Cliff Varnell

...And Micky and Minnie would be knocking back virgin daquiris at the Havana Disneyland...

Like a tube of toothpaste? C'mon... Pat Speer wrote: > I know this is your passion, Cliff. And I know you've read my presentation. > You even sent me a congratulations on my use of the clothing to show the > silliness of the single bullet theory. You have since re-written that article, Pat, it's sad to say. You went from an out-and-out dismissal of "Bunch Theory" to an embrace of its possiblity. Very disappointing. Now you tell us you agree with "Bunch Theory." Lay down with dogs you get fleas, my friend. > Now, for some reason, you choose to think that everyone who refuses to believe > that the autopsy photos are fake is your enemy. That's "autopsy photo," singular. I cite only the Fox 5 photo, which the HSCA singled out as "more confusing than informative," "obviously deficient as scientific evidence," probably inadmissable, etc. And I don't regard you as an enemy, I just don't regard us as on the same side. A back wound at T3 is prima facie evidence of conspiracy. T1 is not. > Whatever. I wrote about this on another thread. This kind of in-fighting is precisely > why the CT community is looked at with disfavor by the public at large. I don't see you shying away from contentious debate on issues you feel strongly about. Why should I? Besides, the public at large agrees with the WC critics, always have. It's the liars-for-hire in the media who paint WC critics as loons, but the public pays them no notice that I can tell. > As far as McAdams and Rahn, since when do they know SQUAT about the medical > evidence? They CHOOSE to believe in the SBT for religious reasons, which is no > reason at all. In my presentation, I completely discredit Robert Artwohl's work, featured > on McAdams' site as strong evidence for the SBT. (You even gave me a tip on how to do > this more convincingly, by using the collar as a ruler...Artwohl uses a completely bogus > measurement of Kennedy's ear.) In the presentation, I also discredit the incorrect > conclusions of Rahn's NAA guru Vincent Guinn, and show how Guinn came to the exact > opposite conclusion he should have. I know you are a critic of the SBT, Pat, but you argue for it as much as against it, with this "high back wound" nonsense. Look, I can demonstrate to a four-year old the impossibility of your "Bunch Theory," as even a pre-schooler can understand that solid objects do not occupy the same physical space at the same time. But can you explain Guinn's work to a four year old? My point is that you eschew the easily proven facts in favor of the more complex and difficult rebuttals, and you mis-state the facts of the case in the process. > An entrance at T1 is too low for the SBT to work without the bullet's having deflected > upwards, and then down again. There is no evidence it did this. There is no evidence > it transitted the neck. I've studied this in more detail than anyone else I know. > High-speed gunshot wounds are very messy. The trachea is one of the tissues most > susceptible to cavitation. The first rib was in the way. Have you noticed how Mr. DVP > and Mr. Zimmerman etc, shy away when you ask them how the bullet transitted > the neck..."Oh well we can't really say, blah blah blah.".. it's because they have NO > idea...they just accept it as an article of faith in their LN religion. And the "high back wound" is another article of faith that posits mass hallucinations at Parkland and Bethesda, and a movement of JFK's clothing that is impossible to replicate. But you've included this bizarre claim into YOUR religion...you just sit a different pew in the Church of Obfuscation, as far as I'm concerned. > As far as Burkley, you conveniently forget that he signed off on the face sheet, > which had the 14 cm measurements. The dot on the diagram was recorded with a pencil. Burkley signed off on the face sheet as "verified" in pencil, according to proper autopsy protocol. The "14cm" measurement was written in PEN -- a violation of autopsy protocol. Burkley signed off on