Craig Lamson Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period. Well Don, unless you now think Bentzer has been altered, there is no doubt what so ever that there was quite a large "bunch", or cupped fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, below the jacket collar. That’s signed, sealed and delivered, despite the ignorant rantings of Varnell. Unimpeachable. This fold is large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck (that would the spinal area for the mentally challenged Varnell). You guys can argue the conflicting documents and the witnesses until the cows come home but at least up to and including Bentzer the jacket was bunched enough to support the entry point of the SBT. What happens after Bentzer is anyone’s guess, but let’s consider that this bunch made it from Main to Houston and down Elm to Z186. What’s the odd it fell after? Do you have the nads to deal in fact or are you, as your post suggests, just a puppet to a worldview? I’m going to offer you some very good advice and I suggest you take it. Forget anything Varnell has ever said in respect to photo analysis. To call him a hack would be an insult to hacks everywhere. Do your homework. I’ll even give you a hint…shadow. It’s a far better tip than “plastics.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period. Well Don, unless you now think Bentzer has been altered, there is no doubt what so ever that there was quite a large "bunch", or cupped fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, below the jacket collar. That’s signed, sealed and delivered, despite the ignorant rantings of Varnell. Unimpeachable. This fold is large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck (that would the spinal area for the mentally challenged Varnell). You guys can argue the conflicting documents and the witnesses until the cows come home but at least up to and including Bentzer the jacket was bunched enough to support the entry point of the SBT. What happens after Bentzer is anyone’s guess, but let’s consider that this bunch made it from Main to Houston and down Elm to Z186. What’s the odd it fell after? Do you have the nads to deal in fact or are you, as your post suggests, just a puppet to a worldview? I’m going to offer you some very good advice and I suggest you take it. Forget anything Varnell has ever said in respect to photo analysis. To call him a hack would be an insult to hacks everywhere. Do your homework. I’ll even give you a hint…shadow. It’s a far better tip than “plastics.” my you've become expert overnight concerning many film-photo aspects of the 11/22/63 goings on in Dealey Plaza.... now, if you could only get the DP film-photos provenance all straightened out, might just be onto something.... But since that will NEVER happen here's your reality Craigster, you can't prove a thing, fake or not fake, as you can't prove the images your working with are 1st generation, or the in-camera original... All you alleged JFK assassination photo-film researchers need a class in, "where'd the image come from your currently working on, AND who gave it to you". (Lets at least appear to show a bit of professionalism. Is that beyond the Lone Nutter pale?) You are turning onto a excellent byte-master though.... Nothing is signed, sealed and delivered son -- you're talking through the side of your neck now, and there's enough of those fools on this board, as it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period. Well Don, unless you now think Bentzer has been altered, there is no doubt what so ever that there was quite a large "bunch", or cupped fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, below the jacket collar. That’s signed, sealed and delivered, despite the ignorant rantings of Varnell. Unimpeachable. This fold is large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck (that would the spinal area for the mentally challenged Varnell). You guys can argue the conflicting documents and the witnesses until the cows come home but at least up to and including Bentzer the jacket was bunched enough to support the entry point of the SBT. What happens after Bentzer is anyone’s guess, but let’s consider that this bunch made it from Main to Houston and down Elm to Z186. What’s the odd it fell after? Do you have the nads to deal in fact or are you, as your post suggests, just a puppet to a worldview? I’m going to offer you some very good advice and I suggest you take it. Forget anything Varnell has ever said in respect to photo analysis. To call him a hack would be an insult to hacks everywhere. Do your homework. I’ll even give you a hint…shadow. It’s a far better tip than “plastics.” my you've become expert overnight concerning many film-photo aspects of the 11/22/63 goings on in Dealey Plaza.... now, if you could only get the DP film-photos provenance all straightened out, might just be onto something.... But since that will NEVER happen here's your reality Craigster, you can't prove a thing, fake or not fake, as you can't prove the images your working with are 1st generation, or the in-camera original... All you alleged JFK assassination photo-film researchers need a class in, "where'd the image come from your currently working on, AND who gave it to you". (Lets at least appear to show a bit of professionalism. Is that beyond the Lone Nutter pale?) You are turning onto a excellent byte-master though.... Nothing is signed, sealed and delivered son -- you're talking through the side of your neck now, and there's enough of those fools on this board, as it is... You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Lets consider what your 'grand master" has done in pursuit of this goal. Why he has alttered z frames by interpolation, color and density, all without telling anyone exactly HOW he did it (and he has been asked, and has refused) Then