Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I don't think that. I'm saying that it's a possibility. On the basis of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Well, it's been fun sparring with you Cliff. But I have other things to do. So I'll have to quit now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Yeah, I remember that. And in response Robert Prudhomme produced images that showed that Gordon's drawing was wrong. Oh? Citation please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: Well, it's been fun sparring with you Cliff. But I have other things to do. So I'll have to quit now. When you have the chance produce your Prudhomme material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said: 6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I don't think that. I'm saying that it's a possibility. On the basis of nothing. (Okay, one more.) Theories always include things that are not certain (i.e. "possible"). Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: (Okay, one more.) Theories always include things that are not certain (i.e. "possible"). Always. I emphatically reject the claim that the throat entrance is a "theory." This is the BS pet theorists insist on pushing. I have to push back on made up stuff like a transiting wound or fragments from the EOP causing all the neck damage. You insist on making stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) Sibert and O'Neill: the doctors were so sure the back wound was shallow that the possibility high-tech ammunition was suggested during the autopsy. Boswell: we assumed the throat wound was a bullet hole during the autopsy. We even concluded that night it was an exit wound! Who cares about the when and why?! Edited August 13, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Bullets don't make slits in material. They make holes. The shirts had cuts just below the buttons, not holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: 17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: (Okay, one more.) Theories always include things that are not certain (i.e. "possible"). Always. I emphatically reject the claim that the throat entrance is a "theory." This is the BS pet theorists insist on pushing. If the throat wound is an entrance, then why is there no bullet?? The THEORY that you insist on is that the bullet dissolved. Okay, fine. But I am open to exploring other theories. As I have stated and given a citation for, sometimes an exit wound looks like an entrance. So I am willing to consider theories that postulate that the throat wound is an exit. You asked me earlier, how do I know that this case is one of those "sometimes." I don't know if it is, but I know it's a possibility. Likewise I could ask you how you know that the bullet was a dissolvable one. The answer is that you don't know. It's just a possibility. Just like it's a possibility that an exit wound looks like an entrance. Most of the arguments you have used against me can be turned around and used against you. What I write here is just one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: You insist on making stuff up. Oh really? Like the dissolving bullets that you claim hit Kennedy, one paralyzing him and the other killing him (or whatever your claim is for what the other bullet did)? Hypotheses ALWAYS contain elements that are not known to be true, but are a possibility. If that weren't the case, all hypotheses would really be FACTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 16 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: Sibert and O'Neill: the doctors were so sure the back wound was shallow that the possibility high-tech ammunition was suggested during the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill were repeating what the autopsists said. I personally don't believe a lot of stuff that came out of the autopsy, so I scrutinize it carefully. Anything the autopsists claimed that could be used to support the lone gunman scenario, I take with a grain of salt. It may be true, but it can't be trusted. On the other hand, if they claim something that doesn't support the lone gunman scenario, I do take that seriously. I can't see how the claim of a shallow back wound could possibly used to support a lone gunman scenario, so I take that seriously. And I see it as a strike against the theory that is the topic of this thread. 16 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: Boswell: we assumed the throat wound was a bullet hole during the autopsy. We even concluded that night it was an exit wound! Who cares about the when and why?! So while the Parkland doctors thought the throat wound was an entrance, the Bethesda doctors thought it was an exit. According to Boswell. If Cliff trusts the witnesses, then this should give him pause. Because he thinks it's a FACT the the throat wound was an entrance. But I take this statement with a grain of salt because it violates my rule about autopsy doctors making claims that support the lone gunman theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: Bullets don't make slits in material. They make holes. The shirts had cuts just below the buttons, not holes. They look like holes to me. Some frayed threads create an illusion that they are slits, IMO. Ashton Gray showed this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: If the throat wound is an entrance, then why is there no bullet?? That is the mystery now, isn't it? The historical record indicates two possibilities -- the rounds dissolved, or were removed prior to the autopsy. This bothers you so much that you feel compelled to invent things like a transiting wound...or Magic Fragments From The EOP which fractured the right T1 transverse process then left an air-pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 TPs. And broke blood vessels in the neck, at the top of the lung, and to the right of the bruised larynx. And ripped the trachea. And left no trace on the x-ray! Quote The THEORY that you insist on is that the bullet dissolved. Okay, fine. I insist on nothing but the historical fact that the autopsists speculated JFK was hit with a high-tech round. You project your pet theorism onto me. Quote But I am open to exploring other theories. You're into ignoring the historical record so you can make stuff up. Quote As I have stated and given a citation for, sometimes an exit wound looks like an entrance. So I am willing to consider theories that postulate that the throat wound is an exit. And you are happy ignore the physical evidence the T1 fracture could only have been caused by a shot to the throat from the front. Quote You asked me earlier, how do I know that this case is one of those "sometimes." I don't know if it is, but I know it's a possibility. Not without your over the top Magic Fragment Fallacy, otherwise you can't account for the damage at T1. Quote Likewise I could ask you how you know that the bullet was a dissolvable one. I don't know anything other than what's in the historical record, the First Day Evidence. Quote The answer is that you don't know. It's just a possibility. Just like it's a possibility that an exit wound looks like an entrance. Not in this case, Quote Most of the arguments you have used against me can be turned around and used against you. What I write here is just one example. Looks like the usual knee-jerk nay-saying. Edited August 13, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Sibert and O'Neill were repeating what the autopsists said. I personally don't believe a lot of stuff that came out of the autopsy, so I scrutinize it carefully. Anything the autopsists claimed that could be used to support the lone gunman scenario, I take with a grain of salt. It may be true, but it can't be trusted. On the other hand, if they claim something that doesn't support the lone gunman scenario, I do take that seriously. I can't see how the claim of a shallow back wound could possibly used to support a lone gunman scenario, so I take that seriously. And I see it as a strike against the theory that is the topic of this thread. So while the Parkland doctors thought the throat wound was an entrance, the Bethesda doctors thought it was an exit. According to Boswell. If Cliff trusts the witnesses, then this should give him pause. I don't trust anything Boswell said after the autopsy. He told the ARRB the back wound was at C6. No one at Bethesda saw the wound. 54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Because he thinks it's a FACT the the throat wound was an entrance. Well established fact given the damage at T1 and the location of the holes in the clothes. Your Magic Fragment scenario is pure nay-saying garbage. 54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: But I take this statement with a grain of salt because it violates my rule about autopsy doctors making claims that support the lone gunman theory. The cover-up kicked in when the FBI Lab told FBI SA James Sibert that the magic bullet had been found to explain everything. After that Boswell and Humes -- military men acting under orders -- have no credibility whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Oh really? Like the dissolving bullets that you claim hit Kennedy, I don't claim anything. The autopsists posited this scenario and I'm researching the consistencies indicated in the historical record. All we can say for a fact is that JFK was shot in the back at T3 and in the throat from the front in a military-style ambush. The rest is speculation. I prefer to base my speculation on the historical record instead of just making stuff up. 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: one paralyzing him and the other killing him (or whatever your claim is for what the other bullet did)? The Zapruder film shows JFK acting paralyzed, consistent with a strike by a paralytic. In the Prosectors' Scenario I'd argue that it makes sense for the second shot to be a kill shot. But that may not have happened at all. I could see a nervous shooter jumping the gun and putting one thru the windshield -- slowing the round down -- which then lodged in JFK's throat. Maybe the back shot was a short load. Both rounds may have been removed prior to the autopsy. Those scenarios are possible -- your Disappearing Magic Skull Fragment theory isn't. Observing a consistency doesn't necessarily indicate a hard conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now