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

[Jeff Carter]

Cliff, in making your argument you have managed to slag Cyril Wecht, Bill Kelly, Jim DiEugenio, and Pat Speer - all of whom have made major contributions to the case and all of whom agree with you that the official story is bogus. That result suggests something about your methodology is unsound. Not necessarily the content of your argument, more the presentation. That said, a clever lawyer could likely induce reasonable doubt over T3, but it's been established clever lawyers cannot raise the wound to make the SBT viable.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff, in making your argument you have managed to slag Cyril Wecht, Bill Kelly, Jim DiEugenio, and Pat Speer - all of whom have made major contributions to the case and all of whom agree with you that the official story is bogus.

No, they agree with the official story that JFK was shot in the back at T1.  McAdams/Bugliosi/Posner et al agree with that.

It's a BigLie.

Just now, Jeff Carter said:

 

That result suggests something about your methodology is unsound. Not necessarily the content of your argument, more the presentation. That said, a clever lawyer could likely induce reasonable doubt over T3, but it's been established clever lawyers cannot raise the wound to make the SBT viable.

There is no argument against T3.  There are only contentless claims repeated over and over.

There is NO reasonable doubt that when Jeff Carter and Cyril Wecht and Tink Thompson and Pat Speer and Bill Kelly and James DiEugenio and John McAdams and Vince Bugliosi all raised their right arm and casually waved a la JFK in the motorcade their shirt fabric indented atop their right shoulder-line.

That's a fact, and no clever lawyer can intellectually challenge it with anything other than hot air.

[Cliff Varnell]

Emphasis added:

Quote

PRACTICAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION:
Legal Considerations

By
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S.
Author of Practical Homicide Investigation, Copyright 2003
REPRINT: LAW and ORDER Vol. 51, No. 5, May, 2003

The search of the crime scene is the most important phase of the investigation conducted at the scene. Decisions of the courts restricting admissibility of testimonial evidence have significantly increased the value of physical evidence in homicide investigations. Therefore, law enforcement personnel involved in the crime scene search must arrange for the proper and effective collection of evidence at the scene.

Physical evidence, which is often referred to as the "unimpeachable witness," cannot be clouded by a faulty memory, prejudice, poor eyesight, or a desire "not to get involved." However, before a forensic laboratory can effectively examine physical evidence, it must be recognized as evidence.

The JFK assassination may be the only murder case in history where the physical evidence is routinely ignored.

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There is no argument against T3.

Yes, there is... the back-of-head autopsy photo. And though the photo wouldn't stand up in a court of law, it can be and is used effectively by our opponents in the court of public opinion.

It's a shame that some researchers won't allow the possibility of photos being faked. Because that results in their belief that the bullet hit at T1. But they have their reasons for rejecting photo fakery and it has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty. I think we should vigorously argue our cases before them. But I don't think we should attack them.

 

[Paul Brancato]

Cliff - the only problem I have with your argument is that you say it's 100% certain. 

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, there is... the back-of-head autopsy photo.

Since when does photographic evidence trump tangible physical evidence?

What proof do you have that it was the body of JFK in that photo?

It's such a bad fake that the "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

And though the photo wouldn't stand up in a court of law, it can be and is used effectively by our opponents in the court of public opinion.

It never gets to the court of public opinion.

Why are the people supposedly on our side agreeing this these intellectually dishonest claims?

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

It's a shame that some researchers won't allow the possibility of photos being faked. Because that results in their belief that the bullet hit at T1. But they have their reasons for rejecting photo fakery and it has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty. I think we should vigorously argue our cases before them. But I don't think we should attack them.

I'm attacking their T3 denial -- which is thoroughly called for.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Cliff - the only problem I have with your argument is that you say it's 100% certain. 

It's 100% certain that every time Paul Brancato imitates JFK's posture in the limo the shirt fabric indents atop his right shoulder-line.

It's 100% certain that the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

What more do you need?

[Michael Walton]

I cannot  see any photos  and only see a photo bucket warning.

If you  want  to post photos start a free blog somewhere, add your photos to a blog page, then grab the URL of the image and put it into your EF post.

[Michael Walton]

I'm  trying  to  figure  out which photo Sandy is saying I'll  say is not faked and then will reply about that photo.

[Paul Brancato]

Cliff - It might depend on exact position, type of shirt, repeated wavings, maybe other factors

[Ron Ecker]

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 There is a chain of possession for the clothing evidence, no chain of possession for the autopsy photos.

 

Not so fast. You may be right but I wonder. As I understand it, Greer put JFK's clothes in a bag at Parkland. He later (on the plane or at Bethesda?) gave the bag to Rybka with instructions to put the clothes in a White House locker. (Which begs the question of why Greer didn't deliver the clothes to the autopsy. Could both Greer and Rybka really be so ignorant in 1963 of autopsy protocol?) Rybka presumably put them in the locker. But when and by whom were the clothes then delivered from the locker (or from somewhere else?) to the Warren Commission?

The question is academic, since it seems obvious there was no alteration of the clothes, which are clear evidence of a T3 bullet wound. But you or others may know if there is in fact an unbroken chain of possession.

What really bugs me is what Greer did with the clothes. Finck, as I recall, asked about the clothes at autopsy, but no one demanded to see them. Why not?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Not so fast. You may be right but I wonder. As I understand it, Greer put JFK's clothes in a bag at Parkland. He later (on the plane or at Bethesda?) gave the bag to Rybka with instructions to put the clothes in a White House locker. (Which begs the question of why Greer didn't deliver the clothes to the autopsy. Could both Greer and Rybka really be so ignorant in 1963 of autopsy protocol?) Rybka presumably put them in the locker. But when and by whom were the clothes then delivered from the locker (or from somewhere else?) to the Warren Commission?

The question is academic, since it seems obvious there was no alteration of the clothes, which are clear evidence of a T3 bullet wound. But you or others may know if there is in fact an unbroken chain of possession.

What really bugs me is what Greer did with the clothes. Finck, as I recall, asked about the clothes at autopsy, but no one demanded to see them. Why not?

 

Ron, my understanding is that the Parkland people put the clothing in a bag and gave it to Greer, who maintained possession of them until he put them in the White House locker early in the morning of 11/23/63.  The FBI picked them up later that day.

The autopsists were told the clothes were only of "historical interest."

Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Cliff - It might depend on exact position, type of shirt, repeated wavings, maybe other factors

None that you can replicate.

Did JFK wear his shirts dramatically different from other people?

The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate this.

According to clothing expert Alan Flusser a custom made shirt fits like "a second skin."

How do repeated indentations of the shirt fabric cause it to rise multiple inches?

The Elm St. photos clearly show JFK's jacket collar riding in a normal position just above the base of his neck -- how could two inches of jacket and two inches of shirt bunch up entirely above T1 without pushing up on the jacket collar?

Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove this could happen.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I cannot  see any photos  and only see a photo bucket warning.

If you  want  to post photos start a free blog somewhere, add your photos to a blog page, then grab the URL of the image and put it into your EF post.

Good idea!

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I'm  trying  to  figure  out which photo Sandy is saying I'll  say is not faked and then will reply about that photo.

The Fox 5 back of the head photo -- which was singled out by the HSCA as being of minimal value as scientific evidence BEFORE we found out there is no chain of possession for it.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell