Inside the ARRB, Vol. I, by Doug Horne

[Cliff Varnell]

Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St.

Betzner...which is unimpeachable as you well know. Not that you have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Pat doesn't buy your intellectually corrupt nonsense, Craig.

I put the question to Pat.

[Pat Speer]

Just like single-assassin theorists who refuse to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or lower than the throat wound,

This is an egregious mis-statement of fact which you cannot defend to save

your life, Pat.

Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St.

Show us the witness statements placing the wound that high.

Show us the properly prepared medical evidence of a wound that high.

All you've got are Richard Lipsey and Thornton Boswell; improperly recorded

measurements on the autopsy face sheet; and some autopsy photos the HSCA

concluded were prima facie inadmissible in court, and which the ARRB discovered

have no chain of possession.

This nonsense you spew about the back wound is the worst form of "CT"

pet theorizing.

Hold on there, Cliff. Read what I wrote again. I indicated that LNs who REFUSE to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or LOWER than the throat wound were in denial. In other words, I am claiming that it is obvious that the back wound is at the same level or lower than the throat wound. How is this any different than what you've been claiming?

It strikes me as odd that you continue to act as though we're on different sides on this issue, when we share (you can even call me a convert if you like) the assessment that the bullet holes on the clothing pretty much kill the proposition the bullet creating Kennedy's back wound went on to create his throat wound.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just like single-assassin theorists who refuse to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or lower than the throat wound,

This is an egregious mis-statement of fact which you cannot defend to save

your life, Pat.

Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St.

Show us the witness statements placing the wound that high.

Show us the properly prepared medical evidence of a wound that high.

All you've got are Richard Lipsey and Thornton Boswell; improperly recorded

measurements on the autopsy face sheet; and some autopsy photos the HSCA

concluded were prima facie inadmissible in court, and which the ARRB discovered

have no chain of possession.

This nonsense you spew about the back wound is the worst form of "CT"

pet theorizing.

Hold on there, Cliff. Read what I wrote again. I indicated that LNs who REFUSE to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or LOWER than the throat wound were in denial. In other words, I am claiming that it is obvious that the back wound is at the same level or lower than the throat wound. How is this any different than what you've been claiming?

The distinction is of utmost importance. One cannot properly interpret the

neck x-ray unless one realizes that the back wound was where the holes in the

clothes, more than a dozen witnesses, and the properly prepared contemporaneous

documents place it. Many LNers and SBT defenders have embraced that location of

yours.

It strikes me as odd that you continue to act as though we're on different sides on this issue, when we share (you can even call me a convert if you like) the assessment that the bullet holes on the clothing pretty much kill the proposition the bullet creating Kennedy's back wound went on to create his throat wound.

I don't divide the world into CTs and LNs. I divide the world into those

who acknowledge the prima facie evidence of conspiracy, and those who don't.

The T3 back wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy. Any attempts to muddy

this deserve a measure of push-back.

[Pat Speer]

It appears that you are trying to argue that the latter-day statements of Sibert and O'Neill could not be in error. If so, you are trying to claim that their statements support that a shot was fired from the front, even though both men were at the autopsy, and wrote a report on what they observed in which they cited evidence the shot was fired from the rear. Now, I have countered that with the claim that their observations are in opposition to those of others at the autopsy, who, after claiming the wound was on the back of the head, came to believe the autopsy photos were an accurate reflection of the President's wounds. Even worse, Sibert and O'Neill's observations are in conflict with each other.

Even so, I'll play along. Sibert told the HSCA the wound was in the "upper back of the head with a section of the skull bone missing." The drawing he'd created shows this wound to be in the middle of the back of the head above the level of the ears. O'Neill told them it was "massive and pointed towards the right side of the head." The wound on O'Neill's drawing engulfs the upper right quadrant of the back of the head above the ears.

If one is to accept their words as gospel, then one must accept there was no blow-out wound of the occipital bone, and that the Harper fragment was therefore not occipital, and that those claiming they saw cerebellum in Dallas and not macerated brain were most probably mistaken. Yet how many of those claiming Sibert and O'Neill's observations are of the utmost importance will use their statements to come to any conclusions regarding the Harper fragment and the possible damage to the cerebellum? Very few, if any, I'm afraid.

