Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[James R Gordon]

Here is the link to the video on damaging C7:-

Here is the link to identifying the location of the back wound:-

James.

James, your assumptions haven't changed. You insist that the lung must be damaged, while there is no credible evidence of damage to the lung.

Yes, my assumptions have not changed. They cannot change because they are the criteria for the SBT.

And what establishes that criteria as historical fact? That an assertion is convenient to a pet theory hardly seems like a logical measure of validity. Is your argument self-validating? JFK's back wound was at T1 because the pet theories of Pat Speer and James Gordon depend on it?

I don't think things work that way...

The purpose of that video was to establish how a shot from the front could do exactly what the supporters of the Warren Commission state the SBT did. In showing that a shot from the front can do exactly what the SBT can do was another attempt to undermine the SBT. I cannot change any of the assumptions/criteria, because they are the criteria of the Commission.

But by what leap of logic do you conclude that the criteria/assumptions of the Commission were based in fact? Because your pet theory requires it?

If I did so, e.g left one out, the supporters of the Commission would immediately accuse me of changing the criteria.

So what? I mean, I doubt if they will pay much attention to you, and if it comes down to it they'll find something else to throw at you. They are well versed in just making stuff up.

That is why those criteria have not, and cannot, change. Otherwise any attempt to demonstrate that a bullet from the front can do exactly the same as the SBT would be invalid.

[

The criteria of the Warren Commission is invalid, and neither you or Pat has made a fact-based argument otherwise.

With Pat it's all rhetoric.

The credibility of the evidence is Humes testimony and the Autopsy report.

That evidence has no credibility. Humes lied about the back wound location and Humes lied about the bullet transiting.

Earlier today I quoted David Lifton’s support for the authority of Humes observations and Autopsy report

Hold it. Lifton supports the observations Humes made during the autopsy, the observations you dismiss. The final autopsy report contains too many lies for Lifton to support, such as the "base of the neck wound" and the "transiting bullet."

and you said I can’t use that when referring to the back wound. Well, in this case, I am not referring to the back wound and I do now cite it.

The evidence for the damage of the lung is the Autopsy report.

You ignore the air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

When do you think this “air-pocket” was created that apparently overlay C7?

From the throat shot, as the obvious trajectory indicates.

Where, on earth, could such air come from I wonder?

It comes from an object tapping on the tissue.

The answer has to be the damaged lung.

No, it doesn't.

Now the bullet could never have come into contact with this air pocket.

It created the air-pocket when it came to rest at T1.

That is because the speed of the bullet meant that the bullet had long since finished its journey before that pocket was created.

That doesn't follow. A flechette lodging at that location would tap the tissue and create the air-pocket.

The air pocket did not just instantaneously appear.

Yes, it did. As soon as the round came to rest at T1 there was an air-pocket.

It had to take time, though I have no idea how much time it required to settle there. And certainly if it travelled as far as T1, which is some distance from C7 it would take quite a bit of time.

Okay, it took a period of time. Fine.

How could the air-pocket "overlay" the C7 transverse process if it struck underneath?

As I pointed out the air pocket was not created when C7 was damaged.

There is no evidence C7 was damaged. The x-ray shows T1.

It was created after the lung was damaged.

More self-validating assertions based on the words of a proven, serial xxxx.

The video describes the sequence of the bullet’s entry into the throat. The lung was last organ to be damaged. You cannot create a credible trajectory if the lung is damaged before C7 so it had to be the last organ to be damaged.

Garbage in, Garbage out...

Your reliance on the authenticity of Fox 5 is misplaced, given its poor quality and lack of a chain of possession.

I grant you the quality of Fox 5 is poor, but it is not so poor so as not to be able to identify features of the scapula. Being able to identify the edge of the spline allowed me to draw a base line. From there it was a matter of judging where above that line the bullet’s entry point was.

No, from there you have to identify the person who developed the photo and when they did it, and you have to find something in the photo which identifies the subject as JFK. Without a chain of possession those photos are worthless.

James.

