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

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Clive Largey said:

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

 

I'm not going to debate the Holocaust with you.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Clive Largey]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I'm not going to debate the Holocaust with you.

I did not ask for a debate I asked for proof of your claim that you went to Dachau and found something that verified the holocaust. Isn't that something you want to share? Surely you have done so already, a book. pamphlet or webpage?

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Clive Largey said:

I did not ask for a debate I asked for proof of your claim that you went to Dachau and found something that verified the holocaust. Isn't that something you want to share? Surely you have done so already, a book. pamphlet or webpage?

Yes, the existence of Dachau verified the Holocaust.

I think you're in the wrong forum.

[Ray Mitcham]

On 9/30/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

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. 

This shows what happens when you raise your arm to wave.

 

http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination

[Micah Mileto]

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Hey Cliff, what do you mean when you say the autopsy photographs were not prepared under standard protocol and they don't have a chain of custody?

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Hey Cliff, what do you mean when you say the autopsy photographs were not prepared under standard protocol and they don't have a chain of custody?

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

Concerning autopsy protocol there's this:

HSCA vol 7

<quote on>

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

<quote off>

The autopsy photos are worthless.

[Cliff Varnell]

9 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

This shows what happens when you raise your arm to wave.

 

http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination

Excellent work!

[Clive Largey]

On 10/8/2017 at 3:40 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Yes, the existence of Dachau verified the Holocaust.

I think you're in the wrong forum.

And I suppose the existence of the sniper's nest verifies Oswald's guilt, no it's actually worse than that, it's like me saying I went to Dallas and there it was, Elm Street itself. So yes folks it all happened just like the books tell us.

As to your initial comparison. Did you ever hear of a T3 denier lose a job because of their beliefs? Or get their house or business firebombed over it? Harassed and even beaten up on the street, arrested and thrown in jail for years not only because of what they wrote about the T3 issue but what they were going to or even might say? What about a T3 denier's solicitor also get thrown in jail with them just for defending them? Shops that sold their books having their windows smashed, libraries taking there books off the shelves because of outside pressure?
Of course not, thus for those reasons and many others the comparison makes little sense. HD is far, far worse in all respects and if you spent some time looking at the revisionist's work you'd know that. Who outside of the few JFK forums even knows what the T3 issue is?

 

Researchers should be prepared to support their claims with facts when asked to and that's exactly what this forum itself asks for, whether it's on the moon landings, Ringo Starr or UFOs 

Don't assume all JFK researchers believe in the homicidal gas chambers and don't talk about stuff you don't want to be pulled on. Anyway, I'm satisfied you have nothing of what I asked for so I won't keep you.

From one denier to another, I come here on occasion only to hear what people like you are talking about in the JFK case, the case that most of us deny that LHO did alone and nothing else. However, it is rather interesting to me as to why solid JFK researchers use the term "h denier" when it's clear they haven't put half the effort into researching that case. To me it's like hearing an atheist using the term "blasphemer", I don't get it.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Clive Largey said:

And I suppose the existence of the sniper's nest verifies Oswald's guilt, no it's actually worse than that, it's like me saying I went to Dallas and there it was, Elm Street itself. So yes folks it all happened just like the books tell us.

As to your initial comparison. Did you ever hear of a T3 denier lose a job because of their beliefs? Or get their house or business firebombed over it? Harassed and even beaten up on the street, arrested and thrown in jail for years not only because of what they wrote about the T3 issue but what they were going to or even might say? What about a T3 denier's solicitor also get thrown in jail with them just for defending them? Shops that sold their books having their windows smashed, libraries taking there books off the shelves because of outside pressure?
Of course not, thus for those reasons and many others the comparison makes little sense. HD is far, far worse in all respects and if you spent some time looking at the revisionist's work you'd know that. Who outside of the few JFK forums even knows what the T3 issue is?

