Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary


Martin White
 Share

Recommended Posts

How do you resolve this discrepancy?

I don't. And I couldn't care less about it.

You cared enough to put the Lowe photo into evidence. You claimed that it showed the same kind of fold JFK had in his clothing the moment he was shot in the back.

Now you admit that you can't resolve the discrepancy between what you claim and what the Weaver photo shows.

You've also admitted that the jacket collar dropped on Houston St.

It's physically impossible for the bullet holes in the clothes to have been associated with the throat wound.

You've signed off on all the relevant facts, David, to logically conclude that it was physically impossible for the bullet holes in the clothes to have been associated with the throat wound.

The raw, basic facts regarding the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper back are the things that debunk your theory about the clothing:

1.) One bullet hole in JFK's shirt.

2.) One bullet hole in JFK's suit coat.

3.) One bullet hole in JFK's back.

Which means (regardless of WHERE the holes are in the clothing):

The one bullet which made the holes in the shirt and coat also had to make the one bullet in JFK's upper back.

But the SBT trajectory doesn't work with a wound in the upper back. You need a wound in the back of the neck for the SBT to work.

This third-grade math seems to continually elude Mr. Varnell. We can only guess as to why.

Excuse me? How does the fact that there was a bullet hole in the shirt, the jacket and JFK's back equal a wound in the back of the neck?

Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see ANYTHING from either man [Craig Lamson or David Von Pein] that refutes Hoover's awareness and declaration that there was a conspiracy....

How can they even BEGIN to argue against the following?

"that while I think there was no connection between him (Ruby) and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that." (this is written 3 days after the FBI report already states that there is no connection.)

Sounds to me like J. Edgar was being quite forthright and honest. Which seems mighty strange in light of the way most conspiracists paint Mr. Hoover -- i.e., as a worthless bastard who would do anything it takes to frame Lee Oswald as a lone assassin.

The more Hoover quotes you post, the more bullet holes you get in your feet--from your own gun.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff...

Is this the type of LNer acceptance of the iron clad evidence in support of a conspiracy you anticipated?

I never claimed they would accept it. I said they'd either laspse into silence, hurl insults, or pimp non sequiturs.

And that's what they're doing.

DVP/Lamson can do this ALL DAY LONG... and will.

So what? They aren't making any actual photo analyses -- they remove the photos from the post!

They aren't posting any demonstrations of their claims.

They are not explaining the obvious discrepancies between what they claim and what the photos show.

Why are you buying into the same false equivalency DiEugenio is pushing?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the SBT trajectory doesn't work with a wound in the upper back. You need a wound in the back of the neck for the SBT to work.

Bull.

I guess you have another good reason to totally ignore CE903, which shows that a wound in the UPPER BACK of Kennedy (not the "neck") works just fine for the WC's SBT:

CE903.jpg

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the SBT trajectory doesn't work with a wound in the upper back. You need a wound in the back of the neck for the SBT to work.

Bull.

I guess you have another good reason to totally ignore CE903, which shows that a wound in the UPPER BACK of Kennedy (not the "neck") works just fine for the WC's SBT:

Then why is the pointer above the shoulder-line? Did the bullet nick JFK's shoulder-line?

And since you can't resolve the discrepancy between the SBT and the Dealey Plaza photos -- by your own admission -- and you can't resolve the fact that JFK's jacket collar dropped in Dealey Plaza -- again, by your own admission -- anything else you have to say on the subject is moot, David.

CE903.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think the bullet hole is very close to the top of the shoulders, Cliff?

No David, I don't. It's several inches below the top of the shoulder. The SBT trajectory doesn't work even with this questionable photo.

You, of course, probably think this photo is a fake, but it's the only one there is, so I have no choice but to use it. ....

Sure you have a choice! Don't sell yourself short, David. B)

You could apply a little logic and see that autopsy materials are useless when not properly prepared according to the prevailing military autopsy protocols.

And with no chain of possession this photo is especially worthless.

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see ANYTHING from either man [Craig Lamson or David Von Pein] that refutes Hoover's awareness and declaration that there was a conspiracy....

How can they even BEGIN to argue against the following?

"that while I think there was no connection between him (Ruby) and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that." (this is written 3 days after the FBI report already states that there is no connection.)

Sounds to me like J. Edgar was being quite forthright and honest. Which seems mighty strange in light of the way most conspiracists paint Mr. Hoover -- i.e., as a worthless bastard who would do anything it takes to frame Lee Oswald as a lone assassin.

The more Hoover quotes you post, the more bullet holes you get in your feet--from your own gun.

David... that you are once again lost in your own mind's WCR excuses is no big surprise.

Hoover knew there was a conspiracy... that's ALL we are tlkaing about here. That he promoted the LONE NUT conclusion only bolsters the obvious...

He decided to help fool the world as to who was responsible.

Try to follow...

1) he knows there's a conspiracy and says so to LBJ and writes such to his Sr. Staff

2) he is convinced that exposure and/or investigation of this conspiracy is not in the best interest of the NEW government

3) he plays along and forever includes the CIA's Mexico charade in the same breath as BOP as prime examples of the CIA duplicity.

Pull your head out long enough to think like a human being rather than a McAdams parrot.

Before he was shut off... Hoover KNEW the CIA was lying to him, State, ONI and everybody else.... and chose to help hide that along with most everything else...

At some point David... ever YOU have to exhibit some common sense... no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoover knew there was a conspiracy.

None of the Hoover quotes you've presented prove that Hoover "knew there was a conspiracy". He was being honest and above board about the POSSIBILITY of a connection between Oswald and Ruby. That's what his "conspiracy" statements indicate.

Please point me to any Hoover quote (or maybe even some hard physical EVIDENCE, that'd be refreshing) to show that John Edgar Hoover of the FBI "knew" that a conspiracy existed in the murder of JFK. Can you do that, David?

I kinda doubt you can. But good luck.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you resolve this discrepancy?

I don't.

That's the end of that discussion.

Oh sure, there'll be some more insults, denials, bloviating, etc...but intellectually, that's the ball game for Dave Von Pein.

The SBT stands debunked on its trajectory. Always has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoover knew there was a conspiracy.

None of the Hoover quotes you've presented prove that Hoover "knew there was a conspiracy". He was being honest and above board about the POSSIBILITY of a connection between Oswald and Ruby. That's what his "conspiracy" statements indicate.

Please point me to any Hoover quote (or maybe even some hard physical EVIDENCE, that'd be refreshing) to show that John Edgar Hoover of the FBI "knew" that a conspiracy existed in the murder of JFK. Can you do that, David?

I kinda doubt you can. But good luck.

David...

Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining....

You on the other hand are simply a shill... a parrot and a fraud. The sky is red... the water orange and the sun sets in the east.

You're not worth talking to about this subject... like discussing evolution with a born again Christian... there simply is no point...

Go back to playing your silly games... I'm not buying what you sell

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To argue against the SBT on any ground other than debunking its trajectory is to concede the LN talking point that the trajectory works.

Another goofy comment by Mr. Varnell.

Most conspiracy theorists are silly enough to believe that JFK was shot in the back and throat with separate bullets, and I think DiEugenio is one of those people who believes that crazy theory.

Yes, Jim's hostility to the clothing evidence (he calls it "Model T") is inexplicable. I can only conclude that the prima facie case renders some of his work moot.

David, you've yet to address the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. You claim that a multi-inch bulge in both JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up entirely above the base of his neck.

But in this photo there was a fraction of an inch indentation below the base of the neck.

How do you resolve this discrepancy?

weaver.jpg

Its a 3 inch fold cliffy...he sez so...

sun.jpg

Of course your incompetence makes it completely impossible for you to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An instant replay for DiEugenio the Delusional:

"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch rumors that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the facts of the assassination. But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that only false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public? How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...