Cliff,

I am sorry but I can see no point in continuing this conversation. There is no common ground between us. Everything I say you consider wrong and everything you say is right. There is no common ground between us through which we could have a reasoned conversation. You appear unable to acknowledge any aspect of my position and I see myself constantly arguing your position and defending my own position.

I believe the time has come to accept that we are diametrically opposed and will never agree.

james

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold.

Widely accepted by whom? Lone Nutters? The mainstream media?

Just about everyone but you.

Since Humes lied about the back wound location and about the bullet transiting, he has no credibility.

His credibility is open to question, that's for sure. But the autopsy protocol and measurements placed a wound on the back inches away from the wound in the Rydberg drawings, and are accepted by most researchers, LN and CT.

That you cannot make a fact-based case for him is telling.

The problem, unfortunately, is that virtually everyone--and almost certainly everyone who will seriously study this case in the future--fails to share his impression of what should be thrown out.

And you took his inventory of what "virtually everyone" thinks...when, exactly? What was your methodology for taking this extensive survey of what "virtually everyone" thinks?

I pay attention. You've been repeating your nonsense for years, on multiple forums, and I don't recall anyone ever supporting you, except ME, on a couple of your points, on aaj.

He dismisses the autopsy report and autopsy photos in favor of Burkley's notation and HIS (Cliff's) interpretation of a few witness statements

This is an egregious misrepresentation of the case for the T3 back wound, of course. Pat likes to pretend that 15 people are only "a few" and that the clothing evidence doesn't exist.

This is ludicrous. You know full well I have a number of slides on the clothing evidence which demonstrate that the wound at the base of the neck in the Rydberg drawings was a scam. As far as your "15", how many of them closely inspected the body? And how many of them said the back wound was at T3?

The burden of proof is on YOU, Pat -- show us how you get 2 inches of indented shirt fabric to ride up.

Show us how you get multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric to ride up entirely above a base-of-the-neck inshoot without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

You can't reconcile the clothing evidence with your pet theories, so you pretend it doesn't exist. You can't reconcile the clear statements of 15 people with your pet theories, so you say it's only a "a few."

Your memory can't really be this bad, can it? You know full well--because we've been discussing this for years--that I put a sticker on my shirt at the measured point of entry, then put the shirt on, then assumed the position, then had my girlfriend poke me through the sticker, to see where the mark would be left on my back. And it was left at what appeared to be T-1. I have, moreover, begged you to repeat this quick test to see this for yourself. But have you done it?

You don't have an argument beyond the words of serial liars and photos for which you have no chain of possession.

Your chain of possession argument is a canard. To establish the veracity of the photos all one needs is someone who witnessed the photos being taken to testify that the photos show what they saw, or are the photos they had taken. And there's more than enough of that.

--and acts as though all should do the same--when he has not uncovered a single instance of an autopsy report or autopsy photos being dismissed or rejected in a court of law in favor of a note by the victim's doctor, and the recollections of a few witnesses.

In other words, his argument is weak sauce, and has no chance of leading anywhere.

Show us where a court of law accepted autopsy reports that weren't properly filled out and autopsy photos without a chain of possession. Do something more than repeat your baseless claims over and over, Pat.

I have, You've been claiming for years that "properly prepared evidence trumps improperly prepared evidence" but when asked to show where this has ever been argued in a court of law--and where photos verified by the official photographer and autopsists were thrown out in favor of statements from bystanders, you high-tail it for the hills.

P.S. Cliff, you're still running from the fact the face sheet has a mark at T-1. If not, then why not show us where a wound at T-1 ought to have been markedt?

T1 is at the base of the neck, Pat. The dot on the autopsy face sheet is not at the base of the neck.

Sorry, Cliff. You've already admitted that the autopsy measurements--which present a wound equidistant from the base of the skull and shoulder tip--reflect a wound at T-1. So show us how a wound at the base of the neck could be equidistant from the base of the skull and shoulder tip on the face sheet. What's that? You can't? Well, then show us an anatomy drawing with T-1 at the base of the neck.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Widely accepted by whom? Lone Nutters? The mainstream media?

Just about everyone but you.

Where are they? Why can't "all" of you muster just one person who can make a case for the T1 back wound? All you ever do is spout non sequiturs -- "The SBT doesn't work at T1, therefore the back wound was at T1!"

