Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He was ignored for the same reasons you would be ignored if you took the evidence to someone. That reason is, as I mentioned, that evidence is not viewed in a vacuum. I suspect that is the true reason you don't try to do anything with it.

The perps are dead.  I think Carl Jenkins is a key figure but he could never be brought to justice.

What would you expect the "authorities" to do in 2018?

No, W., the only available "court" is public opinion.

I do my patriotic best pushing back here on the Ed Forum against the agents of mis-information who insist JFK's clothing acted in a manner than can only be described as psychedelic.

Yes, we're dealing with a "vacuum" here, but not relating to the T3 back wound.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

No, W., the only available "court" is public opinion.

Well, the polls consistently indicate people believe in conspiracy so in that sense you are winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of what possible significance is "the court of public opinion" to the truth of the JFK assassination?  Does anyone think the truth is the objective in a real courtroom - is anyone that naïve?  The closest we can get to the truth of the JFK assassination is through analysis of the best evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions from that.  Public opinion is irrelevant.  If Cliff's notion is that sufficient public outcry may force yet another investigation - well, don't hold your breath, but I would have no fear of one.

Of course polls show that public opinion leans toward a conspiracy of some sort.  You don't read 100 stories a year saying "Professor Jones would like to remind the public that Oswald acted alone!"  As Walter Cronkite said, "We don't run stories about all the cats that don't get stuck in trees and don't have to be rescued by the Fire Department."  The public is constantly bombarded from every angle by conspiracy theories of every possible stripe from crackpot to plausible (plausibility being a very low threshold precisely because so many powerful people and organizations despised JFK).  It's scarcely surprising that Joe Average, who knows essentially nothing about the assassination and certainly nothing about Oswald, tells a pollster, "Well, yeah, I figure there was some sort of conspiracy."

If I were trying to prevail in the court of public opinion, I wouldn't spend my time preaching to the conspiracy choir here.  I'd be attempting to influence those who actually have the ability to influence the public.

I've now taken my bunching experiment to a new and higher level:  I'm the same height as JFK but ten pounds lighter.  I donned the back brace that I wear when I lift weights, which is less elaborate than JFK's.  I donned a 100% cotton dress shirt.  I observed the movement of the shirt as I made various slight and unexaggerated movements of my shoulders and arms.  The shirt bunched at the shoulders as easily as my suit coat had.  I then donned my suit coat over this and went through the same exercises.  I obviously couldn't observe the shirt beneath the coat, so I had my wife very carefully peel away the coat.  The shirt appeared to be bunched to approximately the same degree as the coat.  Both very easily rode up toward my neck.

This proves nothing, of course, but it was interesting.  I'll confess that I no longer have any idea why Cliff regards his solution as "irrefutable."  We'll never know precisely how JFK's suit and coat were sitting at the nanosecond of impact, but my unscientific little experiment demonstrated to my satisfaction that a "bunching" or "rising" sufficient to make the SBT much less problematical is entirely plausible.  (FYI, JFK wore Brooks Brothers shirts.  BB shirts of that era are described as "notoriously voluminous."  BB's ads emphasized their fullness.  JFK's shirts were indeed tailored in terms of collar size and sleeve length, but no 1963 shirt was tailored in the way that we might call European fit today.  BB did develop a trim-fit suit model that it thought would be more flattering to JFK.)

As I've said to the Harvey and Lee folks in regard to a number of their items of "evidence" (Oswald's junior high school records being the most recent example that comes to mind):  Come on, stop speculating.  Find a back brace, shirt and coat that closely approximate those that JFK was wearing and have two or three independent forensic laboratories determine the extent to which they rise and bunch through a range of plausible motions in conditions approximating those in JFK's limousine.  You may not reach 100% certainty, but you'll certainly have a pretty good idea as to whether significant bunching and rising is IMPOSSIBLE! or could make the SBT much less problematical.  If the results favor your position, publish them in a reputable journal and send copies to 20 of the most liberal Senators and Congressmen.  Although Cliff has been saying exactly the same thing for more than a decade as far as I can tell, my guess is that the silence will be as deafening as it has been with the Harvey and Lee folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Of what possible significance is "the court of public opinion" to the truth of the JFK assassination? 

