I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[François Carlier]

Though there is some discrepancy as to the exact location of the entry wound for the third (fatal) shot between the autopsy report / Warren commission on the one hand and the HSCA on the other hand, I dare say that there is consensus as to the entry location for the single bullet.
Though Dr. George Burkley mentioned the third thoracic vertebra, he was not one of the autopsy doctors. The HSCA mentioned the first thoracic vertebra.
There is no question in my mind that Kennedy's clothes were bunched. Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that the bullet hole in JFK's shirt as well as the bullet hole in JFK's suit jacket match the back wound.
The doctors wrote that the bullet "entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula".
That suits me fine.
To me, as Dale Myers said, it's the single-bullet fact.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Of course you think "an unwarranted level of precision is attached to this sort of evidence" as it doesn't agree with your point of view. (Yet you accept "a thirteen to fourteen mm down from the mastoid"added notation to the autopsy sheet as gospel.)

Bennett was less than ten yards from the President when he saw the bullet hole in JFK's jacket. He estimated that it was about 4" down from his right shoulder. (Wearing a suit or not he could see it was below his right shoulder.) Why is that so hard for you to accept? How strange it agrees with the other physical evidence hole in coat and shirt, and other testimonies shown above.  

You're bringing the conspiracist's zealotry to the discussion.  I don't accept Boswell's measurement as gospel.  I accept that it creates a discrepancy with other evidence and that it tends to support a back wound position that makes the SBT less problematical.  This and nothing more.  It is at least (1) a precise measurement by (2) a medical doctor for (3) the very purpose of determining the location of the back wound.  I don't question Bennett's observation because it makes the SBT more problematical.  I question it because it is in fact highly questionable eyewitness testimony for the reasons I've stated.  This and nothing more.  

[Guest]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 8:59 AM, François Carlier said:

Though there is some discrepancy as to the exact location of the entry wound for the third (fatal) shot between the autopsy report / Warren commission on the one hand and the HSCA on the other hand, I dare say that there is consensus as to the entry location for the single bullet.
Though Dr. George Burkley mentioned the third thoracic vertebra, he was not one of the autopsy doctors. The HSCA mentioned the first thoracic vertebra.
There is no question in my mind that Kennedy's clothes were bunched. Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that the bullet hole in JFK's shirt as well as the bullet hole in JFK's suit jacket match the back wound.
The doctors wrote that the bullet "entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula".
That suits me fine.
To me, as Dale Myers said, it's the single-bullet fact.

Although Cliff will insist that it is IMPOSSIBLE! for the coat and shirt to have moved in unison, I don't think we can know the effect of JFK's elaborate back brace.  No, it didn't simply sit at his waist.  Probably like everyone here, I did my own quick bunching experiment and was surprised at how much bunching does occur with what seemed like very slight movement.  But I don't hinge my thinking solely on the back brace because, as I stated, there are just too many unknowns/variables to be dogmatic on the subject one way or the other.

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by Guest

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Though there is some discrepancy as to the exact location of the entry wound for the third (fatal) shot between the autopsy report / Warren commission on the one hand and the HSCA on the other hand, I dare say that there is consensus as to the entry location for the single bullet.

The Big Lies keep a-comin'...These are the facts:

16 witnesses to the low back wound.

1) Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician observed the body at Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

2) The autopsy face sheet diagram prepared by Dr. J. Thornton Boswell shows a wound location consistent with the holes in the clothes (4 inches below the bottom of the collars).

The diagram was filled out in pencil and signed off as "verified," also in pencil, also in accordance to proper autopsy protocol. The "14cm from the mastoid" notation was made in pen, which is a violation of proper autopsy protocol.

3) Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

4) James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to David Lifton:

 (quote on)

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

(quote off)

5) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit:

 (quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3:

6) SSA Will Greer in his WC testimony (Vol 2 pg 127) placed the back wound “in the soft part of that shoulder,” consistent with the testimony of Boyers.

