The JFK Back Wound

[Craig Lamson]

There are too many convergent proofs to take the use of a faked photograph seriously.

Only someone of the character of a Craig Lamson would even attempt such a scam!

No jim, its a plethora of photographs. Are you now claiming they are all fake? ROFLMAO!

Please prove them all fakes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I already have. Anyone can review this thread and see that I have provided

a half-dozen refutations of your alleged "unimpeachable" images, which I

have already impeached. Surely there is no one here who is taken in by the

drivel you continue to post, again and again and again. Who are you fooling?

[Craig Lamson]

I already have. Anyone can review this thread and see that I have provided

a half-dozen refutations of your alleged "unimpeachable" images, which I

have already impeached. Surely there is no one here who is taken in by the

drivel you continue to post, again and again and again. Who are you fooling?

No you have done no such thing. You offer a bunch of hand waves. Show us the proofs of alteration. You have impeached nothing, other than your own reputation. The Fetzering continues.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Serious research requires profound honesty, which is conspicuously absent from some of those who

are posting on this thread. We all know how easy it is to alter and fake photos, where the images to

which Lamson obsessively refers appear to be apt illustrations. He ignores the multiple convergent

proofs that those images have to be fake by simply BEGGING THE QUESTION by simply taking for

granted that HE IS RIGHT AND THE EVIDENCE IS WRONG. But EVEN IF THE SHIRT AND JACKET

HAD BEEN BUNCHED--which I do not believe for a moment--THE REST OF THE ARGUMENTS SHOW

THAT THE WOUND WAS 5.5 INCHES BELOW THE SHOULDER AND TO THE RIGHT OF THE SPINAL

COLUMN, NOT TO MENTION THE "MAGIC BULLET" HYPOTHESIS IS ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Since a third grader could see that this is the case, what is Lamson doing making such a grotesque fool

of himself? HE IS TRYING TO MAKE THE DISCUSSION SO NASTY THAT FORUM MEMBERS WILL BE

TURNED OFF AND NOT ABSORB THE LESSONS TO BE LEARNED, WHICH SHOW THAT, BASED UPON

THE LOCATION OF THE WOUND TO THE BACK ALONE, THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY IN THE

DEATH OF OUR 35TH PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PROVEN. Why he is doing this, I leave to you to decide.

Lamson claims that I have not refuted his claim of the existence of that "bulge"; but of course I have:

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

(2) If there had been one, then the holes would not have aligned with the location in Boswell's diagram.

But the holes correspond to Boswell's location; so there was no bulge and the photo is a fabrication.

(3) If there had been one, then the wound's location would not have corresponded to Sibert's diagram.

The holes also correspond to Sibert's location, which means there was no bulge and the photo is fake.

(4) If there had been one, then the wound's location would not have corresponded to Burkley's location.

But the holes correspond to Berkley's location, which means there was no bulge and the photo's fake.

(5) If there had been one, then the wound would not have been shown there in reenactment photographs.

But the reenactments show the wound at the same location, which means no bulge and the photo's fake.

(6) If there had been a bulge, the wound would not have been located where the mortician had located it.

The location was 5-6 inches below the shoulder where the holes occur, which mean no bulge/fake photo.

No one has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to appreciate all this.

These arguments are of the form known as, Modus Tollens; namely, if p then q; but not-q; therefore, not-p.

If John owns a Honda, then John has a car; John does not have a car; therefore, John does not own a Honda.

Arguments (1) through (6) are valid, which means, if their premises are true, their conclusions cannot be false.

The premises of (1) though (6) are true. So their conclusions--no bulge, photo fake--cannot be false. Q.E.D.

[Craig Lamson]

We all know how easy it is to alter and fake photos, where the images to

which Lamson obsessively refers appear to be apt illustrations.

Great now offer proof that those photos have been altered. BTW your list of six does no such thing. Maybe you can get that master photo analyst friend of your, Ralph Cinque to help you out. ROFLMAO!

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

Once again (for the third time) prove your proofs that JFK clothing could NEVER fold or bunch as seen in the Plaza images.

This one alone does you in.

But I suspect the Fetering will continue.

[Craig Lamson]

I would like to ask a question about all this:

If those pictures had never surfaced, where would the prepondernace of the evidence depict the back wound at?

Does it matter? The pictures exist.

And as we can see from this thread, 50 years later even die hard CT's can't agree on where the wound was.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

5.5 inches below the collar just to the right of the spinal column.

Lamson won't surrender his fake images no matter how absurd

his stance. He doesn't care about truth, only obfuscation. The

evidence--the holes in the shirt and jacket, the Boswell diagram,

the Sibert diagram, the Berkley death certificate, the reenactment

photographs and the mortician's description of the wound--are all

in agreement with this location. Set those images to one side and

there is no question about it. It is impossible that both the images

and the rest of the evidence is true together. But Lamson has no

place else to go. His slender reed is slipping, but he is unwilling to

admit it. There is nothing rational about his stance from the point

of view of rationality of belief. His belief in the images is irrational.

But from the point of view of rationality of action--by adopting an

approach that advances your objective--the adamant insistance on

an irrational belief can have the effect of creating an apparent barrier

to a settled issue. THE ISSUE IS SETTLED. It is therefore appropiate

to consider why Lamson is insisting that it is not. If we know anything

about the assassination, it is that the wound to the back was 5.5 inches

below the collar just to the right of the spinal column. Something other

than the pursuit of truth is at work here. What that is should be obvious.

[Craig Lamson]

I would like to ask a question about all this:

If those pictures had never surfaced, where would the prepondernace of the evidence depict the back wound at?

Does it matter? The pictures exist.

And as we can see from this thread, 50 years later even die hard CT's can't agree on where the wound was.

Yes it does matter.

Because the provenance of those autopsy photos is very much in dispute.

And you would have to be either a fool or an agent not to at least acknowledge that fact.

I'm not talking about the autopsy photos.

Based on this thread, the entire issue of the back wound is still unresolved, photos or no photos

It's roflmao funny!

[James R Gordon]




I would like to ask Mr. Gordon, you say that this is a tangential wound in JBC that came in from an angle and did not hit JFK.

But I am not clear yet: from which angle did it originate?

If in looking at JFK from behind, that is at his back, did it come from the left or right? I think this is an important question. If it came from the right it almost had to originate from the TSBD. If it came from the left it likely originated at the Dal Tex. I would like your take on this. It seems Harris thinks it came from the Dal Tex. If you think so also, why do you think that? 



Please, I await your reply.


Jim,

I did send you a private message with links to a extended answer to your question.

It appears you have blocked me from messaging you.

If you can unblock the message you will get your answer. If you can’t, if maybe I have done something foolish with my messaging, you will find my e-mail address in my profile. Contact me and I will give you the link.

James

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat, thanks for posting one of the more reasonable comments on this thread. Are you also suggesting that Thomas Evan Robinson did not have time to study the body? or that he was preparing it for burial on the basis of photographs? This is the problem I have with you: you practice special pleading by only citing the evidence that favors your side--and even then often exaggering it. What, after all, is the most likely explanation for the data:

(1) the holes in the shirt and jacket (about 5.5 inches below the collar);

(2) the Boswell diagram, which shows a wound about that location;

(3) the Sibert diagram, showing the back wound below the throat wound;

(4) Admire Burkley's death certification locating it at T-3 (the same location);

(5) the reenactment photographs that also show a wound at that location;

(6) the morician's description of the wound at 5-6" below the shoulder?

Consider two (of many possible) alternative hypotheses as follows:

(h1) the wound was about 5.5 inches below the collar or the shoulder;

(h2) the wound was considerably higher, say, the uppermost back.

Why hypothesis if true would confer the highest probability upon (1)

though (6)? Do you have any doubt that, if (h1) were true, then the

probability of (1) though (6) would be very high? And that if (h2) were

true, the probability of (1) though (6) would be very low? Because that

is the question--and there really are no good reasons for doubt about it.

[James R Gordon]

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.[/size][/color]

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

Jim,

I accept that you are correct that JFK had custom made clothes. However Craig is correct to point that his jacket was indeed bunched. Croft makes that clear for all to see. How much it was bunched and what affect that would have on the position of the wound I do not know. Maybe not a great deal, maybe a lot.

I am not sure if it makes a great deal of difference to your position that either way the wound was too low for the SBT to be valid. I agree with you on that point.

I do not understand why you suggest that if photos such as Croft do show the jacket bunched that has to mean the photo has been altered. I have a problem with a position that says if the evidence does not support your position, then there is something wrong with the evidence.

James.

Edited February 23, 2013 by James R Gordon

[James R Gordon]

I think what happened was that my PM box was overloaded. I cleared it out.

So if you send it again, it should come through.

Jim

It is probably me. I sent a new message and again you are blocking it.

Send me a message to jamesg2@btinternet.com and I will send you the link direct.

Sorry, it is probably something stupid I have done when messaging - though I have no idea what it is.

James

[Robert Harris]

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.[/size][/color]

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

Jim,

I accept that you are correct that JFK had custom made clothes. However Craig is correct to point that his jacket was indeed bunched. Croft makes that clear for all to see. How much it was bunched and what affect that would have on the position of the wound I do not know. Maybe not a great deal, maybe a lot.

I am not sure if it makes a great deal of difference to your position that either way the wound was too low for the SBT to be valid. I agree with you on that point.

I do not understand why you suggest that if photos such as Croft do show the jacket bunched that has to mean the photo has been altered. I have a problem with a position that says if the evidence does not support your position, then there is something wrong with the evidence.

James.

FWIW, the fact that JFK had custom made clothes, in no way proves that the coat could not have bunched. You are correct that it was bunched in Croft and the lower of the two alleged wounds was definitely an inch or two higher than the hole in the coat.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK. Take bunching out of it. I explained to Lamson A LONG TIME AGO

that "bunching" does not affect the conclusion, since the back wound

as described on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's sketch, Berkeley's death

certificate, the reenactment photographs and especially the mortician's

description of the wound makes it about 5.5 inches below the shoulder

and to the right of the spinal column. We already know that the "magic

bullet" trajectory is anatomically impossible and that the wounds to his

throat--which Charles Crenshaw diagramed for me and which Malcolm

Perry described THREE TIMES during the Parkland Press Conference as

a wound of entry--and wounds to Connally therefore must be accounted

for on the basis of other shots and other shooters. 5-6 inches below the

shoulder is too low for T-1 but agrees with T-3. So I reaffirm my response

when DiEugnio asked where it would be located if we disregard bunching:

5.5 inches below the collar/shoulder and to the right of the spinal column.

Which tells me that any higher location is some kind of misrepresentation

and, if I understand the argument correctly, that you placement at T-1 can't

be correct and where the image you have been studying must be a clot and

not the actual bullet entry wound. Can we all agree that this has been shown?

[Don Jeffries]

So the most immaculately dressed politician of his time allowed not only his coat to ride up over FIVE inches, somehow his custom tailored shirt rode up to the EXACT same level?

This is incredible to me- intelligent people buying the same kind of nonsense that brought us other impossible theories; the single bullet and the neuromuscular jet effect, for example. And as Jim notes, what are the odds that Boswell, Burkley and Sibert all just happened to "mistakenly" place the back wound at the same location as the holes in the clothing?

It's much simpler, and more logical, to conclude that when an object is struck it will react according to the laws of physics, a bullet will be damaged when it strikes something, and bullet holes in a victim's clothes indicate where the bullet entered.