The people of Germany had to come to grips with with the history of the Nazis.

The people of the old Soviet Union had to come to grips with the history of Stalinism.

The people of the United States need to come to grips with the history of the Cold War, and the Kennedy assassination conspiracy is a big part of that collective understanding.

Quote

Does anyone think the truth is the objective in a real courtroom - is anyone that naïve? 

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote

The closest we can get to the truth of the JFK assassination is through analysis of the best evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions from that. 

You appear incapable of such an analysis.

You can't even make an objective observation of the movement of your own clothing.

Quote

Public opinion is irrelevant. 

It's public understanding we seek to influence.

Americans need to have a clarity about our history if are to understand our current circumstances. 

This clarity would lead to a better understanding of how l-i-a-r-s and their lies take purchase in our public discourse.

Quote

If Cliff's notion is that sufficient public outcry may force yet another investigation - well, don't hold your breath, but I would have no fear of one.

That's not my intention at all.

I'd settle for acknowledgement of conspiracy in the mainstream news media, and in academia.

Quote

Of course polls show that public opinion leans toward a conspiracy of some sort. 

In spite of the fact that we've been bombarded for 55 years with the Big Lie that Lee Harvey Oswald all by his lonesome killed JFK?

It's a Big Lie that Little L-i-a-r-s continue to propagate, and against which true patriots push back.

Quote

You don't read 100 stories a year saying "Professor Jones would like to remind the public that Oswald acted alone!" 

Back in the early 90's, soon after the release of the movie JFK, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle on three different occasions that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK -- and this was in the sports pages.

It's still common to hear in the MSM that Oswald acted alone.

Quote

 

As Walter Cronkite said, "We don't run stories about all the cats that don't get stuck in trees and don't have to be rescued by the Fire Department."  The public is constantly bombarded from every angle by conspiracy theories of every possible stripe from crackpot to plausible (plausibility being a very low threshold precisely because so many powerful people and organizations despised JFK). 

Bombarded by the Ed Forum, Deep Politics, and other discussion groups? 

Barrister...please!

When was the last time anyone on a mainstream outlet discussed the conspiracy to kill Kennedy?

Quote

It's scarcely surprising that Joe Average, who knows essentially nothing about the assassination and certainly nothing about Oswald, tells a pollster, "Well, yeah, I figure there was some sort of conspiracy."

Joe Average reads the Ed Forum?

Who knew?

Quote

If I were trying to prevail in the court of public opinion, I wouldn't spend my time preaching to the conspiracy choir here.  I'd be attempting to influence those who actually have the ability to influence the public.

I have big problems with "the conspiracy choir."

I think most Big Name JFK Experts are incompetent; few have a grasp of the most basic physical facts of the case.

Quote

I've now taken my bunching experiment to a new and higher level:  I'm the same height as JFK but ten pounds lighter.  I donned the back brace that I wear when I lift weights, which is less elaborate than JFK's.  I donned a 100% cotton dress shirt.  I observed the movement of the shirt as I made various slight and unexaggerated movements of my shoulders and arms.  The shirt bunched at the shoulders as easily as my suit coat had.

Of course it "bunched."  It bunched sideways.  In order to accommodate this "horizontal ease" (the term of art in clothing design) the fabric of your shirt INDENTED along your shoulder-top.

It moved a fraction of an inch.

Quote

 I then donned my suit coat over this and went through the same exercises.  I obviously couldn't observe the shirt beneath the coat, so I had my wife very carefully peel away the coat.  The shirt appeared to be bunched to approximately the same degree as the coat.  Both very easily rode up toward my neck.

