Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

aaa

It seems to me that the opening in the skin (3 cm wide) could simply have been "slid" around as required to gain access to the strap muscle. I just tried to move the skin of my throat around and it moves very easily. Though only to a point, of course.

Regardless of that, there is little doubt that the wound was messed around with given the jaggedness of it. It really should have been quite clean.

But why couldn't this all just be a matter of misinterpretation? A tracheotomy means an incision in the windpipe. Lifton's book has him asking about the length of the tracheotomy specifically. Dr. Perry's WC testimony about severing the strap muscles indicates more cutting than just needed to gain access to the windpipe. And why couldn't the trach tube have made the wound even messier-looking? For what it's worth, Dr. Perry is in a 1990's JAMA article saying the throat wound in the autopsy photos is what he remembers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Who cares?

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

David, you admit the jacket wasn't significantly elevated on Elm St. due to the normal amount of exposed shirt collar in the Elm St. photos.

That's the ball game, whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not.


This is but one of the obvious things Bugliosi should have known.

This is but one of the things Spence should have argued. (Assuming he didn't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

But why couldn't this all just be a matter of misinterpretation? A tracheotomy means an incision in the windpipe. Lifton's book has him asking about the length of the tracheotomy specifically. Dr. Perry's WC testimony about severing the strap muscles indicates more cutting than just needed to gain access to the windpipe. And why couldn't the trach tube have made the wound even messier-looking? For what it's worth, Dr. Perry is in a 1990's JAMA article saying the throat wound in the autopsy photos is what he remembers.

Micah:

There's important missing history of which you are unaware, and which establishes that Dr. Perry's quote (from the 1990's JAMA article) can be set aside (to put it mildly).

What I will now set forth concerns what happened when Robert Groden and a reporter from a Baltimore newspaper visited Dr. Perry in his office in New York City (in the period 1977-78) when Groden was on the staff of the HSCA, and had access to certain prints of the autopsy photos.

Let's begin with my filmed interview of Robert Groden, conducted at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey in June or July of 1989, a two-night multihour interview.  This interview was filmed, professionally, and Pat Valentino was present, and in charge of the sound.

When we interviewed Robert Groden at that time, Robert described, in detail, what happened when he (and a Baltimore news reporter) visited Dr. Malcolm Perry at his New York City office (Perry was then practicing medicine in NYC).  Robert Groden was  then employed on the staff of the HSCA; and he went to see Perry in New York, the main purpose being get his reaction to see the "stare of death" photo.

Groden showed Dr. Perry the photo--the first time Perry had ever seen it--and Perry shook his head from side to side, and said, referring to the trach incision he had made: "I left the wound inviolate." Let me repeat what Perry said: "I left the wound inviolate."

Now. . .what did he mean by "inviolate"?  And how could that be, since he had testified he made his incision through the wound?

Perry was  referring to the fact that--based on his unvarnished memory--he had made the incision below the wound. (FYI: This is what Perry had told writer Jimmy Breslin on 11/22/63, and which Breslin then published in the detailed article he wrote, and which was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63.  FYI: that identical interview was then published (again) in the Saturday Evening Post in  early December, 1963 (referring now to the article titled "Death in Emergency Room One" --from memory).

Now let's turn to the word "inviolate" and set aside whether this was the first time he had used that word, in connection with describing the throat wound, and how he believed he had left it.

When Robert related this, I turned to Pat Valentino and said, "Oh no, Perry is wrong. The  transcript from his 1966 CBS interview says "invalid", so Perry must be mistaken". (And in fact, the official CBS transcript does in fact use the word "invalid").

But then came this stunner.  Groden happened to have, right there in his residence, an excellent copy of that 1966 CBS interview, and so he played t for us. Naturally, I expected to hear Perry say (just as the transcript quoted him as having said) "invalid."

But no, that's not what Perry said.  Perry clearly said "inviolate" !

What the heck?  Had the transcript been fiddled with?  (You betcha!)

Pat and I both rose up out of our chairs, astonished. (Groden didn't understand our reaction, because--in the interest of an unbiased interview--we hadn't (yet) told him any of this backstory.

But there it was, right there on the screen: Perry had said "I left the wound inviolate" (on screen); and he had told Groden (and the accompanying reporter, at his NYC office), the same thing; he said that he had left the wound "inviolate."

Following this, Pat and I then brought Groden completely up-to-date, filling him in on these details, and we did all of this "on camera," to get his reaction as we talked, and we then interviewed him further about his experiences in New York City, and at Perry's office--all about his certainty that yes, there was no doubt about itL in his New York City office, and while looking at the autopsy photo,  Perry had said "inviolate." It was a wonderful filmed interview at a time when I had few of the problems with Groden, that later bloomed (and are described in Pig on a Leash, 2003).

Now, here's some additional follow-up:

ITEM #1: Pat and I (and Groden) --the very next day--then   went to a Philadelphia audio lab, with Groden's excellent copy of the filmed interview, and did some precise slowed-up copying to see if we could detect how the world "inviolate" had become "invalid." All I can say is that there was plenty of circumstantial audio evidence of digital hanky-panky. (That work should be repeated, with today's better digitial technology).

ITEM #2: Upon returning to Los Angeles, I located the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden to Perry's NYC office, and spoke with him by phone. He confirmed that Perry had shook his head from side to side, and made clear that the photograph he was looking was not the way he had left the wound.

ITEM #3: Dr. Perry, in a 1988 interview with PBS, tried to demean, and make fun of, me, and the conversation he had had with me in October 1966.  Sorry, but that won't work: On October 27, 1966, he told me that the wound was "2-3 cm." And I wrote it down as he said it.

ITEM $4: I deeply regret, after all of this, having to state that I completely forgot to develop this into a "research package" and send it to Jeremy Gunn on the ARRB.  At the time, I was working very closely with the ARRB, and with Doug Horne, speaking to Horne multiple times per week (and recording all of our conversations, with full permission) and speaking with Gunn, too. I just plain forget about what happened six years before, in 1989.  But this would have been a perfect example of using the ARRB's subpoena powers to "clarify the record", which was their mandate. Perry should have been put under oath, and --on this subject--depositions should have been taken from both Groden, and the Baltimore reporter. To round out the record, I would have been glad to contribute the 1989 filmed interview with Groden, in which he related, in vivid terms, Perry's reaction to first seeing the "stare of death" autopsy photo, and his saying: "I left the wound inviolate."

ITEM #5: My personal opinion of Dr. Perry: he lied. Its as simple as that. Sure, he told the truth on 11/22/63, and yes, he complained about being badgered about changing his opionion, etc. ; but there was no need for all of that in 1967.  A man of integrity would have told the truth. Instead, we have the record of Dr. Perry not only going along with an altered transcript; but then, decades later (and you can find this on the Internet) telling he doctors with whom he worked, in Seattle, (and after swearing this one and that one to secrecy), that of course the wound at the front of the throat was an entry.

* * *

Micah: I hope you now realize that what Dr. Perry said, in a 1990s JAMA article, should be viewed skeptically, to say the least; and in my personal opinion, it is basically worthless.

DSL

2/10/2017 - 6:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
39 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It seems to me that the opening in the skin (3 cm wide) could simply have been "slid" around as required to gain access to the strap muscle. I just tried to move the skin of my throat around and it moves very easily. Though only to a point, of course.

Regardless of that, there is little doubt that the wound was messed around with given the jaggedness of it. It really should have been quite clean.

But why couldn't this all just be a matter of misinterpretation? A tracheotomy means an incision in the windpipe. Lifton's book has him asking about the length of the tracheotomy specifically.

That's a good question for David Lifton. Whether who he questioned or consulted was referring to the incision in the windpipe or in the throat.

Dr. Perry's WC testimony about severing the strap muscles indicates more cutting than just needed to gain access to the windpipe.

And why couldn't the trach tube have made the wound even messier-looking?

You need to ask the doctors that, the ones who said the incision should have been clean.

For what it's worth, Dr. Perry is in a 1990's JAMA article saying the throat wound in the autopsy photos is what he remembers.

Also FWIW, Dr. Perry proved himself to be prone to peer pressure with regard to the autopsy photos. At the HSCA he said:

"I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen...."

Apparently he changed his mind after seeing the intact back-of-head autopsy photo. In 1992 he told Gerald Posner (among other self-contradicting things):

"I did not see any cerebellum."

And if that weren't bad enough, he also stooped to criticizing a fellow doctor who had said much the same as he'd said. When told that Robert McClelland had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher", Perry responded:

"I am astonished that Bob would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:


This is but one of the obvious things Bugliosi should have known.

This is but one of the things Spence should have argued. (Assuming he didn't.)

The number of people wielding the weaponized fact of conspiracy -- defects in JFK's clothes too low -- is shockingly small.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The number of people wielding the weaponized fact of conspiracy -- defects in clothes too low -- is shockingly small.

