What's Worse -- T3 Denial or Holocaust Denial?

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

The point is, the MSM line is anti-holocaust denier, and anti-JFK assassination conspiracy.  And the MSM don't play nice.

This goes to my point: Holocaust denial has been rejected by the MSM, but T3 denial is widespread.

[Cliff Varnell]

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

"Worse" is a problem word in you question Cliff. It's a non-critical term with wide ranging relativistic meaning. That kind of term is Donald Trump's specialty; he uses such meaningless terms and they can be adopted by anyone to fill-out their justification and penchant for hate and all his minions think they are in agreement about something.

What's the more egregious smear -- comparing someone to Donald Trump, or comparing them to Joe MCarthy?

That's a tough one!

What's the more egregious BigLie -- Holocaust denial or T3 denial?

The former failed, but the latter has enjoyed great success.

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cliff,

You've brought this topic up a number of times. Who are these CTers who believe the hole in the back was higher than T3? And why do they believe that?

 

 Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. David Mantik, Tink Thompson, Pat Speer, Martin Hay among others. 

Bill Kelly told me that if Wecht and Speer put the back wound at T1 that was good enough for him.

Black Op Radio did a series for the 50th anniversary called "50 Reasons for 50 Years" and not one of those reasons involved the actual physical evidence in the case.

Jim DiEugenio openly despises the clothing evidence and has bragged about ignoring it.

The JFK assassination is arguably the only murder case in history where the physical evidence is routinely ignored.Why?

Because the clothing evidence renders moot a lot of peoples' research.

 

Thanks for your reply, Cliff.

I believe that the clothing shows that the bullet struck at T3. But I can see why some researchers have different opinions. It's because of other evidence that they think the bullet struck higher on the body than it did on the clothing.

I'll bet that Pat Speer's opinion is influenced by the autopsy photographic evidence. The photo of JFK's back shows the wound to be close to T1, does it not? If it does, then you must believe that photo to be a forgery. I know I do. But Pat doesn't.

I'd like to hear the reasons the others have for believing the bullet hit higher. Clearly they must believe that the suit coat and shirt did rise as Kennedy was waving. You can see in some photos that the jacket did rise an inch or so. I don't believe a shirt would do the same. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks for your reply, Cliff.

I believe that the clothing shows that the bullet struck at T3. But I can see why some researchers have different opinions. It's because of other evidence that they think the bullet struck higher on the body than it did on the clothing.

I'll bet that Pat Speer's opinion is influenced by the autopsy photographic evidence. The photo of JFK's back shows the wound to be close to T1, does it not? If it does, then you must believe that photo to be a forgery. I know I do. But Pat doesn't.

I'd like to hear the reasons the others have for believing the bullet hit higher. Clearly they must believe that the suit coat and shirt did rise as Kennedy was waving. You can see in some photos that the jacket did rise an inch or so. I don't believe a shirt would do the same. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

Sandy, turn your head to the right and glance down at the top of your right shoulder.

Keeping your eye on the shirt fabric atop your shoulder, casually raise your right arm and wave your hand.

Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This fabric-indentation phenomenon occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet -- the evidence is literally right under your nose!

How could autopsy photos which were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol -- and for which there is no chain of possession -- trump the physical evidence?

Pat Speer and others are so invested in micro-analyzing bogus evidence they feel the need to ignore genuine evidence -- research malpractice, to be nice about it.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Black Op Radio did a series for the 50th anniversary called "50 Reasons for 50 Years" and not one of those reasons involved the actual physical evidence in the case.

Not true. The 50 Reasons series featured a number of individual episodes on physical evidence - including the alleged rifle, the alleged bullet, the mail-order paperwork, and, yes, the back wound. Pat Speer did a great job on the latter subject.

Is it not the case that most on the conspiracy side argue the back wound is too low for the single bullet theory to be viable? If so, why make such a meal out of the exact position? The autopsy report's deliberate vagueness seems to have ensured that any exact measurement may always be in dispute, or at least not settled. But the dishonest presentation after the fact by the official gatekeepers - including Humes, Specter, and Ford - surely indicates the wound was too low.

Personally I’m of the opinion there is much to support a back wound located at T-3 : the clothing, Burkley’s note, the FAC sheet, the observations of Siebert and O’Neill. I’ll wager there was a major change from what originally appeared in the autopsy first draft to the existing third revision; switching  from (probably) T-3 to the ridiculously vague “14 cm below the mastoid”. Humes proved his perfidy when he appeared on CBS in 1967 and claimed the Rydberg sketches were “schematic.”