Since Humes lied about the back wound location and about the bullet transiting, he has no credibility.

His credibility is open to question, that's for sure.

How can that be? According to you and James the man was infallible -- when he wasn't lying, of course. The trick is to be able to pick out the bald-faced lies from the kernels of unchallenged truth. But that's why we have JFK experts...

But the autopsy protocol and measurements placed a wound on the back inches away from the wound in the Rydberg drawings, and are accepted by most researchers, LN and CT.

When was this exhaustive inventory of "most researchers" performed? And why can't any of these "researchers" come forth and defend their position? A very quiet group of people you've got there, Pat.

That you cannot make a fact-based case for him is telling.

The problem, unfortunately, is that virtually everyone--and almost certainly everyone who will seriously study this case in the future--fails to share his impression of what should be thrown out.

And you took his inventory of what "virtually everyone" thinks...when, exactly? What was your methodology for taking this extensive survey of what "virtually everyone" thinks?

I pay attention. You've been repeating your nonsense for years, on multiple forums,

I see that you are adept with the pejoratives, but you are not so handy with making a fact-based case.

Tell us what "nonsense" I've been repeating, and make a fact-based case for why it's nonsense.

and I don't recall anyone ever supporting you, except ME, on a couple of your points, on aaj.

I don't recall anyone ever factually disputing anything I wrote over there. I had Chad Zimmerman offer me 10 grand if I could prove that he WASN'T full of BS.

If you think you have better arguments, Pat, present them. By all means.

He dismisses the autopsy report and autopsy photos in favor of Burkley's notation and HIS (Cliff's) interpretation of a few witness statements

This is an egregious misrepresentation of the case for the T3 back wound, of course. Pat likes to pretend that 15 people are only "a few" and that the clothing evidence doesn't exist.

This is ludicrous. You know full well I have a number of slides on the clothing evidence which demonstrate that the wound at the base of the neck in the Rydberg drawings was a scam.

So Humes was running a scam, eh? But according to you and James the man was also utterly infallible! In how many courts of law are proven serial liars regarded as the best witnesses?

As far as your "15", how many of them closely inspected the body? And how many of them said the back wound was at T3?

Shall we review? I'll take out Boswell, and Greer and Kellerman aren't quite as specific as the others. Here are a dozen no doubt about it T3 back wound witnesses:

1) Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician and the man who observed

the body at both Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back

wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

2) Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992 interview that

the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

3) James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to David Lifton:

(quote on)

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura

[the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...

where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have

been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...

somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the

heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

(quote off)

4) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda, November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit:

(quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3:

5) FBI SA Francis O'Neill said that the first location for the back wound that Humes gave

was "below the shoulder." Here's O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram:

http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

6) FBI SA [James Sibert also diagrammed a lower back wound:

http://www.jfklancer.../md/sibert1.gif

7) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower marking

on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth, pg 721).

8) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back wound

was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183).

9) Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared to

be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's High Treason 2, pg 206). This is consistent with T3.

10) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seein a back wound "right between the scapula

and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit (KTT, pg 720). This location

is also consistent with T3.

11) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in a note the evening of 11/22/63:

(quote on)

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.

(quote off)

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the

bottom of the collar. Glen Bennett nailed the back wound.

12) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, tasked with bearing witness to the location of JFK's

wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the

spinal column.

(quote off)

6 inches below the neckline. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4" below the top

of the collar. Clint Hill nailed the back wound.

The burden of proof is on YOU, Pat -- show us how you get 2 inches of indented shirt fabric to ride up.

Show us how you get multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric to ride up entirely above a base-of-the-neck inshoot without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

You can't reconcile the clothing evidence with your pet theories, so you pretend it doesn't exist. You can't reconcile the clear statements of 15 people with your pet theories, so you say it's only a "a few."

Your memory can't really be this bad, can it? You know full well--because we've been discussing this for years--that I put a sticker on my shirt at the measured point of entry, then put the shirt on, then assumed the position,

Then assumed what position?

then had my girlfriend poke me through the sticker, to see where the mark would be left on my back. And it was left at what appeared to be T-1.