Hopefully you're not referring to CTers here on the forum, Cliff. This is a too obvious and easy-to-understand thing to ignore or get wrong.

On a related note (trajectory-wise), how does a bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD (i.e. on a downward trajectory) hit the head near the EOP and end up blowing out the top of the heard? Oh wait, I forgot... the autopsy doctors were all found to be idiots by the HSCA experts. That wound was really at the cowlick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Micah:

There's important missing history of which you are unaware, and which establishes that Dr. Perry's quote (from the 1990's JAMA article) can be set aside (to put it mildly).

What I will now set forth concerns what happened when Robert Groden and a reporter from a Baltimore newspaper visited Dr. Perry in his office in New York City, when Groden was on the staff of the HSCA, and had access to certain prints of the autopsy photos.

Let's begin with my filmed interview of Robert Groden, conducted at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey in June or July of 1989, a two-night multihour interview.  Pat Valentino was present, and in charge of the sound.

When I (and Pat Valentino) interviewed Robert Groden at that time, Robert described, in detail, what happened when he (and a reporter) visited Dr. Malcolm Perry at his New York City office (Perry was then practicing medicine in NYC).  This took place when Robert Groden was employed on the staff of the HSCA; and he went to see Perry in New York, and one purpose was to get his reaction to see the "stare of death" photo.

Groden showed Dr. Perry the photo--the first time Perry had ever seen it--and Perry shook his head from side to side, and said, referring to the trach incision he had made: "I left the wound inviolate." Let me repeat that: "I left the wound inviolate." Perry was apparently referring to the fact that--based on his memory--he had made the incision below the wound. (FYI: This is what Perry had told writer Jimmy Breslin on 11/22/63, and which Breslin thenn published in his detailed article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63, and which was then published (again) in the Saturday Evening Post in  early December, 1963 (referring now to the article titled "Death in Emergency Room One" --from memory).

Now let's turn to the word "inviolate."

When Robert related this, I turned to Pat Valentino and said, "Oh no, Perry is wrong. The  transcript from his 1966 CBS interview says "invalid", so Perry must be mistaken". (And in fact, the official CBS transcript does in fact use the word "invalid").

Then came this stunner.  Groden had, right there in his residence, an excellent copy of that CBS interview, and so he played t for us. Naturally, I expected to hear Perry say (just as the transcript quoted him) "invalid."

But no, that's not what Perry said.  Perry clearly said "inviolate" !

Pat and I both rose up out of our chairs, astonished. (Groden didn't understand our reaction, because--in the interest of an unbiased interview--we hadn't (yet) told him any of this backstory.

But there it was, right there on the screen: Perry had said "I left the wound inviolate" (on screen); and he had told Groden (and the accompanying reporter, at his NYC office), that he had left the wound "inviolate."

Following this, Pat and I then brought Groden completely up-to-date, filling him in on these details, and we did all of this "on camera," to get his reaction as we talked, and we then interviewed him further about his experiences in New York City, and at Perry's office--all about his certainty that yes, there was no doubt about itL in his New York City office, and while looking at the autopsy photo,  Perry had said "inviolate." It was a wonderful filmed interview at a time when I had few of the problems with Groden, that later bloomed (and are described in Pig on a Leash, 2003).

Now, here's some additional follow-up:

ITEM #1: Pat and I (and Groden) then went to a Philadelphia audio lab, with Groden's excellent copy of the filmed interview, and did some precise slowed-up copying to see if we could detect how the world "inviolate" had become "invalid." All I can say is that there was plenty of circumstantial audio evidence of digital hanky-panky. (That work should be repeated, with today's better digitial technology).

ITEM #2: Upon returning to Los Angeles, I located the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden to Perry's NYC office, and spoke with him by phone. He confirmed that Perry had shook his head from side to side, and made clear that the photograph he was looking was not the way he had left the wound.d

ITEM #3: Dr. Perry, in a 1988 interview with PBS, tried to demean, and make fun of, me, and the conversation he had had with me in October 1966.  Sorry, but that won't work: On October 27, 1966, he told me that the wound was "2-3 cm." And I wrote it down as he said it.