7) SSA Roy Kellerman testified before the WC (Vol. 2 pg 93) that the wound in the back was “the hole that was in his shoulder.” Kellerman expanded on this for the HSCA witha diagram which placed the back wound in the vicinity of T-3.

8 )  FBI SA  Francis O'Neill said that the first location for the back wound that Humes gave was "below the shoulder." Here's O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram:

http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

9) FBI SA James Sibert also diagrammed a lower back wound:

http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

10) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower marking on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth, pg 721).

11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back wound was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183).

12) Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's High Treason 2, pg  206). This consistent with T3.

13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit (KTT, pg 720). This location is also consistent with T3.

14) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in a note the afternoon of 11/22/63:

(quote on)

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.

(quote off)

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. Glen Bennett nailed the back wound.

15) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, tasked with bearing witness to the location of JFK's wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

(quote off)

6 inches below the neckline. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4" below the top of the collar. Clint Hill nailed the back wound.

16) In his notes mortician Tom Robinson wrote: "And wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder".

Quote

Though Dr. George Burkley mentioned the third thoracic vertebra, he was not one of the autopsy doctors. \

Col Pierre Finck in his ARRB testimony:

"JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

Burkley followed proper autopsy protocol in locating the back wound; the notations in pen on the face sheet violate autopsy protocol.

Quote

The HSCA mentioned the first thoracic vertebra.

The HSCA took part in the cover-up.

Quote

There is no question in my mind that Kennedy's clothes were bunched.

Of course you have serious doubts!

Every time Carlier attempts to replicate this gross multiple inch elevation of his shirt all he can do is produce the opposite -- the fabric of his shirt indents along his right shoulder-top.

That occurs every single time, so the cognitive dissonance must be intense.

Quote

Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that the bullet hole in JFK's shirt as well as the bullet hole in JFK's suit jacket match the back wound.

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

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

The jacket was bunched up "a little bit."

Edited October 20, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

43 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

You're bringing the conspiracist's zealotry to the discussion.  I don't accept Boswell's measurement as gospel.

In his ARRB testimony Boswell put the wound at C6 -- he was all over the place except on the verified face sheet.

43 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

  I accept that it creates a discrepancy with other evidence and that it tends to support a back wound position that makes the SBT less problematical.  This and nothing more.  It is at least (1) a precise measurement by (2) a medical doctor for (3) the very purpose of determining the location of the back wound. 

But the measurements weren't recorded at the autopsy.

In the autopsy they wrote using a pencil, as per protocol. 

The measurements written in pen were added later by persons unknown.

43 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

I don't question Bennett's observation because it makes the SBT more problematical.  I question it because it is in fact highly questionable eyewitness testimony for the reasons I've stated. 

What reasons?  His report enjoys corroboration by the holes in the clothes, the properly prepared medical documents, and another dozen witnesses.

Your True Belief prevents you from processing all this contrary information.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

47 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Although Cliff will insist that it is IMPOSSIBLE! for the coat and shirt to have moved in unison, I don't think we can know the effect of JFK's elaborate back brace.  No, it didn't simply sit at his waist.

Show photos of JFK wearing a brace on his upper back.

Demonstrate how you get multiple inches of shirt fabric to elevate.

Otherwise, you're making up lies.

47 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Probably like everyone here, I did my own quick bunching experiment and was surprised at how much bunching does occur with what seemed like very slight movement.

Under oath you'd be committing perjury, barrister.

Every time you wave your right arm the fabric of your shirt indents along the right shoulder-top.

That is a stone cold fact.

47 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

  But I don't hinge my thinking solely on the back brace because, as I stated, there are just too many unknowns/variables to be dogmatic on the subject one way or the other.

There are no unknown variables.

The Dealey Plaza photos show s normal amount of shirt collar above the top of the jacket collar.

That means the jacket collar rested in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

Nutters are claiming that multiple inches of shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar, and without doubling over.

