Cliff Varnell

No difficulty at all. What would hold the most weight would be the earliest accounts of these autopsy surgeons, which were recorded according to proper military autopsy protocol. The portion of the autopsy face sheet which was filled out in pencil -- as per proper autopsy protocol -- shows the wound in a location consistent with the holes in the clothes and other witness accounts. That portion of the face sheet was signed off as "verified," in pencil. According to JFK autopsy surgeon Dr. Pierre Finck, "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound." The only accurate written descriptions of the back wound appeared in the death certificate prepared by JFK's personal physician and the FBI report on the autopsy. Burkely's death certificate located the wound at the Third Thoracic vertebra, in accordance with proper military autopsy protocol. The FBI report on the autopsy described the wound as "below the shoulder." The "supra-clavicle" wound locations referred to by Thomas Purvis involved three separate wound locations for one wound. The autopsy report lists two separate locations for the back wound: 1) "just above the upper border of the scapula" (T2) 2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process" (C7/T1) Neither of these wound locations are consistent with proper autopsy protocol, and they aren't consistent with each other! Autopsy surgeon Humes helped develop an even more absurd neck wound location for the WC. Thomas Purvis seems to believe that improperly prepared autopsy material trumps properly prepared autopsy material. By what alchemy of logic do you arrive at that conclusion, Tom? Much less explain how multiple inches of JFK's jacket, multiple inches of his shirt, and his jacket collar all occupied the same physical space at the same time.

Can she demonstrate her case to a 6 year old in less than a minute? Sure she can! Like all good researchers who debunk the SBS, Cranor makes the prima facie case. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/NeckAndTorsoXrays/NeckAndTorsoXrays.htm Milicent Cranor (emphasis added): It would take her about a minute to explain the signficance of the T3 back wound to a little kid. JFK's back wound is, after all, the most efficient rebuttal to the single-bullet scenario (SBS).

Moderators, Could we move this discussion over to the Vincent Salandria thread Mike started not too long ago? Thanks in advance.

These jerseys gotta be home-made, of course. I think I have the better end of that deal -- the Heat have a better logo...I mean, a bridge that isn't even built yet, that's the Warriors logo. Seriously. Good luck with that, Mike!

I think the only way to prove it one way or another is ask Vincent Salandria -- was he referring to the back-wound/clothing evidence when he said that conspiracy was blatantly obvious all along. If he tells me I'm wrong -- I'll wear a LeBron James jersey for a whole afternoon. If he tells me I'm anywhere close to being acutely attuned with his state of mind in 1975 -- then Mike Hogan must wear a Stephen Curry jersey for a whole afternoon. Mike, I still think you’re great, our little disagreement here aside.

I can lead the horses to water, but I cannot force them to drink. Salandria, for the umpteenth time: Apparently there is room for disagreement, or so it appears that Mr. DiEugenio is claiming. For the sake of argument, it can be postulated that either JFK's back wound was at T3 -- or it wasn't. If it was, then that location is obviously too low to accommodate the single-bullet scenario. This is a clear-cut case against the SBT, requires no expert analyses, could easily be grasped by little kids. And yet somehow over the years the T3 back wound became a "model T," "passe", even though the back wound location greatly clarifies the nature of the throat entrance wound and impeaches the conclusions of the WC at the same time. Such a powerful piece of evidence, which adds so greatly to our understanding of JFK's back and throat wounds, is now regarded as out of fashion. Pity. I thought this was a sad state of affairs in 1997, and nothing in the interim has altered that conclusion one iota.

Sure I do. It's the unchallenged fact that 2+ shooters fired at JFK and the USG covered it up. The T3 back wound is the evidence which addresses these points most directly. Not CE399. Not Connally's wounds. The T3 back wound. Always worked for Ricky Henderson. Clothing evidence = T3 back wound. The most efficient argument against the SBT is the T3 back wound. What is so difficult to understand?

