HSCA, Croft, and SBT

[Pat Speer]

Pat, you expect the CT community to embrace one photo -- Fox 5 -- that was singled

out by the HSCA (for crissakes!) as obviously deficient as scientific evidence?

What indefensible nonsense.

I think the CT community needs to read BREACH OF TRUST and grasp how

the murder of JFK was covered-up.

Cliff, my analysis of the back wound photo and my comparison to the other autopsy photos is available online in the presentation at the link below. You post above that the photograph showing the top of Kennedy's head is incompatible with the back wound photo. This is preposterous. The two photos show different parts of Kennedy's head, so how can they be in conflict?

From my perspective it is your refusal to look at the evidence that is indefensible. I think Kennedy was first hit at frame 190. Yes, the Betzner photo was closer to that time. But the point is that if we accept the Croft photo as indicative of Kennedy's position a la the HSCA, a la the LN community, then we WIN the argument. Unfortunately, it seems clear you're happy with the status quo of the last 20 years..."everything is fake" and "they lied." To my mind, this has done nothing but discredit the CT community with journalists, historians and scholars. Since the evidence reveals the likelihood of more than one shooter, WHY should we fight the evidence? It just makes no sense to me.

Edited August 11, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, you again refuse to discuss any of the evidence I put forth and

apparently want to make this a battle of conclusions.

I'll try to underscore the points you cannot address...

I wrote:

>> Pat, you expect the CT community to embrace one photo -- Fox 5 -- that

>> was singled out by the HSCA (for crissakes!) as obviously deficient as

>> scientific evidence?

>> What indefensible nonsense.

>> I think the CT community needs to read BREACH OF TRUST and grasp how

>> the murder of JFK was covered-up.

> Cliff, my analysis of the back wound photo and my comparison to the other autopsy

> photos is available online in the presentation at the link below.

Your analyses don't inspire me rebut any more than what you present

here on the Forum.

> You post above that the photograph showing the top of Kennedy's head is incompatible with the

> back wound photo. This is preposterous. The two photos show different parts of Kennedy's head,

> so how can they be in conflict?

Are you denying that both photos show the top-back of JFK's head?

> From my perspective it is your refusal to look at the evidence that is indefensible.

And your perspective is unsullied by any attempt to rebut the clear photographic

evidence that the jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza.

This is a typical LNer/Vichy-CT rhetorical tactic on this issue -- cut out the argument

I present and act as if no argument was presented.

> I think Kennedy was first hit at frame 190.

I put it at Z199 but I won't quibble.

> Yes, the Betzner photo was closer to that time. But the point is that if we accept the

> Croft photo as indicative of Kennedy's position a la the HSCA, a la the LN community,

> then we WIN the argument.

How does embracing an obvious lie *win* any argument?

And I'm not a part of your *we* -- I have more respect for LNers than Vichy CTs.

> Unfortunately, it seems clear you're happy with the status quo of the last 20 years...

> "everything is fake" and "they lied."

Unfortunately you have an ugly habit of attributing arguments to people

they never made. I cited ONE photo -- Fox 5 -- and from that you attribute

to me the argument that "everything is fake" and "they lied"?

What about the dozen plus people who stated to the T3 back wound -- all

liars, Pat? Do you want me to attribute that argument to you?

Or did all of the following people suffer the same mass hallucination?

1) FBI SA James Sibert

2) FBI SA Francis O'Neill

3) SS SA Glen Bennett

4) SS SA Clint Hill

5) SS SA Roy Kellerman

6) SS SA Will Greer

7) Autopsy Doctor John Ebersole

8) Autopsy witness Chester Boyers

9) Autopsy witness Floyd Reibe

10) Autopsy witness Jan Gail Rudnicki

11)) Autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins

12) Autopsy witness Edward Reed

13) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron

14) Dr. George Burkley, JFK's personal physician

The evidence clearly proves a T3 back wound...

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/jfkjacket.GIF

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/jfkshirt.GIF

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif

Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik

in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison

Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

Nurse Diana Bowron washed JFK's body at Parkland, and she

told Livingstone the wound was "lower down on the back" than

shown in the autopsy photos (KTT pg 188.)

Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe also claimed that the lower

marking on the autopsy photo showed the back wound (KTT pg 721).

Bethesda lab assisstant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone

that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches

down on the back." (HIGH TREASON 2, pg 206)

Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back

wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column."

(KTT pg 720)

James Curtis Jenkins, a lab tech who attended the autopsy,

graphically described the low, non-transiting bullet track to

author David Lifton.

BEST EVIDENCE pg 713:

(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)

Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the

Pathology Department at Bethesda in 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)

That's consistent with T3 or lower.

Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the

Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder."

It should be noted that the bullet holes in JFK's clothing are 4" below the collars

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill testified before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the

right-hand side of the spinal column.

(quote off)

Here are the wound diagrams pepared by FBI SAs Francis O'Neill and James Sibert:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif

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

> To my mind, this has done nothing but discredit the CT community with journalists,

> historians and scholars.

Spare me the strawman...I made no such contentions.

> Since the evidence reveals the likelihood of more than one shooter, WHY should we fight the

> evidence? It just makes no sense to me.

You make up bullxxxx about clothes bunching that you can't back up to save your life,

and you need a dozen plus people to have all been wrong even though their accounts

are consistent -- another doozy of a claim.

And you accuse ME of "fighting the evidence"?

Edited August 12, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Cliff I honestly can't follow the logic in your arguments. I AGREE with you that the holes in the jacket are too low for the SBT to make sense. I AGREE with you that this fact alone indicates the likelihood of conspiracy. And yet you consider me some sort of trader (a vichy CT) simply because I believe Kennedy's elbow was raised around frame 190, and that this could indicate that his jacket was SLIGHTLY raised in comparison to his back. Whatever, dude. Attitude's like yours will prevent the truth of your statements--the SBT IS a joke--from being recognized by many.

And. by the way, I fail to see the back of the head in the top of the head photo... The large skull defect in that photo is in front of the ear, as is the large defect seen in the other photos.

Edited August 11, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat Speer wrote:

>Cliff I honestly can't follow the logic in your arguments.

No, my arguments are easy to follow. What you're struggling with is your

lack of a single fact to support your case.

That's why you snip out my arguments, rather than stand and rebut them

point by point.

> I AGREE with you that the holes in the jacket are too low for the SBT to make

> sense.

I'm having a similar debate right now with a guy over on aajfk. Like you, this guy

claims that the Fox 5 photo is 100% definitive, the irrefutable evidence of a wound

at C7/T1.

He says C7/T1, you say T1.

His name is John McAdams.

It appears that you AGREE with John McAdams about the location of the back

wound (give or take a fraction of an inch), and the PRIMACY of the evidence

upon which this hard conclusion was based.

In that sense, you and the LNers are on the same page.

The problem is -- that page is full of lies. The evidence of the T3 wound is so

overwhelming that even J Edgar Hoover didn't attempt to contradict it.

Getting the back wound to reconcile with the lone shooter scenario was the

WC's biggest challenge.

So Humes, a military man acting under orders, posited THREE different wound

locations above T3.

First, he fudged the location just a little. The actual wound was just below the

upper margin of the scapula, so Humes first moved it to just ABOVE the upper

margin of the scapula -- a location consistent with T2.

(Please note, Pat, that the upper margin of the scapula is visible in Fox 5

and the wound IS NOT "just above" it.)

Then Humes concocted another location, "14c below the mastoid process,"

which, as you have confirmed, is consistent with T1 (or C7/T1 according to

the LN).

Finally, Humes directed the creation of the Rydberg drawing, which put the

wound in the back of the neck above C7.

Humes, Specter & Co. couldn't be sure exactly which wound location best fit the

Single Bullet Theory (which is why they were hot for a "reenactment") so they

threw a bunch of xxxx on the wall hoping something would stick.

As I say, it's understandable that LNers would buy into this egregious dishonesty,

but it boggles my mind that any CT -- or at least one who has spent any time at

all studying the evidence -- would swallow it.

> I AGREE with you that this fact alone indicates the likelihood of conspiracy.

I said nothing about "likelihood."

It is a hard FACT that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza, to lay in a

normal position on his torso in the Elm St. killing zone.

This is a certainty based on the motorcade photos, not a "likelihood."