he takes these same frames and alters them AGAIN, via interpolation (and again will not release the method) to use in the process of "proving"the Z film fake. You don't seem to have a problem with that? It is interesting to note that after all of this alteration his claims fail because the physist can't understand basic physics..... Sorry David, but it IS signed , sealed and delivered. This surpasses generational issues because it can be corrolated with other images. And it's REALLY simple! Why don't you dip you toe into the water David and actually DO something for once beside crib some stuff from someone else and publish it. BTW, have you found those copyright release papers for the images you used in your "published work". I for one would really like to know if you did it all legally.... I'll give you the same hint as I gave Don...shadow... and go you one further...where did it go? Now I know its beyond both Don and Varnell, but how about you, you make some claim about being some kind of imaging expert, why not give it a go? Since the CT cabal can't show any of the photos or films to be faked (not for the lack of trying), we need not worry until they actually PROVE something. We are not holding our collective breath. Heck, here's your "grand master" showing just how ignorant he is in... LMAO!: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm You want to talk about professionalism and the lack thereof, lets start with Costella..and Healy... ...and White... www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Edited April 30, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Kennedy wore a backbrace. A photo posted (by Steve Thomas I think) showed him without a jacket and the shirt was very loose and comfy looking with a belt on. The brace makes half of his trunk 'slippery'. He went in and out of the car many times pre DP and post Lovefield. His jacket and shirt collar cannot be an indicator of the position of his shirt at any time. However, the bloodied shirt shows many folds. Any time he sat back down in the seat the shirt could very well ride up. There cannot be a conclusive statement about its position when shot except by matching the blood stains on his body and on the shirt. Such a match shows the entry wound as shown on the back autopsy photo. Even though JFK's shirt may have appeared comfortable it was probably tailored for him, as well as his suit. Designer level clothing is supposed to fit well no matter where or how a person is sitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Craig ... the term 'idiot' can also apply when mentioning Healy's say-nothing responses. And let us remember that the hypocrite has said after reading what his Grand Master has written .... that he has NO PROOF of Alteration .... something he claims to have been saying for years. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) The sheer volume of mis-information in Barb's post requires me to serialize my response. Barb,It's a game of semantics to scrutinize the word "precisely" There is nothing imprecise about the definition of "precisely." The semantic game is yours ... and you haven't pulled it off well. Looks silly to whine about your own choice of words when it is pointed out it is flat out wrong. Don's use of the word "precise" is well chosen and well-corroborated. Secret Service agent Clint Hill went to the morgue after the autopsy to bear witness to the nature and location of JFK's wounds. He testified before the Warren Commission (emphasis added): I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below theneckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column. The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4 inches below the top of the collar. Hill nailed the location of the wound precisely. SS agent Glen Bennett was in the motorcade and testified before the WC: I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. Immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head. The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar. Bennett nailed the location of the wound precisely. There is an abundant redundancy to the T3 evidence. Edited May 1, 2009 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) What I find compelling is accuracy and truth, evidence supported by something other than someone recklessly stringing together a list and claiming it is *precisely* what the evidence shows ... when it is clearly not the case *at all*. How can you actually put out there that S&O's report puts the wound they saw at any particular level? It flatly did not. I find that agenda driven ... and REpelling. I asked if you have read S&O's report ... you did not answer. But you did put out an erroneous statement about what they said in their report, and you reiterated it in this reply. Either you never read the report yourself, and are willing to run on what others say they said, or you are reckless with the truth. Neither is a good thing. What an utterly disingenuous attack! Here's what S & O wrote in the FBI autopsy report: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/History/The_d...