You'd have to take a big dose of LSD to see such a thing...

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Show photos of JFK wearing a brace on his upper back.

Demonstrate how you get multiple inches of shirt fabric to elevate.

Otherwise, you're making up lies.

Under oath you'd be committing perjury, barrister.

Every time you wave your right arm the fabric of your shirt indents along the right shoulder-top.

That is a stone cold fact.

There are no unknown variables.

The Dealey Plaza photos show s normal amount of shirt collar above the top of the jacket collar.

That means the jacket collar rested in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

Nutters are claiming that multiple inches of shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar, and without doubling over.

You'd have to take a big dose of LSD to see such a thing...

 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In his ARRB testimony Boswell put the wound at C6 -- he was all over the place except on the verified face sheet.

But the measurements weren't recorded at the autopsy.

In the autopsy they wrote using a pencil, as per protocol. 

The measurements written in pen were added later by persons unknown.

What reasons?  His report enjoys corroboration by the holes in the clothes, the properly prepared medical documents, and another dozen witnesses.

Your True Belief prevents you from processing all this contrary information.

 

Cliff none of that matters it’s crazy conspiracy theory. Healthy minded people can ignore it. Let’s see the rebut. It will discuss how it’s crazy talk. 

[Cliff Varnell]

Cory, I don't think they make LSD strong enough these days to see a wad of clothing elevate entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

"Idiotic" doesn't begin to describe such a claim.

[Ray Mitcham]

All the photos of JFK wearing his brace I have seen,

 show him wearing it outside his shirt. Which would tend to rule out the shirt riding up at all, unless the feluccas can prove otherwise.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Cliff Varnell]

14 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

All the photos of JFK wearing his brace I have seen,

 show him wearing it outside his shirt. Which would tend to rule out the shirt riding up at all, unless the feluccas can prove otherwise.

His posture and casual movement rule out the shirt riding up at all, no matter how he wore his brace.

[Guest]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 10:10 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

The measurements written in pen were added later by persons unknown.

"Later" and "by persons unknown"?  Wow, that sounds positively CONSPIRATORIAL!

Humes testified at the Warren Commission:  "We then ascertained, we chose the two bony points of reference-we chose to locate this wound, where the mastoid process, which is just behind the ear, the top of the mastoid process, and the acromion which is the tip of the shoulder joint. We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm from the acromion was its central point."

Who is"we" - Humes and conspirators unknown or Humes, Boswell and Finck?

The autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell and Finck likewise states "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm, from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."

Do these statements really suggest to you that the measurements were added "later" and "by persons unknown"?  Yes, yes, I know - Humes and the others can't be trusted.

Perhaps I am wrong that Boswell specifically acknowledged that he had written the measurements.  I read a newspaper article yesterday where, in the early 90's, he placed an X where the measurements would actually place the dot on the autopsy face sheet (higher, of course, than the original dot).  I thought in that article he acknowledged that he had written the measurements, but perhaps I am wrong.  Here it is - at least the first part with the X:  

 

I'm sure you have the source at your fingertips, but I was unable to find any autopsy protocol suggesting that notes in pen constituted a "violation."  It certainly makes sense that notes would be made in pencil, so they could more easily be corrected, but noting the measurements in pen hardly strikes me as suspicious - or is this in the same vein as PERSONS UNKNOWN added the measurements LATER and IN VIOLATION OF AUTOPSY PROTOCOL!!!  The measurements certainly appear to be in the same hand as the rest of the sheet.  Are we even certain they are in pen?

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 10:23 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Under oath you'd be committing perjury, barrister.

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:11 PM, Cory Santos said:

Cliff none of that matters it’s crazy conspiracy theory. Healthy minded people can ignore it. Let’s see the rebut. It will discuss how it’s crazy talk. 

