Discussion:
John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn SBT Debunked
(too old to reply)
Cliff
2005-10-12 10:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.

This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.

2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.

Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.

So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?

1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.

2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.

Loading Image...

3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.

The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.

On your website, Dr Rahn, you wrote:

(quote on)

The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)

(quote off)

The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.

As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.

The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.

Cliff Varnell
r***@gmail.com
2005-10-12 18:25:37 UTC
Permalink
So ahem, Cliff, where did the shot come from?

Rob
Cliff
2005-10-12 21:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Rob, we can only go as far as the evidence takes us.

At least two shooters fired at JFK on 11/22/63.

The physical evidence, corroborated by documentary and
eyewitness evidence, is irrefutable.

The rest is speculation.

Cliff Varnell
Post by r***@gmail.com
So ahem, Cliff, where did the shot come from?
Rob
John Canal
2005-10-12 18:34:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Cliff
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,

Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).

Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.

In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?

And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
to do?

And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that "predicament",
they came up with the following course of action?

1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
them match ["roughly"].

2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.

3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be gone/confiscated
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].

4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].

5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.

And note the following:

1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
clothing "wasn't available".

2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
clothing was bunched up on the President's back. IOW, I think he's was saying
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
his face sheet to match the hole in the body...and told the world that they saw
the clothing during the autopsy and explained that the mismatch was probably due
to bunching.

3. It should make no sense whatsoever to the logical person for the prosectors
to have forgotten to ask for the clothing, have been denied access to them, or
have been told the clothing was somewhere that made them "unavailable".

4. It cannot be proven, with 100% certainty, that the clothing WASN'T bunched up
on his back.

5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.

Cheers,

John Canal
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
2005-10-13 03:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,

You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.

It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.

Why? We can only speculate, but here's my two cents:

J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.

Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
the top advocates of an Operation Northwoods-type response to the JFK
assassination: blame Castro and invade Cuba. I speculate that Johnson had
to confer with the Joint Chiefs to hash out the problems that a captured,
living Oswald presented for an Op Northwoods response, and it was Johnson
and the Joint Chiefs who decided to suppress evidence of conspiracy.

Good soldier Hoover went along, but I don't think he was happy about it.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
to do?
I don't buy it. The autopsists never examined the clothing.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that "predicament",
they came up with the following course of action?
1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
them match ["roughly"].
2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be gone/confiscated
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].
4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
I don't buy it. The FBI had the clothing and Hoover wasn't about to share
it with anyone unless it was decided higher up to blame Castro.
Post by John Canal
1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
clothing "wasn't available".
Same thing, basically.
Post by John Canal
2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
clothing was bunched up on the President's back.
The clothing wasn't bunched up on his back. The jacket was bunched
sideways in Betzner #3 at Z186 -- witness the vertical fold in the jacket
to the left of midline.

A vertical bunch can only be caused by the fabric easing sideways.
Post by John Canal
IOW, I think he's was saying
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
his face sheet to match the hole in the body
Why would he match the face sheet to clothing defects he didn't examine?

Adm Burkley marked the face sheet "verified" and filled out the Death
Certificate stating the back wound was "in the vicinity of T3."
Post by John Canal
...and told the world that they saw
the clothing during the autopsy and explained that the mismatch was probably due
to bunching.
They didn't see the clothing. Period.
Post by John Canal
3. It should make no sense whatsoever to the logical person for the prosectors
to have forgotten to ask for the clothing, have been denied access to them, or
have been told the clothing was somewhere that made them "unavailable".
Makes all the sense in the world when the aftermath of the assassination
is considered in the Cold War context of Operation Northwoods. Hoover
wasn't going to share evidence with anyone until Johnson told him how
Oswald was going to be played -- lone nut, or commie conspirator.
Post by John Canal
4. It cannot be proven, with 100% certainty, that the clothing WASN'T bunched up
on his back.
Yes it can. 100%. The jacket collar rode in a normal position at the
base of JFK's neck. The Towner film shows this clearly. 4+" of clothing
fabric cannot be bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on
the jacket collar.

The shirt and the jacket can be observed moving independently in Dealey
Plaza, while the SBT requires a gross movement of both garments in tandem.

This event cannot be replicated.

It is impossible for two disparate, concrete objects to
occupy the exact same physical space at the same time.
Post by John Canal
5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
Cheers,The
John Canal
Cheers,

Cliff Varnell
John Canal
2005-10-14 01:15:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Cliff
says...
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
Cliff,

Help me out here. Can you tell me the source of your info, re. Greer
turning over the clothing to the FBI, "upon his return to Washington"?
It's been a while, and, due to the hurricanes that hit our area last year,
I only have about 2% of the research material I once had...but according
to my notes Greer did not turn over the clothes to anyone "upon his return
to DC"...at least right away.

Anyway, he [Greer] told the HSCA, upon his arrival in Washington, he
directed agent Rybka to put the shopping bag with JFK's clothing and
effects in his locker at the White House.

That's consistent with his story that about 8:00 AM on the 23rd the White
House called (woke him up) asking for JFK's St. Christopher medal. He went
on to say that he dressed and went to the WH and gave the medal and wallet
to Ken O'Donnell. (Doc # 1870-10099-10491)

Evidently later on Saturday, according to RIF# 180-100090-10263 (an
11-23-63 document), Greer supposedly turned over the clothing and effects
to SAIC Robert Bouck.

