Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fetzer/White know where the back wound was


Recommended Posts

How many times do I have to tell you I am a CT? Rhetorical. I do not believe in the SBT. I believe JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets. I do not, in any way, think Varnell's theory about JFK's clothing is "the most compelling evidence" against the SBT. That you do ... makes me wonder just how well you know and have researched the evidence ... yourself.

The unintended irony of Barb's gibe at Don Jeffries is...rich!

Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and Robert Groden

have all declared the clothing evidence as definitive or "uncontested" evidence

of a conspiracy to murder JFK.

All Varnell is doing is reiterating what was established back in the 60's!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/f...th_Specter.html

The work of the aforementioned researchers has apparently eluded Barb J.'s

"20+ years" of study on the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to tell you I am a CT? Rhetorical. I do not believe in the SBT. I believe JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets. I do not, in any way, think Varnell's theory about JFK's clothing is "the most compelling evidence" against the SBT. That you do ... makes me wonder just how well you know and have researched the evidence ... yourself.

The unintended irony of Barb's gibe at Don Jeffries is...rich!

Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and Robert Groden

have all declared the clothing evidence as definitive or "uncontested" evidence

of a conspiracy to murder JFK.

All Varnell is doing is reiterating what was established back in the 60's!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/f...th_Specter.html

The work of the aforementioned researchers has apparently eluded Barb J.'s

"20+ years" of study on the case.

Perhaps Barb is of the old WC school that has no need to demonstrate or persuade, but simply to chastise those who don't agree. ;-0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

Why would anyone want to close threads Jack? It’s pretty clear that many of your so called "honest researchers" are anything but. I guess that's the real problem eh? Seeing loads of CT disinformation exposed to truth and the light of day and watching it dissolve. Cliff is a good example. he's been pimping his "the jacket fell in the plaza nonsense" for years, and yet (Croft) BENTZER shows CLEARLY that the jacket has a fold below the jacket collar large enough to obscure the jacket collar and shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck ( for the location challenged Varnell, that is at this spine).

Maybe YOU can fix it for him Jack? Just answer the simple question, "where is the shadow?” This is beyond Varnell's limited ability to understand. Yours too I imagine. But give it a try, you never know, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

While you are at it, maybe you should study these and learn something…more of that wonderful disinfectant known as TRUTH!

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Added on edit:

My mistake, I typed CROFT above when in fact I meant Bentzer. Croft however just might buy Varnell that clue he needs. Where is that shadow?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you are at it, maybe you should study these and learn something…more

of that wonderful disinfectant known as TRUTH!

Craig Lamson continues to claim that JFK's shirt collar isn't visible

in the Elm St. images below.

Like untreated syphilis, Lone Nutism apparently goes to the brain

and causes blindness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Pamela?

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur) Of this there is simply no doubt. Given this fact that the last clear photo of JFK at the z186 range clearly shows this fold, how do you support the claim that the "jacket dropped in Dealy Plaza"? Is it not true that for the t3 shot location the jacket MUST have dropped?

Added on edit:

Thanks to Varnell, for pointing out my error, I was actually making my reply to Pamala and not Barb. I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Barb?

You're addressing Pamela, Craig.

But go ahead. Everything you claim is a crock, so you may as well be

consistent.

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's

jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar

a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff

keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur)

This is incredible!

Craig Lamson can't tell the difference between a location at

the back of the head and a location at the side of the neck!

The photo was taken behind JFK, whose head was turned

to the right.

The red arrow points to the nape of JFK's neck, where the shirt

collar is clearly visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Pamela?

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur) Of this there is simply no doubt. Given this fact that the last clear photo of JFK at the z186 range clearly shows this fold, how do you support the claim that the "jacket dropped in Dealy Plaza"? Is it not true that for the t3 shot location the jacket MUST have dropped?

Added on edit:

Thanks to Varnell, for pointing out my error, I was actually making my reply to Pamala and not Barb. I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

How can adding definition to a murky area possibly be construed to equal being a 'puppet/slave to a worldview'? Please, enlighten us.

I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue. So far, nothing anyone has said has persuaded me that it even is worthy of prolonged debate. There is an inconsistancy between the evidence on JFK's jacket and that which the govt wants us to believe. Why not leave it at that? It is simply one example of the mess that has been forced on us.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't think you can use bullying tactics to make things more persuasive. That is, in fact, an indication that you believe your argument is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur)

I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

Looking at your illustration of your "spinal location" I see that

JFK's spinal column was immediately below his right ear.

