A question to David Lifton

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

 Cliff's Irrefutable Solution and all variety of similar goofiness,

Lance, you claimed to have replicated the following event -- 2 inches of your shirt and 2 inches of your jacket elevated entirely above the top of your back without pushing up on your jacket collar.  Chad Zimmerman couldn't do it using both hands to pull up on the clothing hundreds of times.

Are you going to put up -- or shut up and leave us with the conclusion you're a l-i-a-r?

Edited November 16, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cory Santos]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I removed my unnecessarily snarky comment from my own post, although I obviously can't remove it from yours.  The non-snarky points that I think are legitimate are that:

(1) The same points do get made, over and over, to the point that they become pointless.  In a perfect world (i.e., if I were king), there would be a single "tracheotomy incision" thread that anyone could easily find and learn from or contribute to.  It would serve as its own little reference library on that topic and would not be allowed to go off track or descend into mud-slinging.  Your initial question here as to how Francois explains the "butchery" was not really a question (it seems to me) in the sense that you expected Francois to provide an answer that would be meaningful to you or that you would even care about.  You had already participated as recently as 2016 on the incision thread I cited.  It was (it seems to me) the classic "Oh, yeah, well about THIS?" diversionary tactic in which conspiracy enthusiasts seem to specialize.  When I attempted to provide a substantive answer, which Francois then endorsed, this was of no interest to you because you had decided long ago that there was indeed sinister "butchery."  You are (it seems to me) a fundamentalist conspiracy theorist and a fundamentalist tracheotomy butcherist.  It is impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion with a fundamentalist of any ilk.

(2) Fundamentalists - and this certainly includes Lone Nut fundamentalists - cannot concede any gray areas.  As a non-fundamentalist, I can see how the tracheotomy incision might fuel speculation that something sinister occurred.  When the evidence is viewed as a whole, however, this is one area where I don't believe that a sinister explanation is either mandated or even plausible.  This is one area where I really don't believe the case is close.  A sinister explanation becomes plausible only if one has previously bought into something like Lifton's theory, which to me seems so utterly speculative and implausible as to be comical.  There are sane and reasonable conspiracy theorists (some of whom approach the level of fundamentalists) and then there are Harvey and Lee, Best Evidence and Me and Lee fundamentalists.  When weaknesses in their positions are exposed, fundamentalists of the latter sort do indeed tend to resort to second-level defenses such as "Dr. Perry only testified that way because They got to him" or even "That was an imposter."  I don't believe any plausible conspiracy theory hinges on the tracheotomy incision being the result of sinister doings.  More to the point, we will never know exactly why the incision looks the way it does in the death stare photo.  Common sense and logic tell me that if the tracheotomy incision were evidence of something sinister, it would have been tidied up and the death stare photo would never have seen the light of day.

FWIW, this completely conspiracy-oriented 2003 summary of the confusion in the medical evidence has always seemed to me to be a nice summary of the way that the various investigative panels managed only to generate more confusion:  https://www.historymatters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm  As a non-fundamentalist, I can certainly see how someone looks at this and says "Oh, come on, there is no way that this all has an innocent explanation!"  I agree - I don't believe it's plausible that all this can be attributed to confusion, chaos and incompetence (although much of it can).  Nevertheless, it does not equate to "A conspiracy to assassinate JFK."  I don't believe you can work backwards from the confusion, chaos and incompetence after the assassination to a conspiracy before the assassination.  As someone who still tries to maintain an open mind, I continue to believe the Lone Nut explanation is, by a considerable margin, the best explanation for the assassination.

I stumbled on an old thread the other day where Jim D. mentioned in sort of a blasé way that Oswald had listed Ruby as a reference on a job application in New Orleans.  My reaction was, of course, WHAT???????????  When Jim D. was pressed by someone with a similar reaction, the response (as I recall) was of course that someone had seen this and told a reputable researcher but the document had since disappeared.  Show me ONE PIECE of irrefutable evidence such as the original of a job application in which LHO listed Ruby as a reference, with a solid provenance, the age of the ink and paper established beyond reasonable doubt, and LHO's handwriting verified beyond reasonable doubt, and this ONE PIECE of evidence will have me screeching "THIS IS A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME!"  The problem is, after more than 50 years there is no such piece of evidence.  There is Prayer Man and Sandy's Expert Molar Analysis and Cliff's Irrefutable Solution and all variety of similar goofiness, but there is (at least in my reasonably informed opinion) no piece of flat-out solid evidence that casts serious doubt on any aspect of the Lone Nut explanation.

 

How about instead you show us one irrefutable piece of evidence that LHO shot the rifle from the sixth floor. 

[Cliff Varnell]

6.5mm FMJ rounds don't leave shallow wounds.

Lets that Oswald feller off the hook...

Edited November 16, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

6.5mm FMJ rounds don't leave shallow wounds.

Lets that Oswald feller off the hook...

That ammo was known for it's unreliability and it is possible that one shot was a bad round that has a much lower velocity. It could also be the reason people heard a firecracker as opposed to a rifle shot. It could also explain how one shot went wild and struck Teague. Not that I believe this is what happened but it is a valid theory.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Chris Bristow

[Cliff Varnell]

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

That ammo was known for it's unreliability and it is possible that one shot was a bad round that has a much lower velocity. It could also be the reason people heard a firecracker as opposed to a rifle shot. It could also explain how one shot went wild and struck Teague. Not that I believe this is what happened but it is a valid theory.

Would a short load round maintain a near-straight line trajectory, or lose significant elevation?

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Would a short load round maintain a near-straight line trajectory, or lose significant elevation?

Good point and I don't know. If it was meant for the head it might account for about a 12 inch drop from the head to the entrance wound in the back.