the diagram, not the mastoid measurement. Pat, face it: there is not one shred of un-compromised evidence for this "high back wound," which you defend so vigorously. > As far as your complaint about the measurement from the mastoid, that's something > that Weisberg or Lane picked up on and harped to death. For good reason. In the final autopsy report Humes first placed the wound just above the upper border of the shoulder-blade, a location consistent with T2, not T1 or higher. The "14cm" measurement was not taken or recorded according to autopsy protocol, and yet you insist its the strongest evidence in the case. Go figure. > It is a TOTAL red herring. People were so obsessed with "but they shouldn't have > measured from the back of the head, waaaaaa" that they missed that for Humes' > measurements to have been used on the Rydberg drawings, as testified, Kennedy > would have to have had a skull 50% bigger than others. Humes' measurements could > have been used to impeach his own testimony; instead people got stuck on "the head > moves...how can you measure form the head? The Clark Panel and HSCA FPP, by the > way, ALSO measured from the mastoid. Hmmm. Humes' real error, it seems, was in > NOT measuring from the spine. Humes was ordered to make the facts fit the LN scenario, and he did as ordered. (Cue the Joe Pesci clip -- "Don't you GET it??") > Which brings us back to the face sheet... LOOK at the face sheet. Where is the > wound in comparison to the shoulder? Just a little below, right? Where is the wound > on the autopsy photo? Just a little below. I disagree most strenuously... The upper border of the scapula is visible in Fox 5, just to the right of the lower marking I cited in an earlier post. The alleged T1 wound is well above the upper border of the shoulder-blade, and thus inconsistent with the first description in the autopsy report. How can you embrace the measurement from the mastoid but ignore the placement of the wound in proximity to the shoulder-blade? The two are not consistent, thus diminishing the evidentiary value of the measurement from the mastoid, which didn't have much value to start with. > There is every reason to believe that the imprecise body shape on the face sheet is the > root of much of the confusion. No, that these military men were ordered to mis-represent the evidence is the root of the confusion. > Boswell marked it based on the shoulder. Later, in 1966, when it was pointed out > to him that this put the wound way down the back, he lifted it up onto the neck. In 1964 it was Humes, Specter and Ford who lifted it up to the neck. And today, at this late date, there are a significant number of "CTs" who insist on the validity of this obvious deceit... > When testifying before the ARRB he even admitted that his logic was "well, we know > the bullet headed down within the body, and it exited the throat, so it must have entered > up higher." In other words, he had no clear memory of where the bullet entered. And > neither did anyone else... Wrong! Many people have expressed a very clear memory of the location of the back wound. Ebersole, Boyers, Sibert, Kellerman, Greer, O'Neill, Hill, Bowron, Rudnicki, Reibe, Jenkins all recalled with consistency the lower location of the JFK back wound. I'm suprised that you haven't seen this in your studies, Pat. > which is why they take pictures of these things. And which is why pictures at an autopsy are produced according to a certain protocol, which the Fox 5 photo somehow avoided. > The back wound photo, by the way, was taken by John Stringer. While he > expressed doubt about the brain photos, he never expressed any doubt that > he'd taken the back wound photos, as far as I recall. I trust you'll correct me > if I'm mistaken. From John Stringer's ARRB testimony of June 16, 1996: (quote on) Q: I'd like to turn now to the autopsy of President Kennedy and ask some questions about that. As you're sitting here today, do you recall whether you took any black and white photographs at the autopsy? A: To tell you the truth, I don't remember. (quote off)