ITEM $4: I deeply regret, after all of this, having to state that I completely forgot to develop this into a "research package" and send it to Jeremy Gunn on the ARRB.  At the time, I was working very closely with the ARRB, and with Doug Horne, speaking to Horne multiple times per week (and recording all of our conversations, with full permission) and speaking with Gunn, too. I just plain forget about what happened six years before, in 1989.  But this would have been a perfect example of using the ARRB's subpoena powers to "clarify the record", which was their mandate. Perry should have been put under oath, and --on this subject--depositions should have been taken from both Groden, and the Baltimore reporter. To round out the record, I would have been glad to contribute the 1989 filmed interview with Groden, in which he related, in vivid terms, Perry's reaction to first seeing the "stare of death" autopsy photo, and his saying: "I left the wound inviolate."

ITEM #5: My personal opinion of Dr. Perry: he lied. Its as simple as that. Sure, he told the truth on 11/22/63, and yes, he complained about being badgered about changing his opionion, etc. ; but there was no need for all of that in 1967.  A man of integrity would have told the truth. Instead, we have the record of Dr. Perry not only going along with an altered transcript; but then, decades later (and you can find this on the Internet) telling he doctors with whom he worked, in Seattle, (and after swearing this one and that one to secrecy), that of course the wound at the front of the throat was an entry.

* * *

Micah: I hope you now realize that what Dr. Perry said, in a 1990s JAMA article, should be viewed skeptically, to say the least; and in my personal opinion, it is basically worthless.

DSL

2/10/2017 - 6:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

Woah, thanks for tpointing me in the right direction. Definitely understand it better now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Who cares?

Yes, my thoughts exactly.  There's no way clothing with holes in them that low can somehow point *upward* when they supposedly were shot *downward* and then go on to wound JBC.

You must be joking! There was only ONLY hole in JFK's back (in the UPPER BACK, not the neck)....and there was only ONE bullet hole in the back side of JFK's coat and shirt.

Ergo, the SAME BULLET had to have passed through ALL THREE of those holes.

Only a super-rabid conspiracy advocate (like Cliff "The Clothes Prove Everything In The Whole Case" Varnell) would even begin to say that the movable CLOTHING on President Kennedy's body is more important than the autopsy photos and the autopsy measurements, which show where the bullet actually entered JFK's body.

(Why does this simple stuff even need to be explained to conspiracists? It's embarrassing.)

More on the "bunched" clothing....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James DiEugenio said:

As I wrote in my book, [Reclaiming Parkland], Vince [Bugliosi] actually took that BS phony sideshow "trial" in London seriously. When in fact, it and Spence were both a joke. And one of the worst parts of his [Bugliosi's] book is when he tries to convince the reader that it really was just a like a real trial. LOL. .... No rational person could possibly think that the phony circus sideshow in London was commensurate to an actual trial. Let alone a criminal lawyer. I mean, it was not even good as a TV mock trial. The King mock trial took many more pains to be realistic than that piece of crap did.

Well, Jim, Time Magazine seemed to think that "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" was a pretty decent simulated trial....

"The trial in London took place on July 23, 24, and 25, 1986. After the jury was out deliberating for six hours, they returned, on July 26, with a verdict of guilty, convicting Oswald of the murder of John F Kennedy. Obviously, were it not for my participation in this docu-trial of Oswald, which Time magazine said was "as close to a real trial as the accused killer of John F. Kennedy will probably ever get," this book would never have been written." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxiv of "Reclaiming History"*

* Bugliosi's sources for the Time Magazine information:

“Best of ’86” [Time Magazine; January 5, 1987, p.78] ... see also “What If Oswald Had Stood Trial?” by Richard Zoglin [Time Magazine; December 1, 1986, p.60]

Vince Bugliosi also said this about the docu-trial back in 1986:

"I defy anyone who is familiar with the Kennedy assassination to look at the 18 hours of tape or examine the trial transcript and say that the gut issues of the case were not addressed or were treated cosmetically." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986

So not everybody in the world thinks that the 1986 mock trial was a "phony circus sideshow" or a "piece of crap". Time Magazine and Vince Bugliosi didn't think that way. And neither do I....

"Although it wasn't a "real" trial (quite obviously), "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" did a nice job (at least partially) of filling a gap that had long been in need of filling -- and that is: to present the evidence against Lee Oswald in a courtroom setting, complete with the adversarial process of United States law on full display (i.e., the prosecution vs. the defense).

Lee Harvey Oswald, posthumously, had his day in court. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that the 1986 mock trial was nothing but a "sham", a "farce", a "fictional TV drama" with no real facts or truths being brought out in the courtroom.

I, however, would strongly disagree with such assertions regarding "On Trial". While not binding as an actual "Guilty" verdict in the case against Oswald, the fact remains that a lot of REAL evidence, presented by REAL witnesses, came to light in that London courtroom.

And whether Oswald was alive or not to defend himself against this evidence, it is evidence that still exists all the same. And it's evidence that convicted Lee Harvey Oswald of a Presidential assassination in the eyes of twelve Dallas citizens in 1986. And, in my opinion, that's a nice gap in the world of "JFK Assassination Lore" to have filled in."
-- David Von Pein; October 28, 2008


On-Trial-LHO-DVD-Front-Cover.jpg


XX.%2BOn%2BTrial--Lee%2BHarvey%2BOswald%2BBlog%2BLogo.png
 

More on Dr. Charles Petty here....

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/Dr. Charles Petty

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


Vincent-Bugliosi-And-Gerry-Spence-On-Sixth-Floor-Of-Book-Depository-Building-1986.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dr Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide . Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh... That's just it, David VP. Those two holes do NOT match up.  Watch the video I posted and look at the white patch on the stand-in's back.  See it?  Now imagine a bullet hitting there.  That white patch is EXACTLY where the bullet hit, not in the upper "neck" or in the ridiculous government drawings moving it hither and to into the neck region to fit their own agenda.

So now try to draw or imagine (can you? I wonder because you seem to be an extremely "literal" person) the bullet at that white patch coming out....in the throat? Really?  At a downward angle?  Bawawaaahahaha!  There's even a seat back that's in front of the stand-in and the bullet would even hit there for goodness sake.  The Connally stand-in is sitting even higher up than the JFK one.  And this is all taken by the government, not Oliver Stone.  Bullets traveling at 2000 feet per second do NOT magically change course.  I've seen enough execution videos showing rifle shots and pistol shots going through gristle and bone and I've yet to see one hit a person at the entrance and MAGICALLY go outward 6 inches up or down or sideways.  It's ridiculous for you to keep believing that and if you do, you need to get your eyes or head examined for clarity and plausibility.

And while we're on the subject of heroes, it's one thing to drag a murdered president through the mud like the mainstream media has done through the years. Your hero Vince was no saint.  He lived with a mistress for 20 years while lying to his wife all along. And he became a professional author, taking his marching orders to write agenda-driven works of (non)-fiction.  Just like Plagar-Posner and all the other hacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Only a super-rabid conspiracy advocate (like Cliff "The Clothes Prove Everything In The Whole Case" Varnell) would even begin to say that the movable CLOTHING on President Kennedy's body is more important than the autopsy photos and the autopsy measurements, which show where the bullet actually entered JFK's body.

Physical evidence always trumps mere photographs.

The autopsy photos and measurements were not properly taken, violated multiple autopsy protocols, and in the case of the photos there is no chain of possession.

Quote

(Why does this simple stuff even need to be explained to conspiracists? It's embarrassing.)

More on the "bunched" clothing....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

 

There was no "bunched clothing" on Elm St.

You've admitted this many times.That's the ball game, David. 

You just can't bring yourself to admit the obvious conclusion drawn from your own observation.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hopefully you're not referring to CTers here on the forum, Cliff. This is a too obvious and easy-to-understand thing to ignore or get wrong.

 

Pat Speer is a notorious clothing-defect-denier, and Jim DiEugenio has bragged about ignoring the clothing evidence.

On this crucial point they're on Von Pein's team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

The chalk mark on the stand-in's back was, for some idiotic reason, placed in a location that was based (in part) on the hole in JFK's coat. This fact is confirmed by Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service in Kelley's WC testimony [at 5 H 133]:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?"

THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here."

MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President."

MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."


Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo below were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture.

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Arlen Specter's pointer in the picture below. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment.

Also See:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5JK51k/s700/Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hopefully you're not referring to CTers here on the forum, Cliff. This is a too obvious and easy-to-understand thing to ignore or get wrong.

Pat Speer is a notorious clothing-defect-denier, and Jim DiEugenio has bragged about ignoring the clothing evidence.

On this crucial point they're on Von Pein's team.


Can anybody explain this to me?

The holes in the clothing are self-evident. And it's obvious they are too low for the SBT. It's a no-brainer proof of conspiracy, isn't it? (It along with some other evidence.)

The only possible exception I can think of is regarding the fact that no bullet was found in the body. David Lifton's theory is that the bullet hole was man-made, which explains the absence of a bullet. But CTers who subscribe to that theory also use the clothing as evidence of a conspiracy. So this isn't really an exception.

     Low Back Bullet Hole in Clothing  =  Conspiracy

How can anybody deny that? Any explanations?

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...