Some Simple Questions About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Actually, no. The SBT was proposed to account for the timing of the presumed responses of JFK and JBC in the Z-film. The 5-24-64 re-enactment was performed to see if it could be sold to the public. The chalk mark was placed on the jacket by Specter and SS agent Kelly AFTER they viewed the back wound photo some now claim is fake.

No, it was the HSCA who first singled the Fox 5 photo out as problematic — “more confusing than informative.”

[Charles Blackmon]

Good info thanks Pat

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No, it was the HSCA who first singled the Fox 5 photo out as problematic — “more confusing than informative.”

This is two times in this thread you have posted a bizarre response to one of my posts. I am not arguing about the location of the back wound. That's your thing. What I pointed out is that it is a misnomer to claim the chalk mark reflects Burkley's T-3 approximation, which Specter may not have even known about. The chalk mark was created to reflect the location of the bullet hole according to the autopsy measurements, clothing measurements, and autopsy photo. 

Do you think the chalk mark is inches above the "actual" location of the back wound, and, if so, do you think the chalk mark was part of a hoax designed to sell the single-bullet theory? And, if so, why didn't Specter put any photos of his re-enactment in which the chalk mark was shown on the record? 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

This is two times in this thread you have posted a bizarre response to one of my posts. I am not arguing about the location of the back wound.

I dispute your characterization of Fox 5 as a photo that is “now” regarded as fake by some.  I’m pointing out that it’s authenticity has long been problematic — not a recent development as you imply.

Pat, all you have to do is put the word “if” in front of your assertion of authenticity — “IF Fox 5 is authentic, THEN the Rydberg drawing is debunked.”  But you insist on pushing misinformation which disregards the physical evidence, written contemporaneous accounts, properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness testimony.

JFK’s back wound was at T3, Fox 5 depicts it at T1.  When you present Fox 5 as authentic you posit a T1 wound, do you not?

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I dispute your characterization of Fox 5 as a photo that is “now” regarded as fake by some.  I’m pointing out that it’s authenticity has long been problematic — not a recent development as you imply.

Pat, all you have to do is put the word “if” in front of your assertion of authenticity — “IF Fox 5 is authentic, THEN the Rydberg drawing is debunked.”  But you insist on pushing misinformation which disregards the physical evidence, written contemporaneous accounts, properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness testimony.

JFK’s back wound was at T3, Fox 5 depicts it at T1.  When you present Fox 5 as authentic you posit a T1 wound, do you not?

 

Does the chalk mark reflect a wound at T-1 or T-3? 

If T-3, can you tell us why Specter would make a mark in that location?

If T-1, do you think it was placed there to help sell the single-bullet theory? 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Does the chalk mark reflect a wound at T-1 or T-3? 

T2/T3.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If T-3, can you tell us why Specter would make a mark in that location?

Because he wanted to look like an idiot holding a pointer two inches above the chalk mark?

Are you sure there was no pressure from Hoover to put it in a location consistent with the Sibert-O’Neill report?

The Cover-Up put the back wound in various locations, a by-the-seat-of-their-pants operation with wound locations from C5/6 to T2/3 including a T1 and a T2 in the final autopsy report.

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The chalk mark was created to reflect the location of the bullet hole according to the autopsy measurements, clothing measurements, and autopsy photo. 

The chalk mark is far below T1. This isn't even a close call. This is obvious. The chalk mark, however, is close to the spot indicated by the rear clothing holes. 

Let's not miss the forest for the trees. The point is that the SBT is impossible with a back wound at the location marked by the chalk mark.

[Pat Speer]

19 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The chalk mark is far below T1. This isn't even a close call. This is obvious. The chalk mark, however, is close to the spot indicated by the rear clothing holes. 

Let's not miss the forest for the trees. The point is that the SBT is impossible with a back wound at the location marked by the chalk mark.

A location marked by Specter in accordance with the autopsy photos. 

The measurements made at autopsy reflect a wound as far below the lowest part of the skull as it was inward of the shoulder tip. That is where it is shown on the face sheet and that is where it is shown in the autopsy photos. This location has been measured as T-1. This places it far too low to support the single-bullet theory. This has always been the case. The problem is that the doctors and supporters of the WC long claimed the Rydberg drawings showing a wound at the base of the neck were consistent with the autopsy measurements, when they were not, and far too many researchers fell for it. These researchers then claimed that the autopsy measurements were false or that the back wound photos were fake--when such claims are a total distraction. The truth about the SBT--that it was a hoax perpetrated on the American public--was in the autopsy protocol and autopsy photos from the beginning. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

A location marked by Specter in accordance with the autopsy photos. 

Factually incorrect.  The chalk mark is well below the location in ONE photo, Fox 5.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The measurements made at autopsy reflect a wound as far below the lowest top of the skull as it was inward of the shoulder tip.

But those measurements were written pen — which means they were NOT taken at the autopsy.  Jenkins filled out the face sheet in PENCIL as according to autopsy protocol.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

That is where it is shown on the face sheet and that is where it is shown in the autopsy photos.

Jenkins marked the back wound well below that.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

This location has been measured as T-1. This places it far too low to support the single-bullet theory.

