Jump to content
The Education Forum

A World Gone Mad


Recommended Posts

Conspiracists are all over the map. No coherent theories whatsoever from what I have seen. And they certainly haven't disproved the Single-Bullet Theory to even the slightest degree -- although most CTers on the Internet THINK they have successfully demolished the SBT to the point where they don't even want to debate it with lowly "LN disinfo agents" like myself anymore.

There's nothing to debate, David.

Even you have observed just "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.

The only important question is -- what happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

That's the debate on the table, not the single bullet fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even you have observed just "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

You have blown up my "little bit" comment completely out of all reasonable proportion. I didn't MEASURE the amount of "bunching" that we can see in JFK's jacket in the Croft photo. And YOU haven't "measured" it either. It's impossible to measure the degree of bunching from just looking at the photos and films.

So when you continue to post on numerous forums the preposterous argument that my one "little bit" remark somehow means I have admitted that the SBT is completely wrong, you're revealing yourself to be a very silly person.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.

You're displaying your propensity for preposterousness yet again, Clifford. Because only a fool would continue to claim (year after year) that the clothing of JFK somehow trumps the autopsy picture of the dead President which shows precisely where the bullet entered his BODY -- in the upper back.

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

The only important question is -- what happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

There was only one bullet that struck either of those body parts, Cliff. So your use of the plural ("bullets") is not supported by any evidence at all.

I can easily answer your question -- CE399 passed through both bullet holes in the upper back and throat of JFK, and then that bullet went on to hit Governor Connally--which is just exactly what both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded. No other scenario is even remotely believable (nor supported by any of the overall evidence in this case). And Cliff Varnell's unsupportable claptrap don't qualify as "believable" (or reasonable).

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein, I have, on at least one occasion, and likely several more,asked you to use a model of the human body to prove that even the part of the SBT that has the bullet passing through JFK would miss the major arteries and veins in the neck, so that the blood loss in the region of the neck would correspond to the minimal blood loss seen on the President's clothing. You have repeatedly ignored this "opportunity" to prove the SBT to be a fact. I have much more faith in Mr. James Gordon, who has at least done some 3D modeling which shows that the likelihood of the SBT occuring is slim...and that's ONLY on the part of the bullet passing through JFK's body in the manner indicated by the WC Report. You fall back on the tired old "The Warren Report says so, so who are you gonna believe?" argument so many times that it's gotten stale.

Don't tell me it happened because the WC said it happened; PROVE that their conclusion was correct. Do some research on the human body YOURSELF, or find someone who has done the research, allowing for the arteries, veins, muscles, and tendons that the bullet would have had to traverse to do what you say it did...and show that their research actually proves your point. Just a citation that "he's a doctor" or "he's a certified pathologist" doesn't cut it. I want to see some actual evidence, not more "he said it, I believe it, and that's that." Can you prove the pathologists to be correct, using a human model? Mr. Gordon has proven, to my satisfaction, that the pathologists are possibly incorrect, using a human model. That is "reasonable doubt" that the assassination occurred as you [and the WC] claim it did.

I'm as able a researcher as you; I can find quotes to support whichever side I choose in the argument. I don't want to see quotes, as quotes are merely statements ABOUT the evidence. Show me some evidence.

I doubt that you CAN, and I know that you WON'T [willingly]. Prove me wrong, if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even you have observed just "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

You have blown up my "little bit" comment completely out of all reasonable proportion. I didn't MEASURE the amount of "bunching" that we can see in JFK's jacket in the Croft photo.

You don't have to. The SBT requires multiple inches of shirt and jacket to have bunched entirely above the SBT inshoot.

JFK's visible shirt collar in Croft -- which you have observed -- proves conclusively that the jacket was bunched just "a little bit."

Otherwise the jacket collar would have been pushed up.

But it wasn't, which you have observed and admitted.

There is no debate. There is only DVP snapping like a snake with his head cut off.

And YOU haven't "measured" it either.

The burden of proof is on YOU, not me. You claim that 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of JFK's jacket were bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot without pushing up on the jacket collar.

That's impossible.

Otherwise you could demonstrate it.

But you can't.

It's impossible to measure the degree of bunching from just looking at the photos and films.

So when you continue to post on numerous forums the preposterous argument that my one "little bit" remark somehow means I have admitted that the SBT is completely wrong, you're revealing yourself to be a very silly person.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.

You're displaying your propensity for preposterousness yet again, Clifford. Because only a fool would continue to claim (year after year) that the clothing of JFK somehow trumps the autopsy picture of the dead President which shows precisely where the bullet entered his BODY -- in the upper back.

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

The only important question is -- what happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

There was only one bullet that struck either of those body parts, Cliff. So your use of the plural ("bullets") is not supported by any evidence at all.

You've stipulated to the fact that there was just "a little bit" of jacket bunching, David.

This observation destroys the SBT, whether you like it or not.

I can easily answer your question -- CE399 passed through both bullet holes in the upper back and throat of JFK, and then that bullet went on to hit Governor Connally--which is just exactly what both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded. No other scenario is even remotely believable (nor supported by any of the overall evidence in this case). And Cliff Varnell's unsupportable claptrap don't qualify as "believable" (or reasonable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein, I have, on at least one occasion, and likely several more,asked you to use a model of the human body to prove that even the part of the SBT that has the bullet passing through JFK would miss the major arteries and veins in the neck, so that the blood loss in the region of the neck would correspond to the minimal blood loss seen on the President's clothing. You have repeatedly ignored this "opportunity" to prove the SBT to be a fact. I have much more faith in Mr. James Gordon, who has at least done some 3D modeling which shows that the likelihood of the SBT occuring is slim...and that's ONLY on the part of the bullet passing through JFK's body in the manner indicated by the WC Report. You fall back on the tired old "The Warren Report says so, so who are you gonna believe?" argument so many times that it's gotten stale.

Don't tell me it happened because the WC said it happened; PROVE that their conclusion was correct. Do some research on the human body YOURSELF, or find someone who has done the research, allowing for the arteries, veins, muscles, and tendons that the bullet would have had to traverse to do what you say it did...and show that their research actually proves your point. Just a citation that "he's a doctor" or "he's a certified pathologist" doesn't cut it. I want to see some actual evidence, not more "he said it, I believe it, and that's that." Can you prove the pathologists to be correct, using a human model? Mr. Gordon has proven, to my satisfaction, that the pathologists are possibly incorrect, using a human model. That is "reasonable doubt" that the assassination occurred as you [and the WC] claim it did.

I'm as able a researcher as you; I can find quotes to support whichever side I choose in the argument. I don't want to see quotes, as quotes are merely statements ABOUT the evidence. Show me some evidence.

I doubt that you CAN, and I know that you WON'T [willingly]. Prove me wrong, if you can.

Mark,

Many different pathologists, who certainly know the human body better than I do, have concluded that the SBT is correct and that one bullet DID, in fact, pass through President Kennedy's body without striking any vessels or organs (except for the slight bruising of the upper pleura and the lobe of the right lung--but this bruising was said to have been caused by the mere PASSAGE of the bullet through JFK's body, and not as a result of the bullet directly striking the pleura or lung).

Are you saying I should just toss out the determinations of EVERY forensic pathologist who has ever studied the JFK case for the United States Government--including Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, who also concluded that one bullet passed cleanly through JFK's upper back and throat?

I should just disregard the conclusions and observations of the 17 or so pathologists who have examined either JFK's body itself or the autopsy photographs and X-rays? And I should embrace the conclusions of James R. Gordon and Mark Knight instead?

You actually think ALL SEVENTEEN pathologists in question were utter boobs and/or were all liars---including Dr. Wecht?

Surely you jest.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even you have observed just "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

You have blown up my "little bit" comment completely out of all reasonable proportion. I didn't MEASURE the amount of "bunching" that we can see in JFK's jacket in the Croft photo. And YOU haven't "measured" it either. It's impossible to measure the degree of bunching from just looking at the photos and films.

So when you continue to post on numerous forums the preposterous argument that my one "little bit" remark somehow means I have admitted that the SBT is completely wrong, you're revealing yourself to be a very silly person.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.

You're displaying your propensity for preposterousness yet again, Clifford. Because only a fool would continue to claim (year after year) that the clothing of JFK somehow trumps the autopsy picture of the dead President which shows precisely where the bullet entered his BODY -- in the upper back.

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

The only important question is -- what happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

There was only one bullet that struck either of those body parts, Cliff. So your use of the plural ("bullets") is not supported by any evidence at all.

I can easily answer your question -- CE399 passed through both bullet holes in the upper back and throat of JFK, and then that bullet went on to hit Governor Connally--which is just exactly what both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded. No other scenario is even remotely believable (nor supported by any of the overall evidence in this case). And Cliff Varnell's unsupportable claptrap don't qualify as "believable" (or reasonable).

David, in the autopsy photo you display, can you explain the complete blacking out of the back of the head, where all the Parkland witnesses said the wound was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Math is different from physics.

Math is pure reason.

Physics is a description of reality, a description that uses math.

Of course math is different from physics. However, that is not relevant to your earlier statement in this instance.

Tell me Jon, what is the final resolution to a transcendental number, such as the Feigenbaum Constant, 4.669201609102990671853203... (ad infinitum)?

How about the final (black and white) resolution of pi 3.14159265359... (ad infinitum)?

As for physics:

If math is used (not by physics, BTW) by physicists to study and describe (not reality, BTW) the universe, which includes studying both the infinitely large (cosmology)

and the infinitely small (quantum mechanics) then the "mathematical ruler" employed for the measurements required to satisfy such a description must be both black

AND white; it must include infinite shades of gray AND an infinite spectrum of the rainbow, as well, AND--on a quantum level--it must include all AND none of the above

...simultaneously.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein, I have, on at least one occasion, and likely several more,asked you to use a model of the human body to prove that even the part of the SBT that has the bullet passing through JFK would miss the major arteries and veins in the neck, so that the blood loss in the region of the neck would correspond to the minimal blood loss seen on the President's clothing. You have repeatedly ignored this "opportunity" to prove the SBT to be a fact. I have much more faith in Mr. James Gordon, who has at least done some 3D modeling which shows that the likelihood of the SBT occuring is slim...and that's ONLY on the part of the bullet passing through JFK's body in the manner indicated by the WC Report. You fall back on the tired old "The Warren Report says so, so who are you gonna believe?" argument so many times that it's gotten stale.

Don't tell me it happened because the WC said it happened; PROVE that their conclusion was correct. Do some research on the human body YOURSELF, or find someone who has done the research, allowing for the arteries, veins, muscles, and tendons that the bullet would have had to traverse to do what you say it did...and show that their research actually proves your point. Just a citation that "he's a doctor" or "he's a certified pathologist" doesn't cut it. I want to see some actual evidence, not more "he said it, I believe it, and that's that." Can you prove the pathologists to be correct, using a human model? Mr. Gordon has proven, to my satisfaction, that the pathologists are possibly incorrect, using a human model. That is "reasonable doubt" that the assassination occurred as you [and the WC] claim it did.

I'm as able a researcher as you; I can find quotes to support whichever side I choose in the argument. I don't want to see quotes, as quotes are merely statements ABOUT the evidence. Show me some evidence.

I doubt that you CAN, and I know that you WON'T [willingly]. Prove me wrong, if you can.

Mark,

Many different pathologists, who certainly know the human body better than I do, have concluded that the SBT is correct and that one bullet DID, in fact, pass through President Kennedy's body without striking any vessels or organs (except for the slight bruising of the upper pleura and the lobe of the right lung--but this bruising was said to have been caused by the mere PASSAGE of the bullet through JFK's body, and not as a result of the bullet directly striking the pleura or lung).

Are you saying I should just toss out the determinations of EVERY forensic pathologist who has ever studied the JFK case for the United States Government--including Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, who also concluded that one bullet passed cleanly through JFK's upper back and throat?

I should just disregard the conclusions and observations of the 17 or so pathologists who have examined either JFK's body itself or the autopsy photographs and X-rays? And I should embrace the conclusions of James R. Gordon and Mark Knight instead?

You actually think ALL SEVENTEEN pathologists in question were utter boobs and/or were all liars---including Dr. Wecht?

Surely you jest.

In other words...."They said it, I believe it BECAUSE they said it, and that's it."

Mr. Von Pein, that is NOT "proof"; that's a "religion."

YOU show ME how the bullet traversed the body and missed all those "obstacles", so that there was not profuse bleeding from the neck wound. DO SOME REASEARCH ON HUMAN ANATOMY; don't blindly trust the so-called "experts." Y'know what they call your approach in advertising? It's called the "bandwagon" approach; "All these people say it happened this way, so who am I to disagree?" Years ago "9 out of 10 doctors recommend Chesterfields" [or was it Camel cigarettes?]. Yes, even doctors are mistaken...and yes, sometimes even "9 out of 10."

