Dr. Costella's smoking gun:

[Bill Miller]

Bill/Barb/Josiah (if he'd deign to respond),

I really can't wade through all the juvenile, name-calling posts that clutter up every thread about film alteration, in search of your views on this, so please answer a simple question for me.

Do each of you believe there was a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, as described so consistently by all the Dallas medical people? If you accept their testimony as true, I assume you don't think the autopsy photos-which show no such huge defect in the back of his head-are genuine. If you do accept them as genuine, how do you explain so many medical professionals making the exact same error?

Again- this is not about film alteration. I'd just like to know your views on this. Thanks.

Don,

This is my view on everything you just said ...

To start with this is a thread on alteration, thus it is my view that seeing how you have asked several people for their views on something that you say isn't about alteration, then a separate thread was in order.

Its also my view that most every post I make in response to an alteration claim is rebutted with evidence to the contrary and that a serious sensible person will easily be able to pluck the usful data being offered from the clutter as you call it.

My view on the autospy photos are that they do not depict the President's head wounds as the witnesses had described them or how the assassination films showed them to be. Does this mean that the autopsy pictures are altered, I cannot say because I do not know what could have been done medically to have maneuvered the scalp so to hide the avulsed hole in the back of JFK's head. It is my view that if the scalp could not have been pulled down over the hole, then the phots are not genuine and DO NOT support the Zapruder and Nix films that show a large avulsion in the occipital region of Kennedy's head. I am certain that such images did exist because Dennis David had seen the photos and film showing this particular wound.

So in my view the assassination films show exactly what the witnesses described seeing. The large bulge on the back of JFK's head when seen in profile is the result of the bones being sprung open. That this bulge was not present before a bullet passed through the President's head. And it is my view that you didn't offer a consideration that the autposy photos showing the back of JFK's head may have been real, but done so in a way so to mask the total damage that was done to Kennedy's head.

It is also my view that you did ask about alteration when you wrote: "If you accept their testimony as true, I assume you don't think the autopsy photos-which show no such huge defect in the back of his head-are genuine."

Bill Miller

Edited April 27, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Bill/Barb/Josiah (if he'd deign to respond),

I really can't wade through all the juvenile, name-calling posts that clutter up every thread about film alteration, in search of your views on this, so please answer a simple question for me.

Do each of you believe there was a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, as described so consistently by all the Dallas medical people? If you accept their testimony as true, I assume you don't think the autopsy photos-which show no such huge defect in the back of his head-are genuine. If you do accept them as genuine, how do you explain so many medical professionals making the exact same error?

Again- this is not about film alteration. I'd just like to know your views on this. Thanks.

Use the ignore button Don. Or better yet why don't you go join Cliff and study that jet black hand of JFK in Bentzer, he seems to need the help understanding tonality in black and white photography. You two are made for each other.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Use the ignore button Don. Or better yet why don't you go join Cliff and study that

jet black hand of JFK in Bentzer, he seems to need the help understanding tonality

in black and white photography. You two are made for each other.

Craig, you'd be well advised to leave Don out of our little game

of whack-a-twit.

All Don has to do -- and has done repeatedly -- is point to the

mountain of corroborating evidence of the T3 back wound and

your silly pseudo-analysis is blown away.

3 properly recorded official documents put the back wound in the

vicinity of the third thoracic vertebra (or lower) -- the Death

Certificate, the autopsy face sheet, and the FBI autopsy report.

Over a dozen witnesses describe the wound in the "low" location

consistent with T3-T4.

Did everyone who witnessed the back wound suffer an identical

hallucination?

Stop. Digging.

[Don Jeffries]

Craig's original reply to me on this thread was a bit nastier, Cliff. Don't know if you saw it. At any rate, I guess he thought better about it and edited it. One thing I would ask Craig; you have stated here several times that you "don't care" who killed JFK. That's a curious stance for someone who spends as much time as you do on this subject to take. I don't know that I've heard anyone say that before. Why would you pay so much attention to something that doesn't matter to you?

Bill- thanks for the reply. It's nice to know that you trust the testimony of all those medical people in Dallas. However, in another thread, you seem to indicate that you think the back wound is located where the autopsy photo shows it is, which is too high for the bullet holes in JFK's clothing and the numerous references that locate it at that lower point (Boswell, Burkley, Sibert & O'Neill, etc.) I'm curious as to why you are willing to consider that the autopsy photos of the back of the head are fraudulent, but appear to believe the photo of the back wound is genuine. Btw, I was not trying to trap you into an alteration corner- I just wanted to know your opinion about the obvious discrepancies between what the doctors and nurses in Dallas saw and what the autopsy photos show.

