Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I have no intention of getting into an endless Varnell type argument

Excuse me?

You have a history of getting into endless arguments with LNers -- the name of David Von Pein ring a bell, Jim? I don't get into "arguments" -- the word implies there are two sides. Insults, non sequiturs and raging whoppers don't constitute an argument.

I haven't actively engaged with Craig Lamson since he admitted that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position, the lower margin of which naturally rests in the vicinity of C7.

Apply a little common sense and you'll realize that this admission demolishes the high back wound scenario.

Or does Jim DiEugenio think you can bunch 6 inches of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?

The discourse here apparently can't match the level of a kindergartner.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

This is a very weak rationalization for making Assassination Porn.

Every time Jim DiEugenio raises his right arm and casually waves his right hand the fabric of his shirt indents along the shoulder-line.

Every time.

Why does he think it may have been different with JFK? If he doesn't think that, then why doesn't he simply make the observation and get it over with?

After all, conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not an issue to debate but a fact to observe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Burkley was an authoritative source on the bullet wound's location is ludicrous. He didn't study the body. He never measured the wound. For all we know, he based his appraisal on the face sheet...

On the one hand, did not Burkley famously claim that the wounds at Bethesda were no different from the wounds at Parkland? He seems to represent himself as one who "studied the body." If that is just empty posturing, then one might regard his conclusion on the death certificate is also, and based, as you suggest, on Boswell's drawing. On the other hand, could not one argue Burkley's "T-3" on the death certificate was written in response to observations made that night at Bethesda that were only brought to light years later by interviews with O Connor, Jenkins, Robinson et al.? Just wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Burkley was an authoritative source on the bullet wound's location is ludicrous. He didn't study the body. He never measured the wound. For all we know, he based his appraisal on the face sheet...

On the one hand, did not Burkley famously claim that the wounds at Bethesda were no different from the wounds at Parkland? He seems to represent himself as one who "studied the body." If that is just empty posturing, then one might regard his conclusion on the death certificate is also, and based, as you suggest, on Boswell's drawing. On the other hand, could not one argue Burkley's "T-3" on the death certificate was written in response to observations made that night at Bethesda that were only brought to light years later by interviews with O Connor, Jenkins, Robinson et al.? Just wondering.

Daniel, a first year med student would have no problem identifying the location of T3. Burkley could readily observe the location. The death certificate was filled out according to proper military autopsy protocol -- locating the wound in relation to the spine.

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

Thomas+Even+Robinson.jpg

Good post, Cliff! All of these attempts to rebut the location of the wound at 5.5 inches below the collar

(shoulder) to the right of the spinal column suppress proofs for the sake of one or another they want to

lampoon. Lamson on the holes in the jacket and the shirt is one example. Speer attempting to salvage

T-1 is a second. Gallup disputing Burkley is yet another. Why do none of them even consider that the

improbability of all of this evidence converging on the same location IF THAT WERE NOT THE LOCATION

verges on ZERO? And none of them wants to address the description of the wound by the person who

spent the most time with the body in preparing it for the formal state funeral, Thomas Evan Robinson.

Here is what he told Tom West about it:

* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder to the right of back bone.

How much more of this absurdity are we supposed to take? The holes in the jacket and the shirt, the

Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the Burkley death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and

the mortician's description ALL AGREE THE WOUND WAS about 5.5 inches below the collar and to

the right of the spinal column. We know that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description of the wound

changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of

his neck" in an obvious effort to support the "magic bullet" theory. But the "magic bullet" trajectory

is NOT EVEN ANATOMICALLY POSSIBLE. So what possible excuse can there be for those here who

continue to resist a conclusion that has been established and which, in turn, PROVES THE EXISTENCE

OF CONSPIRACY IN THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK? There has to be an explanation for their stance.

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

Thomas+Even+Robinson.jpg

Good post, Cliff! All of these attempts to rebut the location of the wound at 5.5 inches below the collar

(shoulder) to the right of the spinal column suppress proofs for the sake of one or another they want to

lampoon. Lamson on the holes in the jacket and the shirt is one example. Speer attempting to salvage

T-1 is a second. Gallup disputing Burkley is yet another. Why do none of them even consider that the

improbability of all of this evidence converging on the same location IF THAT WERE NOT THE LOCATION

verges on ZERO? And none of them wants to address the description of the wound by the person who

spent the most time with the body in preparing it for the formal state funeral, Thomas Evan Robinson.

Here is what he told Tom West about it:

* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder to the right of back bone.

How much more of this absurdity are we supposed to take? The holes in the jacket and the shirt, the

Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the Burkley death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and

the mortician's description ALL AGREE THE WOUND WAS about 5.5 inches below the collar and to

the right of the spinal column. We know that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description of the wound

changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of

his neck" in an obvious effort to support the "magic bullet" theory. But the "magic bullet" trajectory

is NOT EVEN ANATOMICALLY POSSIBLE. So what possible excuse can there be for those here who

continue to resist a conclusion that has been established and which, in turn, PROVES THE EXISTENCE

OF CONSPIRACY IN THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK? There has to be an explanation for their stance.

The fact is, Jim, that the wound's being at T-1 destroys the argument for the SBT. A wound in that location necessitates that Kennedy needed to be leaning sharply forward when hit, and he wasn't.

Then there's the other fact--that the argument the wound was at T-3 (and that the autopsy photo is therefore a fake) will never be taken seriously by serious-thinkers.

I mean, think about it, seriously, some evil "THEY" faked autopsy photos that show a wound in a different location than purported by the Warren Commission...AND disproves the SBT?

And this same "THEY" faked a film that shows Kennedy and Connally react to being shot more than a second apart, and strongly suggests--if not PROVES--they were hit by two different marksman?

Who was this "THEY"? And WHY did they decide to fake evidence proving Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter?

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

Pat, You seem to have a hard time discerning that we are attempting to discover the truth,

not to prove a conspiracy UNLESS IT FOLLOWS FROM THE TRUTH. This is why positions

like yours cannot be sustained by arguing that T-1 ALSO supports conspiracy. So does T-2

and T-4 and T-5! You are ignoring all the evidence that establishes the location of the wound

at T-3. And OF COURSE the photo was faked. Egad, man! Notice that you can't see the

massive blow-out at the back of his head? You continued to stun me, again and again. You

really need to read the Prologue to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), where I lay

out proofs of alteration of photographs, of X-rays and of course of the home movies. I am at

a loss when it comes to dealing with you. Faking this photo would have been easy, but faking

the holes in the shirt and jacket, the Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the Burkely location,

and the mortician's report WOULD HAVE BEEN VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE COLLECTIVELY.

When they converge in the conclusion that the wound was about 5.5 inches below the collar/

shoulder and to the right of the spinal column, T-1 is excluded and the photo is proven fake.

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

The idea that Burkley was an authoritative source on the bullet wound's location is ludicrous. He didn't study the body. He never measured the wound. For all we know, he based his appraisal on the face sheet...

On the one hand, did not Burkley famously claim that the wounds at Bethesda were no different from the wounds at Parkland? He seems to represent himself as one who "studied the body." If that is just empty posturing, then one might regard his conclusion on the death certificate is also, and based, as you suggest, on Boswell's drawing. On the other hand, could not one argue Burkley's "T-3" on the death certificate was written in response to observations made that night at Bethesda that were only brought to light years later by interviews with O Connor, Jenkins, Robinson et al.? Just wondering.

Daniel, a first year med student would have no problem identifying the location of T3. Burkley could readily observe the location. The death certificate was filled out according to proper military autopsy protocol -- locating the wound in relation to the spine.

As you might have surmised, my opinion is that the T-3 location of the wound is the correct location, and that Burkley would not have made such a mistake as to locate it falsely. I think the T-1 location is based on a photograph meant to conceal, not reveal, Kennedy's wounds. I know that puts me at odds with Pat Speer, but, c'est le vivre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there's the other fact--that the argument the wound was at T-3 (and that the autopsy photo is therefore a fake) will never be taken seriously by serious-thinkers.

You're not to be taken seriously on this issue, Pat.

Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there's the other fact--that the argument the wound was at T-3 (and that the autopsy photo is therefore a fake) will never be taken seriously by serious-thinkers.

You're not to be taken seriously on this issue, Pat.

Sorry.

"CV" 2-23-13

"I've only read a few posts. I'm not going there, to the EF. I'm not going back."

Once an "OVERSELLER" always an "OVERSELLER!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas+Even+Robinson.jpg

Good post, Cliff! All of these attempts to rebut the location of the wound at 5.5 inches below the collar

(shoulder) to the right of the spinal column suppress proofs for the sake of one or another they want to

lampoon. Lamson on the holes in the jacket and the shirt is one example. Speer attempting to salvage

T-1 is a second. Gallup disputing Burkley is yet another. Why do none of them even consider that the

improbability of all of this evidence converging on the same location IF THAT WERE NOT THE LOCATION

verges on ZERO? And none of them wants to address the description of the wound by the person who

spent the most time with the body in preparing it for the formal state funeral, Thomas Evan Robinson.

Here is what he told Tom West about it:

* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder to the right of back bone.

How much more of this absurdity are we supposed to take? The holes in the jacket and the shirt, the

Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the Burkley death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and

the mortician's description ALL AGREE THE WOUND WAS about 5.5 inches below the collar and to

the right of the spinal column. We know that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description of the wound

changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of

his neck" in an obvious effort to support the "magic bullet" theory. But the "magic bullet" trajectory

is NOT EVEN ANATOMICALLY POSSIBLE. So what possible excuse can there be for those here who

continue to resist a conclusion that has been established and which, in turn, PROVES THE EXISTENCE

OF CONSPIRACY IN THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK? There has to be an explanation for their stance.

