What's Worse -- T3 Denial or Holocaust Denial?

[Cliff Varnell]

On 10/10/2017 at 6:51 AM, Clive Largey said:

And I suppose the existence of the sniper's nest verifies Oswald's guilt, no it's actually worse than that, it's like me saying I went to Dallas and there it was, Elm Street itself. So yes folks it all happened just like the books tell us.

No, it's not like that at all.  I can prove the exhibit in Dallas is a fraud.

If you want to claim that the exhibits at Dachau have been faked the burden of proof is on you, not me.

On 10/10/2017 at 6:51 AM, Clive Largey said:

Don't assume all JFK researchers believe in the homicidal gas chambers and don't talk about stuff you don't want to be pulled on. Anyway, I'm satisfied you have nothing of what I asked for so I won't keep you.

I don't owe you anything.  I stand by what I saw at Dachau and if you claim it's a fake the burden of proof is on you.

Quote

As to your initial comparison. Did you ever hear of a T3 denier lose a job because of their beliefs? Or get their house or business firebombed over it? Harassed and even beaten up on the street, arrested and thrown in jail for years not only because of what they wrote about the T3 issue but what they were going to or even might say? What about a T3 denier's solicitor also get thrown in jail with them just for defending them? Shops that sold their books having their windows smashed, libraries taking there books off the shelves because of outside pressure?

Quite the opposite.  T3 deniers are routinely given speaking slots at JFK conferences presented by other T3 deniers.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 T3 deniers are routinely given speaking slots at JFK conferences presented by other T3 deniers.

Cliff, I was not aware that T3 denial was a hot ticket at JFK Conferences. Could you highlight some of the T3 Denial presentations?

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff, I was not aware that T3 denial was a hot ticket at JFK Conferences. Could you highlight some of the T3 Denial presentations?

Wecht 2003 and 2013.

The presentations of John Hunt, Stu Wexler and Pat Speer.

Cyril Wecht, David Mantik, and Tink Thompson put the back wound at T1 in spite of the irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Most researchers simply ignore the physical evidence -- more a crime of omission than commission.

And thus "50 Reasons for 50 Years" ignoring the physical evidence entirely.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

On 10/10/2017 at 7:28 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Cliff - the throat wound was an entrance wound, pure and simple. I don't need T3 to confirm that. Do you?

The T3 back wound confirms the throat entrance wound, which conversely does not by itself confirm the T3 back wound.

The following are the root facts of the murder of JFK:

1) JFK was shot in the back at T3; the round did not exit; there was no bullet found at the autopsy.

2) JFK was shot in the throat from the front; the bullet did not exit; no bullet was found during the autopsy.

The central mystery of the JFK assassination is:

What happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

When was the ;last time this central question was asked at a major JFK Conference?

Has the question ever been asked at a major JFK Conference?

Edited October 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Wecht 2003 and 2013.

The presentations of John Hunt, Stu Wexler and Pat Speer.

Cyril Wecht, David Mantik, and Tink Thompson put the back wound at T1 in spite of the irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Most researchers simply ignore the physical evidence -- more a crime of omission than commission.

And thus "50 Reasons for 50 Years" ignoring the physical evidence entirely.

I don't see any presentations listed for Hunt or Wexler in 2003 or 2013.  In 2013, Pat Speer co-presented on the Harper Fragment.

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff, I was not aware that T3 denial was a hot ticket at JFK Conferences. Could you highlight some of the T3 Denial presentations?

My bad.  Please don't let me be misunderstood.

No, T3 Denial is not the hot topic at JFK Conferences.

T3 Denial is the subtext of presentations by T3 denialists, not the context.

Please review my original comment:

T3 deniers are routinely given speaking slots at JFK conferences presented by other T3 deniers.