Are you disputing Salandria's characterization of the T3 back wound as evidence which "goes to the core of the case"? Are you disputing the T3 back wound location, as Jim D. appears to be doing? Except that Cliff has made it very clear that he has been referring to JFK's T3 back wound. It seems to me that since neither of you gentleman can lay a glove on the fact that Salandria referred to the T3 back wound as evidence which "goes to the core of the case," you must attempt to de-couple the clothing evidence from the back wound. As Salandria noted, the round which struck JFK in the back also created those clothing defects. The clothing evidence cannot logically be taken out of the context of the T3 back wound. But that's all you guys have. Rhetorical vapor. Sigh. Yes, as the physical representation of the T3 back wound. It is the T3 back wound which "goes to the core of the case." That you guys so willfully choose to ignore this is beyond me. You and Jim D. must try to keep the clothing evidence separate from the back wound, or else your arguments don't hold water. I've proven over and over that Salandria regarded the back wound as prima facie evidence of 4+ shots and evidence "which goes to the core of the case." I wish I had a dime for everytime I cite this, only to be ignored by you and Mr. D. Indeed. Which is why he prepped Gaeton Fonzi for his confrontation with Arlen Specter and was thrilled with the results of Fonzi rubbing Specter's face in the clothing evidence. When the Jeffries film was released in 2007, how did Salandria and Fonzi respond? By citing Fonzi's confrontation with Specter. The clothing-evidence/T3-back-wound was prima facie evidence of conspiracy then, and it remains so today.

DiEugenio has so little respect for what Salandria's actually wrote -- or so little grasp -- that he ignores the case Salandria makes for the T3 back wound: the testimony of 3 SS SAs + the clothing evidence. The T3 back wound trumps pet theorist bloviating any day.

My agenda is to defend the prima facie case for conspiracy. What's your agenda, Jim?

Here's the important part you missed: This part is must-read, as well.

Do you bother to read what you cite? He went from the testimony of Bennett, Hill and Kellerman into the clothing evidence as "material support" that "dramatically" corroborated the witness statements. It's the T3 back wound that "goes to the core of the case" -- all your rhetorical vapor doesn't change that fact. The low back wound is the point. The low back wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy, a far more efficient case than anything you or Mantik ever dreamed up. The misrepresentations are all yours. Here's another quote you can't seem to wrap your mind around: It would seem, also, that there is no room for disagreement with respect to where the missile which impacted on the President's back entered. But, alas, on this score, the disagreement between the writer and the Commission is sharp and goes to the core of the case. Apparently Jim DiEugenio does think there is room for disagreement on the location of the back wound. Whose agenda does that serve, pray tell? The T3 back wound goes to the core of the case, Jim, whether that suits your agenda, or not. Yes, the point being that the back wound was at T3, a fact which destroys the single bullet scenario and excuses us from any need for further bloviating on the subject by self-elected experts.

Here's the important part you missed:

Split hairs much, Jim? Salandria cited the 3 SS guys and combined their testimony with the clothing evidence and thus debunked the SBT. Bingo! Yes, once we establish the T3 back wound several important questions are raised. But the T3-back-wound/fact-of-conspiracy is clearly established first by Salandria. Note the order of established fact -- first the T3 back wound, then the throat entrance wound.

As anyone who has read my posts on this thread can see, I'm arguing for the T3 back wound indicated by the clothing holes and the witness testimony. The fact of the T3 back wound goes to the core of the case. By separating the hard physical evidence -- the clothing holes -- from the witness testimony, you do dis-service to Salandria's argument. To say the least. The subject is the T3 back wound. The clothing holes are the most direct evidence of such. Any attempt to separate the clothing evidence from the T3 back wound is nothing but rhetorical vapor. Yes, for any well-grounded researcher the fact of conspiracy is a subtext to their analyses, not the context. The context is USG complicity in the murder and cover-up. You've got nothin'. Salandria clearly describes the T3 back wound as going "to the core of the case," your vaporous non-arguments to the contrary. And his work in late-1966 involved only the clothing evidence as a rebuttal to the SBT. Of course you're done with it. When all you can argue is word counts -- instead of what the words actually say -- you don't have any business in this discussion, frankly.