Cliff's statement literally makes no sense and I literally have no idea what cheerleader Cory is even saying, but again these discussions mostly serve to highlight the intense emotional attachment that people seem to have to their pet theories.  I can say with 100% honesty that I have no attachment whatsoever to the Lone Nut explanation or the SBT (which I don't necessarily agree is essential to the Lone Nut explanation).  I have no intense attachment, positive or negative, to the memory of JFK.  I have no intense attachment, positive or negative, to LHO, the CIA, the FBI or any of the other Usual Suspects.  I have no intense attachment to trying to explain the current state of the nation in terms of the assassination and the dark forces behind it.  Except as an academic exercise, I truly don't care who killed JFK.  I had a far greater attachment, such as it was, to conspiracy theories because they were fun!!! cool!!! weird!!! endlessly absorbing!!!  Unfortunately, they just don't make sense and are inconsistent with who Lee Harvey Oswald actually was.

I truly don't understand why foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists are troubled by someone like me or spend their time (seemingly HUGE amounts of time) saying the same things over and over and over on these forums.  What is gained by ridiculing or attempting to shout down little old Lance?  Why not take your irrefutable evidence to someone who is in a position to do something with it - or can't you convince anyone like that to take you seriously?  (Oh, yeah, well what is little old Lance doing here, HUH?  That is a fair question, but I have accumulated only 350 posts in 3+ years and must admit that my interest is fast waning now that the weather outside is finally clearing.)

Edited December 26, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

All the photos of JFK wearing his brace I have seen,

 show him wearing it outside his shirt. Which would tend to rule out the shirt riding up at all, unless the feluccas can prove otherwise.

The issue isn't really "riding" up.  It's "bunching" up.  I had to wear a similar brace in my teens.  It would be unlikely to wear it over a dress shirt.  Over a t-shirt and under a dress shirt, yes.  In my Lone Nut fanaticism, I can see how a brace over the dress shirt might well make bunching more likely.  But it's really a moot point - we will never know exactly what effect, if any, the brace had.  It's just one of the many unknowns (except in the corner of Conspiracy Land occupied by Cliff and the trained parrot who often fills in for him, where anything that doesn't fit the Irrefutable Prima Facie Solution is IMPOSSIBLE!!!  SQUAWK!!!).

[Cliff Varnell]

44 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

"Later" and "by persons unknown"?  Wow, that sounds positively CONSPIRATORIAL!

Humes testified at the Warren Commission:  "We then ascertained, we chose the two bony points of reference-we chose to locate this wound, where the mastoid process, which is just behind the ear, the top of the mastoid process, and the acromion which is the tip of the shoulder joint. We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm from the acromion was its central point."

Humes post-autopsy testimony cannot be believed. 

The final autopsy report says the posterior wound was "just above the upper margin of the scapula".

That's T2.

Where is the corroborating testimony that Humes measured the wound?

If he made the measurements at the time of the autopsy why didn't he use the same pencil used to fill out the rest of the sheet?

Why did he use moveable landmarks, and a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound?

Why does the final autopsy report cite two different wound locations, the 14cm location and a second location "just above the upper margin of the scapula"?

Quote

Who is"we" - Humes and conspirators unknown or Humes, Boswell and Finck?

The autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell and Finck likewise states "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm, from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."

Do these statements really suggest to you that the measurements were added "later" and "by persons unknown"? 

"Just above the upper margin of the scapula" suggests the autopsists were making things up at that point.

Quote

Yes, yes, I know - Humes and the others can't be trusted.

Finck can be trusted.  He said the "correct and only" way to locate the back wound was by vertebra, which is what Burkley did in the Death Certificate.

Quote

Perhaps I am wrong that Boswell specifically acknowledged that he had written the measurements. 

He didn't write them at the time of the autopsy or else it would have been in pencil.

