Fetzer/White know where the back wound was

[Cliff Varnell]

James Fetzer and Jack White know where JFK's back wound was:

Third Thoracic Vertebra.

Gary Mack, Craig Lamson, and Barb Junkkarinen, however, are all

on record attempting to legitimize John Hunt's uber-fraudulent

"Bunch Theory" -- the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

over 2 inches in near tandem to match the HSCA-SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm

I'm convinced all the Dealey Plaza films and photos are authentic, but I

have to marvel at the spectacle of Bunch Theorists lecturing anyone

about common sense and intellectual honesty.

Here's a tasty bit from Hunt's near-decade-old essay, "The Case for a

Bunched Jacket" -- emphasis mine:

...My research indicates that the difference between the impact point

of a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot

is little more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via

e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned

figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet

finished.

That. Essay. Is. Not. Yet. Finished.

Almost 10 years later, it's still not finished. (I've seen it -- it's a joke!)

Hunt published his conclusions -- to which Mack/Lamson/Junkarrinen

subscribe to one degree or another -- but left out any actual case in

an essay presented as a "Case."

Wow. What common sense intellectual honesty!

And what do we make of Craig Lamson's attempt to illustrate Hunt's

claim that "a distinctly arched shape" of jacket/shirt bunching rode up

above JFK's right shoulder in Betzner #3 (Z186)?

Let's check Z186 (can't imagine why Craig didn't think of this):

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

It's JFK's right hand/forearm -- Hunt/Lamson/Mack call it "the Bunch."

The fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza is far more

obvious than Z-alteration questions.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Z-alteration is an unfortunate foot-note in the case, imo; establishing

the T3 back wound as a fact is central to understanding both the "how"

of the assassination and the "how" of the cover-up.

"Bunch Theory" is a far more egregious violation of intellectual honesty

than Z-alteration.

[Craig Lamson]

James Fetzer and Jack White know where JFK's back wound was:

Third Thoracic Vertebra.

Gary Mack, Craig Lamson, and Barb Junkkarinen, however, are all

on record attempting to legitimize John Hunt's uber-fraudulent

"Bunch Theory" -- the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

over 2 inches in near tandem to match the HSCA-SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm

I'm convinced all the Dealey Plaza films and photos are authentic, but I

have to marvel at the spectacle of Bunch Theorists lecturing anyone

about common sense and intellectual honesty.

Here's a tasty bit from Hunt's near-decade-old essay, "The Case for a

Bunched Jacket" -- emphasis mine:

...My research indicates that the difference between the impact point

of a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot

is little more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via

e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned

figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet

finished.

That. Essay. Is. Not. Yet. Finished.

Almost 10 years later, it's still not finished. (I've seen it -- it's a joke!)

Hunt published his conclusions -- to which Mack/Lamson/Junkarrinen

subscribe to one degree or another -- but left out any actual case in

an essay presented as a "Case."

Wow. What common sense intellectual honesty!

And what do we make of Craig Lamson's attempt to illustrate Hunt's

claim that "a distinctly arched shape" of jacket/shirt bunching rode up

above JFK's right shoulder in Betzner #3 (Z186)?

Let's check Z186 (can't imagine why Craig didn't think of this):

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

It's JFK's right hand/forearm -- Hunt/Lamson/Mack call it "the Bunch."

The fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza is far more

obvious than Z-alteration questions.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Z-alteration is an unfortunate foot-note in the case, imo; establishing

the T3 back wound as a fact is central to understanding both the "how"

of the assassination and the "how" of the cover-up.

"Bunch Theory" is a far more egregious violation of intellectual honesty

than Z-alteration.

Oh for gods sake Cliff, your "the jacket fell" theory is nothing more than poor photo analysis, which is the stndard fare for CT's everywhere. Get over yourself and move on. I know I have. You are a waste of time as is your theory.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Oh for gods sake Cliff, your "the jacket fell" theory is nothing more than

poor photo analysis,

And yet you have failed to provide a counter-analysis to the article

I cited -- "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Again, a presentation of conclusion without making a case.

Such is standard fare for Bunch Theorists.

Let's bump up our 2008 discussion and let folks see first-hand

your degree of intellectual honesty on this issue, Craig.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12303

which is the stndard fare for CT's everywhere.

Glad to see you finally admit you're an LNer.

Get over yourself and move on. I know I have. You are a waste

of time as is your theory.

Let's bump up my argument on the "Present State of the Critical Community"

thread, give you a chance to rebut my best argument.

Craig, you've had hundreds of discussions on the Zapruder film and

what -- two? -- discussions on the Dealey Plaza photo evidence

of the jacket dropping?

You don't have a problem discussing an issue you're correct

about, do you, Craig?