But this 4-inches of bunched fabric is NOT visible in any of the motorcade photos. So I guess the mystery is why you think there's something there when you can't even point it out. What "simple idea"? What you are describing seems beyond any known physics. What you are describing is not present in any of the photographs of John F. Kennedy. Do you realize that "Bunch Theory" is a corollary of the Single Bullet Theory? Don't blame me because you choose to use the language of obfuscation perfected by Specter & Co. Fair enough. Don't you have to take into account what is *possible*? You couldn't replicate this "bunch" notion of yours using both hands to pull on the clothing fabric.

From the ARRB deposition of former FBI SA James W. Sibert, co-author of the FBI autopsy report: (quote on, emphasis added) Jeremy Gunn: So, now, based upon what you know from what you observed at the autopsy, do you have any assessment on what happened on November 22nd in Dealey Plaza? James Sibert: Let me say this. And I've said this before. I won't go so far as to say there was a conspiracy, but I have always had trouble assimilating the single-bullet theory. Seeing where the back wound was, an eyewitness there--12 inches from it, seeing them probe that. And from what I understand, the bullet holes both in the shirt and coat match the bullet wound in the back and with the first location that Humes gave us. And, of course, they tried to say that if he raised his arm up--But if you raise your arm up, you're not going to raise your shirt. It's pinned in there with your belt. Plus the fact that the President wore a back brace, I understand, that was pretty tight, too, WHICH WOULD HELP TO HOLD DOWN THE SHIRT. And so, I've always had trouble with the single bullet or "magic" bullet theory. (quote off) Contrary to your Magic Back Brace claims, John, the back brace would have helped keep the shirt tail nice and snug in JFK's belted trousers. JFK wore European style suits, a slimmer cut. His tucked-in dress shirt had no more than 3/4" of slack, enough to allow him to move comfortably and look good -- the ideal for any well fit clothing.

John, those are very small diagonal blood patterns you are pointing out. Your theory requires a very large HORIZONTAL fold in the shirt, which obviously isn't there. You're claiming that JFK constantly had 4 inches of clothing bunched up at the base of his neck due to the mysterious action of his Magic Back Brace... Absurd. Please show me ONE photo of JFK at ANY time of his life where this impeccably tailored dude had 4 inches of clothing bunched up around his neck. The lengths peope go to to agree with the WC amazes me!

Please cite where the back brace was washed. Please explain how blood flows "guided by cloth in the form of shirt creases" without having a heavier flow in the crease "trough" of the cloth. There are NO creases in the shirt between the bullet hole and the bottom of the collar. I can't imagine anything more obvious. If you disagree, please point out where this 2-inch fold existed between the bullet hole and the bottom of the collar. And please, can you point out to me where 4 inches of JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up in any of the Dealey Plaza motorcade films/photos? Chad Zimmer could only identify 1-inch of jacket elevation BEFORE the jacket collar dropped. The shirt and jacket had to move in tandem (or not move, as is the actual case), how do you conclude the jacket was pushed up two inches by the back brace even though the motorcade photos show the jacket dropped an inch?

Not only do we have a Magic Back Brace, we have Magic Blood. According to your theory, there was a two-inch fold in the shirt, but JFK's Magic Blood avoided not only the "trough" of this alleged fold, it avoided the back brace altogether. No blood on the back brace, John. Splatter paint on a two inch fabric fold and see what kind of splatter pattern you get. It won't look anything like the blood pattern on JFK's shirt.

No way! It was wrapped in ace bandages in a figure-8 around his waist and upper thighs. John, look at the blood splatter pattern above the bullet hole in the shirt. According to "Bunch Theory" there was a two-inch fold in JFK's shirt, and yet the blood below the bottom of the collar was fairly evenly spread. Why didn't the blood collect in the "trough" of the fold, John? And explain how this Magic Back Brace caused his jacket to move almost exactly in tandem with his shirt. And, again, please point out the 4" of bunched up fabric in Betzner #3. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

The brace was wrapped tightly around his waist. I'm not aware that JFK's waist was chest high...

Like a tube of toothpaste? C'mon...

John, the back brace was around his waist. It had no bearing on his jacket. The case I make is incredibly simple. Here's JFK at Love Field: Note the following in the above: 1) The bottom of the jacket collar rested at the base of his neck. 2) 1/2" of shirt collar was exposed above the jacket collar. 3) The top of the shirt collar was about an inch below the hairline. Fast forward to Houston St. Note the postion of JFK's jacket collar in the above. The shirt collar is not visible, but the jacket collar didn't elevate into the hairline. The jacket collar was elevated about an inch in this photo. LNer hero Chad Zimmerman concurred with this analysis. Now get a good look at JFK at Z186: http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg Hit the enlarge on this and you'll see...the jacket collar dropped! How could the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck if there were 4 inches of bunched up clothing fabric at the base of his neck? Salandria, Fonzi and Weisberg all pointed to the clothing evidence as definitive 40 years ago! And a significant portion of the JFJK research community remains oblivious to this? That's a true measure of the success of the cover-up of Kennedy's murder.

