Two photos for those who accept "Magic Bullet" theory

[Guest Richard Bittikofer]

No sir,not my pet theories. Everything that happened from the time JFK stepped off the plane at Love Field up until this day, has been all theory. No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

No sir,not my pet theories. Everything that happened from the time JFK stepped off the plane at Love Field up until this day, has been all theory. No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

In event you search around, perhaps you may find one here.

As regards Cliff, as a "new guy" to the forum it is recognized that you would have had absolutely no idea as to what would occur when you brought up the obvious "bunch/fold" in JFK's coat.

Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_G._McAdoo/

Tom

P.S. Welcome, & hope that you have thick skin!

[Michael Hogan]

Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_G._McAdoo/

In event that one can not discredit the presented facts, there is little left other than an attempt to discredit the individual who presents the facts.

Usually a "losing" debate tactic among the more knowledgeable and educated.

[Cliff Varnell]

No sir,not my pet theories. Everything that happened from the time JFK stepped off the plane at Love Field up until this day, has been all theory. No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

In event you search around, perhaps you may find one here.

As regards Cliff, as a "new guy" to the forum it is recognized that you would have had absolutely no idea as to what would occur when you brought up the obvious "bunch/fold" in JFK's coat.

Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_G._McAdoo/

Tom

P.S. Welcome, & hope that you have thick skin!

*****

This is the first response from Tom Purvis since waaaay back at Lancer in '02.

Tom didn't address the evidence then -- and he won't address it now.

Edited November 25, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest Richard Bittikofer]

No sir,not my pet theories. Everything that happened from the time JFK stepped off the plane at Love Field up until this day, has been all theory. No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

In event you search around, perhaps you may find one here.

As regards Cliff, as a "new guy" to the forum it is recognized that you would have had absolutely no idea as to what would occur when you brought up the obvious "bunch/fold" in JFK's coat.

Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_G._McAdoo/

Tom

P.S. Welcome, & hope that you have thick skin! Thank you,Tom.

[Cliff Varnell]

Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_G._McAdoo/

In event that one can not discredit the presented facts, there is little left other than an attempt to discredit the individual who presents the facts.

Usually a "losing" debate tactic among the more knowledgeable and educated.

Thank you, Michael.

I prefer to discuss facts, but since Tom Purvis can't face the fact

that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza he has no rhetorical

recourse but ad hominem.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Those who have been around are quite familiar with Cliff, and normally, from what has been observed, most apply the "William G. McAdoo" principal when dealing with his junk theories.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_G._McAdoo/

In event that one can not discredit the presented facts, there is little left other than an attempt to discredit the individual who presents the facts.

Usually a "losing" debate tactic among the more knowledgeable and educated.

Quite true!

However, those who have taken the time to "educate" themselves in regards to the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, are quite aware that Cliff's "throat entry", in the virtual mid-line of the throat, thus deflection (without striking anything) to the apex of the right lung, thence back to the right transverse process of a vertebral column of which virtually every expert agrees is either at C7 or T1, is totally unsupportably by any standard.

Not to mention the fact that Cliff has never taken the time to discuss with Dr. Perry his off-hand comments as regards the initial interpretation of the anterior throat wound.

If we are going to go into absolutely unconfirmed diagnosis, the one would be much better off to utilize Dr. McClelland's statement that JFK suffered a fragment wound of the anterior neck/trachea.

Especially since this is in reality what happened.

Tom

P.S.

An "uneducated man" is one who has neither been exposed to nor had the benefit of knowledge provided.

Therefore, his ignorance is fully understandable.

An "ignorant man" is one who continues to openly acclaim something as being fact, when in actuallity, all known facts and information continue to contradict the claim.

There is absolutely ZERO forensic; ballistic; pathological; or physical fact to support the claim of a shot from the front, to the anterior neck of JFK.

And, in event that Cliff will take the time to contact Dr. Perry and discuss this with him, Dr. Perry will no doubt inform him that he truly had no factual basis in which to form an opinion as regards the anterior neck wound, other than it's small size and the fact that it did not have the "blowout" characteristics of a medium to high velocity projectile.

The "bunch/fold" explanation of the holes in the coat and shirt of JFK have been pretty well beat to death over a multitude of other talk shows.

That Cliff can not, for whatever reason, accept that the fold/bunch existed is his problem.

Most, who demonstrate the proper application of logic and research, have little problem in understanding and acceptance of this fact.

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Purvis,

I don't fistfight or flamefest vets, & since the latter seems inevitable,

I'll discuss the JFK assassination with others.

Thank you for your past service to our country.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Purvis,

I don't fistfight or flamefest vets, & since the latter seems inevitable,

I'll discuss the JFK assassination with others.

Thank you for your past service to our country.

I don't fistfight or flamefest vets,

JFK's back wound was at T3 and to contend otherwise is, in my opinion,

intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual Dishonesty = xxxx!

If we are to assume that you ARE NOT "intellectually dishonest", then we must assume that one would have to be totally ignorant of the actual facts to claim the T3 "factoid".

You see, Richard is somewhat new here and therefore possibly not up on exactly how John & this forum apparantly allow "name calling" without actually doing so.

P.S. Tom does not waste his time in an attempt to beat dead horses or attempt to argue with anyone who demonstrates an inherent lack of knowledge as relates to readily available facts and information.