Still would like Josiah's input on this subject.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig's original reply to me on this thread was a bit nastier, Cliff. Don't know if you saw it. At any rate, I guess he thought better about it and edited it. One thing I would ask Craig; you have stated here several times that you "don't care" who killed JFK. That's a curious stance for someone who spends as much time as you do on this subject to take. I don't know that I've heard anyone say that before. Why would you pay so much attention to something that doesn't matter to you?

Bill- thanks for the reply. It's nice to know that you trust the testimony of all those medical people in Dallas. However, in another thread, you seem to indicate that you think the back wound is located where the autopsy photo shows it is, which is too high for the bullet holes in JFK's clothing and the numerous references that locate it at that lower point (Boswell, Burkley, Sibert & O'Neill, etc.) I'm curious as to why you are willing to consider that the autopsy photos of the back of the head are fraudulent, but appear to believe the photo of the back wound is genuine. Btw, I was not trying to trap you into an alteration corner- I just wanted to know your opinion about the obvious discrepancies between what the doctors and nurses in Dallas saw and what the autopsy photos show.

Still would like Josiah's input on this subject.

You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not.

Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game.

I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime.

That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care.

What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me.

I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them!

On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking"

People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview.

I’ll take reality.

[Cliff Varnell]

Gentle reader, we have the latest installment of Craig Lamson's

"farewell tour" on the back wound debate!

You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not...

... I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few.

I think both the Zapruder film and the moon photos are authentic.

But we can't expect you to be honest about this, can we?

I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them!

On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo.

Like the skin above the top of his shirt collar?

Kennedy was the first black President!

Whowudddathunkit?

Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking"

Here's something fricking amazing:

Varnell:

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his

jacket, similar to image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Lamson:

What is possible however, is that the jacket is bunched BELOW the collar

of the coat and that the shirt collar CAN STILL BE SHOWING.

It is the exact same observation.

But Craig Lamson is so lacking in basic intellectual honesty that he

can't admit it, and so polluted with LN dogma he can't tell the difference

between a fabric bulge (convex, as in the Jefferies film) and a fabric

indentation (concave, as in the Adolphus Hotel photo below).

People have a choice, look at facts,

More than a dozen people who witnessed the back wound describe

it as in the vicinity of T3.

But in Craig Lamson's perverted world view they had to suffer the

same hallucination.

and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about

where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which

destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain

worldview.

I’ll take reality.

Let us know when this begins.

In fact, photograph it, otherwise there's no reason to take your word

for anything.

[Paul Rigby]

Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.)

In true anti-alterationist fashion, you know better than Chaney himself:

In addition to these statements, James A. Chaney, who is a Dallas motorcycle policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on November 24, 1963, as stating that the first shot missed entirely. He said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour, and when the first shot was fired, "I thought it was a backfire", he said. [Cited by Mark Lane, 2WCH43]

Ever thought of running for village idiot?

What, and deprive you of a job? Unthinkable - you're just so entertaining.

The Craig Specter Appreciation Society

Edited April 28, 2009 by Paul Rigby

[Craig Lamson]

Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.)

In true anti-alterationist fashion, you know better than Chaney himself:

In addition to these statements, James A. Chaney, who is a Dallas motorcycle policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on November 24, 1963, as stating that the first shot missed entirely. He said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour, and when the first shot was fired, "I thought it was a backfire", he said. [Cited by Mark Lane, 2WCH43]

Ever thought of running for village idiot?

What, and deprive you of a job? Unthinkable - you're just so entertaining.

The Craig Specter Appreciation Society

Translated from Rigby speak..."I simply don't have a clue why both Zapruder and Altgens are perfectly correct. God, please don’t make me defend my foolish claim’”

What’s the matter Rigby, you can't show us WHY your claim about the Z film is correct? You just expect us to believe you have a clue? How many more days do you need? Not getting much help over there at the Deep Paranoia Forum are you? Maybe you should learn to stay away from things that are simply beyond your limited ability to understand.

You are just another of a very long line of CT's writing photographic interpretation checks their minds can't cash. Talk about entertainment!

Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is, or what tone it is. Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy is a world of hurt.