-O%27Neill.html During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. While "below the shoulders" doesn't provide a specific location for the wound, it is certainly excludes any wound above the scapula. During the course of her 20+ years studying the medial evidence, the fact that S & O prepared wound diagrams for the HSCA seems to have eluded Barb Junkkarinen. http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif Compare that location with the one in the autopsy face sheet, and once again we can see the abundant redundancy of the T3 back wound evidence. http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif Edited May 2, 2009 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period. Well Don, unless you now think Bentzer has been altered, there is no doubt what so ever that there was quite a large "bunch", or cupped fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, below the jacket collar. That’s signed, sealed and delivered, despite the ignorant rantings of Varnell. Unimpeachable. This fold is large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck... If the fold was below the jacket collar how could it occlude the shirt collar which was clearly above the jacket collar? And how could it occlude the shirt collar when the Elm St. photos clearly show the shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Lets consider what your 'grand master" has done in pursuit of this goal. Why he has alttered z frames by interpolation, color and density, all without telling anyone exactly HOW he did it (and he has been asked, and has refused) Then he takes these same frames and alters them AGAIN, via interpolation (and again will not release the method) to use in the process of "proving"the Z film fake. You don't seem to have a problem with that? It is interesting to note that after all of this alteration his claims fail because the physist can't understand basic physics..... ah.... listen up son, you need take on Hollywood.... John Costella's work has absolutely no bearing on mine, bone up. Also, buy Hoax, give yourself a break..... and stop carrying dufuses Wild Bill Miller's water these day's.... Sorry David, but it IS signed , sealed and delivered. This surpasses generational issues because it can be corrolated with other images. And it's REALLY simple! Why don't you dip you toe into the water David and actually DO something for once beside crib some stuff from someone else and publish it. BTW, have you found those copyright release papers for the images you used in your "published work". I for one would really like to know if you did it all legally.... the last vestige of the vanquished, you really need a new script, Craigster? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Craig ... the term 'idiot' can also apply when mentioning Healy's say-nothing responses. And let us remember that the hypocrite has said after reading what his Grand Master has written .... that he has NO PROOF of Alteration .... something he claims to have been saying for years. Bill ahh, the fruit appears....... evidently his reading skills haven't gathered any steam -- What-say-you Will Bill Miller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Lets consider what your 'grand master" has done in pursuit of this goal. Why he has alttered z frames by interpolation, color and density, all without telling anyone exactly HOW he did it (and he has been asked, and has refused) Then he takes these same frames and alters them AGAIN, via interpolation (and again will not release the method) to use in the process of "proving"the Z film fake. You don't seem to have a problem with that? It is interesting to note that after all of this alteration his claims fail because the physist can't understand basic physics..... ah.... listen up son, you need take on Hollywood.... John Costella's work has absolutely no bearing on mine, bone up. Also, buy Hoax, give yourself a break..... and stop carrying dufuses Wild Bill Miller's water these day's.... Ah David, I read hoax, and what was it you argued? OH yea, HOLLYWOOD can do special effects! Amazing, and I don't think there is a soul around who would dispute that silly fact. What that has to do with the Z film? Actually noting since no one can show it has been altered. Great work Healy. Now back to the subject at hand which is the thrust of the selection of my post that you copied. It's not suprising you chose to try and deflect, you have been shown to be a hypocrite of the highest order. You take great pains to point out that no one has challenged Costella's work, work I must add that is based alterations to the Z frames that he can't or worn't explain. Sadly, for the both of you, your "grand master" PhD of physics stuffed up the basic physics. That is shown here: www.craiglamson.com and no one can rebut it. Now if you want ot try, please give it a go. It would be quite novel to see you actually do soomething of value ( telling us Hollywood does special effect has ZERO value) . No on will be holding their breath, we ALL know that Healy is all hot air and no substance. Sorry David, but it IS signed , sealed and delivered. This surpasses generational issues because it can be corrolated with other images. And it's REALLY simple! Why don't you dip you toe into the water David and actually DO something for once beside crib some stuff from someone else and publish it. BTW, have you found those copyright release papers for the images you used in your "published work". I for one would really like to know if you did it all legally.... the last vestige of the vanquished, you really need a new script, Craigster? Oh really, you wanna tell us WHY cliffy has it correct? And WHERE is that pesky shadow? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Lets consider what your 'grand master" has done in pursuit of this goal. Why he has alttered z frames by interpolation, color and density, all without telling anyone exactly HOW he did it (and he has been asked, and has refused) Then he takes these same frames and alters them AGAIN, via interpolation (and again will not release the method) to use in the process of "proving"the Z film fake. You don't seem to have a problem with that? It is interesting to note that after all of this alteration his claims fail because the physist can't understand basic physics..... ah.... listen up son, you need take on Hollywood.... John Costella's work has absolutely no bearing on mine, bone up. Also, buy Hoax, give yourself a break..... and stop carrying dufuses Wild Bill Miller's water these day's.... Ah David, I read hoax, and what was it you