If all that's correct, then my wierd theory still would be alive. Again,
maybe the source you have for Greer giving the FBI the clothing trumps the
above sources which tell a different story, i.e. that he had control of
the clothing during the autopsy.
Post by Cliff
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
the top advocates of an Operation Northwoods-type response to the JFK
assassination: blame Castro and invade Cuba. I speculate that Johnson had
to confer with the Joint Chiefs to hash out the problems that a captured,
living Oswald presented for an Op Northwoods response, and it was Johnson
and the Joint Chiefs who decided to suppress evidence of conspiracy.
Good soldier Hoover went along, but I don't think he was happy about it.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
to do?
I don't buy it. The autopsists never examined the clothing.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that "predicament",
they came up with the following course of action?
1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
them match ["roughly"].
2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be gone/confiscated
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].
4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
I don't buy it. The FBI had the clothing and Hoover wasn't about to share
it with anyone unless it was decided higher up to blame Castro.
Post by John Canal
1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
clothing "wasn't available".
Same thing, basically.
Post by John Canal
2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
clothing was bunched up on the President's back.
The clothing wasn't bunched up on his back. The jacket was bunched
sideways in Betzner #3 at Z186 -- witness the vertical fold in the jacket
to the left of midline.
A vertical bunch can only be caused by the fabric easing sideways.
Post by John Canal
IOW, I think he's was saying
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
his face sheet to match the hole in the body
Why would he match the face sheet to clothing defects he didn't examine?
To try to make the evidence NOT create a problem for the one gunman
conclusion. IOW, he matched the face sheet location with the hole in the
clothing (two pieces of evidence he knew would be scrutinized very
soon)...even though he knew the location of the hole in the body didn't
match the location of the hole in the clothes. Again, he wasn't worried
about "that" mismatch, because the body and photos would be gone and the
description of the location in the autopsy report was based on anatomic
reference points ON JFK's BODY....which made them pretty much useless in
evidenciary value.

Later, Burkley was in sync with this little cover-up and made sure the
location of the entry in his death certificate (which they knew would also
be scrutinized very soon) matched the face sheet and clothes.

Cliff, I hope you don't think, because I'm a LNer, I don't think the
government didn't lie or tamper with the evidence? I'm not mCAdams, you
know. :-)

John C.
Cliff
2005-10-14 04:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
Cliff,
Help me out here. Can you tell me the source of your info, re. Greer
turning over the clothing to the FBI, "upon his return to Washington"?
I stand corrected. Greer didn't return to DC right away. He was at
Bethesda during the autopsy, and according to Finck it was a "senior
officer" at the autopsy who denied Finck's request to see the clothing.
Post by John Canal
It's been a while, and, due to the hurricanes that hit our area last year,
I only have about 2% of the research material I once had...but according
to my notes Greer did not turn over the clothes to anyone "upon his return
to DC"...at least right away.
Anyway, he [Greer] told the HSCA, upon his arrival in Washington, he
directed agent Rybka to put the shopping bag with JFK's clothing and
effects in his locker at the White House.
That's consistent with his story that about 8:00 AM on the 23rd the White
House called (woke him up) asking for JFK's St. Christopher medal. He went
on to say that he dressed and went to the WH and gave the medal and wallet
to Ken O'Donnell. (Doc # 1870-10099-10491)
Evidently later on Saturday, according to RIF# 180-100090-10263 (an
11-23-63 document), Greer supposedly turned over the clothing and effects
to SAIC Robert Bouck
If all that's correct, then my wierd theory still would be alive. Again,
maybe the source you have for Greer giving the FBI the clothing trumps the
above sources which tell a different story, i.e. that he had control of
the clothing during the autopsy.
Post by Cliff
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
the top advocates of an Operation Northwoods-type response to the JFK
assassination: blame Castro and invade Cuba. I speculate that Johnson had
to confer with the Joint Chiefs to hash out the problems that a captured,
living Oswald presented for an Op Northwoods response, and it was Johnson
and the Joint Chiefs who decided to suppress evidence of conspiracy.
Good soldier Hoover went along, but I don't think he was happy about it.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
to do?
I don't buy it. The autopsists never examined the clothing.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that "predicament",
they came up with the following course of action?
1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
them match ["roughly"].
2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be gone/confiscated
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].
4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
I don't buy it. The FBI had the clothing and Hoover wasn't about to share
it with anyone unless it was decided higher up to blame Castro.
Post by John Canal
1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
clothing "wasn't available".
Same thing, basically.
Post by John Canal
2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
clothing was bunched up on the President's back.
The clothing wasn't bunched up on his back. The jacket was bunched
sideways in Betzner #3 at Z186 -- witness the vertical fold in the jacket
to the left of midline.
A vertical bunch can only be caused by the fabric easing sideways.
Post by John Canal
IOW, I think he's was saying
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
his face sheet to match the hole in the body
Why would he match the face sheet to clothing defects he didn't examine?
To try to make the evidence NOT create a problem for the one gunman
conclusion. IOW, he matched the face sheet location with the hole in the
clothing (two pieces of evidence he knew would be scrutinized very
soon)...even though he knew the location of the hole in the body didn't
match the location of the hole in the clothes. Again, he wasn't worried
about "that" mismatch, because the body and photos would be gone and the
description of the location in the autopsy report was based on anatomic
reference points ON JFK's BODY....which made them pretty much useless in
evidenciary value.
So if the holes in the clothes didn't match the wound in the back you had
4+" of clothing piled up at the base of JFK's neck even though JFK's
jacket collar readily dropped to the base of his neck.

