Cliff Varnell Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The JFK Head Wound/s Cult... The inept obsessing over the unknowable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share Posted October 4, 2015 In 1800, the pessimist historians of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings wrote: "The inept obsessing over the unknowable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson%E2%80%93Hemings_controversy If you stick your head in a hole EVERYTHING is unknowable. -Ramon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) 1. I hope you know Mantik and Riley don't see eye to eye, and that it's doubtful they would ever work together. 2. You also need to keep your eye on Riley. If he starts to push his theory that the red dot in the autopsy photos is the wound measured at autopsy by the EOP, you need to stop listening to him. There's pet theories and there's unhousebroken pet theories, that will get dirt on your shoes. This one is the latter. Thanks for the tip, Pat. Following your previous advice, I am being extremely cautious. I have been on the phone and e-mail with Joseph Riley, and things seems to have changed radically. He is not pushing anything, he's just excited about this unexpected technological advance. On repeated occasions he hurried to clarify: "Not that I am arguing one against the other!" or, "I am not sure. Let me check my notes". He listens patiently even to a pedestrian like Yours Truly. He wrote that stuff 20 years ago, when he was in his 40s. Again, the plan is to select a competent 3D modeler/artist whose job will be pretty much the same as that of Michelangelo Buonarroti: carve a hole in a virtual cranium. That can be done in a matter of weeks, within my budget. It will be a rough draft. THE definite solution, however, is to have a computer program do the job, with millimetric accuracy. That will be Version 2 of the Model. -Ramon Edited October 4, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 In 1800, the pessimist historians of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings wrote: "The inept obsessing over the unknowable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson%E2%80%93Hemings_controversy If you stick your head in a hole EVERYTHING is unknowable. -Ramon Then take your head out of the hole! Like this... Ramon, glance down upon your right shoulder-line. See the upper body garment atop your shoulder-line? Keep your eye on your shoulder-line as you raise your arm and casually wave as if JFK in the motorcade. See the fabric of your shirt indent? Happens every time...hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet one's shirt fabric will indent when you casually raise an arm. This fact establishes the following: JFK was shot in the back four inches below the bottom of his clothing collars, a location too low to have been associated with the wound in the throat. Thus, the wound in the throat was an entrance. (Yes, this destroys the SBT and establishes conspiracy as a fact but that is an ancillary issue). The root physical facts of the case are readily knowable: A wound of entrance in the back, no exit, no round recovered in the autopsy; a wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, no round recovered in the autopsy. Take yer head out of that unknowable head wound/s rabbit hole and the central question of JFK's murder is: "What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?" Why swim in the waters of uncertainty when you can swim in the waters of knowledge? http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 In order to make the argument that the head wound/s research is "essential" one must ignore the physical evidence, as per the official over-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 In 1800, the pessimist historians of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings wrote: "The inept obsessing over the unknowable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson%E2%80%93Hemings_controversy If you stick your head in a hole EVERYTHING is unknowable. -Ramon Plagiarism is a serious charge, Ramon. The line "the inept obsessing over the unknowable" doesn't appear in that link. According to Google the line is original. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=the+inept+obsessing+over+the+unknowable Same with Ask.com http://search.tb.ask.com/search/GGmain.jhtml?st=sb&ptb=E8D674A6-718C-4744-8267-C82F111A3A43&n=780d0c95&ind=2014121109&p2=^XP^xdm079^YYA^us&si=NEWTV&searchfor=the+inept+obsessing+over+the+unkowable If you have evidence to the contrary how about posting the quote directly and in context, instead of linking to something we have to wade through for no reason? Same problem as before, Ramon, you provide links that don't relate to the question at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I advise the JFK Head Wound/s Cult to go Full Metal Lifton. Approach the head wound/s evidence primarily as a study of the cover-up. Edited October 6, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 In 1800, the pessimist historians of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings wrote: "The inept obsessing over the unknowable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson%E2%80%93Hemings_controversy If you stick your head in a hole EVERYTHING is unknowable. -Ramon Plagiarism is a serious charge, Ramon. The line "the inept obsessing over the unknowable" doesn't appear in that link. According to Google the line is original. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=the+inept+obsessing+over+the+unknowable Same with Ask.com http://search.tb.ask.com/search/GGmain.jhtml?st=sb&ptb=E8D674A6-718C-4744-8267-C82F111A3A43&n=780d0c95&ind=2014121109&p2=^XP^xdm079^YYA^us&si=NEWTV&searchfor=the+inept+obsessing+over+the+unkowable If you have evidence to the contrary how about posting the quote directly and in context, instead of linking to something we have to wade through for no reason? Same problem as before, Ramon, you provide links that don't relate to the question at hand. Ramon? You've leveled a serious charge. Don't you think the decent thing to do is substantiate your charge or withdraw it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Mr. Varnell, I think you've created [or contributed to] a very hostile atmosphere on the topic.Since it is VERY CLEAR that JFK suffered at least one head wound, it can't be dismissed entirely. In all honesty, the throat wound and the back wound were not, in and of themselves, sufficient to cause Kennedy's death...IMHO. So why is it that you believe the head wound(s) is(are) a distraction from the study of the case of the killing of JFK? Don't get me wrong. I believe that a thorough discussion of the true nature, and positions, of the throat wound and the back wound is not only warranted, but essential to understanding the JFK assassination. I just don't believe that using them as a way to shut down a thread on discussion of the head wound(s) is going to get us any closer to the truth about the throat and back wounds. And I post this not as an administrator, but as a regular forum member who has questions about your purposes. How is shutting down a discussion of the head wound(s) bringing us any closer to knowing the true nature of the wound(s) that actually killed JFK? And, if it's NOT your intention to shut down a discussion of the head wound(s), why do you believe that the throat and back wounds are important to a discussion of the head wound(s)...rather than something to be discussed on their own thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) Mr. Varnell, I think you've created [or contributed to] a very hostile atmosphere on the topic. It's all a matter of proper subtext and context, Mark. If someone's subtext is fallacious and their context askew -- I think it's fair to characterize their work as "inept." When a researcher whose focus is the head wound/s throws pixie dust -- "the evidence is fuzzy!" -- over the throat entrance (or the T3 back wound) they are attempting to re-frame the fact of conspiracy as an open question which they will "solve" with their head wound/s research. Or their research on the Magic Bullet. Or their research on the acoustic tape. Or their research on Oswald/s. Or their research on the windshield. While research on all these topics may have their place, it is stone cold INEPT to insist that they settle the "question of conspiracy." The physical evidence is prima facie proof of conspiracy; spending two whole chapters of Destiny Betrayed on CE-399 as the primary proof of conspiracy is INEPT. It's like trying to re-invent the wheel with square tires. Since it is VERY CLEAR that JFK suffered at least one head wound, it can't be dismissed entirely. The number of shots to JFK's head is unknowable unless we dig up the body. Whether or not there was pre-autopsy surgery to the head is unknowable unless we dig up the body. But that's not going to happen. So in the context of the murder of JFK the head wound/s evidence is worthless -- as a study of the cover-up the head wound/s evidence is very important. I'll argue that this is a distinction crucial to draw -- what is a study of the murder, and what is a study of the cover-up? That conspiracy is a proven fact should be the subtext of all research into the murder of JFK. When it isn't, that researcher is guilty to being INEPT. Within a proper subtext, the context of the head wound/s research is a study of the cover-up. In all honesty, the throat wound and the back wound were not, in and of themselves, sufficient to cause Kennedy's death...IMHO. I must respectfully disagree, Mark. According to the FBI men at the autopsy the doctors seriously considered the possibility JFK was struck in the back with a high tech weapon. The FBI men took this scenario very seriously, and called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry. The First Investigation. The one and only legitimate investigative move by a US government official -- FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab and was told to forget about it, they had the bullet, etc etc. The truth is that military men with CIA affiliations had tested blood soluble paralytics and toxins on humans, running an operation called the Staff Support Group within the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, MD. Genuine leads, genuine persons of interest. What purpose did the first two shots serve if not to kill? First shot paralytic -- perhaps -- second shot toxin. You think the plotters would wait until the 3rd volley to kill the guy? I'll argue it likely the head shot/s were for show, a major mis-direction from the real cause of death by high tech weaponry. So why is it that you believe the head wound(s) is(are) a distraction from the study of the case of the killing of JFK? The study of the head wound/s only muddies the water as to cause of death -- why swim in the waters of uncertainty, Mark, when you can swim in the waters of knowledge (the physical evidence)? Don't get me wrong. I believe that a thorough discussion of the true nature, and positions, of the throat wound and the back wound is not only warranted, but essential to understanding the JFK assassination. I just don't believe that using them as a way to shut down a thread on discussion of the head wound(s) is going to get us any closer to the truth about the throat and back wounds. I'm not aware I've been promoted to a lead moderator position where I can shut down a thread. Wouldn't I have received some kind of notice? As a student of the murder of JFK I object to what appears to me self-aggrandizing efforts to diminish the prima facie case for conspiracy. And I post this not as an administrator, but as a regular forum member who has questions about your purposes. How is shutting down a discussion of the head wound(s) bringing us any closer to knowing the true nature of the wound(s) that actually killed JFK? And, if it's NOT your intention to shut down a discussion of the head wound(s), why do you believe that the throat and back wounds are important to a discussion of the head wound(s)...rather than something to be discussed on their own thread? Without the physical fact of conspiracy as a subtext, any discussion of any evidence in this case is INEPT. Edited October 6, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 CV :Ramon? You've leveled a serious charge. I think its you who have leveled the serious charge. You are telling Ramon that his project is pointless, even before he starts it! And you do this for no other reason except to accent your own agenda. Which you have been preaching for years, decades, generations? If Ramon wants to try and do something new with the head wounds, fine, more power to him. There are many new pieces of evidence in this regard, and Riley did some very good work on this that was overlooked. As many have pointed out, Martin Hay for instance, if the low in rear of the skull wound is the real entry, then ipso facto you have a conspiracy, because the particle path at the top of the skull does not connect. Yet you want to discourage this kind of new and original work before it even gets off the ground. That seems weird to many people Cliff. Most of us want to expand the horizons of the JFK case based on new material and evidence and technology. You want to keep us studying JFK's dress shirts. I don't think that is the proper approach to a very complex case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) CV :Ramon? You've leveled a serious charge. I think its you who have leveled the serious charge. You are telling Ramon that his project is pointless, even before he starts it! No, I said it wasn't "essential". Where has he or you argued otherwise? "Essential" to what? And you do this for no other reason except to accent your own agenda. Job #1 of the JFK assassination cover-up: suppression/misrepresentation of the physical evidence. Why? Some folks wanted to get away with murder. Job #1 of Jim DiEugenio & Co.: suppression/misrepresentation of the physical evidence. Why? To lend their work more significance than it deserves. Emphasis on physical evidence in a murder case is not an "agenda". That you cannot grasp the significance of physical evidence in a murder case is a measure of your ineptitude. Which you have been preaching for years, decades, generations? Same as these gentlemen -- whom you have read with little or no understanding. http://archive.politicalassassinations.net/2013/01/05/11222013-2/1560/ http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html What about YOUR agenda, Jim. Seems like you spend a lot of time singing the praises of those who pass the Big Lie about the T1 back wound. Why is that? If Ramon wants to try and do something new with the head wounds, fine, more power to him. Absolutely. As long as there is no self-aggrandizing effort to inflate the significance of his work by throwing pixie dust on the prima facie case. Which Ramon did in the"sacrilegious" post. Which is what YOU habitually do! Your condescending line -- "Most researchers respect the clothing evidence" -- is damning. Think about it. "Most researchers into a murder case respect the extant physical evidence." By "respect" you mean "give lip service to." There are many new pieces of evidence in this regard, and Riley did some very good work on this that was overlooked. Evidence of what? Number of shots? Give us an ID on the type of ordnance? Evidence of Conspiracy? Conspiracy in the murder of JFK became an officially established fact in the summer of 1966. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fonzi-Specter_Interviews.html A corrupt government won't recognize this. Neither will a cowed mainstream media. Nor a bunch of self-aggrandizing hustlers who keep the research grounded in perpetual proofs of conspiracy. As many have pointed out, Martin Hay for instance, if the low in rear of the skull wound is the real entry, then ipso facto you have a conspiracy, because the particle path at the top of the skull does not connect. 50 years too late! We should have settled this issue of conspiracy in the 60's but you guys insist on keeping it open. Why? Martin Hay pushes the T1 back wound so that his work on the head wound/s will carry significance. Yet you want to discourage this kind of new and original work before it even gets off the ground. I discourage the notion that this work is "essential" to prove the fact of conspiracy. I protest the habitual misrepresentation of the T3 back wound/throat entrance by those who push more complex and therefore inferior proofs of conspiracy, which is what Ramon has done. Which is what Martin Hay does. And David Mantik. And Pat Speer. And Tink Thompson All of these guys have to promote a fictional T1 back wound in order to keep the "question of conspiracy" alive. Which is your agenda, evidently. That seems weird to many people Cliff. The contempt is returned in spades. Most of us want to expand the horizons of the JFK case based on new material and evidence and technology. Y'all haven't done anything with the old evidence! You can't even acknowledge that the fact of conspiracy is prima facie and has been since the beginning. You want to keep us studying JFK's dress shirts. Either you don't read my work or it's over your head. The bullet holes in the clothes establish the following: JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn't exit, no round was recovered from that location in the autopsy. JFK was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was recovered from that location during the autopsy. What I'm inviting people to study is the question -- "What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?" I don't think that is the proper approach to a very complex case. There is nothing complex about the fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. "What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?" This is the central question related to the murder of JFK. The inept JFK Critical Research Community is obsessed with things unknowable -- which would be fine if y'all didn't mis-inform on the T3 back wound and throat entrance. Edited October 9, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Bumped for Jim DiEugenio -- who hasn't read it or just doesn't get it... Mr. Varnell, I think you've created [or contributed to] a very hostile atmosphere on the topic. It's all a matter of proper subtext and context, Mark. If someone's subtext is fallacious and their context askew -- I think it's fair to characterize their work as "inept." When a researcher whose focus is the head wound/s throws pixie dust -- "the evidence is fuzzy!" -- over the throat entrance (or the T3 back wound) they are attempting to re-frame the fact of conspiracy as an open question which they will "solve" with their head wound/s research. Or their research on the Magic Bullet. Or their research on the acoustic tape. Or their research on Oswald/s. Or their research on the windshield. While research on all these topics may have their place, it is stone cold INEPT to insist that they settle the "question of conspiracy." The physical evidence is prima facie proof of conspiracy; spending two whole chapters of Destiny Betrayed on CE-399 as the primary proof of conspiracy is INEPT. It's like trying to re-invent the wheel with square tires. Since it is VERY CLEAR that JFK suffered at least one head wound, it can't be dismissed entirely. The number of shots to JFK's head is unknowable unless we dig up the body. Whether or not there was pre-autopsy surgery to the head is unknowable unless we dig up the body. But that's not going to happen. So in the context of the murder of JFK the head wound/s evidence is worthless -- as a study of the cover-up the head wound/s evidence is very important. I'll argue that this is a distinction crucial to draw -- what is a study of the murder, and what is a study of the cover-up? That conspiracy is a proven fact should be the subtext of all research into the murder of JFK. When it isn't, that researcher is guilty to being INEPT. Within a proper subtext, the context of the head wound/s research is a study of the cover-up. In all honesty, the throat wound and the back wound were not, in and of themselves, sufficient