Sandy Larsen Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 27 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: From the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston. Do you see a photo here, Cliff? I see only the Photobucket warning that you need to pay for third-party hosting. (Just so you know.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 Just now, Sandy Larsen said: Do you see a photo here, Cliff? I see only the Photobucket warning that you need to pay for third-party hosting. (Just so you know.) I see a photo. Thanks for checking, tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: On what planet do jackets attach themselves to shirts? [etc., etc.] As I said, I think you are probably right. But surprising things sometimes do happen when a situation isn't replicated with sufficient care. I've been burned more than once because of this. On the other hand, I understand that we need to draw the line somewhere in being thorough. (And because of that we will sometimes get burned.) Edited September 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: I still see the Photobucket warning. Does anybody else (besides Cliff) see a photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: As I said, I think you are probably right. But surprising things sometimes do happen when a situation isn't replicated with sufficient care. I've been burned more than once because of this. On the other hand, I understand that we need to draw the line somewhere in being thorough. (And because of that we will sometimes get burned.) Yes, we have to draw the line somewhere. When a phenomenon occurs hundreds of billions of times a day it's time to observe physical reality and not invent non-replicable scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: I still see the Photobucket warning. Does anybody else (besides Cliff) see a photo? Bummer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I still see the Photobucket warning. Does anybody else (besides Cliff) see a photo? Yes, the photo is not there. The potophuket destruction of history expands. The reliance on outside hosting of photo resources emasculates the value of the forum. James Richards posts are a great example. Edited September 27, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 19 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Those who promote fake evidence deserve to be called out for it. I agree with you. Problem is, sometimes one person sees real evidence and another person fake evidence, even though they are looking at the same thing. Case in point, Michael Walton and the back-of-head autopsy photo. I agree with Cliff on this and disagree with Michael. So I wish Cliff would call Michael out on his error, but not vice versa. But I know from experience that Michael will call Cliff out too. So what do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I agree with you. Problem is, sometimes one person sees real evidence and another person fake evidence, even though they are looking at the same thing. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not entitled to our own facts. The medical evidence that was produced/maintained according to proper autopsy protocol trumps the medical evidence NOT maintained/prepared according to proper autopsy protocol. That's a matter of simple logic, is it not? Quote Case in point, Michael Walton and the back-of-head autopsy photo. I agree with Cliff on this and disagree with Michael. So I wish Cliff would call Michael out on his error, but not vice versa. But I know from experience that Michael will call Cliff out too. Call me out for what? Citing facts? Quote So what do you do? Follow genuine evidence. There is a chain of possession for the clothing evidence, no chain of possession for the autopsy photos. What's the problem figuring this out? Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 Now I get the photobucket warning. They want 400 bucks. Check out Image 3 in the article here: http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said: t I don't understand the need to attack those who have a different approach. When that "different approach" disregards readily observable facts we should collectively cry foul, shouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 On 9/25/2017 at 7:20 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said: he had tailored shirt with a tail that he sat on and a back support. even if the jacket might have bunched up, the shirt would not. and Berkley signed the death certificate identifying back wound at T-3. Easy, innit?. Why argue the fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK with more complex proofs? The fetish for complexity in this case is baffling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said: Quote Case in point, Michael Walton and the back-of-head autopsy photo. I agree with Cliff on this and disagree with Michael. So I wish Cliff would call Michael out on his error, but not vice versa. But I know from experience that Michael will call Cliff out too. Call me out for what? I can see Michael Walton calling you out for saying that the BOH photo is fake. He does that all the time, when people say some photographic evidence was faked. (Don't you see? You say the photo's fake, Walton says it isn't. His calling you out may be wrong, but that won't stop him. Because he believes he's right.) Edited September 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 27, 2017 Author Share Posted September 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I can see Michael Walton calling you out for saying that the BOH photo is fake. He does that all the time, when people say some photographic evidence was faked. (Don't you see? You say the photo's fake, Walton says it isn't. His calling you out may be wrong, but that won't stop him. Because he believe he's right.) The BOH photo wasn't produced according to proper autopsy protocol, and the woman on record as developing the extant autopsy photos, Saundra Kay Spencer, denies having developed the extant autopsy photos. Tangible physical evidence always trumps photos, properly prepared evidence always trumps improperly prepared evidence. Evidence with a chain of possession always trumps evidence without a chain of possession. A matter of simple logic, yes? 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