Douglas Caddy Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Dr. Cyril Wecht: Medical Aspects of the Kennedy Assassinations September 27, 2014 http://www.c-span.org/video/?321702-2/medical-aspects-kennedy-assassinations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Dr. Cyril Wecht: Medical Aspects of the Kennedy Assassinations September 27, 2014 http://www.c-span.org/video/?321702-2/medical-aspects-kennedy-assassinations While Wecht says some nice things about Specter in the presentation, he probably felt different a few hours later. I showed him my presentation, in which I detailed much of the evidence indicating Specter lied through his teeth, and he seemed to understand what I was getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Dr. Cyril Wecht: Medical Aspects of the Kennedy Assassinations September 27, 2014 http://www.c-span.org/video/?321702-2/medical-aspects-kennedy-assassinations Two major problems with Wecht's presentation. At 12:28: Hoover, in his intellectual brilliance, he already had ascertained in less than 48 hours that it had nothing to do with anything -- the world was told it was Oswald at the end of the day, that was it, okay? Oswald was dead -- forget about it. This is false. The Oswald-as-lone-assassin story was fed to LBJ by National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy only a few hours after the assassination. "Tale of the Tapes," by Vincent Salandria. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/34th_Issue/tapes.html At 16:15, in reference to the relation of the back wound to the throat wound and the requirement of the SBT. We have the bullet moving up 11 and a half degrees. Nonsense. The T3 back wound was a good 3 inches below the level of the throat wound. That's a lot more than 11.5 degrees. Wecht must agree with a conspicuously fraudulent Fox 5 BOH autopsy photo and places the wound at T1. Wecht doesn't appear to understand the most basic facts about the killing or the cover-up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Dr. Cyril Wecht: Medical Aspects of the Kennedy Assassinations September 27, 2014 http://www.c-span.org/video/?321702-2/medical-aspects-kennedy-assassinations While Wecht says some nice things about Specter in the presentation, he probably felt different a few hours later. I showed him my presentation, in which I detailed much of the evidence indicating Specter lied through his teeth, and he seemed to understand what I was getting at. The burden of proof is on both you and Dr. Wecht to show how 2 inches of JFK's jacket and 2 inches of JFK's shirt were bunched up entirely above the T1 in-shoot without pushing up on the jacket collar resting at the base of JFK's neck. The bullet holes in the clothes line up with T3. That is an unchallenged fact. Neither of you can intellectually defend the T1 back wound, Pat. Edited November 17, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I've tried to make this point with you many times, Cliff, but apparently it just won't seep in. I've made YOUR favorite argument--that the clothing holes disprove the SBT--a centerpiece of my presentations for nearly a decade now. Our only disagreement on this--which is incredibly minor, IMO--is that you also want to believe Dr. Burkley's comment about T3. I don't accept Dr. Burkley's T3 comment as the end-all/be-all for a number of reasons. 1. The autopsy measurements, in my analysis, put the wound at T-1, which is too low to support the SBT, as proven by the Rydberg drawings, in which they moved the wound up to C-5 or so. 2. The autopsy photos, in my analysis, also put the wound at T-1. That's a heckuva coincidence. That buries the SBT, IMO. 3. There is no evidence or reason to believe Burkley actually measured the wound entrance. His estimate of T-3, for all we know, was a guess based upon a quick glance at the face sheet. So that's it. You have an obsession with one piece of evidence which, IMO, is probably incorrect. Its incorrectness, moreover, does not deter from YOUR basic point whatsoever--that is, that the clothing evidence disproves the SBT and ultimately destroys the single-assassin conclusion. We're on the same side. It's kinda like we both agree the Sex Pistols were the best punk band ever, but you think God Save the Queen is their best song while I think it's Anarchy in the U.K., or maybe even Holidays in the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) I've tried to make this point with you many times, Cliff, but apparently it just won't seep in. I've made YOUR favorite argument--that the clothing holes disprove the SBT--a centerpiece of my presentations for nearly a decade now. But you insist on missing the more significant point -- the back wound was too low to have been associated with the throat wound. Your misplacing the back wound muddles the waters unnecessarily. Our only disagreement on this--which is incredibly minor, IMO--is that you also want to believe Dr. Burkley's comment about T3. No Pat, this is an incredibly major point of disagreement. The holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound -- which establishes the throat wound as an entrance. The holes in the clothes match not just Burkley's location of the wound, but around 15 other close proximity eye-witnesses. According to your T1 in-shoot there had to be 4 inches of JFK's clothing bunched up entirely above the T1 wound without pushing up on the jacket collar. This is ridiculous. In the extreme. I don't accept Dr. Burkley's T3 comment as the end-all/be-all for a number of reasons. I like how you wave your wand and dispose of the holes in the clothes, the consensus eye-witness statements, and the other properly prepared documents. But, please do continue... 1. The autopsy measurements, in my analysis, put the wound at T-1, which is too low to support the SBT, as proven by the Rydberg drawings, in which they moved the wound up to C-5 or so. Those "autopsy measurements" to which you refer were written IN PEN on the autopsy face sheet. This is a violation of autopsy protocol. The rest of the autopsy face sheet -- which shows a wound even lower than the holes in the clothes -- was filled out IN PENCIL. This portion was signed off as "verified" IN PENCIL. That is according to proper autopsy protocol. Pat, you have no idea when those "autopsv measurements" were recorded -- but they sure weren't recorded at the autopsy! 2. The autopsy photos, in my analysis, also put the wound at T-1. That's a heckuva coincidence. That buries the SBT, IMO. There is zero evidence that JFK is the subject of the Fox 5 BOH autopsy photo. The photo was not taken according to proper autopsy protocol, the HSCA singled it out as an egregious example of scientific deficiency, there is no chain of possession for the photo since the woman on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos denies developing the extant autopsy photos -- and the best part is the "wound" in the BOH photo shows an abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below! 3. There is no evidence or reason to believe Burkley actually measured the wound entrance. His estimate of T-3, for all we know, was a guess based upon a quick glance at the face sheet. Moot. The holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars. You need two inches of JFK's jacket and 2 inchs of JFK's shirt to have bunched up entirely above the "T1 wound" without pushing up on the jacket collar resting normally at the base of JFK's neck. That scenario is flat out impossible. So that's it. You have an obsession with one piece of evidence which, IMO, is probably incorrect. This is incredible. I cite Burkley along with all the other physical, eye-witness and documentary evidence but you claim I am obsessing on one thing? Disingenuous much? Its incorrectness, moreover, does not deter from YOUR basic point whatsoever--that is, that the clothing evidence disproves the SBT and ultimately destroys the single-assassin conclusion. We're on the same side. It's kinda like we both agree the Sex Pistols were the best punk band ever, but you think God Save the Queen is their best song while I think it's Anarchy in the U.K., or maybe even Holidays in the Sun. I don't buy it, Pat. The T3 back wound is the root fact of JFK's murder. It not only establishes the fact 2+ shooters fired at JFK, it establishes the throat wound as an entrance. You're throwing pixie dust over the most important evidence in the case, imo. Edited November 18, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now