Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

Low Back Bullet Hole in Clothing  =  Conspiracy

Sandy,

Can't you see that Kennedy's coat is hiked up on his back in this Croft photo below? Shouldn't this help to explain why the holes in the clothing are lower than they are in comparison to the hole in Kennedy's skin? Given this "hiking up" of the coat (and the shirt underneath the coat too, which no CTer on Earth can possibly prove WASN'T "hiked up" or "bunched up" to the same level as the jacket), we should EXPECT the bullet hole in JFK's upper back (skin) to be HIGHER than the holes in the clothing. Isn't this just ordinary common sense? ....

15c.+Croft+Photo+Showing+JFK's+Car+On+El

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHERE WAS PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BACK WOUND?

Michael T. Griffith

2000

@All Rights Reserved

Second Edition

The Warren Commission (WC) said that JFK had a wound of entrance at the base of his neck. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), based on an analysis of disputed autopsy x-rays and photos, moved the wound about two inches downward. However, the evidence indicates this alleged "neck wound" was actually five to six inches below the neck, considerably lower than where the WC, and quite possibly a little lower than where the HSCA located it.

Clearly, the back wound's placement is vital because it foundationally concerns the single-bullet theory; and if the single-bullet theory is wrong, then there had to be more than one gunman firing at President Kennedy. According to this theory, a bullet (often referred to as the "magic bullet") struck JFK near or on the neck, exited his throat, and then went on to cause all of Governor John Connally's extensive injuries. Without the single-bullet hypothesis, there can be no lone-gunman scenario.

Just what is the evidence that the bullet in question struck the President at least five inches down in the back, and not in or near the neck?

* The holes in JFK's shirt and coat place the wound five to six inches below the collar line. The claim that his coat and shirt were hunched up on his back when the bullet struck in such a way as to make the proposed higher back wound line up with the clothing holes is not only far-fetched, but, in my opinion, is refuted by the photographic evidence, as even lone-gunman theorist Jim Moore concedes. This bunched-clothing theory will be dealt with at greater length further on in this article.

* Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."

* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. This document was also marked "verified."

* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra (63:721). This is even slightly lower than where the death certificate places the wound.

* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" . Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.

* The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound below the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade) .

* Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit .

* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck

.

* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back".

* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches below the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back. We will return to her account in a moment. (Some WC defenders argue that Bowrontold the WC she didn't see any wound other than the large head wound. But if one reads her testimony carefully, it is clear she was speaking of the condition of Kennedy's body when she first saw it in the limousine. What she said in effect was that she didn't notice any wounds other than the head wound when she first saw his body lying in the limousine. 

* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade

. Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade".

* Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who got a very good look at the President's body, said the wound was "in the shoulder."

* Three recently released HSCA wound diagrams place the wound well below the neck, and in fact in almost the exact same spot shown on the autopsy face sheet. The diagrams were drawn for Select Committee investigators by KellermanSibert, and O'Neill, each of whom got a very good, prolonged look at the body. This shows that when Kellerman said the wound was "in the shoulder," he meant it was visibly below the top of the right shoulder blade. Each agent placed the wound well below the neck, and visibly below the throat wound."

 

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

Still think the jacket and the shirt moved up, David? All you got is a guess. 

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the jacket and shirt "moved up", Ray. What else? It's the only possible (logical) conclusion. Otherwise, I would have to dive head-first into the "Autopsy Photos Are Fake" abyss. And I'm not diving down into that pit of absurdity.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


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?

Jim DiEugenio thinks it's a more efficient to collate the work of 5 different researchers (including himself) into CE399 which required two chapters in Destiny Betrayed.

I'd prefer to ask any doubters to observe the movement of their shirt on their right shoulder-line while they raise their right arm and wave.

The indentation of the fabric debunks the SBT.

It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course the jacket and shirt "moved up", Ray. What else? It's the only possible (logical) conclusion. Otherwise, I would have to dive head-first into the "Autopsy Photos Are Fake" abyss. And I'm not diving down into that pit of absurdity.