Pat responds: > Cliff, you know we're on the same side here. Pat, I feel so strongly about this issue that I have to insist we are NOT on the same side. I respect your energy and your writing talent, Pat, but generally I hold the T1-CT position in utmost contempt, to be brutally honest. I have more respect for the LN -- they HAVE to move JFK's back wound up to the base of the neck. You don't. > Tell me, is there any way, in your opinion, a wound at T3 could appear to be as > high on the back as the back wound seen in the autopsy photo? Bethesda photo tech Floyd Reibe stated that the artifact to the lower left of the "back wound" was the the actual Kennedy wound location. Note that that lower-left artifact appears to be just below the upper margin of the scapula, just to the right of the spine -- consistent with all the other evidence. The fakery in the above photo was a bit sloppy, since they added a "back wound" with an abrasion collar consistent with a bullet striking on an upward trajectory. Since you buy into Fox 5 as genuine, care to tell us how the bullet entered on an upward trajectory? Care to tell us where that large occipital-parietal head wound is in that photo? Care to tell us who developed the photo? Care to tell us who shot the photo? > Please recreate it if so. It is *possible* that a photo can be faked. You've embraced this notion yourself, at least recently. But it's unthinkable to believe a dozen trained observers all shared the same hallucination. Just what was it about JFK's wounds that caused anyone who set their eyes on them to suffer the exact same delusional episode? And, most importantly, it is flat-out physically impossible for JFK's clothing to have behaved in a manner required by your theory. Since we're getting into recreations, please recreate the movement of clothing required by your theory. You need 2 inches of jacket and 2 inches of tucked-in custom made dress shirt elevated in tandem entirely above T1 at the base of JFK's neck but entirely below the jacket collar at the base of JFK's neck. You couldn't replicate this using both hands to pull! Chad Zimmerman couldn't do it without pushing the jacket collar up into the hairline. Why? Because two disparate, solid objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. Your 4 inches of bunched up fabric cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time as the jacket collar. > If the autopsy photo was faked, on the other hand, why wouldn't it have been faked > to match the Rydberg drawings, which the HSCA FPP admitted showed a wound two > inches higher than the wound on the photo? Why tell two GIANT lies that don't even > support each other? They did exactly that with the autopsy report, citing two different wound locations, neither of which was accurate. They pulled the same trick with the autopsy face sheet, and recorded two different wound locations. And apparently they did that with the Fox 5 autopsy photo, if Reibe is to be believed. > You know that my whole approach to the wounds is to accept the photos and see what > they show. Why would you accept an improperly produced photo of poor quality and suspect authenticity over the physical evidence of the clothing, the contemporaneous documents, and the consistent corroboration of over a dozen witnesses? This flat-out boggles my mind... > The back wound photo shows a wound too low on Kennedy's body to support the SBT. That's not what LNers say. In order to debunk them you need to fall back on evidence no where near as strong as the evidence of the T3 back wound. Why buy into the lies of Humes and Specter, Pat? I don't get it... > To argue that the evidence, the measurements and the photo, To you "the evidence" consists of an autopsy photo you don't know who developed, which is of such poor quality it's "difficult or impossible" to accurately locate the wound, and which contains an alleged abrasion collar inconsistent with any possible shooting scenario. The "14cm" measurement you cite was taken from a moveable cranial landmark to an indistinct posterior location -- absolutely in violation of autopsy protocol, and common sense. > should be abandoned in > favor of a few selected quotes by people who never measured the wounds is to play into > the hands of the LNers, in my opinion. A dozen witness statements constitute "a few selected quotes"? What a bizarre characterization! The Death Certificate was signed off as "verified," the low wound location on the autopsy face sheet was signed off as "verified." All of this is heavily corroborated by the physical evidence and eye-witness statements. Now, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Here's Betzner #3 at Z186. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg Hit the enlarge. Now, point out to us where in this photo there's 4 inches of bunched up clothing. You've got two inches of jacket fabric and two inches of shirt fabric elevated entirely above T1 -- where is the 2-inch horizontal jacket fold your theory REQUIRES in this photo, Pat? Enlighten us. > If you argue that so-and-so who saw the back wound for a split second said such and such, A split second? I was under the impression that the autopsy lasted longer than a split second. Kellerman, Sibert, O'Neill, Burkley, Bowron, Jenkins and the rest spent considerable time with the body, and had more than ample opportunity to get a real good look at the back wound. The only person who saw the wound for a split second was SS SA Glen Bennett -- and he nailed the location of the back wound accurately to within 1/8 of an inch, judging from the clothing holes. > and they say so and so who MEASURED the back wound and TOOK this picture said such and > such, GUESS WHO most people are gonna believe? Who took the Fox 5 photo, Pat? Do you know? Does it make sense to you to measure a wound in the back using a moveable landmark in the head? > Guess who is gonna be painted as a wacko? Anyone who claims that two disparate, solid objects can occupy the same physical space at the same time is either uninformed or intellectually dishonest. > Since the autopsy photos can be used to show there was a conspiracy, John McAdams and Ken Rahn argue otherwise. When the fact of the T3 back wound is shoved in their faces, they clam up. > I suggest we use them. A lie is a lie. I suggest you stop passing them.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Burkley did a thorough inspection of Kennedy's wounds. It seems likely his "third thoracic vertebrae" was the position he saw marked on the face sheet. But, as stated, it makes little difference. Whether at the level of T3 or T1, the wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory. Burkley got a prolonged view of the back wound at Bethesda. More than a dozen people saw the back wound in the vicinity of T3. Mass hallucination, Pat?