John, you can't get 4+" of clothing fabric to bunch up at C7 without
pushing up on the jacket collar.

You can't get 2+" of jacket to bunch up in tandem with 2+" of shirt -- the
two garments don't move in tandem.

Your theory is refuted by the physical evidence.
Post by John Canal
Later, Burkley was in sync with this little cover-up and made sure the
location of the entry in his death certificate (which they knew would also
be scrutinized very soon) matched the face sheet and clothes.
Cliff, I hope you don't think, because I'm a LNer, I don't think the
government didn't lie or tamper with the evidence? I'm not mCAdams, you
know. :-)
Do you think the government would lie???

:->

Cliff
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-15 00:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
Post by Cliff
the top advocates of an Operation Northwoods-type response to the JFK
assassination: blame Castro and invade Cuba. I speculate that Johnson had
to confer with the Joint Chiefs to hash out the problems that a captured,
living Oswald presented for an Op Northwoods response, and it was Johnson
and the Joint Chiefs who decided to suppress evidence of conspiracy.
Good soldier Hoover went along, but I don't think he was happy about it.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
to do?
I don't buy it. The autopsists never examined the clothing.
Post by John Canal
And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that "predicament",
they came up with the following course of action?
1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
them match ["roughly"].
2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be gone/confiscated
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].
4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
I don't buy it. The FBI had the clothing and Hoover wasn't about to share
it with anyone unless it was decided higher up to blame Castro.
Post by John Canal
1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
clothing "wasn't available".
Same thing, basically.
Post by John Canal
2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
clothing was bunched up on the President's back.
The clothing wasn't bunched up on his back. The jacket was bunched
sideways in Betzner #3 at Z186 -- witness the vertical fold in the jacket
to the left of midline.
A vertical bunch can only be caused by the fabric easing sideways.
Post by John Canal
IOW, I think he's was saying
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
his face sheet to match the hole in the body
Why would he match the face sheet to clothing defects he didn't examine?
Adm Burkley marked the face sheet "verified" and filled out the Death
Certificate stating the back wound was "in the vicinity of T3."
Post by John Canal
...and told the world that they saw
the clothing during the autopsy and explained that the mismatch was probably due
to bunching.
They didn't see the clothing. Period.
Post by John Canal
3. It should make no sense whatsoever to the logical person for the prosectors
to have forgotten to ask for the clothing, have been denied access to them, or
have been told the clothing was somewhere that made them "unavailable".
Makes all the sense in the world when the aftermath of the assassination
is considered in the Cold War context of Operation Northwoods. Hoover
wasn't going to share evidence with anyone until Johnson told him how
Oswald was going to be played -- lone nut, or commie conspirator.
Post by John Canal
4. It cannot be proven, with 100% certainty, that the clothing WASN'T bunched up
on his back.
Yes it can. 100%. The jacket collar rode in a normal position at the
base of JFK's neck. The Towner film shows this clearly. 4+" of clothing
fabric cannot be bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on
the jacket collar.
The shirt and the jacket can be observed moving independently in Dealey
Plaza, while the SBT requires a gross movement of both garments in tandem.
This event cannot be replicated.
It is impossible for two disparate, concrete objects to
occupy the exact same physical space at the same time.
Post by John Canal
5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
Cheers,The
John Canal
Cheers,
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-15 04:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html

Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.

They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.

Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.

That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.

Cliff
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-16 01:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html
Thanks for the link, but we've know about Northwoods for quite a while
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover.
Post by Cliff
Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
DGI agent.
Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
how stupid Hoover was.
Post by Cliff
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.
That ain't the half of it.
Post by Cliff
They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.
I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
Post by Cliff
Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
Post by Cliff
That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
Post by Cliff
Cliff
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-16 22:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html
Thanks for the link, but we've know about Northwoods for quite a while
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover.
I speculate otherwise. Any investigation into a terrorist attack
unleashed
on US soil would neceessairly involve Hoover's FBI. The Joint Chiefs
couldn't have handled it alone. For Operation Northwoods to work they
needed Hoover, who would have been all-too-willing to help.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
DGI agent.
My point exactly. Hoover was hot to paint Oswald as a Castro agent.

Thank you for bringing this up, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
how stupid Hoover was.
Post by Cliff
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.
That ain't the half of it.
Post by Cliff
They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.
I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
By painting Oswald as a DGI agent.

But he needed to be brought in dead, not alive.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
I didn't say he was. We're discussing the aftermath of the
assassination.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
Keep it coming! So far the evidence you cite is consistent with my
speculation.

Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-17 01:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html
Thanks for the link, but we've know about Northwoods for quite a while
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover.
I speculate otherwise. Any investigation into a terrorist attack
unleashed
on US soil would neceessairly involve Hoover's FBI. The Joint Chiefs
couldn't have handled it alone. For Operation Northwoods to work they
needed Hoover, who would have been all-too-willing to help.
It never got that far. It was only a proposal. It was never approved and
never put into effect.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
DGI agent.
My point exactly. Hoover was hot to paint Oswald as a Castro agent.
Thank you for bringing this up, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
how stupid Hoover was.
Post by Cliff
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.
That ain't the half of it.
Post by Cliff
They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.
I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
By painting Oswald as a DGI agent.
But he needed to be brought in dead, not alive.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
I didn't say he was. We're discussing the aftermath of the
assassination.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
Keep it coming! So far the evidence you cite is consistent with my
speculation.
Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-17 16:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html
Thanks for the link, but we've know about Northwoods for quite a while
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover.
I speculate otherwise. Any investigation into a terrorist attack
unleashed
on US soil would neceessairly involve Hoover's FBI. The Joint Chiefs
couldn't have handled it alone. For Operation Northwoods to work they
needed Hoover, who would have been all-too-willing to help.
It never got that far. It was only a proposal. It was never approved and
never put into effect.
Only because Oswald was captured alive.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
DGI agent.
My point exactly. Hoover was hot to paint Oswald as a Castro agent.
Thank you for bringing this up, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
how stupid Hoover was.
Post by Cliff
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.
That ain't the half of it.
Post by Cliff
They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.
I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
By painting Oswald as a DGI agent.
But he needed to be brought in dead, not alive.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
I didn't say he was. We're discussing the aftermath of the
assassination.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
Keep it coming! So far the evidence you cite is consistent with my
speculation.
Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-18 04:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html
Thanks for the link, but we've know about Northwoods for quite a while
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover.
I speculate otherwise. Any investigation into a terrorist attack
unleashed
on US soil would neceessairly involve Hoover's FBI. The Joint Chiefs
couldn't have handled it alone. For Operation Northwoods to work they
needed Hoover, who would have been all-too-willing to help.
It never got that far. It was only a proposal. It was never approved and
never put into effect.
Only because Oswald was captured alive.
No. You seem to have no historical perspective. Operation Northwoods was
killed before the JFK assassination. It never made it high enough to be
implemented. What you are suggesting is a rogue operation based on the
same concept as Operation Northwoods. I do not rule that out, but it is
unofficial, not official.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
DGI agent.
My point exactly. Hoover was hot to paint Oswald as a Castro agent.
Thank you for bringing this up, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
how stupid Hoover was.
Post by Cliff
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.
That ain't the half of it.
Post by Cliff
They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.
I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
By painting Oswald as a DGI agent.
But he needed to be brought in dead, not alive.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
I didn't say he was. We're discussing the aftermath of the
assassination.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
Keep it coming! So far the evidence you cite is consistent with my
speculation.
Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-18 19:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html
Thanks for the link, but we've know about Northwoods for quite a while
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover.
I speculate otherwise. Any investigation into a terrorist attack
unleashed
on US soil would neceessairly involve Hoover's FBI. The Joint Chiefs
couldn't have handled it alone. For Operation Northwoods to work they
needed Hoover, who would have been all-too-willing to help.
It never got that far. It was only a proposal. It was never approved and
never put into effect.
Only because Oswald was captured alive.
No. You seem to have no historical perspective. Operation Northwoods was
killed before the JFK assassination. It never made it high enough to be
implemented. What you are suggesting is a rogue operation based on the
same concept as Operation Northwoods. I do not rule that out, but it is
unofficial, not official.
No kiddin'? Y'think?

[eyes rolling]
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
DGI agent.
My point exactly. Hoover was hot to paint Oswald as a Castro agent.
Thank you for bringing this up, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
how stupid Hoover was.
Post by Cliff
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.
That ain't the half of it.
Post by Cliff
They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.
I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
By painting Oswald as a DGI agent.
But he needed to be brought in dead, not alive.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
I didn't say he was. We're discussing the aftermath of the
assassination.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
Keep it coming! So far the evidence you cite is consistent with my
speculation.
Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Gerry Simone (W)
2005-10-13 03:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Willis rear slide doesn't show bunching. That's just before a shot.