So what?  You’re obfuscating both the nature of Kennedy’s wounds and the elements of the cover-up.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

This has always been the case.

And it’s always been a big fat lie.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The problem is that the doctors and supporters of the WC long claimed the Rydberg drawings showing a wound at the base of the neck were consistent with the autopsy measurements, when they were not, and far too many researchers fell for it. These researchers then claimed that the autopsy measurements were false or that the back wound photos were fake--when such claims are a total distraction.

No, such claims help establish the simple fact that autopsy material not prepared according to proper protocol is phony.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Griffith]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A location marked by Specter in accordance with the autopsy photos. 

The measurements made at autopsy reflect a wound as far below the lowest top of the skull as it was inward of the shoulder tip. That is where it is shown on the face sheet and that is where it is shown in the autopsy photos. This location has been measured as T-1. This places it far too low to support the single-bullet theory. This has always been the case. The problem is that the doctors and supporters of the WC long claimed the Rydberg drawings showing a wound at the base of the neck were consistent with the autopsy measurements, when they were not, and far too many researchers fell for it. These researchers then claimed that the autopsy measurements were false or that the back wound photos were fake--when such claims are a total distraction. The truth about the SBT--that it was a hoax perpetrated on the American public--was in the autopsy protocol and autopsy photos from the beginning. 

You cannot be serious. How can you say with a straight face that the chalk mark matches the location of the back wound seen in the autopsy photos? How? It is not even close.  

Here again we confront your refusal to admit that any of the autopsy photos and x-rays were either altered, faked, or taken after the body was manipulated to give a false visual impression. 

Look at the side-by-side comparison below. Look how far below the line of the top of the right shoulder blade the chalk mark is compared to the back wound in the autopsy photo. The autopsy photo shows the wound only slightly below, perhaps 1 inch below, the level of the top of the right shoulder blade, whereas the chalk mark is plainly and clearly at least 3 inches below the level of the top of the right shoulder blade. Anyone with two functioning eyes can see this.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Cliff Varnell]

The bullet holes in the actual clothes are 4 inches below the bottoms of the collars.

Is that the top of your back, Pat?

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You cannot be serious. How can you say with a straight face that the chalk mark matches the location of the back wound seen in the autopsy photos? How? It is not even close.  

Here again we confront your refusal to admit that any of the autopsy photos and x-rays were either altered, faked, or taken after the body was manipulated to give a false visual impression. 

Look at the side-by-side comparison below. Look how far below the line of the top of the right shoulder blade the chalk mark is compared to the back wound in the autopsy photo. The autopsy photo shows the wound only slightly below, perhaps 1 inch below, the level of the top of the right shoulder blade, whereas the chalk mark is plainly and clearly at least 3 inches below the level of the top of the right shoulder blade. Anyone with two functioning eyes can see this.

In the autopsy photo, the back wound is elevated slightly due to JFK's shoulder being raised in that position. But the chalk mark is an inch right of mid-line and in line with the shoulder tip in the re-enactment photo, and this mirrors the location of the back wound in the autopsy photo. 

P.S. If one is to convince oneself the chalk mark is lower than the location of the back wound in the photo, one must explain why Specter--tasked with finding support for the single-bullet theory--would mark the jacket lower than the bullet wound in the photo he'd just been shown. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The bullet holes in the actual clothes are 4 inches below the bottoms of the collars.

Is that the top of your back, Pat?

The location of the back wound in the photo is consistent with the location of the holes on the clothing. The LN crowd wants you to believe the back wound is at the base of the neck, but it is not. Put a sticker on your back an inch to the right of midline and in line with the shoulder tip and look in the mirror. Now move your shoulder up and down. The sticker will move closer to your head, creating the illusion it is at the base of the neck. But it is not. It is on the back,  as presented on the face sheet. 

[Michael Griffith]

35 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. If one is to convince oneself the chalk mark is lower than the location of the back wound in the photo, one must explain why Specter--tasked with finding support for the single-bullet theory--would mark the jacket lower than the bullet wound in the photo he'd just been shown. 

Because he decided to go with the location established by the rear clothing holes? Because he could see that the wound's location in the autopsy photo is unreliable since he could see that JFK's head is tilted backward and the shoulder is raised for the photo? 

We can theorize all day about why Specter put the mark where he did, assuming he's the one who put it there, but the fact remains (1) that the chalk mark is clearly well below the wound seen in the autopsy photo, and (2) that the chalk mark corresponds closely with the rear clothing holes.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The location of the back wound in the photo is consistent with the location of the holes on the clothing.

So the top of your back is 4 inches below the bottom of your shirt collar?

No, Pat.  Sorry.  You’ve been pitching this hooey for 20 years.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The LN crowd wants you to believe the back wound is at the base of the neck, but it is not.

T1 is just below the base of the neck.

How can you deny that?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Put a sticker on your back an inch to the right of midline and in line with the shoulder tip and look in the mirror. Now move your shoulder up and down. The sticker will move closer to your head, creating the illusion it is at the base of the neck. But it is not. It is on the back,  as presented on the face sheet. 

Gas lighting us again?  The mark Jenkins made with pencil is several inches below the base of the neck.

The bullet holes in the clothes line up with T3, consistent with the witness testimony and the properly prepared medical evidence.