T3 destroys the Single Bullet Theory and thus renders irrelevant Stu Wexler's discussion of the NAA or Jim DiEugenio/John Hunt's analysis of the provenance of the Magic Bullet.  Or the acoustics evidence.  Or the t&t hole in the windshield.  Or blood splatters.  Or the head wound/s...

http://jfklancer.com/Dallas2014/speakers.html

(quote on)
Stu Wexler is a teacher of World History, AP Government at Hightstown High School, Hightstown, NJ. He has been a JFK assassination researcher for about fifteen years where he has focused on the issues connected to the chemical analysis of the ballistics material since 2000. Wexler has spoken on the subject at JFK Lancer’s NID twice, at the Wecht conference in 2003, and at the AARC conference in 2004, three of those times opposite Dr. Kenneth Rahn, NAA advocate, from the University of Rhode Island. Wexler has collaborated with chemist Tom Pinkston since approximately 2000 on the same subject matter. Wexler’s other Kennedy interests focus on Oswald, his background and associates leading up to November 22nd. His book, The Awful Grace of God, co-authored with Larry Hancock, on the MLK assassination was published in 2011.

(quote off)

(quote on)

Patrick Speer began his studies on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 2003. In 2007, The Mysterious Death of Number 35, a 4-part video series written by and featuring Speer, debuted on Youtube. Speer demonstrated that Dr. Michael Baden, the spokesman for the House Select Committee on Assassinations' Forensic Pathology Panel (the last government panel to study the Kennedy assassination medical evidence), was confused by the evidence and testified with a key autopsy photo upside down. It is Speer's contention that Baden was confused because the medical evidence, as interpreted by his panel, made little sense, and was at odds with articles and textbooks written by the very members of his panel. On his website, patspeer.com, Speer discusses the eyewitness evidence, the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek, and the paper bag purportedly used by Oswald to transport his rifle into the building. Speer made an appearance at the 2009 COPA Conference in Dallas, and was the recipient of the JFK Lancer--Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award in 2012.

(quote off)

John Hunt was at Duquesne, it's in Ben Wecht's DVD.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/john$20hunt$202003$20pittsburgh|sort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/hCMWG52Y_9w/bGvx6_sH42EJ

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

My bad.  Please don't let me be misunderstood.

No, T3 Denial is not the hot topic at JFK Conferences.

T3 Denial is the subtext of presentations by T3 denialists, not the context.

 

 

It seems a basic problem with this thread has been identified. 

Holocaust Denial has a body of work behind it - presentations, articles, books - all based on a premise which is clearly defined. The “denial” necessarily requires a pre-existing idea or concept by which to be in denial, or opposition, against.

Conversely, there is no body of work identifiable as T3 Denial. As far as I know, none of the alleged heretics identified by Varnell have ever discussed issues relating to the back wound as being in specific opposition to a set notion identified as “T3”. How can they be described as being in “Denial”, when the set terms of denial are not even addressed?

If anything, they seem to be better explained as “Warren Commission Deniers” or “Lone Nut Deniers”, as those appear to be the specific parameters in which their presentations are for the most part engaged. Is it not the parameter by which most discussion on this topic is engaged?

Again, in my opinion a T3 position for the back wound seems completely probably accurate, but I’m not sure when some kind of rule or law was established that any discussion of the back wound must conform to a strict set of criteria or be condemned.

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

It seems a basic problem with this thread has been identified. 

Holocaust Denial has a body of work behind it - presentations, articles, books - all based on a premise which is clearly defined. The “denial” necessarily requires a pre-existing idea or concept by which to be in denial, or opposition, against.

Conversely, there is no body of work identifiable as T3 Denial.

Sure there is.

I can cite material by Josiah Thompson, Cyril Wecht, David Mantik, Pat Speer and John Hunt.

Hold that thought -- I'll provide a proper inventory today or tomorrow.

Quote

 

As far as I know, none of the alleged heretics identified by Varnell have ever discussed issues relating to the back wound as being in specific opposition to a set notion identified as “T3”. How can they be described as being in “Denial”, when the set terms of denial are not even addressed?

See above.  I can quote all those guys.

Quote

 

If anything, they seem to be better explained as “Warren Commission Deniers” or “Lone Nut Deniers”, as those appear to be the specific parameters in which their presentations are for the most part engaged. Is it not the parameter by which most discussion on this topic is engaged?

Again, in my opinion a T3 position for the back wound seems completely probably accurate,

There it is again!

The equivocation which permeates JFK research like some fk'n virus.

No, it is not a matter of "opinion" or "probability" -- it is a matter of hard concrete FACT:

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of his collar.  He wore a tucked in custom-made dress shirt which did not elevate given his posture.

