10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

[Glenn Nall]

that's kinda my thoughts, too. not sure what the complexity is, though i do trust the others that there seems to be a problem with the angle of the back hole and the throat hole, and whether or not it's an exit would.

I'm not even on the same planet as a LNer, but i'm still not convinced whether it's an exit or entrance wound (please no preaching!!!!).

what you're saying is right - i'm not sure why the coat is necessary to prove where the hole is. again, the others know more than i do, so...

[Kenneth Drew]

Pat, i would so ignore that OCD stuff. how can anyone STILL be stuck on you? did you say you think JFK was in on it or something? or maybe Jackie...?

that's MY position, and you can't have it. I THINK JFK was in on it. and i have photographic evidence (evidence of DVP-type standards, so you know it's good evidence!).

just wait...

OCD hadn't been invented in '63? Had it?

no, and neither had homosexuality. and witchcraft. and HepC. and internet forums.

i was speaking of a more current exhibition of relentlessness.

and neither had homosexuality. and witchcraft. and HepC. and internet forums. Really? I think the internet forums mostly come along after 2000, but when did those others get invented? No, wait, didn't they have some witchcraft trials in England before the US was discovered? when was that 1942?

[Cliff Varnell]

"3. I don't think Kennedy wore his clothing up at his ears, and you know it. As stated, the top of his collar approaches the mastoid process. The hole was 14 cm below the top of the collar. The wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid. It all adds up, and supports the accuracy of the face sheet, which shows a wound at T-1 equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip, exactly as described at autopsy."

Pat, that is one of the more ridiculous things you have ever written, and, from my viewpoint, you have written a lot of ridiculous things.

The mastoid process is nowhere near the top of the collar, and 14 cm. down from the mastoid process is nowhere near 14 cm. down from the top of the collar. Period.

Now go write one of your thousand word posts to baffle with BS all the unenlightened lurkers. Isn't this the LN way?

In order to rebut my assertion the collar was near the level of the bottom tip of the mastoid, Cliff posted a photo showing the collar an inch or two below the mastoid. Well, he knew this wasn't the last photo taken before Kennedy was shot in which the level of the collar was on display,

Betzner 3 (Z186) shows otherwise.

So does the Towner film.

As you can see, I use this image to demonstrate that even IF the jacket sticks straight out from behind the mastoid, as claimed by some, that this still leaves far too much material to lift the bullet entrance on the clothing to the blue line, the level of entrance pushed by the Warren Commission, McAdams, and Bugliosi, etc.

Pat Speer uses a lateral view optical illusion to make JFK's clothing collars line up with the mastoid process.

Posterior views are superior, and all of them show JFK's clothing collars in a normal position on JFK's neck.

Pat's claims indicate the base of JFK's neck was nearly 4 inches below the bottom of his collar.

This is beyond absurd, and the implied attack on the back wound witnesses is despicable in my book.

here's the thing on this particular photo - and i'm not even sure who is saying which about the bullet holes in the jacket, so what i'm saying is objective - it's what i see:

in the right pic, Ks shoulders are clearly raised higher than in the left, and hunched forward a bit - this doesn't so much raise the collar, but it DOES raise the part of the jacket just below the collar, which would pull the jacket beneath that upward, of course. and that's the part of the jacket that sustained the hole. right?

so it's not really about the collar, it's about the coat just below the collar bunching up.

OK. It's about the amount of jacket bunched up underneath the visible shirt collar.

How could 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric bunch-up entirely above T1 without pushing up on the jacket collar?

The visible shirt collar proves the jacket wasn't bunched up significantly.

Since the jacket collar dropped into a normal position at the base of JFK's neck there couldn't have been a multi-inch wad of clothing there.

The bullet holes ion the clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage seen in the neck x-ray,

i'm not saying that this bunching is enough to resolve either theory -

There is no "either theory."

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low -- 4 inches below the bottom of the collars is too low.

Period.

Or do you think the base of YOUR neck is 4 inches below the bottom of your collars?

just that the collar isn't so much the issue as the part between the shoulders is.

also what is at issue is one human wanting another human to be wrong to a much larger extent than is "normal."

i'd say that's an issue, too.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Glenn Nall]

Cliff.

"either theory" being the Conspiracy Theory and the Lone Gunman Theory.

that's two theories.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff.

"either theory" being the Conspiracy Theory and the Lone Gunman Theory.

that's two theories.

Wait a minute...you think conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a "theory"?

Edited August 9, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up.

Because it's the only extant physical evidence in the case.

Physical evidence is paramount in any murder case.

In this case, the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage shown on the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is?

What photo?

The BOH Fox 5 photo was improperly prepared, deficient in scientific value, lacking a chain of possession, and featuring a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, ergo forgery.

(If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Because the basic physical facts of the case prove the jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.

Bullet hole in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

So what?

[Kenneth Drew]

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up.

Because it's the only extant physical evidence in the case.

Physical evidence is paramount in any murder case.

In this case, the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage shown on the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is?

What photo?

The BOH Fox 5 photo was improperly prepared, deficient in scientific value, lacking a chain of possession, and featuring a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, ergo forgery.

(If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Because the basic physical facts of the case prove the jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.

Bullet hole in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

So what?

Thanks for making my point. You assume (quite correctly) that most of the autopsy photos only show what the 'warren commission wanted to show. There is certainly a photo (or more) that shows the back wound. It is not 'near' the neck. I'm not sure that the shirt and jacket are more 'extant' than the photo is. Let me get this straight: the jacket was 'bunched up" an eighth of an inch? That much? Is there a rule concerning shirt and jacket collars that say they have to be 'aligned' with each other? Maybe one collar was just 1/8" lower than the other, unbunched.

[Glenn Nall]

Cliff.

"either theory" being the Conspiracy Theory and the Lone Gunman Theory.

that's two theories.

Wait a minute...you think conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a "theory"?

only in the sense that it has not been legally proven. of course i'm utterly convinced, but technically it is one of two theories, since, by definition, a theory is something that has not been proven in the strict sense of the word proven.

sometimes I think the Ed Forum serves as a part-time dictionary.

[Glenn Nall]

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up.

Because it's the only extant physical evidence in the case.

Physical evidence is paramount in any murder case.

In this case, the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage shown on the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is?

What photo?

The BOH Fox 5 photo was improperly prepared, deficient in scientific value, lacking a chain of possession, and featuring a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, ergo forgery.

(If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Because the basic physical facts of the case prove the jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.

Bullet hole in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

So what?

Thanks for making my point. You assume (quite correctly) that most of the autopsy photos only show what the 'warren commission wanted to show. There is certainly a photo (or more) that shows the back wound. It is not 'near' the neck. I'm not sure that the shirt and jacket are more 'extant' than the photo is. Let me get this straight: the jacket was 'bunched up" an eighth of an inch? That much? Is there a rule concerning shirt and jacket collars that say they have to be 'aligned' with each other? Maybe one collar was just 1/8" lower than the other, unbunched.

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

Edited August 9, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Cliff Varnell]

Thanks for making my point. You assume (quite correctly) that most of the autopsy photos only show what the 'warren commission wanted to show.

.No assumptions necessary.

The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols.

There is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.

In regards to the back wound the physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documents contradict the Fox 5 photo.

There is certainly a photo (or more) that shows the back wound.

None that carry any weight as scientific evidence in an autopsy (to cite the conclusions of the HSCA).

It is not 'near' the neck. I'm not sure that the shirt and jacket are more 'extant' than the photo is. Let me get this straight: the jacket was 'bunched up" an eighth of an inch? That much? Is there a rule concerning shirt and jacket collars that say they have to be 'aligned' with each other? Maybe one collar was just 1/8" lower than the other, unbunched.

There is an eighth of an inch difference between the hole in the shirt and the hole in the jacket.

The Dealey Plaza photos show a fraction of an inch of bunch which occurred when the jacket collar dropped, but not all of the jacket.

.

Again...so what?

Edited August 10, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Kenneth Drew]

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up.

Because it's the only extant physical evidence in the case.

Physical evidence is paramount in any murder case.

In this case, the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage shown on the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is?

What photo?

The BOH Fox 5 photo was improperly prepared, deficient in scientific value, lacking a chain of possession, and featuring a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, ergo forgery.

(If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Because the basic physical facts of the case prove the jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.

Bullet hole in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

So what?

Thanks for making my point. You assume (quite correctly) that most of the autopsy photos only show what the 'warren commission wanted to show. There is certainly a photo (or more) that shows the back wound. It is not 'near' the neck. I'm not sure that the shirt and jacket are more 'extant' than the photo is. Let me get this straight: the jacket was 'bunched up" an eighth of an inch? That much? Is there a rule concerning shirt and jacket collars that say they have to be 'aligned' with each other? Maybe one collar was just 1/8" lower than the other, unbunched.

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

I'm certainly not saying that. I feel as you do, that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Apparently the shot to the back was the first shot fired (unless the neck wound from the front was before it) and it didn't do much, being at a fairly steep downward angle, likely from the top of the County records building or the upper level of Dal Tex. It wasn't effective and only penetrated a short distance (for some strange reason) but as you say, does it matter? Not really. The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything. The only reason that there was ever any discussion about 'exactly' where the back wound was is because of the WC wanting to be able to justify the Single bullet theory. That never happened anyhow so where the first shot came from and exactly what the angle was is just for discussion, it changes no facts.

[Glenn Nall]

please let me try again.

so you ARE saying that the difference between the hole in Ks back and the placement of the hole in the jacket, as it would be worn normally, is 1/8"?

AND that the hole in the jacket is BELOW where it would should have been in order to align with the hole in K?

I don't know how the shirt came into this. i didn't ask about the shirt.

PLEASE do not read anything into my questions. I'm NOT implying anything AT ALL. I'm JUST trying to understand what the given evidence is.

these are yes or no questions. yes with an optional explanation (i'm going to regret that), or no with a clarification.

[Kenneth Drew]

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make? Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot? I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

[James DiEugenio]

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything.

I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence.

ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that.

BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?)

He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt.

When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.