Doesn't Boswell's autopsy sketch confirm the location of the hole in the
jacket? Isn't this what Cliff just said when he referred to 'corroborated
by the autopsy face sheet'?
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
to do?
And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that
"predicament",
Post by John Canal
they came up with the following course of action?
1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
them match ["roughly"].
2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be
gone/confiscated
Post by John Canal
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].
4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
clothing "wasn't available".
2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
clothing was bunched up on the President's back. IOW, I think he's was saying
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
his face sheet to match the hole in the body...and told the world that they saw
the clothing during the autopsy and explained that the mismatch was probably due
to bunching.
3. It should make no sense whatsoever to the logical person for the prosectors
to have forgotten to ask for the clothing, have been denied access to them, or
have been told the clothing was somewhere that made them "unavailable".
4. It cannot be proven, with 100% certainty, that the clothing WASN'T bunched up
on his back.
5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
Cheers,
John Canal
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-15 00:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (W)
Willis rear slide doesn't show bunching. That's just before a shot.
Doesn't Boswell's autopsy sketch confirm the location of the hole in the
jacket? Isn't this what Cliff just said when he referred to 'corroborated
by the autopsy face sheet'?
No, not down to the nearest sixteenth of an inch. The reference drawing
does not agree with JFK's body type and the dot represents the position of
the wound schematically, not accurately.
Post by Gerry Simone (W)
Post by John Canal
says...
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative
possible
Post by John Canal
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the
ridiculous
Post by John Canal
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I
think
Post by John Canal
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven.
Here
Post by John Canal
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did
offer
Post by John Canal
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing
and
Post by John Canal
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match
the
Post by John Canal
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for
what
Post by John Canal
to do?
And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that
"predicament",
Post by John Canal
they came up with the following course of action?
1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later,
make
Post by John Canal
them match ["roughly"].
2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more
definitive
Post by John Canal
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that
it
Post by John Canal
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in
the
Post by John Canal
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be
gone/confiscated
Post by John Canal
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his
body].
Post by John Canal
4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the
mismatch
Post by John Canal
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that
of
Post by John Canal
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine
the
Post by John Canal
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see
the
Post by John Canal
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told
the
Post by John Canal
clothing "wasn't available".
2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that,
taken
Post by John Canal
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing
the
Post by John Canal
clothing was bunched up on the President's back. IOW, I think he's was
saying
Post by John Canal
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the
hole on
Post by John Canal
his face sheet to match the hole in the body...and told the world that
they saw
Post by John Canal
the clothing during the autopsy and explained that the mismatch was
probably due
Post by John Canal
to bunching.
3. It should make no sense whatsoever to the logical person for the
prosectors
Post by John Canal
to have forgotten to ask for the clothing, have been denied access to
them, or
Post by John Canal
have been told the clothing was somewhere that made them "unavailable".
4. It cannot be proven, with 100% certainty, that the clothing WASN'T
bunched up
Post by John Canal
on his back.
5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
Cheers,
John Canal
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2005-10-13 03:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Canal
5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
Cheers,
John Canal
With all due respect, John, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with
that statement. I am reading it repeatedly in Larry's book "JFK Myths".
Statements may have differences; that needs to be acknowledged.
Unreliable is, imo, a different matter.

Pamela

Our hearts go out to all those affected by Katrina and now Rita. The
citizens and their pets will need our help for a long time to come. I
encourage everyone to follow your heart and contribute and share as you
are able. Two of my favorites are the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org
and the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer

The JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X page,
now at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com

Check out www.themagicflute.org for info about me as a flute player and
teacher.
Kenneth A. Rahn
2005-10-13 23:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Pamela,
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by John Canal
5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
Cheers,
John Canal
With all due respect, John, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with
that statement. I am reading it repeatedly in Larry's book "JFK Myths".
Statements may have differences; that needs to be acknowledged.
Unreliable is, imo, a different matter.
If you read any of the many books on the subject by Elizabeth Loftus, you
will see proof of the general unreliability of witnesses. You will also see
the circumstances under which they can be better and worse. If you want a
quick summary, see the short essay "Shadings of eyewitness testimony" on my
JFK site, at
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Shadings_of_eyewitness_testimony.html .

Ken Rahn
Gerry Simone (W)
2005-10-13 03:27:42 UTC
Permalink
I agree with you Cliff.

In fact, doesn't even one Willis or Betzner photo from the rear of JFK
just before the time of the so-called 1st shot to hit JFK (or is it the
so-called SBT) show a bit of JFK's shirt collar above the jacket collar?
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-15 01:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong. It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate. Look at the Best
Evidence. The body itself. We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back? As in lumbar?
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-16 22:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.

I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.

I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.

I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.

When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?

Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.

The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.

(quote off)

IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to

obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.

And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.

The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.

The clothing can.
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.

Cliff Varnell
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-17 01:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
All of which does not prove that they are fakes. I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes. It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
Post by Cliff
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
Post by Cliff
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
Post by Cliff
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
Post by Cliff
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
Post by Cliff
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
Post by Cliff
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
No.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Cliff Varnell
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-17 03:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
possession.

Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
location of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
Post by Cliff
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
Post by Cliff
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
Sure.

Here's a photo that shows JFK's jacket elevated 3/4":

http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg

The top of the shirt collar normally rode a half inch above the top of the
jacket collar, and a bit more than a half inch below his hairline. In
Altgens the jacket collar is over the top of the shirt collar but below
the hairline.

Give a millimeter or two.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
No, Anthony, I pointed out that there is no chain of possession.

It is *possible* they are fakes.

Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
produced...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
clothing of JFK?

No one.

Any questions about where the clothing defects are?

No. They've been measured repeatedly.

So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
No.
Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.

T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.

And other than bland denials -- you haven't made a counter
argument yet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Unchallenged.

As always.

Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-17 17:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative. There is a
difference. And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
clearly state what you think.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
possession.
You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
are fakes. You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
disproves your theory. If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
Post by Cliff
Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
location of the back wound.
You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
Don't demand perfection and reject evidence if it is not perfect.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
Post by Cliff
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
Post by Cliff
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
Sure.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
The top of the shirt collar normally rode a half inch above the top of the
jacket collar, and a bit more than a half inch below his hairline. In
Altgens the jacket collar is over the top of the shirt collar but below
the hairline.
Junk. Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
Then where are you?
Post by Cliff
Give a millimeter or two.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
No, Anthony, I pointed out that there is no chain of possession.
No chain of possession whatsoever? As in they came off the street or
were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
Post by Cliff
It is *possible* they are fakes.
Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
Post by Cliff
Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
produced...
I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
that you can not even see the back wound.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
Could be? What the Hell does that mean? You think it could also be a
blood clot? Or maybe some artificially created wound? What?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
know. You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
clothing of JFK?
No one.
So you are going on testimony alone? Bad mistake. Testimony is often the
weakest type of evidence.
Post by Cliff
Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
Post by Cliff
No. They've been measured repeatedly.
And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
Post by Cliff
So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
could find someone who would propose such a theory and how would you
disprove it, much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
wacky?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
I know the wound wasn't shallow. Don't tell me you still cling to the
shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
can not stop within an inch. It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa
pine. Wake up, man.
As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
in the TSBD. Are you proposing a difference shooter location. Spit it out.
O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible, because
it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
Very stupid speculation. By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
No.
Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
And it varies from individual to individual.
Post by Cliff
T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
On all people? If you don't know where C7 was on JFK then you don't know
where T3 was on JFK. That is the same mistake that Burkley made.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
Post by Cliff
And other than bland denials -- you haven't made a counter
argument yet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Unchallenged.
As always.
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-18 03:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative.
Not when the Dealey Plaza photos show that the jacket was riding in a
normal position on JFK's back at Z186.

When are going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
Post by Anthony Marsh
There is a
difference.
See above.
Post by Anthony Marsh
And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
to obtain accurate measurements.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
clearly state what you think.
You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
"not perfect."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
possession.
You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
are fakes.
Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
wound.

Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
disproves your theory.
When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
no chain of possession.

Got any more photos that fit the bill?
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.

Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
location of the back wound.
You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.

Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
Don't demand perfection and reject evidence if it is not perfect.
Big difference between "not perfect" and "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements."

But by all means, cling to your dependence on "deficient" evidence --
after all, it's all you have.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
Post by Cliff
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
Post by Cliff
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
Sure.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
The top of the shirt collar normally rode a half inch above the top of the
jacket collar, and a bit more than a half inch below his hairline. In
Altgens the jacket collar is over the top of the shirt collar but below
the hairline.
Junk.
Let's see, the photo shows the jacket over the shirt collar,
but to conclude that the jacket is elevated is -- "junk"?

Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
Then where are you?
Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
the photograph that it is "fake."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Give a millimeter or two.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
No, Anthony, I pointed out that there is no chain of possession.
No chain of possession whatsoever?
Saundra Kay Spencer's testimony under oath breaks the chain of possession.
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in they came off the street or
were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
It is *possible* they are fakes.
Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.

Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
produced...
I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
that you can not even see the back wound.
Moot point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
Could be? What the Hell does that mean? You think it could also be a
blood clot? Or maybe some artificially created wound? What?
How many times do I need to reiterate this?

The authenticity of the photos is in question. Don't blame me for that --
blame the person who is on records as having developed the photos and the
person on record as having operated the camera.

Their statements undercut your wacky theory.

Not my problem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
know.
I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
back at Z186.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
is certified fake.

I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
clothing of JFK?
No one.
So you are going on testimony alone?
No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Bad mistake.
When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
straw.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Testimony is often the
weakest type of evidence.
That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
photos of the jacket are primary.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
discussion here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
No. They've been measured repeatedly.
And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
could find someone who would propose such a theory
No, it's idiotic.
Post by Anthony Marsh
and how would you
disprove it,
You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
*can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
Post by Anthony Marsh
much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
wacky?
What theory?

Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
position at Z186.

Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
I know the wound wasn't shallow.
You examined the wound?

Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.

You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't tell me you still cling to the
shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
can not stop within an inch.
I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
Post by Anthony Marsh
It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
merely parroting the official line.
Post by Anthony Marsh
As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
in the TSBD.
Why would you make that assumption?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
if not probable.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Spit it out.
O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
Post by Anthony Marsh
because
it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
Very stupid speculation.
Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
have examined it then. No?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
No.
Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
And it varies from individual to individual.
Yeah, that's why I say 2-3 inches...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
On all people?
Adult males of average size, yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you don't know where C7 was on JFK then you don't know
where T3 was on JFK.
C7 is that prominent knobby one at the base of the neck.

Every human has one.

JFK had one.

2-3" below C7 is T3.
Post by Anthony Marsh
That is the same mistake that Burkley made.
Looks like the only person at the autopsy who got anything
right was Anthony Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
Uh-hunh. There's the tiny fracture at T1 that could have
been a pre-existing condition, or been caused by the round
that hit JFK's throat.

Don't forget that one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
And other than bland denials -- you haven't made a counter
argument yet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Unchallenged.
As always.
Gentle reader, please note that Anthony refers to the above as
a "wacky theory" but never argues against the facts I lay out.

Ever.

Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-19 03:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative.
Not when the Dealey Plaza photos show that the jacket was riding in a
normal position on JFK's back at Z186.
JFK was not hit at Z-186.
Post by Cliff
When are going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
Post by Anthony Marsh
There is a
difference.
See above.
Post by Anthony Marsh
And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
to obtain accurate measurements.
Why can't you just answer a question directly instead of hiding behind
something. Can you see the back wound or not?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
clearly state what you think.
You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
"not perfect."
You don't know which autopsy photos are deficient. You haven't seem them
all so you don't even know which ones they were talking about and what
the issues were. Even the word deficient does not mean useless. They did
not say useless.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
possession.
You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
are fakes.
Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
wound.
As I said, you can not even come right out and claim that they are fakes.
Post by Cliff
Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
disproves your theory.
When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
no chain of possession.
Who said what?
Post by Cliff
Got any more photos that fit the bill?
Lots, even films.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.
I do so every day.
Post by Cliff
Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
location of the back wound.
You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.
Why can't you give a direct answer?
Post by Cliff
Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
Why do you think that the word deficient means useless?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
Don't demand perfection and reject evidence if it is not perfect.
Big difference between "not perfect" and "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements."
But by all means, cling to your dependence on "deficient" evidence --
after all, it's all you have.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
Post by Cliff
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
Post by Cliff
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
Sure.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
The top of the shirt collar normally rode a half inch above the top of the
jacket collar, and a bit more than a half inch below his hairline. In
Altgens the jacket collar is over the top of the shirt collar but below
the hairline.
Junk.
Let's see, the photo shows the jacket over the shirt collar,
but to conclude that the jacket is elevated is -- "junk"?
What photo? Taken when?
File not found.
Altgens what? Altgens when? Not at the time of the shot.
Post by Cliff
Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
Then where are you?
Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
the photograph that it is "fake."
I am saying that I could use your same tactics.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Give a millimeter or two.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
No, Anthony, I pointed out that there is no chain of possession.
No chain of possession whatsoever?
Saundra Kay Spencer's testimony under oath breaks the chain of possession.
No.
Who first posted her testimony on the Internet?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in they came off the street or
were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
It is *possible* they are fakes.
Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.
And why can't you just come right out and and say that the autopsy
photos are fakes?
Post by Cliff
Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
Yada, yada, yada. Just his saying something does not make it a fact.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
produced...
I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
that you can not even see the back wound.
Moot point.
As I keep pointing out, you can never give a direct answer.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
Could be? What the Hell does that mean? You think it could also be a
blood clot? Or maybe some artificially created wound? What?
How many times do I need to reiterate this?
The authenticity of the photos is in question. Don't blame me for that --
blame the person who is on records as having developed the photos and the
person on record as having operated the camera.
No, the authenticity of the photos is NOT in question. Did you bother
reading ALL the ARRB materials?
Post by Cliff
Their statements undercut your wacky theory.
I don't have a theory here about this.
Post by Cliff
Not my problem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
know.
I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
back at Z186.
My point is that once you start using the crutch of having to claim that
some evidence is fake, where does it end? Eventually you'll have to
claim that ALL the evidence is fake.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
is certified fake.
I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
You can't even state what is black and what is white. You'd come up with
an evasive answer or claim that perhaps the black is faked and is really
white.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
clothing of JFK?
No one.
So you are going on testimony alone?
No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
There is plenty of testimony. Tell us exactly what you think is lacking.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Bad mistake.
When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
straw.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Testimony is often the
weakest type of evidence.
That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
photos of the jacket are primary.
No. They are indicative, not definitive.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
discussion here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
No. They've been measured repeatedly.
And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
And what if some conspiracy author claims that the holes in JFK's
clothes were manufactured?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
could find someone who would propose such a theory
No, it's idiotic.
Post by Anthony Marsh
and how would you
disprove it,
You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
*can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
I didn't say I would.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
wacky?
What theory?
That the JFK back wound was at T-3.
Post by Cliff
Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
position at Z186.
Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
Please quantify what you mean. Of course the jacket fell at some point.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
I know the wound wasn't shallow.
You examined the wound?
It is more than just the wound. It is the damage to the lung, the
trachea and the exit through the throat.
Post by Cliff
Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.
Neither did all the forensic pathologists who examined this case, but
they unanimously concluded that it was a transiting wound. Do you claim
to be smarter than every forensic pathologist on this planet?
Post by Cliff
You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't tell me you still cling to the
shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
can not stop within an inch.
I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
OK, then give us your wacky theory.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
merely parroting the official line.
No. I know it was a WCC MC bullet fired from the sniper's nest.
It wasn't an ice bullet.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
in the TSBD.
Why would you make that assumption?
The angle comes from knowing where the rifle was when it was fired.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
if not probable.
Yeah, so do I. So what? Show me what location and what angle you are
talking about.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Spit it out.
O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
Which means only that such a thing is possible, not that it was true in
this case. Now, please tell me that you really believe it was an ice
bullet. Please.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
because
it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
Very stupid speculation.
Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
Nor was he competent to do so. Nor could he expect to do so under those
conditions.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
have examined it then. No?
Why do you misrepresent this way? I never said that the wound was shallow.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
No.
Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
And it varies from individual to individual.
Yeah, that's why I say 2-3 inches...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
On all people?
Adult males of average size, yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you don't know where C7 was on JFK then you don't know
where T3 was on JFK.
C7 is that prominent knobby one at the base of the neck.
Every human has one.
JFK had one.
2-3" below C7 is T3.
Post by Anthony Marsh
That is the same mistake that Burkley made.
Looks like the only person at the autopsy who got anything
right was Anthony Marsh.
They did figure out that he had been killed earlier that day.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
Uh-hunh. There's the tiny fracture at T1 that could have
been a pre-existing condition, or been caused by the round
that hit JFK's throat.
Oh, please. Compare that X-ray to premortem X-rays. There was no
pre-existing fracture.
And yes the bullet which exited JFK's throat caused the fracture. The
throat wound was not an entrance.
Post by Cliff
Don't forget that one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
And other than bland denials -- you haven't made a counter
argument yet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Unchallenged.
As always.
Gentle reader, please note that Anthony refers to the above as
a "wacky theory" but never argues against the facts I lay out.
Ever.
Always. Long before you came into the debate.
Post by Cliff
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
2005-10-21 03:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative.
Not when the Dealey Plaza photos show that the jacket was riding in a
normal position on JFK's back at Z186.
JFK was not hit at Z-186.
Bingo! Thank you for the passive acknowledgement that JFK's jacket rode
in a normal position at Z186.