I don't believe you. Not for one second. You're claiming that a casual movement of your right arm caused multiple inches of your shirt to move up -- that is not a credible claim.

Demonstrate it so we can all see it, Pat. How do we know your girlfriend wasn't just humoring you?

I have, moreover, begged you to repeat this quick test to see this for yourself. But have you done it?

All you have to do is look down on your right shoulder-line, raise your right arm to wave, and observe the fabric INDENT along the shoulder-line.

If you can make multiple inches of clothing move up at the base of your neck while the fabric INDENTS -- show us. Telling us it happened doesn't count.

Show us, Pat.

You don't have an argument beyond the words of serial liars and photos for which you have no chain of possession.

Your chain of possession argument is a canard. To establish the veracity of the photos all one needs is someone who witnessed the photos being taken to testify that the photos show what they saw, or are the photos they had taken. And there's more than enough of that.

Outside of Humes and Boswell? The idea that this was a crime covered up at the highest levels of the US government doesn't seem to have ever crossed your mind Pat. Many witnesses were intimidated.

You can't tell us who developed the Fox 5 photo -- the photo is worthless as forensic evidence. It's that simple.

--and acts as though all should do the same--when he has not uncovered a single instance of an autopsy report or autopsy photos being dismissed or rejected in a court of law in favor of a note by the victim's doctor, and the recollections of a few witnesses.

In other words, his argument is weak sauce, and has no chance of leading anywhere.

Show us where a court of law accepted autopsy reports that weren't properly filled out and autopsy photos without a chain of possession. Do something more than repeat your baseless claims over and over, Pat.

I have, You've been claiming for years that "properly prepared evidence trumps improperly prepared evidence" but when asked to show where this has ever been argued in a court of law--and where photos verified by the official photographer and autopsists were thrown out in favor of statements from bystanders, you high-tail it for the hills.

And when asked to show us a case where improperly prepared autopsy reports were accepted into evidence in a court of law -- Pat heads for the hills.

P.S. Cliff, you're still running from the fact the face sheet has a mark at T-1. If not, then why not show us where a wound at T-1 ought to have been markedt?

T1 is at the base of the neck, Pat. The dot on the autopsy face sheet is not at the base of the neck.

Sorry, Cliff. You've already admitted that the autopsy measurements--which present a wound equidistant from the base of the skull and shoulder tip--reflect a wound at T-1.

Correct. But the holes in the clothes indicate a wound at T3 -- and your claims about shirt ride up cannot be believed.

Tell us how multiple inches of shirt and jacket rode up entirely above the T1 back wound at the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

Demonstrate this. The clothing evidence trumps the autopsy photos.

So show us how a wound at the base of the neck could be equidistant from the base of the skull and shoulder tip on the face sheet. What's that? You can't? Well, then show us an anatomy drawing with T-1 at the base of the neck.

It's your pet theory -- knock yourself out. Explain how JFK's jacket collar could ride in a normal position just above the base of the neck when 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric were bunched up entirely above the base of the neck.

What's that?

You can't?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Another T3 back wound witness:

Mortician Thomas Robinson put the back wound 5 or 6 inches below the shoulder, according to James Fetzer's "Reasoning About Assassinations"

http://assassination...assinations.pdf

[Don Jeffries]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Don Jeffries

[James R Gordon]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

Don, I have on occasions commented that the jacket did ride up a bit. There are a number of images from Elm street that make that plain. How much it had risen I am not certain about except to say that It was certainly not anywhere near enough to place the jacket damage up by T1

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

The placing of the wound is a different matter. In the image below I have given logical reasons why I have placed the wound where I did.

See image below.

I believe, though you can correct me if you feel I am wrong, I have located the location of the Scapula Spline on the back of JFK's body. I have labeled that A2. I have drawn a line across the body in order to create a base line. I acknowledge the line of the JFK body is not quite straight, however the A2 point is fine. It is now a matter of judging where the wound is placed, with respect to that line. The first Vertebra above that line, on the model, is T3. It is now a debatable issue whether the Yellow dot should be closer to the T3 vertebrae or around where I placed it just below T2. It is a matter of where, in relation to the dotted line, you consider the wound should be. I placed it up towards the T2 vertebrae, I take it you would prefer it towards the T3 vertebrae. The green dot reflects those who feel it was beyond T2 and between T2 and T1.

I believe my placing of the line is correct, but I acknowledge it is a matter of opinion and judgement as to where you feel the wound should be placed in relation to that line.

James.

[John Dolva]

The fibrin protein in blood knits whatever it is on skin or clothes when in outside the body. Understanding that makes it fairly easy to match blood stains on the body with those on the shirt and to understand where the shirt was. Putting that on a model of the body makes it prety easy to understand how things went.

I think there really is only one way : the shirt and jacket were bunched and all the arguments to the contrary bend and twist things to within very narrow parameters that are so easy to find contrary povs to. What's wrong with it being as James say and as Pat says anyway?

[Cliff Varnell]

The fibrin protein in blood knits whatever it is on skin or clothes when in outside the body. Understanding that makes it fairly easy to match blood stains on the body with those on the shirt and to understand where the shirt was. Putting that on a model of the body makes it prety easy to understand how things went.

I think there really is only one way : the shirt and jacket were bunched and all the arguments to the contrary bend and twist things to within very narrow parameters that are so easy to find contrary povs to.

Then show us. Show us how imitating JFK's posture in the limo causes 2+ inches of jacket and 2+ inches of shirt to bunch up entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

The burden of proof is on YOU, John. Show us.

What's wrong with it being as James say and as Pat says anyway?

Because you can't get your shirt to ride up at the base of the neck by waving your arm; because 15 witnesses described a wound consistent with T3 and we don't want to un-necessarily condemn 15 people as delusionals or liars, do we, John?

[Cliff Varnell]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

Don, I have on occasions commented that the jacket did ride up a bit. There are a number of images from Elm street that make that plain. How much it had risen I am not certain about except to say that It was certainly not anywhere near enough to place the jacket damage up by T1

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

The placing of the wound is a different matter. In the image below I have given logical reasons why I have placed the wound where I did.

See image below.

I believe, though you can correct me if you feel I am wrong, I have located the location of the Scapula Spline on the back of JFK's body. I have labeled that A2. I have drawn a line across the body in order to create a base line. I acknowledge the line of the JFK body is not quite straight, however the A2 point is fine. It is now a matter of judging where the wound is placed, with respect to that line. The first Vertebra above that line, on the model, is T3. It is now a debatable issue whether the Yellow dot should be closer to the T3 vertebrae or around where I placed it just below T2. It is a matter of where, in relation to the dotted line, you consider the wound should be. I placed it up towards the T2 vertebrae, I take it you would prefer it towards the T3 vertebrae. The green dot reflects those who feel it was beyond T2 and between T2 and T1.

I believe my placing of the line is correct, but I acknowledge it is a matter of opinion and judgement as to where you feel the wound should be placed in relation to that line.

James.

Now all we need you to do is provide evidence that the subject of that photo was JFK -- and tell us who developed the photo, where was it developed, and when.

[Cliff Varnell]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

Thanks Don. The fact that the "bunch up" crowd has never replicated their endlessly repeated claims speaks volumes.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I am sorry but I can see no point in continuing this conversation. There is no common ground between us. Everything I say you consider wrong and everything you say is right. There is no common ground between us through which we could have a reasoned conversation. You appear unable to acknowledge any aspect of my position and I see myself constantly arguing your position and defending my own position.

I believe the time has come to accept that we are diametrically opposed and will never agree.

james

All true, sir. I am a determined foe of the Warren Commission and the serial lies upon which it based its conclusions.

But thanks for the A-B-C graphic, Mr. James Gordon! A true breakthrough in understanding the throat wound.

I salute you, sir!

Edited May 8, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[John Dolva]

The fibrin protein in blood knits whatever it is on skin or clothes when in outside the body. Understanding that makes it fairly easy to match blood stains on the body with those on the shirt and to understand where the shirt was. Putting that on a model of the body makes it prety easy to understand how things went.

