to the right of the tip of the right transverse process of C7, and just above the right transverse process of T1.

As the medical evidence, garnered from x-rays of JFK's neck, is unequivocal about the injury to T1, and as the possible area of contact (see diagram) on T1 is extremely small, it is possible to locate an entrance wound on JFK's back by simply drawing a line through the wound in the right side of JK's trachea (windpipe) and the only point of contact possible on JFK's T1 right transverse process.

As I said, this is nothing new, as this diagram posted by James earlier clearly shows.

JohnNichols_zps58646e8f.jpg

I should point out that I personally do not believe the entrance wound was at the level of T1, nor do I believe it was a through and through wound. I believe the entrance wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, and that the bullet entered the top of the right lung, broke apart and stayed in the lung; inflictin a pneumothorax in that lung.

However, the T1 level entrance wound is what the WC chose to go with and I am more than happy to use their own flawed evidence to make a mockery of the SBT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Yours is what I call a double-whammy argument. You and I have often disagreed, but I support your methodology and argumentation in this instance. It is fairly easy to comprehend that flawed evidential interpretation, such as the misplaced location of the entrance wound, tends to produce flawed conclusions based upon those interpretations. However, your argument is stronger, not merely because of a different and perhaps superior interpretation of the evidence (T-3 as opposed to T-1), but because it stands on its own merit even when anchored to the opposing argument's (presumed flawed) premise (entrance at T-1). It allows the faulty argument to impeach itself. Well done.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Greg. I've always believed the best argument is one that feeds your opponent's "facts" right back at him in as unpalatable a dish as possible. In this case, I would say the WC has definitely painted itself into a corner. Even if the apologists attempt to explain things by saying the Magic Bullet was deviated from a straight and true course through JFK's neck by passing through the strap muscles, this actually has the effect of making things worse for the apologists, as the only course of deviation that would work for them is a course to the left of the 9° angle from the sniper's nest to the limo.To make the SBT work, the bullet would enter at a 9° angle, 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line and then, either from contact with T1 or the strap muscles, it had to follow a curving path to the left AROUND JFK's cervical vertebrae, ultimately going through the right side of his trachea.

While certainly not impossible, it begs the question: Upon exiting JFK's throat, would the bullet not still be travelling to the left, and considerably away from Connally's right armpit?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While certainly not impossible, it begs the question: Upon exiting JFK's throat, would the bullet not still be travelling to the left, and considerably away from Connally's right armpit?

There we go disagreeing again! I don't think it begs the question, I think it answers it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

emphasis mine

Robert,

Yours is what I call a double-whammy argument. You and I have often disagreed, but I support your methodology and argumentation in this instance. It is fairly easy to comprehend that flawed evidential interpretation, such as the misplaced location of the entrance wound, tends to produce flawed conclusions based upon those interpretations. However, your argument is stronger, not merely because of a different and perhaps superior interpretation of the evidence (T-3 as opposed to T-1), but because it stands on its own merit even when anchored to the opposing argument's (presumed flawed) premise (entrance at T-1). It allows the faulty argument to impeach itself. Well done.

Perhaps?

According to David Von Pein the Croft photo (Z161) shows just "a little bit" of jacket bunch up.

David's analysis is corroborated by the physical evidence:

Hole in the shirt: 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Hole in the jacket: 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up a bare fraction of an inch.

That location aligns with T3.

That JFK was struck in the back at T3 is an unchallenged historical fact.

Contentless declarations to the contrary are not argument.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a word --- Ridiculous // DVP

================================ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES Gaal

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

http://educationforu...=21126&p=287834

As you can tell from my bio, I work at Southern Methodist University ("SMU"). When I moved to Dallas in 1999 I got a job at SMU's Center for Media & Instructional Technology ("CMIT"). The CMIT media librarian at the time (introduced to me as "Judy Childs") was in fact Judy Chiles, wife of Bill Chiles, part owner of Jaggars Chiles Stovall.

Well, you know, when I found that out I just went through the roof! So at one of our Chritmas parties, I approached Bill (who is a sweet guy) and I asked him point blank about Lee Harvey Oswald working for his company.