It's real simple, even a four year old could follow...

Visible shirt collar at the nape of JFK's neck at Z186 = no significant elevation

of the clothing fabric.

The jacket collar could not occupy the same physical space at the base

of JFK's neck -- at the same time -- as 4" of bunched up clothing.

Disparate, solid objects do not occupy the same physical space at the same

time, Pat, that's why we have car crashes...

> And yet you consider me some sort of trader (a vichy CT)

You regularly accuse me of hindering progress in the case!

Don't dish that xxxx out if you can't take it.

> simply because I believe

> Kennedy's elbow was raised around frame 190, and that this could indicate that his

> jacket was SLIGHTLY raised in comparison to his back.

No, Pat, you posit a 2-inch elevation of the shirt and jacket IN TANDEM,

a physical impossiblity for a tucked-in, custom-made dress shirt.

Don't you grasp the extent of your claim?

Stick to hard facts and you can't go wrong:

The bullet defect in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The two garments had to elevate two inches TOGETHER. even though

JFK's shirt was tucked in and custom-made dress shirts only require

3/4 inch of slack for a man to look good and move comfortably.

Did JFK sit down in the limo with his shirt tail out?

JFK's jacket had padded shoulders -- his shirt didn't. And yet you posit

the two garments moved as one.

Ludicrous...in the extreme.

Besides, JFK's elbow was elevated as soon as he sat down in the limo.

He spent virtually the entire motorcade with his right elbow elevated.

As this photo shows, even while seated with his elbow up, the top of his

shirt collar was an inch below his hairline, same as when standing.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MCade.htm

> Whatever, dude.

I suspect you re-wrote your article "Coat Check" in order to suck up to

John Hunt.

Not long ago you endorsed -- on this very Forum -- the entire body of

John Hunt's work.

Perhaps you should look before you leap.

John Hunt is an interesting researcher, indeed -- capable of brilliant work...

"The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet"

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

Adjusting Willis 5 to Horizon Line:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Willis.jpg

... and John Hunt is sadly capable of work of egregious dishonesty...

"The Case for a Bunched Jacket"

http://tinyurl.com/qyumk

"Frazier Speaks"

http://tinyurl.com/frakr

A fact is a fact no matter who cites it -- a lie is a lie no matter who

passes it.

I have no problem citing the work of John Hunt in one breath, and

debunking his other work in the next.

Pat, care to debate the merits of either "Frazier Speaks" or "Bunched Jacket"...?

> Attitude's like yours will prevent the truth of your statements--the SBT IS a

> joke--from being recognized by many.

Yes, Pat, you've accused me of setting the case back several times now.

The feeling is mutual, but I note my rhetorical needle may sink a bit deeper

than yours.

You might want to think twice before we continue down this road.

> And. by the way, I fail to see the back of the head in the top of the head photo...

> The large skull defect in that photo is in front of the ear, as is the large defect

> seen in the other photos.

I said "the top of the back of the head," not "the back of the head."

The top of the back of the head in this photo is consistent with the wounds

described at Parkland...

Fox 5 does not show the damage described at Parkland nor does it show

the damage to the TOP OF THE BACK of the head as seen in the above.

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, you clearly don't spend much time reading other people's work. I updated my presentation in January and gave props to you for your collar suggestion. I also argued against Hunt's claim that the collar was bunched enough to support the SBT. I used images from his presentation and everything.

As far as the top of the head photo....you can not see the back of the head or the top of the back of the head in that photo. You see blood and brain encrusted hair. Now at the top of the head, in front of the ear, where the Parkland witnesses saw nothing, you can detect a large opening. This opening matches the x-rays and the early descriptions of the wound by Newman, Zapruder, and Burkley (via Kilduff).

As far as your argument with McAdams, maybe you should point out that the Artwohl comparison on his website, used to show the back wound was above the throat wound, GROSSLY mismatches the size of the heads in the back wound photo and left lateral photos to do so, and then misrepresents the size of Kennedy's ear in order to use it as a ruler and lift the back wound high enough to support the SBT.

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat wrote:

> Cliff, you clearly don't spend much time reading other people's work.

When I read your limp re-write of "Coat Check," I felt discouraged from

entertaining any further regard for your work.