I'd never noticed this before!

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Pamela?

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur) Of this there is simply no doubt. Given this fact that the last clear photo of JFK at the z186 range clearly shows this fold, how do you support the claim that the "jacket dropped in Dealy Plaza"? Is it not true that for the t3 shot location the jacket MUST have dropped?

Added on edit:

Thanks to Varnell, for pointing out my error, I was actually making my reply to Pamala and not Barb. I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

How can adding definition to a murky area possibly be construed to equal being a 'puppet/slave to a worldview'? Please, enlighten us.

I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue. So far, nothing anyone has said has persuaded me that it even is worthy of prolonged debate. There is an inconsistancy between the evidence on JFK's jacket and that which the govt wants us to believe. Why not leave it at that? It is simply one example of the mess that has been forced on us.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't think you can use bullying tactics to make things more persuasive. That is, in fact, an indication that you believe your argument is weak.

Exactly what "defination"have you provided? I can't see anywhere that you have found, for example that there is a fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. You continue to state:

" I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue."

How can it NOT be an isssue IF you are in fact on an honest search for the truth, and not just bumbling along "BELIEVING"? You pretty much said it all. I got it correct.

Here's a news flash for you Pam. I don't "believe". I deal in fact. The facts here are simple and unimpeachable. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186.

Now what is that so called inconsistancy between JFK's clothing and ... how did you put it ... " that which the govt wants us to believe."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Pamela?

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur) Of this there is simply no doubt. Given this fact that the last clear photo of JFK at the z186 range clearly shows this fold, how do you support the claim that the "jacket dropped in Dealy Plaza"? Is it not true that for the t3 shot location the jacket MUST have dropped?

Added on edit:

Thanks to Varnell, for pointing out my error, I was actually making my reply to Pamala and not Barb. I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

How can adding definition to a murky area possibly be construed to equal being a 'puppet/slave to a worldview'? Please, enlighten us.

I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue. So far, nothing anyone has said has persuaded me that it even is worthy of prolonged debate. There is an inconsistancy between the evidence on JFK's jacket and that which the govt wants us to believe. Why not leave it at that? It is simply one example of the mess that has been forced on us.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't think you can use bullying tactics to make things more persuasive. That is, in fact, an indication that you believe your argument is weak.

Exactly what "defination"have you provided? I can't see anywhere that you have found, for example that there is a fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. You continue to state:

" I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue."

How can it NOT be an isssue IF you are in fact on an honest search for the truth, and not just bumbling along "BELIEVING"? You pretty much said it all. I got it correct.

Here's a news flash for you Pam. I don't "believe". I deal in fact. The facts here are simple and unimpeachable. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186.

Now what is that so called inconsistancy between JFK's clothing and ... how did you put it ... " that which the govt wants us to believe."

The intellectual dishonesty on display is staggering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Pamela?

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur) Of this there is simply no doubt. Given this fact that the last clear photo of JFK at the z186 range clearly shows this fold, how do you support the claim that the "jacket dropped in Dealy Plaza"? Is it not true that for the t3 shot location the jacket MUST have dropped?

Added on edit:

Thanks to Varnell, for pointing out my error, I was actually making my reply to Pamala and not Barb. I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

How can adding definition to a murky area possibly be construed to equal being a 'puppet/slave to a worldview'? Please, enlighten us.

I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue. So far, nothing anyone has said has persuaded me that it even is worthy of prolonged debate. There is an inconsistancy between the evidence on JFK's jacket and that which the govt wants us to believe. Why not leave it at that? It is simply one example of the mess that has been forced on us.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't think you can use bullying tactics to make things more persuasive. That is, in fact, an indication that you believe your argument is weak.

Exactly what "defination"have you provided? I can't see anywhere that you have found, for example that there is a fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. You continue to state:

" I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue."

How can it NOT be an isssue IF you are in fact on an honest search for the truth, and not just bumbling along "BELIEVING"? You pretty much said it all. I got it correct.

Here's a news flash for you Pam. I don't "believe". I deal in fact. The facts here are simple and unimpeachable. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186.

Now what is that so called inconsistancy between JFK's clothing and ... how did you put it ... " that which the govt wants us to believe."

I have provided definition of the issue -- namely, that there is a discrepancy between the hole in the jacket and what the govt is telling us to believe. You seem to claim the 'jacket bunch' resolves the discrepancy, yet you have failed to be persuasive that there is anything to the 'jacket bunch' worthy of discussion. You've used badgering tactics instead. That is weak.

Perhaps you should start acknowledging the facts rather than trying to twist things to tie up an uncomfortable loose end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense.

It's the evidence with which we walk in lockstep!

The physical, documentary, and eye-witness evidence of the T3 back

wound is irrefutable.

Which is why "high back wound" advocates never get beyond baseless,

un-argued assertions and aggressive gibberish.

Are we to believe that Clint Hill -- a trained observer, as that is exactly

what the people guarding the President do, observe -- went into

the morgue for the express purpose of bearing solemn witness to the

location of the wounds and he couldn't tell the difference between

"about 6 inches" and "less than 4 inches"?

That JFK wore fine men's clothing is a theory??

No wonder Barb and Craig foreclose any discussion of the matter!

The assignments of certain posters here are to be THREAD FORECLOSERS.

By responding negatively and immediately to EVERY POSTING, it is clear

that certain names at the end of the subject topic DRIVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

AWAY. I never bother to read any postings where certain provocateurs have

hijacked the thread and are the last name listed.

Jack

The WC apologists come in different guises; some are forthright, others are sheep-in-wolves'-clothing who claim to be CTs and yet at almost every point try to lead the CTs to see the light of the WCR. But if there is an ongoing cover-up, how else could it work?

Are you actually searching for the truth or are you a puppet/slave to a worldview Pamela?

Here's a truth for you. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck ( the spinal location, not the side of the neck as Cliff keeps pointing out, which is a non sequitur) Of this there is simply no doubt. Given this fact that the last clear photo of JFK at the z186 range clearly shows this fold, how do you support the claim that the "jacket dropped in Dealy Plaza"? Is it not true that for the t3 shot location the jacket MUST have dropped?

Added on edit:

Thanks to Varnell, for pointing out my error, I was actually making my reply to Pamala and not Barb. I guess Varnell can read, at times, he just can't see. But thats a story for another time, another webpage....

How can adding definition to a murky area possibly be construed to equal being a 'puppet/slave to a worldview'? Please, enlighten us.

I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue. So far, nothing anyone has said has persuaded me that it even is worthy of prolonged debate. There is an inconsistancy between the evidence on JFK's jacket and that which the govt wants us to believe. Why not leave it at that? It is simply one example of the mess that has been forced on us.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't think you can use bullying tactics to make things more persuasive. That is, in fact, an indication that you believe your argument is weak.

Exactly what "defination"have you provided? I can't see anywhere that you have found, for example that there is a fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. You continue to state:

" I don't consider the 'jacket bunch' an issue."

How can it NOT be an isssue IF you are in fact on an honest search for the truth, and not just bumbling along "BELIEVING"? You pretty much said it all. I got it correct.

Here's a news flash for you Pam. I don't "believe". I deal in fact. The facts here are simple and unimpeachable. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186.

Now what is that so called inconsistancy between JFK's clothing and ... how did you put it ... " that which the govt wants us to believe."

I have provided definition of the issue -- namely, that there is a discrepancy between the hole in the jacket and what the govt is telling us to believe. You seem to claim the 'jacket bunch' resolves the discrepancy, yet you have failed to be persuasive that there is anything to the 'jacket bunch' worthy of discussion. You've used badgering tactics instead. That is weak.

Perhaps you should start acknowledging the facts rather than trying to twist things to tie up an uncomfortable loose end.

I'm the one who is acknowledging the facts and you are the one who 'believes" instead. The images are quite clear and unimpeachable. The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186.

I suggest you do some simple research. The photos are quite clear and the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. All you need are two images, Croft and Bentzer. Answer this very simple question, where is the shadow? Find the answer and you will have the unimpeachable evidence. You have two choices, be a slave to a worldview or deal in fact. Being a slave to a worldview is weak indeed.

I can't help it that fact is at odds to your belief system and worldview. Facts are often like that.

The only uncomfortable "loose end" is the fact that JFK's jacket still had a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. It’s not in the least uncomfortable for me, because I deal in fact. For those who worship a worldview instead, this fact might be very uncomfortable.

It appears the one who needs to ... how did you put it ... "start acknowledging the facts rather than trying to twist things to tie up an uncomfortable loose end.", would be Pam, and of course Varnell.

Do you have the intellectual honesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...