Here is Pat Speer on the back wound. What is there really to argue or be in denial about?

 

 

[Michael Clark]

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What's the more egregious smear -- comparing someone to Donald Trump, or comparing them to Joe MCarthy?

That's a tough one!

What's the more egregious BigLie -- Holocaust denial or T3 denial?

The former failed, but the latter has enjoyed great success.

Sorry Cliff, no disrespect intended. Quite the opposite, I have much respect for you. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sandy, turn your head to the right and glance down at the top of your right shoulder.

Keeping your eye on the shirt fabric atop your shoulder, casually raise your right arm and wave your hand.

Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This fabric-indentation phenomenon occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet -- the evidence is literally right under your nose!

Cliff,

I think that you are probably right about the shot location. But your experiment is only an approximation. For it to be valid, it would require my wearing a suit jacket with the same lining as Kennedy's. It would require that I wear the same kind of back brace as Kennedy's. I would have to get into and sit in the limo numerous times to see if doing so could result in the shirt rising. I would like to see if the shirt tended to stick to the jacket, or if the jacket would slide against the shirt.

The fact that both the shirt and jacket show the hole being at the same body location leads me to believe that they indeed do indicate the true location of the wound -- at T3 -- because I think it's likely that the jacket did NOT stick to the shirt as it rode up and down.  (The jackets I've had, IIRC, were made with satin linings in order to prevent that from happening.) But I'd feel a lot more confidence in my assessment if proper experiments were performed.

 

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

How could autopsy photos which were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol -- and for which there is no chain of possession -- trump the physical evidence?

Pat Speer and others are so invested in micro-analyzing bogus evidence they feel the need to ignore genuine evidence -- research malpractice, to be nice about it.

I think that Pat's problem is that he is so averse to the idea of photos being faked that he'll believe alternative scenarios that are incredibly flawed. For example, since an autopsy photo shows no blowout wound in the back of JFK's head, Pat has no other choice than believe that 20 medical professionals at Parkland got the top of the head confused with the back of the head. Which in my opinion is an utterly ridiculous notion.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

50 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Pat Speer did a great job on the latter subject.

Pat didn't even mention the holes in the jacket and shirt. I can understand Cliff's frustration.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Not true. The 50 Reasons series featured a number of individual episodes on physical evidence - including the alleged rifle,

The rifle is not physical evidence relating to the JFK assassination -- you can't prove that that rifle was used to shoot JFK.

Quote

the alleged bullet,

Same thing -- more phony evidence unrelated to the murder of JFK.

Quote

the mail-order paperwork,

See above.

Quote

and, yes, the back wound. Pat Speer did a great job on the latter subject.

Pat Speer puts the back wound at T1 -- which is a BigLie.

The only extant physical evidence relating to the actual murder of JFK is his clothing, unless you can convince someone to dig up the body.

The rest of it is fake evidence.

Like most of the JFK Conspiracy A-Historical Society Black Op Radio ignored the genuine physical evidence.

Quote

Is it not the case that most on the conspiracy side argue the back wound is too low for the single bullet theory to be viable?

This is of tertiary concern -- the fact is T3 is too low to account for the hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process.  That is the fact Speer et al obfuscate.

Quote

If so, why make such a meal out of the exact position?

Since the bullet entrance in the back is too low to have caused the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, that damage could only have been caused by the shot in the throat from the front.

Pat Speer is a Throat Entrance Denier, as well.

Quote

The autopsy report's deliberate vagueness seems to have ensured that any exact measurement may always be in dispute, or at least not settled.

The bullet hole in his shirt settles it.  Shirts indent along your shoulder-top when you raise your arm, every time.

Quote

But the dishonest presentation after the fact by the official gatekeepers - including Humes, Specter, and Ford - surely indicates the wound was too low.

And we have dishonest presentations of the likes of Pat Speer.

Quote

Personally I’m of the opinion there is much to support a back wound located at T-3 : the clothing, Burkley’s note, the FAC sheet, the observations of Siebert and O’Neill.

It's not a matter of opinion -- it's a simple matter of observation: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar; he maintained an elevated right arm as soon as he sat in the motorcade.; elevating an arm causes the shirt fabric to indent atop the shoulder-line.