I call your bluff, barrister.

You're making this up.

Show us how you get your shirt and jacket to elevate 2+ inches without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Quote

This proves nothing, of course, but it was interesting.

It proves your capacity for exaggeration.

Quote

 

  I'll confess that I no longer have any idea why Cliff regards his solution as "irrefutable." 

Because an honest person can casually wave their right arm and observe the fabric of their shirt indent along their right shoulder-top.

Because an honest person understands that 2+ inches of shirt and 2+ inches of jacket can't elevate entirely above the top of their back without pushing up on the jacket collar resting in a normal position just above the base of their neck.

Quote

We'll never know precisely how JFK's suit and coat were sitting at the nanosecond of impact, but my unscientific little experiment demonstrated to my satisfaction that a "bunching" or "rising" sufficient to make the SBT much less problematical is entirely plausible. 

Show and tell, barrister.

2+ inches of shirt fabric and 2+ inches of jacket fabric elevated entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Show us, or STFU.

Quote

(FYI, JFK wore Brooks Brothers shirts. 

Wrong.  He bought his suits from Paul Stuart, and the shirts were tailor-made in New York.

The claim that JFK wore Brooks Brothers "Sack" suits is mis-information.

Quote

 

BB shirts of that era are described as "notoriously voluminous." 

You don't know what you're talking about.

From Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man, chapter 7:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm

<quote on, emphasis added>

FIT

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the jacket. If you do buy a shirt with too large a body, a seamstress can take in the side seams or put darts in the back to reduce the size. The darts are actually a bit more practical, since if you put on weight they can be removed. The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around. It should not be so long, however, that it creates bulges in front of the trousers.

<quote off>

You're claiming that JFK had excess shirt fabric bulging around his neck!

ibid:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7.htm

<quote on, emphasis added>

Since the 1950s, while manufacturers' changes have been few, styles have changed radically. Paralleling the excesses of the Peacock Revolution, shirt collars grew to disproportionate lengths while colors took on the nightmarish hues of Day-Glo paints and subway graffiti. Today, the palette has sobered and the collar styles have returned to more traditional proportions that are more in keeping with the current conservative mood of the country. It's quite simple, really: fine-quality dress shirts are made of 100 percent cotton. Naturally, they cost more than polyester blends, but what you pay for is unrivaled comfort and a look that bespeaks luxury and tradition. As a natural fiber, cotton respects the natural needs of the body. It breathes, allowing the body to cool itself when necessary, and its absorbs moisture when the body perspires. As the article of clothing most in contact with the body, the shirt needs to act almost as a second skin. Cotton performs this function best.

<quote off>

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt fits "almost as a second skin."

Quote

BB's ads emphasized their fullness.  JFK's shirts were indeed tailored in terms of collar size and sleeve length, but no 1963 shirt was tailored in the way that we might call European fit today.  BB did develop a trim-fit suit model that it thought would be more flattering to JFK.)

It's called "Updated American Silhouette," melding the European "cinched waist" look with the fuller Ivy League "Sack" look exemplified by Brooks Brothers.

From Flusser:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm

<quote on, emphasis added>

The Updated American Silhouette

suit2.gif The updated American silhouette is a combination of the best elements of the sack and the European-cut suit. The jacket has some of the same softness and fullness through the chest and shoulder areas of the sack, to which it adds some of the European notion of shape.

Long the staple of fine dressers, from Clark Gable to Fred Astaire to Cary Grant, this soft, shaped suit was essentially a spin-off from the sack. The three-button sack coat was modified to a two-button version with some suppression at the waist by Paul Stuart. As mentioned earlier, this style was then modified further by Ralph Lauren, beginning in the mid-1960s. Both his espousal of it and the subsequent support of a score of young American designers gained, for this updated American style, the national recognition and the widespread acceptance it has today.

