Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(The GIGO part of what I said is predicated on my recollection that the hole was more like 5" below the collar, not 4". If I'm remembering wrong, then my GIGO claim doesn't apply.)

ROBERT FRAZIER -- "I found on the back of the shirt a hole, 5 3/4 inches below the top of the collar, and as you look at the back of the shirt 1 1/8 inch to the right of the midline of the shirt, which is this hole I am indicating."


Thanks David. So I recalled the right measurement ("a little more than 5 inches"), but from the wrong reference point (measured from the top of collar, not the bottom.)

So my GIGO statement does not apply.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why don't you show us instances of a shirt bunching up due to the person raising his arm?

Gee, last time I checked you were a Harvey and Lee apologist - and before that, a Prayer Man apologist.  Are you now a Cliff's Irrefutable Solution apologist as well, or are you just kind of a roving Any-Theory-As-Long-As-Its-A-Conspiracy apologist?

 

Soooo... I take it you can't find a photo a shirt bunched up due to raising of the hand.

 

Quote

Just as with your Harvey and Lee nonsense, everything SPEAKS FOR ITSELF! ANYONE BUT AN IDIOT CAN SEE IT!  THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO DISPROVE IT! WE DON'T NEED TO LOOK ANY DEEPER!  Translation:  We're afraid to look any deeper.


"WE DON'T NEED TO LOOK ANY DEEPER??"

Hey, I'm the one (between the two of us) who is digging deeper and encouraging others to do the same. I'm the one who posts my hypotheses and conclusions for everyone to scrutinize.


Speaking of that, and of Harvey & Lee....

How do you explain that Oswald was missing two teeth (one of which was fitted with a prosthesis) according to his dental records and other evidence, but had NO missing teeth when his body was exhumed?

Proof:


BTW, you say I was a "Prayer Man apologist." The truth is that I have never defended the Prayer Man theory. I have yet to see any strong evidence for Prayer Man being Oswald. Though I think he may have been.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the bunched shirt stuff.  We have bigger sartorial news than that.  In a bow to public pressure, I have replaced the banana suit avatar with a photo of moi in 1955, attempting to recreate the Backyard Photo right down to an uncanny resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald (assuming, of course, that you can picture Lee in a Kansas City Athletics t-shirt).  I don't know who took this, but I don't recall anyone in my household named Marina.

You're welcome.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


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

How do you explain that Oswald was missing two teeth (one of which was fitted with a prosthesis) according to his dental records and other evidence, but had NO missing teeth when his body was exhumed?

That is easily explained. It is due to your misreading of the records due to your lack of dental and forensic expertise. That is why you don't try to find an expert to confirm your "study."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

That is easily explained. It is due to your misreading of the records due to your lack of dental and forensic expertise. That is why you don't try to find an expert to confirm your "study."

I love that !

Share this post


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

Forget the bunched shirt stuff. 

I don't blame you. 

The photo Von Pein posted shows no elevation of the shirt.  Thank you, David!

The Chad Zimmerman segment in Beyond the Magic Bullet doesn't show the clothing elevate because such movement is impossible; they had to rig the test by pulling up on the clothes by hand.   The jacket collar on Stan -- the JFK stand-in -- rode up above the top of the shirt collar.  That's a little detail you and Von Pein can't get your heads around.

They couldn't even rig the test to make it successful! 

The program claimed that Stan was an "exact" match for JFK, but that proved problematic for Zimmerman when "the first x-ray agrees with the critics", showing the metal buttons aligning with T3.

Zimmerman wrote on his now-defunct website, in a now-defunct article entitled -- "The Case of the Bunched Jacket":

<quote on, emphasis Chad's>

If the fabric had bunched up only an inch, which is highly probable given the photos we see of Kennedy in the motorcade, then it can be EXPECTED that the bullet would go through the suit some 4 inches below the collar and impact at the C7-T1 level.

<quote off>

According to Zimmerman, the bottom of Kennedy's collars aligned with C4, with the base of the neck 3 inches below the collars. But on the wall of his office Chad had a poster of a man standing in profile with the bottom of the collar aligning with C7.  Zimmerman knew the C4 claim was false, but he had to make it because he couldn't identify any more than an inch of jacket elevation in the Dealey Plaza photos.