Bill stated that Oswald was generally a crappy employee, that we wore thick black military-type boots, was surly, and to the concern of Bill at least, walked around speaking in Russian.

Since they did some work for the US Government, Bill was concerned about this guy enough to call the FBI. Bill told the FBI that this guy named Oswald was clunking around in military boots, speaking in Russian and making a nuisance of himself. Bill said the FBI put him on hold, and then came back with (and I am paraphrasing here) "...yeah, we know about Oswald, he's okay."

For what it's worth.

Rob

------------------------------------------------

Pardon me DVP .......case closed GAAL

In a word --- Ridiculous // DVP Gaal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

Cliff,

Although I agree with your location for the entrance wound, as you can see from DVP's above statement, it matters not. He refuses to admit that the SBT does not work even if the wound had, in fact, been located higher. IOW: The SBT is obsolete no matter if one chooses to locate the back wound at T-3 or uses the T-1 location. You are giving him a means to avoid that issue by setting up a rather irrelevant (for the sake of Bob's analysis) rebuttal. This is precisely why I gave my presentation in Washington last year. It is this constant micro-analyzing the evidence that leads to nowhere.

Hell, you even quote Vince Salandria's sentiments to that effect in your signature! Yet, you pay them no heed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

Cliff,

Although I agree with your location for the entrance wound, as you can see from DVP's above statement, it matters not. He refuses to admit that the SBT does not work even if the wound had, in fact, been located higher. IOW: The SBT is obsolete no matter if one chooses to locate the back wound at T-3 or uses the T-1 location. You are giving him a means to avoid that issue by setting up a rather irrelevant (for the sake of Bob's analysis) rebuttal.

That wasn't a "rebuttal"

Contentless declarations to the contrary are not rebuttal.

You give his response a credit it doesn't earn.

This is precisely why I gave my presentation in Washington last year. It is this constant micro-analyzing the evidence that leads to nowhere.

Hell, you even quote Vince Salandria's sentiments to that effect in your signature! Yet, you pay them no heed.

Greg, what evidentiary basis did Salandria cite for the confidence that JFK was killed by a conspiracy?

The clothing evidence!

We don't have to micro-analyze the rest of it -- the physical evidence in the case is prima facie.

It boggles my mind that people take excecption to the emphasis of physical evidnece in a murder case,

In this regard, the JFK case is unique.

Rather than emphasized, the physical evidence among "serious" researchers is marginalized at best, and at worst outright despised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter

You need three inches!

Three inches of shirt and jacket -- a six inch wad of clothing! -- ain't "a little bit" in anybody's book.

Thanks for the SBT-killing quote, David.

"bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common sense ALONE practically proves the SBT.

This could be the most amazing statement ever posted on the forum. Just wanted to acknowledge it.

I wholeheartedly agree Ron, I laughed for a whole 30 seconds reading DVP post.

Common sense and the Single Bullet Fantasy.

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

And there it is. One of the favorite lone nut apologist's fallacies being employed once again. It's colloquially called, "The Burden of Proof" fallacy. Let me first say that even IF the conclusion being asserted were true the argument given to support it would remain fallacious. However, in this case, the conclusion is false. The case has not been made. The argument does not persuade.

The rules of logic apply to all rational argumentation, not just in a courtroom. So please don't duck out of this by exclaiming, "We aren't in a courtroom!" -- Where we are is irrelevant. Logic is logic.

The SBT is a "claim" advanced by those who insist that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated JFK. It is an assertion of alleged facts. Therefore, the Burden of Proof rests on those making that assertion. It does not rest on those disputing the assertion.

A similar example of this type of fallacious argumentation takes the following form:

Person A claims that:

"During the middle of the night I heard a loud sound resembling a motor in my backyard, from around the edges of the curtains I saw a very bright light apparently descending in my yard and the next morning I noticed what appeared to be a perfectly round area of yellowed grass in my otherwise green lawn. That means a spacecraft landed in my backyard, but by the time I went out to check, it had already taken off..."

Person B then disputes the claim, by telling Person A:

"Your explanation of the evidence is much too farfetched ON ITS FACE to be true." (Just like the SBT is too farfetched on its face to be true). Person B then lists the items in the claim that are most unbelievable.