Like the European model, the new American-style jacket is tapered at the waist, giving the wearer something of a V-shaped appearance. The jacket, with its two-button design, has a longer lapel roll. In further contrast to the sack, this style also has a somewhat higher armhole and the chest is a bit smaller. All these details work to give it more definition than its dour predecessor.

<quote off>

Quote

As I've said to the Harvey and Lee folks in regard to a number of their items of "evidence" (Oswald's junior high school records being the most recent example that comes to mind):  Come on, stop speculating.  Find a back brace, shirt and coat that closely approximate those that JFK was wearing and have two or three independent forensic laboratories determine the extent to which they rise and bunch through a range of plausible motions in conditions approximating those in JFK's limousine.  You may not reach 100% certainty, but you'll certainly have a pretty good idea as to whether significant bunching and rising is IMPOSSIBLE! or could make the SBT much less problematical.  If the results favor your position, publish them in a reputable journal and send copies to 20 of the most liberal Senators and Congressmen.  Although Cliff has been saying exactly the same thing for more than a decade as far as I can tell, my guess is that the silence will be as deafening as it has been with the Harvey and Lee folks.

Deafen this, barrister:

ibid

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm

<quote on, emphasis added>

The sixties brought the Peacock Revolution - a phrase popularized in this country by George Frazier, a former columnist for Esquire magazine and the Boston Globe - which began on Carnaby Street in London and featured a whole array of new looks, including the Nehru jacket and the Edwardian suit. In contrast to the fifties, during which time choices were limited, a wide range of alternatives was now available as the focus moved to youth and protest. The designer Pierre Cardin even created an American version of the slim-lined European silhouette, which, along with the immense popularity of jeans, led to the acceptance of extreme fittedness in clothing - a far cry from the casual, comfortable elegance of preceding generations.

During this period, the American designer Ralph Lauren was attempting to convince the American male that there was a viable alternative to this high-style clothing. This alternative was a version of the two-button shaped suit with natural shoulders that had been introduced by Paul Stuart in 1954 and briefly popularized by John Kennedy during his presidency.

<quote off>

And then suck on this, barrister...

From Tony Ventresca's The Paul Stuart Variation: Classic American Style

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-paul-stuart-variation-classic-american-style

<quote on, emphasis added>

(Alan) Flusser credits the New York retail store Paul Stuart with introducing the Updated American style to American men in 1954. Located just around the corner from Brooks Brothers, Paul Stuart offered men “an alternative to the overtly stylish menswear from Europe and the repetitious predictability of the Ivy League look. The Updated American style gained a boost when John F Kennedy, the popular new senator and later president, wore suits and jackets from Paul Stuart.

Here are Flusser’s comments:

The last or fourth type of suit style was a blend of American and English, Brooks Brothers and Savile Row. Long the staple of fine dressers, from Fred Astaire to Cary Grant, this Updated American suit combined the Row’s trademark smartness with the understated comfort of the sack suit. Introduced to the Gotham gent in the middle sixties by Madison Avenue retailer Paul Stuart, this shaped, two-button suit was later offered to the general public through the fashions of designer Ralph Lauren.

Featuring higher armholes and a smaller chest with darted fronts for a more shaped waist, the updated American suit’s longer rolled lapels opened the coat’s front to reveal more of the man’s furnishings while emphasizing his V-shaped torso. Whether Americanized by a center vent or anglicized with side vents, for several decades this soft-shoulder hybrid was the keynote of traditional American fashion, breathing fresh air into the East Coast Ivy League look.

Flusser, Dressing The Man (p. 81-82).

<quote off>

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 12:59 AM, Micah Mileto said:

 

BTW, the second link above shows Boswell's (inadvertent) HSCA testimony that a back-of-head skull fragment was brought to the autopsy room AFTER the body had arrived. Which, of course, corroborates all the other rear blowout evidence -- both the Harper Fragment evidence and the back-of-head blowout testimony.

I wonder how Francois, Lance, Tracy, and DVP can explain this. How could all this diverse, corroborating evidence be wrong?