What all too many have done, instead, is go through the testimony anxiously and excitedly looking for the word "back" and "rear" and counting each reference as some sort of victory for truth and justice, and then claim the very use of the words "back" or "rear" suggests the wound was REALLY a blow-out on the far back of the head--even though such a wound is precluded by the vast majority of witnesses using the words "back" or "rear" while describing the wound. This IS cherry-picking at its worst.

What you or anyone wanting to save the "back of the head" wound argument, need to do is decide, using the many witness statements, where exactly the "back of the head" wound was located. I have done this, and have reached the conclusion those thinking the wound was on the back of the head, on average, thought the wound was but a few inches back of the wound on top of the head seen in the photographs. This can be explained by the possibility they were confused by the rotation of the body--a phenomena which has been studied extensively, and which I have tested myself and found to be real.

But few CTs will do that, because it would force them to acknowledge that at least half of the "back of the head" witnesses they so love to cite were dead wrong, which would, in turn, undermine their position that ALL these people can't be wrong. And so, we're at a standstill. Just like single-assassin theorists who refuse to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or lower than the throat wound, many conspiracy theorists refuse to acknowledge that the "back of the head" witnesses have widely conflicting recollections, and that many of these recollections are more supportive of the autopsy photos than they are of the so-called "McClelland drawing", which they (the CTs) choose to believe is accurate.

Pat,

I'm surprised at how badly you misunderstand my position. As I stated above, I am not seeking to prove a frontal shot. At all. (it obviously escaped your attention that I did not use the words "exit" or "blowout" to describe the hole nor did I ever make reference to the McClelland drawing) But that doesn't mean that I can simply dismiss all those witnesses as being mistaken in the same way. You find it easy to do so because you're committed to a theory but I have no theory. I would simply like to understand why just about everybody who saw the head believed it had a huge portion missing from the rear and yet the autopsy photos and X-rays show the opposite. No one, yourself included, has ever provided a satisfactory explanation for this so it remains a mystery to me. The simple fact remains that more than 30 witnesses at one time or other said there was damage to the back of JFK's head. Of course they differed about the precise location of that defect but that's to be expected is it not?

I would never claim that a person's recollection could not be in error, that would just be absurd. But Sibert and O'neil never made contradictory statements about where the large hole was located. Custer and Reibe on the other hand did just that. So using the latter in an attempt to discredit the former is no way to establish the facts IMHO

Nonetheless, Pat, I have a lot of respect for your research and you have given me plenty of food for thought.

Martin, I don't mean to be adversarial. I agree that so many witnesses thinking the wound was on the rear of the head is odd, and unexpected. The point I've been trying to make is that for anyone to turn around and claim this PROVES the wound was on the far back of the head, in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing, is ridiculous. In chapter 18c I go through the so-called back of the head witnesses in Groden's The Killing of a President. Most of these witnesses described and depicted a wound far more in line with the wound in the autopsy photos than the wound in the McClelland drawing. And yet many, if not most, CTs consider these "back of the head" witnesses evidence the large head wound was on the far back of the head, and that the Harper fragment was occipital bone, etc... Such a conclusion is totally illogical and at odds with the statements of the witnesses they cite as support.

From chapter 18c:

On pages 86-88 of Robert Groden's The Killing of a President (1993), the photographs of 18 witnesses are presented, accompanied by the following text:

"The Parkland Hospital doctors were the best eyewitnesses to the President's wounds. They had at least 20 minutes, and some had longer, to examine the President's injuries immediately after the shooting. The doctors' oral and written statements provided the only reliable clues to the snipers' locations and bullet trajectories..."

From this one might assume the witnesses presented were at Parkland and had 20 minutes or more in which they viewed the President's wounds. But this is far from the case. Only 10 of these witnesses were at Parkland and very few of these witnesses got much of a look at the President. Even worse, while Groden uses the photographs of these witnesses--with them pointing to a wound location other than that shown in the autopsy photos--to suggest there was a wound on the back of the head as purportedly observed at Parkland, he fails to explain that only a handful of these witnesses described a wound similar to the one he proposes (a large gaping hole from front to back).

Even so, when one studies Groden's "back of the head" witnesses, one comes to an even bigger surprise. Many of these witnesses are not pointing to the back of the head, but are instead pointing to the top or side of the head, at locations just as close or closer to the wound location depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays as the wound location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing shown on the slide above.

(Although Groden, in The Killing of a President, claims Dr. McClelland himself made this drawing, he is clearly mistaken. In June, 2010, Josiah Thompson, who first published the drawing, wrote me and confirmed that while this famous drawing--which has come to represent the "actual" location and appearance of the president's large head wound to many, if not the majority, of conspiracy theorists--was based upon Dr. McClelland's description of the large head wound to the Warren Commission, Dr. McClelland had in fact "had nothing to do with the preparation of the drawing.")

Let's go through these witnesses, then, so you can see for yourself (the pictures in Groden's book are on the slide above).

Groden starts out with four witnesses who purportedly saw Kennedy not at Parkland, but in Dealey Plaza during the shooting.

While Beverly Oliver claims to have been one of the closest witnesses to the shooting, many if not most long time researchers doubt her claims, as she only came forward years after the shooting, and told some pretty wild stories. Even so her description of a wound on the back of the head is in keeping with the wound described by Dr. McClelland, and the drawing prepared by Phillip Johnson. Back of the head witness.

Although Phil Willis made several statements over the years indicating he thought the fatal shot blew out the back of Kennedy's head, he was clearly repeating what his wife and daughters had told him. You see, he'd testified before the Warren Commission that he was not looking at Kennedy at the time of the head shot. Not actually a witness.

Although Marilyn Willis, Phil's wife, was a witness to the head shot, and said the wound was on the "back" of Kennedy's head, when ultimately asked to point out the location of the wound she saw from 50 yards or so away, she pointed to a location high on the top of her head above her right ear. Top of the head witness.

While deaf-mute Ed Hoffman only came forward years after the assassination, and while his stories of watching the shooting from a nearby freeway and then seeing Kennedy's wounds as the limo passed underneath were never fully accepted, he was at least consistent on one point: he always placed the head wound on the top of Kennedy's head. Not always in the same place, mind you. While the photo in Groden's book shows Hoffman with his hand over the crown of his head, other photos found online show him pointing out a wound forward of this location, and in line with the wound seen on the autopsy photos. Top of the head witness.

Groden then presents the photos of ten witnesses observing Kennedy's wound at Parkland Hospital.

As one might expect, the head wound location pointed out by Dr. Robert McClelland is fairly consistent with the head wound location depicted in the drawing by Johnson based upon McClelland's Warren Commission testimony. Fairly consistent but not fully consistent. McClelland's hand in the photo is, in fact, almost entirely above his ear, which places the wound about two inches higher on the back of his head than in the drawing. This is not surprising. As previously mentioned, Josiah Thompson, who'd had the drawing created, admits that Dr. McClelland had "nothing to do with" its creation. And it's not as if McClelland's recollections were reliable anyhow. Although he stood at the head of Kennedy in the ER at Parkland and was thus well-positioned to note his fatal wounds, McClelland is not the most credible of witnesses. Unbelievably, his initial report claimed the fatal wound was on Kennedy's left temple, and not his right, and his testimony before the Warren Commission specified that the wound was chiefly in the parietal bone, a fact clearly at odds with the drawing. (McClelland, in fact, tried to explain this discrepancy to the ARRB, telling them: "the edge of the parietal bone was sticking up through the scalp. And that's not on this picture, but what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, it's not the entire wound. It's simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at that time and still do.") Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.

Dr. Paul Peters, on the other hand, has tried to have it both ways. Although he had repeatedly claimed the wound he saw was in the "occiput" or the back of Kennedy's head, and is pictured in Groden's book pointing to this location, he also told Nova, after being shown Kennedy's autopsy photos in 1988, that the autopsy photos were "pretty much as I remember President Kennedy." He later confirmed his support for the legitimacy of the autopsy photos, moreover, by telling Gerald Posner that the "head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than to the rear." In Groden's video The Case for Conspiracy, furthermore, he points to several different locations, including one high on the back of the head by the crown, inches away from the wound on the "McClelland" drawing. Finally, when interviewed by the ARRB and given the chance to claim the autopsy photos and x-rays were fake, he instead claimed "I was amazed when I saw the first x-ray of the skull — the lateral skull of the extent of the fragmentation of the skull. I did not appreciate that I think because a lot of it was covered by scalp at the time we worked on him. We were doing a resuscitation, not a forensic autopsy." He had thereby indicated he'd been confused by the bloody hair on the back of JFK's head--hair that did not exist, according to McClelland's drawing. Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.

Fortunately, Dr. Kenneth Salyer was a little more consistent. But only a little. From his Warren Commission testimony to the present day, he always claimed the wound was primarily a temporal wound...on the side of the head. The photo in Groden's book, moreover, shows him grabbing the side of his head, just above his ear, an area more suggestive of the wound in the photos than the one in the "McClelland" drawing. Side of the head witness.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, of course, became a star witness for the supposed wound on the "back of the head" when he wrote a book on his experiences in the early nineties. The problem with Crenshaw as a witness, however, is that, not only did he fail to see Kennedy for more than a few seconds, his recollections were not recorded prior to the publication of the "McClelland" drawing showing him how other Parkland witnesses purportedly recalled the wound. Back of the head witness.

Dr. Ronald Jones, as Peters, has claimed many times in many ways that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. In the photo in Groden's book, however, he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing. In 1992, furthermore, he described the wound as a "side wound." To the ARRB, ultimately, he explained his confusion, insisting "it was difficult to see down through the hair," and by admitting "All my view was from the President's left side." He then clarified his position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." He had thereby made it clear that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing. Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the "McClelland" drawing, and defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

As the first doctor to inspect Kennedy upon his arrival at Parkland, Dr. Charles Carrico would certainly have been in good position to accurately note the wound location on Kennedy's head. While the wound location he points to in Groden's book is actually a bit too high for anyone to claim he confirmed the "McClelland" drawing, it's really academic. You see, in 1981, he was asked about the "McClelland" drawing by the Boston Globe. He told them: "it was a very large wound as indicated in the drawing. However, I do not believe that the large wound was this far posterior since, one thing I can be certain of, is that we were able to see the majority, if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back on a hospital gurney. The location of the wound represented in the drawing suggests that it would barely have been visible, if visible at all, with the patient laying in such a position." Confirming his position, he was reported to have later told Gerald Posner that if he and his colleagues initially claimed the head wound was in the occipital bone, instead of the parietal bone, they "were mistaken." Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the "McClelland" drawing, and defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Although Dr. Richard Dulaney made many statements over the years claiming the large head wound was on the back of the head and inconsistent with the autopsy photos, the wound location he points to in Groden's book and video is up at the top of the head...as close to the wound depicted in the autopsy photos as the one depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. Top of the head witness.

Nurse Audrey Bell is similar to Dr. Crenshaw in that, while she has been consistent in her claim that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, there is no record of her making this claim prior to the 1980's, long after the "McClelland" drawing was published in Six Seconds in Dallas. Back of the head witness.

Justice of the Peace Theron Ward is also similar to Dr. Crenshaw, in that he really didn't get much of a look at the head wound. Even so, when one looks at the interview with Ward in Groden's Case for Conspiracy video, and in the image on the slide above, it's clear that Ward, much as Dr. Salyer, felt the wound was on the side of Kennedy's head, and not the back. Side of the head witness.

This brings us to the final Parkland witness presented in Groden's book. And he wasn't even a witness... While ambulance driver Aubrey Rike claimed to feel a hole in the back of Kennedy's head as he helped put his body in its casket, he has always admitted the head was covered at the time, and that he never actually saw the wound. As a result it's possible Rike was mistaken, or merely confused by the fractured bone on the back of the skull seen on the x-rays. Not actually a witness.

We now move to the Bethesda "back of the head" witnesses... The statements of these witnesses, purported to confirm the Parkland doctors' account of the wounds, should seal the deal if there was really a wound on the back of the head behind the ear.