to cause Kennedy's death...IMHO. I must respectfully disagree, Mark. According to the FBI men at the autopsy the doctors seriously considered the possibility JFK was struck in the back with a high tech weapon. The FBI men took this scenario very seriously, and called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry. The First Investigation. The one and only legitimate investigative move by a US government official -- FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab and was told to forget about it, they had the bullet, etc etc. The truth is that military men with CIA affiliations had tested blood soluble paralytics and toxins on humans, running an operation called the Staff Support Group within the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, MD. Genuine leads, genuine persons of interest. What purpose did the first two shots serve if not to kill? First shot paralytic -- perhaps -- second shot toxin. You think the plotters would wait until the 3rd volley to kill the guy? I'll argue it likely the head shot/s were for show, a major mis-direction from the real cause of death by high tech weaponry. So why is it that you believe the head wound(s) is(are) a distraction from the study of the case of the killing of JFK? The study of the head wound/s only muddies the water as to cause of death -- why swim in the waters of uncertainty, Mark, when you can swim in the waters of knowledge (the physical evidence)? Don't get me wrong. I believe that a thorough discussion of the true nature, and positions, of the throat wound and the back wound is not only warranted, but essential to understanding the JFK assassination. I just don't believe that using them as a way to shut down a thread on discussion of the head wound(s) is going to get us any closer to the truth about the throat and back wounds. I'm not aware I've been promoted to a lead moderator position where I can shut down a thread. Wouldn't I have received some kind of notice? As a student of the murder of JFK I object to what appears to me self-aggrandizing efforts to diminish the prima facie case for conspiracy. And I post this not as an administrator, but as a regular forum member who has questions about your purposes. How is shutting down a discussion of the head wound(s) bringing us any closer to knowing the true nature of the wound(s) that actually killed JFK? And, if it's NOT your intention to shut down a discussion of the head wound(s), why do you believe that the throat and back wounds are important to a discussion of the head wound(s)...rather than something to be discussed on their own thread? Without the physical fact of conspiracy as a subtext, any discussion of any evidence in this case is INEPT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) If Ramon wants to try and do something new with the head wounds, fine, more power to him. There are many new pieces of evidence in this regard, and Riley did some very good work on this that was overlooked. As many have pointed out, Martin Hay for instance, if the low in rear of the skull wound is the real entry, then ipso facto you have a conspiracy, because the particle path at the top of the skull does not connect. Jim: A great idea (in the sense of ironic and funny) just occurred to me. This is imaginary. Let's say that I somehow get a couple million dollars or something like that and hire a lot of scientists, engineers, geeks, the works. We get the most expensive supercomputers and we start doing the advanced models and simulations (we are talking almost Project Manhattan here). My goal is to explain to the microsecond and micrometer level, the sequence of movements which included the violent back snap. The main hypothesis is that the fatal shot came from ahead. We are trying to prove it with absolute mathematical certainty. Somebody here wrote: "Ramon, you are assuming that the Z-film is genuine! The back snap is really an artifact of the fake!!". You know what I would do? I would turn around to the team and tell them: "Folks, am I afraid that I have to ask you to pack your bags and go home. The 'Parkland Effect' Project is hereby closed" The brain power get up in arms, disappointed, enraged, mutinous: "What!? Are you serious!? How come!?? You better have some good explanation, former boss, or you are walking the plank!" [Me:] "Well, since the real objective was to prove a conspiracy, beyond a shadow of a doubt ... and the feeble argument of the LN side is "Z-film was falsified by NPIC". I REST MY CASE !!! To the poster: Kindly provide your physical address to my secretary so we can send you some sort of gift. A basket of fruits and jams, ok? You just saved me a couple of freakin' million dollars!!" :-) :-) -Ramon Edited October 12, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 [Me:] "Well, since the real objective was to prove a conspiracy, beyond a shadow of a doubt ... 50 years too late. Salandria/Fonzi beat you to the punch. To bad so many get stuck for so long on such a False Mystery... 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