But then again, Tom does not wander around in rabbit holes either!

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Purvis,

I don't fistfight or flamefest vets, & since the latter seems inevitable,

I'll discuss the JFK assassination with others.

Thank you for your past service to our country.

I don't fistfight or flamefest vets,

JFK's back wound was at T3 and to contend otherwise is, in my opinion,

intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual Dishonesty = xxxx!

No, not necessarily. It means "in denial." That you choose to take this so

personally is telling.

If we are to assume that you ARE NOT "intellectually dishonest", then we must

assume that one would have to be totally ignorant of the actual facts to claim the T3

"factoid".

If I thought we could have a collegial discussion of the facts of the

case, I would continue a conversation with you.

But you haven't indicated that such a thing is possible, so I'll discuss the case

with others.

[Cliff Varnell]

No sir,not my pet theories. Everything that happened from the time JFK stepped off the plane at Love Field up until this day, has been all theory. No one has a definitive answer for what happened 43 years ago.

Yes and no.

We can say with 100% certainty that at least 4 shots were fired

because JFK's proven T3 back wound was too low to allow any

possibility of the Single Bullet Theory.

We cannot say with 100% certainty who commanded and controlled

the assassination, but I'll argue that we know to 95% certainty that

the troika of Ed Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales

organized and controlled the assassination for the express purpose of

pinning the hit on Castro in prelude to an invasion of Cuba.

Although these men are rightly characterized as CIA operatives, I'll

argue that these individuals did not work "for" any particular institution

or group but rather drew upon the sympathy their goals engendered within

many institutions and groups.

My advice to you, Richard, is read McKnight's BREACH OF TRUST.

You will not give so much weight to "evidence" provided by the FBI

and the Warren Commission.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Purvis,

I don't fistfight or flamefest vets, & since the latter seems inevitable,

I'll discuss the JFK assassination with others.

Thank you for your past service to our country.

I don't fistfight or flamefest vets,

JFK's back wound was at T3 and to contend otherwise is, in my opinion,

intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual Dishonesty = xxxx!

No, not necessarily. It means "in denial." That you choose to take this so

personally is telling.

If we are to assume that you ARE NOT "intellectually dishonest", then we must

assume that one would have to be totally ignorant of the actual facts to claim the T3

"factoid".

If I thought we could have a collegial discussion of the facts of the

case, I would continue a conversation with you.

But you haven't indicated that such a thing is possible, so I'll discuss the case

with others.

But you haven't indicated that such a thing is possible, so I'll discuss the case

with others

Which I would highly recommend!

However, discussions amongst completely misguided and mis-informed persons, seldom results in anything of noteworth.

Dr. Humes is now deceased, therefore unlikely you can speak with him on the subject.

Dr. Finck lives in Switzerland, and will no longer discuss the issues with idiots.

Dr. Boswell, at last account, was still living. However, his memory may be fading.

FBI Agent Frazier was still living at last account, he may be able to help you some.

It is unknown as to whether FBI Agents Gallagher; Heilman; Heiberger; and a few more are still living, and they most certainly could inform you of a few facts.

Dr. Perry, at last account was still alive and in practice in Lubbock, TX at last account.

Not to mention a considerable other listing of highly qualified medical personnel (Dr.'s) as well as qualified ballistic experts.

So, there still remains a host of qualified personnel with whom to discuss the facts, and might I recommend any and/or all that are still living who will even take the time to discuss these facts.

Or, you can remain down there with Alice, and continue to discuss it with the rabbits.

I certainly could care less.

[Cliff Varnell]

Richard, in my online presentation at the link below, i get into the "bunching" theory and show that the amount of bunching visible in the photos is nowhere near the amount necessary to raise the jacket entrance to the back of Kennedy's neck. Instead, it raises it to the level of the back wound on the autopsy photos, considerably too low to support the magic bullet theory unless Kennedy was leaning forward. And the Zapruder film proves he wasn't.

And in all intellectual honesty please share with us your methodology

for determining the amount of "bunched up" fabric we see in Croft #3.

I get .75" to 1" -- tops. How about you, Pat? How did you determine

that JFK's jacket was bunched up the 2" your T1-entry theory requires?

Fair question, isn't it?

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK's back wound was at T3 and to contend otherwise is, in my opinion,

intellectually dishonest.

This struck a nerve in a couple of places, and deserves a closer look,

this question of intellectual dishonesty, especially as it relates to the

physical evidence of conspiracy.

Here is a textbook example of JFK research intellectual dishonesty:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_ev...hing--Hunt.html

John Hunt's "The Case for a Bunched Jacket" wherein he wrote:

(quote on)

[M]y research indicates that the difference between the impact point of a

"smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot is little more

than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via e-mail if he or she is

curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned figure. That essay,

explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet finished.

(quote off)

...Is not yet finished???

The title of this scholarly work is -- "The Case for a Bunched Jacket" -- but the

actual "case" is not yet finished?

That was 7 years ago.

The argument that JFK's back wound was at T1 or above is inherently

intellectually dishonest because these researchers cannot identify more

than a fraction of an inch of clothing displacement in the Elm St photos

and yet their pet theories require the shirt and jacket to have elevated 2+"

in tandem.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Cliff Varnell