Four Reconstructions of the Crime

[Sandy Larsen]

Cliff,

In my opinion, the more we know about the case, the better. What one person may see as a waste of time, another will see as a valuable resource.

I second Jim's kudos to Ramon.

BTW Ramon, what excuse did PBS give for not disclosing the measurements?

Sandy, I object to the presumption that the SBT is an open question.

Do you need a scientific confirmation that the sun sets in the West?

Cliff, if people want proof before they disbelieve in the SBT, isn't that perfectly understandable given the false indoctrination that's been forced upon them.

And the heart of that "false indoctrination" is the exclusion of the physical evidence from 95+% of the discussions of the case.

There is no murder case in history -- if legitimately investigated -- that doesn't start with a robust inspection of the physical evidence.

This systematic marginalization of the clothing evidence is the core of "false indoctrination."

If that proof comes via Ramon's work rather than JFK's shirt, what difference does it make?

Because in order to inflate the significance of his work, Ramon must deny the historical fact regarding JFK's clothing-defects/back wound.

Let there be a hundred different proofs against the SBT.

That's already happened, and each of them deny the historical facts in order to inflate their own self-aggrandizing hustle.

Let people pick their proof.

What a monumental waste of time on such an easily debunked notion.

The clothing evidence weaponizes the fact of conspiracy -- it always causes a stfu situation.

All these other proofs are less than useless.

Cliff,

I would agree with you if the people who provide alternate proof against the SBT at the same time deny that the shirt does the same. (The shirt along with the related trajectory.) Do these people do that? Does Ramon do that?

BTW, the shirt in of of itself does not disprove the SBT, as you know. The location of the back wound needs to be studied in conjunction with the location of the neck wound, Kennedy's posture, Connally's location relative to Kennedy, etc., and Kennedy's position relative to the sniper's nest if you want to disprove the SBT and show that the shot could not have been taken from the snipers' nest allegedly belonging to Oswald. Won't Ramon's model be useful in doing that AND in convincing the public that no shenanigans were involved, because the model will be available to anybody who wishes to check the data?

Edited September 5, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

BTW Ramon, what excuse did PBS give for not disclosing the measurements?

They have ignored me so far.

-Ramon

Ramon,

You need a somebody, like a Dr. Wecht, to request the measurements. Somebody PBS won't ignore.

I'm sure this has crossed your mind.

If you're shy, I'll ask....

Will somebody reading this, who is close to Cyril Wecht, please ask him to co-author a request to get the Dealey Plaza measurements from PBS?

(Sorry if I put anybody on the spot here.)

With Wecht's name on there you should at least get a response, yea or nay, and a reason why if nay.

Ramon, if you don't get any takers here, write a letter to Dr. Wecht yourself. He's a good guy. He might sign something for you. It would help, I'm sure, if you'd show him that you have the means of getting something done with the data. If you don't right now, wit till you do.

Then send the request to the president of PBS. Nobody less.

(Pardon me for saying what you already know. You stirred up the passion in me.)

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

In my opinion, the more we know about the case, the better. What one person may see as a waste of time, another will see as a valuable resource.

I second Jim's kudos to Ramon.

BTW Ramon, what excuse did PBS give for not disclosing the measurements?

Sandy, I object to the presumption that the SBT is an open question.

Do you need a scientific confirmation that the sun sets in the West?

Cliff, if people want proof before they disbelieve in the SBT, isn't that perfectly understandable given the false indoctrination that's been forced upon them.

And the heart of that "false indoctrination" is the exclusion of the physical evidence from 95+% of the discussions of the case.

There is no murder case in history -- if legitimately investigated -- that doesn't start with a robust inspection of the physical evidence.

This systematic marginalization of the clothing evidence is the core of "false indoctrination."

If that proof comes via Ramon's work rather than JFK's shirt, what difference does it make?

Because in order to inflate the significance of his work, Ramon must deny the historical fact regarding JFK's clothing-defects/back wound.

Let there be a hundred different proofs against the SBT.

That's already happened, and each of them deny the historical facts in order to inflate their own self-aggrandizing hustle.

Let people pick their proof.

What a monumental waste of time on such an easily debunked notion.

The clothing evidence weaponizes the fact of conspiracy -- it always causes a stfu situation.

All these other proofs are less than useless.

Cliff,

I would agree with you if the people who provide alternate proof against the SBT at the same time deny that the shirt does the same. (The shirt along with the related trajectory.) Do these people do that? Does Ramon do that?

Ever see someone preface their SBT proof with an acknowledgment of the physical evidence?

Has Ramon ever said he was corroborating what is already known?

No, never. It never happens. Period.

These proofs are always presented as ground-breaking -- instead they are truth burying.

BTW, the shirt in of of itself does not disprove the SBT, as you know. The location of the back wound needs to be studied in conjunction with the location of the neck wound,

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

It's a matter of simple pysical observation.

If you disagree the burden of proof is on you to show how a bullet entering the back 4 inches below the bottom of the collar can emerge from the throat.

Kennedy's posture,

What about it?

You have spent most of your life wearing clothing -- are you not aware of how your clothing moves?

Does it spontaneously leap up and down your body? Of course not.

Try this simple exercise: turn your head to the right, glance down upon your right shoulder-line and keep our eye on the fabric of your shirt, then raise your right arm and casually wave your hand like JFK in the motorcade.

The fabric of your shirt will INDENT, invariably.

It's a phenomenon which occurs literally hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet, but JFK Pet Theorists claim it didn't happen with JFK.

Connally's location relative to Kennedy, etc.,

Non sequitur.

What difference does it make since the bullet holes in the clothes are too low?

and Kennedy's position relative to the sniper's nest if you want to disprove the SBT and show that the shot could not have been taken from the snipers' nest allegedly belonging to Oswald.

More non sequitur.

What does the location of the sniper's nest have to do with the bullet holes in the clothes being too low?

Won't Ramon's model be useful in doing that AND in convincing the public that no shenanigans were involved, because the model will be available to anybody who wishes to check the data?

So instead of pointing out the open and shut, prima facie case for conspiracy which any bright 3 year old could verify, you want to make it a complex case which requires several college degrees to verify?

This fetish for complexity is a major part of the JFK murder cover-up.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, I object to the presumption that the SBT is an open question.

Do you need a scientific confirmation that the sun sets in the West?

Cliff, if people want proof before they disbelieve in the SBT, isn't that perfectly understandable given the false indoctrination that's been forced upon them.

And the heart of that "false indoctrination" is the exclusion of the physical evidence from 95+% of the discussions of the case.

There is no murder case in history -- if legitimately investigated -- that doesn't start with a robust inspection of the physical evidence.

This systematic marginalization of the clothing evidence is the core of "false indoctrination."

If that proof comes via Ramon's work rather than JFK's shirt, what difference does it make?

Because in order to inflate the significance of his work, Ramon must deny the historical fact regarding JFK's clothing-defects/back wound.

Let there be a hundred different proofs against the SBT.

That's already happened, and each of them deny the historical facts in order to inflate their own self-aggrandizing hustle.

Let people pick their proof.

What a monumental waste of time on such an easily debunked notion.

The clothing evidence weaponizes the fact of conspiracy -- it always causes a stfu situation.

All these other proofs are less than useless.

....Kennedy's posture, ...

What about it?

You have spent most of your life wearing clothing -- are you not aware of how your clothing moves?

Kennedy's posture is a factor in determining the path the bullet took. I wasn't saying anything about the possibility of clothing riding up

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, I object to the presumption that the SBT is an open question.

Do you need a scientific confirmation that the sun sets in the West?

Cliff, if people want proof before they disbelieve in the SBT, isn't that perfectly understandable given the false indoctrination that's been forced upon them.

And the heart of that "false indoctrination" is the exclusion of the physical evidence from 95+% of the discussions of the case.

There is no murder case in history -- if legitimately investigated -- that doesn't start with a robust inspection of the physical evidence.

This systematic marginalization of the clothing evidence is the core of "false indoctrination."

If that proof comes via Ramon's work rather than JFK's shirt, what difference does it make?

Because in order to inflate the significance of his work, Ramon must deny the historical fact regarding JFK's clothing-defects/back wound.

Let there be a hundred different proofs against the SBT.

That's already happened, and each of them deny the historical facts in order to inflate their own self-aggrandizing hustle.

Let people pick their proof.

What a monumental waste of time on such an easily debunked notion.

The clothing evidence weaponizes the fact of conspiracy -- it always causes a stfu situation.

All these other proofs are less than useless.

and Kennedy's position relative to the sniper's nest if you want to disprove the SBT and show that the shot could not have been taken from the snipers' nest allegedly belonging to Oswald.

More non sequitur.

Wrong. It goes to show that Oswald was innocent.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, I object to the presumption that the SBT is an open question.

Do you need a scientific confirmation that the sun sets in the West?

Cliff, if people want proof before they disbelieve in the SBT, isn't that perfectly understandable given the false indoctrination that's been forced upon them.

And the heart of that "false indoctrination" is the exclusion of the physical evidence from 95+% of the discussions of the case.

There is no murder case in history -- if legitimately investigated -- that doesn't start with a robust inspection of the physical evidence.

This systematic marginalization of the clothing evidence is the core of "false indoctrination."

If that proof comes via Ramon's work rather than JFK's shirt, what difference does it make?

Because in order to inflate the significance of his work, Ramon must deny the historical fact regarding JFK's clothing-defects/back wound.

Let there be a hundred different proofs against the SBT.

That's already happened, and each of them deny the historical facts in order to inflate their own self-aggrandizing hustle.

Let people pick their proof.

What a monumental waste of time on such an easily debunked notion.

The clothing evidence weaponizes the fact of conspiracy -- it always causes a stfu situation.

All these other proofs are less than useless.

Won't Ramon's model be useful in doing that AND in convincing the public that no shenanigans were involved, because the model will be available to anybody who wishes to check the data?

So instead of pointing out the open and shut, prima facie case for conspiracy which any bright 3 year old could verify, you want to make it a complex case which requires several college degrees to verify?

Books are written about complex subjects all the time. Scholars discuss them. Professionals use them.

Are you so anti-scholarship about everything?

This fetish for complexity is a major part of the JFK murder cover-up.

Since you believe that the essential parts have already been figured out, and that anything more just serves to cover it up, why do you bother coming to this forum?

[Cliff Varnell]

So instead of pointing out the open and shut, prima facie case for conspiracy which any bright 3 year old could verify, you want to make it a complex case which requires several college degrees to verify?

Books are written about complex subjects all the time.

We're studying a murder case, not rocket science.

Approaching the murder of JFK as one would any murder is a radical, revolutionary endeavor.

Scholars discuss them. Professionals use them.

So the murder of JFK should only be a discussion among academics?

Look, Sandy, right now the subject of JFK's murder is not of much interest to younger people because there has never been consensus over the root facts.

People like Ramon keep muddying the waters, nothing gets thru.

Are you so anti-scholarship about everything?

Pursuing clarity of historical fact is the textbook definition of historical scholarship.

What Ramon and the Pet Theorist Brigade are doing is obfuscating the historical facts -- the antithesis of "scholarship."

This fetish for complexity is a major part of the JFK murder cover-up.

Since you believe that the essential parts have already been figured out, and that anything more just serves to cover it up, why do you bother coming to this forum?

Grasping the root facts of the case -- wound of entrance in the back at T3, no exit + wound of entrance in the throat, no exit -- is not the end of research.

That is the beginning of research.

[Sandy Larsen]

So instead of pointing out the open and shut, prima facie case for conspiracy which any bright 3 year old could verify, you want to make it a complex case which requires several college degrees to verify?

Books are written about complex subjects all the time.

We're studying a murder case, not rocket science.

Approaching the murder of JFK as one would any murder is a radical, revolutionary endeavor.

Scholars discuss them. Professionals use them.

So the murder of JFK should only be a discussion among academics?

Look, Sandy, right now the subject of JFK's murder is not of much interest to younger people because there has never been consensus over the root facts.

People like Ramon keep muddying the waters, nothing gets thru.

Are you so anti-scholarship about everything?

Pursuing clarity of historical fact is the textbook definition of historical scholarship.

What Ramon and the Pet Theorist Brigade are doing is obfuscating the historical facts -- the antithesis of "scholarship."

This fetish for complexity is a major part of the JFK murder cover-up.

Since you believe that the essential parts have already been figured out, and that anything more just serves to cover it up, why do you bother coming to this forum?

Grasping the root facts of the case -- wound of entrance in the back at T3, no exit + wound of entrance in the throat, no exit -- is not the end of research.

That is the beginning of research.

If Ramon's model were finished, I could use it to help solve some mysteries I've been trying to figure out. Once solved, I could use it to demonstrate what I'd discovered by allowing people visualize it themselves as if they were standing right there in Dealey Plaza.

I could even put a little model of Cliff Varnell in there, protesting that the only thing the observers needed to know was the location of the bullet hole in the jacket, and that Sandy's demonstration was serving just to obfuscate that fact.

[Cliff Varnell]

So instead of pointing out the open and shut, prima facie case for conspiracy which any bright 3 year old could verify, you want to make it a complex case which requires several college degrees to verify?

Books are written about complex subjects all the time.

We're studying a murder case, not rocket science.

Approaching the murder of JFK as one would any murder is a radical, revolutionary endeavor.

Scholars discuss them. Professionals use them.

So the murder of JFK should only be a discussion among academics?

Look, Sandy, right now the subject of JFK's murder is not of much interest to younger people because there has never been consensus over the root facts.

People like Ramon keep muddying the waters, nothing gets thru.

Are you so anti-scholarship about everything?

Pursuing clarity of historical fact is the textbook definition of historical scholarship.

What Ramon and the Pet Theorist Brigade are doing is obfuscating the historical facts -- the antithesis of "scholarship."

This fetish for complexity is a major part of the JFK murder cover-up.

Since you believe that the essential parts have already been figured out, and that anything more just serves to cover it up, why do you bother coming to this forum?

Grasping the root facts of the case -- wound of entrance in the back at T3, no exit + wound of entrance in the throat, no exit -- is not the end of research.

That is the beginning of research.

If Ramon's model were finished, I could use it to help solve some mysteries I've been trying to figure out. Once solved, I could use it to demonstrate what I'd discovered by allowing people visualize it themselves as if they were standing right there in Dealey Plaza.

I could even put a little model of Cliff Varnell in there, protesting that the only thing the observers needed to know was the location of the bullet hole in the jacket, and that Sandy's demonstration was serving just to obfuscate that fact.

Is Sandy's demonstration claiming to "solve" the SBT and establish the fact of conspiracy at long last (our hero!)

If that's the case make your Cliff Varnell figure with a raised fist and an extended middle finger.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Ramon F. Herrera]

If Ramon's model were finished, I could use it to help solve some mysteries I've been trying to figure out. Once solved, I could use it to demonstrate what I'd discovered by allowing people visualize it themselves as if they were standing right there in Dealey Plaza.

I could even put a little model of Cliff Varnell in there, protesting that the only thing the observers needed to know was the location of the bullet hole in the jacket, and that Sandy's demonstration was serving just to obfuscate that fact.

Sandy:

Let me mention one of the potential sub-projects. This has a huge advantage: both CTs and LNs should support it. Doctor Cyril Wecht and his son Benjamin have been informed, they called me and asked me to keep them posted. The plan is to project the 2 famous X-ray images (A/P and Lateral) onto a 3D model which would be donated to the National Archives. Yes, I realize that it is politically touchy.

See details here:

Isometric to 3D Projection

https://goo.gl/cZ7Axr

Bringing the images to the 21st. century. Who can possibly be against that!?

Incidentally, doctor Wecht and others leaders recently founded C.A.P.A. Their next project is to have an interview with David Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States. I was invited to be a technical advisor. Therefore, doctor Wecht is sort of my boss. :-)

https://www.google.com/#q=archivist+of+the+united+states

-RFH

ps: http://jfkfacts.org/citizens-political-assassinations/

http://capa-hq.com/

Edited September 6, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Cliff Varnell]

If Ramon's model were finished, I could use it to help solve some mysteries I've been trying to figure out. Once solved, I could use it to demonstrate what I'd discovered by allowing people visualize it themselves as if they were standing right there in Dealey Plaza.

I could even put a little model of Cliff Varnell in there, protesting that the only thing the observers needed to know was the location of the bullet hole in the jacket, and that Sandy's demonstration was serving just to obfuscate that fact.

Sandy:

Bringing the images to the 21st. century. Who can possibly be against that!?

I'm against your claim that the SBT requires continued debunking.

Good luck with anything else.

Incidentally, doctor Wecht and others leaders recently founded C.A.P.A. Their next project is to have an interview with David Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States. I was invited to be a technical advisor. Therefore, doctor Wecht is sort of my boss. :-)

Dr. Wecht supports the SBT.

The Prime Minister of Vichy CTs.

[Sandy Larsen]

So instead of pointing out the open and shut, prima facie case for conspiracy which any bright 3 year old could verify, you want to make it a complex case which requires several college degrees to verify?

Books are written about complex subjects all the time.

We're studying a murder case, not rocket science.

Approaching the murder of JFK as one would any murder is a radical, revolutionary endeavor.

Scholars discuss them. Professionals use them.

So the murder of JFK should only be a discussion among academics?

Look, Sandy, right now the subject of JFK's murder is not of much interest to younger people because there has never been consensus over the root facts.

People like Ramon keep muddying the waters, nothing gets thru.

Are you so anti-scholarship about everything?

Pursuing clarity of historical fact is the textbook definition of historical scholarship.

What Ramon and the Pet Theorist Brigade are doing is obfuscating the historical facts -- the antithesis of "scholarship."

This fetish for complexity is a major part of the JFK murder cover-up.

Since you believe that the essential parts have already been figured out, and that anything more just serves to cover it up, why do you bother coming to this forum?

Grasping the root facts of the case -- wound of entrance in the back at T3, no exit + wound of entrance in the throat, no exit -- is not the end of research.

That is the beginning of research.

If Ramon's model were finished, I could use it to help solve some mysteries I've been trying to figure out. Once solved, I could use it to demonstrate what I'd discovered by allowing people visualize it themselves as if they were standing right there in Dealey Plaza.

I could even put a little model of Cliff Varnell in there, protesting that the only thing the observers needed to know was the location of the bullet hole in the jacket, and that Sandy's demonstration was serving just to obfuscate that fact.

Is Sandy's demonstration claiming to "solve" the SBT and establish the fact of conspiracy at long last (our hero!)

If that's the case make your Cliff Varnell figure with a raised fist and an extended middle finger.

Cliff,

You seem to think that the assassination involves the following and only the following:

• Conspiracy

• The Single Bullet Theory.

• The back wound.

• The throat wound.

• JFK's jacket and shirt.

• Blood soluble darts.

I have a clue for you... what I'm trying to solve has nothing to do with conspiracy or SBT. So take your extended middle finger and... never mind.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

So instead of pointing out the open and shut, prima facie case for conspiracy which any bright 3 year old could verify, you want to make it a complex case which requires several college degrees to verify?

Books are written about complex subjects all the time.

We're studying a murder case, not rocket science.

Approaching the murder of JFK as one would any murder is a radical, revolutionary endeavor.

Scholars discuss them. Professionals use them.

So the murder of JFK should only be a discussion among academics?

Look, Sandy, right now the subject of JFK's murder is not of much interest to younger people because there has never been consensus over the root facts.

People like Ramon keep muddying the waters, nothing gets thru.

Are you so anti-scholarship about everything?

Pursuing clarity of historical fact is the textbook definition of historical scholarship.

What Ramon and the Pet Theorist Brigade are doing is obfuscating the historical facts -- the antithesis of "scholarship."

This fetish for complexity is a major part of the JFK murder cover-up.

Since you believe that the essential parts have already been figured out, and that anything more just serves to cover it up, why do you bother coming to this forum?

Grasping the root facts of the case -- wound of entrance in the back at T3, no exit + wound of entrance in the throat, no exit -- is not the end of research.

That is the beginning of research.

If Ramon's model were finished, I could use it to help solve some mysteries I've been trying to figure out. Once solved, I could use it to demonstrate what I'd discovered by allowing people visualize it themselves as if they were standing right there in Dealey Plaza.

I could even put a little model of Cliff Varnell in there, protesting that the only thing the observers needed to know was the location of the bullet hole in the jacket, and that Sandy's demonstration was serving just to obfuscate that fact.

Is Sandy's demonstration claiming to "solve" the SBT and establish the fact of conspiracy at long last (our hero!)

If that's the case make your Cliff Varnell figure with a raised fist and an extended middle finger.

I have a clue for you... what I'm trying to solve has nothing to do with the SBT.

That's all you have to say.

Good luck with your research.

I've made it clear from the beginning that my objection is to Ramon pretending the SBT is an open question.

btw, the bullets from the back and throat wounds may have been removed prior to the autopsy.

[Sandy Larsen]

That's all you have to say.

Good luck with your research.

Thanks. Good luck to you too.

[Sandy Larsen]

Dr. Wecht supports the SBT.

Since when has Dr. Wecht supported the SBT?

Edited September 6, 2016 by Sandy Larsen