Of course, this preponderance of evidence indicates that the BOH photo had to have been faked or altered.

(Thanks Micah.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 11:23 AM, Cliff Varnell said:
Quote

Lance Payette said:

Probably like everyone here, I did my own quick bunching experiment and was surprised at how much bunching does occur with what seemed like very slight movement.

Under oath you'd be committing perjury, barrister.

 

Cliff,

Maybe Lance was wearing that bright yellow shirt of his when he did the experiment. It appears to be made from plastic sheeting... maybe it doesn't rest the way cotton fabric does.  :idea

Surely Kennedy's shirt wasn't made of bright yellow plastic.  :P

 

Share this post


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

 

Cliff,

Maybe Lance was wearing that bright yellow shirt of his when he did the experiment. It appears to be made from plastic sheeting... maybe it doesn't rest the way cotton fabric does.  :idea

Surely Kennedy's shirt wasn't made of bright yellow plastic.  :P

 

😎

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a 2014 discussion....

DVP SAID:

President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable.

Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct?

And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right?

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

But to hear CTers like Cliff Varnell tell it, that "double bunching" thing is more improbable than flying to the moon in a Cessna. ~big shrug~

It only goes to show--once again--the lengths that some conspiracy hounds will go to in order to inject suspicion and doubt and alleged "conspiracy" into every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case---even though there's no need to inject such things into this particular sub-topic regarding the President's clothing whatsoever.

And btw, a picture was produced by Jean Davison a few years ago (the one below) showing JFK wearing a shirt that is "bunched up" near his neck. But according to some CTers, I guess maybe this is merely an illusion I'm seeing here....

JFK-Shirt-Bunched.jpg

And Cliff Varnell and other Education Forum members know about the above picture, too. It was discussed right here in this thread.

Naturally, Cliff doesn't think it has any relevance at all. But I think Cliff is all wet, and I set him straight here [excerpted below].

"Of course, your argument about Kennedy's shirt is (and always has been) an unprovable one since we can't see the back of JFK's shirt in any of the motorcade photos. Therefore, you cannot possibly prove that it's "impossible" for his shirt to have been bunched-up in unison with his suit coat." -- DVP; June 22, 2011

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

BTW, the second link above shows Boswell's (inadvertent) HSCA testimony that a back-of-head skull fragment was brought to the autopsy room AFTER the body had arrived. Which, of course, corroborates all the other rear blowout evidence -- both the Harper Fragment evidence and the back-of-head blowout testim

There's no possible way that could have happened, and this X-ray below (which the HSCA said "had not been altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41]) proves it. There's not even the tiniest piece of the BACK of President Kennedy's head missing....

JFK-Head-Xray.jpg

 

Share this post


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

From a 2014 discussion....

DVP SAID:

President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable.

And you've admitted that the fold is "a little bit."

Quote

Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct?

1/8th of an inch.

That's the vertical discrepancy between the hole in the shirt and the hole in the jacket.

The hole in his shirt matched the location of the wound -- T3.

Quote

And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right?

Yeah, you're going to ignore the requirements of your claim -- there had to have been 2+ inches of shirt and an equal amount of jacket elevated entirely above the top of his back without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of his neck.

To any non-fanatic the impossibility of this is obvious.

Quote

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

That's not all you're claiming, David, you're claiming multiple inches of each elevated without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Your True Belief prevents you from processing this information.

Quote

But to hear CTers like Cliff Varnell tell it, that "double bunching" thing is more improbable than flying to the moon in a Cessna. ~big shrug~

You can't get your clothes to perform what you claim, otherwise you'd demonstrate it.

But you can't.

Because it's impossible given JFK's posture and movement in the limo.

Quote

It only goes to show--once again--the lengths that some conspiracy hounds will go to in order to inject suspicion and doubt and alleged "conspiracy" into every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case---even though there's no need to inject such things into this particular sub-topic regarding the President's clothing whatsoever.

