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

[Ron Ecker]

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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 11/23/62.  The FBI picked them up later that day.

Thanks.

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

To which I guess Humes said, "Oh, I see."

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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.

It's only 2 inches

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

It's only 2 inches

Show us!

Show us how fabric which always indents when you raise your arm jacks up multiple inches.

Show us how 2 inches of shirt and 2 inches of jacket mysteriously elevate entirely above the fictional T1 wound without pushing up on the jacket collar.

It may as well be 2 miles.

You can't replicate it.  Period.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

Guys spend 2/3rds of their lives wearing a shirt.  There is nothing more readily observable than a shirt one's wearing.

But when it comes to JFK's shirt the T3 deniers act as if divining the movement of a shirt is akin to the deepest spiritual speculation like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Pinhead territory, indeed.

[Cliff Varnell]

 

Image Shack!

Anybody else see this photo?

Please note there was no bunched up shirt fabric under the indented jacket.

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

Cliff,

Assassination researchers are not interested in winning over a jury. They are interested in winning over the public.

When the public is shown the back-of-head photo, it is fairly easy to convince Joe Public that the back wound is higher than T3.

When the public is shown JFK's jacket riding up, it is easy to convince Joe Public that therefore the bullet hit JFK's back a couple inches higher than it hit the jacket.

That may be unfair, and IMO it indeed is unfair, because I believe you are right that the a shirt will not ride up like a jacket will. But that is the hand that has been dealt us and that is what we are up against.

Unfortunately for us, some researchers see it the way the public does. Especially regarding the BOH photo, because some researchers consider that to be hard evidence. They look at that, and compare it to the shirt and jacket. When you take the jacket bunching into consideration, the location of the hole in the jacket corroborates (roughly) the location of the wound in the BOH photo. And they say voila, that's the answer! (As an aside, they figure the shirt must have bunched up too.)

So the root of the problem is the combination of 1) the fake BOH photo, and 2) the bunching up. The problem is not the integrity of the researchers.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cliff,

Assassination researchers are not interested in winning over a jury. They are interested in winning over the public.

With demonstrably fake evidence?

For years 70-80% of the public didn't buy the lone gunman scenario, so I dare say they're way ahead on this issue.

I've never been interested in winning over the public, but winning over researchers to the facts instead of them pushing bullshi.

Quote

When the public is shown the back-of-head photo, it is fairly easy to convince Joe Public that the back wound is higher than T3.

And when you explain that there's no proof that's JFK in the photo, that the photo wasn't prepared according to proper autopsy protocol, that it's been ruled insufficient as scientific evidence, features a "wound" with an abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, and has no chain of possession -- well, you don't have any case for the authenticity of that photo, do you?

Quote

When the public is shown JFK's jacket riding up, it is easy to convince Joe Public that therefore the bullet hit JFK's back a couple inches higher than it hit the jacket.

All the Elm St. photos show a normal amount of shirt collar above the jacket collar -- Therefore the jacket collar rested in its normal position just above the base of the neck.  Care to explain to Joe Public how 4 inches of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above T1 without pushing up on the jacket collar?

You assume Joe Public is a total moron?

Quote

That may be unfair, and IMO it indeed is unfair, because I believe you are right that the a shirt will not ride up like a jacket will. But that is the hand that has been dealt us and that is what we are up against.

It's like saying only simplistic arguments carry the day because people are too stupid to figure out anything else.

I don't buy it.

Quote

Unfortunately for us, some researchers see it the way the public does.

David Von Pein readily admitted that the visible shirt collar in the Elm St. photos proves JFK's jacket wasn't significantly bunched up.

If Von Pein can figure it out what's Pat Speer's problem?

Quote

Especially regarding the BOH photo, because some researchers consider that to be hard evidence.

They're rank incompetents. 

To claim that an improperly prepared photo with no chain of possession trumps the physical evidence, the consensus statements of over a dozen witnesses, the verified Death Certificate, the verified autopsy face sheet, and the FBI report on the autopsy is an egregious absurdity.

Quote

They look at that, and compare it to the shirt and jacket.

And they can look at the Elm St. photos which show the jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza and come to the correct conclusion.

Quote

When you take the jacket bunching into consideration, the location of the hole in the jacket corroborates (roughly) the location of the wound in the BOH photo.

So Joe Public only buys non-sequiturs -- JFK's jacket had a fold in it, therefore both the shirt and jacket were bunched up multiple inches.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar -- the defect in the jacket 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8 inch.

So?

Quote

And they say voila, that's the answer! (As an aside, they figure the shirt must have bunched up too.)

