Martin White Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Cliff, I fear I did not explain myself terribly well. I am not claiming that bunching supports a high back wound location. I believe the back wound was where the autopsy face sheet, death certificate and witness testimony places it: T3. Apologies for the confusion. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Cliff, I fear I did not explain myself terribly well. I am not claiming that bunching supports a high back wound location. I believe the back wound was where the autopsy face sheet, death certificate and witness testimony places it: T3. Apologies for the confusion. Martin And apple polly lodges for the "severe" tone of my prior post, Martin. I jumped to conclusions as to your actual position. The thing about the Dealey Plaza photo evidence is that not all jacket folds are the same. When JFK lifted an arm the jacket indented. Here's the appropriate segment of the Weaver photo, taken on the corner of Main and Houston (about 60 seconds before the shooting) which shows a significant indentation of jacket fabric. The jacket was pressed against JFK's obviously flat shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 That's OK Cliff. It had been my understanding that the holes in the shirt and jacket and back were within 1/4" of each other. The back wound should be an absolute, at the level of T3. Given bunching you'd think that the holes in the clothing would be (when measured with the clothing flat) should be at 6" plus. Ultimately, I have not seen an explanation of why the medical documents record the wound at the level of T3 if that's not where it was. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) That's OK Cliff. It had been my understanding that the holes in the shirt and jacket and back were within 1/4" of each other. The back wound should be an absolute, at the level of T3. Given bunching you'd think that the holes in the clothing would be (when measured with the clothing flat) should be at 6" plus. Ultimately, I have not seen an explanation of why the medical documents record the wound at the level of T3 if that's not where it was. Martin The key distinction is that the documents you cite were properly prepared, produced according to proper military autopsy protocol. The contrary medical documents -- the final autopsy report and the Fox 5 "back of the head" autopsy photo -- were not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocol. The properly prepared documents -- Burkley death certificate, autopsy face sheet diagram -- were signed off as "verified" and match the clothing holes and the statements of at least 15 eye-witnesses. You're absolutely right, Martin. JFK's back wound was at T3. It's the root fact of the JFK assassination. The JFK T3 back wound is an unchallenged historical fact. (&the rhetorical bile of the bunchies doesn't qualify as a challenge). Edited January 10, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Cliff and Craig have mentioned the clothing evidence which I know they have "discussed" extensively before. Again, if I try to look objectively at this, it would seem, on the whole, that the photographic record shows that JFKs jacket was not lying flat, which would explain wounds not lining up with the holes in the clothing. Correct. The jacket was not laying perfectly flat. The hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar. The hole in the shirt is 4"-even below the bottom of the collar. The jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch. The shirt wasn't bunched up at all. When Martin White (or Paul Baker or anyone with a shirt on) lifts his arm to wave a la JFK it causes the shirt fabric to indent. In other words, I can see that the hole in the jacket might not necessarily line up with the wound. Non sequitur. The "high back wound" requires multiple inches of both shirt and jacket movement The burden of proof is on Martin White et al to demonstrate this event. But none of these folks ever do. Never. Ever. So a hole in the jacket at 5 3/4" from the shoulder might not necessarily equate to a wound at 5 3/4" from the shoulder. The problem is, that's exactly where the autopsy sheet and Berkeley's death certificate put the wounds. So we are left, again, with a seemingly intractable problem. The only problem is your inability to back up your characterization of the clothing evidence, Martin. Show us how you bunch up multiple inches of tucked-in custom-made dress shirt and a near-equal amount of tailored suit jacket. Show us. For once, just once, will you people show us what you are claiming? Of course not...It isn't possible. But please proceed with the contentless claims, Martin... The holes in the clothing shouldn't line up with the wounds but they do. You don't appear particularly aware of what clothing "should do," frankly. Please produce a little demonstration of this clothing movement you posit? Tucked-in custom-made dress shirt, please. Show us the multiple inch upward displacement by waving your arm. Until you or Craig or Paul or David Von P produce this replication, your claims are less than worthless. Only