Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy

[Cliff Varnell]

You asked for the most incontrovertible fact, so I intentionally stayed away from the medical evidence or how many shots were fired, etc. because these are open to interpretation and CTers and LNers are set in their ways and find the other side foolish and fall into the same trap of passé arguments.

I'm just curious...what is "open to interpretation" about a bullet hole in a shirt four inches below the bottom of the collar?

It never ceases to amaze me how "CTs" ignore the physical evidence in this case.

[Brian Schmidt]

I knew you'd bring that up, Cliff. You've been arguing this again and again with LNers and CTers alike on this forum for 11 years. I guess that's what I mean by open to interpretation. To me, the point of this thread was looking for an "A-ha" moment. As much as I don't believe in the SBT, making this thread another one of the thousands about T3 isn't going to convince someone there was a conspiracy.

[Guest]

Steel doesn't melt at 750 degrees F so they say......

Care to explain the shadows on JFK's back of his head when looking at it from 3 angles. Make that 4, I will throw in an autopsy pic as well, you'd think that mediacal pix would show extreme detail yet we have a large black patch now I wonder what would have caused that.......

Thrill me with your answer Curtis!

Moorman Polaroid, compare JFK's hair with Jacky's which shows no darkness at all, her hair was of a darker tone than John. Yet he has a massive black blob there, that section should have been illuminated instead of shadowed.

Zapruder shot from the opposite side....this doesn't bode well does it, shadow wise....you see what a nifty paint job this has become already......

Muchmore film , another crappy paint job to boot, compare it to Jacky's hair again and it doesn't make any sense. The spectators could have had a little dab as well just for consistency purposes.

The autopsy, love that jagged masked edge, no wonder the HSCA called in Ida Dox as no one would dare to lie through his/her teeth about the poor masking job on this one, must have been some hole there....

What are your assertions on the shadows, exactly? And even if they have significance and merit - which, I honestly doubt, but will reserve that argument - first, walk me through it's meaning, to the point where it leads to conspiracy.

There's no point explaining this if you do not understand the physical implications of these so called shadows, seriously!

Steel doesn't melt at 750 degrees F either.

Any way best for you not to touch this subject then.

[Cliff Varnell]

I knew you'd bring that up, Cliff. You've been arguing this again and again with LNers and CTers alike on this forum for 11 years.

Vincent Salandria has been making the exact same point for over 50 years.

Care to enlighten us as to what part of Salandria's argument is "open to interpretation"?

I guess that's what I mean by open to interpretation.

So by this rationale if enough people argue that the earth is flat then the shape of the globe is "open to interpretation"?

To me, the point of this thread was looking for an "A-ha" moment.

Here is the greatest "a-ha" moment in the history of the case.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

Gaeton Fonzi:

<quote on>

Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing was in the [Warren] Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained.

And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was 5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter bullet,” said the Report.

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report — placed below the back of the right ear — and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times,” he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It . . . it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that . . . aaah . . . that it gets . . . that . . . aaah . . . this . . . this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back . . . sit back now . . . all right now . . . if . . . usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if . . . but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits . . . it’s not . . . it’s not . . . it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt . . . after all, we lined up the shirt . . . and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front . . .”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes . . . aaah . . . well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to . . . aaah . . . understand the . . . aah . . . the angle of decline which . . .”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that . . . that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I . . . I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.”

<quote off>

The SBT busted!

With an assist from Salandria, Fonzi offcially debunked the SBT right up in Arlen Specter's face.

This Fonzi v. Specter face-off was an event all people interested in Historical Justice should celebrate, not ignore.

As much as I don't believe in the SBT, making this thread another one of the thousands about T3 isn't going to convince someone there was a conspiracy.

That depends on whether this someone has already developed Pet Theories about the case.

You cannot convince someone on a point of fact if the survival of their Pet Theories requires them to remain unconvinced.

I'll give you two examples -- David Von Pein and Pat Speer.

I've pressed Pat Speer on this subject to the point where he recently claimed that T1 is "well down the back."

This is incredibly absurd, truly egregious. C7/T1 is the lower margin of the base of the neck -- how the hell could T1 be "well down the back"?

So the top of the back is well down the back -- is that your idea of "open to interpretation," Brian?

David Von Pein is my favorite guy to discuss this with.

We've never argued.

We are in absolute agreement on a salient point: due to JFK's visible shirt collar in Croft 3, the jacket was only bunched up "a little bit."

Now, David Von Pein isn't going to be convinced of a conspiracy, and Pat Speer won't concede the T3 back wound.

These horses were lead to water but won't drink.

Other horses will. After all, I'm not the only one to cite the clothing evidence in this thread...

Edited December 24, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

I knew you'd bring that up, Cliff. You've been arguing this again and again with LNers and CTers alike on this forum for 11 years.

Vincent Salandria has been making the exact same point for over 50 years.

