Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I have no interest in "proving" the photo is authentic.

The government claims it is authentic.

I don't have a problem with this because the photo proves the back wound was too low to be consistent with the single-bullet theory.

But not too low to be consistent with the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process -- that's the pernicious fiction.

I'm not going to give you a gold star for debunking the sbt if you're going to obfuscate the throat entrance wound.

Quote

The government inadvertently admitted this, moreover, by hiring a trajectory expert to support the single-bullet theory, who promptly moved the wound up two inches to make it work.

And you have to move JFK's clothing up two inches to conform with the autopsy photo.

Why is the government exempt from reconciling the wound location in the photo with the clothing defects?

Photos can be doctored, witnesses suborned -- but you can't replicate the movement of JFK's clothing indicated by the photo.

What makes YOU exempt, Pat?

Quote

 

This is stuff I discovered years ago, and discussed in my 2014 presentation at Bethesda, which represented the final nail in the single-bullet theory. (If the first nail was Fonzi's discussion with Specter--where Specter couldn't get the clothing to rise--the last nail, IMO, was my presentation in Bethesda, where WC counsel Burt Griffin stormed out of the room when I proved that Arlen Specter called the wound a back wound until he was shown a picture of the wound proving it was on the back and too low to support the single-bullet theory, whereupon he started calling it a "back-of-the-neck" wound.

Fonzi didn't need you.

How do you make assertions debunked by Fonzi (multiple inches of clothing movement) and then claim to corroborate his work?

Quote

 

It was only fitting, moreover, that Fonzi's wife, Marie, attended this presentation, and congratulated me afterword, telling me her husband would have been so proud.

Is she aware that you claim her husband was wrong about the movement of JFK's clothing?

Quote

 

To my mind it had come full circle, and the single-bullet theory was dead. There has most certainly not been anything since 2014 to bring it back alive.)

There hasn't been anything since 1966 except the lame claims of LNers and Vichy CTs that JFK was shot at T1.

Quote

That you would have people ignore all this--is undoubtedly disappointing.

Congrats for getting under Griffin's skin, but Specter couldn't get Fonzi's clothing to rise at all so I don't get your claim JFK's clothing rose 2 inches.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

To sum up, Chesser/Mantik and others have made the argument the autopsy materials are fake, or have been altered, and that this proves conspiracy.

This is a wobbly and misguided stance, IMO, because it opens the door for other better qualified experts to say no, they are legit.

Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence.

These experts will have to reconcile the back wound location with the clothing defects.

Clothing defects trump autopsy photo.

Period.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

In 1966 Gaeton Fonzi interviewed Vincent Salandria.

Salandria pointed out the location of the bullet defects in the shirt and jacket were too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

This establishes the throat wound as an entrance.

Agnostic about the conspiracy charge, Fonzi interviewed Arlen Specter.  Within minutes of bringing up the clothing evidence Specter had a nervous breakdown and Fonzi became a "conspiracy believer."

At 12:10 Salandria puts his work on the sbt in perspective.

How is it Pat Speer blows his own horn but ignores Salandria, who refused to toot his own horn on the sbt?

Edited December 5, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

This is stuff I discovered years ago, and discussed in my 2014 presentation at Bethesda, which represented the final nail in the single-bullet theory. (If the first nail was Fonzi's discussion with Specter--where Specter couldn't get the clothing to rise--the last nail, IMO, was my presentation in Bethesda, where WC counsel Burt Griffin stormed out of the room when I proved that Arlen Specter called the wound a back wound until he was shown a picture of the wound proving it was on the back and too low to support the single-bullet theory, whereupon he started calling it a "back-of-the-neck" wound.

Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research.

You did good research getting Griffin to storm out of the room, but your insistence that the autopsy photo is genuine obfuscates the throat entrance wound.

All you have to do is say -- "IF the BOH photo were authentic, it debunks the sbt".

But you don't say "if," you insist on it as a fact when you claim JFK was shot at T1.

[Pat Speer]

It's really quite simple, Cliff.

The government's evidence, if taken as legitimate, and actually studied, is clear evidence for a conspiracy.

As I find it beyond bizarre that the government would fake evidence showing a conspiracy, and then turn around and have experts embarrass themselves by pretending the evidence doesn't show conspiracy, I assume the evidence to be authentic.

I feel 100% certain, moreover, that the evidence for conspiracy (or at the very least massive government incompetence) would be readily apparent to the media and academia, etc, should they ever come to view that evidence, as opposed to the by-now-long-disregarded evidence for photo alteration, etc.