in your warped little fantasy world cliff Your claim has been destroyed. That is unimpeachable. Deal with it. Edited January 10, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) That's right. In the JFK case there are no absolutes. Unless, that is, one is needed to nail Oswald to the wall. And if the necessary absolute doesn't work just keep changing it until you get one that does. As in the case of William Whaley. The absolute concerning the time of the bus that Helen Markham got to work every day, in the world that you and David Von Pein inhabit, doesn't exist. In Bakerville, Helen Markham left her home that afternoon at her REGULAR time to catch her REGULAR bus that you would have us believe had already left. Similar to William Whaley's manifest stating in black and white that he dropped Oswald off BEFORE he picked him up. So the congratulations are all yours. Congratulations on believing, and supporting, the biggest pile of BS ever committed to paper. Yes Lee, I live in a fantasy world called Bakerville, where all the hard physical evidence They wear clothes in Bakerville? The clothing evidence proves at least two shooters fired at Kennedy. LNers and High-Back-Wound "CTs" are in complete denial on this issue. LOL! You don't understand the clothing evidence varnell. You can't even understand how the SUN works. What a weak stick.... ..That's it? "Weak stick"...? I hadn't realized how far down the LN rhetoric has fallen these days. I guess that's why David VP and Paul Baker can't chime in on the subject. Craig hasn't left them with anything but thin spew...Tough break, lads. It must be rough when you have nothing to say in defense of your position... Edited January 11, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) ..That's it? "Weak stick"...? I hadn't realized how far down the LN rhetoric has fallen these days. I guess that's why David VP and Paul Baker can't chime in on the subject. Craig hasn't left them with anything but thin spew...Tough break, lads. It must be rough when you have nothing to say in defense of your position... ROFLMAO! I don't have a 'position'. I have unimpeachable fact. It destroys your childish 'position'. You ARE a very weak stick who got beat because you can't even understand how the sun works. Not that the truth will ever filter into your fantasy filled brain. Deal with it varnell. You lost. Edited January 11, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) No credible evidence to contradict the WC ? LOL, ROTF .... etc ... Its you who is not credible. The only jury that would find the WC case credible is one made up on you, DVP, McAdams, Reitzes and Rahn. And that jury only exists in the imagination of you fruit cakes. Hi Jim, What do you know about credibility? You believe that Jim Garrison was credible! That ol' Jolly Green Nutcase just couldn't make his mind up, could he? I'm sure most level-headed people would agree that there is a significant amount of chaff amongst the witness testimony, some of it augmented and some just plain invented. You're quite happy to rely on that, and even to manipulate what remains to suit your own ends. Lee Bowyers is a good example. What did he really see, Jim? Over the past fifty years, a tornado of crap has been fueled by a long list of people, including yourself and your aforementioned idol. All the while, in the calm eye of the storm, at the heart of this case, has stood a body of hard, physical evidence that is unimpeachable. That's what I'm talking about Jim. Of course, there's no point trying to argue with someone like you because you seem incapable of listening to anyone who isn't prepared to tell you how wonderful you are. I do like it when you read listeners' questions on Black Op Radio. You only read the ones that have some complimentary preamble, don't you? The ones from the kind of people that are so stupid they still believe that you won the debate against John McAdams. Crrr-azy! Paul. Edited January 11, 2013 by Paul Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) All the while, in the calm eye of the storm, at the heart of this case, has stood a body of hard, physical evidence that is unimpeachable. That's what I'm talking about Jim. No, that's not what you're talking about, Paul. That's what you are avoiding. The physical evidence. You're avoiding the fact that every time you raise your arm to wave the fabric of your shirt indents along the shoulder-line. Every time. Your 3 shot scenario requires the exact opposite effect in extreme. The T3 back wound is an unchallenged fact, as is the fact of conspiracy itself. Edited January 11, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 It never occurred to me that the Internet might allow lonely, irrational, and psychotic people to clutter up the chat rooms and discussion boards. And God knows, the Kennedy assassination is one big magnet. - Dale Myers I just got my poles mixed up- Dale Myers. If I tell a little lie I can make money and friends- Dale Myers I hope they think it was an honest mistake -Dale Myers That's some hero to worship . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) It never occurred to me that the Internet might allow lonely, irrational, and psychotic people to clutter up the chat rooms and discussion boards. And God knows, the Kennedy assassination is one big magnet. - Dale K . Myers You just reinforced this statement, Ian. Edited January 11, 2013 by Paul Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) "If I tell a little lie, I can make money and friends." -- Dale Myers And you think Myers was referring to HIMSELF in that quote, Ian? Edited January 11, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 That's what you are avoiding. The physical evidence. You're avoiding the fact that every time you raise your arm to wave the fabric of your shirt indents along the shoulder-line. Every time. LOL! varnell waves his magic fantasy wand one again and tells us he has personally witnessed every shirt and every arm wave in recorded history. This forum prevents using the correct word to describe varnell and this statement. But it's just more crap like his long standing claim of the amount of slack in custom made shirts. He just made them both up from thin air. What a sorry and very desperate person....a fantasy so deeply embedded he must resort to fairy tales to try and justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 In Bakerville, the Hillsborough disaster happened because of drunken Liverpool supporters without tickets and everyone who died there was dead by 3:15pm. Why would anybody believe anything else? That's what the statements and death certificates say. Lee, I think you've thrown common sense, logic and rational thought out of the window. The abomination that is the Hillsborough Disaster isn't the same as the JFK assassination. In the case of the former, with time and persistence, the truth has begun to emerge. In the case of the latter, which surely has come under more scrutiny over a much longer period of time, no-one has yet presented an iota of credible evidence that contradicts the basic conclusion of the Warren Commission. How come? I've no doubt there are such things as cover-up, consipiracy and corruption. That's why there are words for them, I suppose. It's just that they're not applicable to the JFK assassination. Paul. What absolute nonsense and completely indicative of how someone who has wedded themselves to a belief so strongly and absolutely that they no longer have the ability to accept what is directly in front of their face. There now exists a mountain of “credible evidence” that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the fraud and corruption of the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, the MSM and the Warren Commission. The fraud and corruption continued through the House Select Committee on Assassinations and still exists in the mainstream media to this very day. The Hillsborough tragedy is exactly the same as the JFK assassination in the way in which the South Yorkshire police lied, fabricated evidence, and changed statements. The coroners were corrupted, the media colluded with the police and politicians, and evidence was destroyed and altered. The event at Hillsborough was much smaller from the perspective of its impact upon the world, but 96 people died there and it took 23 years for the truth to “emerge” as you so elegantly put it. I would phrase it slightly differently. I would say it took 23 years for the truth to finally be admitted to. Anybody who looked at the case for any reasonable length of time already knew the truth and knew the truth was covered up by people in very high positions of power. The Taylor Enquiry, as per the Warren Commission, was a whitewash that dismissed the truth in favor of quickly filing the case away as “solved and addressed.” Why has the truth finally been admitted to? The reason is very simple. It is because the families of those who tragically died in that football stadium would not let the issue die. They kept up their campaign with the support of the vast majority of the people of Liverpool and would not rest until the true FACTS of the case were presented to the people of the United Kingdom. The truth being that the national institutions that were supposed to serve and protect them were filled with corrupt liars. There were many people in this country that called these family members “crackpots” and dismissed them out of hand as people who could not come to terms with something that amounted to nothing more than a "self-inflicted" accident. They were people who couldn’t come to terms with the “truth” according to people like the former editor of The Sun newspaper Kelvin McKenzie. The “truth” as published by McKenzie in 1989 was that the disaster occurred because of a “surge” of drunken Liverpool fans that turned up late to the game. To add further punch to his version of the “truth” he also stated that other Liverpool fans stole from the dead bodies and urinated on policemen who were heroically trying to save the victims. He reiterated his claims in 2006 when he said "I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth. There was a surge of Liverpool fans who had been drinking and that is what caused the disaster" The problem was that this wasn’t the truth. It was a pack of lies. They were lies that he created, published and stood by for nearly three decades after colluding with people in high positions of power. All of the evidence required for the truth to “emerge” was actually in the hands of the public and the media. The football game was actually broadcast live on the television. We could see what happened. We could see that the police did not help the victims who were slowly being crushed to death until it was far too late. We could see that the emergency services were kept out. We could see other Liverpool fans moving the bodies of those people who were either dead or dying on makeshift stretchers made from advertising hoardings. We watched the tragedy unfold in front of our very eyes and we watched it develop because of complete and utter police incompetence. You are like a Kelvin McKenzie concerning the JFK assassination. You continue to claim you are dedicated to the “truth” and you have the “facts” on your side. When almost everybody else with even a rudimentary understanding of events thinks you are either completely and utterly bonkers or, alternatively, that you have nothing better to do with your time than to come on here and try winding everybody up. Never forget that the truth concerning Hillsborough only came out because of the persistence, patience and dedication from a small group of people who continued to bang the drum and continued to shout for the records that had been locked away from them. They continued to collect and collate the evidence that undermined the official version of events even though they were continually dismissed by the majority of the media. And they did this whilst contending with the likes of Kelvin McKenzie, and many others, who told them they didn’t have “an iota of credible evidence that contradicted” their version of the truth. The truth in the Hillsborough case was finally admitted to 23 years after it happened. Will the truth in the Kennedy Assassination ever be admitted to? I seriously doubt it. At least I don’t think it will be, during a period of time, when admitting to the truth will have any sort of meaningful or positive impact. But the “truth” as currently written is bogus and a society cannot move forward when its history is constructed from lies, Idiots like you stand in the way of truth and your behaviour is an insult to the likes of Bill Kelly who has spent his entire life demanding truth and justice concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Sigh. Jim's reloaded the Bullxxxx Blunderbus. You mean the rifle that Marina never saw until she changed her testimony for the WC? Prior to this, she said she never saw a rifle with a scope before. (BTW, she changed her testimony on Mexico CIty also for the WC.) How about those backyard photos? Proven to be geniuine, beyond any doubt. The rifle in the picture tallies with the weapon found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on the day of the assassination. Marina admitted to taking the photographs. So to say that Marina never saw the rifle, just because she's expressed doubt about the scope, is you doing what you always do Jim. You mean the rifle that no one at the post office recalls giving Oswald? Even though the FBI had assets there reporting on him? Forgive me, but why is this important? There is evidence which shows that Oswald ordered the rifle. There's an order form and postal order in Oswald's handwriting in the name of A. Hidell, the very same name on the forged service card found on Oswald when he was arrested. There are genuine photos of him holding the rifle sometime after he received it. Why does it matter if no-one remembers giving it to him? That proves approximately bugger-all. Oswald ordered and received the rifle, and no amount of you picking little holes here and there is going to change that. You mean the rifle that ordered in one name, yet got in a PO box made out in another? Thereby breaking the rules of firearms delivery at the time? Oswald had fake ID he could have used to authorise a certain 'A Hidell' to collect from his PO Box, no? Either that or someone broke the rules! Deary me. Big f**king deal. That's like arguing that Oswald couldn't have killed JFK because it was against the law. You're clutching at straws here, Jimbo. You mean the rifle that there were no proper forms filed for delivery, even though this was a national law at the time and Klein's was a huge arms dealer then. Sigh. You mean the rifle that Oswald ordered (order form and postal order in his writing) and received (photos of him holding it) ... ? You mean the rifle that somehow Oswald paid for with a money order that never went through the Federal Reserve system, yet the WC says was processed from Dallas to Chicago and into Klein's bank account within 24 hours? (We should call this the Magic Money Order.) Sigh. You mean the rifle that Oswald ordered (order form and postal order in his writing) and received (photos of him holding it) ... ? Edited January 11, 2013 by Paul Baker 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