Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) Cliff, Why do you still insist that my "little bit" remark means that I now believe in conspiracy OR that the SBT is now totally discredited? David, what you "believe" is irrelevant. You have made an objective observation of fact -- JFK's jacket was bunched up just "a little bit" on Elm St. No further questions. You deal with your cognitive dissonance any way you want. It means NEITHER. You are attaching way too much significance to my "little bit" comment. I don't know how many inches (or centimeters) JFK's clothing was "bunched up" by just looking at the photos of Kennedy taken in Dealey Plaza. And you don't know either. How could ANYONE know such a thing with any precision? So why not stop pretending that you can measure such unmeasurable things? And I'm just curious, Cliff.... Can you make one single post without talking about the clothing? Just one? Have you EVER posted about anything other than thoe jacket and shirt? Ever?? Edited July 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 You cite photos showing a purported back wound and you deny the subject matter? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 And I'm just curious, Cliff.... Can you make one single post without talking about the clothing? Just one? Have you EVER posted about anything other than thoe jacket and shirt? Ever?? David, I'm a student of the first three conspiracy theories, all of which were rendered within a day or so of JFK's murder. Here's one of them: "Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter," by Vincent Salandria. http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/11/1560/ (quote on) I explained [to Specter] that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in the assassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that the assassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot. Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot. We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth. In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth. (quote off) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 You cite photos showing a purported back wound and you deny the subject matter? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff? How can you insist that a discussion of the efficacy for determining the location of a back wound not involve a discussion of the location of the back wound? Why aren't you hammering your adversary Von Pein with the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 You cite photos showing a purported back wound and you deny the subject matter? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff? How can you insist that a discussion of the efficacy for determining the location of a back wound not involve a discussion of the location of the back wound? Why aren't you hammering your adversary Von Pein with the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3? Are you going to answer my question, Cliff? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound"? I didn't, did I, Cliff? You just made that up didn't you, Cliff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) You cite photos showing a purported back wound and you deny the subject matter? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff? How can you insist that a discussion of the efficacy for determining the location of a back wound not involve a discussion of the location of the back wound? Why aren't you hammering your adversary Von Pein with the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3? Are you going to answer my question, Cliff? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound"? I didn't, did I, Cliff? You just made that up didn't you, Cliff? Having a rough day, Martin? <quote> Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong. Edited July 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 You cite photos showing a purported back wound and you deny the subject matter? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff? How can you insist that a discussion of the efficacy for determining the location of a back wound not involve a discussion of the location of the back wound? Why aren't you hammering your adversary Von Pein with the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3? Are you going to answer my question, Cliff? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound"? I didn't, did I, Cliff? You just made that up didn't you, Cliff? Having a roiugh day, Martin? Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong. Clearly not as rough as yours, Cliff. Neither of those photos shows "a purported back wound". What they do show is two different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process. Not a "purported back wound" in sight. Ready to admit your error yet, Cliff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 There is a certain class of Seriously Ambitious Researchers for whom the clothing evidence is like garlic before vampires... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) Martin, You're unfamiliar with the word "purported?" Those dots on the back were moles? Why are you so obsessed with this distinction without a difference? What's the most effective way to determine the location of JFK's back wound? The clothing defects. What exactly is your problem with this, Martin? Edited July 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Martin, You're unfamiliar with the word "purported?" Those dots on the back were moles? Why are you so obsessed with this distinction without a difference? What's the most effective way to determine the location of JFK's back wound? The clothing defects. What exactly is your problem with this, Martin? No, Cliff. The dot on the back is presumably a pen mark used to show where 14 cm below the mastoid process was. Are you going to tell me that the dot behind the ear was also used to represent a "purported" wound? Why not just admit your error, Cliff? I'm damn sure it can't be the first time you've been wrong. The exchange I was having with DVP was not about the location of the back wound, it was about the single "error" he claimed to have found in my review of his book and the fact that it wasn't an error at all. I pointed out in my review that the autopsy doctors failed to record the precise location of the back wound. DVP then claimed that 14 cm below the mastoid was a precise measurement. Which it isn't; and I used those photos to prove it. That's what the conversation was about before you performed your usual hijacking and started harping on about your clothing obsession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Martin, You're unfamiliar with the word "purported?" Those dots on the back were moles? Why are you so obsessed with this distinction without a difference? What's the most effective way to determine the location of JFK's back wound? The clothing defects. What exactly is your problem with this, Martin? No, Cliff. The dot on the back is presumably a pen mark used to show where 14 cm below the mastoid process was. Are you going to tell me that the dot behind the ear was also used to represent a "purported" wound? No, Martin, the dot behind the ear represents the mastoid landmark and the dot on the back would be a "purported" back wound in this context. Why not just admit your error, Cliff? Your semantic "gotcha!" game here is bizarre. I'm damn sure it can't be the first time you've been wrong. Why can't you admit JFK was shot in the back at T3? The exchange I was having with DVP was not about the location of the back wound, it was about the single "error" he claimed to have found in my review of his book and the fact that it wasn't an error at all. I pointed out in my review that the autopsy doctors failed to record the precise location of the back wound. And I'm underlining this exchange as a textbook case of "pseudo debate" since the location of the back wound is not in doubt. DVP then claimed that 14 cm below the mastoid was a precise measurement. Which it isn't; and I used those photos to prove it. Fake debate. We have a precise measurement of the back wound -- matches the hole in the shirt. That's what the conversation was about before you performed your usual hijacking and started harping on about your clothing obsession. Focus on the physical evidence in a murder case is "obsession"? Unbelievable! Only in this case, the murder of John, F. Kennedy, is the physical evidence so thoroughly marginalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Martin, You're unfamiliar with the word "purported?" Those dots on the back were moles? Why are you so obsessed with this distinction without a difference? What's the most effective way to determine the location of JFK's back wound? The clothing defects. What exactly is your problem with this, Martin? No, Cliff. The dot on the back is presumably a pen mark used to show where 14 cm below the mastoid process was. Are you going to tell me that the dot behind the ear was also used to represent a "purported" wound? No, Martin, the dot behind the ear represents the mastoid landmark and the dot on the back would be a "purported" back wound in this context. No, Cliff. The dot on the back represents a marker for a measurement of 14 cm below the dot behind the ear. Why not just admit your error, Cliff? Your semantic "gotcha!" game here is bizarre. That's just non-responsive. I'm damn sure it can't be the first time you've been wrong. Why can't you admit JFK was shot in the back at T3? Again, non-responsive. The exchange I was having with DVP was not about the location of the back wound, it was about the single "error" he claimed to have found in my review of his book and the fact that it wasn't an error at all. I pointed out in my review that the autopsy doctors failed to record the precise location of the back wound. And I'm underlining this exchange as a textbook case of "pseudo debate" since the location of the back wound is not in doubt. It wasn't a debate, Cliff, "pseudo" or otherwise. It was DVP making an incorrect claim and my correcting him. DVP then claimed that 14 cm below the mastoid was a precise measurement. Which it isn't; and I used those photos to prove it. Fake debate. We have a precise measurement of the back wound -- matches the hole in the shirt. Not a "fake debate", Cliff. I was just making an entirely different point to the one you're (always) making. You hijacked yet another thread to say the same thing you always say. That's what the conversation was about before you performed your usual hijacking and started harping on about your clothing obsession. Focus on the physical evidence in a murder case is "obsession"? The physical evidence that fixes the precise location of a bullet wound in the body would be, well, the body, not the clothing. Unbelievable! Yes, your obsession is quite unbelievable. Only in this case, the murder of John, F. Kennedy, is the physical evidence so thoroughly marginalized. Only in this case do we find people with your level of obsession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 = Martin, You're unfamiliar with the word "purported?" Those dots on the back were moles? Why