Cliff Varnell Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) On the “Tim Smith’s book on the HSCA” thread Jim DiEugenio wrote in reference to the scripts he wrote for 2 Oliver Stone documentaries: I was the writer and we did address this issue. More than once. The issue at hand is any reference to the JFK clothing evidence. If the clothing evidence is cited in those documentaries I’ll be happy to stand corrected and apologize to Jim profusely. Can any of Jim’s legion of fans cite where in those documentaries the clothing evidence is mentioned? Edited March 5 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 A moment ago in the other thread, I asked Jim what evidence he cited in his documentaries for the back wound being at ~ T3. Waiting for a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Cliff, I recall Jim D. once saying that he tried to include in his documentaries only those things that "couldn't be answered." (Or something like that.) Which I took to mean that WC apologists didn't have a (believable) alternative answer for. Maybe Jim didn't include the shirt and jacket evidence because of the excuse that they could have ridden up on him. I know that WC apologists have a photo of JFK who has slid down in his chair so far that his shirt and jacket indeed are very high on his torso. Regardless, I'm with you... the shirt and jacket are indeed damning evidence. And the films of JFK pretty much prove that they had not ridden up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Cliff, I recall Jim D. once saying that he tried to include in his documentaries only those things that "couldn't be answered." (Or something like that.) Which I took to mean that WC apologists didn't have a (believable) alternative answer for. Maybe Jim didn't include the shirt and jacket evidence because of the excuse that they could have ridden up on him. I know that WC apologists have a photo of JFK who has slid down in his chair so far that his shirt and jacket indeed are very high on his torso. Regardless, I'm with you... the shirt and jacket are indeed damning evidence. And the films of JFK pretty much prove that they had not ridden up. The Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar visible above the posterior jacket collar. Ergo, the jacket collar wasn’t elevated. According to T1 wound advocates, multiple inches of shirt and jacket were elevated without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck. This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 6 Author Share Posted March 6 Sandy, I think we got our answer. Looks like Jim DiE slipped up on the Tim Smith thread and acknowledged the physical evidence at long last! If he truly grasped the significance of the clothing evidence, he wouldn’t have spent more than 30 seconds on CE399. The Gang That Couldn’t Research Straight in effect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 6 Author Share Posted March 6 Sandy, whatever you do don’t let Jim know he missed the point. He’s a critic who’s ultra-touchy when criticized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said: If he truly grasped the significance of the clothing evidence, he wouldn’t have spent more than 30 seconds on CE399. But Cliff, it wouldn't have been much of a documentary had Jim presented the clothing evidence and called it a day 'cause that was enough to prove conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 6 Author Share Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: But Cliff, it wouldn't have been much of a documentary had Jim presented the clothing evidence and called it a day 'cause that was enough to prove conspiracy. How silly of me! The clothing evidence short circuits the Prove Conspiracy Parlor Game, and the False Mystery Industry grinds to a halt. We can’t have that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 No, we can't Cliff and Jim, can we? The entrance wound at T-3 invalidates the Magic bullet. It was not the source of an exit wound in the throat. Which was also an entrance wound in reality. Since it didn't go through JFK and wound Connally, that means, with even if only A shot to JFK's head, it was a Conspiracy, Four shots at least. T-3. The throat. JFK's head wound(s). Connally. Should we throw in Tague here and a miss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 (edited) On 3/5/2024 at 8:46 PM, Cliff Varnell said: Sandy, I think we got our answer. Looks like Jim DiE slipped up on the Tim Smith thread and acknowledged the physical evidence at long last! If he truly grasped the significance of the clothing evidence, he wouldn’t have spent more than 30 seconds on CE399. The Gang That Couldn’t Research Straight in effect! You are a beaten dead horse in saying that the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket prove that the Magic Bullet Theory is complete and utter garbage because the bullet entry holes are too low to have exited out JFK's throat. Also there is bone in JFK's body blocking any such easy exit. I happen to agree with you 100%. Edited March 8 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said: You [Cliff] are a beaten dead horse in saying that the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket prove that the Magic Bullet Theory is complete and utter garbage because the bullet entry holes are too low to have exited out JFK's throat. At the risk of being labeled a grammar cop or something.... Cliff was beating a dead horse. That's the way the saying is used. (The "beaten dead horse" would be the magic bullet theory.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 I like my mangled delivery. Varnell makes this lucid argument many times and is often ignored. It is as if Cliff is the beaten dead horse ... but completely correct in the simple point that he is making. The bullet holes in JFK's clothes make the Single Bullet Theory (Magic Bullet Theory) absolutely impossible to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 8 Author Share Posted March 8 3 hours ago, Robert Morrow said: I like my mangled delivery. Varnell makes this lucid argument many times and is often ignored. It is as if Cliff is the beaten dead horse ... but completely correct in the simple point that he is making. The bullet holes in JFK's clothes make the Single Bullet Theory (Magic Bullet Theory) absolutely impossible to be true. Like I like to say — better a beaten dead horse than a horse’s ass! The root facts established by the clothing evidence are ignored by self-aggrandizing hustlers who have books and documentaries and websites to fill with inferior proofs of conspiracy. Bursting their hot air balloons is a hobby of mine. 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