Quote

I read a newspaper article yesterday where, in the early 90's, he placed an X where the measurements would actually place the dot on the autopsy face sheet (higher, of course, than the original dot).  I thought in that article he acknowledged that he had written the measurements, but perhaps I am wrong.  Here it is - at least the first part with the X:  

I'm sure you have the source at your fingertips, but I was unable to find any autopsy protocol suggesting that notes in pen constituted a "violation."  It certainly makes sense that notes would be made in pencil, so they could more easily be corrected, but noting the measurements in pen hardly strikes me as suspicious - or is this in the same vein as PERSONS UNKNOWN added the measurements LATER and IN VIOLATION OF AUTOPSY PROTOCOL!!! 

Looks like you have more homework to do.

Quote

Cliff's statement literally makes no sense

If you were to testify under oath that casually waving your right arm causes multiple inches of your shirt to elevate you'd commit perjury -- lying with the intent to deceive.

Quote

and I literally have no idea what cheerleader Cory is even saying, but again these discussions mostly serve to highlight the intense emotional attachment that people seem to have to their pet theories.  I can say with 100% honesty that I have no attachment whatsoever to the Lone Nut explanation or the SBT

Of course you do!

Only a fanatic would claim that 2+ inches of shirt fabric and 2+ inches of jacket fabric could elevate entirely above a wound just below the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

Only a fanatic would dismiss the consensus statements of more than a dozen witnesses.

Were they all lying, Lance, or were they hallucinating?

Quote

I have no intense attachment, positive or negative, to the memory of JFK. I have no intense attachment, positive or negative, to LHO, the CIA, the  FBI or any of the other Usual Suspects.  I have no intense attachment to trying to explain the current state of the nation in terms of the assassination and the dark forces behind it.  Except as an academic exercise, I truly don't care who killed JFK.  I had a far greater attachment, such as it was, to conspiracy theories because they were fun!!! cool!!! weird!!! endlessly absorbing!!!  Unfortunately, they just don't make sense and are inconsistent with who Lee Harvey Oswald actually was.

I truly don't understand why foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists are troubled by someone like me or spend their time (seemingly HUGE amounts of time) saying the same things over and over and over on these forums.  What is gained by ridiculing or attempting to shout down little old Lance? 

It's fun to take the piss out of people like you, Lance.

Quote

 

Why not take your irrefutable evidence to someone who is in a position to do something with it - or can't you convince anyone like that to take you seriously?  (Oh, yeah, well what is little old Lance doing here, HUH?  That is a fair question, but I have accumulated only 350 posts in 3+ years and must admit that my interest is fast waning now that the weather outside is finally clearing.)

Don't go.  You provide great comic relief.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

The issue isn't really "riding" up.  It's "bunching" up.  I had to wear a similar brace in my teens.  It would be unlikely to wear it over a dress shirt.  Over a t-shirt and under a dress shirt, yes.  In my Lone Nut fanaticism, I can see how a brace over the dress shirt might well make bunching more likely.  But it's really a moot point - we will never know exactly what effect, if any, the brace had.  It's just one of the many unknowns (except in the corner of Conspiracy Land occupied by Cliff and the trained parrot who often fills in for him, where anything that doesn't fit the Irrefutable Prima Facie Solution is IMPOSSIBLE!!!  SQUAWK!!!).

So the back brace forced multiple inches of shirt and jacket to "bunch up" entirely above the" top-of-the-back wound" without pushing up on the jacket collar?

The Magic Jacket Theory!

Edited October 20, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Cory, I don't think they make LSD strong enough these days to see a wad of clothing elevate entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

"Idiotic" doesn't begin to describe such a claim.

Agreed Cliff but as I knew they would, rather than debate real evidence, they resort to name calling tactics. It’s ok. I have seen some lawyers with no case do that. It does not work in court either. 

Btw for the healthy non conspiracists, note that Cliff and I are most likely polar opposites politically. Yet here we are agreeing because we are looking at evidence not viewing the issue with blinders on.   And it is laughable to discuss evidence when so much was destroyed mutilated or lost. The response is always ok but it wasn’t intentional. First they don’t know that. Second at some point it is. Good job Cliff. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Cory Santos
Correct auto correct mistake