Craig Lamson

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chops

google is your friend.

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

Lets instead go TO AUTHORITY to debunk the silly video technician dave healy

Zavada to Horne:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED at Jim Fetzers

May 2003 conference and Professor Fieldings book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore Davids analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

Horne to Zavada:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

Zavada nails the silly video repairman dave healy to the wall...

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzers May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

you sound like a broken down old record-fossil, Lampoon... Zavada to Healy: "yes, KODAK manufactured double 8 film with no edge markings.." use your imagination toots..... whoops, with no film-image compositing experience you haven't a clue do ya?

It would benefit your inexperienced, lone nut teammates and yourself if your experience extended a bit further than simpleminded Adobe Photoshop layers... you need a full understanding of the craftmanship and compositing skills of 1963 optical film lab artists, not to mention glass painters.. Carry with the disinfo, thank you -- Management LMAO!

Earth to Davy. I got my chops in a production house and went on to produce MANY pieces composited on film that withstood PROLONGED inspection as advertising stills. What you gonna bring to the table, repairman? Corporate HR videos? Roflmao.

Oh, consider yourself refuted BY authority.

Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing...

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

Lets instead go TO AUTHORITY to debunk the silly video technician dave healy

Zavada to Horne:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

Horne to Zavada:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

Zavada nails the silly video repairman dave healy to the wall...

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

...

There is no lack of debris at the back of the head. It is easily seen. Please try again.

akin to saying black levels (contrast ratio) aren't crushed in the "alleged" Zapruder film.... you get back in line and please, try again!

ROFLMAO! You are a really funny guy....

And the "contrast ratio (LMAO) has what to do with the ejecta? Oh yea, NOTHING. More healy nonsense.

Sorry Len but I stand every word I have said. It is not circular thinking to take the limo-stop witnesses seriously, and there are plenty of them. Fetzer is not the source of my conviction of the limo-stop witnesses; it is their own words, which you categorically reject. I cannot do that, especially when the witnesses, like Bill Newman, were right in front of the limo, and included motorcycle officers Sherry hand-waves their testimony away in a disgusting bit of psychobabble. She knows nothing about the limo-stop except that it contradicts her view that the film is genuine. That's the sum total of it. She would otherwise have no argument against these witnesses. So her analysis trumps nothing, and is a travesty. You can't blame Toni Foster or assign motives to her for not speaking out sooner. What she said to Debra is part of the record. And as far as the provenance of the film, may I suggest you read Volume IV of Horne and tell me where his argument fails? And please be specific.

Now, go earn your Nobel Prize and explain to me how a great loss of bone and brain and blood in the back of the head with an avulsive wound, as described carefully by Dr. McClelland et al. would nevertheless show no ejecta out of the spot where the Dallas doctors found the avulsive wound (occiptioparietal)? Don't give that canard about the blood traveling 700 ft/sec. Come up with something that makes sense. Thanks in advance, daniel

Your post demonstrated a degree of mental confusion I never cited Sherry regarding the supposed limo stop nor did I say your conclusions regarding that point were examples of "circular logic". I was referring to the supposedly suspicious lack of debris in the Z-film. The supposed limo stop is not relevant to this thread and has already been discussed extensively elsewhere on this forum, ditto Horne's claims and conclusions, so been there done that, I'm done.

Sherry is an expert on the point I cited her on, her book has won numerous endorsements including from William LeBlanc, Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator and Cyril Wecht OTOH you seem to have no training in science or forensic. Nor have you offered us anything but handwaving.

As for Foster we have knowing for sure if she was there or how reliable he decades old recolections were even if she were,

easily

The limo stop is vital to this thread because it joins the lack of debris from the back of the head as proof the Z-film is just so much foolishness, and arguing about what it allegedlyen shows or doesn't show is akin to chasing our tails. And again, whatever expertise Sherry may have is irrelevant to the larger issue of the faked film. The lack of debris, not a "supposedly" issue (see the ITEK study) is determinative: if the film does not show the reality of the actual wounding then whatever conclusions Sherry draws from what appears on the extant film is also irrelevant, however many endorsements her book gets. That's simple logic, Len, not hand-waving, which I admit to being an expert at in the classroom. The emperor is naked, and too many believe he is still clothed. Now go out and earn that Nobel Prize.