argued? OH yea, HOLLYWOOD can do special effects! Amazing, and I don't think there is a soul around who would dispute that silly fact. What that has to do with the Z film? Actually noting since no one can show it has been altered. Great work Healy. Now back to the subject at hand which is the thrust of the selection of my post that you copied. It's not suprising you chose to try and deflect, you have been shown to be a hypocrite of the highest order. You take great pains to point out that no one has challenged Costella's work, work I must add that is based alterations to the Z frames that he can't or worn't explain. Sadly, for the both of you, your "grand master" PhD of physics stuffed up the basic physics. That is shown here: www.craiglamson.com and no one can rebut it. Now if you want ot try, please give it a go. It would be quite novel to see you actually do soomething of value ( telling us Hollywood does special effect has ZERO value) . No on will be holding their breath, we ALL know that Healy is all hot air and no substance. Sorry David, but it IS signed , sealed and delivered. This surpasses generational issues because it can be corrolated with other images. And it's REALLY simple! Why don't you dip you toe into the water David and actually DO something for once beside crib some stuff from someone else and publish it. BTW, have you found those copyright release papers for the images you used in your "published work". I for one would really like to know if you did it all legally.... the last vestige of the vanquished, you really need a new script, Craigster? Oh really, you wanna tell us WHY cliffy has it correct? And WHERE is that pesky shadow? ... son, Frankly Craigster, your post interests me not.... Your arrogance however does.... I have but one question: is there ANYONE who understand composite photography whether it be film and/or photo... better than I? I think not. Facts being what they are, you can't stand in the same room as I.... take it to the bank! Piss and moan, argue nonsense, carry Miller-lite water bottles, drone on and on and ON. 6 years AFTER HOAX you find can't deal with reality..... sounds like you have a definite problem -- take this one piece of advice, write a book find a publisher, your posting addiction is keeping you from the fame you seek so desperately, the fame that Wild Bill found (he has three boards to thank for that, the rest threw him out! Such company you keep... Hi Gary, how is it going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Lets consider what your 'grand master" has done in pursuit of this goal. Why he has alttered z frames by interpolation, color and density, all without telling anyone exactly HOW he did it (and he has been asked, and has refused) Then he takes these same frames and alters them AGAIN, via interpolation (and again will not release the method) to use in the process of "proving"the Z film fake. You don't seem to have a problem with that? It is interesting to note that after all of this alteration his claims fail because the physist can't understand basic physics..... ah.... listen up son, you need take on Hollywood.... John Costella's work has absolutely no bearing on mine, bone up. Also, buy Hoax, give yourself a break..... and stop carrying dufuses Wild Bill Miller's water these day's.... Ah David, I read hoax, and what was it you argued? OH yea, HOLLYWOOD can do special effects! Amazing, and I don't think there is a soul around who would dispute that silly fact. What that has to do with the Z film? Actually noting since no one can show it has been altered. Great work Healy. Now back to the subject at hand which is the thrust of the selection of my post that you copied. It's not suprising you chose to try and deflect, you have been shown to be a hypocrite of the highest order. You take great pains to point out that no one has challenged Costella's work, work I must add that is based alterations to the Z frames that he can't or worn't explain. Sadly, for the both of you, your "grand master" PhD of physics stuffed up the basic physics. That is shown here: www.craiglamson.com and no one can rebut it. Now if you want ot try, please give it a go. It would be quite novel to see you actually do soomething of value ( telling us Hollywood does special effect has ZERO value) . No on will be holding their breath, we ALL know that Healy is all hot air and no substance. Sorry David, but it IS signed , sealed and delivered. This surpasses generational issues because it can be corrolated with other images. And it's REALLY simple! Why don't you dip you toe into the water David and actually DO something for once beside crib some stuff from someone else and publish it. BTW, have you found those copyright release papers for the images you used in your "published work". I for one would really like to know if you did it all legally.... the last vestige of the vanquished, you really need a new script, Craigster? Oh really, you wanna tell us WHY cliffy has it correct? And WHERE is that pesky shadow? ... son, Frankly Craigster, your post interests me not.... Your arrogance however does.... I have but one question: is there ANYONE who understand composite photography whether it be film and/or photo... better than I? I think not. Facts being what they are, you can't stand in the same room as I.... take it to the bank! Piss and moan, argue nonsense, carry Miller-lite water bottles, drone on and on and ON. 6 years AFTER HOAX you find can't deal with reality..... sounds like you have a definite problem -- take this one piece of advice, write a book find a publisher, your posting addiction is keeping you from the fame you seek so desperately, the fame that Wild Bill found (he has three boards to thank for that, the rest threw him out! Such company you keep... Hi Gary, how is it going? We don't have CLUE what you know