Not that you would really be much help. After all you can’t figure out angle of view. Not much hope you can progress to something as difficult as how a simple shadow works. ROFLMAO! Hell even Jack White the “legendary” CT photo guru (now there’s humor for you) can’t even understand something as simple as how a shadow works.

Jack White makes a fool of himself by failing to understand how shadows work.

It must be something in the air that only affects CT crazies…seems to be a run on ignorant ct’s making ignorant photographic claims…..

Why not make your case instead of running way? Or is that the best you can do?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Bill/Barb/Josiah (if he'd deign to respond),

I really can't wade through all the juvenile, name-calling posts that clutter up every thread about film alteration, in search of your views on this, so please answer a simple question for me.

Do each of you believe there was a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, as described so consistently by all the Dallas medical people? If you accept their testimony as true, I assume you don't think the autopsy photos-which show no such huge defect in the back of his head-are genuine. If you do accept them as genuine, how do you explain so many medical professionals making the exact same error?

Again- this is not about film alteration. I'd just like to know your views on this. Thanks.

Boo-hoo ... I just replied to this, was looking at it on preview and ---poof!--- it was gone and my page locked up. Sigh. So, one more time ...

I believe I have already replied to you on whether or not I believe the Parkland people on seeing a large avulsive wound on the rear of JFK's head, but I am happy to state it for you again.

I absolutely believe them ... and have vociferously defended them. The LN notion that they couldn't possibly have seen a wound where they described it is utter nonsense, and I demonstrated that in a presentation/exhibition at Lancer in 1999. The treating physicians wrote what they observed in their treatment notes for the medico-legal record that afternoon. Parland administrator Price also asked all personnel who were involved in the goings on that weekend to write out what all they saw, did etc. I have copies of those papers.

If you do an advanced google groups search with my name as author (don't use e address because it changed a few years ago), you will find I shudder to think how many posts from me on the medical evidence ... there must be at least several hundred on the Parkland observations as I have tangled extensively with McAdams and others on that many times over the years.

The only autopsy photo we have that shows the bone damage is F8 ... hotly discussed, nearly impossible to orient. But I expect you are interested in the BOH and back photos here.

We know that photos were taken throughout the night. We also know there was extensive, and effective, reconstruction of the head. We don't know at what particular point many of the photos were taken.

We do know that Humes & Boswell testified to the HSCA FPP that the purpose of the BOH photo was to get a pic of the entry hole in the *scalp* ... and that they noted the scalp was all loose, and they were holding it up over the bone defect that lurked under/behind it. McClelland realized that when he commented on the NOVA show after seeing the autopsy photos that the large wound they had seen at Parkland wasn't visible in the BOH photo as the scalp was being held up obscuring it.

The autopsy photos overall are dismal ... most lacking scalar reference, taken at wonky and undefined angles, with the body in irregular positions, and much of what we have is severely cropped making them even more to difficult to evaluate. We know that at least 3 photos no longer exist in the inventory ... Humes testified to the WC about photos taken of the interior chest, Finck commented on photos he had taken of the entry in the skull from both the inner and outer aspects. The inventory was signed off on anyway a few years later anyway ... something we learned the details about just a few years ago.

I suspect there are other photos that no longer exist in the inventory. I would expect that if someone was going to diddle with the photos, we would have exemplary photos that documented what they wanted seen ... photos that would not raise suspicion because of what they lack. If you're going to fake it ... cripes, do it so there are no questions to be asked or debated. Of course there is also something to be said for the ability of inefficient and cropped photos to muck up the evidence. We've seen that.

Hope this helps.

This time on a wing and a prayer ...

Barb :-)

[Don Jeffries]

Thanks, Barb.

[Don Jeffries]

You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not.

Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game.

I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime.

That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care.

What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me.

I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them!

On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking"

People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview.

I’ll take reality.

Craig,

Why would you have any "true thoughts" about me? I'm a name in cybperspace to you, just as you are to me. I find your arguments predictable and redundant- they're something I've heard many times over the years. Nevertheless, I don't have any "true thoughts" about you. How could I? We don't know each other.

I just find it strange that someone who doesn't care about Kennedy, and professes that he thinks the identities of his assassins are irrelevant, spends so much time arguing about this case. I'm not much of a tennis fan, for instance, but I can't imagine myself spending a significant amount of time haunting tennis forums in order to argue relentlessly over something I couldn't care less about.

Regardless of how you felt about Kennedy, I would suggest that if some of us are right in our contention that a large conspiracy took his life, and that those powerful forces are still covering up the crime some 45 years later, then you should care as much as we do. Such a conspiracy and cover up, implicating some of the most prominent figures in our lifetimes, would make a mockery of our supposed freedom, would it not? Or do you also just not care at all about your country?