Unfortunately, they do no such thing. While radiology tech Jerrol Custer made many statements over the years indicating that he thought the autopsy photos and X-rays were faked, he actually told the ARRB, after having finally been shown the original X-rays, that they were indeed the ones he took on 11-22-63, and that he had been in error. This, of course, was years after the publication of Groden's book. Even so, when one watches Groden's video, one can see that Custer was never really a "back of the head" witness, as he does not point out a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, as suggested by the frame used in Groden's book, but drags his hand across the entire top of his head while claiming the wound he saw stretched "From the top of the head almost to the base of the skull..." He was thereby describing Kennedy's a appearance after his scalp had been reflected and skull fell to the table. Entire right side of the head witness. Defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Ditto Paul O'Connor. While O'Connor, as Custer, had made many statements over the years suggesting the autopsy photos and X-rays had been faked, his credibility, seeing as he'd depicted the wound location in the upper right quadrant of the back of the head in a drawing he'd created for the HSCA, and then moved it to beneath the top of the ear years later, was questionable. In Groden's video The Case for Conspiracy, moreover, O'Connor repeated Custer's performance almost word for word, stating there was "an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain right there," while pointing out the dimensions of this hole--basically the dimensions of the hole after Kennedy's scalp had been reflected. He was thereby, like it or not, supporting the official story of the wounds. Entire right side of the head witness.

Ditto ditto assistant autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe. Much as Custer, Riebe made many statements suggesting the autopsy photos were fake--in Groden's book, he even pointed at the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. Once shown the original photos by the ARRB, however, he, too, deferred to their accuracy. Back of the head witness who defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

This leaves us with Frank O'Neill, an FBI agent in attendance at the autopsy. While O'Neill claimed the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, he always placed this wound towards the top of the back of the head, inches away from the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. He also claimed this wound was an exit for the much smaller entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. His recollection of the wounds is therefore far more in line with that of the autopsy doctors than of the Parkland witnesses. Top of the head witness.

So now a final tally... Of the 18 witnesses presented by Groden to demonstrate that the bulk of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses believed there was an exit on the far back of the head--an exit purported to be centered in the occipital bone--2 never saw the wound, 2 depicted a wound encompassing the entire right side of the head, 2 depicted the wound on the side of the head, 4 depicted the wound on the top of the head, and 3 depicted a wound on the back of the head, but apparently came to accept they were mistaken, and deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. This means that only 5 witnesses actually believed the wound was on the far back of Kennedy's head, and 2 of these--Peters and McClelland, were inconsistent in their statements but ultimately claimed they believed the wound to be further forward than in the "McClelland" drawing. This means that but 3 witnesses felt comfortable asserting the large head wound was really behind the ear in the occipital bone, as purported by most conspiracy theorists and as presented in the "McClelland" drawing: Crenshaw, Bell, and Oliver.

Well, Crenshaw, Bell and Oliver never described the wound location until many years after the "McClelland" drawing was published. And Oliver, when describing the wound to Robert Groden for his video, The Case for Conspiracy, told him "The whole back of (Kennedy's) head went flying out the back of the car," something no one--not even Groden--honestly believes.

This leaves Crenshaw and Bell as the only two witnesses presented by Groden who can reasonably be taken as confirming the wound depicted in the "McClelland" drawing.

And their credibility--already questionable due to the many years between the time of the shooting and the time they first began describing the wound--was pretty much eradicated by the ARRB. Crenshaw, when asked by the ARRB in 1997 to mark the head wound location on an autopsy drawing of a skull viewed from behind, in fact, placed it almost entirely on the occipital bone, behind and below the top of Kennedy's ear. Bell's mark was even lower. This is in clear contradiction with the earliest reports and statements of Dr. William Kemp Clark, the only doctor at Parkland to actually examine the wound, and even Dr. McClelland, who told the Warren Commission that "the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half."

More telling, when asked to mark the wound location on a lateral drawing of the skull, Crenshaw placed the wound on the parietal bone, inches from the location he'd marked on the drawing from behind. And Bell was no better. She placed the wound she depicted both above and below the level of the External Occipital Protuberance on the rear view entirely above the EOP on the lateral view. (This is seen more clearly in Volume 1 of Doug Horne's Inside the ARRB than on the slide above.)

Crenshaw and Bell were thus not only inconsistent with each other, and the only doctor to examine the wound at Parkland, but with themselves. While they might have been the most fabulous people on God's green Earth, their decades-after recollections of Kennedy's head wound location are clearly just not credible.

So much for the oft-repeated claim that the Parkland staff were "trained witnesses" and could not mistake a wound on the top of the head for a wound on the back of the head... Crenshaw and Bell either couldn't orient a simple anatomy drawing, or were unable to remember where they'd marked the wound only a few seconds earlier.

[Craig Lamson]

Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St.

Betzner...which is unimpeachable as you well know. Not that you have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Pat doesn't buy your intellectually corrupt nonsense, Craig.

I put the question to Pat.

You are babbling again Cliff. You get like that when you have your back in a corner.

And Pat can't photo interpret his way out of a paper bag...

It's really simple. Either you can offer us some experimental, empirical evidence that shows ANY other type of fabric arrangement OTHER than the one I have shown, THAT CAN CREATE THE SHADOW PATTERN SEEN ON JFK'S BACK IN BETZNER, or you lose.

That's all you have left Cliff. End of story.

Of course your total lack of intellectual honesty in this matter will not allwo you to deal directly with the unimpeachable truth that destroys your nice, warm ct bubble.

You just can't handle the truth.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Just like single-assassin theorists who refuse to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or lower than the throat wound,

This is an egregious mis-statement of fact which you cannot defend to save

your life, Pat.

Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St.

Show us the witness statements placing the wound that high.

Show us the properly prepared medical evidence of a wound that high.

All you've got are Richard Lipsey and Thornton Boswell; improperly recorded

measurements on the autopsy face sheet; and some autopsy photos the HSCA

concluded were prima facie inadmissible in court, and which the ARRB discovered

have no chain of possession.

This nonsense you spew about the back wound is the worst form of "CT"

pet theorizing.

Hold on there, Cliff. Read what I wrote again. I indicated that LNs who REFUSE to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or LOWER than the throat wound were in denial. In other words, I am claiming that it is obvious that the back wound is at the same level or lower than the throat wound. How is this any different than what you've been claiming?

The distinction is of utmost importance. One cannot properly interpret the

neck x-ray unless one realizes that the back wound was where the holes in the

clothes, more than a dozen witnesses, and the properly prepared contemporaneous

documents place it. Many LNers and SBT defenders have embraced that location of

yours.

It strikes me as odd that you continue to act as though we're on different sides on this issue, when we share (you can even call me a convert if you like) the assessment that the bullet holes on the clothing pretty much kill the proposition the bullet creating Kennedy's back wound went on to create his throat wound.

I don't divide the world into CTs and LNs. I divide the world into those

who acknowledge the prima facie evidence of conspiracy, and those who don't.

The T3 back wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy. Any attempts to muddy

this deserve a measure of push-back.

So you're claiming my claiming the wound was at the same level or lower than the throat--something you agree with--was an attempt to muddy some truth--that the back wound was irrefutably at the T3 level--which you in your infinite wisdom have divined. Got it.

Well, Cliff, news to you. No one outside yourself cares that you think Burkley's quick scrawling of T-3 has any real importance. I mean, if he'd said it was at C-7 would that have affected your opinion on the back wound location? Of course not. You only accept his guess of T-3 because it supports what you want to believe. What people care about--and perhaps this is unfortunate--is the autopsy photos.

I believe the photos show the back wound around T-1, and that this is too low to support the SBT. The HSCA pathology panel agreed, and mused that Kennedy magically leaned forward and back within a split second while behind the sign in the Z-film. The trajectory panel also agreed, and moved the wound upward a few inches in order to make the SBT seem possible.

Do you agree? Does a wound at T-1 support the SBT, or not? Because if you agree with me, and feel it does not, then how can you accuse me of confusing the issue and pushing something to which LNs agree, when this is more accurately a description of yourself?

[David Josephs]

Craig,

How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around?

This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well

and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck.

Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration

of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended

could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming?

should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around?

This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well

and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck.

Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration

of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended

could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming?

should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

Why don't you just try the search function. There are a couple of very long treads where you will find it all.