Like all SBFraudsters, Zimmerman was bluffing.  When I called him on his bluff in 2007 he wrote the following on an alt.assassination.jfk thread, March 12, 2007, entitled "Latest Cliff Challenge":

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/latest$20cliff$20challenge|sort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/KMqn57EVz80/y7QNUN3W3pkJ

<quote on, emphasis mine>

If Varnell were to go and meet Stan, the JFK stand-in from The Discovery Channel's 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' episode and returns with the belief that Stan has the same build as JFK, then I will give Varnell a check for $10,000.

Tactless? Perhaps. Does it prove my point? Perhaps. Stan was a less than perfect stand-in for JFK.

But don't take it from me, go ahead and find Stan, Cliff. I look forward to the public apology for repeatedly claiming otherwise.

<quote off>

This was a real WTF? moment. 

I wasn't repeatedly claiming Stan was an "exact" stand-in for JFK -- I was repeatedly quoting the program making that claim.

Chad Zimmerman offered to pay me ten grand if I could prove the show wasn't a total fraud!

But it certainly was, wasn't it, Lance?

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

Soooo... I take it you can't find a photo a shirt bunched up due to raising of the hand.

Thanks for taking care of my light work last night, Sandy.

I was busy watching the Red Sox throttle the hated Dodgers, and then watching my beloved Golden State Warriors destroy the Washington Wizards.

Then I checked the EF to watch Payette and Von Pein throttle the SBFraud on their own.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
On 10/24/2018 at 9:33 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you explain that Oswald was missing two teeth (one of which was fitted with a prosthesis) according to his dental records and other evidence, but had NO missing teeth when his body was exhumed?

That is easily explained. It is due to your misreading of the records due to your lack of dental and forensic expertise. That is why you don't try to find an expert to confirm your "study."

 

What? It takes an expert to count the number of teeth in a corpse's mouth? It takes an expert to read in a dental chart that the patient needs a new prosthesis? Where that fact is spelled out in plain English?

Sure Tracy... just like it takes an expert to count one's fingers or to recite the alphabet.

This isn't rocket science we're dealing with here.

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


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

What? It takes an expert count the number of teeth in a corpse's mouth? It takes an expert to read in a dental chart that the patient needs a new prosthesis? Where that fact is spelled out in plain English?

Sure Tracy... just like it takes an expert to count one's fingers or to recite the alphabet.

This isn't rocket science we're dealing with here.

This is getting easier by the day.  Thanks, Sandy!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parnell seems to forget a very big point:

Its the so called people with forensic expertise who got us into this evidentiary mess.

Do I really have to explain that?  Don Thomas spent a large part of his book on it.  Never was a book so well subtitled. Ever hear of social constructivism?

Should we start with good ole Vince Guinn and his phony CBLA?

How about Dr. Petty who said so memorably, in 2003 at the 40th anniversary to CNN that the Kennedy autopsy was done well.

:stupid

 

And he also said that it would be nice if Kennedy's brain were available.  

Oh really?

Or how about Pierre Finck, who had to be asked something like 8 times why Humes did not dissect the back wound.

Or Humes himself who was finally exposed later as making up a cover story about souvenir seekers getting the blood stained copies of his autopsy report.  And also how he did not just jettison his notes but also the first copy of the report.

Or Cecil Kirk, the so called photo expert, who Bugliosi believed about the head explosion without Kirk even knowing anything about the phenomenon of cavitation.

Or how about the Haags, who Gary Aguilar and Cyril Wecht tarred and feathered from pillar to post.  To the point that they would not even show up to debate them even when Gary offered to pay their plane and hotel fare!!!

Or how about Alvarez who lied about his melon experiment and also how many jiggles are in the Z film?

Maybe you are talking about FBI agent Frazier? He told the Commission that the recovered bullet from the Walker house had the same general characteristics that the alleged Oswald rifle would have. Bugliosi then tells us that means four lands and grooves and a right hand twist to its rifling.  

Vince left out the fact that practically all rifles had that twist and that rifling. Which makes for a very large universe.