I think there really is only one way : the shirt and jacket were bunched and all the arguments to the contrary bend and twist things to within very narrow parameters that are so easy to find contrary povs to.

Then show us. Show us how imitating JFK's posture in the limo causes 2+ inches of jacket and 2+ inches of shirt to bunch up entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

The burden of proof is on YOU, John. Show us.

What's wrong with it being as James say and as Pat says anyway?

Because you can't get your shirt to ride up at the base of the neck by waving your arm; because 15 witnesses described a wound consistent with T3 and we don't want to un-necessarily condemn 15 people as delusionals or liars, do we, John?

I already have, to my satisfaction. That doesn't mean anything. No-one has replicated the analysis (afaik). If someone does repeat it and confirm or refute then it does.

The shirt was on his back past his death and it, and the smears across the backseat and directions of bloodflow, tells a story of a sequence of events and the impressions of his brace, blood stains and other crease imprints on his back matches in particular ways.

Since that topic I haven't mentioned it all that much. Now there are things in James' presentation that I think has elements that confirms what I was saying (and vice versa). Are you sure the burden is on me? (to prove what I said, not your version.)

-------------------

I don't know, do we? (I have no idea what you are talking about.)

Could you rephrase that please?

[Cliff Varnell]

Because you can't get your shirt to ride up at the base of the neck by waving your arm;

I already have, to my satisfaction.

Why not share it with us? Why so shy?

Show us how you bunch 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above an in-shoot at the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

Show us. You claim it happened with JFK -- but you haven't proven that such a thing is remotely possible.

Why can't you show us?

That doesn't mean anything. No-one has replicated the analysis (afaik). If someone does repeat it and confirm or refute then it does.

Since no one seems to want to step forward to show us anything, consider the claim refuted.

The shirt was on his back past his death and it, and the smears across the backseat and directions of bloodflow, tells a story of a sequence of events and the impressions of his brace, blood stains and other crease imprints on his back matches in particular ways.

Okay.

Since that topic I haven't mentioned it all that much. Now there are things in James' presentation that I think has elements that confirms what I was saying (and vice versa). Are you sure the burden is on me? (to prove what I said, not your version.)

Yes, the burden is on YOU. All I'm pointing out is the fact that the bullet holes in the clothes line up with the third thoracic vertebra, four inches below the bottom of the clothing collars.

Now, that's a fact.

Since YOU insist that JFK's shirt and jacket rode up multiple inches, the burden of proof is on YOU to show us how this is possible.

Another fact: JFK's jacket collar rode in a normal position just above the base of his neck on Elm St. Even Lamson acknowledges this.

Please, John, show us how you bunch up 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck in-shoot without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

[Pat Speer]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

The significance of the clothing evidence, Don, is that it proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate, and the trajectory pushed by LNs for the SBT to be in error. Cliff and I AGREE on this point. He, however, chooses to believe that it also proves the autopsy photos fake, and this despite the fact NOT ONE of the witnesses he cites in support for his proposed "lower" back wound has ever said they thought the back wound photo was a fake, and that several, in fact, have claimed it as authentic.

As far as the HSCA "higher" entry...what you seem unwilling to process is that the HSCA's drawing of the back wound photo is the single most important piece of medical evidence released by the government. It proved the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. It proved the autopsy doctors to be liars when they said the autopsy photos confirmed the Rydberg drawings. It proved Arlen Specter dishonest, as he'd introduced testimony saying the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings after viewing this photo, which showed the Rydberg drawings to be grossly in error.

Let's go back. The T-1 location proposed by the HSCA FPP is equidistant between the shoulder tip and mastoid process, exactly where it is shown on the face sheet, and exactly where the measurements on the face sheet place it. This location, moreover, was, according to the HSCA FPP, TOO LOW to support the single-bullet theory, UNLESS...Kennedy rapidly leaned forward while behind the sign. Since Blakey et al understood this as their disputing that the bullet could have struck as early as 190, moreover, he hid this by having a trajectory expert MOVE the wound for the trajectory analysis, which, of course. showed everything in alignment.

So, in effect, the back wound drawing shows Blakey and Canning to be liars as well.

