Some Simple Questions About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The “wound” in the autopsy photo is clearly above the shoulder blade.  

I’m not sure this is true Cliff. The highest point of the shoulder blade is toward the side of JFK’s upper back, and it looks to me like the wound in the autopsy photo is just below that tip. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m not sure this is true Cliff. The highest point of the shoulder blade is toward the side of JFK’s upper back, and it looks to me like the wound in the autopsy photo is just below that tip. 

You can’t see the bulge of the upper margin of the scapula below the “wound”?

[Tom Gram]

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You can’t see the bulge of the upper margin of the scapula below the “wound”?

This is hard without marking up the photo. On my phone so can’t right now, but what I’m looking at as the shoulder blade tip is pretty much directly below where the slope of JFK’s upper trap connects to his shoulder line. I could definitely be wrong, but that was my impression when looking at the photo. 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

This is hard without marking up the photo. On my phone so can’t right now, but what I’m looking at as the shoulder blade tip is pretty much directly below where the slope of JFK’s upper trap connects to his shoulder line. I could definitely be wrong, but that was my impression when looking at the photo. 

Lots of problems with Fox 5.  There’s zero (0) evidence that that’s JFK (a violation of autopsy protocol); there is no chain of possession; the ruler doesn’t measure anything; the “wound” has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.  

The HSCA photo experts noted “its obvious deficiencies,” declared it “more confusing than informative.”

Fox 5 is a fugazi.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

That alliance lasted 3 e-mails, for maybe a week, back in 2003.

Destroying the SBT isn’t nearly as important as the fact that JFK had two shallow wounds in soft tissue — in the throat and just to the right of T3.

That’s a lead on potential perps.  The only hard lead in the entire case.

Conventional weapons don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.  The autopsists seriously considered the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon which leaves no trace in the body.  They asked the FBI guys if such a weapon existed.  FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to check it out.  At that point the Magic Bullet was introduced — “We have the bullet,” Sibert was told.

Such weapons were developed for the CIA at Fort Detrick, MD.  And that’s where our investigation should logically start.

Pat put back wound at T1, and we had a falling out over that.  This made no sense to me then, and makes no sense to me now.  

The clothing holes line up with T3, corroborated by a half dozen written contemporaneous accounts and the consensus statements of 15 eye-witnesses.

Did these witnesses suffer the same hallucination?  Did JFK’s clothing move in a manner contrary to the nature of reality?  I put these questions to Pat occasionally for 20 years and he ducks them every time.

The top of the back isn’t 4 inches below the bottom of the clothing collars.  The sheer idiocy of this claim is stunning.

The mark properly made in pencil by James Jenkins on the face sheet is consistent with the clothing holes and all the other witness statements.  

The “wound” in the autopsy photo is clearly above the shoulder blade.  

The final autopsy report lists two locations — just above the upper margin of the scapula (T2) and 14cm below the mastoid process (T1).  None of this follows autopsy protocol.  Burkley’s death certificate followed the proper protocol and put the wound at T3.

Why should anyone obsess on the SBT?  One look at T3 and you know it’s impossible.  It’s like obsessing on proof the Earth isn’t flat.

When Pat discusses the back wound he cites Baden or Rankin or Specter or fake autopsy material.

The correct approach is to consider the consistency between the clothing defects and the witness statements.

...What?? 

...Leaning forward?  That’s supposed to make the top of the back 4 inches below the jacket collar?

Sorry Pat, Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar visible at the back of his neck.  The jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of the neck.  Ergo, there was no significant elevation of the shirt and jacket.

Super Swimmer JFK and the Leaning President arguments were made for the WC and HSCA cover-ups.

 

 

Nonsense. JFK's anatomy and slight alterations in JFK's posture could very well have lifted the bullet hole on the clothing to the bullet hole on his back. This is inches below where the bullet hole would need to be to support the SBT. Why not take the win? Why pretend the back wound location and clothing hole locations are not compatible?

Because it's more "fun' to pretend all the evidence is fake, than it is to admit the evidence proves conspiracy? 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Nonsense. JFK's anatomy and slight alterations in JFK's posture could very well have lifted the bullet hole on the clothing to the bullet hole on his back.

Where do you get that idea?  Was JFK a hunchback?

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

This is inches below where the bullet hole would need to be to support the SBT.

I don’t care about the SBT.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Why not take the win?

Why go backwards?  Gaeton Fonzi killed the SBT in 1966 when he confronted Specter with the clothing, and Spector had a nervous breakdown muttering gibberish about the same nonsense you do.

[Michael Griffith]

In order to explain the hard physical evidence of the rear clothing holes, which place the back wound far too low for the SBT to work, WC apologists must assume that JFK's coat and his tailor-made shirt bunched enough to move the jacket and coat upward by 3-4 inches, and that, even more amazingly, they bunched in such a way as to avoid creating two sets of overlapping holes. Their only evidence for any kind of a sizable bunch is the modest bunch seen in the Croft photo. They ignore the virtually flat coat seen in Betzer 3 and Willis 5, which were taken closer to the start of the shooting than the Croft photo.

Anyway, here are two helpful graphics from our British friends at 22November1963 that I have combined for comparison. One shows the location of the rear hole in the shirt and shows how little JFK's shirt would have bunched even if he had raised his right arm markedly higher than he did, while the other shows how low back the wound was according to the hole in the coat.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

On 7/2/2023 at 5:08 AM, Michael Griffith said:

In order to explain the hard physical evidence of the rear clothing holes, which place the back wound far too low for the SBT to work, WC apologists must assume that JFK's coat and his tailor-made shirt bunched enough to move the jacket and coat upward by 3-4 inches, and that, even more amazingly, they bunched in such a way as to avoid creating two sets of overlapping holes. Their only evidence for any kind of a sizable bunch is the modest bunch seen in the Croft photo. They ignore the virtually flat coat seen in Betzer 3 and Willis 5, which were taken closer to the start of the shooting than the Croft photo.

Anyway, here are two helpful graphics from our British friends at 22November1963 that I have combined for comparison. One shows the location of the rear hole in the shirt and shows how little JFK's shirt would have bunched even if he had raised his right arm markedly higher than he did, while the other shows how low back the wound was according to the hole in the coat.

I am just going to note that here we have hard physical evidence that the SBT is impossible. We have the rear holes in JFK's shirt and coat. We also have Betzner 3 and Willis 5, which show that JFK's coat had, at the most, only a small bunch just before the shooting started, nothing like the bunch that would have been required to make the clothing holes match the location of a T1 back wound.