As far as the clothes... as you know I agree with you, and always have. If the research "community" would all agree to put that at the top of the list of reasons why we know the Warren Commission was a whitewash, I suspect we would have a lot easier time convincing millennials and other newbies of the validity of our position.

Here's one of my better slides, IMO.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 12/5/2017 at 2:33 PM, Pat Speer said:

To sum up, Chesser/Mantik and others have made the argument the autopsy materials are fake, or have been altered, and that this proves conspiracy.

This is a wobbly and misguided stance, IMO, because it opens the door for other better qualified experts to say no, they are legit.

I, on the other hand, took a look at these materials (plus the Z-film, and eyewitness statements) under the assumption they are legit, and found they don't indicate what the government said they indicated... And that they actually suggest Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter...

You don't regard the back wound witnesses as legit.

You can't reconcile the clothing defects with a wound at T1, in spite of your claims to follow the footsteps of Gaeton Fonzi.

You don't regard the properly prepared medical evidence as legit -- Burkley's death certificate, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the FBI report on the autopsy.

In fact, the only medical evidence you regard as legit is that which was not produced according to proper autopsy protocols.

What is so galling is your insistence that the improperly produced evidence is the ONLY legitimate evidence of the back wound.

 

Quote

I have based many of my arguments, moreover, on the textbooks written by the government's experts.

While I am constantly updating and improving my arguments, for that matter, it grows increasingly clear that my approach, if not my arguments, will win the day.

The day was won 51+ years ago -- all you're doing is muddying the waters.

You guys are the Kings of Special Pleading.

The material prepared according to prevailing professional protocols are legit -- improperly produced evidence is illegitimate.

Your approach -- ignore the properly produced evidence, weigh only the improper material -- is spectacularly wrong-headed.

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's really quite simple, Cliff.

The government's evidence, if taken as legitimate, and actually studied, is clear evidence for a conspiracy.

The properly prepared evidence --  which you ignore -- is a prima facie case for conspiracy, and doesn't require self-aggrandizing "experts" to explain it all.

Quote

As I find it beyond bizarre that the government would fake evidence showing a conspiracy,

They were trying to turn an obvious case of multiple shooters into a case of a single shooter and there was nothing they could do to make it work.

Just because they failed doesn't make it legit.

 

Quote

 

and then turn around and have experts embarrass themselves by pretending the evidence doesn't show conspiracy, I assume the evidence to be authentic.

Why assume anything?

Why can't you follow the evidence where it goes, instead of making making obfuscatory assumptions?

Quote

I feel 100% certain, moreover, that the evidence for conspiracy (or at the very least massive government incompetence) would be readily apparent to the media and academia, etc, should they ever come to view that evidence, as opposed to the by-now-long-disregarded evidence for photo alteration, etc.

You ignore legitimate evidence and invite study of improperly prepared evidence?

WTF?

Quote

As far as the clothes... as you know I agree with you, and always have. If the research "community" would all agree to put that at the top of the list of reasons why we know the Warren Commission was a whitewash, I suspect we would have a lot easier time convincing millennials and other newbies of the validity of our position.

No, you have never agreed to the T3 back wound.

You're a major T3 denier.

Quote

Here's one of my better slides, IMO.

 

Then why do you deny the T3 back wound?

Edited December 7, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Your problem, Cliff, is you fail to realize that your ideas of what constitutes "legitimate" evidence or "properly prepared" evidence have no basis in reality.

The autopsy protocol and photos, etc, would have little problem getting accepted into a court of law, and there has never been a case in the history of the world (that you can name anyway) where an approximation of a wound's location made by a distant observer (Burkley) was considered more "legitimate" than the observations and measurements of the doctors who'd actually conducted the autopsy.

You fell in love with your smoke. Impressive.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Your problem, Cliff, is you fail to realize that your ideas of what constitutes "legitimate" evidence or "properly prepared" evidence have no basis in reality.

It's easy, Pat.  There is evidence which was prepared/maintained/produced according to proper autopsy protocols.

There is evidence which was was NOT prepared/maintained/produced according to proper autopsy protocols.

What's so hard to figure out?

All the properly produced evidence conforms to a T3 back wound (the clothing defects, the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the FBI report on the autopsy, plus another dozen witness statements).

None of the evidence you cherry pick was properly prepared.  None of it!

Quote

The autopsy protocol and photos, etc, would have little problem getting accepted into a court of law, and there has never been a case in the history of the world (that you can name anyway) where an approximation of a wound's location made by a distant observer (Burkley) was considered more "legitimate" than the observations and measurements of the doctors who'd actually conducted the autopsy.