Same thing. No difference between the clothing evidence and the low back wound. Exact. Same. Thing. I ignore nothing. The testimony of the witnesses and the clothing defects are perfectly consistent with a T3 back wound. No, from Bennett's testimony Salandria goes to the clothing evidence to establish the T3 back wound. You're separating the clothing evidence from the witness testimony of the T3 back wound, which is absurd. Salandria clearly cites the two in conjunction. What part of this can't you follow, Jim? That's not the point. It's what Salandria says about the T3 back wound going to "the core of the case" where the significance of this evidence is clearly outlined.

No, he clearly describes the back wound evidence -- 3 SS SA testimonies + the clothing evidence -- as that which "goes to the core of the case." Ask the man. Surely you have contact information. Ask Vincent Salandria what's the single most efficient argument against the SBT. Go ahead, Jim. Make my day. An egregious mis-statement of fact. Any objective person understands what "goes to the core of the case" means. You don't want to get called on your myriad mis-statements of fact. Can't say I blame you.

Of course. You make claims you can't back up, so you bail. Typical of those who attempt to obfuscate the prima facie case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The T3 back wound and the clothing evidence are the same thing. You read Salandria with zero comprehension.

Mike, by all means. Fire away.

My usual burgundy

And the 3 of us appear to be in the minority on this issue. I think this is due to the fascinating details of the assassination and the vagaries of human nature: people don't want to hear that there was an open and shut case for conspiracy back in 64/65 because then they can't play the "Let's Prove Conspiracy!" parlor game with the same gusto. I've enjoyed it thoroughly, Mike! I think all our discussions are great! But I'm not discussing the throat wound evidence (the water soluble rounds) as a "proof of conspiracy." The only "proof of conspiracy" I ever discuss is the T3 back wound. After that its a matter of building a case against specific suspects for specific crimes. For instance, the provenance of CE 399 is an important topic because it sheds light on criminal activity in a government bureau, not because it debunks the SBT. CE399 tells us nothing about how JFK was killed, but tells us a lot about how the crime was covered-up. There are a lot of topics that are matters of the cover-up, not the killing, such as the head wounds evidence and Z-alteration. There is no point in discussing these topics as "proof of conspiracy" since the subject has already been settled, but they are important issues relating to obstruction of justice on the part of USG employees. Your kinds words are deeply appreciated, Mike. Discussing the case with you is never a waste of time! I only micro-analyze USG complicity in the matter, and we can do that any time!

That's a hoot! So the case Salandria presents in his early articles didn't destroy the SBT on the basis of the evidence? We can have that debate any time, Jim. I would love to see you say that to Vincent Salandria's face, that the evidence he cited -- the testimony of 3 Secret Service SAs and the clothing evidence -- doesn't demolish the SBT as a matter of fact. I would love to see you tell Salandria, the son of a tailor, that the clothing evidence is not dispositive. The burden of proof is on YOU -- show us how custom-made shirts ride up multiple inches by waving your arm. Show us how it's possible for multiple inches of jacket fabric, multiple inches of shirt fabric, and JFK's jacket collar to have all occupied the same physical space at the same time. If this is not possible, the SBT is prima facie demolished and we can skip the rest of the Rabbit Hole Tour. I mean no objective person can mistake Salandria's identification of the T3 back wound as evidence "that goes to the core of the case." How this can be mistaken or misconstrued is beyond me.

Jim, how much space a topic takes up is not an accurate measurement of the topic's significance. Such would be a reflection of a topic's complexity, not its significance. I choose to be a Johnny-One-Note when it comes to the SBT because that is all it takes to destroy it. If you refer to re-invent the wheel every few years, go for it. But don't claim that yours is the first to roll. I prefer to bludgeon people to death with the facts. It really isn't "death," it only feels that way when one is presented with simple, inconvenient facts they cannot refute. And the fact is that Salandria clearly referred to the location of the back wound as evidence that "goes to the core of the case." So now the T3 back wound is not a major piece of evidence according to Salandria? Wow! I guess he was just kidding when he wrote this, Jim? It would seem, also, that there is no room for disagreement with respect to where the missile which impacted on the President's back entered. But, alas, on this score, the disagreement between the writer and the Commission is sharp and goes to the core of the case. What part of "goes to the core of the case" is unclear to you, Jim?

Lamson Routed: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&view=findpost&p=230357