[Pat Speer]

Craig,

How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around?

This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well

and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck.

Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration

of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended

could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming?

should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

David, Craig claims he has no interest in trying to establish the actual back wound location. He claims even that he has no interest in the viability of the SBT. All he supposedly cares about is debunking Cliff's argument--to which I concur--that the bullet holes on the clothes destroy the SBT.

Some time back I created an image proving that even if the clothes were as bunched as Craig claims they are, they were nowhere near bunched enough to lift the holes on the clothes to the level they would need to be to support the SBT pushed by most LNs. It's a dead issue, as far as I'm concerned.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around?

This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well

and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck.

Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration

of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended

could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming?

should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

David, Craig claims he has no interest in trying to establish the actual back wound location. He claims even that he has no interest in the viability of the SBT. All he supposedly cares about is debunking Cliff's argument--to which I concur--that the bullet holes on the clothes destroy the SBT.

Some time back I created an image proving that even if the clothes were as bunched as Craig claims they are, they were nowhere near bunched enough to lift the holes on the clothes to the level they would need to be to support the SBT pushed by most LNs. It's a dead issue, as far as I'm concerned.

I make no "claims" Pat. I just show the unimpeachble truth, that the jacket was folded 3 inchs or so on JFK's back in Betzner.

What speculation you and others decide to make based on this unimpeachable fact is not my worry.

[David Josephs]

Craig,

How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around?

This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well

and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck.

Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration

of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended

could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming?

should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

Why don't you just try the search function. There are a couple of very long treads where you will find it all.

Why not post that one picture worth those thousand words instead of having us wade thru thread after thread to find what may, or may not be what you are trying to say in your posts on this thread?

You claim Betzner proves it... show us Craig... do you not have these images anymore? I keep an 8Gb flash drive with everything, so in 5 minutes I can post an image that supports my posts, or attempts to refute others. Or I open Photoshop/ImageReady and do a little work to see if what you are saying is even remotely possible.

You not being able to point to a supporting argument or supporting images is not my problem. I don't believe what you are claiming and I posted an image supporting my point... If you can link us, or show us where I/we are so wrong... I'd be more than willing to rethink my position... but you do none of that. I already know you're wrong about this... not my concern to make your case for you.

Laughing, insulting and saying you've already did it, proves nothing.

Show us your work here and now... or are you concerned someone might have an issue with it, call you on it and show where you might be mistaken in your analysis and conclusions? It's not like you being wrong is even remotely possible though

[Craig Lamson]

Why not post that one picture worth those thousand words instead of having us wade thru thread after thread to find what may, or may not be what you are trying to say in your posts on this thread?

You claim Betzner proves it... show us Craig... do you not have these images anymore? I keep an 8Gb flash drive with everything, so in 5 minutes I can post an image that supports my posts, or attempts to refute others. Or I open Photoshop/ImageReady and do a little work to see if what you are saying is even remotely possible.

You not being able to point to a supporting argument or supporting images is not my problem. I don't believe what you are claiming and I posted an image supporting my point... If you can link us, or show us where I/we are so wrong... I'd be more than willing to rethink my position... but you do none of that. I already know you're wrong about this... not my concern to make your case for you.

Laughing, insulting and saying you've already did it, proves nothing.

Show us your work here and now... or are you concerned someone might have an issue with it, call you on it and show where you might be mistaken in your analysis and conclusions? It's not like you being wrong is even remotely possible though

Here is what you need to find my extensive work on this issue. I'll not muddy this thread with it. You want to see it, then please be my guest. BTW, I really don't care if you "believe" me or not. Your uninformed opinion means nothing.

One thing is unimpeachable...there was a fold of fabric on JKF's back in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar. That makes is 3 inches or so.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

And a little hint...

Edited June 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

deleted by poster....

Edited June 25, 2010 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig...

the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone

that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck.

No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion...

Is that how you explain this?

[Craig Lamson]

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig...

the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone

that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck.

No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion...

Is that how you explain this?

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you.

The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable. I don't need to explain anything else. It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric. You can't explain it away. You can't prove it does not exist.

Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts.