Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow. . I have a whole bunch of points to make.

1. Robert is wrong in claiming no one has used the ruler to measure before. I did it 6 pr 7 years ago, and have posted my slide on this on this forum several times. I'm fairly certain I showed this slide at the 2009 COPA conference as well. It's currently on my website. The top wound is the wound measured by Humes. And you don't have to take my say-so on it. Assume the smaller wound is 7mm wide, and then extrapolate from that the size of the body, and you'll see that the body would have to have been gigantic for that wound to be 7mm.

2. The reason people think the bullet passed through Connally, and not on the outside of his rib, is the exit location, combined with the exit on the jacket. They are both near the middle of his body, and not at the right side. If Gary Murr, or some other expert on Connally thinks otherwise, I'd appreciate their chiming in.

3. I suspect James Gordon assumes we are looking up in Mantik's cross-section when it seems pretty clear we're looking down. I don't recall if there's a proper way to present a cross-section, but I'm pretty sure most layman would look at one under the assumption we a re looking down.

4. Shortly after I used the ruler to measure the wound, I was contacted by, if I'm not mistaken, Martin Hinrichs,. He'd cleaned up the back wound photo considerably, and was able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that the ruler in the photo was not 12 inches, but a centimeter ruler closer to 15 inches, if I recall. So Robert's assumption the ruler is 12 inches long--the assumption I'd made as well--is incorrect.

5. David mentioned "Knudsen's friend." I assume he is thinking of Joe O'Donnell. After O'Donnell's death, it was discovered that he had been suffering from dementia since at least the early 90's, and that his dementia centered around the Kennedy family. He'd claimed he'd taken pictures of the Kennedys that were known to have been taken by others, etc. He'd also told Doug Horne he'd edited the Zapruder film at Mrs. Kennedy's instruction. The man was clearly loopy. And it's far worse than that. O'Donnell was brought to Horne's attention through the research community, not through the government's records. As a consequence, there is NO evidence O'Donnell even knew Knudsen. The Knudsen family had never heard of him, and several colleagues of Knudsen's were asked after O'Donnell's dementia became public if they recalled O'Donnell, and none did. So, just a thought... Until SOME researcher spends a day or two doing real research and is able to prove Knudsen and O'Donnell were in fact pals, let's stop pretending O'Donnell was anything more than some demented old man telling stories.

6. Paul Seaton's appraisal of T-1's location in the neck is laughably inaccurate, and should not be relied upon. The HSCA FPP determined the neck wound was slightly above a wound on Kennedy's back at the T-1 level of his spine, Seaton embraced an inaccurate depiction of T-1 within the neck so he could claim a bullet entering at T-1 would be well above the exit on the throat. It horrifies me that Robert fell for it.

Robert is wrong in claiming no one has used the ruler to measure before. I did it 6 pr 7 years ago, and have posted my slide on this on this forum several times.

I was unaware of that. Would you mind posting a link to one or more of them? I'm curious about your measurements.

Assume the smaller wound is 7mm wide, and then extrapolate from that the size of the body

Pat, I don't mind you attacking my article but don't you think it would be a good idea to read it first? I was very clear that the lower alleged wound was 4mm wide and 7mm tall - exactly what Humes said it was. It's position is also consistent with his statement that it was 14 cm below the mastoid process and 14 cm from the acromium. This is the image I posted, which includes the measurements.

You should also look at my reply #13, which includes additional corroborations, including the fact that vertebrae T1 was fractured and is a perfect match with the lower alleged wound. And the hole in the coat is very close to the center of the back, which is where this wound was located.

backmeasurements2.png

And this image contains more information, confirming that the lower wound was exactly where Humes said it was.

backmeasurements3.png

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Thanks to James Gordon for conceding that David Mantik had the proper orientation of his CAT scan, after all. Some key points:

(1) The location of the back wound--5.5" below the collar to the right of the spinal column--proves the existence of conspiracy by itself, since the wound to the throat and the wounds to John Connally have to be explained on the basis of other shots and other shooters. Knowing its location proves multiple shooters were involved.

(2) We know the location from the holes in the shirt and the jacket, Boswell diagram, Sibert diagram, Berkley's death certificate and reenactment photographs from the Warren Commission itself. We know that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description of the wound changed from his "uppermost back" to "the base of the back of the neck".

(3) We also know that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible, since the bullet would have intersected with cervical vertebrae. Even Evan Thomas Robinson, the mortician, who spent more time with the body than anyone else, confirmed its location at 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder and to the right of the spinal column.

(4) I presented all of this during an international conference in Cambridge and published it in an international peer-reviewed journal. This is therefore one more example of an issue that has long since been resolved--though I like the idea of exploring another proof, as Robert Harris has done here. See "Reasoning about Assassinations".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to James Gordon for conceding that David Mantik had the proper orientation of his CAT scan, after all. Some key points:

(1) The location of the back wound--5.5" below the collar to the right of the spinal column--proves the existence of conspiracy by itself, since the wound to the throat and the wounds to John Connally have to be explained on the basis of other shots and other shooters. Knowing its location proves multiple shooters were involved.

It is an unimpeachable fact that the jacket had a 3" fold of fabric during the entire ride through the plaza up to the last clear frame we can see...Betzner. Opps...so much for your "proof"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Since we know from the sources I have cited that the wound was 5.5 inches below the collar and to the right of the spinal column, what is taking place here should perhaps best be viewed as attempting to ascertain whether the alleged "wound" is really a bullet entry wound or, as has generally been assumed in the past, a blood clot that was used to simulate a bullet wound. Either way, we know on independent grounds--which this study could also confirm--that the "magic bullet" trajectory was false, provably false, and not even anatomically possible. So once again, David Mantik has made a major contribution to the study of the death of JFK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Since I debunked the "fold" argument in the study I presented at Cambridge, I have to assume that Lamson hasn't read it, which is part for the course. JFK, of course, wore custom tailored shirts and jackets, which do not "bulge", so his argument is fantastic on its face. Plus on the counterfactual assumption they had been bunched, how could they possible agree with the location shown in Boswell's diagram, Sibert's sketch, Berkley's death certificate and--most strikingly--the Warren Commission staff's reenactments? It never ceases to amaze me how far some will go to misrepresent the evidence in this case, especially by taking an exaggerated or false claim (about bunching) as though it contradicted or outweighed the rest of the evidence! But that's what he's doing here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I debunked the "fold" argument in the study I presented at Cambridge, I have to assume that Lamson hasn't read it, which is part for the course. JFK, of course, wore custom tailored shirts and jackets, which do not "bulge", so his argument is fantastic on its face. Plus on the counterfactual assumption they had been bunched, how could they possible agree with the location shown in Boswell's diagram, Sibert's sketch, Berkley's death certificate and--most strikingly--the Warren Commission staff's reenactments? It never ceases to amaze me how far some will go to misrepresent the evidence in this case, especially by taking an exaggerated or false claim (about bunching) as though it contradicted or outweighed the rest of the evidence! But that's what he's doing here.

You simply can't have "debunked" anything, since the fact that this fold existed is unimpeachable. Clearly you have never read the evidence that proves this claim unimpeachable. It never ceases to amaze me how far you will go to completely misrepresent the evidence of ANY event you have claimed to have solved. But that is in fact exactly what you are doing here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Lamson loves to cite fake evidence to support his false claims. We know about the photo, fella, but they are easily faked. And, as I have already explained, if the shirt and jacket had been "bunched" (when we know they were not), how could the holes in them be in alignment with the wound location on Boswell's diagram? the back wound vs. neck wound diagram of Sibert? the location of the back wound in Berkley's death certificate? the re-enactment photographs arranged by the Warren Commission's staff? Egad, man. The "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible! How can you continue to defend an anatomical impossibility? You are going so far out on a limb that anyone can see you are making a fool of yourself, which comes as no surprise to me, but I've been dealing with you for a very long time. I am sorry, but your song and dance has worn itself out. You have no credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lamson loves to cite fake evidence to support his false claims. We know about the photo, fella, but they are easily faked. And, as I have already explained, if the shirt and jacket had been "bunched" (when we know they were not), how could the holes in them be in alignment with the wound location on Boswell's diagram? the back wound vs. neck wound diagram of Sibert? the location of the back wound in Berkley's death certificate? the re-enactment photographs arranged by the Warren Commission's staff? Egad, man. The "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible! How can you continue to defend an anatomical impossibility? You are going so far out on a limb that anyone can see you are making a fool of yourself, which comes as no surprise to me, but I've been dealing with you for a very long time. I am sorry, but your song and dance has worn itself out. You have no credibility.

LOL! Typical Fetzering. The photo is fake, sure it is. [/sarcasm]

Unless you can PROVE ( and you have yet to ever do so for ANY image) Betzner has been altered, it provides unimpeachable proof the jacket did indeed have a 3+inch fold.

Deal with it.

Let the FETZERING begin, and the laughter to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

In fact, of course, we know that the photographs presented by Robin Unger were falsified, since they do not show the massive blow-out at the back of the head, which dozens of witnesses, including virtually all of the physicians at Parkland, confirmed, and which Clint Hill vividly described in recounting his actions after the limo came to a half. (Yes, of course, we know that it came to a halt in part ON THE BASIS OF Clint Hill's reconstructions of his actions, which have been consistent in both written and verbal presentations for nearly 50 years now. See, for example, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", which includes the X-ray study displaying the area that has been concealed in these photographs and the wound as it can be seen in Frame 374 as well as many witnesses showing its location. So we don't have to guess whether these back-wound photos are faked: we already know they are, where the only question that remains is whether we have here a blood clot or a bullet wound:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Notice how Lamson is so lame that he does not address the multiple proofs that a "bulge" did not exist:

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

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

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

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

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

There is a joke here, but it derives from someone who is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here.

We all know how easy it is to fake a bulge in a photo. Lamson is an expert. No photo is "unimpeachable".

Which is yet another way to know that he is pretending. No responsible source would make such a claim.

I would have thought that the man would want to spare himself this embarrassment. But he asks for more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...