"Again, in my opinion 1 + 1 = 2 seems completely probably accurate."

Quote

 

but I’m not sure when some kind of rule or law was established that any discussion of the back wound must conform to a strict set of criteria or be condemned.

The rule is to follow the hard evidence no matter where it goes.

That so many "JFK assassination researchers" cannot follow the hard evidence is worthy of condemnation.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The T3 back wound confirms the throat entrance wound, which conversely does not by itself confirm the T3 back wound.

The following are the root facts of the murder of JFK:

1) JFK was shot in the back at T3; the round did not exit; there was no bullet found at the autopsy.

2) JFK was shot in the throat from the front; the bullet did not exit; no bullet was found during the autopsy.

The central mystery of the JFK assassination is:

What happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

When was the ;last time this central question was asked at a major JFK Conference?

Has the question ever been asked at a major JFK Conference?

Well?

[Mathias Baumann]

I did a little experiment. My wife - she's a physiotherapist - marked  the location of T3 on my back. She measured it to be about 22 cm down form the hairline.

Then we did the same thing while I was lying on my stomach. Due to the contraction of the skin it now appeared to have moved about 5 cm upwards.

Now if we look at Kennedy's autopsy photo we'll notice that not only is he lying face down, but it also appears that the doctors are even pulling the skin on his back up toward the neck. At least that's what the hand on his shoulder seems to be doing (notice the wrinkles in the nape of the neck).

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_picture.pl?l=deutsch&rais=1&oiu=http%3A%2F%2Fmcadams.posc.mu.edu%2Fzimmerman%2Ffrontmenu_i000003.jpg&sp=ad20f40873cebfe9cf5dec73e95e976f

It appears the photo was staged to conceal the real location of the entrance wound  - T3.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 10/12/2017 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Carter said:

Conversely, there is no body of work identifiable as T3 Denial.

I'll be posting a separate thread on this subject after the Oswald Mock Trial.

Who knows -- maybe Wecht, Thompson, Mantik et al will stand up and say "I stand corrected -- JFK was shot in the back at T3 as a matter of historical fact."

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 8:26 AM, Mathias Baumann said:

I did a little experiment. My wife - she's a physiotherapist - marked  the location of T3 on my back. She measured it to be about 22 cm down form the hairline.

Then we did the same thing while I was lying on my stomach. Due to the contraction of the skin it now appeared to have moved about 5 cm upwards.

Now if we look at Kennedy's autopsy photo we'll notice that not only is he lying face down, but it also appears that the doctors are even pulling the skin on his back up toward the neck. At least that's what the hand on his shoulder seems to be doing (notice the wrinkles in the nape of the neck).

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_picture.pl?l=deutsch&rais=1&oiu=http%3A%2F%2Fmcadams.posc.mu.edu%2Fzimmerman%2Ffrontmenu_i000003.jpg&sp=ad20f40873cebfe9cf5dec73e95e976f

It appears the photo was staged to conceal the real location of the entrance wound  - T3.

 

Thank you Mathias.  Lest your important observation and demonstration be buried in history.  I have skeletons at work.  T3 does not equal a throat exit wound.  Gerald Ford as an expert not withstanding. 

[Micah Mileto]

The same thing can be said about denial of the EOP wound. Supporting witnesses I count: Humes, Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Burkley, O'Neil, Kellerman, Lipsey, Boyers, and Tom Robinson if you count him seeing the doctors probing the base of the head. 

[Micah Mileto]

-delete-

Edited October 24, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Cliff Varnell]

On 10/11/2017 at 9:10 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

The T3 back wound confirms the throat entrance wound, which conversely does not by itself confirm the T3 back wound.

The following are the root facts of the murder of JFK:

1) JFK was shot in the back at T3; the round did not exit; there was no bullet found at the autopsy.

2) JFK was shot in the throat from the front; the bullet did not exit; no bullet was found during the autopsy.

The central mystery of the JFK assassination is:

What happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

When was the ;last time this central question was asked at a major JFK Conference?

Has the question ever been asked at a major JFK Conference?

 

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.

--E. Martin Schotz,  COPA '98.

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMS.html