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

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

Cliff,

I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you that researchers don't always get things right. And I'm telling you why people like Pat Speer aren't getting this right.

 

Quote

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

I don't assume that. Why do you believe I assume that? All I've been doing is explaining to you why certain researchers are getting this wrong.

 

Quote

"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 Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

Sandy -- fair enough.

There's a great line by Upton Sinclair -- “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his Pet Theories depend on his not understanding it.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I give Joe Public way more credit than you do.

If Joe Public is so smart, then why are so many of them LNers? Why do the more educated ones tend to believe that Oswald alone shot JFK?

It's because of their preconceived biases, the fake evidence like the BOH photo that fools them, and many other reasons. And, sure, there are a lot of people who aren't all that smart. That's just a fact of life.

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

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?

Do you have a better photo?

When did this occur?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you have a better photo?

When did this occur?

 

Houston and Main.

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sandy -- fair enough.

There's a great line by Upton Sinclair -- “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his Pet Theories depend on his not understanding it.

Cliff,

I think you may be right on the money. I get frustrated sometimes when some other researchers don't see what seems obvious to me (a good example being that men don't drink a Coke with two hands). A lot of times it could be that it just doesn't fit in with their theory. Just as you say.

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Houston and Main.

 

Thanks Cliff. I'm keeping a copy of this.

Unfortunately there are photos like the one below, where the jacket is bunched up more greatly:
 

 

I assume this is what gives Pat the confidence or whatever to say that the bullet hit at T1 and not T3.

Of course, for him to be right the shirt also has to be pulled up by roughly the same distance the jacket is. And I'm sure that is what he says.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Cliff. I'm keeping a copy of this.

Unfortunately there are photos like the one below, where the jacket is bunched up more greatly:
 

 

I assume this is what gives Pat the confidence or whatever to say that the bullet hit at T1 and not T3.

Of course, for him to be right the shirt also has to be pulled up by roughly the same distance the jacket is. And I'm sure that is what he says.

 

For Speer to be correct both the shirt and jacket had to be bunched up 2 inches entirely above T1.

But there is a normal amount of shirt collar visible above the jacket collar in Croft, ergo the jacket collar rested in its' normal position just above the base of the neck.

How could that be possible if there were 4 inches of clothing bunched up above T1?

What we're looking at in Croft is a fraction of an inch of elevated jacket -- David Von Pein recognized this immediately. 

[Michael Walton]

This was posted back in 2007. Although I disagree with what the white is pointing out (seems like someone thinks it's a hole where as I think it's dried or clotted blood), based on this image there had to be some movement of the clothing compared to where the back hole appears in the autopsy photo:

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This was posted back in 2007. Although I disagree with what the white is pointing out (seems like someone thinks it's a hole where as I think it's dried or clotted blood), based on this image there had to be some movement of the clothing compared to where the back hole appears in the autopsy photo:

Why do you think it's clotted blood instead of a bullet hole?

As Mr. Gray illustrated, the lower artifact matches the location of the hole in the shirt.

Care to show us how you get two inches of elevation of a shirt?

Demonstrate, please...[cue Final Jeopardy tune]

While you're at it, please provide your proof that it's the body of John F. Kennedy in that photo.

[Michael Walton]

Cliff...come on.  You know that's not a bullet hole. The autopsy report says only one shot was found on the back region - the one in the upper back that you clearly see in the photo. That single shot was probed and terminated there.  It'd be impossible for that shot to line up with the throat wound negating the SBT.

Isn't that enough? You're now seriously going to say that a *second* hole is there, meaning yet another shot? And all because of a graphic that of all people "Ashton Gray" made? This is the same guy who on another thread on this forum says that the throat wound is not even one of entrance.

This is why the CT wing of this case is so fractured. Everyone wants to be *the one* who breaks the case if anything is ever revealed someday and they all want to go off on their own tangents with their beliefs, which is how way-out-in-left-field theories get started without an ounce of plausibility.  It's probably why there's so much sniggering and eye-rolling in the mainstream press about the CT wing and it's also why there's so much buggering between the different posters here.  

[Cliff Varnell]

On 10/1/2017 at 11:50 AM, Michael Walton said:

Cliff...come on.  You know that's not a bullet hole.

Excuse me?

You can't even prove that's JFK in the photo!

You don't know who developed the photo, you can't match the lower margin abrasion collar of the "wound" with a shot from above, and you can't get your shirt to move two inches in any direction given casual movement.

Quote

The autopsy report says only one shot was found on the back region - the one in the upper back that you clearly see in the photo. That single shot was probed and terminated there.  It'd be impossible for that shot to line up with the throat wound negating the SBT.

It's impossible to get a bullet hole in a shirt 4 inches below the bottom of the collar to line up with what you think is a wound.

Quote

Isn't that enough? You're now seriously going to say that a *second* hole is there, meaning yet another shot?

No second shot.  It "could" be JFK in that obviously doctored photo, in which case his back wound would be in that exact position since it matches the location of the defect in the shirt.

Quote

And all because of a graphic that of all people "Ashton Gray" made? 

All Gray did was illustrate what anyone can verify by imitating JFK's posture -- shirt fabric indents atop the shoulder-line when you raise your arm.

Quote

This is the same guy who on another thread on this forum says that the throat wound is not even one of entrance.

I went around and around with Mr. Gray on that issue.

Quote

This is why the CT wing of this case is so fractured. Everyone wants to be *the one* who breaks the case if anything is ever revealed someday and they all want to go off on their own tangents with their beliefs, which is how way-out-in-left-field theories get started without an ounce of plausibility.

Gaeton Fonzi established the salient fact of conspiracy when he confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence back in 1966.

He hasn't been given credit for such because so many self-aggrandizing hustlers want glory by "proving" conspiracy on the basis of inferior evidence.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.   

It's heartening to see T3 Back Wound Factualist Lawrence Schnapf play a leading role in the Oswald Mock Trial.

http://capa-us.org/see-jfk-film-searchers-promote-oswald-mock-trial/

[Clive Largey]

On 9/25/2017 at 6:12 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

The intellectual dishonesty of those who deny that JFK was shot in the back at the level of his 3rd Thoracic Vertebra is mind-numbing.

I had to visit Dachau to verify the Holocaust, but all one needs to verify the fact JFK was shot at T3 is wear a shirt and observe your shirt indent along your right shoulder-top as you casually raise your right arm and wave your hand.  The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound.  Open and shut case.

So I'd have to say T3 denial is worse than Holocaust denial since it's so easy to debunk and so many JFK "experts" subscribe to it.

Can you provide details of your visit, why you "had to" visit, what you discovered and what, if anything, you did with this data?

It must be rather special because no one has gone to Dachau and found any proof of gassing. quite the opposite in fact, Dachau is one of the reasons exterminationists themselves believe there were no death camps inside Germany. 

What you saw no doubt was a delousing chamber, built to save lives, that originally had a skull and crossbones motive right on the door visible to everyone going in, a clear warning and the times of each treatment written underneath it. But who needs to understand the funny writing when the skull and cross bones alone tells everyone it's death chamber?

Did you catch the modern day notice that said "never used as a gas chamber"? Did you ask the tour guide if the have discovered yet one single proof for it being labeled a gas/death chamber?

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎26‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 4:20 AM, 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.   

Interesting point I hadn't thought of. The back brace would have considerably tightened the shirt.

Even more interesting is the fact that Dr Burkley was never questioned by the Warren Commission. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/YnltgIZFvKU