The fact is, Jim, that the wound's being at T-1 destroys the argument for the SBT. A wound in that location necessitates that Kennedy needed to be leaning sharply forward when hit, and he wasn't.

Then there's the other fact--that the argument the wound was at T-3 (and that the autopsy photo is therefore a fake) will never be taken seriously by serious-thinkers.

I mean, think about it, seriously, some evil "THEY" faked autopsy photos that show a wound in a different location than purported by the Warren Commission...AND disproves the SBT?

And this same "THEY" faked a film that shows Kennedy and Connally react to being shot more than a second apart, and strongly suggests--if not PROVES--they were hit by two different marksman?

Who was this "THEY"? And WHY did they decide to fake evidence proving Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter?

Yes, if the wound was at T3, then NEITHER of the two alleged wounds in the autopsy photo would have been low enough. And there would be no plausible explanation for how T1 got fractured or how nerves higher on the vertebrae were shocked enough to cause JFK's neurological reactions.

And the fact that Robinson said "5 to 6 inches" confirms that he didn't measure it. He was making a guesstimate, just like a lot of people did. The accuracy of witness recollections are usually related to whether or not they were tasked with making that measurement. Take a hypothetical case. Jimmy was a newspaper reporter, whose editor sent him to a crime scene to report on a murder that had just taken place. When he returned he reported that the victim had been shot in the back. "Where was the wound located?", his editor asked. He replied, "Oh, about 3 or 4 inches to the right of the spine".

Case #2. Jimmy's editor hands him a ruler and sends him out to that crime scene. "Measure the distance from the spine to that wound, Jimmy.". He returns within the hour, reporting, "It was four and one half inches to the right of the spine".

In which case would you expect his measurements to be most accurate?

The autopsists were measuring that very wound when the photo I referred to was being snapped. And though the facesheet was hardly perfect, it does suggest a wound at or very close to T1/C7. To dispute that, one has to prefer guesses over objective measurements and facts.

boswellfacesheet.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

JF: Good work by Jim DiEugenio exposing Lamson as a xxxxx.

Thanks, but its not that hard. The guy has the delicacy and nuance of a bull in a china shop.

My question is I thought the xxxxx was on moderation? Who made the decision to take him off?

And better: Why?

Backslapping and you LOST! Roflmao! Delusional......

Link to post
Share on other sites

CV: Excuse me?

You have a history of getting into endless arguments with LNers -- the name of David Von Pein ring a bell, Jim? I don't get into "arguments" -- the word implies there are two sides

Will you stop it, for your own sake?

That's entirely up to you.

You make disparaging comments about people and then bitch when it blows up in your face?

That's on you, Jim.

First you follow me over to DPF, and deny you did.

I've been a member of Deep Politics Forum since November of 2008. You joined in December of 2010. How is it that I'm following you?

I tried to avoid you over there since I didn't want your pollution mucking it up.

What pollution would that be? Please, be specific.

And I received a very warm hello from my friends over at the DPF, where I will continue to do the vast majority of my posting.

Then you follow me back here.

I've been a member of the Education Forum since May of 2006. You joined 4 years later. How am I following you?

Paranoid much?

You see, Jim, there is a pattern to be discerned here. Every time you make a dismissive reference to me on a forum I've long been a member of -- I respond with a critique of your statements.

This is a good thing. Sometimes, Jim, you make statements that need a good critique.

And then you try and compare what I did with DVP, to what you did with Lamson.

Baloney.

I debated DVP on a WIDE VARIETY OF SUBJECTS!

You missed the point. You said you wanted to show everyone how ridiculous DVP was. Right? I wanted to show everyone how ridiculous Lamson is. All we succeeded in doing was creating the impression there were two sides to these issues.

That's the extent of my comparison. We have completely different approaches to the evidence in this case.

Too many to name here. But to name just the points in VB's book: I think that I brought up 23 issues from that book that 1.) VB was, to put it delicately, not candid about, and 2.) DVP did not even note in his very long discussion of the book. For example, the Ruby polygraph, Mexico CIty, Charles Givens etc.

And on how many points did you win concessions from David Von Pein?

I had two discussions with the guy and he conceded on my major point each time. Very little back and forth. That's because when it comes to making the case for conspiracy -- I know what I'm doing.

Jim, you don't.

Therefore I was hitting:

1. The credibility of VB's pledge in the intro.

2. The pretentiousness of a 2,600 page cinder block of a book.

3. DVP's honesty in not noting any of this.

4. And along the way brining in NEW information on each point I brought up, in a WIDE VARIETY of fields that you cannot touch.

No doubt. What I'm complaining about is the way you bring out this new information -- in a back and forth with DVP? Really? You can't just present it without all the high school sniping?

And that is just ONE angle of my work on DVP. Just recently I posted parts of Lambert's article on the shell and rifle bolt experiment at the TSBD to test the testimony of Norman et al about hearing something on the fifth floor.

To compare that with you and Lammy going at it on this single point about the positioning of the jacket and shirt in the motorcade, I mean give me a break--and everyone else.

It's the same point Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, E. Martin Schotz, Noel Twyman, Jim Marrs, Milicent Cranor and others have been making for decades. This has nothing to do with me, although trying to make it so is your only rhetorical out.

Why do you have such a personal animus to the clothing evidence, Jim?

As far as Lamson goes, I barely respond to him. A couple of years ago he admitted that the jacket collar rested in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck. That ended the conversation -- but nothing can end Lamson spewing.

You see, Jim, I have a higher goal when I enter into discussions with someone like Lamson and Von Pein. I want them to make a cogent observation of fact. Sometimes it takes years -- as with the case of Lamson -- and sometimes it happens right away, as with Von Pein.

When Lamson admitted the jacket collar was in a normal position, the conversation was over as far as I was concerned.

When Von Pein stipulated to the fact that the Weaver photo shows no significant elevation of the clothing before the jacket collar fell -- End of Discussion.

You never get results like these, Jim. There is no comparison.

If you cannot tell the difference between the two then you have lost your critical distance on this case. I too have argued this evidence on this thread, which you ignore, but I do not make it my be all and end all.

I enjoy a lot of company in this regard (Salandria, Fonzi, Schotz, et al). What's the point of making the case for conspiracy on grounds you cannot readily observe?

What you are doing, Jim, is engaging in what Schotz calls "pseudo-debate":

E. Martin Schotz, "The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy"

http://home.comcast....lin/schotz.html

THE WATERS OF UNCERTAINTY

The lie that was destined to cover the truth of the assassination was the lie that the assassination is a mystery, that we are not sure what happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in seeking the solution to this mystery. This is the essence of the cover-up.

The lie is that there is a mystery to debate, and so we have pseudo debates, debates about meaningless disputes, based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form that Orwell's crimestop has taken in the matter of the President's murder. I am talking about the pseudo debate over whether the Warren Report is true when it is obviously and undebatably false, the pseudo debate over whether the Russians, or the Cubans, or the Mafia, or Lyndon Johnson, or some spinoff from the CIA killed the President. These are all part of the process of crimestop which is designed to cover up the obvious nature of this assassination. And let us not forget the pseudo debate over whether JFK would or would not have escalated in Vietnam, as if a President who was obviously turning against the cold war and was secretly negotiating normalization of relations with Cuba, would have allowed the military to trap him into pursuing our War in Vietnam.

Since the publication of History Will Not Absolve Us, what I have found most striking is the profound resistance people have to the concept of pseudo debate, a resistance in people which is manifest as an inability or unwillingness to grasp the concept and to use it to analyze their own actions and the information that comes before them. Even amongst "critics" who are very favorably disposed to my book, I note a consistent avoidance of this concept. And I see this as part of the illness, a very dangerous manifestation of the illness, which I want to discuss further.

THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo debate is a benign activity, that it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise; it is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This prernise – that there is uncertainly to be resolved – seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

You do. So what? If someone does not worship at your church or your specific altar, or with your priest, somehow there is something wrong with them? Nope. I'd say its the other way around.

Not something wrong with them, Jim, but something wrong with their argument. You take this stuff so personally...

Many , many lurkers got in touch with me about that DVP debate. And as I said, they all thanked me. In fact, some of them became spies for me on DVP's actions elsewhere, and his associations with people like Reitzes. That is the kind of inspiration my work caused.

Assassination Porn addicts come in all shapes and sizes. That you feel compelled to have "spies" operating against David Von Pein strikes me as one part paranoid and two parts silly. But that's just me...

Porn, my ass. Its scholarship and learning that you cannot touch.

As soon as it's presented in a proper, scholarly venue, fine. But this gutter rhetoric you always convey with Von Pein is not any kind of scholarship.

It's Porn.

Let me know when your book comes out about Kennedy's shirt.

I write books about punk rock. For fun I go on JFK groups and bedevil the pompous...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if the wound was at T3, then NEITHER of the two alleged wounds in the autopsy photo would have been low enough. And there would be no plausible explanation for how T1 got fractured or how nerves higher on the vertebrae were shocked enough to cause JFK's neurological reactions.

Not true. The shot to the throat caused the hairline fracture of the the T1 transverse process and left an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- in a perfect trajectory from the entrance between the 3rd and 4th trach rings.

From James Gordon:

C7T1_2.png

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...