 

So all the other witnesses shown above were wrong. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, David Von Pein said:

Of course the jacket and shirt "moved up", Ray. What else? It's the only possible (logical) conclusion. Otherwise, I would have to dive head-first into the "Autopsy Photos Are Fake" abyss. And I'm not diving down into that pit of absurdity.

 

 

But you've stipulated to the fact that the Croft photo shows no significant elevation of the jacket.

This was an unguarded observation you made: there is a normal amount of shirt collar visible in all the Elm St. photos, ergo the shirt and jacket could not have been bunched up multiple inches since the jacket collar was in a normal position.

Too late to walk it back now, David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ray Mitcham said:

So all the other witnesses shown above were wrong. Got it.

A picture's worth...well, you know.....

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

So the above picture is a complete fake, right Ray? Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

So all the other witnesses shown above were wrong. Got it.

Every time David Von Pein imitates JFK waving his arm the fabric of his shirt indents along his right shoulder-line.

That is a fact.

Share this post


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

But you've stipulated to the fact that the Croft photo shows no significant elevation of the jacket.

This was an unguarded observation you made: there is a normal amount of shirt collar visible in all the Elm St. photos, ergo the shirt and jacket could not have been bunched up multiple inches since the jacket collar was in a normal position.

Too late to walk it back now, David.

I can't tell EXACTLY (to the millimeter) how much the jacket is bunched up in Croft, Cliff. You can't either. Nobody can do that. How could they? It's impossible to do. But the photo depicts SOME "bunching". That is undeniable. To deny it is silly given the Croft picture staring you in the face every day. Or is Robert Croft's picture fake too?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

A picture's worth...well, you know.....

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

So the above picture is a complete fake, right Ray? Got it.

You can't prove that that is JFK in that photo.

It's been declared worthless as scientific evidence by the HSCA, and it has no chain of possession as we found out in the ARRB.

David, glance down on yuour right shoulder line and wave your right arm.

The proof is literally under your nose.

Share this post


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

You can't prove that that is JFK in that photo.

ROFL.gif

For God sake, Cliff! Have at least a LITTLE pity on my poor weak bladder!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


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?

Jim DiEugenio thinks it's a more efficient to collate the work of 5 different researchers (including himself) into CE399 which required two chapters in Destiny Betrayed.


I usually agree with DiEugenio. Which means I don't always. I'll have to review what I read in Destiny Betrayed and see how it treats the back wound. (I read Destiny Betrayed long before I understood the reason a shallow wound from a rifle is virtually impossible.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I can't tell EXACTLY (to the millimeter) how much the jacket is bunched up in Croft, Cliff. You can't either.

It's 3/4 inch.

The jacket started falling in Dealey Plaza and by the time Kennedy was shot in the back it was down to 1/8 of an inch.

Bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar, and the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up an eighth of an inch when he was shot in the back Z260 or so.

Nobody can do that. How could they?

It's easy.

The bottom margin of the jacket collar is 1.75" below the upper margin.

The bottom margin of the shirt collar is 1.25" below the upper margin.

In the Altgens Houston St. photo JFK's jacket collar occluded the shirt collar without riding up into his hairline.

On Elm St. the normal half inch of shirt collar is visible, which means the jacket collar dropped, but a fraction of an inch of jacket remained elevated.

You've stipulated to this in the past, David.

It's impossible to do. But the photo depicts SOME "bunching". That is undeniable. To deny it is silly given the Croft picture staring you in the face every day. Or is Robert Croft's picture fake too?

The burden of proof is on you.

Show us how you replicate the Croft photo.

Or STFU.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

ROFL.gif

For God sake, Cliff! Have at least a LITTLE pity on my poor weak bladder!

 

Gentle reader, this is what happens when you wield the weaponized fact of conspiracy - the Nutters start blabbling gibberish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I usually agree with DiEugenio. Which means I don't always. I'll have to review what I read in Destiny Betrayed and see how it treats the back wound. (I read Destiny Betrayed long before I understood the reason a shallow wound from a rifle is virtually impossible.)

 

Jim made this comment over at Deep Politics: "Most researchers respect the clothing evidence."

A greater condemnation of the JFK critical community I cannot find.

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...