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Oh for gods sake Cliff, your "the jacket fell" theory is nothing more than

poor photo analysis,

And yet you have failed to provide a counter-analysis to the article

I cited -- "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Again, a presentation of conclusion without making a case.

Such is standard fare for Bunch Theorists.

Let's bump up our 2008 discussion and let folks see first-hand

your degree of intellectual honesty on this issue, Craig.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12303

which is the stndard fare for CT's everywhere.

Glad to see you finally admit you're an LNer.

Get over yourself and move on. I know I have. You are a waste

of time as is your theory.

Let's bump up my argument on the "Present State of the Critical Community"

thread, give you a chance to rebut my best argument.

Craig, you've had hundreds of discussions on the Zapruder film and

what -- two? -- discussions on the Dealey Plaza photo evidence

of the jacket dropping?

You don't have a problem discussing an issue you're correct

about, do you, Craig?

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Second you want to claim that you see an arm and a hand and not a jacket bunch, again because of your false claim that a shirt collar showing means a dropped jacket. The problem is your arm and hand ARE BEHIND JFK's head. Thats impossible.

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. Unlike your silly and impossible claim that the object is question is a arm and hand, it IS quite possible that the object in question IS a bunched jacket. The object in question is in the exact position as we see the bunch in other photos, It is the same size and shape. And unlike your silly habd and arm theory it is VERY POSSIBLE. The delicious irony is that Occam's razor makes this the best fit, not the positon you take on your own website, named.....now wait for it....Occam's Razor!

Bottom line is we have too competing theories and neither can be shown to be true beyond any doubt. One...mine, fits all the available photographic evidence and is a near perfect fit. The other, yours, relies on a false construct, a 'magic jacket" and an impossibility. I don't think there is much to contest here.

You have less intellectual honsety than a brick wall. Your mountain of past posts on this subject makes that perfectly clear. You have invested way too much in your position to ever change it, no matter what the evidence. I'm quite comfortable with my position in this matter and people can decide who is correct as they see fit.

As for continuing a discusison with you on the is suibject, no chance in hell. You and the subject matter as simply not worth any additional effort.

BTW, I don't give a hoot who killed JFK.

Give it up Cliff.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

deleted - double post

Edited April 26, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

James Fetzer and Jack White know where JFK's back wound was:

Third Thoracic Vertebra.

Gary Mack, Craig Lamson, and Barb Junkkarinen, however, are all

on record attempting to legitimize John Hunt's uber-fraudulent

"Bunch Theory" -- the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

over 2 inches in near tandem to match the HSCA-SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm

I'm convinced all the Dealey Plaza films and photos are authentic, but I

have to marvel at the spectacle of Bunch Theorists lecturing anyone

about common sense and intellectual honesty.

Here's a tasty bit from Hunt's near-decade-old essay, "The Case for a

Bunched Jacket" -- emphasis mine:

...My research indicates that the difference between the impact point

of a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot

is little more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via

e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned

figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet

finished.

That. Essay. Is. Not. Yet. Finished.

Almost 10 years later, it's still not finished. (I've seen it -- it's a joke!)

Hunt published his conclusions -- to which Mack/Lamson/Junkarrinen

subscribe to one degree or another -- but left out any actual case in

an essay presented as a "Case."

Wow. What common sense intellectual honesty!

And what do we make of Craig Lamson's attempt to illustrate Hunt's

claim that "a distinctly arched shape" of jacket/shirt bunching rode up

above JFK's right shoulder in Betzner #3 (Z186)?

Let's check Z186 (can't imagine why Craig didn't think of this):

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

It's JFK's right hand/forearm -- Hunt/Lamson/Mack call it "the Bunch."

The fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza is far more

obvious than Z-alteration questions.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Z-alteration is an unfortunate foot-note in the case, imo; establishing

the T3 back wound as a fact is central to understanding both the "how"

of the assassination and the "how" of the cover-up.

"Bunch Theory" is a far more egregious violation of intellectual honesty

than Z-alteration.

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the wound was where the wound was on the body. And

I am well on the record, for years and years, as saying it was at about T2 ... not C7/T1.

Barb :-)

[Bill Miller]

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the wound was where the wound was on the body.

Barb :-)

Barb, thats what I was going to say because who cares if the clothing bunched ... the skin and muscles didn't bunch. The wound is where ever the hole is found in the skin .. seems simple enough to me.

Bill

Edited April 27, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the wound was where the wound was on the body.

Barb :-)

Barb, thats what I was going to say because who cares if the clothing bunched ... the skin and muscles didn't bunch. Thw ound is where ever the hole is found in the skin .. seems simple enough to me.

Bill

Exactly ... me too. :-)

[Cliff Varnell]

Me:

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Craig:

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis

is spot on.

Here's what I wrote:

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.

Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:

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.

Identical conclusions.

Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the

collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.

Give it up Cliff.

Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

[Craig Lamson]

Me:

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Craig:

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis

is spot on.

Here's what I wrote:

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.

Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:

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.

Identical conclusions.

Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the

collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.

Give it up Cliff.

Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

What an amazing display of tortured logic there Cliff, you have outdone yourself.

Since you are a twit, ans this latest post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sincey ou are tweaking YOURSELF, well then I guess you do have a worthwhile hobby. I hope it works out for you because your hobby attempting to be a photo analysis is not looking good. The depth of your ignorance is stunning!

Anyways carry on, you don't need my help making you look like a fool, you are soing a bang up job all by yourself.

I have jus more post for you, to put you out of your misery....keep yor eyes peeled. You might want to dig that holoe just a litle deeper, bucause it will be the final resting place for your argument.

[Cliff Varnell]

Me:

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Craig:

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis

is spot on.

Here's what I wrote:

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.

Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:

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.

Identical conclusions.

Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the

collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.

Give it up Cliff.

Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

What an amazing display of tortured logic there Cliff, you have outdone yourself.

Since you are a twit, ans this latest post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sincey ou are tweaking YOURSELF, well then I guess you do have a worthwhile hobby. I hope it works out for you because your hobby attempting to be a photo analysis is not looking good. The depth of your ignorance is stunning!

Anyways carry on, you don't need my help making you look like a fool, you are soing a bang up job all by yourself.

I have jus more post for you, to put you out of your misery....keep yor eyes peeled. You might want to dig that holoe just a litle deeper, bucause it will be the final resting place for your argument.

Welcome back to the discussion...sort of. Nothing but insults and un-argued

conclusions, but par for the course.

Funny how there's no way in hell you're going to discuss this and now I gotta

watch my back because you're gonna come up with some super-duper analysis

that has been evading you for the last two or three years?

Keep digging, Craig, this is a blast!

[Don Jeffries]

This issue couldn't be simpler. The holes in JFK's coat match precisely the holes in his shirt. This location matches precisely with the location Boswell marked on his original autopsy face sheet, where Burkley described it in the certificate of death, where Sibert and O'Neill described it in their FBI report of the autopsy and where other witnesses located it.

There should be absolutely no doubt about where the entry wound on JFK's back was. Magical "bunched up" theories cannot explain all those other "coincidental" pieces of evidence.

[Don Jeffries]

Me:

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Craig:

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis

is spot on.

Here's what I wrote:

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.

Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:

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.

Identical conclusions.

Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the

collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.

Give it up Cliff.

Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

What an amazing display of tortured logic there Cliff, you have outdone yourself.

Since you are a twit, ans this latest post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sincey ou are tweaking YOURSELF, well then I guess you do have a worthwhile hobby. I hope it works out for you because your hobby attempting to be a photo analysis is not looking good. The depth of your ignorance is stunning!

Anyways carry on, you don't need my help making you look like a fool, you are soing a bang up job all by yourself.

I have jus more post for you, to put you out of your misery....keep yor eyes peeled. You might want to dig that holoe just a litle deeper, bucause it will be the final resting place for your argument.

Sorry, I usually don't do things like this, but when a person with this many typos and grammatical errors accuses someone else of ignorance, it's hard to resist pointing that out. I understand that we can all make mistakes typing too fast, etc. However, if you are attempting to point out the alleged intellectual shortcomings of another poster, you really should be more careful.

Btw, this is on top of the fact that your arguments are ridiculous.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Don Jeffries

[David G. Healy]

Me:

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

Craig:

No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.

Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.

Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis

is spot on.

Here's what I wrote:

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.

Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:

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.

Identical conclusions.

Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the

collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.

Give it up Cliff.

Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig?

What an amazing display of tortured logic there Cliff, you have outdone yourself.

Since you are a twit, ans this latest post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sincey ou are tweaking YOURSELF, well then I guess you do have a worthwhile hobby. I hope it works out for you because your hobby attempting to be a photo analysis is not looking good. The depth of your ignorance is stunning!

Anyways carry on, you don't need my help making you look like a fool, you are soing a bang up job all by yourself.

I have jus more post for you, to put you out of your misery....keep yor eyes peeled. You might want to dig that holoe just a litle deeper, bucause it will be the final resting place for your argument.

Sorry, I usually don't do things like this, but when a person with this many typos and grammatical errors accuses someone else of ignorance, it's hard to resist pointing that out. I understand that we can all make mistakes typing too fast, etc. However, if you are attampting to point out the alleged intellectual shortcomings of another poster, you really should be more careful.

Btw, this is on top of the fact that your arguments are ridiculous.

its called wine, Don -- the fruit that keeps on giving ......

[Cliff Varnell]

Btw, this is on top of the fact that your arguments are ridiculous.

its called wine, Don -- the fruit that keeps on giving ......

Lamson is doing more "farewell" gigs than Sinatra...