Rather than adequately addressing the criticisms of the claim as raised by Person B, instead Person A says:

"Common sense alone practically PROVES that a spaceship landed in my backyard last night."

Person B says:

"I can barely stop laughing at your illogical approach."

Person A then commits the Burden of Proof fallacy by saying:

"If it wasn't a spaceship that landed in my backyard last night, when you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?"

-------

No. The BURDEN is on he who made the claim, not on he who disputes it!

Of course, this sets up yet another fallacy, known as the "False Dichotomy" which implies, by an inappropriate inference, that if Person B cannot come up with an alternate theory to explain the evidence, then Person A's spaceship theory must be true. This is obviously fallacious.

Paul, in all due respect, resorting to this type of sloppy (deliberate or not) reasoning is rather abusive. It is an assault on a thinking mind.

Serious conspiracy researchers need not take the bait to become "conspiracy theorists." My job has never been to offer speculation about exactly how what happened occurred. I need not prove that any one of the hundreds of "possible theories" might be true. I only need to show that one single theory, the WCR, cannot possibly be true. Until the BURDEN of PROOF by those making the case for the SBT is met, my job is complete. I don't claim to have the resources to solve the case. I claim that those who had and/or have those resources (the WC and HSCA) got it wrong and they deliberately obstructed justice.

Put another way, to show the absurdity in the argument advanced by Paul, since the BURDEN of PROOF--by Person A who is making the case for a spaceship landing in his backyard--has not been met, Person B's inability to explain the evidence (by substituting a different explanation than the "spaceship") does not give weight to the validity of Person A's claim.

Greg, you certainly made some good points. A couple of recent exchanges are almost humorous in following nearly the layout you gave. DVP made a comment about Brennan looking at the 6th floor window when the final shot was fired. I pointed out that the last image of Brennan in the Zapruder film showed him watching the people in the parade and not looking up. So then he comes back with, "Brennan was not still in the Zapruder film when the final shot was made". So, there you have it, zero evidence that Brennan ever even looked up at the 6th floor window, but the WC concluded that he was indeed looking at the 6th floor (obviously because there was no evidence that showed he was looking elsewhere) so then he figures the burden is to 'prove that he wasn't looking at the 6th floor window' and until that can be proved then he 'was definitely looking at the 6th floor window'. Another case, he refers to the BY photos as 'proof' that LHO owned the rifle that was later identified as C2766. So I then stated that since the photos were faked and had been proven as fake that they weren't evidence of anything. So then he asks: Okay, who faked the photos? My comment was that it didn't matter 'who' faked them. All that is necessary is to know they are fake. But without proof of 'who' faked them, according to DVP, then it has to be assumed that they weren't faked. Strange logic. As you mentioned, the proof has to be of who owned the plan, who was involved and who did the deed. As of now, the preponderance of the evidence is that LHO did not fire a shot that day. That is good enough to prevail in a civil case. In this case, Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not at all possible in this, a criminal case.

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Vincent Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi 1975:

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..."

What was blatantly obvious?

The bullet holes in the clothes were too low.

What did the HSCA use to make a case for conspiracy?

The acoustics evidence-- which kept people busy for a very long time.

Just like all the other rabbit holes in the case like the head wound/s, Oswald, the windshield, Zap alt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the [backyard] photos were faked and had been proven as fake...

Oh, really? "PROVEN AS FAKE", eh? Please tell me HOW the BY pics were "proven" to be fake, Ken.

Of course, Kenneth Drew will do what most CTers do---he'll just totally ignore the following determinations reached by the HSCA....

"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

As of now, the preponderance of the evidence is that LHO did not fire a shot that day.

And would that include the J.D. Tippit murder as well, Ken? (Even though your favorite patsy named Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands just 35 minutes after Tippit was murdered?)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/hilarious-defense-of-oswald.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.Not that it mat

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

In a word -- Weaver. JFK's jacket almost occludes the top of the shirt collar, but not quite.

weaver.jpg

The jacket was elevated almost a half inch, except the part that was pushed down flat against the flat shirt on JFK's back.

Link to comment
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...