So WHY is it again, that we're supposed to go around pretending the single-best piece of evidence we have is fake?

To debunk the SBT? The back wound photo does that all by itself.

I mean, if there was a photo of Bush taking a kickback from Enron, whose authenticity had been confirmed by a panel of experts, and which no one involved said was a fake, why oh why should we dispute it, when it PROVES something we've long suspected, and which the government has sought to deny?

P.S. I'm still waiting, Cliff, for you to show us where a wound at T-1 would be marked on the face sheet.

[Cliff Varnell]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

The significance of the clothing evidence, Don, is that it proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate, and the trajectory pushed by LNs for the SBT to be in error. Cliff and I AGREE on this point. He, however, chooses to believe that it also proves the autopsy photos fake, and this despite the fact NOT ONE of the witnesses he cites in support for his proposed "lower" back wound has ever said they thought the back wound photo was a fake, and that several, in fact, have claimed it as authentic.

Floyd Riebe said a lower marking was the back wound. The "high" wound had an abrasion collar at the lower margin, indicating a shot fired from below. How was that possible?

Pat, you have an approach to the medical evidence that is downright ahistorical. The crime was covered-up at the highest level of the US government. The post-autopsy work product of Humes/Boswell had to fit the political agenda of the cover up. Humes and Boswell attesting to the authenticity of the autopsy photos is of no consequence. Poorly made photos without a chain of possession have no credibility.

As far as the HSCA "higher" entry...what you seem unwilling to process is that the HSCA's drawing of the back wound photo is the single most important piece of medical evidence released by the government.

Sez you.

It proved the Rydberg drawings inaccurate.

We already knew that.

It proved the autopsy doctors to be liars when they said the autopsy photos confirmed the Rydberg drawings.

The same guys you find infallible when it comes to measuring the back wound.

It proved Arlen Specter dishonest, as he'd introduced testimony saying the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings after viewing this photo, which showed the Rydberg drawings to be grossly in error.

Let's go back. The T-1 location proposed by the HSCA FPP is equidistant between the shoulder tip and mastoid process, exactly where it is shown on the face sheet, and exactly where the measurements on the face sheet place it.

So we have two wound designations on the face sheet. One is a dot in a location consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes, and the other designation is a measurement from two body landmarks.

The dot was written in pencil, as per proper autopsy protocol.

The measurements were written in pen, a violation of proper autopsy protocol.

According to Pat Speer this work was done at the same time. But why wasn't the measurement recorded in pencil same as the dot? Yet another reason to dismiss the post-autopsy work product of Humes/Boswell.

This location, moreover, was, according to the HSCA FPP, TOO LOW to support the single-bullet theory, UNLESS...Kennedy rapidly leaned forward while behind the sign. Since Blakey et al understood this as their disputing that the bullet could have struck as early as 190, moreover, he hid this by having a trajectory expert MOVE the wound for the trajectory analysis, which, of course. showed everything in alignment.

So, in effect, the back wound drawing shows Blakey and Canning to be liars as well.

We already knew that. The T3 back wound makes all of this moot.

So WHY is it again, that we're supposed to go around pretending the single-best piece of evidence we have is fake?

It's not the single best piece of evidence, the clothing holes are. You cannot reconcile the holes in the clothes with the 14cm base-of-the-neck inshoot.

To debunk the SBT? The back wound photo does that all by itself.

The clothing holes do that all by themselves. And they establish the nature of the throat wound, helping to establish that fact that the damage to T1 shown on the neck x-ray was caused by the shot to the throat from the front.

I mean, if there was a photo of Bush taking a kickback from Enron, whose authenticity had been confirmed by a panel of experts,

The same panel said it was "more confusing than informative" and prima facie inadmissible in court. That was before we found out there is no chain of possession, to boot.

and which no one involved said was a fake, why oh why should we dispute it, when it PROVES something we've long suspected, and which the government has sought to deny?

We dispute it because we have more far more reliable evidence of a lower back wound.

P.S. I'm still waiting, Cliff, for you to show us where a wound at T-1 would be marked on the face sheet.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? T1 is at the base of the neck. The Dot is not.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Cliff Varnell