The JFK Back Wound

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Best of luck with that one jimmy, even your die hard ct playmates can't agree.

So were did that 3" fold go? LOL!

[Craig Lamson]

I agree that it is hard to believe the shirt rose that high.

And BTW Craig, my point is a really cogent one: Where would this argument be if the mysterious autopsy photos had not surfaced? Clearly, the weight of the evidence would indicate the lower entry point.

As per the autopsy photos, I mean even the HSCA said they would be very hard to get entered into a court of law. And Stringer's student, who was interviewed by the ARRB, said he could not believe how bad they were. Whoever shot them broke just about every rule of autopsy protocol.

Really, it would indicate the lower wound, give the large fold of fabric we see in NUMEROUS plaza images?

Give me a break.

People do a bad job all time Jim, even you. Its because they are human. Look how badly you just screwed up. You are human, rihgt?

[Craig Lamson]

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.

And you have somehow missed all the photos showing a 3" fold on the jacket and the photo showing JFK's shirt folded up WELL over the level of the top of his shirt collar?

Simple is right. His clothes were not flat.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I agree that it is hard to believe the shirt rose that high.

And BTW Craig, my point is a really cogent one: Where would this argument be if the mysterious autopsy photos had not surfaced? Clearly, the weight of the evidence would indicate the lower entry point.

As per the autopsy photos, I mean even the HSCA said they would be very hard to get entered into a court of law. And Stringer's student, who was interviewed by the ARRB, said he could not believe how bad they were. Whoever shot them broke just about every rule of autopsy protocol.

Really, it would indicate the lower wound, give the large fold of fabric we see in NUMEROUS plaza images?

Give me a break.

People do a bad job all time Jim, even you. Its because they are human. Look how badly you just screwed up. You are human, rihgt?

Nice cardsharp bit Craig.

That is not what I said. My argument was about the shirt.

Secondly, you clearly don't know crapola about what I am writing about with the critique of the autopsy photos. Which is par for the course with you since your JFK literacy is about at a third grade level. (Which does not stop you from flapping your chops indiscrimanately.)

The violation of protocol was not just a bad job. It was worse than that. The ARRB interview, which you did not even know existed, said there were necessary shots not taken. So this would be like an advertising client asking you to take a shot of a model from three different distances: one being a close up of her eyes and nose, one of her face, and one from the shoulders up.

You then did only the close up of the eyes and nose but you shot it from such a distorted angle that you couldn't rally make out her features.

That is not a "bad job" Craig and you know it. And if you do not know it then you are ignorant of what I am speaking about. Which, of course you are. You should really read some of this stuff some time. Then you would not come off as such an arrogant ass. First, duh? who's David Eisendrath? And now this.

Don't flatter yourself jimbo, you are really not as bright and all knowing as you think you are. I'm far more well read that you would ever imagine. I'm just not interesting in getting into a pissing match over it nor doe it interest me.. Heck your looney ct's cant even decide whats what.

So climb back down off your high hobby horse jimbo. You are just doing a bad job. I guess you are human after all.

I'm human too. I've screwed up the odd advertising shoot a time or tow.

[Robert Harris]

I agree that it is hard to believe the shirt rose that high.

And BTW Craig, my point is a really cogent one: Where would this argument be if the mysterious autopsy photos had not surfaced? Clearly, the weight of the evidence would indicate the lower entry point.

As per the autopsy photos, I mean even the HSCA said they would be very hard to get entered into a court of law. And Stringer's student, who was interviewed by the ARRB, said he could not believe how bad they were. Whoever shot them broke just about every rule of autopsy protocol.

Not only did the HSCA claim that T1 was fractured, but on JFK (not on everyone) T1 was at the same height as the lower of those two alleged wounds on the back.

I believe one bullet did go through both men but it certainly didn't come from the alleged sniper's nest and as I believe I proved in my article at http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally. That bullet came from the third floor of the Daltex building. Consider the actual angle from an entry wound at the height of T1, to the throat wound. Notice that I edited Seaton's illustration by adding dotted lines to calculate that angle. And yes Mr. Lamson, there is angular distortion and each viewer has to decide for himself whether that distortion is significant.

Also, it may be that the entry wound was a tad higher, just above T1 but below C7. That would explain both the fracture and JFK's neurological reactions which suggest that C7 was shocked by the passing bullet.

[Craig Lamson]

CL: you are really not as bright and all knowing as you think you are. I'm far more well read that you would ever imagine.

OK, then tell me:

1.) Who is the witness I am describing?

2.) Where can you find the testimony in the literature?

3.) What protocol violations am I talking about, and what specific shot am I referring to?

Save your pop quiz's for the poor dweebs that are required to sit in your classroom.

[Mark Knight]

You folks still haven't figured out Lamson? He's not going to give you any answers. He's only here to tell you what fools you are, and hope you'll respond over and over and over again...which you have. I'm not going to call him any names here, but elsewhere on the internet, that's what's known as a "xxxxx". Apparently here, that's what's called a "researcher" by many, but I'm not among those who see Lamson's posts as containing any positive contributions.

And Fetzer and diEugenio keep falling for Lamson's bait again and again and again.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Mark Knight

[Craig Lamson]

OK Craig, you don't know.

I figured you did not.

Mark, everyone once in awhile you have to show what an ignoramous Lammy is on this case. Just so the lurkers don't fall for his "photo expertise" act.

I mean our "photo expert" does not even know that a professional autopsy photographer was rendered baffled by what was missing in the autopsy pictures, and also how they were shot. Since they clearly violated standard protocol. A protocol which was actually taught to him by Stringer, the guy who was supposed to have taken the photos in the first place!