 

Researchers should be prepared to support their claims with facts when asked to and that's exactly what this forum itself asks for, whether it's on the moon landings, Ringo Starr or UFOs 

Don't assume all JFK researchers believe in the homicidal gas chambers and don't talk about stuff you don't want to be pulled on. Anyway, I'm satisfied you have nothing of what I asked for so I won't keep you.

From one denier to another, I come here on occasion only to hear what people like you are talking about in the JFK case, the case that most of us deny that LHO did alone and nothing else. However, it is rather interesting to me as to why solid JFK researchers use the term "h denier" when it's clear they haven't put half the effort into researching that case. To me it's like hearing an atheist using the term "blasphemer", I don't get it.

Clive - this post confuses me. On the one hand you seem to be saying that Holocaust denial is horrible. On the other, you seem to be making a comparison between the sniper's nest, which many of us assume was planted 'evidence', and gas chambers. Could you clarify your position on the Holocaust so there is no misunderstanding? Of course I think Cliff's question has a kind of ridiculous quality to it. But I know he is in earnest on T3 and it's importance in proving conspiracy. 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Of course I think Cliff's question has a kind of ridiculous quality to it.

T3 denial and Holocaust denial are both ridiculous.

 

[Paul Brancato]

Well Cliff, maybe so, but the debate about the Holocaust is venal, and T3 seems to be more a matter of opinion.

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Well Cliff, maybe so, but the debate about the Holocaust is venal, and T3 seems to be more a matter of opinion.

What opinion?

Are you denying that the bullet holes in JFK's clothing are four inches below the bottom of the collars?

Are you denying that he maintained an elevated right arm throughout the motorcade?

Are you denying that every time you raise your arm the fabric of your shirt indents along the shoulder-top?

Are you denying the consensus witness statements placing the wound at T3?

Are you denying the verified death certificate and verified autopsy face sheet placing the wound at T3?

Are you denying that a normal amount of shirt collar is visible in the Elm St. photos?

What is a matter of opinion?

[Paul Brancato]

Cliff - the throat wound was an entrance wound, pure and simple. I don't need T3 to confirm that. Do you?

[Ron Bulman]

 

It's all quite simple.  If a bullet shot downward from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository entered JFK's back to the right of the Third Thoracic Vertebrate as indicated in pictures and the autopsy report, coat, and shirt, it didn't enter his neck/shoulder as future president Ford interpreted as a Warren (C)Omissioner.  Arlen Specter's Pristine Magic changing directions in the air bullet is Bull Sh*t.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=paRVCWI9&id=53B8C9429FFF639C5156EC4EEA07C7B6BE962EAD&thid=OIP.paRVCWI9djuPslIF6nu5_ADTEs&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.jtsstrength.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2013%2f03%2fspine.jpg&exph=753&expw=531&q=Thoracic+Vertebrae+Numbers&simid=607988343789063846&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

This is NOT HIS NECK.  From the National Archives.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=paRVCWI9&id=53B8C9429FFF639C5156EC4EEA07C7B6BE962EAD&thid=OIP.paRVCWI9djuPslIF6nu5_ADTEs&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.jtsstrength.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2013%2f03%2fspine.jpg&exph=753&expw=531&q=Thoracic+Vertebrae+Numbers&simid=607988343789063846&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

See? It's well below the cervical vertebrae. 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=zXSWFJqY&id=496FFF0E3AF7805A08679A7B7CB2944AA8B6F79D&thid=OIP.zXSWFJqYUJ1xbrUYt-6NrQEWEs&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fclassconnection.s3.amazonaws.com%2f720%2fflashcards%2f626720%2fjpg%2fspine1320374312573.jpg&exph=319&expw=296&q=third+thoracic+vertebrae+image&simid=608008139279173363&selectedIndex=8&qpvt=third+thoracic+vertebrae+image&ajaxhist=0

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Cliff Varnell]

9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Cliff - the throat wound was an entrance wound, pure and simple. I don't need T3 to confirm that. Do you?

The T3 back wound confirms the throat entrance wound whether we need it to, or not.