Until you challenge them to replicate this multi-inch bunch and they'll STFU.

Quote

So the root of the problem is the combination of 1) the fake BOH photo, and 2) the bunching up. The problem is not the integrity of the researchers.

The problem is the widespread incompetence of the researchers.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

When the public is shown the back-of-head photo, it is fairly easy to convince Joe Public that the back wound is higher than T3.

And when you explain that there's no proof that's JFK in the photo, that the photo wasn't prepared according to proper autopsy protocol, that it's been ruled insufficient as scientific evidence, features a "wound" with an abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, and has no chain of possession -- well, you don't have any case for the authenticity of that photo, do you?

 

Those things  don't matter to an educated, intelligent Joe Public. To him the photo looks real. And it's hard to convince him otherwise. Intelligent Joe Public doesn't believe that the government would fake JFK autopsy photos.

And some assassination researchers are no different than educated, intelligent Joe Public in this respect.

I know that that isn't the way you and I want these people to be. But that is the way these people are. And there is little we can do about it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

When the public is shown JFK's jacket riding up, it is easy to convince Joe Public that therefore the bullet hit JFK's back a couple inches higher than it hit the jacket.

All the Elm St. photos show a normal amount of shirt collar above the jacket collar -- Therefore the jacket collar rested in its normal position just above the base of the neck.  Care to explain to Joe Public how 4 inches of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above T1 without pushing up on the jacket collar?

You assume Joe Public is a total moron?

 

What I said is demonstrably true. If that makes Joe Public a moron, then so be it. But for the record that is not my characterization of Joe Public. Sometimes its hard (maybe impossible) to account for people's thought processes.

I have a highly intelligent friend (who graduated Summa Cum Laude from BYU and UC Berkeley) who thinks JFK assassination conspiracy is a bunch of bunk. I don't think he's a moron. I think he is intellectually lazy about things that he has little interest in. And I think he allows pre-conceived biases interfere with his critical thinking abilities. And I think he tends to be closed minded once he takes a position on something. (The one good thing is that the positions he takes are usually on the right side.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

That may be unfair, and IMO it indeed is unfair, because I believe you are right that the a shirt will not ride up like a jacket will. But that is the hand that has been dealt us and that is what we are up against.

It's like saying only simplistic arguments carry the day because people are too stupid to figure out anything else.

I don't buy it.

You must have an awful lot of open-minded, genius friends with no preconceived biases, Cliff.

A year or two ago I made some animated gifs that conclusively show that Officer Baker did not run straight for the front of the TSBD entrance. I laid out the evidence so that it was easy to understand and required little effort to go through. Yet there were still several people who disagreed with it.

Maybe your friends would believe what my presentation plainly showed. But some forum members here didn't. Why not? I don't know. But they didn't.

Some people insist that Prayer Man is holding and drinking from a bottle of Coke? When I point out that grown men don't hold bottle of Coke with two hands for extended periods of time, and grown men don't drink from a pop bottle using two hands, some of these people still insist on the bottle of coke hypothesis. Why do they do that? I don't know. But they do.

They same thing happens when you make your argument about the shirt not bunching up, etc., etc. Some here don't agree with you. Why don't they? I don't know. But they don't.

Are we to conclude these people "are too stupid" to understand our arguments? That's a harsh judgement that I wouldn't make. It's a judgement that you "don't buy." But the fact remains that some people simply do not buy arguments that you and I think are conclusive, or at least very convincing.

You believe that these people are intellectually dishonest. I believe it is more complicated than that... that here's no accounting for people's thought processes.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

When you take the jacket bunching into consideration, the location of the hole in the jacket corroborates (roughly) the location of the wound in the BOH photo.

So Joe Public only buys non-sequiturs -- JFK's jacket had a fold in it, therefore both the shirt and jacket were bunched up multiple inches.

The sequitur is this: The BOH photo shows the wound at ~T1, and the jacket is bunched up. Therefore the jacket must be bunched up enough to support what the photo shows, and the shirt (which we can't see) must have also somehow become bunched up enough to support the photo.

 

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar -- the defect in the jacket 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8 inch.

Can you actually see the jacket bunched up only 1/8' in any of the frames? Or is that figure a conclusion you've made?

 

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

So the root of the problem is the combination of 1) the fake BOH photo, and 2) the bunching up. The problem is not the integrity of the researchers.

The problem is the widespread incompetence of the researchers.

I think that some researchers paint themselves into corners by not considering all the possibilities. And by not being willing to change their beliefs.

