Did the JFK Assassination almost kill the Saturday Evening Post?

[Paz Marverde]

15 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Paz, your friend would be much better off interviewing Vincent Salandria

Cliff, I admire Salandria. That said, I frankly do not understand why, in your mind, there is a sort of "Salandria vs. Thompson"

[Michael Walton]

This looks like the dented lip one. I'm no gun expert but is it really impossible for a bullet to not be able to be fired if the lip was dented like that? Or could the lip be dented when it lands on the floor after ejection?

[Mark Knight]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

This looks like the dented lip one. I'm no gun expert but is it really impossible for a bullet to not be able to be fired if the lip was dented like that? Or could the lip be dented when it lands on the floor after ejection?

The case is made of brass, not butter. It would take a harder impact than simply being dropped on the floor to deform the case that much. The empty case weight so little, and basic physics tells us that force equals mass times velocity. So unless the case was moving faster than mach 0.5 (pulling a number out of thin air), hitting a wooden floor didn't do that damage.

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

The case is made of brass, not butter. It would take a harder impact than simply being dropped on the floor to deform the case that much. The empty case weight so little, and basic physics tells us that force equals mass times velocity. So unless the case was moving faster than mach 0.5 (pulling a number out of thin air), hitting a wooden floor didn't do that damage.

For me, it's almost as if it's a too good to be true piece of evidence.  I do believe that all three were laid down to blame LHO because I also believe that no shots came from there - even fake shots from there would have been difficult to do because of the person there having to carefully scoot out of the "nest" in time to not be discovered.

But whoever laid them down, it's almost shocking that that person would lay something down when they know it couldn't be fired - unless that person was not a gun expert and didn't know heads or tails about a casing that's dented.

Wouldn't it be amazing if LHO set up the sniper's nest but did no shooting.  But putting a dented lip there was his way of showing it was an inside job?

Edited March 9, 2018 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

Cliff, I admire Salandria. That said, I frankly do not understand why, in your mind, there is a sort of "Salandria vs. Thompson"

I can answer that for you.  Cliff's way of thinking about this case is "everything is up in the air...EXCEPT for the autopsy photos which have been faked."

Of course if you think about it, why would Cliff ever limit himself to just fake photos.

[James DiEugenio]

CE 543 is a crucial piece of evidence that the critical community generally ignores.

No less than Howard Donahue has said that shell could not have been fired with a bullet that day. Because the rifle would not have fired properly.  He also said that he had never seen a shell dented like that in all his years as a marksman. Thompson noted that the FBI analysis of the marks on it revealed that, unlike the other shells, it had already been fired three times. Of all the marks on that shell only one links it to the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald and that was the magazine follower.  Yet that mark could only be on the last round, which was the live round, not this one.  

British researcher Chris Mills found, after many trials, that you can only achieve that effect by using empty shells.  And even at that, he could only do it one time out of about 60. 

When one adds in the fact that the shells were dispersed from their original close proximity, then the indications are that they were planted.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paz Marverde]

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

CE 543 is a crucial piece of evidence that the critical community generally ignores.

No less than Howard Donahue has said that shell could not have been fired with a bullet that day. Because the rifle would not have fired properly.  He also said that he had never seen a shell dented like that in all his years as a marksman. Thompson noted that the FBI analysis of the marks on it revealed that, unlike the other shells, it had already been fired three times. Of all the marks on that shell only one links it to the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald and that was the magazine follower.  Yet that mark could only be on the last round, which was the live round, not this one.  

British researcher Chris Mills found, after many trials, that you can only achieve that effect by using empty shells.  And even at that, he could only do it one time out of about 60. 

When one adds in the fact that the shells were dispersed from their original close proximity, then the indications are that they were planted.

 

 

Thank you very much, Jim

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I can answer that for you.

No, you don't have anything to do with me.

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Cliff's way of thinking about this case is "everything is up in the air...EXCEPT for the autopsy photos which have been faked."

You grasp nothing about my way of thinking.

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Of course if you think about it, why would Cliff ever limit himself to just fake photos.

You're a real piece of work.

[Michael Walton]

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You grasp nothing about my way of thinking.

BTW - that picture on your website showing his collar is incorrect.  It's sunlight shining in that area as well as on his jacket.  It may be a little bit of his collar but not as much as you may be seeing his collar showing. So you may want to fix that or not show that particular photo as it can be misleading.

[Cliff Varnell]

11 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

BTW - that picture on your website showing his collar is incorrect.  It's sunlight shining in that area as well as on his jacket.  It may be a little bit of his collar but not as much as you may be seeing his collar showing. So you may want to fix that or not show that particular photo as it can be misleading.

A normal amount of shirt collar is visible in all the Elm St. photos.

[Cliff Varnell]

11 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

Cliff, I admire Salandria. That said, I frankly do not understand why, in your mind, there is a sort of "Salandria vs. Thompson"

Paz, in 1966 Vincent Salandria shared his research on the clothing evidence with Edward Epstein, Gaeton Fonzi, and Josiah Thompson, among others.

Epstein wrote up the location of the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket in his 1966 book Inquest.

Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence on June 28, 1966.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fonzi-Specter_Interviews.html (15 minute mark)

Specter babbled like an idiot.

Josiah Thompson co-wrote an article for Life Magazine, November 25, 1966, "A  Matter of Reasonable Doubt," which ignored the clothing evidence entirely, offering John Connally's micro-analysis of the Zapruder film.

"A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- that is The Big Lie.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound.

In 1967 Thompson noted the clothing evidence in his book Six Seconds in Dallas, but somehow concluded -- “The exact location of the [back] wound cannot now be conclusively determined.” (pg 49).  That is a bald-faced mis-statement of fact.

In SSID Thompson also threw BS pixie dust over the throat entrance wound, which pissed Salandria off no end. 

Salandria stresses evidence, while Thompson & Co. emphasize experts.

Their approaches to the case are mutually exclusive, if not outright antagonistic.

The Vincent Salandria School  restricts micro-analysis to the clothing evidence; the Josiah Thompson School pretends the clothing evidence doesn't exist and encourages micro-analysis of anything and everything else.

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

CE 543 is a crucial piece of evidence that the critical community generally ignores.

No less than Howard Donahue has said that shell could not have been fired with a bullet that day. Because the rifle would not have fired properly.  He also said that he had never seen a shell dented like that in all his years as a marksman. Thompson noted that the FBI analysis of the marks on it revealed that, unlike the other shells, it had already been fired three times. Of all the marks on that shell only one links it to the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald and that was the magazine follower.  Yet that mark could only be on the last round, which was the live round, not this one.  

British researcher Chris Mills found, after many trials, that you can only achieve that effect by using empty shells.  And even at that, he could only do it one time out of about 60. 

When one adds in the fact that the shells were dispersed from their original close proximity, then the indications are that they were planted.

Paz, this is the perfect example of Josiah Thompson School -- we MUST rely on the analysis of inferior evidence by an expert to buy this as proof of conspiracy.

Same with the acoustics evidence, the NAA, the head wound/s..."The expert sez!"

It's like re-inventing the wheel as a rectangle.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Walton]

59 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Paz, this is the perfect example of Josiah Thompson School -- we MUST rely on the analysis of inferior evidence by an expert to buy this as proof of conspiracy.

So why is the clothing evidence which you  seem  to  obsess  on carry any more weight than a bullet case  with  a  dented lip?

Any murder investigation  is like a puzzle  Cliff. You  find  pieces of it to put it together.

So if you  think this dented lip is weak why don't  you  explain  why? Perhaps  Will Fritz bit on it?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

So why is the clothing evidence which you  seem  to  obsess  on carry any more weight than a bullet case  with  a  dented lip?

Because we know JFK wore that clothing, but there is no reason to believe that cartridge had anything to do with the shooting.

Direct physical evidence is supreme in murder investigations.  What you call "obsession" I call "proper protocol."

Quote

Any murder investigation  is like a puzzle  Cliff. You  find  pieces of it to put it together.

Fact #1 -- The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Fact #2 -- The verified Death Certificate, filled out by JFK's personal physician, listed the back wound as at the level of "the Third Thoracic Vertebra."

Fact #3 -- The neck x-ray shows a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.

Fact #4 -- Two Parkland doctors wrote contemporaneous notes describing the throat wound as an entrance.

Fact #5 -- A Secret Service Special Agent described in his contemporaneous notes a shot to JFK's back "four inches down from the shoulder."

Fact #6  -- Two FBI Special Agents wrote a cable to FBI HQ describing the back wound as shallow, with no bullet found during the autopsy.

Strongest evidence in the case -- the clothing defects, the verified Death Certificate, the neck x-ray, the contemporaneous notes of 5 men in positions of authority prove that there was a shallow wound in the back, no bullet found in the autopsy, and an entrance wound in the throat with no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy.

Quote

So if you  think this dented lip is weak why don't  you  explain  why? Perhaps  Will Fritz bit on it?

The wound pattern established by the strong evidence precludes a shot from a 6.5mm FMJ.

JFK wasn't shot in the back with an FMJ, dented lip or no...

Edited March 10, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Btw, there is also I think another aspect to TInk's new book.

This was presented in Pittsburgh in 2013.  

He is going to argue that  Z 313 was not the final shot.  He is going to say that Kennedy was hit at about 328 also.

I have to add, there are others who agree with this also like Dave Mantik and Groden, who are also arguing for a shot after 313.

I have to say that his argument that the slight bob forward before 313 is not real, to me that is really interesting.  He now says that that was a mistake on his part which mislead people on both sides for a long time.

Also, based on his 2013 Duquesne presentation, he will also have it in for Alvarez. Who is turning out to be a real disgrace on the JFK case.  I mean what a xxxx with that jiggle analysis for CBS.  CBS knew that he was wrong on that, and TInk knew he was wrong also since he studied the Z film at Life Magazine.

Edited March 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio