Martin Hinrichs Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF ) Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat Now, thats interesting Robin. To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great. I would never have this idea i believe. The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures) You raise (again) interesting questions. best to you Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Cliff, I have seen it! I knew it was faked as soon as I saw it. It shows a highly exaggerated bunching of his jacket. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it was relatively recently. McAdams features several: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm The point I have made is that, if the jacket and shirt HAD BEEN BUNCHED, the holes in them would NOT HAVE ALIGNED with Boswell and Sibert's diagrams. But they DO ALIGN with those diagrams! I don't understand why the surfacing of a new faked photograph should imply that I am falling for it! If that explained why the holes in the jacket and shirt were lower than the actual wound on the body, then they might have some probative value. But they don't show that. The wound on the body--as the Boswell and Sibert diagrams demonstrate--were right where they should be given the shirt and jacket. In #443 and #447--and more extensively in "Reasoning about Assassinations"--I have demonstrated that the hole in the shirt and the hole in the jack align with the wound identified on Boswell's diagram and the Sibert sketch 5.5" below the collar. That would have been impossible if the shirt had actually been bunched. Since it is shown bunched in this new Betzner, the Betzner has to have been faked! I am the least bit distressed that you cannot reason to such an obvious conclusion, Cliff. There is no such thing as "a new Betzner." There is no such thing as a 3+" bunch in Betzner. Lamson is making it up. Don't fall for it, Jim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Cliff, You are being disingenuous. No, I don't think I am. OBVIOUSLY you haven't studied the multiples sources that I have identified. You haven't identified anything in this thread to preclude the windshield shot occurring after the throat shot. The next time you present evidence of such will be the first time in this thread, near as I can tell. There is no doubt that it excludes the shot to the throat as having come from any other source! You need to study the evidence I have cited, because it is the most important. I'm waiting. You place great weight on the HSCA, I place weight on their reading of the neck x-ray, a straight-forward analysis. I have yet to be given a reason to think that the neck x-ray isn't authentic. but on page 349, you can see Commission Exhibit No. 350, which presents the substitute windshield, while on page 355, you can see the Altgens, where the small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center where his left ear would be is its location. Tom Wilson also identified a hole in the windshield in Altgens. But the throat shot was circa Z190, and Altgens was taken almost 4 seconds later. -- Again, what is to preclude the windshield shot being separate from the throat shot? Again -- why would the conspirators aim the crucial first shot through a windshield? You have to get serious. If Vincent Bugliosi remarked that mine were the only three "exclusively scientific books" ever published on the assassination, you really ought to be taking the studies that I have brought together in each of them seriously and not trying to fake as though you had. I'm not faking anything. My contention is that the case doesn't require that much scientific analysis. We can establish the back wound by the principles of fine men's dress, for instance. There is medical evidence which was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocols, and there is medical evidence which was properly prepared. We simply disregard that which was not properly prepared, and we weigh that which was. Simple. It is the improperly prepared evidence -- the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and everything to do with the head wounds -- that I do not take seriously. I think studies of the head wounds or the head x-rays or the phony high back wound are not to be taken seriously. They are rabbit holes. Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF ) Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat Now, thats interesting Robin. To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great. I would never have this idea i believe. The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures) You raise (again) interesting questions. best to you Martin A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 This is pretty weird, Cliff. These are Warren Commission staff reconstruction photographs. The one you didn't show just now--which I am showing here--is my favorite from the photo series, as a photograph that is supposed to demonstrate the "magic bullet" theory which actually refutes it. Of course, as I would like to believe everyone understands, David Mantik took a patient with the same (or similar) neck and shoulder dimensions as JFK and plotted the official trajectory, which enabled him to prove that the "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible. See here: Moreover, we know that the Warren Commission staff also placed the wound at that location, as these photos show: It was the FBI who put the back wound in its proper position, not the Warren Commission staff. Hoover never bought the SBT. Hoover wanted to make Specter look like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF ) Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat Now, thats interesting Robin. To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great. I would never have this idea i believe. The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures) You raise (again) interesting questions. best to you Martin A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap. Possible Pat. I'am no expert in blood traces in clothes. Was just a thought. best to you Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Cliff, You are being disingenuous. OBVIOUSLY you haven't studied the multiples sources that I have identified. There is no doubt that it excludes the shot to the throat as having come from any other source! You need to study the evidence I have cited, because it is the most important. You place great weight on the HSCA, but on page 349, you can see Commission Exhibit No. 350, which presents the substitute windshield, while on page 355, you can see the Altgens, where the small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center where his left ear would be is its location. You have to get serious. If Vincent Bugliosi remarked that mine were the only three "exclusively scientific books" ever published on the assassination, you really ought to be taking the studies that I have brought together in each of them seriously and not trying to fake as though you had. I mentioned that I was writing to Cyril Wecht about the gross discrepancy between the HSCA diagram and photo, which show the back of the head entirely intact, and the autopsy report, which describes a cranium with around 2/3 of its surface area as missing, as shown here: Now Cyril has written to me that he agrees and that he pointed out the enormous discrepancy between the Parkland physicians reports and the Bethesda autopsy report, but that they had simply ignored this glaring discrepancy and challenged the accuracy of the autopsy report and the Parkland physicians' observations. With this stunning display of incompetence from the HSCA medical panel, I can't imagine why anyone would take it seriously. I do not see the X- ray you cite either. Tell me the pages of the HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979) so I can check them. ----- Original Message ----- From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> To: "Cyril H. Wecht M.D., J.D." Cc: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Hello Cyril, Sean's problems do not appear to fall into your areas of specialization. But I have a question that does. A fellow named Pat Speer has make the (to me, quite ridiculous) argument that the HSCA photographs that show an intact back-of-the-head but a small wound at the crown or "cowlick" are the most accurate. I have pointed out their inconsistency with the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Parkland physcians' reports, and (now) the testimony of Clint Hill (which I have discussed in two articles on my blog, "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" and "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?" But my question for you is this. I have also pointed out to him the gross inconsistency between the enormous dimensions of the missing cranium as it was described in the official autopsy report. Since the HSCA photo and diagram was so blatantly inconsistent with the official autopsy report, why was that discrepancy not the subject of intense discussion within the medical panel of which you were a member? To the best of my knowledge, that difference did not surface during its deliberations. If I am wrong about that, I would like to know. Are you aware of any articles or books that addresses this specifically? David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), of course, characterizes the differences in the wounds that were described at Parkland, at Bethesda, and by the HSCA. But I am unaware of any study that focuses on the gross discrepancy between the HSCA and the official autopsy report. Can you help me out here? Warm regards, Jim Jim, it's obvious Cyril believes the HSCA back of the head photo is consistent with the autopsy report noting a large hole and the testimony of Dr. Humes that large chunks of skull fell to the table when the scalp was reflected. If not, he should have said so many many years ago, like when he emerged from the archives after being the first CT to inspect the photos, or when he testified before the HSCA. Now, the back of the head photo and the statements of the Parkland witnesses? That's a different story entirely. Even I see that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 This is pretty weird, Cliff. These are Warren Commission staff reconstruction photographs. The one you didn't show just now--which I am showing here--is my favorite from the photo series, as a photograph that is supposed to demonstrate the "magic bullet" theory which actually refutes it. I'm willing to stand corrected, but I think those are FBI men in the limo. Yes, the Warren Commission took part and took photographs. It was the FBI who placed the back wound down low, making Specter look like an idiot. Of course, as I would like to believe everyone understands, David Mantik took a patient with the same (or similar) neck and shoulder dimensions as JFK and plotted the official trajectory, which enabled him to prove that the "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible. See here: No expert analysis is necessary, frankly. The bullet hole in the shirt is dispositive as to the location of the back wound. If I were to cite expert analysis I'd pick Alan Flusser, the designer/historian who describes a custom made shirt as "almost a second skin." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 You are really doing yourself a disservice. Admit that you haven't studied any of the evidence that I've identified, because you obviously haven't. This is like NIST investigating 9/11, which claimed that it had not found any evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, but later, when challenged, had to admit that it hadn't bothered to look! If you don't take a serious look at all of the sources that I have identified, you will have thereby discredited you. That would be a shame, since it has seemed to me that you are far more rational in dealing with the medical and ballistic evidence than others whom I could name, but it takes me aback that you have not studied the most important work on this question. It's not that "we simply disagree". I have published the evidence that demonstrates you are wrong. In fact, I have discussed it several times on this thread. The Secret Service obtained a dozen windshields, allegedly for target practice. JFK's military aide, who normally would have been in between Kellerman and Greer, was moved to the last vehicle along with Admiral Burkely, the president's personal physician, so if he needed medical care, he would be poorly positioned to provide it. The hole in the windshield and the throat wound lead back to a firing location on the south end of the Triple Underpass. Those small "shrapnel wounds" on his face appear to have been made by shards of glass from the windshield. Several witnesses observed the through and through hole in the windshield at Parkland. One police officer actually stuck a pencil through it. Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, actually wrote about it in a column that I reprinted in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), along with Bob Livingston's reports about the Secret Service. Doug Weldon, J.D., did an extensive study of the windshield and even tracked own the official at Ford who had replaced it and who confirmed that it had a through and through hole in it. I have pointed out that it is visible in the Altgens and that the Secret Service had produced a substitute. You have been taken in, Cliff. STUDY THE EVIDENCE! Now I am forced to conclude that you REALLY ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS. Which is a great pity! Cliff, You are being disingenuous. No, I don't think I am. OBVIOUSLY you haven't studied the multiples sources that I have identified. You haven't identified anything in this thread to preclude the windshield shot occurring after the throat shot. The next time you present evidence of such will be the first time in this thread, near as I can tell. There is no doubt that it excludes the shot to the throat as having come from any other source! You need to study the evidence I have cited, because it is the most important. I'm waiting. You place great weight on the HSCA, I place weight on their reading of the neck x-ray, a straight-forward analysis. I have yet to be given a reason to think that the neck x-ray isn't authentic. but on page 349, you can see Commission Exhibit No. 350, which presents the substitute windshield, while on page 355, you can see the Altgens, where the small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center where his left ear would be is its location. Tom Wilson also identified a hole in the windshield in Altgens. But the throat shot was circa Z190, and Altgens was taken five seconds later. -- Again, what is to preclude the windshield shot being separate from the throat shot? Again -- why would the conspirators aim the crucial first shot through a windshield? You have to get serious. If Vincent Bugliosi remarked that mine were the only three "exclusively scientific books" ever published on the assassination, you really ought to be taking the studies that I have brought together in each of them seriously and not trying to fake as though you had. I'm not faking anything. My contention is that the case doesn't require that much scientific analysis. We can establish the back wound by the principles of fine men's dress, for instance. There is medical evidence which was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocols, and there is medical evidence which was properly prepared. We simply disregard that which was not properly prepared, and we weigh that which was. Simple. It is the improperly prepared evidence -- the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and everything to do with the head wounds -- that I do not take seriously. I think studies of the head wounds or the head x-rays or the phony high back wound are not to be taken seriously. They are rabbit holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Moreover, we know that the Warren Commission staff also placed the wound at that location, as these photos show: http://i52.tinypic.com/2uejpz8.jp It was the FBI who put the back wound in its proper position, not the Warren Commission staff. Hoover never bought the SBT. Hoover wanted to make Specter look like an idiot. This isn't correct, Cliff. Specter ran the show at the re-enactment. He was shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment by SS agent Thomas Kelley. He tested the trajectories using the real back wound location, based on the photo and the face sheet. When he found they didn't work so great he had Kelley testify they'd used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location used in the re-enactment, and Shaneyfelt claim the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated that of the trajectory in the Rydberg drawings. He then made sure that no photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were published in the 26 volumes. His charade was exposed, however, by three people. 1) Frazier testified they'd used the face sheet to place the wound. 2) Specter admitted Kelley had shown him the photo on the day of the re-enactment. 3) Kelley confirmed this to Weisberg. This is all covered in part 2 of my video series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Cliff, I have seen it! I knew it was faked as soon as I saw it. It shows a highly exaggerated bunching of his jacket. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it was relatively recently. McAdams features several: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm You're falling for the okey-doke here, Jim. They are conning you! Take a good look at the photo on the left in Hunt's article you linked above. The Jim Towner photo, taken on the corner of Houston and Elm. There is JFK's 1.25" jacket collar towering over the .75" fabric fold. What you are buying into here is Gross Ease Fallacy -- the notion that casual body movements cause multiple inches of fabric to move. It cannot happen. Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality. The point I have made is that, if t he jacket and shirt HAD BEEN BUNCHED, the holes in them would NOT HAVE ALIGNED with Boswell and Sibert's diagrams. But they DO ALIGN with those diagrams! I don't understand why the surfacing of a new faked photograph should imply that I am falling for it! What new photograph? Nothing new about Betzner... Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Cliff, You may be right that it wasn't Betzner. It was some new film that had been found in someone's closet or some such nonsense. It showed the jacket bunched up as Lamson has described it--about 3". It was an obvious fake. What isn't fake--to the best of my knowledge!--is this Altgens, where you can see the through and through hole in the windshield. I have other studies in my books, but you can't be serious when you suggest I should transfer their content to a thread like this. YOU NEED TO READ THEM! Cliff, I have seen it! I knew it was faked as soon as I saw it. It shows a highly exaggerated bunching of his jacket. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it was relatively recently. McAdams features several: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm You're falling for the okey-doke here, Jim. They are conning you! Take a good look at the photo on the left in Hunt's article you linked above. The Jim Towner photo, taken on the corner of Houston and Elm. There is JFK's 1.25 inch jacket collar towering over the .75" fabric fold. What you are buying into here is Gross Ease Fallacy -- the notion that casual body movements cause multiple inches of fabric to move. It cannot happen. Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality. The point I have made is that, if t he jacket and shirt HAD BEEN BUNCHED, the holes in them would NOT HAVE ALIGNED with Boswell and Sibert's diagrams. But they DO ALIGN with those diagrams! I don't understand why the surfacing of a new faked photograph should imply that I am falling for it! What new photograph? Nothing new about Betzner... Edited April 8, 2011 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Moreover, we know that the Warren Commission staff also placed the wound at that location, as these photos show: http://i52.tinypic.com/2uejpz8.jp It was the FBI who put the back wound in its proper position, not the Warren Commission staff. Hoover never bought the SBT. Hoover wanted to make Specter look like an idiot. This isn't correct, Cliff. Specter ran the show at the re-enactment. He was shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment by SS agent Thomas Kelley. According to Specter, correct? He tested the trajectories using the real back wound location, based on the photo and the face sheet. When he found they didn't work so great he had Kelley testify they'd used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location used in the re-enactment, and Shaneyfelt claim the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated that of the trajectory in the Rydberg drawings. He then made sure that no photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were published in the 26 volumes. His charade was exposed, however, by three people. 1) Frazier testified they'd used the face sheet to place the wound. 2) Specter admitted Kelley had shown him the photo on the day of the re-enactment. 