A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'

[David Von Pein]

49 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

False.  Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy.

I haven't the slightest idea why the conspiracy fantasist named Varnell uttered the above crap. Dr. Humes testified as follows to the Warren Commission (emphasis is my own) [at 2 H 361]....

"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."

But I guess Cliff must think the above statement made by Humes was nothing but a lie.

And I guess Cliff thinks Dr. Humes continued to peddle that same lie three years later in this 1967 CBS-TV interview....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOb3Z2UU9VUkdiSU0/view

In addition, the HSCA in the late 1970s examined the original autopsy photographs depicting President Kennedy's upper-back wound and concluded that the "midpoint" of the entry wound in JFK's back was located "13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process" (7 HSCA 85), which is within one-half centimeter of Humes' 1963 measurement. (One possible explanation for that difference could be that the autopsy surgeons measured the distance to the bottom margin of the wound, vs. measuring it only to the wound's "midpoint".)

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I haven't the slightest idea why the conspiracy fantasist named Varnell uttered the above crap. Dr. Humes testified as follows to the Warren Commission (emphasis is my own) [at 2 H 361]....

"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."

But I guess Cliff must think the above statement made by Humes was nothing but a lie.

The notations were written on the autopsy face sheet in pen -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used 2 moveable landmarks -- a double violation of autopsy protocol.

The more protocol violations the better in Nutter Land.

 

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The notations were written on the autopsy face sheet in pen -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Humes used 2 moveable landmarks -- a double violation of autopsy protocol.

When do you plan on defending this bold and incorrect statement of yours?....

"Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy."

Not a single thing you said above about "protocol" proves that the "14cm. from mastoid" measurement wasn't taken at the time of the autopsy.

Try again, Mr. Fantasist. Because your last effort was quite lame.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

When do you plan on defending this bold and incorrect statement of yours?....

"Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy."

Not a single thing you said above about "protocol" proves that the "14cm. from mastoid" measurement wasn't taken at the time of the autopsy.

Try again, Mr. Fantasist. Because your last effort was quite lame.

 

Because at the time of the autopsy there was a pencil chained to the clip board upon which the autopsy face sheet was filled out by James C. Jenkins, under the direction of Thornton Boswell.

Pencil is proper autopsy protocol.

The notations in pen were added later. 

When are you going to show us how you wad multiple inches of shirt and jacket entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar?

Did JFK's jacket collar and this big lump of clothing occupy the same physical space at the same time?

Show us Von Pein or at long last STFU.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

Battling Varnell (again and again)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-589.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. Cliff Varnell

--------------------

"Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable." -- DVP; December 16, 2014

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Cut to the chase, David. 

Show us how those big honkin' shirt and jacket folds occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar.

Show us how discrete physical objects occupy the same space at the same time.

Show us or STF'nFU.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

Let me try the simple approach yet again (maybe Cliff will suddenly have a "Eureka" moment)....

ONE hole in the shirt.

ONE hole in the jacket.

ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process).

--equals--

ONE bullet travelled through all 3 of the above holes.

What's your alternative solution, Cliff? I want to hear it?

If the SAME bullet didn't go through both clothing holes and the only skin wound in JFK's upper back, then what do YOU think happened?

I'm going to guess that you believe this photo below is a fake, right? And you think the "real" wound was located much lower on Kennedy's back, right? (You might have answered those inquiries previously in a discussion(s) that I have archived at my site, but I haven't memorized all of your fantasy-filled posts, so I can't currently remember.)

Edited August 14, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Show us how a big shirt fold wrapped in a big jacket fold occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar.

All you can do is repeat the Big Lies over and over,

Show us or STFU.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Show us how a big shirt fold wrapped in a big jacket fold occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar.

All you can do is repeat the Big Lies over and over,

Show us or STFU.

I guess this means you're not going to answer my "What do you think happened?" question, huh?

(To be expected, of course.)

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I guess this means you're not going to answer my "What do you think happened?" question, huh?

(To be expected, of course.)

 

I don't know what happened.

All I know for a fact is that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn't exit, and no round was found at the autopsy;JFK was hit in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was found during the autopsy.

The autopsists speculated JFK was hit with a high tech round that wouldn't show up anywhere during the autopsy.

Maybe that's what happened.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don't know what happened.

All I know for a fact is that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn't exit, and no round was found at the autopsy;JFK was hit in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was found during the autopsy.

The autopsists speculated JFK was hit with a high tech round that wouldn't show up anywhere during the autopsy.

Maybe that's what happened.

And that batch of pure silliness, which involves two different gunmen firing low-velocity bullets into the man they are hoping to kill with those bullets, is somehow MORE believable and sensible to you than to believe that JFK's shirt was able to "bunch up" to approximately the same level as the jacket?

Incredible.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And that batch of pure silliness,

The doctors at the autopsy didn't think the idea was silly; the FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was silly; the US Army Special Operations Division -- which developed blood soluble paralytics and toxins for the CIA project MKNAOMI -- didn't think it was silly. 

You say discrete objects can occupy the same space at the same time.

You're being the silly one, David.

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The doctors at the autopsy didn't think the idea was silly; the FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was silly;

At the time they were considering such cloak-&-dagger solutions, they hadn't yet confirmed the existence of the bullet wound in JFK's throat. Once that wound was confirmed by the autopsy doctors to be a bullet hole (via Dr. Perry), the solution was obvious to Humes, et al.

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Confirmed as an entrance to the throat.

Don't change the subject David.

Show us how you get the wad of clothing and the jacket collar to occupy the same physical space at the same time.

Until then...

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Confirmed as an entrance to the throat.

That's a lie and you know it.