There is no lack of debris at the back of the head. It is easily seen. Please try again.

Martin, for your consideration.

Lets look at this another way.

In the attached image, look at the edge of the grass above the curb. It's black/dark because it is in shadow.

Compare the left side of the image with the right, just behind the head. Can you see the change in tone, behind the head, where the ejecta is located, compared to the darker tone on the left?

I have given you two versions of the same crop, one with more contrast to make the tone change easier to see.

I wonder what color one gets when light from green grass passes through a reddish mist? I think image analyzer can be used as a kind of software colorwheel absent a program that pernits layering with transparencies.

It's actually more a cyan color for the grass and since red and cyan are opposites the result would be gray. I've mentioned this many time before, but good thinking John.

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

I don't see what you are pointing out, Craig. Could you be more specific?

Why am I not surprised...

How about all the red at the back his head and the read behind his head over the grass.....

Craig,

I believe, based on the work of guys like Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Randy Robertson, and Dr. Donald Thomas, that a shot probably exited the area you've circled. So it would obviously suit my purposes to say that I see the "plenty of ejecta from the back of the head" that you see. But I'm afraid, like Robert, I just don't see it.

YMMV. I work on a very tightly color managed system on well profiled and calibrated monitor. I have no problems at all seeing the red over cyan grass.

However, I have no idea how well your monitor is profiled and calibrated nor how your browser deals with embedded color profiles. And quite frankly I have no idea how Photobucket deals with color profiles either.

Welcome to color management 101.

I can guarantee that every monitor used by every member of this forum shows something different, and wont' be close to any standard unless they have been profiled and calibrated using a dedicated hardware/software calibration system.

This is subtle coloration, there to be sure but not smack you in the face bold.

So again, ymmv.

1, There was no cowlick entry, Craig.

2. The HSCA, which believed there was a cowlick entry, also accepted ITEK's study, which concluded no ejecta from the back of the head was visible in the film.

3. The ejecta from the front of the head, moving in the direction of the head--which you believe is an exit--extends much farther from the head than the ejecta from the back of the head, which you believe is moving in the opposite direction of the head. This makes little sense, and is best by explained by the logical deduction, which you in your ignorance called a guess, that this ejecta came from the top of the head.

There is of course the slight possibility this ejecta came from the back of the head, but that this ejecta dispersed rapidly upon exit, to the extent it couldn't be picked on the film up beyond an inch or so behind Kennedy's head. That is why I suggested this be tested in the first place.

Reality check Pat, the entry point is still being debated 50 years later. She'll we find some thread on this very forum to verify that observation? Just a big bunch of guesses.

And this rear ejecta,mwhich everyone says is not there is clearly there extending more than an inch from the back of the head...interestingly in the same location and nearly the same intensity as the discovery test.

That's the facts, you just keep guessing, it's what you do oh so well.

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

1. The bullet entrance discovered at autopsy was low on the back of the head, and nowhere near the location you've circled.

2. If that is ejecta, it came from the top of Kennedy's head, which had traveled forward several inches from the moment of the bullet's impact.

Nice guess....

And then there was the cowlick....

Guesses, guesses everywhere, and ejecta to the rear.

I was going to say that you were looking at the arm of Jackie's pink suit but, I see you are pointing out something a bit higher. I really can't say for sure if that is red or not.

I don't suppose you consider this evidence of a rear exit wound, do you?

Nope, not willing to play that guessing game...

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

I don't see what you are pointing out, Craig. Could you be more specific?

Why am I not surprised...

How about all the red at the back his head and the read behind his head over the grass.....

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

Let's assume for a second that Tink is wrong and Craig and Martin are correct. Their arguments are certainly persuasive. The question is, does that prove that JFK was struck in the back of the head bewteen frames 312 and 313?

I have a couple of gifs for your consideration. These show that the other occupants of the limo all move rapidly and drastically forward and almost the same instant as President Kennedy and continue to do so after he is bowled backwards by the shot that exploded his temple.

Is it not likely that the same force which caused the other limo occupants to move forward also affected the President?

What about the women????

Well Jackie appears to kinda bob down and then quickly move back up/backward again. I'm thinking her movement has something to do with her holding on to her husband? Seems probable. And Nellie completely changes her position. She goes from facing her husband on her right to facing and leaning forward.

The point I was trying make is that not everyone might be moving forward based on the movement of the car. Its going to be very hard to separate regular body movements from any movement that might have been applied by the car movements. I would not even think about trying to make those guesses.

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Mr. Lamson

Care to get into a discussion about the real reason the SBT won't work? I noticed you and Mr. Von Pein have completely ignored the post I made with the anatomical diagram.

Nope, I could care less about the SBT.

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Pot calling kettle black

that's it buddy - defend your three little inches to the death...

No need to defend it davie Jo, it's unimpeachable.

And that's what scares you...REALITY...

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Mr. Lamson

I am not surprised you do not have an answer. I have noticed you are long on talk and short of anything substantial, such as proof or evidence.

Would you be so good as to show me how Croft proves your argument for you?

bobby sez:

"If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them."

Can you even remember what you wrote bobby?

Mr. Lamson

Please just prove your arguments for us with pictures, if that is possible.

Surely you know the Croft photo in question don't you?

Better yet, just do a simple search. You use that little box at the top right of this page that says...well...search.

There are huge threads detailing all of this.

Why don't you get back to us when you have digested ALL of it....

davie jo sez:

No... JFK's head does not move forward in the Zfilm we get to look at. The top/front of his head seems to be reacting into the gunshot as is expected via physics.

The third law of physics is well understood... the skull MUST move to resist the frontal shot...

OOPS!

davie jo sez:

That you can't comprehend physics, old man, is no surprise... you can't grasp simple math

Gotta love karma....

Mr. Lamson

I am not surprised you do not have an answer. I have noticed you are long on talk and short of anything substantial, such as proof or evidence.

Would you be so good as to show me how Croft proves your argument for you?

bobby sez:

"If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them."

Can you even remember what you wrote bobby?

So explain how a ball on a batting tee moves TOWARDS a bat that is striking it.....

That you can't comprehend physics, old man, is no surprise... you can't grasp simple math See if you can follow along MM, The TOWARDS motion is for a millisecond as the bigger heavier BAT overcomes the force and moves the ball..What happens when you try to hit that same ball on a tee with a feather? the ball overcomes the force of the feather and doesn't move... In our real world example... when the bullet hits JFK in the right temple the skull resists yet is overcome by the force of the bullet and moves in the opposite direction... just like hitting the ball on a tee. The CAUSE of the forward movement is not a shot from behind... but a shot from the front. And then there's that little matter of the fraudulent physical evidence, as I posted... the xrays do not match the photos and for good reason... the photos were taken before they did anything to the head... the xrays, after. ============When the bat hits the ball, it exerts some force on the ball. However, does this force account for the distance the ball travels? Let's think about it. Just imagine a home run hitter like Babe Ruth hitting a stationary ball. How far do you think will it go? Will it go more than four hundred feet? Probably not. While the kinetic energy transferred from the bat to the ball accounts for some of the energy of the ball, it does not account for all. So where is this mysterious energy coming from?The answer is conservation of momentum.What is momentum? Momentum is a vector describing a "quantity of motion" or in mathematical terms p (momentum) = mass * velocity.I just said that momentum is conserved (almost, read more to find out why) but how do I know that? I know that because of Newton's 2nd law: F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration). As was explained in the position page, acceleration is dv/dt, which is the change in the velocity (dv) divided by the change in time (dt). "Change in velocity?" you ask? Well, the change velocity (dv) is the difference between the current value and the last value of the velocity. For our purposes, we can say that dv=v_f-v_i, or, the change in velocity is equal to the final velocity minus the initial velocity. We also know that in a system with no external forces, the total force, F, is zero. This is because if you push against a wall, that wall pushes back against you with the same amount of force. So, assuming there are no external forces and plugging dv/dt for a into F=ma: F = m dv/dt = 0Multiply both sides by dtm dv = 0Now plug in v_f-v_i for dvm v_f - m v_i = 0the mass times the final velocity minus the mass times the initial velocity equals zero From that last equation, it tells us that for the same change in time (dt), the difference between the final momentum and the initial momentum always remains the same.Okay lets think about this more. Conservation of momentum means that harder you throw the harder the ball will bounce back at you. Just think about throwing a ball against a solid wall. The harder you throw the ball against the wall, the harder it bounces back. That is the reason it is easier to hit a home run on a fastball than on a curveball.Conservation of momentum also means that the bat can transfer some of its momentum to the ball. This is why it can be better to use a heavier bat if you can swing it just as fast. The momentum is the product of the mass and the velocity, so a heavier bat swung with the same speed as a lighter bat will have more momentum. Now, you may have noticed that I said momentum is "almost" conserved. Why isn't it if the equations say it should be? Well, momentum is always conserved in a closed system, but a baseball game in the real world is not a closed system. The bat and the ball are elastic materials. When the ball hits the bat, the ball will be squished to a certain degree. After few milli-seconds, it rebounds back. This contraction and rebound action is caused by the heat, or energy generated by friction, and some momentum is lost, or transferred elsewhere, in this action. There are also other factors that can use up energy, however, the concept of conservation of momentum is still relevant in predicting the range of a baseball.