3) Kelley confirmed this to Weisberg. This is all covered in part 2 of my video series. Those were FBI men in the limo, correct? And wasn't it Frazier of the FBI who used the face sheet to place the wound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Pat, You are making a good point. Maybe Cyril wasn't QUITE as much on top of all of this as some of us have supposed. I know he had difficulty understanding David's studies of the X-rays, because I was with him at his home at the time a program featuring David explaining them was broadcast. Jim Cliff, You are being disingenuous. OBVIOUSLY you haven't studied the multiples sources that I have identified. There is no doubt that it excludes the shot to the throat as having come from any other source! You need to study the evidence I have cited, because it is the most important. You place great weight on the HSCA, but on page 349, you can see Commission Exhibit No. 350, which presents the substitute windshield, while on page 355, you can see the Altgens, where the small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center where his left ear would be is its location. You have to get serious. If Vincent Bugliosi remarked that mine were the only three "exclusively scientific books" ever published on the assassination, you really ought to be taking the studies that I have brought together in each of them seriously and not trying to fake as though you had. I mentioned that I was writing to Cyril Wecht about the gross discrepancy between the HSCA diagram and photo, which show the back of the head entirely intact, and the autopsy report, which describes a cranium with around 2/3 of its surface area as missing, as shown here: Now Cyril has written to me that he agrees and that he pointed out the enormous discrepancy between the Parkland physicians reports and the Bethesda autopsy report, but that they had simply ignored this glaring discrepancy and challenged the accuracy of the autopsy report and the Parkland physicians' observations. With this stunning display of incompetence from the HSCA medical panel, I can't imagine why anyone would take it seriously. I do not see the X- ray you cite either. Tell me the pages of the HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979) so I can check them. ----- Original Message ----- From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> To: "Cyril H. Wecht M.D., J.D." Cc: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Hello Cyril, Sean's problems do not appear to fall into your areas of specialization. But I have a question that does. A fellow named Pat Speer has make the (to me, quite ridiculous) argument that the HSCA photographs that show an intact back-of-the-head but a small wound at the crown or "cowlick" are the most accurate. I have pointed out their inconsistency with the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Parkland physcians' reports, and (now) the testimony of Clint Hill (which I have discussed in two articles on my blog, "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" and "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?" But my question for you is this. I have also pointed out to him the gross inconsistency between the enormous dimensions of the missing cranium as it was described in the official autopsy report. Since the HSCA photo and diagram was so blatantly inconsistent with the official autopsy report, why was that discrepancy not the subject of intense discussion within the medical panel of which you were a member? To the best of my knowledge, that difference did not surface during its deliberations. If I am wrong about that, I would like to know. Are you aware of any articles or books that addresses this specifically? David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), of course, characterizes the differences in the wounds that were described at Parkland, at Bethesda, and by the HSCA. But I am unaware of any study that focuses on the gross discrepancy between the HSCA and the official autopsy report. Can you help me out here? Warm regards, Jim Jim, it's obvious Cyril believes the HSCA back of the head photo is consistent with the autopsy report noting a large hole and the testimony of Dr. Humes that large chunks of skull fell to the table when the scalp was reflected. If not, he should have said so many many years ago, like when he emerged from the archives after being the first CT to inspect the photos, or when he testified before the HSCA. Now, the back of the head photo and the statements of the Parkland witnesses? That's a different story entirely. Even I see that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 You keep showing the less important of these two photographs, where the second is the crucial one. Pat, I just might have to watch Part 2 of your video series. Thanks for the last couple of your posts. Moreover, we know that the Warren Commission staff also placed the wound at that location, as these photos show: It was the FBI who put the back wound in its proper position, not the Warren Commission staff. Hoover never bought the SBT. Hoover wanted to make Specter look like an idiot. This isn't correct, Cliff. Specter ran the show at the re-enactment. He was shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment by SS agent Thomas Kelley. According to Specter, correct? He tested the trajectories using the real back wound location, based on the photo and the face sheet. When he found they didn't work so great he had Kelley testify they'd used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location used in the re-enactment, and Shaneyfelt claim the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated that of the trajectory in the Rydberg drawings. He then made sure that no photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were published in the 26 volumes. His charade was exposed, however, by three people. 1) Frazier testified they'd used the face sheet to place the wound. 2) Specter admitted Kelley had shown him the photo on the day of the re-enactment. 3) Kelley confirmed this to Weisberg. This is all covered in part 2 of my video series. Those were FBI men in the limo, correct? And wasn't it Frazier of the FBI who used the face sheet to place the wound? 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