[Craig Lamson]

You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not.

Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game.

I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime.

That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care.

What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me.

I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them!

On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking"

People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview.

I’ll take reality.

Craig,

Why would you have any "true thoughts" about me? I'm a name in cybperspace to you, just as you are to me. I find your arguments - they're something I've heard many times over the years. Nevertheless, I don't have any "true thoughts" about you. How could I? We don't know each other.

I just find it strange that someone who doesn't care about Kennedy, and professes that he thinks the identities of his assassins are irrelevant, spends so much time arguing about this case. I'm not much of a tennis fan, for instance, but I can't imagine myself spending a significant amount of time haunting tennis forums in order to argue relentlessly over something I couldn't care less about.

Regardless of how you felt about Kennedy, I would suggest that if some of us are right in our contention that a large conspiracy took his life, and that those powerful forces are still covering up the crime some 45 years later, then you should care as much as we do. Such a conspiracy and cover up, implicating some of the most prominent figures in our lifetimes, would make a mockery of our supposed freedom, would it not? Or do you also just not care at all about your country?

Did you actually pay attention when you read my post Don? Based on your reply it appears not.

My interest is in the PHOTOGRAPHY Don. I find it challenging, rewarding educational and entertaining to study the claims CT’s make about the photography. You claim to want to find the truth, but when you endorse work like Varnell’s you are doing just the opposite. That makes you a hypocrite Don, and it s big part of my true feelings about you.

You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy. It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186. That puts a very different spin on what is the truth and what’s not, don’t you think? You should have paid more attention instead of getting caught up in your worldview.

Let’s get real Don. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you somehow prove that there was a CIA (or whatever) involvement in the death of JFK. What’s it been, 45 years? Do you actually think anyone would really care beyond a few days of news coverage? Do you actually think it would change the fabric of the republic? And it’s a national security issue how? We have bigger fish to fry right now, this is ancient history, and I think you are tilting at windmills.

Now pardon me, I still have CT photographic bubbles to burst.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is,

Why, did the hand move, or is it still immediately to the right

of JFK's head?

Now, let's check with the Zapruder film.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

Yep. JFK's hand is still in that same location, above the top

of the right shoulder, to the immediately right of JFK's head.

Craig might consider a pair of effective eye-wear. Just a suggestion...

or what tone it is.

The same as the skin above his shirt collar on the left side of his neck,

last time I looked.

Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being

a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy

is a world of hurt

You're right, Craig! That fold on the left side of JFK's jacket may

have been four, even five times larger than 1/8 inch!

But any fold smaller than two inches destroys your fantasy, Craig.

Keep digging, buddy. The entertainment value is pure gold.

[Bill Miller]

Bill- thanks for the reply. It's nice to know that you trust the testimony of all those medical people in Dallas. However, in another thread, you seem to indicate that you think the back wound is located where the autopsy photo shows it is, which is too high for the bullet holes in JFK's clothing and the numerous references that locate it at that lower point (Boswell, Burkley, Sibert & O'Neill, etc.) I'm curious as to why you are willing to consider that the autopsy photos of the back of the head are fraudulent, but appear to believe the photo of the back wound is genuine. Btw, I was not trying to trap you into an alteration corner- I just wanted to know your opinion about the obvious discrepancies between what the doctors and nurses in Dallas saw and what the autopsy photos show.

Still would like Josiah's input on this subject.

The reason I don't distrust the location of the hole in JFK's back in the autopsy photos is because its still too low in my view to align with JFK's 'Adams Apple' and Connally's back wound. When JFK was shot in the throat ... he was turned to his immediate right. So I see no reason to have moved the back wound to a place that doesn't support a lone assassin. So they appear to have just repositioned JFK's head turn to match the wound.

The other reason I don't get hung up on this subject is because I have sat down many times in my suit coat and it rides up slightly every time. Lift my arm as high as JFK had his resting on the door, then the coat slides a bit further up the back. So in my view it would be a waste of time for me to involve myself over such nit-picking concerning a hole in the coat in relation to the hole in the back.

Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy.

It has been easy! You consistently slip up and make objective

observations and every time you do, you under-cut your own case.

That's what makes this discussion so entertaining!

It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186.

And yet, there it is, bigger than life -- JFK's shirt collar in Betzner (blue line):