Nice try utter failure .

Pretty simple. Your claim your burden of proof. A simple video will do that shows an object like jfks head moving INCHES towards the striking force.

You can actually prove something for once...right? Oh wait, with your track record? Roflmao!

Mr. Lamson Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?

Yes I have. From the experiment I did with a friend of mine, the bunching produced several folded layers of material. A shot through the collar line would have penetrated all of these folds, leaving quite a number of holes through the jacket, once the jacket was laid flat. If JFK's jacket (and shirt) were bunched up as you claim, the collars of both would still be in place at the collar line, unless you believe both collars were riding up on the back of JFK's head somewhere? If the bullet entered at the collar line, why are there no holes through the collars of the jacket and the shirt?

Then you simply failed. A hole just below the inner bottom of the fold only produces one hole and moves the wound UP. Simple work, and you failed? Imagine that.

Mr. Lamson As usual, your logic is quite assumptive and badly flawed. In your world, was the bullet not supposed to have gone through the collar line? If so, the collar of JFK's shirt was still in place, and was obviously not penetrated by a bullet. If it was not in place, the collar would also have ridden up in the front. If it had, the bullet would have exited well below the tie knot. However, let us assume, for a second, just to help you out a little, that the bullet entered just below the two collars. Where were the folds bunched up to? If they were bunched up just below the collars, the bullet, entering just below the collars, would have penetrated all of the folds, leaving numerous holes. The only way for your theory to work is for all of the bunching, in both jacket and shirt, to have been at or above the level of the collar. Considering that the shirt was buttoned up and there was a tie around his neck, this amount of bunching above the collar line takes quite a bit of imagination to produce. In other words, Mr. Lamson, it is quite likely it did not occur the way you believe it did. If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them.

Croft. Better luck next time bob

Mr. Lamson

Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?

Yes I have. From the experiment I did with a friend of mine, the bunching produced several folded layers of material. A shot through the collar line would have penetrated all of these folds, leaving quite a number of holes through the jacket, once the jacket was laid flat.

If JFK's jacket (and shirt) were bunched up as you claim, the collars of both would still be in place at the collar line, unless you believe both collars were riding up on the back of JFK's head somewhere?

If the bullet entered at the collar line, why are there no holes through the collars of the jacket and the shirt?

Then you simply failed. A hole just below the inner bottom of the fold only produces one hole and moves the wound UP. Simple work, and you failed? Imagine that.

Mr. Lamson

Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?

Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work.

Nothing simple about that, Robert, with all due respect.

JFK's back wound was at T3, not C7/T1. The properly prepared medical documents, the clothing defects, and the overwhelming consensus eye-witness testimony puts the back wound at T3.

Simply put, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothing are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Period.

Mr. Varnell

Yes, indeed, that is the other fly in the ointment; one which drives Mr. Lamson insane, in case you haven't noticed.

My explanation of why the SBT will not work is directed mainly at the diehards who insist the entry wound was at C7/T1 and cannot accept the reality that most witnesses saw a wound 5-6" below the collarline, placing the wound at thoracic vertebra T3.

By placing the entry wound at T3, the impossible becomes even more impossible, if that is possible.

Whats the matter bob, the truth just too hard for you to handle? The fold just to hard for you to refute?