are you so obsessed with this distinction without a difference? What's the most effective way to determine the location of JFK's back wound? The clothing defects. What exactly is your problem with this, Martin? No, Cliff. The dot on the back is presumably a pen mark used to show where 14 cm below the mastoid process was. Are you going to tell me that the dot behind the ear was also used to represent a "purported" wound? No, Martin, the dot behind the ear represents the mastoid landmark and the dot on the back would be a "purported" back wound in this context. No, Cliff. The dot on the back represents a marker for a measurement of 14 cm below the dot behind the ear. = Which was the location of a purported back wound. What part of that do you fail to grasp? = Why not just admit your error, Cliff? Your semantic "gotcha!" game here is bizarre. That's just non-responsive. I'm damn sure it can't be the first time you've been wrong. Why can't you admit JFK was shot in the back at T3? Again, non-responsive. = You can't admit JFK was shot in the back at T3! Unbelievable! = The exchange I was having with DVP was not about the location of the back wound, it was about the single "error" he claimed to have found in my review of his book and the fact that it wasn't an error at all. I pointed out in my review that the autopsy doctors failed to record the precise location of the back wound. And I'm underlining this exchange as a textbook case of "pseudo debate" since the location of the back wound is not in doubt. It wasn't a debate, Cliff, "pseudo" or otherwise. It was DVP making an incorrect claim and my correcting him. = And you're conveying the impression the location of the back wound is in doubt. Which it isn't. Which you can't admit...why? = DVP then claimed that 14 cm below the mastoid was a precise measurement. Which it isn't; and I used those photos to prove it. Fake debate. We have a precise measurement of the back wound -- matches the hole in the shirt. Not a "fake debate", Cliff. I was just making an entirely different point to the one you're (always) making. You hijacked yet another thread to say the same thing you always say. = Because you can't admit the fact that JFK's back wound was at T3. I'll attack the cover-up no matter where I see it. = That's what the conversation was about before you performed your usual hijacking and started harping on about your clothing obsession. Focus on the physical evidence in a murder case is "obsession"? The physical evidence that fixes the precise location of a bullet wound in the body would be, well, the body, not the clothing. = Factually incorrect. It's amazing that a person could spend most of their life wearing a shirt without having a glimmer of self-awareness about how their shirt moves when their body moves. A tailored shirt fits, in the words of men's fashion icon Alan Flusser -- like a "second skin." = Unbelievable! Yes, your obsession is quite unbelievable. Only in this case, the murder of John, F. Kennedy, is the physical evidence so thoroughly marginalized. Only in this case do we find people with your level of obsession. = One I share with Vincent Salandria, E. Martin Schotz, and the late Gaeton Fonzi. Like Jim Eugenio sez -- we're known by who we "hang out with." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 What The Waters Of Knowledge Tell Us by E. Martin Schotz Over and over again we hear people asking for more and more information from the government. I suggest to you that the problem is not that we have insufficient data. The problem is that we dare not analyze the data we have had all along. In fact we need very little data. Honestly, as far as I’m concerned you can throw almost the whole 26 volumes of the Warren Commission in the trash can. All you need to do is look at this. Commission Exhibit 385 Supplemental Report exhibit 59 Here [on the left] is the Warren Commission drawing of the path of the “magic” bullet. And here [on the right] is a photograph of the hole in the President’s jacket. Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the President’s throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal fraud.[5] Think of this for a moment. The Warren Report is an obvious criminal act of fraud and no history department in any college or university is willing to say so. What does such silence mean? It means that we are dealing with something that has affected every history department of every college and university in our society, every major newspaper and magazine, and all means of mass communication. It has affected virtually every “loyal American.” This phenomenon is what George Orwell in his novel 1984 called “crimestop” or “protective stupidity.” According to Orwell, “crimestop” is really a form of self mind control in which we find the affected individual “stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought ... not grasping analogies ... failing to perceive logical errors ... misunderstanding the simplest arguments ... and ... being bored or repelled by any train of thought” if such is inimical to the powers that be. As a clinician, I look at “crimestop” as a mass psychological illness, an involuntary intellectual emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 What else does the clothing evidence tell us? JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round did not exit. He was shot in the throat from the front, and the round did not exit. Since there were no rounds recovered from those locations during the autopsy, the obvious question is -- What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now