Show and tell, David.  The burden of proof is on you.

Quote

And btw, a picture was produced by Jean Davison a few years ago (the one below) showing JFK wearing a shirt that is "bunched up" near his neck. But according to some CTers, I guess maybe this is merely an illusion I'm seeing here....

JFK-Shirt-Bunched.jpg
 

Look at JFK's hair in the back -- a cowlick is sticking out.

How is it that the well-coiffed JFK had his hair sticking out?

For the same reason his shirt is gathered above the bottom of his shirt collar -- he was previously resting, slumped down in the seat but the shirt didn't slump with him.

Quote

 

And Cliff Varnell and other Education Forum members know about the above picture, too. It was discussed right here in this thread.

Naturally, Cliff doesn't think it has any relevance at all. But I think Cliff is all wet, and I set him straight here [excerpted below].

Sure it's relevant!

The folds in his no longer tucked in shirt were entirely above the bottom of his shirt collar.

But on Elm St the jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of his neck.

How could the jacket collar be in a normal position if there was a wad of clothing above the top of his back?

Quote

"Of course, your argument about Kennedy's shirt is (and always has been) an unprovable one since we can't see the back of JFK's shirt in any of the motorcade photos. Therefore, you cannot possibly prove that it's "impossible" for his shirt to have been bunched-up in unison with his suit coat." -- DVP; June 22, 2011

 

Then you should have no problem replicating the event.

The burden of proof is on YOU...but you can't because it's impossible.

All you Nutter fanatics have had decades to replicate this event you claim occurred but all we get is rhetoric.

Chad Zimmerman tried to present such, but it took him hundred of takes because the clothing kept falling down and the jacket collar remained pushed up.

C'mon David, put up or STFU.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

Me neither. I never have understood it....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Cliff+Varnell

You briefly, in a moment of clarity, understood the significance of the visible shirt collar in Croft.

You show other photos of JFK with his shirt or jacket elevated above the bottom of the collars, but that's not what we see in Croft.

That you intend on ignoring this fact is a measure of your fanaticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Nutters!

I'll be off-line for quite a while, so when y'all get the gumption to replicate your claims I'll be back to check them out.

Remember -- that's 2+ inches of shirt, 2+ inches of jacket, all wadded up above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Burden of proof is on YOU.

Either put up or shut up.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

Hey Nutters!

I'll be off-line for quite a while, so when y'all get the gumption to replicate your claims I'll be back to check them out.

Trip postponed, alas, so it's back to intellectually abusing the perpetrators of the Single Bullet Fraud.

One such perp wrote:

Come on, stop speculating.  Find a back brace, shirt and coat that closely approximate those that JFK was wearing and have two or three independent forensic laboratories determine the extent to which they rise and bunch through a range of plausible motions in conditions approximating those in JFK's limousine.  You may not reach 100% certainty, but you'll certainly have a pretty good idea as to whether significant bunching and rising is IMPOSSIBLE! or could make the SBT much less problematical.  </q>

It isn't the job of Conspiracy Factualists to disprove the claims of the Single Bullet Fraudsters.  The burden of proof is on those who make the positive assertion.

The SBFraudsters claim something happened but they can't offer any proof, and instead demand we prove them wrong.

That's not how it works.

More from this particular perp:

If the results favor your position, publish them in a reputable journal and send copies to 20 of the most liberal Senators and Congressmen.  Although Cliff has been saying exactly the same thing for more than a decade as far as I can tell, my guess is that the silence will be as deafening as it has been with the Harvey and Lee folks.</q>

In 1980 the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded JFK was murdered in a conspiracy with 95% certainty -- they then referred the matter to the Justice Department, who did nothing about it.

Now 38 years later private citizens are supposed to take a cold case to the Justice Department and expect action?

It always amuses me to see otherwise intelligent people rationalize such idiocy.

 

 

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

×