Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cliff Varnell

Boycott the nutters!

Recommended Posts

The persons who come to this forum with no desire to further the debate are pretty transparent and appear to post with a view to deterring a new audience. The forum is getting a bit heavy on debates about Conspiracy theory. The forum to me is unashamedly built on the premise that Kennedy was assassinated via a Conspiracy or at the very least poster's will countenance that possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The persons who come to this forum with no desire to further the debate are pretty transparent and appear to post with a view to deterring a new audience. The forum is getting a bit heavy on debates about Conspiracy theory. The forum to me is unashamedly built on the premise that Kennedy was assassinated via a Conspiracy or at the very least poster's will countenance that possibility.

Indeed.  There's been an influx of disingenuous posts by people claiming to be objective seekers of the truth who always ignore facts inconvenient to their promotion of the single bullet fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For every LNer denier there are ten deluded CTers with the wildest theories ever imagined.

The actual purpose of this thread is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

For every LNer denier there are ten deluded CTers with the wildest theories ever imagined.

Why are you here, then?

17 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

The actual purpose of this thread is?

And the purpose of your presence is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why there is this Ln vs CT thing. I only look at the truth. I used t be CT guy. Then grew up. Come on guys , lets look  at the evidence and fin dthe truth rather than polarising ourselves in two weird camps. If the weaponizer is the extrapolated CT king then surely at some point the rational intelligent, dii=lligent human who wants to further this discussion would simply break away and leave the forum ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why are you here, then?

And the purpose of your presence is?

You bore me Varnell......you really do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bart Kamp said:

You bore me Varnell......you really do.

Why do you read my posts?  I never read people who bore me.  I may live in San Francisco but I'm not that masochistic.

In answer to your previous question, this thread is a platform for attacking witness bashers.  I'm starting with the nutter witness bashers before I get around to CT witness bashers like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

You bore me Varnell......you really do.

Put him on 'ignore' like the rest of us. 

 It is a subject worth discussing though,  in my mind there should be no camps, just a spectrum of truth seeking, open minded individuals using logic and intelligence. What got Cliff really vexed was me doing experiment trying to find a resolution between the shirt holes and the neck wound. He hated an experiment, he detested that i had an open mind. I really don't understand that way of thinking, and hope I never do. 

Edited by Jake Hammond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing all single bullet frauds have in common is denial of the T3 back wound.  One nutter with a French accent had the gall to claim that consensus witness testimony put the back wound in the vicinity of the base of the neck.

16 witnesses to the low back wound.

1) Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician observed the body at Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

2) The autopsy face sheet diagram prepared under the supervision of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell shows a wound location consistent with the holes in the clothes (4 inches below the bottom of the collars).

autopdescript1.gif

The diagram was filled out in pencil and signed off as "verified," also in pencil, also in accordance to proper autopsy protocol. The "14cm from the mastoid" notation was made in pen, which is a violation of proper autopsy protocol.

3) Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

4) James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to David Lifton:

 (quote on)

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

(quote off)

5) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit:

 (quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3:

back_diagram.gif

6) SSA Will Greer in his WC testimony (Vol 2 pg 127) placed the back wound “in the soft part of that shoulder,” consistent with the testimony of Boyers.

7) SSA Roy Kellerman testified before the WC (Vol. 2 pg 93) that the wound in the back was “the hole that was in his shoulder.” Kellerman expanded on this for the HSCA witha diagram which placed the back wound in the vicinity of T-3.

8 )  FBI SA  Francis O'Neill said that the first location for the back wound that Humes gave was "below the shoulder." Here's O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram:

?page=43&tab=comments#comment-387150http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

9) FBI SA James Sibert also diagrammed a lower back wound:

http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

10) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower marking on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth, pg 721).

11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back wound was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183).

12) Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's High Treason 2, pg  206). This consistent with T3.

13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit (KTT, pg 720). This location is also consistent with T3.

14) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in a note the afternoon of 11/22/63:

(quote on)

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.