Pat, I see a dichotomy within the JFK research community, but it isn't between "CTs" and "LNers." The dichotomy I see is this: 1) There are those of us who grasp the fact that JFK's back wound was at T3 or lower. 2) And there are those who don't. A LNer *must* move JFK's back wound from T3 to T1 or higher. It's either that or they stop being LNers. Dr. John McAdams and Dr. Kenneth Rahn argue that a T1 back wound works for the SBT, requiring you to use weaker evidence to rebut them. So the motivation to move JFK's proven T3 back wound up to the base of the neck is understandable for an LNer, but it's a mystery to me why any CT would concede to the very heart of the cover-up of JFK's murder. You read BREACH OF TRUST, Pat, can't you recognize this "high back wound" nonsense as obviously part of the cover-up? Why on earth would any CT insist on JFK's back wound being significantly higher than it actually was? To wit... You wrote: > Cliff, the HSCA FPP made many mistakes. They confirmed the high entrance on the back > of Kennedy's head, for example. But in their analysis of the wound locations, they were > pretty much dead on. Their analysis of the BOH Fox 5 photo lead them to conclude that that photo was "difficult or impossible" to use for the purpose of locating the back wound; they also dismissed it as "more confusing than informative," "obviously deficient as scientific evidence"; possibly prima facie inadmissable in court; and of such poor quality that nothing in it identified it as a Kennedy autopsy photo (HSCA Vol 7). That's your *primary* evidence, Pat? > The 14cm measurement by Humes and my own analysis of the photo, using anatomy > books, (horrors) , confirms that the wound is on the level of T1. So, according to Pat Speer, the primary evidence of the back wound is this: 1) The measurement of a back wound taken from a movable landmark in the head -- in violation of autopsy protocol. 2) Pat Speer's analysis of an improperly produced autopsy photo of poor quality and unestablished authenticity. Humes and Speer confirm the location of JFK's back wound at T1, according to Speer. And on the other side of the issue we have the back wound at T3, which is consistent with: 1) The holes in the clothes, and the Dealey Plaza films and photos that show JFK's jacket dropped an inch right before he was shot. This evidence stands alone to establish the back wound at T3. 2) The Death Certificate, which was signed off as "verified," described the wound as being "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. 3) The autopsy face sheet diagram shows the back wound a bit below T3. This was filled out in pencil and signed off -- in pencil -- as "verified," by Admiral Burkley, all according to autopsy protocol. The "14cm" measurement on the face sheet -- which you cite as the strongest of evidence -- was recorded in pen, not pencil, another violation of autopsy protocol. 4) The FBI autopsy report put the back wound "below the shoulder," the first location that Humes gave the FBI men Sibert & O'Neill during the autopsy. 5) The final autopsy report as published on page 540 of the Warren Commission Report reads as follows: (quote on) Situated in the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper margin of the scapula there is a 7 X 4 millimeter oval wound. The wound is measured to be 14cm from the right acromion process and 14cm below the right mastoid process. (quote off) The first description is consistent with a wound at T2, and uses a thoracic landmark to locate the wound. The "14cm" measurement is from a movable cranial landmark, rendering it worthless as forensic evidence, (BREACH OF TRUST, pg 178.) 6) Dr. John Ebersole assisted 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) 7) Autopsy attendee Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda in 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) T3 lies just below the upper border of the scapula: http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif 8) FBI Special Agents Sibert & O'Neill drew wound diagrams for the HSCA that confirm the low back wound: http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif 9) Secret Service SA Glen Bennett testified: (quote on) I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder. (quote off) This is consistent with the holes in the clothes, 4 inches below the bottom of the clothing collars. 