Luckily we have the clothing defects which show exactly where the wound was located.

Forget about Fonzi/Specter already?

The autopsy doctors recorded 3 different back wound locations, only one of which was recorded according to autopsy protocol -- the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil and signed off as "verified."

This destroys your assumptions so you have to pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

The final autopsy report lists two different locations for the back wound: "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula..." (T2)..."14 cm below the right mastoid process" (T1).

These descriptions violate autopsy protocol, as do the measurements in pen on the autopsy face sheet, and the autopsy photos.

You got nuthin'', dude.

Quote

You fell in love with your smoke. Impressive.

Classic projection!

You fell in love with illogical assumptions.

When are you going to reconcile the physical evidence with your claims?

Why are you exempt from providing actual proof?

Gaeton Fonzi spins in his grave...

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

"If the first nail was Fonzi's discussion with Specter--where Specter couldn't get the clothing to rise--the last nail, IMO, was my presentation in Bethesda"

Debunking the SBT ain't shi*.

There is no glory in pointing out the obvious.

The salient facts of the JFK murder:

1)  JFK had a shallow entrance wound in his back, no point of exit, and no bullet was found in the body at autopsy.

2) He had a wound of entrance in his throat, no point of exit, no bullet was found in the body at autopsy.

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

That's the central question.

Who were the high level prevaricators?  That's the next question.  (Vincent Salandria School in the houze!)

The SBT is a tertiary concern. at best.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The day was won 51+ years ago -- all you're [Pat Speer's] doing is muddying the waters.

Agreed, Cliff. Pat has built a case using altered evidence as a foundation. He may be able to show a conspiracy in spite of the evidence being altered, but what that does is confuse onlookers. It is Pat against the rest of us, and the WC apologists point to us and say, see, even they can't agree on what happened.

 

[Micah Mileto]

Edited December 8, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

 

This is typical of the silliness T3 deniers and Parkland deniers are forced to accept... because for some reason they cannot accept that evidence was tampered with.

Funny video though.

 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Agreed, Cliff. Pat has built a case using altered evidence as a foundation. He may be able to show a conspiracy in spite of the evidence being altered, but what that does is confuse onlookers. It is Pat against the rest of us, and the WC apologists point to us and say, see, even they can't agree on what happened.

 

Uhhh.... There is no "rest of us" Sandy.

I spent a year or so studying the case reading mostly conspiracy books before realizing they were inconsistent.

Lifton and his followers pushed that the body was altered but the photos were legit. Groden and Aguilar pushed that the body was not altered but that the photos were faked.

Livingstone said that the photos were faked and that the x-rays showed the right forehead to have been missing, . Mantik said the right forehead was apparent on the x-rays but that overly white objects had been added to the x-rays.

Lifton, Fetzer and Mantik said the Zapruder film was faked, but Groden and Thompson said it was not faked but was instead clear proof of a conspiracy.

There was no consensus, Sandy. Never was.  And LNs have successfully used this lack of consensus to make us all look loopy.

That is why I decided to take a look at the evidence under the assumption it was legit.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Agreed, Cliff. Pat has built a case using altered evidence as a foundation. He may be able to show a conspiracy in spite of the evidence being altered, but what that does is confuse onlookers. It is Pat against the rest of us, and the WC apologists point to us and say, see, even they can't agree on what happened.

 

Uhhh.... There is no "rest of us" Sandy.

I spent a year or so studying the case reading mostly conspiracy books before realizing they were inconsistent.

Lifton and his followers pushed that the body was altered but the photos were legit. Groden and Aguilar pushed that the body was not altered but that the photos were faked.

Livingstone said that the photos were faked and that the x-rays showed the right forehead to have been missing, . Mantik said the right forehead was apparent on the x-rays but that overly white objects had been added to the x-rays.

Lifton, Fetzer and Mantik said the Zapruder film was faked, but Groden and Thompson said it was not faked but was instead clear proof of a conspiracy.

There was no consensus, Sandy. Never was.  And LNs have successfully used this lack of consensus to make us all look loopy.

That is why I decided to take a look at the evidence under the assumption it was legit.

 

Pat,

Well I'm glad that you did decide to study the case from the "medical evidence is legit" angle. That's certainly better than having it ignored and untested.

But I think there is a pretty good consensus regarding the medical evidence, that the back-of-head wound has been covered up. Some say by altering the body, some say by altering photos. But either way it's by altering the evidence.

Not so a much a consensus on the CAUSE of the back wound, I suspect. But LOCATION... I suspect most believe it was around T3.