(quote off)

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. Glen Bennett nailed the back wound.

15) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, tasked with bearing witness to the location of JFK's wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

(quote off)

6 inches below the neckline. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4" below the top of the collar. Clint Hill nailed the back wound.

16) In his notes mortician Tom Robinson wrote: "And wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

The actual purpose of this thread is?

Oh! Oh! Yeah, I remember another good reason for this thread:  my engagement with single bullet frauds threatened to get me kicked off of the forum because I can't refrain from calling out L-words for being L-words.

So there's that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cliff,

     I'm a newbie here, but I'm inclined to agree with you on this one.

     I have nothing against freedom of expression and intellectually honest debates -- far from it--  but the "honesty" part is absent in the posts I have read by the cadre of Lone Nutter "trolls" around here.  What useful purpose does it serve to engage in a debate with people who are not intellectually honest?

    I have also wondered whether some of the active Lone Nutters here are participants in what Cass Sunstein has promoted as government-sponsored "cognitive infiltration" of social media sites to influence public perceptions.

The "disinformation agent" card?  Really?  Someone is actually playing the disinformation agent card???

DVP, Tracy, Francois:  If you have a government sponsor, please let me know how I can get on the payroll.  If there is a "cognitive infiltration" movement, I want in on it.  Is it a conspiracy?

The disinformation agent card is surely the last refuge of a zealot.  Do you actually fear that I and the others are "influencing public perceptions"?  If Lone Nutters are so self-evidently pathetic and ignorant, why would you fear that?  Aren't we simply demonstrating how silly and uninformed Lone Nutters are?

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The persons who come to this forum with no desire to further the debate are pretty transparent and appear to post with a view to deterring a new audience. The forum is getting a bit heavy on debates about Conspiracy theory. The forum to me is unashamedly built on the premise that Kennedy was assassinated via a Conspiracy or at the very least poster's will countenance that possibility.

Now we've moved from "influencing the public" to "deterring a new audience."  What sort of grandiose fantasies are in play here?  This is an internet discussion forum, people.

The forum is unashamedly built on a conspiracy premise?  Then why doesn't it say that anywhere?  The forum could certainly have a term of service that only conspiracy believers will be allowed.  Some religious sites do this - it always backfires, but they try.  If the "Ignore" option isn't a satisfactory solution for you, trying lobbying James Gordon to have the terms of service changed.  "There shall be no posts promoting the Lone Nut explanation or suggesting that it is viable, credible or worthy of discussion."

It actually makes me sort of sad when I see this kind of outburst.  No, I'm not being facetious.  Intractable zealots of all sorts react this way (and with the truly witless, mindless ad hominem attacks we see on almost every thread) when they feel threatened.  That is the only reason.  It's not my purpose to threaten you or mock you, and I don't feel happy about what I'm seeing.  I may occasionally poke fun at some of your views, but I respect you as sincere advocates for your positions.

The only advice I would offer is that I really don't think you're helping your cause.  If there really is any sort of sizeable public out there to be influenced, I am 110% confident that threads like this are having the opposite of their intended effect.

 

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On his own thread urging people to boycott Lone Nutters, Cliff proceeds to engage Francois about the location of the back wound???  My head is spinning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

DVP, Tracy, Francois:  If you have a government sponsor, please let me know how I can get on the payroll. 

No government sponsorship (or any other type) here, although I have been accused of this for years. If we were on the payroll in a quest to change public opinion we would have been fired by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they have no actual evidence of a high back wound the single bullet frauds must rely on the Fox 5 autopsy photo of the back.

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added)

(quote on)

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The  deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of theexamination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.  Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

 Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

 (quote off)

Not only are the autopsy photos of dismally poor quality, there is no chain of possession for them.

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

The autopsy photos are worthless.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

No government sponsorship (or any other type) here, although I have been accused of this for years.

Same here. But if some Government agency wants to start paying me for stuff I've been saying online for years for free----hey, I'm all for that! Sign me up now!

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...