10) SS SA Clint Hill testifed: (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) This is consistent with the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket. The bullet defect in the shirt is almost 6 inches below the top of the shirt collar. 11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron is the only person to get a good look at both JFK's throat wound and back wound, and she told Harrison Livingstone that the back wound was "lower on the back" than the one shown in the Fox 5 autopsy photo. (KILLING THE TRUTH pg 188) 12) Autopsy photo tech Floyd Reibe also told Livingstone that the back wound was below the one shown in the Fox 5 autopsy photo (KTT pg 721.) 13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column." (KTT pg 720) 14) Bethesda lab assisstant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (HIGH TREASON 2, pg 206) 15) Bethesda lab tech James Curtis Jenkins graphically described the low, non-transiting wound to David Lifton (BEST EVIDENCE pg. 713) (quote on, emphasis added) 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) According to your theory, Pat, Jenkins suffered an amazingly detailed and graphic hallucination. Do I need to go on? > A bullet entering at T1 on a 17 degree descent would not exit from a man's throat unless > it was deflected by bone. Why hypothesize about something that clearly did not happen? All you're doing, Pat, is repeating talking points central to the cover-up, albeit unwittingly and with the best of intentions. > If it was deflected by bone the bullet would almost certainly have suffered more damage > than CE399. You hang out with John Hunt too much. Instead of impeaching the SBT on evidence a four year old could grasp, you guys want to concede the "high back wound" and argue the case on far more complex -- and thus weaker -- evidence. > The only way for this trajectory to work, therefore, is for the SBTheorist to assert that > Kennedy was leaning forward when hit. The Zapruder film pretty much rules that out... So you eschew iron-clad evidence of a wound at T3 to argue for a photo interpretation that "pretty much" rules out the SBT? Why pursue such a weak argument when the fact of the T3 back wound is irrefutable? > people don't lean forward for 1/3 of a second or so and then straighten up for no > reason. People like DVP who go on and on about "what are the odds" and "where > is the evidence" know that they'd look pretty foolish to insist that the ONE split second > Kennedy was obscured in the Zapruder film was the ONE split second Kennedy decided > to lean forward as rapidly as possible. "Pretty foolish"? Your theory posits 4 inches of JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up entirely above T1 at the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the jacket collar -- at the base of JFK's neck. That's not "pretty foolish" -- it's an egregious absurdity. > You let them off the hook when you start arguing that the wound was at T3. How does citing a well-corrborated fact "let them off the hook"? I'm NOT letting YOU off the hook for this travesty of logic you so glibly posit. > You allow them to argue whether the wound was at T1 or T3, when it really doesn't > matter much, as both are too low on Kennedy's back to support their WEAK theory. It matters a great deal that researchers use the actual evidence and not repeat the wholly fabricated talking points of the cover-up. > (Any theory whose proponents refuse to identify what comprises their theory, such as > how the bullet passed throught the president without striking bone, is a weak theory, > in my opinion.) Because you cannot identify 4 inches of bunched clothing fabric in any of the Dealey Plaza motorcade photos, your T1 entry theory is less than merely WEAK, it's demonstrably impossible. > On an earlier post, you mentioned our old friend Dr. Zimmerman. Any idea why his > website has been taken down? Did he get tired of our using his work defending the SBT, > to debunk it? I hate to say this Pat, but since Chad puts the wound at C7/T1, and you put the wound at T1, I put you and Chad (and John Hunt) on the same team.

Annti's opinions do not erase the fact that the HSCA questioned the authenticity of the Fox 5 photo, and your other photo doesn't show the back wound. The trajectory you present is an obvious fiction. The back wound isn't visible in one of the photos -- open your eyes Von Pein. The other photo was not produced according to autopsy protocol, was declared "obviously deficient as scientific evidence," "more confusing than informative," etc. (see quotes from HSCA Vol 7 earlier in this thread.) There is not one uncompromised piece of evidence for a wound higher than T3.

No. The back wound and the throat wound were at best at the same level. Add to this the downward angle of the bullet and you have an "impossible bullet theory" a la Arlen Specter. I'm afraid Pat Speer is right about the wounds. The picture you posted contains an arbitrary line drawn to help promote a fantasy. The key problem remains: a bullet on a downward path, on a left to right trajectory, will not become a bullet on an upward right to left trajectory or anything else of the sort. It defies all logic. Antti -- JFK's back wound was almost 2 inches to the right of his spine -- the autopsy photo Von Pein cites for comparison is LEFT PROFILE. The back wound is NOT visible. Von Pein is manufacturing evidence again. And no, Pat Speer is wrong about the location of the back wound. The clothing holes, six federal agents, more than a half-dozen medical personnel, and three contemporaneous documents (two marked "verified) place the wound at T3, or LOWER. A "T1 back wound" is a myth, and why any CT would push this pernicious nonsense is beyond me.

Point taken. And very well-stated, Pat. I agree with you on this point. Sorry if I got testy before. I don't think he was "lying", Pat. The phrase "with the help of the measurements" is still rather non-exacting...and doesn't prove much of anything one way or another. And the Rydberg drawing is certainly non-exacting (in that it's NOT REALLY THE VICTIM IN THE DRAWING). Those damn drawings have caused way more harm than good, IMO. They should have never been created. They've just caused confusion and (like most everything else) have merely given the CTers something else to latch onto. It's also interesting to note that many CTers seemingly can't make up their minds as to WHAT Dr. Humes was. He's lying one minute; and yet the next minute he's saying stuff that via a conspiracy & "cover-up" operation he would have probably been very smart to keep his yap shut about (e.g., burning stuff in fireplaces and probing wounds that have no apparent exits and that have "45 to 60-degree" downward angles to them). That stuff can't be good for the overall "plot", can it? So why did he ever say these things? Either Humes is a xxxx or he isn't. Which do you want to pick? Or would some CTers rather just be wishy-washy about this and have Dr. Humes swing both ways? It's an interesting "double standard", if you ask me. First of all, Humes was a military man acting under orders. Secondly, it was Humes who swung both ways on the location of the back wound, after all. The Final Autopsy Report describes a wound in two different locations: "upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula," consistent with T2; and "14cm below the mastoid process," consistent with C7. The Autopsy face sheet also records two wound locations -- the dot properly recorded in pencil and signed off as "verified" by Adm Burkley shows a wound at T3 or lower, and then the same "14cm from the mastoid" measurements recorded in pen. Two official medical documents, both "officially" recording different locations. The Fox 5 autopsy photo is in even worse shape as a piece of evidence, especially since Saundra Kay Spencer broke the chain of possession with her ARRB testimony (see recent thread on this Forum.) Although the HSCA concluded the wound was located at C7/T1, Vol. 7 of the HSCA findings dismiss Fox 5 as "difficult or impossible" to use for the purpose of locating the wound. There isn't a single piece of uncompromised evidence for this silly "back-wound- at-the-back-of-the-neck" fantasy of Bugliosi & Co.