Mr. James Gordon HAS done research with 3D anatomical models, and his work shows that there is REASONABLE DOUBT that the bullet traversed the path claimed by the WC without inflicting more damage than the evidence shows. I don't know of any other researcher who has attempted to plot the actual path of the bullet past arteries, veins, muscles, tendons, and bones as Mr. Gordon has. Even the WC pathologists based their conclusions on assumptions, rather than trying to actually find and trace the path of the bullet. [Odd, really, when you consider that the doctors could tell us that the bullet that entered Connally's back actually "followed" the 5th rib and flexed the rib bone to the point that it broke and perforated the lung, but the bullet itself did NOT pass through the rib bone. That's SPECIFIC evidence; the story of how the bullet allegedly traversed front-to-back through JFK is less detailed, and more "trust us; here's what MUST'VE happened, since we didn't find a complete front-to-back wound channel."

I know you won't do the research. You're too wedded to the official version. Besides, you have books to sell, and if you DID do your own research and discovered that ANY of the WC conclusions were in doubt, your entire life's work to this point would have been a total waste. I, on the other hand, can't say with 100% certainty that Oswald pulled the trigger on the 6th floor of the TSBD. But I can't say there was a conspiracy, either, because there is reasonable doubt there as well. So I'm not one of your CT'er's that you loathe, Mr. Von Pein. I'm just someone looking for answers beyond what the WC told us. IF I find those answers, and IF they conclusively prove that Oswald alone pulled the trigger from that window, with 100% certainty, then I'll agree with your conclusion that Ozzie did it. [i'm not convinced Ozzie is totally innocent; but I'm not convinced that Ozzie is solely and totally guilty, either. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE, on this forum...to hear ALL the evidence, to see ALL the research, and to even allow for NEW technology to either confirm or disprove "old" evidence.] I'm open-minded, and I'm willing to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. James Gordon HAS done research with 3D anatomical models, and his work shows that there is REASONABLE DOUBT that the bullet traversed the path claimed by the WC without inflicting more damage than the evidence shows. I don't know of any other researcher who has attempted to plot the actual path of the bullet past arteries, veins, muscles, tendons, and bones as Mr. Gordon has.

James R. Gordon has been very generous sharing his anatomical models.

I've long been curious about the HSCA's analysis of the neck x-ray.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

I asked James if he could show what the trajectory from T1 to C7 would look like.

Although he does not endorse the work, he was kind enough to demonstrate this trajectory.

C7T1_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. James Gordon HAS done research with 3D anatomical models, and his work shows that there is REASONABLE DOUBT that the bullet traversed the path claimed by the WC without inflicting more damage than the evidence shows. I don't know of any other researcher who has attempted to plot the actual path of the bullet past arteries, veins, muscles, tendons, and bones as Mr. Gordon has.

James R. Gordon has been very generous sharing his anatomical models.

I've long been curious about the HSCA's analysis of the neck x-ray.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

I asked James if he could show what the trajectory from T1 to C7 would look like.

Although he does not endorse the work, he was kind enough to demonstrate this trajectory.

C7T1_2.png

Well, if JFK had his head between his knees, a downward trajectory from back to front would work.

Now, what Z-frame shows JFK with his head between his knees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. James Gordon HAS done research with 3D anatomical models, and his work shows that there is REASONABLE DOUBT that the bullet traversed the path claimed by the WC without inflicting more damage than the evidence shows. I don't know of any other researcher who has attempted to plot the actual path of the bullet past arteries, veins, muscles, tendons, and bones as Mr. Gordon has.

James R. Gordon has been very generous sharing his anatomical models.

I've long been curious about the HSCA's analysis of the neck x-ray.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

I asked James if he could show what the trajectory from T1 to C7 would look like.

Although he does not endorse the work, he was kind enough to demonstrate this trajectory.

C7T1_2.png

Well, if JFK had his head between his knees, a downward trajectory from back to front would work.

Now, what Z-frame shows JFK with his head between his knees?

Excuse me?

The shot to the throat from the front couldn't be more obvious, could it?

The round nicked the trachea and stopped in the location of the air-pocket.

Perfect trajectory, ain't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Varnell, I'm not debating your assertion that the throat wound came from the front.

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, and figure out from the model just how a through-and-through shot from the rear could still be defended, in light of this evidence, by Mr. Von Pein.

So if we can just find the Z-frame that shows JFK with his head between his knees, then we can say that Mr. Von Pein is absolutely right and all go home agreeing that the WC got it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Varnell, I'm not debating your assertion that the throat wound came from the front.

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, and figure out from the model just how a through-and-through shot from the rear could still be defended, in light of this evidence, by Mr. Von Pein.

So if we can just find the Z-frame that shows JFK with his head between his knees, then we can say that Mr. Von Pein is absolutely right and all go home agreeing that the WC got it right.

Who's Mr. Von Pein?

<nyuck nyuck>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...