These are the experts Parnell has chosen to stand by.:please

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

These are the experts Parnell has chosen to stand by.:please

 

I don't know about Tracy, but I like to understand things for myself. There are a lot of things I do understand, and even more things I can teach myself by reading textbooks and other resources like Wikipedia. At the same time, I know my limitations. If I don't have a firm understanding of something and can't learn it in a short period of time, I'll gladly seek an expert on the topic. (Actually, I think it's always good to have experts around whenever possible.)

When I was trying to convince Lance Payette that Oswald's Beauregard J.H. School records revealed that the school was on a semester (two-term per year) system, I couldn't understand why that was not obvious to him. All you had to do is see that there are two rows of scores on Oswald's record, and that a third row below them gave correctly-calculated average scores for the two rows above. And this holds true for the two school years shown on the record. Ergo, the school years there were indeed semester based. That is to say, the school year was divided into two terms. The students were given scores ranging up to 100%, in each subject, for each of the two terms. And the two scores for each subject were added together and this was divided by 2, thus giving the  average score for each subject.

Yet Lance appeared completely perplexed that I and others would conclude such a thing. I recall wondering, is it just me (among a few others) who easily see this? Is it because -- as an engineer who works with charts all the time -- I can readily see this, whereas as a lawyer -- who maybe doesn't work with charts much and perhaps doesn't understand averages -- Lance cannot see it? Or is it because Lance just plain doesn't want to admit that we are right about the school records showing that Oswald attended Beauregard the same semester he attended PS #44 in New York?

Whatever the case... Lance demanded proof that Beauregard was really on the semester system in 1963. Even though the proof was right there before his eyes.

I see this same thing play out over and  over again when dealing with LNers (and some CTer H&L skeptics). They demand expert opinion when the proof is right before their eyes. If only they would look and do a little reasoning.

I can't help but believe that these folks have learned to play the "where's the expert" card when confronted with strong evidence that they can't counter. Just like they play the "why won't a journalist report this" card. Even more frustrating to me is the "Greg Parker debunked your claim" card they sometimes use, when in fact they don't even understand Parker's line of reasoning themselves. They probably haven't even read it.

 

Share this post


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

 

What? It takes an expert to count the number of teeth in a corpse's mouth? It takes an expert to read in a dental chart that the patient needs a new prosthesis? Where that fact is spelled out in plain English?

Sure Tracy... just like it takes an expert to count one's fingers or to recite the alphabet.

This isn't rocket science we're dealing with here.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure why all these people go to dental school or study forensics. They should just put out a shingle and tell people it's all common sense-no school needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Tracy, it takes three years to learn how to read  a chart.

Geez, how long do you think it took Guinn to make up his phony CBLA test?  Which your side fell for and used for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2018 at 7:18 PM, Lance Payette said:

Ah, yes, the "complete farce," "garbage-in-garbage-out fraud," "can anyone honestly believe?" defense.  The photo you posted won't open for me, but I assume it shows that what is demonstrated in the documentary is IMPOSSIBLE!!!  The documentary as a whole shows what it shows. clothing move.

 

It doesn't show the clothing move at all.

It shows what happened after Zimmerman and the producers took forever to do by hand -- pull the clothing into position and hope it wouldn't fall down before they could get a shot.

Zimmerman admitted to me privately it took "hundreds of takes."

On 10/24/2018 at 7:18 PM, Lance Payette said:

Viewers can decide for themselves what weight should be attached to it.  It does show that Cliff's persistent shrieks of IMPOSSIBLE! and IRREFUTABLE! are nothing more than bluster

I rarely write in caps, so it looks as if the only one shrieking here is you, Lance.

On 10/24/2018 at 7:18 PM, Lance Payette said:

The fact is, we don't actually know the precise orientation of JFK's body and arms or the precise location of the wound. 

JFK was sitting comfortably with his right elbow elevated.  At 4 inches below the bottom of the collar the wound was at T3 -- matching the verified death certificate, the properly verified autopsy face sheet, the contemporaneous reports of 4 Federal agents and ten other eye-witnesses.

On 10/24/2018 at 7:18 PM, Lance Payette said:

We don't know precisely what "had to" occur for the SBT to work or precisely what did occur.  The "complete farce," "garbage-in-garbage-out fraud," "can anyone honestly believe?" defense that Cliff and his minions immediately resort to does not, it seems to me, really advance their position.

It doesn't seem like an open and shut case to you because you're a fanatic Nutter with an unshakeable True Belief.

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...