Mr. Purvis apparently feels entitled to his own set of facts. Mr. Purvis has claimed on ths Forum that there was a fracture in the tip of the transverse process of JFK's seventh cervical vertebra (C7). Mr. Purvis knows that the SBT doesn't work with an inshoot lower than C7, so he made up this "fact" of C7-level damage to conform with his pet theory. From HSCA Exhibit F-32, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays": http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/hsca/davis.txt (quote on) There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. (quote off) Mr. Purvis has also cited the Official Autopsy Report as evidence of a C7 "back wound" (??) ignoring the Autopsy Report's description of the wound as: (quote on) Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 X 4 millimeter oval wound. (quote off) As this diagram shows, the described location is consistent with T2. http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif

One cannot guarantee such a single shot and that is why I don't believe rthat anyone first shot with the sole purpose of renedering the President paralyzed so the next shot could kill him. Bill Miller I don't follow you. How could the plotters not consider the possibility that a non-fatal round would inspire the President to hit the deck? The only way to INSURE an easy kill shot is paralyze the target first.

Cliff, had JFK had been paralyzed from a bullet, then he wouldn't have then raised his hands to his mouth and made such a coughing motion. Was he stunned - probably, but he leaned towards his wife for only a few quick seconds, thus he didn't react much differently than anyone else in the limo before having been fatally shot in the head. Bill The M-1 weapons system developed for the Army and the CIA by Charles Senseney delivered paralytic rounds that acted in two seconds. I argue a strike at JFK's throat at Z199 -- his arms were up within two seconds, and he acted paralyzed thereafter until the head shot.

I agree with you on this one, David. If one shot could have been fired to fatally hit the President, then it would have been done in that way. There wouldn't then have been a bullet seen sparking off the street, no bullet would have hit the curb by Tague, no flurry of shots would have been reported by Kellerman to have come into the car at the time of the fatal shot to the President. Yes, the shooting did not go off in a planned methodical manner. Bill Miller How do you guarantee -- 100% -- a first shot/kill-shot? I think the shooting went off as planned. They didn't care if it looked like a conspiracy -- it was SUPPOSED to look like a conspiracy. A Castro conspiracy.

LOL. Now I know you must be joking here. What a gloriously-inept plot. JFK acted paralyzed in the motorcade. He was an ex-military man hit with a non-fatal round, his training was to hit the deck -- but he didn't. Kellerman testified that Jackie cried out -- "What are they doing to you?" What they did was very effective -- JFK remained paralyzed until the head shot. Gen. Maxwell Taylor was right, in the fall of 1963, when he told top military journalist Richard Starnes that the CIA was ready, willing and able to mount a coup to overthrow the Kennedy Administration. http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html Until you understand the significance of America's top military man telling the country's top military journalist that the CIA was an out of control, rogue Agency -- you're stuck positing the impossible and playing the fool.

They wanted to paralyze him first, fearing that a first-shot/kill-shot was not 100% certain.

Ah....so it's the Pencil vs. Pen Conspiracy now. Boy, you're desperate. That's fairly obvious. Boy, you're dishonest. That's *real* obvious.

Yeah, poor guy. He has to walk around naked every day. Yeah, poor guy wouldn't know a custom made dress shirt from a hole in the ground. How many back wounds have you ever measured (or ever researched as being measured by autopsists)? Not many, I'll bet. How many autopsies had Humes ever conducted -- not any, I bet. Yes, Humes is lying. The ARRB took him to task for using a movable cranial landmark to measure a thoracic wound. What vertebra is 14cm below the mastoid process, Von Pein? You can't tell us, because you don't know. Oh puh-leeeease! Not the "Boswell Dot" thing (again)! Is the "dot" MORE important to you CT people than the WRITTEN-IN ANATOMICAL MEASUREMENTS RIGHT BESIDE THE STICK MAN?? You're losing credibility...fast...with this argument. The dot was recorded in pencil -- according to autopsy protocol. The meaningless measurements from the mastoid were recorded in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol. What is the best evidence, that which was properly recorded, or that which was improperly recorded? Yeah, that's what I figured. You haven't the slightest idea where the bullets went. Must have been Kreskin's handiwork. No other sleight-of-hand genius could have managed that trick. I'm not going to waste my time with you any more than it takes to underscore your inherent dishonesty.