As for incompetence among researchers, yes I'm sure it exist. But sometimes people make mistakes. It's when they're not willing the correct their mistakes that it become incompetence.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Those things  don't matter to an educated, intelligent Joe Public. To him the photo looks real. And it's hard to convince him otherwise. Intelligent Joe Public doesn't believe that the government would fake JFK autopsy photos.

And some assassination researchers are no different than educated, intelligent Joe Public in this respect.

I know that that isn't the way you and I want these people to be. But that is the way these people are. And there is little we can do about it.

 

I don't buy your characterization of Joe Public.

Why would an autopsy photo have more credibility than a photo of the shirt or jacket?

Why do you assume the autopsy photo is the only available evidence?

"People are suckers for the truth, Bubba."

You don't get to the truth of a matter by continuing to lie about it.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What I said is demonstrably true. If that makes Joe Public a moron, then so be it. But for the record that is not my characterization of Joe Public. Sometimes its hard (maybe impossible) to account for people's thought processes.

I have a highly intelligent friend (who graduated Summa Cum Laude from BYU and UC Berkeley) who thinks JFK assassination conspiracy is a bunch of bunk.

Invite him to glance over at his right shoulder-line and raise his right hand to wave.

Point out that his shirt fabric indents every time he does that.

Since he (and you and everyone else) can't get their shirts to bunch up with that posture, all he can do is repeat readily demonstrated un-truths.

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think he's a moron. I think he is intellectually lazy about things that he has little interest in. And I think he allows pre-conceived biases interfere with his critical thinking abilities. And I think he tends to be closed minded once he takes a position on something. (The one good thing is that the positions he takes are usually on the right side.)

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.  Fine, but don't pretend the water doesn't exist.

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You must have an awful lot of open-minded, genius friends with no preconceived biases, Cliff.

I have a lot of friends who don't buy hook-line-sinker everything the Government says.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A year or two ago I made some animated gifs that conclusively show that Officer Baker did not run straight for the front of the TSBD entrance. I laid out the evidence so that it was easy to understand and required little effort to go through. Yet there were still several people who disagreed with it.

Maybe your friends would believe what my presentation plainly showed. But some forum members here didn't. Why not? I don't know. But they didn't.

Some people insist that Prayer Man is holding and drinking from a bottle of Coke? When I point out that grown men don't hold bottle of Coke with two hands for extended periods of time, and grown men don't drink from a pop bottle using two hands, some of these people still insist on the bottle of coke hypothesis. Why do they do that? I don't know. But they do.

They same thing happens when you make your argument about the shirt not bunching up, etc., etc. Some here don't agree with you. Why don't they? I don't know. But they don't.

Not my problem.  The evidence is literally under their nose.  My job is to wield the weaponized fact of conspiracy -- people either respond by spouting nonsense ("T1 is well down the back" -- Pat Speer, for instance) or they STFU.

 

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Are we to conclude these people "are too stupid" to understand our arguments? That's a harsh judgement that I wouldn't make.

That's exactly what you're arguing!  You claim that if Joe Public sees the BOH autopsy photo they're going to buy its authenticity in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I give Joe Public way more credit than you do.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It's a judgement that you "don't buy." But the fact remains that some people simply do not buy arguments that you and I think are conclusive, or at least very convincing.

Since they offer no cogent counter-argument it's a moot point, isn't it?

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You believe that these people are intellectually dishonest. I believe it is more complicated than that... that here's no accounting for people's thought processes.

If one cannot look under their nose and process what they clearly see when they wave their hand then one is intellectually dishonest.

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The sequitur is this: The BOH photo shows the wound at ~T1, and the jacket is bunched up. Therefore the jacket must be bunched up enough to support what the photo shows, and the shirt (which we can't see) must have also somehow become bunched up enough to support the photo.

Not if a normal amount of shirt collar is visible above the jacket collar.

That proves the jacket wasn't bunched up significantly.

David Von Pein recognized this immediately, and did not hestitatye to stipulate to the point.

Why is David Von Pein more enlightened on this issue than most "CTs"?

 

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Can you actually see the jacket bunched up only 1/8' in any of the frames? Or is that figure a conclusion you've made?

Since raising an arm causes clothing fabric to indent, we can see in this photo the jacket is flat against the shirt in the trough of the indentation.

Shirts don't bunch up when one waves their hand.

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8 inch relative to the shirt, which was demonstrably not bunched up at all.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think that some researchers paint themselves into corners by not considering all the possibilities. And by not being willing to change their beliefs.

As for incompetence among researchers, yes I'm sure it exist. But sometimes people make mistakes. It's when they're not willing the correct their mistakes that it become incompetence.

It's like Vincent Salandria said over 40 years ago -- JFK research has been badly misled.