Care to enlighten us as to what part of Salandria's argument is "open to interpretation"?

I guess that's what I mean by open to interpretation.

So by this rationale if enough people argue that the earth is flat then the shape of the globe is "open to interpretation"?

To me, the point of this thread was looking for an "A-ha" moment.

Here is the greatest "a-ha" moment in the history of the case.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

Gaeton Fonzi:

<quote on>

Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing was in the [Warren] Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained.

And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was 5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter bullet,” said the Report.

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report — placed below the back of the right ear — and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times,” he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It . . . it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that . . . aaah . . . that it gets . . . that . . . aaah . . . this . . . this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back . . . sit back now . . . all right now . . . if . . . usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if . . . but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits . . . it’s not . . . it’s not . . . it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt . . . after all, we lined up the shirt . . . and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front . . .”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes . . . aaah . . . well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to . . . aaah . . . understand the . . . aah . . . the angle of decline which . . .”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that . . . that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I . . . I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.”

<quote off>

The SBT busted!

With an assist from Salandria, Fonzi offcially debunked the SBT right up in Arlen Specter's face.

This Fonzi v. Specter face-off was an event all people interested in Historical Justice should celebrate, not ignore.

As much as I don't believe in the SBT, making this thread another one of the thousands about T3 isn't going to convince someone there was a conspiracy.

That depends on whether this someone has already developed Pet Theories about the case.

You cannot convince someone on a point of fact if the survival of their Pet Theories requires them to remain unconvinced.

I'll give you two examples -- David Von Pein and Pat Speer.

I've pressed Pat Speer on this subject to the point where he recently claimed that T1 is "well down the back."

This is incredibly absurd, truly egregious. C7/T1 is the lower margin of the base of the neck -- how the hell could T1 be "well down the back"?

So the top of the back is well down the back -- is that your idea of "open to interpretation," Brian?

David Von Pein is my favorite guy to discuss this with.

We've never argued.

We are in absolute agreement on a salient point: due to JFK's visible shirt collar in Croft 3, the jacket was only bunched up "a little bit."

Now, David Von Pein isn't going to be convinced of a conspiracy, and Pat Speer won't concede the T3 back wound.

These horses were lead to water but won't drink.

Other horses will. After all, I'm not the only one to cite the clothing evidence in this thread...

I agree with you 100%, Cliff, and sympathize with the total lack of interest shown by researchers in this matter. After reading one of your posts a couple of years ago, a friend and I replicated the SBT scenario. We tried it with and without a suit jacket on and with the JFK "dummy" having his head facing forward, his head turned slightly to the right and his head turned extremely to the right.

In none of these experiments did raising the right arm to wave cause the back of the suit OR the back of the shirt to bunch up significantly, disproving the SBT.

It should also be noted that turning the head to the extreme right does not cause the trachea (windpipe), at the level of JFK's throat wound, to move from its location in the centre of the anterior neck.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Jon G. Tidd]

Question to Cliff. Robert, Schotz, et al.

Who had the power, the unassailable power that exists until today, to fudge the facts?

The answer to this question tells who controlled the cover-up.

[Greg Parker]

The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

It was a joke, Curtis.

But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny.

What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious...

[Thomas Graves]

The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

It was a joke, Curtis.

But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny.

What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious...

Nice subtle smear job, Greg.

(I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher."

Pretty devious of me, eh?)

--Tommy, the Droll

Edited December 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

It was a joke, Curtis.

But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny.

What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious...

Nice subtle smear job, Greg.

(I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher."

Pretty devious of me, eh?)

--Tommy, the Droll

Subtle? Smear Job? Could all be coincidental, Tommy. That however does nothing to alter the facts of that very similarity.

I've already given one example. Here's another: "In around 2000-2001, my thinking on conspiracy theories changed dramatically. Every time I subjected a claim to logical scrutiny, it fell apart. I read the entire Warren Commission report. " http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/93/jfk-100-days-of-debunking-on-twitter-an-analysis-of-jfk-conspiracies/

There is no truth at all to the rumor that if you name the Devil, he disappears.

Thanks for the plug!

[Thomas Graves]

The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

It was a joke, Curtis.

But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny.

What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious...

Nice subtle smear job, Greg.

(I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher."

Pretty devious of me, eh?)

--Tommy, the Droll

Subtle? Smear Job? Could all be coincidental, Tommy. That however does nothing to alter the facts of that very similarity.

I've already given one example. Here's another: "In around 2000-2001, my thinking on conspiracy theories changed dramatically. Every time I subjected a claim to logical scrutiny, it fell apart. I read the entire Warren Commission report. " http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/93/jfk-100-days-of-debunking-on-twitter-an-analysis-of-jfk-conspiracies/

There is no truth at all to the rumor that if you name the Devil, he disappears.

Thanks for the plug!

Greg,

I know, because he's in the details.

Out , out damned ...

Not being familiar with the details you enumerated, I was referring more to your inquiry about what he had done in the Navy.

--Tommy, the Serious, the Dramatic

[Greg Parker]

The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

It was a joke, Curtis.

But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny.

What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious...

Nice subtle smear job, Greg.

(I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher."

Pretty devious of me, eh?)

--Tommy, the Droll

Subtle? Smear Job? Could all be coincidental, Tommy. That however does nothing to alter the facts of that very similarity.

I've already given one example. Here's another: "In around 2000-2001, my thinking on conspiracy theories changed dramatically. Every time I subjected a claim to logical scrutiny, it fell apart. I read the entire Warren Commission report. " http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/93/jfk-100-days-of-debunking-on-twitter-an-analysis-of-jfk-conspiracies/

There is no truth at all to the rumor that if you name the Devil, he disappears.

Thanks for the plug!

Greg,

I know, because he's in the details.

Out , out damned ...

Not being familiar with the details you enumerated, I was referring more to your inquiry about what he had done in the Navy.

--Tommy, the Serious, the Dramatic

He looks like he was a cook or a clerk to me. Something starting with "c" anyway. But I withdraw the question if it seems out of line.

Later, and after the internet became a staple of our lives (sometime around 2000-01, maybe?), and it [The Warren Commission Report] was readily available, I still felt a pang of honest hesitation in reading it. For reasons unknown at the time, but which become clearer with the dual benefit of both age and hindsight, I now know that I put it off for so long, simply because I was afraid of what I might find, and worse, that it would all make sense, and that my own intellectual honesty would force me to sacrifice even the last vestiges of any possibility of my conspiratorial beliefs. Chris Berkley - converted circa 2000 after reading the WCR

In 2000, I got the Internet and downloaded the Warren Report. After reading the narrative and a good chunk of the Appendices, including witness testimonies, my response was Holy XXXX! They investigated the XXXX out of this thing! Okay. Theres way more to this than CT bullXXXX .Garry Rodgers converted circa 2000 after reading the WCR

"In around 2000-2001, my thinking on conspiracy theories changed dramatically. Every time I subjected a claim to logical scrutiny, it fell apart. I read the entire Warren Commission report. " "Muertos" converted circa 2000 after reading the WCR

IIRC, it was around 2000 that a guy named David Reitzes saw the light, as well.

2000 was a good year for the Empire, apparently.

[Ron Ecker]

I've probably asked this before, but doesn't applying common sense to known facts (e.g. the physical impossibility of the SBT, the holes in the clothes, the gaping wound in back of the head seen by some two dozen witnesses) constitute "evidence"?

If known facts contradict Oswald acting alone, then ipso facto there was a conspiracy.

[James DiEugenio]

Ron,

What you are doing is what the first generation of critics did. That is, in good lawyerly style, using the prosecution's own arguments against their own case.

What the WR did was not tell all the facts about the SBT in the first case, tried to say the jacket was riding up in the second, and ignored the third, the medical evidence, almost completely.

In fact, today, with all we know about the medical evidence, it is a bit astonishing to read Specter's questioning of the three autopsy doctors. Because, of course, Specter was an experienced Philadelphia prosecutor at this time and knew a bit about autopsies in homicide cases. Therefore he had to have known how important it was to dissect wound tracks in murder cases by gunshot.

When you read the rather brief and completely pointless questioning by Specter of the pathologists, it is incredible that he never asks the obvious questions:

1. Why did you not dissect the wound in the back?

2. Why did you not section the brain?

IMO, and from experience in these cases, there has to be some sort of hidden motive for him not to pose these clearly relevant questions. For the simple reasons that, not to pose them, leaves open a whole slew of mysteries. And those fundamental mysteries have plagued this case from about 1965 to this day. That is questions of transit, directionality and also sheer number of projectiles.

Also, take a look at the medical witnesses who did not testify before the Warren Commission. Just for starters how about the photographer Stringer, the radiologist Ebersole and Kennedy's personal physician, Burkley. In my opinion, this is not accidental. Some might think that judgment is speculative. I don't. Because we know how Specter deep-sixed the FBI report on the autopsy by SIbert and ONeill. And as the Law book then demonstrates, he then lied about it to Rankin.

This is the kind of inquiry Curtis found so convincing.

Yech!

Edited December 25, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Dawn Meredith]

Curtis was a dyed-in-the wool CT, until he finally read the Warren Report and converted.

LOL ROTF

The irony in this is rich. Because as everyone recalls, this is the reverse of what Garrison presented in his book.

As someone who does not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I don't place much stock in the ramblings of Jim Garrison.

None, actually.

Oh great, one more lone nutter on this forum. Soon they will be the majority.

[David G. Healy]

Gee, where'd Curtis go?