> I updated my presentation in January and gave props to you for your collar

> suggestion.

Thank you. I only wish my pointing out JFK's jacket drop had made

a similar impression.

Well, you've certainly made no effort to rebut the fact that JFK's jacket

dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza.

Of course, no one has...It's a fact that couldn't be more obvious.

But to acknowledge that fact would require you to let go of your pet,

LN-friendly T1-back-wound theory -- and we can't have that, can we, Pat?

> I also argued against Hunt's claim that the collar was bunched enough to support

> the SBT.

I'm curious -- what was your methodology for determing the amount of

elevated jacket fabric in Croft?

> I used images from his presentation and everything.

Total waste of time. It doesn't take a "presentation" to debunk the SBT -- the

T3 back wound is prima facie physical evidence of multiple shooters in Dealey.

Can we move on?

There is no need to drag the fact of conspiracy down these black holes of complex

"presentations."

Arguing against the SBT on more complex points does not move the case forward.

That Humes/Specter could con CTs into accepting a T1 back wound is a measure

of the success of the cover-up.

> As far as the top of the head photo....you can not see the back of the head or the

> top of the back of the head in that photo. You see blood and brain encrusted hair.

There are 3 strands of "brain encrusted hair" in this photo...

The shorter strand on the right is clearly extruding from a location behind

the right ear, which must be above the white horizontal line of the table.

That fact contradicts what is seen in Fox 5:

I'm not a photo-alterationist, Pat, nor am I given to calling witnesses liars.

But even the HSCA disputed the authenticity of Fox 5.

It wasn't even a good alteration, Fox 5: how do you explain an abrasion

collar consistent with a bullet that entered on an upward trajectory, Pat?

[Ashton Gray]

...Pat, you again refuse to discuss any of the evidence I put forth and apparently want to make this a battle of conclusions.

...That's why you snip out my arguments, rather than stand and rebut them point by point.

...You regularly accuse me of hindering progress in the case!

...How does embracing an obvious lie *win* any argument?

...Unfortunately you have an ugly habit of attributing arguments to people they never made.

Hi, Cliff.

I've taken the liberty of excerpting the quotes above from several of your messages, not to comment on the evidence at issue—since I believe the "medical evidence" is almost exclusively the game of the disinformationists for reasons set forth herein—but to comment on the games played on their selected playing fields.

The boundaries of their playing fields are always marked by the edges of the mists of ambiguity. Hardly any greater ambiguity exists than the provenance and validity of the "medical evidence." It is a Klein bottle of "evidence," existing inside and outside itself with no entrance and no exit (and that can be taken in any way anyone wishes, literally or figuratively).

Their playing fields are governed, in terms of time, only by infinity, and, in terms of goals, only by conflict: time never expires, conflicts are never resolved, scores cannot be made, arguments can be neither won nor lost. But the game can be won infinitely by the playing field owners, since the only goal anywhere on the field is the continuance of the conflict through any means, any tactic, without the slightest regard for any rules of engagement, debate, or decency. Anyone reckless enough to play their game on their own fields of ambiguity with the hope of any other possible outcome is doomed by stepping on the field.

Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you.

And what does it matter, anyway, once one has accepted and donned the hideous uniform/costume/frightmask they created for the "Conspiracy Theorist," a non-existent and entirely generalized "persona" that the disinformationists have so thoroughly discredited that to wear the garment is to lose the game.

As long as they can make the game one of "CTs" versus them—in their own endless conspiracy of disinformation, a delicious irony—they have assured for themselves infinite conflict on their own fields of infinite ambiguity, and that is the only game they will play.

Ashton Gray

Edited August 12, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[David G. Healy]

...Pat, you again refuse to discuss any of the evidence I put forth and apparently want to make this a battle of conclusions.

...That's why you snip out my arguments, rather than stand and rebut them point by point.

...You regularly accuse me of hindering progress in the case!

...How does embracing an obvious lie *win* any argument?

...Unfortunately you have an ugly habit of attributing arguments to people they never made.

Hi, Cliff.

I've taken the liberty of excerpting the quotes above from several of your messages, not to comment on the evidence at issue—since I believe the "medical evidence" is almost exclusively the game of the disinformationists for reasons set forth herein—but to comment on the games played on their selected playing fields.

The boundaries of their playing fields are always marked by the edges of the mists of ambiguity. Hardly any greater ambiguity exists than the provenance and validity of the "medical evidence." It is a Klein bottle of "evidence," existing inside and outside itself with no entrance and no exit (and that can be taken in any way anyone wishes, literally or figuratively).

Their playing fields are governed, in terms of time, only by infinity, and, in terms of goals, only by conflict: time never expires, conflicts are never resolved, scores cannot be made, arguments can be neither won nor lost. But the game can be won infinitely by the playing field owners, since the only goal anywhere on the field is the continuance of the conflict through any means, any tactic, without the slightest regard for any rules of engagement, debate, or decency. Anyone reckless enough to play their game on their own fields of ambiguity with the hope of any other possible outcome is doomed by stepping on the field.

Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you.

And what does it matter, anyway, once one has accepted and donned the hideous uniform/costume/frightmask they created for the "Conspiracy Theorist," a non-existent and entirely generalized "persona" that the disinformationists have so thoroughly discredited that to wear the garment is to lose the game.

As long as they can make the game one of "CTs" versus them—in their own endless conspiracy of disinformation, a delicious irony—they have assured for themselves infinite conflict on their own fields of infinite ambiguity, and that is the only game they will play.

Ashton Gray

E X C E L L E N T

[Pat Speer]

It wasn't even a good alteration, Fox 5: how do you explain an abrasion

collar consistent with a bullet that entered on an upward trajectory, Pat?

I discuss this in the presentation. The current version of the discussion, not yet on the internet, reads "That rant having passed, let me throw a log on the lone-nut fire by asserting that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) was indeed mistaken in their analysis of the back wound. But not by much. While they were correct to note that the abrasion collar in the back wound photo was on the lower half of the entrance wound, and that this indicated the bullet was heading upwards along the skin, they were mistaken to say “the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward.” As the upper back is slanted towards the neck, any bullet striking the upper back at a downwards angle less than the upwards angle of the slant will leave a mark along the skin reflecting an upwards trajectory. On the Coat Check slide of this presentation, for example, a bullet traveling along the arrow’s 21 degrees would hit the back heading 10 degrees upwards against the plane of the back, which was angled 31 degrees towards the neck. The abrasion ring noted by the FPP therefore could have represented a bullet heading downwards within the body as well as upwards. Unfortunately, the forensic pathology panel’s failure to catch this was not an anomaly. They made other mistakes as well."

As far as the FPP's pooh-poohing the quality of the photo...you have to realize that by placing the back wound around T-1, they were exposing Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel as an incompetent, or a xxxx. Fisher was Spitz's co-writer on a text book. Fisher was Baden's mentor, if I remember correctly. In Wecht's testimony, I believe, he talks about the close relationship between most of the FPP and Fisher. As Fisher had stated that the relative positions of the back wound and throat wound indicated a downward trajectory in the body, and that the throat wound was significantly BELOW the back wound, the FPP had to account for his mistake in some way, or damage his reputation. So they blamed the photo.

Since Humes and Boswell didn't question the photo to the ARRB-even though it exposes them as liars or buffoons--and as Stringer said he'd taken the photo--I see no reason to question it. The apparent differences between this photo and the top of the head photo are simply because the hair is pulled forward in the first and hanging down in the latter, IMO.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi Ashton,

Killer post.

You hit on some things I've been rolling around in my cabeza for a while...our

agreements are as sharp as our disagreement(s).

The only thing in your post I wholeheartedly disagree with is the insinuation

that Pat Speer et al are "disinformation agents."

I don't buy it. I think the cover-up took on a life of its own decades ago, and

you eloquently describe its current function otherwise. That's a point of

agreement I'll get to shortly.

When "CTs" argue major LNer talking points, I dismiss them as ego-heads whose

need to be *right* overpowers any intellectually honest urge to know the truth.

I give 'em the "Vichy CT" needle if they ask for it, but otherwise I give them

the benefit of the doubt.

Don't get me wrong, it certainly is *possible* that some think tank is funding

these clowns -- but I don't go there because when you get right down to it,

anybody who disagrees with me about anything is potentially suspect...

