Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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

THAT IS NOT JFK!! This is what I've been trying to get across to you guys. People are different. And the location of the base of JFK's neck in relation to the vertebrae was different that in most men. Measure HIM, not a model.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

THAT IS NOT JFK!! This is what I've been trying to get across to you guys. People are different. And the location of the base of JFK's neck in relation to the vertebrae was different that in most men. Measure HIM, not a model.

Robert,

First the model was one I made up for Cliff to show how C1 and T1 could be damaged with a direct line from T1 to trachea 3&4. I have informed Cliff on a number of occasions that this is not a realistic trajectory and has, in my mind, no bearing to reality. It was simply a theoretical line to follow one of Cliff's ideas.

Second, these anatomical models are highly accurate. Proportions may differ from person to person, but the essential details are correct. Where the organs and bone structures are to be seen in the model are exactly where they are on the human body. To get exactitude all one requires to do is scale the model for height and breadth....which I have done with the model I use for trajectory analysis.

These models are used in medical training. To suggest that JFK's base of his neck is in a different location to that of other human beings is preposterous. He would have serious medical conditions if his body did not comply to the same rules of structure as everyone else. Proportion may differ, but not position. I have seen the diagrams where you suggest otherwise. The problem with those diagrams is that you are applying structures to images that are not perfectly straight to allow comparison.

James.

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

Excellent exchanges, for a change! Pat claims that no serious thinker

would acknowledge that the photo is fake, but we already know that

it's fake from the cover-up of the massive blow-out at the back of his

head. I don't understand how he can "stand pat" on issues like this.

As for Robert, Cliff has nailed it. Assuming that it has been accurately

located, the spinal injury appears to have resulted from the bullet that

entered his throat, which explains why the argument for T-1 based on

it doesn't work. The argument was based upon a false presupposition.

Bob Livingston, M.D., by the way, explained to me that it would have

been impossible for cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue to have been

extruding from the wound as it was observed at Parkland unless the

tough membrane covering the cerebellum had already been ruptured.

Known as the "tentorium", he told me that even the occurrence of two

closely-spaced (even nearly simultaneous) shots to the back and front

of his head would not have been able to disrupt cerebellar tissue and

suggested that the bullet that entered his throat had also struck bone.

It was his inference that it had fragmented, with part going downward

into the right lung, the other upward and rupturing the tentorium. So

the death of JFK was caused by the causal interaction of three shots,

the throat shot, the near-to-the-EOP shot, and the right-temple shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And yet Croft, which Varnell loves to show to try ( and fail) to prove his point shows us exactly that.

A 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back and the jacket COLLAR in its normal position.

Kindergarten photo analysis by Cliff Varnell, which is his STANDARD level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost what?

Who let you off moderation?

Did the Tea Party intervene?

You don't know what you lost sucker? lmao. Delusional.....

LOL

Craig, you should volunteer to put yourself on moderation.

Laughter might be your best course of action, Then you can join the chorus laughing AT you.

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

The idea of the jacket bunching as Lamson claims is already

a stretch (and does not affect the argument, since the holes

align with the same location that is supported by the rest of

the evidence), but to make this kind of exaggerated claim on

behalf of the shirt IS SIMPLY ABSURD. Has Lamson never

worn a dress shirt? And JFK's clothing was custom-tailored.

He goes beyond the ridiculous and turns himself into a clown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the jacket bunching as Lamson claims is already

a stretch (and does not affect the argument, since the holes

align with the same location that is supported by the rest of

the evidence), but to make this kind of exaggerated claim on

behalf of the shirt IS SIMPLY ABSURD. Has Lamson never

worn a dress shirt? And JFK's clothing was custom-tailored.

He goes beyond the ridiculous and turns himself into a clown.

Well the images tell another story and you have yet to impeach the images and show evidence they were faked.

Back to the drawing board for you!

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

No, wait, I'm sure the FETZERING will continue...

1. Fetzering 11 thumbs up

Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.

2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are.

3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960's, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it's use in the 9/11 debate arena.

1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT IS NOT JFK!! This is what I've been trying to get across to you guys. People are different. And the location of the base of JFK's neck in relation to the vertebrae was different that in most men. Measure HIM, not a model.

Robert,

First the model was one I made up for Cliff to show how C1 and T1 could be damaged with a direct line from T1 to trachea 3&4. I have informed Cliff on a number of occasions that this is not a realistic trajectory and has, in my mind, no bearing to reality. It was simply a theoretical line to follow one of Cliff's ideas.

If this is not a realistic trajectory then we are left with yet another mind-boggling co-incidence. James, please recall that you questioned the trajectory after I pointed out how well it matched the x-ray.

This has nothing to do with "Cliff's ideas." There is the HSCA analysis of the cervical x-ray which concludes that an air-pocket was overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The natural trajectory of the T1 TP to the C7 TP points directly at the known throat entrance.

That is one hell of a co-incidence!

C7T1_2.png

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

THAT IS NOT JFK!! This is what I've been trying to get across to you guys. People are different. And the location of the base of JFK's neck in relation to the vertebrae was different that in most men. Measure HIM, not a model.

Yeah, Robert, last I looked the guy is buried.

The natural trajectory from T1 to C7 points directly to the throat entrance wound.

I don't buy the notion this is a co-incidence.

[An aside: I love the sound of gored pet theories in the morning!]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter to be debated but a fact to be observed.

Please observe the amount of shirt fabric bulging above the bottom of his shirt collar in this photo.

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

That kind of multiple-inch bunch-up entirely above the base of the neck is what is required by the SBT.

Compare that with the indentation of the slightly elevated jacket on the corner of Main and Houston, the indentation is below the bottom of the collar.

weaver.jpg

Anyone gifted with sight who can't observe this obvious discrepancy must exist in an odd vegetative state.

David Von Pein admitted he couldn't resolve this discrepancy -- and he's the one who put the airplane photo into evidence.

There is nothing to debate or discuss -- the act of observation closes the issue.

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

That's a VERY STRANGE photograph! Surely I am not the only one

to sense that something is very wrong with the shirt JFK is shown to

be wearing. A guy who would rely upon a fake photo of his jacket is

not going to be unwilling to introduce a fake photo of his shirt! And,

as I have repeatedly observed, how could the holes in the shirt and

the jacket possibly align with the location in the Boswell digram, the

Sibert sketch, the Burkley death-certificate, the re-enactment photos

and the mortician's description if those holes had resulted from the

extreme bunching he maintains? How dumb is that? Lamson's best

is to resort to an abusive definition, where he can't even get that right:

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about

JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or, the display of determination in

ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially

ones involving complicity by the government, including especially the CIA,

the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being unwilling to put

up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again,

as shown here with Lamson, as in "He Fetzered Lamson again and again!"

EGAD, MAN! If you want to cite A DEFINITION, AT LEAST GET IT RIGHT!

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

Robert,

Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter to be debated but a fact to be observed.

Please observe the amount of shirt fabric bulging above the bottom of his shirt collar in this photo.

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

That kind of multiple-inch bunch-up entirely above the base of the neck is what is required by the SBT.

Compare that with the indentation of the slightly elevated jacket on the corner of Main and Houston, the indentation is below the bottom of the collar.

weaver.jpg

Anyone gifted with sight who can't observe this obvious discrepancy must exist in an odd vegetative state.

David Von Pein admitted he couldn't resolve this discrepancy -- and he's the one who put the airplane photo into evidence.

There is nothing to debate or discuss -- the act of observation closes the issue.

You are right, there is NOTHING left to debate. There was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back ..as the WEAVER photo shows so well.

Thanks so much Cliff for proving me correct once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a VERY STRANGE photograph! Surely I am not the only one

to sense that something is very wrong with the shirt JFK is shown to

be wearing. A guy who would rely upon a fake photo of his jacket is

not going to be unwilling to introduce a fake photo of his shirt!

Fetzer's only port in a storm...THE PHOTO MUST BE FAKE!

ROFLMAO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a VERY STRANGE photograph! Surely I am not the only one

to sense that something is very wrong with the shirt JFK is shown to

be wearing.

Jim, you're wrong. You go around saying Dealey Plaza photos were altered to show gross bunching you are buying into The Lie.

You are repeating The Lie.

Lamson admits that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck. The normal amount of shirt collar can clearly be seen in all the Elm St. photos.

And yet you and Lamson are saying that the Croft photo shows there was 3+ inches of jacket and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the bottom of the jacket collar without pushing up on the jacket collar itself?

This is the operative definition of idiotic.

There MUST be a fraction of an inch of jacket bunch in every photo.

There MUST be.

Why?

Because the bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar and the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8" when JFK was shot in the back circa Z260.

This is not a matter of debate.

Sigh.

I think I'm due for another meeting of Assassination Porn Anonymous over at the Deep. :sun

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hilarious.

Craig Lamson and Jim Fetzer agree: the Dealey Plaza photos show 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the bottom of JFK's jacket collar without pushing up on JFK's jacket collar.

David Von Pein and Cliff Varnell agree: the Weaver photo on the corner of Main and Houston shows no significant elevation of the jacket, and subsequently the jacket collar dropped on Houston St.

Who'da thunk it? :sun

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...