Martin Hay

And yet another thread has been completely hijacked by Cliff Varnell and his same old shtick.

No, Cliff. The dot on the back is presumably a pen mark used to show where 14 cm below the mastoid process was. Are you going to tell me that the dot behind the ear was also used to represent a "purported" wound? No, Martin, the dot behind the ear represents the mastoid landmark and the dot on the back would be a "purported" back wound in this context. No, Cliff. The dot on the back represents a marker for a measurement of 14 cm below the dot behind the ear. Why not just admit your error, Cliff? Your semantic "gotcha!" game here is bizarre. That's just non-responsive. I'm damn sure it can't be the first time you've been wrong. Why can't you admit JFK was shot in the back at T3? Again, non-responsive. The exchange I was having with DVP was not about the location of the back wound, it was about the single "error" he claimed to have found in my review of his book and the fact that it wasn't an error at all. I pointed out in my review that the autopsy doctors failed to record the precise location of the back wound. And I'm underlining this exchange as a textbook case of "pseudo debate" since the location of the back wound is not in doubt. It wasn't a debate, Cliff, "pseudo" or otherwise. It was DVP making an incorrect claim and my correcting him. DVP then claimed that 14 cm below the mastoid was a precise measurement. Which it isn't; and I used those photos to prove it. Fake debate. We have a precise measurement of the back wound -- matches the hole in the shirt. Not a "fake debate", Cliff. I was just making an entirely different point to the one you're (always) making. You hijacked yet another thread to say the same thing you always say. That's what the conversation was about before you performed your usual hijacking and started harping on about your clothing obsession. Focus on the physical evidence in a murder case is "obsession"? The physical evidence that fixes the precise location of a bullet wound in the body would be, well, the body, not the clothing. Unbelievable! Yes, your obsession is quite unbelievable. Only in this case, the murder of John, F. Kennedy, is the physical evidence so thoroughly marginalized. Only in this case do we find people with your level of obsession.

No, Cliff. The dot on the back is presumably a pen mark used to show where 14 cm below the mastoid process was. Are you going to tell me that the dot behind the ear was also used to represent a "purported" wound? Why not just admit your error, Cliff? I'm damn sure it can't be the first time you've been wrong. The exchange I was having with DVP was not about the location of the back wound, it was about the single "error" he claimed to have found in my review of his book and the fact that it wasn't an error at all. I pointed out in my review that the autopsy doctors failed to record the precise location of the back wound. DVP then claimed that 14 cm below the mastoid was a precise measurement. Which it isn't; and I used those photos to prove it. That's what the conversation was about before you performed your usual hijacking and started harping on about your clothing obsession.

Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff? How can you insist that a discussion of the efficacy for determining the location of a back wound not involve a discussion of the location of the back wound? Why aren't you hammering your adversary Von Pein with the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3? Are you going to answer my question, Cliff? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound"? I didn't, did I, Cliff? You just made that up didn't you, Cliff? Having a roiugh day, Martin? Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong. Clearly not as rough as yours, Cliff. Neither of those photos shows "a purported back wound". What they do show is two different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process. Not a "purported back wound" in sight. Ready to admit your error yet, Cliff?

Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff? How can you insist that a discussion of the efficacy for determining the location of a back wound not involve a discussion of the location of the back wound? Why aren't you hammering your adversary Von Pein with the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3? Are you going to answer my question, Cliff? Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound"? I didn't, did I, Cliff? You just made that up didn't you, Cliff?

Where in this exchange have I cited "photos showing a purported back wound", Cliff?

I have been a student of the JFK assassination for around 15 years now. My interest in the case began with watching Oliver Stone's fantastic movie and wanting to know how much of it was actually true. I frequently contribute essays and book reviews to CTKA and my own JFK blog, The Mysteries of Dealey Plaza.

The tangent is all yours. You treat the issue of the back wound as if it were in doubt. You are wrong. That you refer to the physical evidence in this murder case as "same old tangent" is most telling. I like it that you and Von Pein both like to pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist. Oh puh-leaze. No one was even debating the location of the back wound, Cliff. The question at hand was whether or not 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the back. The conversation was restricted solely to that issue until you tried to change it. This is just another instance of you hijacking a thread with your pet theory.

The re is no debate here, Cliff; "pseudo" or otherwise. DVP made a factually incorrect claim and I proved him wrong. Please don't take this off on the same old tangent.

I'm right, David. You're wrong. I can only assume you're feigning amusement to hide your own embarrassment.

GUNN: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity, would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process? FINCK: No. GUNN: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity. FINCK: An immobile body structure is a fixed body landmark. GUNN: Well, for the identification of the location of the wound in the thoracic cavity-- FINCK: Thoracic cavity. GUNN: --is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark? FINCK: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move. GUNN: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say? FINCK: Yes. (Finck ARRB deposition, p. 45) Give it up, David. You've got nothing but hot air.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion..... Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong.

What absolutely ridiculous nonsense you spout, DVP. If Bugliosi proved Oswald's guilt "ten times over " as you laughably claim, then why didn't you follow his lead and include some of that proof in your terrible book? Because, as I demonstrated conclusively in my review, yourself and Mr. Ayton presented absolutely NOTHING which showed Oswald to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all.