...Pat, you again refuse to discuss any of the evidence I put forth and apparently want to make this a battle of conclusions.

...That's why you snip out my arguments, rather than stand and rebut them point by point.

...You regularly accuse me of hindering progress in the case!

...How does embracing an obvious lie *win* any argument?

...Unfortunately you have an ugly habit of attributing arguments to people they never made.

Hi, Cliff.

I've taken the liberty of excerpting the quotes above from several of your messages, not to comment on the evidence at issue—since I believe the "medical evidence" is almost exclusively the game of the disinformationists for reasons set forth herein—but to comment on the games played on their selected playing fields.

Bingo! There are many such black hole discussions in this case, the location of the

head wounds most especially. You say dis-info, I say mis-info, but otherwise, yes,

these discussions have an obfuscationary function.

Anything that makes the case needlessly complex serves an obfuscationary function,

imho, and this is often the collatoral damage of good research, as much as the

intellectually dishonest product of the ego-head mis-infos.

Other black holes I rarely descend:

NAA of bullet fragments

the police dictabelt/acoustic evidence

the Garrison investigation

photo alteration (outside of Fox 5 autopsy photo -- clearly altered)

J. Baker/J. Files

This thread may be the only discussion of the head wounds I've engaged in since 1997.

Near total waste of time, that one.

The nature of the throat wound is not a waste of time. It's characteristics may

point to the perps.

And the location of the back wound is prima facie proof of conspiracy.

The boundaries of their playing fields are always marked by the edges of the mists of ambiguity. Hardly any greater ambiguity exists than the provenance and validity of the "medical evidence." It is a Klein bottle of "evidence," existing inside and outside itself with no entrance and no exit (and that can be taken in any way anyone wishes, literally or figuratively).

Their playing fields are governed, in terms of time, only by infinity, and, in terms of goals, only by conflict: time never expires, conflicts are never resolved, scores cannot be made, arguments can be neither won nor lost. But the game can be won infinitely by the playing field owners, since the only goal anywhere on the field is the continuance of the conflict through any means, any tactic, without the slightest regard for any rules of engagement, debate, or decency. Anyone reckless enough to play their game on their own fields of ambiguity with the hope of any other possible outcome is doomed by stepping on the field.

The Parlor Game.

When I realized that I could play the Parlor Game into infinity, always commanding

the lead but always running in place, I found fun in the idea of taking hostages.

I have two -- John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman. My critiques of their intellectually

indefensible SBT-works are scathing to the nth degree, but mostly I hold my fire.

When the Parlor Game gets real sick, reputations are hunted for sport.

Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you.

...Damn! Now that is some writin', bro-slam!

Yep, I got me my little piece o' original JFK research, my one (1) contibution to the case:

Jacket up on Main St, jacket normal in Fort Worth...

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/tkoap.jpg

Jacket normal at Z186 (visible shirt collar, vertical/diagonal fold)

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

Back 1997 I started posting research on the internet, arguing for the primacy

of the clothing evidence.

At that time 5% of all JFK researchers regarded the clothing holes as definitive

evidence of conspiracy.

After 9 years posting 2 million words of brilliant research and rhetoric on usenet,

I find that today, in 2006, about 4% of JFK researchers regard the clothing evidence

as definitive.

And what does it matter, anyway, once one has accepted and donned the hideous uniform/costume/frightmask they created for the "Conspiracy Theorist," a non-existent and entirely generalized "persona" that the disinformationists have so thoroughly discredited that to wear the garment is to lose the game.

Bingo! You may call me naive but I refuse to have the CT jacket on my back, not

when I'm on my little unambiguous piece of the JFK case.

I speak of no "theory."

These are hard facts...Three guys were struck in Dealey on Eleven-Twenty-Two,

9 wounds suffered between them.

The holes in JFK's clothes are 4 inches below the collar, well below his throat

wound -- rendering it impossible for only 3 shots to have created those 9 wounds.

Hard fact.

There are no assumptions in my analysis, no "theory."

As long as they can make the game one of "CTs" versus them—in their own endless conspiracy of disinformation, a delicious irony—they have assured for themselves infinite conflict on their own fields of infinite ambiguity, and that is the only game they will play.

Ashton Gray

Screw 'em. My "debate" with Pat Speer is on the order of a child picking wings off flies...

Edited August 18, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[David G. Healy]

...Pat, you again refuse to discuss any of the evidence I put forth and apparently want to make this a battle of conclusions.

...That's why you snip out my arguments, rather than stand and rebut them point by point.

...You regularly accuse me of hindering progress in the case!

...How does embracing an obvious lie *win* any argument?

...Unfortunately you have an ugly habit of attributing arguments to people they never made.

Hi, Cliff.

I've taken the liberty of excerpting the quotes above from several of your messages, not to comment on the evidence at issue—since I believe the "medical evidence" is almost exclusively the game of the disinformationists for reasons set forth herein—but to comment on the games played on their selected playing fields.

The boundaries of their playing fields are always marked by the edges of the mists of ambiguity. Hardly any greater ambiguity exists than the provenance and validity of the "medical evidence." It is a Klein bottle of "evidence," existing inside and outside itself with no entrance and no exit (and that can be taken in any way anyone wishes, literally or figuratively).

Their playing fields are governed, in terms of time, only by infinity, and, in terms of goals, only by conflict: time never expires, conflicts are never resolved, scores cannot be made, arguments can be neither won nor lost. But the game can be won infinitely by the playing field owners, since the only goal anywhere on the field is the continuance of the conflict through any means, any tactic, without the slightest regard for any rules of engagement, debate, or decency. Anyone reckless enough to play their game on their own fields of ambiguity with the hope of any other possible outcome is doomed by stepping on the field.

Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you.

And what does it matter, anyway, once one has accepted and donned the hideous uniform/costume/frightmask they created for the "Conspiracy Theorist," a non-existent and entirely generalized "persona" that the disinformationists have so thoroughly discredited that to wear the garment is to lose the game.

As long as they can make the game one of "CTs" versus them—in their own endless conspiracy of disinformation, a delicious irony—they have assured for themselves infinite conflict on their own fields of infinite ambiguity, and that is the only game they will play.

Ashton Gray

I've always felt the CT versus Lone Nutter arguments [regarding the DP photo/films] are in play to hide case medical evidence conflicts [including x-rays] more specifically the SB-Theory.

Great post Ashton...

David Healy

[Jack White]

Ashton said

"Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you."

Well said, Ashton...that is why I consider Miller, Lamson, Burton, Colby, Uhlman, Mr Golfball

and the other goofballs to be IRRELEVANT to study of these matters. They are not interested

in truth nor research, only CHAOS. Some are agents. Some are dupes. It is more fruitful to

ignore them than to engage them. What they seek is time-wasting argument, not facts.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I've always felt the CT versus Lone Nutter arguments [regarding the DP photo/films] are in play to hide case medical evidence conflicts [including x-rays] more specifically the SB-Theory.

Great post Ashton...

David Healy

I agree with some of the things said in the past few responses, but I think where I difer in opinion is that I do not believe that we (conspiracy believers in JFK's murder) should make it a habit of presenting disinformation in support of our beliefs as well.

Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Ashton said

"Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you."

Well said, Ashton...that is why I consider Miller, Lamson, Burton, Colby, Uhlman, Mr Golfball

and the other goofballs to be IRRELEVANT to study of these matters. They are not interested

in truth nor research, only CHAOS. Some are agents. Some are dupes. It is more fruitful to

ignore them than to engage them. What they seek is time-wasting argument, not facts.

Jack

Jack you would not know a photographic fact if it bit you on your azz...

I guess in your case ignorance IS bilss.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

Ashton said

"Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you."

Well said, Ashton...that is why I consider Miller, Lamson, Burton, Colby, Uhlman, Mr Golfball

and the other goofballs to be IRRELEVANT to study of these matters. They are not interested

in truth nor research, only CHAOS. Some are agents. Some are dupes. It is more fruitful to

ignore them than to engage them. What they seek is time-wasting argument, not facts.

Jack

Jack you would not know a photographic fact if it bit you on your azz...

I guess in your case ignorance IS bilss.

To many *specular highlights* is your brewsky these days?