Curtis Berkley Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 The entrance hole matches the autopsy photo and shirt bullet hole very well, I am afraid to report. But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 No bites yet? Might I suggest "trolling" at a different speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) The entrance hole matches the autopsy photo and shirt bullet hole very well, I am afraid to report. But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. Edited December 29, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis Berkley Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 The entrance hole matches the autopsy photo and shirt bullet hole very well, I am afraid to report. But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THS PILE OF BALONEY? IN ADDITION TO SPEER, THERE IS MARTIN HAY'S DEMOLITION: http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/11/nova-cold-case-jfk-case-study-in-cherry.html To talk about the Single Bullet Fantasy in 2015, about to be 2016? You have to be kidding me. If you brought CE 399 into court, and presented all we know about it today, the defense would move for a mistrial, and the judge would probably grant it. Edited December 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 The entrance hole matches the autopsy photo and shirt bullet hole very well, I am afraid to report. But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm No, not at all. How much clothing was bunched up, and whether or not it was enough to place the hole on the clothes and back in a location consistent with the single-bullet theory has been endlessly debated. The issue as it relates to this thread is whether or not the program's creators were telling the truth when they said the questions about the SBT all revolve around what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a lie, almost certainly designed to conceal that the program's animators couldn't figure out how to have the bullet enter the correct location on the back of Kennedy's clothes and the correct location on Kennedy's back, and then proceed in a straight line to exit his throat. The problems with this trajectory are demonstrated in the Lattimer drawing, in which noted LN Dr. Lattimer, in order to have the bullet strike the correct location on the clothes, pretended Kennedy's clothes were folded over at the back of his head, up to the level of his nose. This didn't happen. Can we at least agree on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 turf, Jim. T-U-R-F! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The entrance hole matches the autopsy photo and shirt bullet hole very well, I am afraid to report. But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? Curtis, glance down upon your right shoulder. Now, while keeping your eye on your shirt atop your right shoulder, casually raise your right arm and wave ala JFK in the motorcade. You will observe the shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line. Every time you imitate this movement, your shirt indents. This occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet. The claim that the opposite occurs -- indeed, that multiple inches of clothing will elevate-- is readily falsifiable. Raised right arm. indentation in the shoulder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THS PILE OF BALONEY? Jim, turn your head to the right. Glance down on your right shoulder. Keep your eye on your shirt and casually raise your right arm. Observe the fabric of your shirt indent. You have not only established conspiracy in the murder of JFK, you have established that JFK was shot in the back at T3,and the shot in the throat was an entrance. That's square one of the investigation into JFK's murder. Without this rigorous examination of the physical evidence no true investigation can take place. Edited December 30, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) The entrance hole matches the autopsy photo and shirt bullet hole very well, I am afraid to report. But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm Yes, you are missing the fact that JFK's shirt collar is visible in all the Elm St photos. The only way we could see his shirt collar in the back is because the jacket collar rested in a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck. How could multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunch up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck? David Von Pein acknowledges that this fact -- the visible shirt collar in the Elm St. photos -- means the jacket was only bunched up "a little bit." Edited December 30, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm No, not at all. How much clothing was bunched up, and whether or not it was enough to place the hole on the clothes and back in a location consistent with the single-bullet theory has been endlessly debated. No, it hasn't been honestly debated at all. There is nothing to debate. People like you and others make claims you've never backed up. You repeat these claims endlessly. The shirt bunch claim is readily falsifiable, your best efforts to the contrary aside. This is fake debate. You can't get your shirt to ride up by casually waving your arm. The opposite occurs. The issue as it relates to this thread is whether or not the program's creators were telling the truth when they said the questions about the SBT all revolve around what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a lie, almost certainly designed to conceal that the program's animators couldn't figure out how to have the bullet enter the correct location on the back of Kennedy's clothes and the correct location on Kennedy's back, and then proceed in a straight line to exit his throat. The problems with this trajectory are demonstrated in the Lattimer drawing, in which noted LN Dr. Lattimer, in order to have the bullet strike the correct location on the clothes, pretended Kennedy's clothes were folded over at the back of his head, up to the level of his nose. This didn't happen. Can we at least agree on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 turf, Jim. T-U-R-F! Yeah, a five man research project into the provenance of CE399 is superior -- according to DiEugenio -- to the actual physical evidence. What a crock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THS PILE OF BALONEY? IN ADDITION TO SPEER, THERE IS MARTIN HAY'S DEMOLITION: http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/11/nova-cold-case-jfk-case-study-in-cherry.html To talk about the Single Bullet Fantasy in 2015, about to be 2016? You have to be kidding me. If you brought CE 399 into court, and presented all we know about it today, the defense would move for a mistrial, and the judge would probably grant it. Job #1 of the JFK cover-up: suppression/misrepresentation of the physical evidence. Job #1 of JFK Pet Theorists: suppression/misrepresentation of the physical evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 How can some one spend the majority of their waking life wearing clothing and yet not have a clue as to how their clothing moves? The evidence is literally under their noses and yet they cannot see it! It's denial, pure and simple, on the part of all LNers and some CTs alike... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis Berkley Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The entrance hole matches the autopsy photo and shirt bullet hole very well, I am afraid to report. But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window?Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? Curtis, glance down upon your right shoulder. Now, while keeping your eye on your shirt atop your right shoulder, casually raise your right arm and wave ala JFK in the motorcade. You will observe the shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line. Every time you imitate this movement, your shirt indents. This occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet. The claim that the opposite occurs -- indeed, that multiple inches of clothing will elevate-- is readily falsifiable. Raised right arm. indentation in the shoulder... Completely fair point, but the experiment fails to account for my sitting in car, with a high(er) back seat, while wearing a suit jacket, as JFK was. And that's not to mention how exacerbated the bunching could have become with his waving, raising and lowering his arm, resting it in an elevated position, and the normal jostling of a moving car. I routinely pull the back of my suit jacket (or otherwise) down in the back, so as to prevent the common bunching around my neck. I believe that quite a few news anchors actually sit on the bottom hem of their suit jacket, so as to practically pin it down, and for the same reason. When I look at the pics I linked earlier, it seems to be clear evidence of a bunching of his jacket at the base of his neck, and it not only explains any disparity between the hole in his jacket and back wound, but rather easily. If I'm missing something, tell me, but this seems obvious. 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