JFK was shot in the back 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, right where more than a dozen witnesses place it.

 

Quote

I’ll wager there was a major change from what originally appeared in the autopsy first draft to the existing third revision; switching  from (probably) T-3

Probably? No, provably.

Every time Jeff Carter imitates JFK's posture in the motorcade his shirt fabric indents atop his right shoulder.

Every single time.

That's a fact.

 

Quote

to the ridiculously vague “14 cm below the mastoid”. Humes proved his perfidy when he appeared on CBS in 1967 and claimed the Rydberg sketches were “schematic.”

Here is Pat Speer on the back wound. What is there really to argue or be in denial about?

 

Awhile back Pat Speer laughably claimed that "T1 is well down the back" which is a howling absurdity.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think that Pat's problem is that he is so averse to the idea of photos being faked that he'll believe alternative scenarios that are incredibly flawed. For example, since an autopsy photo shows no blowout wound in the back of JFK's head, Pat has no other choice than believe that 20 medical professionals at Parkland got the top of the head confused with the back of the head. Which in my opinion is an utterly ridiculous notion.

Sandy, I'm sorry to say but unless some people - nay many people - stop with the "everything is fake" prejudging of the photos and films, then we'll continue to have people coming up with funny stories like the HL story and others.

Not everything was faked in this case and usually the simple narrative is the correct one.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cliff,

I think that you are probably right about the shot location. But your experiment is only an approximation. For it to be valid, it would require my wearing a suit jacket with the same lining as Kennedy's.

When JFK raised his arm he caused the fabric of his jacket to indent.

From the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston.

 

Quote

It would require that I wear the same kind of back brace as Kennedy's.

The brace was wrapped around his waist -- how would that impact the horizontal ease of the fabric when he sat down and elevated his right arm?

Quote

I would have to get into and sit in the limo numerous times to see if doing so could result in the shirt rising. I would like to see if the shirt tended to stick to the jacket, or if the jacket would slide against the shirt.

On what planet do jackets attach themselves to shirts?

Quote

The fact that both the shirt and jacket show the hole being at the same body location leads me to believe that they indeed do indicate the true location of the wound -- at T3 -- because I think it's likely that the jacket did NOT stick to the shirt as it rode up and down.  (The jackets I've had, IIRC, were made with satin linings in order to prevent that from happening.) But I'd feel a lot more confidence in my assessment if proper experiments were performed.

There are no circumstances you can conjure in which a raised arm doesn't cause the shirt to indent atop the shoulder-line.

The burden of proof is on you to replicate these circumstances.

Quote

I think that Pat's problem is that he is so averse to the idea of photos being faked that he'll believe alternative scenarios that are incredibly flawed. For example, since an autopsy photo shows no blowout wound in the back of JFK's head, Pat has no other choice than believe that 20 medical professionals at Parkland got the top of the head confused with the back of the head. Which in my opinion is an utterly ridiculous notion.

Indeed.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

16 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Sandy, I'm sorry to say but unless some people - nay many people - stop with the "everything is fake" prejudging of the photos and films, then we'll continue to have people coming up with funny stories like the HL story and others.

Not everything was faked in this case and usually the simple narrative is the correct one.

Evidence produced according to proper protocols are genuine --- evidence not produced according to proper protocols are fake.

The Fox 5 back of the head  autopsy photo is provably fake.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

29 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Not everything was faked in this case and usually the simple narrative is the correct one.

Some things were demonstrably faked, Michael. The back-of-head photo being one of them.

 

[Jeff Carter]

Cliff, your argument on this issue is sound. You are probably correct. 

But your insistence on enforcing an orthodoxy leads directly to petty sectarian division and squabbles, akin to those observed in organized religions, scientific academies, etc. It leads to time-wasting and pointless slander. I think it's good you state your position at every opportunity, but I don't understand the need to attack those who have a different approach.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff, your argument on this issue is sound. You are probably correct. 

But your insistence on enforcing an orthodoxy leads directly to petty sectarian division and squabbles, akin to those observed in organized religions, scientific academies, etc. It leads to time-wasting and pointless slander. I think it's good you state your position at every opportunity, but I don't understand the need to attack those who have a different approach.

If I insist that 1 + 1 = 2 do I enforce an orthodoxy?

Those who deny the Holocaust also take "a different approach," and deserve to be publicly ridiculed for it.

Those who promote fake evidence deserve to be called out for it.