Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: As far as Cliff is concerned, everything revolves around the clothing of JFK. Nothing else matters to Cliff. He's truly a one-trick Weaponizer. The physical evidence found with the body is supreme in a murder case. It's the evidence around which all the other evidence revolves. You wouldn't recognize that fact because you're an LNer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 I'm on the same page as Lance basically, with more of a lean to the SBT and the clothing supporting this, which I have just replicated in a simple but accurate experiment. This I will start a new post on and will be happy to adjust and recreate as people suggest, probably not cliff though as he may weaponize my thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: FWIW, I'll weigh in one last time, Jake. The issue that Cliff is highlighting (weaponizing?) is, of course, a very legitimate one, as is the pristine condition of the magic bullet. However, a jury could have reasonable doubt about the bunching explanation for the alignment of the holes in the shirt, jacket and back, yet still conclude that Oswald's guilt as the lone gunman had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Where have you created any doubt about the alignment of the bullet holes in the clothes with the T3 back wound described by 4 federal agents and at least 10 medical profesionals who had a prolonged view of the body? Quote Oswald's guilt as the lone gunman must be determined in the context of a vast amount of other evidence. There is consensus witness statements by 4 federal agents and 10 medical professionals -- plus 2 verified properly prepared medical documents placing the wound at T3, consistent with the holes in the clothes. How do you impeach the testimony of 4 Feds? Quote A jury could legitimately conclude "the alignment of the holes in the shirt, jacket and back is a puzzle and we have substantial doubt about the bunching explanation, but we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald acted alone." And they will conclude that a dozen witnesses all suffered the same hallucination? Quote Cliff simply doesn't grasp this or perhaps doesn't want to grasp this. He insists the alignment of the holes is "prima facie" evidence the Single Bullet Theory is wrong and that the existence of a conspiracy is "irrefutable." No, I said the T3 back wound was prima facie evidence -- the location of the bullet holes in the clothes are corroborated by consensus witness statements and verified medical documents. Quote The video that I linked is sufficient to rebut Cliff's supposed "prima facie" case and show that his position isn't "irrefutable." No, the video you showed had the jacket collar riding above the top of the shirt collar. And the show didn't record the movement of the clothing. It was a con job. Quote We will never know all of the precise angles, alignments and trajectories associated with the actual event at the moment of impact, but the video alone shows what could have occurred in terms of bunching. Factually incorrect.. We've been over this already. Chad Zimmerman offered to pay me 10 grand if I could prove he wasn't full of it. He repudiated his own claims. I've posted this before. Lance knows that, but he has to pretend otherwise. Quote At trial, there would be demonstrations and expert testimony on both sides, and the jury would weigh the evidence and testimony on this issue - simple as that. Yes, and since you cannot replicate the movement of clothing required by the SBT the jury won't take long. Quote Perhaps the prosecution's bunching demonstration wouldn't bring the holes into perfect alignment but would bring them much closer - close enough for the other unknown variables to easily account for the difference. Show us. You can't -- it's impossible. The weight of evidence agrees with the autopsists that JFK was hit with high tech rounds. Quote Perhaps if the jury found Cliff's explanation utterly convincing and agreed it disproved the SBT beyond reasonable doubt, this would indeed be sufficient to raise reasonable doubt that Oswald had acted alone - but I haven't delved into this possibility in sufficient depth to say with certainty that this is the case (in other words, I don't know that the SBT is absolutely, positively essential to the Lone Nut explanation). In short, it's a simple matter of Cliff overstating (weaponizing?) to a considerable degree the significance of an issue that is nevertheless indeed significant. At this point, Juror Lance You're not a juror. To pretend to be objective is a measure of your fraud. Quote believes the bunching explanation is very likely (don't forget the possible effect of the back brace) and that the SBT remains a plausible explanation even if bunching doesn't provide a complete explanation simply because there were so many unknown variables at the moment of impact that could have affected the alignment of the holes. Contrary to what Cliff keeps saying ad nauseam (weaponizing?), Juror Lance doesn't have the burden to prove anything. Fanatic Lance can't prove anything. Edited December 15, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: Yeah I was warned about him early on but honestly, the 'ease' thing shows for anyone reading this the extent of the madness. So you're disputing the expertise of someone far beyond you as an authority? My source is the only textile conservator to ever have curated an exhibit at LACMA. Edited December 15, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 16 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: I'm on the same page as Lance basically, with more of a lean to the SBT and the clothing supporting this, which I have just replicated in a simple but accurate experiment. This I will start a new post on and will be happy to adjust and recreate as people suggest, probably not cliff though as he may weaponize my thread. You aren't going to record the movement of clothing on a mannequin, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: So you're disputing the expertise of someone far beyond you as an authority? My source is the only textile conservator to ever have curated an exhibit at LACMA. Thats great, I'm happy for you. the entire industry and wikipedia are lying, I understand now. Because a clothing conservator uses the term ease everyday and is also an authority on the English language. Google knows nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Just now, Cliff Varnell said: You aren't going to record the movement of clothing on a mannequin, are you? I've done it already, I understand you will take issue with everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: I'm on the same page as Lance basically, with more of a lean to the SBT and the clothing supporting this, which I have just replicated in a simple but accurate experiment. This I will start a new post on and will be happy to adjust and recreate as people suggest, probably not cliff though as he may weaponize my thread. No, unless you record the movement of clothing on a living person imitating JFK what will you prove? Other than making gross exaggerations, of course. Edited December 15, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Just now, Cliff Varnell said: No, unless your record the movement of clothing on a living person imitating JFK what will you prove? Other than making gross exaggerations, of course. If I did that would I need to replicate the suspension movements of the car ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said: Thats great, I'm happy for you. the entire industry and wikipedia are lying, Being incomplete is not lying. 1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said: I understand now. Because a clothing conservator uses the term ease everyday and is also an authority on the English language. Google knows nothing. Not "a" textile conservator -- THE textile conservator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Just now, Jake Hammond said: If I did that would I need to replicate the suspension movements of the car ? You're exaggerating slight movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Just now, Cliff Varnell said: Being incomplete is not lying. Not "a" textile conservator -- THE textile conservator. And... ? wiki, google and my personal experiences in the industry, as a job are real Cliff. second hand supposed quotes are irrelevant. The point of course is that it shows a deep seated issue with your ability to argue and see the world with nay degree of rationality I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Just now, Jake Hammond said: And... ? wiki, google and my personal experiences in the industry, as a job are real Cliff. second hand supposed quotes are irrelevant. The point of course is that it shows a deep seated issue with your ability to argue and see the world with nay degree of rationality I feel. Because I'm quoting a clothing expert? You're bending over backwards to make this semantic issue dramatic --why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 because you started it and its objectively, easily provable and categorically a fact what the term 'ease' means and it exposes how you think and form arguments, or more accurately, don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Just now, Jake Hammond said: because you started it and its objectively, easily provable and categorically a fact what the term 'ease' means and it exposes how you think and form arguments, or more accurately, don't. I discussed the case with a preeminent authority. I see nothing objectionable with that. Has it ever occurred to you that museums might use different nomenclature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now