about film based compositing David, you can't offer up a single example of your work for inspection. In fact you can't offer up your actual EXPERIENCE in film based compositing. In other words, based on YOUR OWN CV you don't HAVE any film based compositing experience. Hot air, you are NOTHING but hot air. What we have seen is your efforts at computer based composites and quite frankly you suck eggs at it. P__S poor work. Healy on Healy: "Couple of paragraphs of background, I'm one of those been there - done that kind of television guy's, 30+ years of this stuff, first camera I used in televion work that didn't need to roll around on a ton and a half pedestal was the CP-16 16mm film camera used for shooting news when I was at a ABC O and O station. I've virtually operated EVERY handheld camera made for the broadcast industry at one time or another since then up to and including today's Panasonic and Sony's new 16:9 High Definition handheld camera systems. I'm was an FCC licensed broadcast Engineer for 15 years (after 3 license renewals I didn't bother anymore), I could field strip any camera handheld/studiohead, repair it and have it up and running again in hours provided I had access to scopes and parts. My first film edit was on a Moviola Flatbed in 1967, first electronic *edit* in 1968 on two Ampex 1200's running 2"”videotape with Editec function, more commonly known then as Punch ‘n crunch editing. I've been editing ever since.When I wasn't busy editing over the next 15 years I was shooting tape and or film for ALL three national networks AND a few television stations in the 5th rated market place in the country. Getting the globe trotting newscamera bug out of my system in 1982 I started doing programming for myself instead of others. I also engineered, designed and built 2 television production studios, engineered ,designed and built 2 editing facilities and field tested 2 ENG news camera packages for a Japanese camera manufacturer. (couldn't buy American then - RCA got out of the business, but their old TK-76 3 tube Plum-i-con was a great handheld camera, they sold a ton of them. During the past 18+ years I've produced, directed,operated camera, editied over 600 pieces for various clients (companies, corporations and or governmental agencies (NASA). For the past 13 years my specialty has been video post production for Silicon Valley High Tech corps and a few other Fortune 50 companies (not their AD agencies) with heavy emphasis on using a film/video/digital media COMPOSITING program called Adobe After Effects, a program with it’s current widespread usage has probably put most of the film high-end industrys Optical Printing houses out of business).So do I know a little about this industry? Yeah. Can I draw paralells between how things were done in the film optical business of 61-64 and video compositing post production troday? Yeah." My work is on display. Rebut it if you can. You can't. Hell, I'm still waiting for someone on the CT side that has the first clue! NO one on the HOAX crew can cut it, Costella can't understand basic physics and you are too ignorant to understand that simple fact. Costella is still hiding under a rock somewhere in OZ cowering. You ct's area JOKE when it comes to photography. Somehow you think a BOOK means something. News flash, it means NOTHING! Vanity, pure vanity. Even worse when your "star" physicist, can't understand even basic physics. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Bring it on Healy, you've had years to try and rebut me. All we EVER get is hot air... As for arrogance, might I suggest a mirror? Edited May 3, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 (T)he 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 :-) Factually incorrect. "Horizontal Trajectory Buries SBT" thread on aajfk June 16, 2006, Barb Junkkarinenwrote (emphasis mine): After 20+ years of studying the medical evidence and other evidence .... and talking to a few pathologists directly, I find it highly unlikely that the throat was an entrance for any "projectile"..... it was most likely the exit for a back bullet that entered at a nearly horizontal to slightly upward angle and traversed that way and exited ..... not into JBC. Barb's bullet path is identical to the slightly "upward trajectory"path of the HSCA's C7/T1 back wound. (HSCA Volume VII page 175). Barb clearly subscribes to the C7/T1 HSCA back wound location. Otherwise, after studying the medical evidence for 20+ years, how could Barb Junkkarinen not know where the throat wound was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) Burkley did specify a thoracic level and said "verified" ... verified when ... and how? There's no record of any mention of a thoracic level by anyone ... not the pathologists, not Sibert & O'Neil nor any other witnesses. Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)...In the same book, Dr. Gary Aguilar is quoted as saying: Ebersole was consistent about his identifying the location as to the right of the 4th vertebra...Boswell's face sheet shows it there also. Other witnesses provided specific descriptions of the wound consistent with T3 or lower... Chester H. Boyers was the Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963, and attended the autopsy. This is from Boyers signed affidavit: Another wound was located near the right shoulderblade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it. Autopsy X-ray technician Edward Reed said in an interview he found a wound "between the scapula and the thoracic column." (KTT, pg 720). Autopsy attendee James Curtis Jenkins: 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. To claim that Ebersole, Boyers, Reed and Jenkins fabricated or hallucinated the low back wound is witness-bashing pure and simple. Edited May 5, 2009 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now