The JFK case is a complex phenomena with a complex history of evidence manipulation. Craig is utterly ignorant of all this important history. To him, the JFK case is the same as shooting an automobile or a coffee maker. (LOL)

We need to expose that utter ignorance and arrogance every so often to protect the lurkers who might be suckered by him.

I have no intention of getting into an endless Varnell type argument with Mr. Everyone should have an Uzzi and a 9 mm so we can have more Sandy Hooks..

You are such an easy mark.

If I did not know as you so wrongly suggest, then how could I have had a conversation about Stringer, Reibe and Spencer on another forum months ago, including ARRB quotes.

You see jimbo, you just got powned.

Could not happened to a not so nicer guy.

Great work jimbo.

I told you that you were not as smart and all knowing as you though you were.

Excuse me while I go clean a few of my guns....sucker.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Ok then Craig, you are saying that the substance means nothing then huh?

Fine, you are too smart by half then, sucker.

The 'substance"? ROFLMAO! What a joke you are jimbo.

[Craig Lamson]

Yep, you ignore it. Because you have to.

Is that another, "I'm jimbo and I don't know what I think I know-ism"?

LMAO.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Good work by Jim DiEugenio exposing Lamson as a xxxxx. Even

his argument about the bunching holds no water. Suppose that

the jacket had been bunched. Surely he cannot also maintain

that the shirt was bunched! The absurdity would be apparent. So

he ignores the shirt and pushes the jacket. But David W. Mantik,

with whom I had lunch today, confirmed during one of his many

visits to the Archives that the shirt and the jacket holes align with

the hole in the shirt only slightly lower than the hole in the jacket.

So Lamson is conning us across the board. No surprise there!

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. Lamson pushes the images because

he has no place else to go. His slender reed is slipping, but he will

never admit it. From the point of view of rationality of belief, he has

only faked images to support him. His contentions are not rational.

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

approach that advances your objective--the adamant insistence on

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

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

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.

Edited February 24, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Even his argument about the bunching holds no water. Suppose that

the jacket had been bunched. Surely he cannot also maintain

that the shirt was bunched! The absurdity would be apparent. So

he ignores the shirt and pushes the jacket. But David W. Mantik,

with whom I had lunch today, confirmed during one of his many

visits to the Archives that the shirt and the jacket holes align with

the hole in the shirt only slightly lower than the hole in the jacket.

So Lamson is conning us across the board. No surprise there!

No doubt watsoever the jacket was folded on the back. And since the holes in both the shirt and jacket match...well you do the math jim, if you are capable.

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

his stance.

You have yet to provide proof that all of that photos showing the fold are faked, heck you have not even started. Strike two for Fetzer.

THE ISSUE IS SETTLED.

As thread has aptly shown, its not even CLOSE to being settled. Fifty years on and CT's still can't agree. Strike three jimmy.

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

That is exactly true...FOR YOU. And you are painfully obvious.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You have been outed, Lamson. Give it up! It's time to hang up your jock.

You never had anything to contribute. All your efforts are obfuscations. If

you can't tell the difference between a shirt and a jacket, faked photographs

and actual evidence, then there is no hope for you. But then, there never was!

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. Lamson pushes the images because

he has no place else to go. His slender reed is slipping, but he will

never admit it. From the point of view of rationality of belief, he has

only faked images to support him. His contentions are not rational.

But, as Mark Knight observes, that's what we expect from a xxxxx!

Edited February 24, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

You have been outed, Lamson. Give it up! It's time to hang up your jock.

You never had anything to contribute. All your efforts are obfuscations. If

you can't tell the difference between a shirt and a jacket, faked photographs

and actual evidence, then there is no hope for you. But then, there never was!

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. Lamson pushes the images because

he has no place else to go. His slender reed is slipping, but he will

never admit it. From the point of view of rationality of belief, he has

only faked images to support him. His contentions are not rational.

But, as Mark Knight observes, that's what we expect from a xxxxx!

Only in your dreams fetzer...only in your dreams.

Get back to us when you can find a way to impeach ALL of the images. ROFLMAO! That will be NEVER.

[Pat Speer]

I'm not saying it didn't, Robert. I'm saying that Seaton's image, which you insist on posting over and over again, is nonsense designed to support McAdams's disingenuous support of Artwohl's pet theory the bullet entered at T-1, AND that T-1 was significantly above the throat wound.

Yes, of course it's above the throat wound. I've been telling you that for years.

T1 was fractured and there are NO vertebrae below C7 that could have affected anything that was connected to the elbows. JFK's neurological reaction could only have been to a bullet passing very close to C7. JFK's anatomy was different that some other men. The base of his throat sat lower in relation to his vertebrae for example, than the guy you measured in your video on this subject. Measure JFK - not someone else.

Sorry, Robert, but you're the one who needs to do some measuring. A standard cd case is about 14 cm wide, the same distance as Kennedy's wound was purported to have been below the bottom tip of his mastoid.. If you set one edge of a cd case against the bottom of most anyone's skull, and let the case lay down upon the back of their neck, you'll see that the bottom edge rests on the back, slightly below the Adam's Apple, about the level of Kennedy's throat wound. The Seaton/Artwohl/McAdams scam you're pushing holds that this bottom edge would be well above the level of the throat wound. This is simply astonishing.

If you put your exhibit using the back wound photo away for a second, and MEASURE 14 cm below the base of the skull on some real people, you'll see that I'm correct.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Pat Speer