It is an uncontested fact.

At Z173 JFK turned to the right and began waving his right hand. His
posture didn't change until he was shot.

Clothing doesn't leap up a man's back on its own power, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
No response. Answer: never.

The physical evidence is irrefutable.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
There is a
difference.
See above.
Post by Anthony Marsh
And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
to obtain accurate measurements.
Why can't you just answer a question directly instead of hiding behind
something. Can you see the back wound or not?
Why are you hiding behind this strawman?

Why can't you process the fact that the Fox 5 autopsy photo is very poor
evidence of the location of the back wound?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
clearly state what you think.
You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
"not perfect."
You don't know which autopsy photos are deficient.
Yes, we do -- the HSCA singled out the photo of the back wound (Fox 5) as
especially deficient.

(quote on, again)

In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were
positioned in such a manner to make it difficult OR IMPOSSIBLE to obtain
accurate measurements of critical features (SUCH AS THE WOUND IN THE UPPER
BACK) from anatomical landmarks.

(quote off, emphasis added)

"[S]uch as the wound in the upper back."

Got it?
Post by Anthony Marsh
You haven't seem them
all so you don't even know which ones they were talking about and what
the issues were.
Yes, English is my first language. I know what "impossible" means, and I
understand that "such as the wound in the upper back" in this context
refers to autopsy photos of the wound in JFK's upper back.

You have a problem figuring out what the HSCA concluded?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Even the word deficient does not mean useless.
From "best evidence" to "not useless."
Quite a nose dive there, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
They did
not say useless.
I didn't either. I just quote from the record.

"...[D]ifficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical
features (such as the wound in the upper back)..."

Is that what "useless" means?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
possession.
You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
are fakes.
Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
wound.
As I said, you can not even come right out and claim that they are fakes.
Why come right out and say something that can't be proven?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
disproves your theory.
When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
no chain of possession.
Who said what?
(quote on, emphasis added)

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy
in addition to what you've already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that
showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --
you know, down in Dallas or something, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THE ONES I
WORKED ON.

(quote off)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Got any more photos that fit the bill?
Lots, even films.
Which of the photos and films taken from the west side of Houston St. have
been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
them?

Which of the photos and films taken from the south side of Elm St. have
been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
them?

Answer: none of them
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.
I do so every day.
You're doing a bang-up job. Your "best evidence" has been reduced by your
own admission to "not useless."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
I AM arguing for that particular point.

Didn't you just claim that you refute my argument on a daily basis?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
location of the back wound.
You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.
Why can't you give a direct answer?
It's a moot point. But keep dancing. As noted above, you've gone from
Fox 5 being "the best evidence" to it being "not useless."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
Why do you think that the word deficient means useless?
I didn't use the word useless. You did.

The HSCA clarified the observation of the autopsy photo's "deficiencies"
with the phrase "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements
etc..."

Why do you think deficient evidence is "the best evidence"?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
Don't demand perfection and reject evidence if it is not perfect.
Big difference between "not perfect" and "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements."
But by all means, cling to your dependence on "deficient" evidence --
after all, it's all you have.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
Post by Cliff
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
Post by Cliff
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
Sure.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
The top of the shirt collar normally rode a half inch above the top of the
jacket collar, and a bit more than a half inch below his hairline. In
Altgens the jacket collar is over the top of the shirt collar but below
the hairline.
Junk.
Let's see, the photo shows the jacket over the shirt collar,
but to conclude that the jacket is elevated is -- "junk"?
What photo?
Altgens on Houston St. You've seen it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Taken when?
On Houston St.
Post by Anthony Marsh
File not found.
I get it on my computer.

Loading Image...

Compare with the photo on the right on this page:

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0244.html

The top of JFK's shirt collar was equi-distant from his hairline and the
top of his jacket collar.

On Houston St. the collar was elevated 3/4".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Altgens what? Altgens when? Not at the time of the shot.
Taken in Dealey Plaza. You challenged me to cite a photo
taken in Dealey Plaza that shows 3/4" of upwardly displaced
jacket.

See also Houston St. segments of the Nix film, the Hughes film,
the Muchmore film, the Martin film, the Bell film.

All taken from the west side of Houston St, all showing the
jacket collar occuding the shirt collar.

All those photo images faked, Anthony?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
Then where are you?
Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
the photograph that it is "fake."
I am saying that I could use your same tactics.
I'm not using tactics. I'm citing the evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Give a millimeter or two.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
No, Anthony, I pointed out that there is no chain of possession.
No chain of possession whatsoever?
Saundra Kay Spencer's testimony under oath breaks the chain of possession.
No.
Circular logic.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Who first posted her testimony on the Internet?
Who cares?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in they came off the street or
were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
It is *possible* they are fakes.
Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.
And why can't you just come right out and and say that the autopsy
photos are fakes?
You savvy "possible"...?

Keep pitching the straw, my man. Won't keep you from
drowning here, I'm afraid.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
Yada, yada, yada.
That's a great argument. You do this every day, you say?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just his saying something does not make it a fact.
No, as I've acknowledged. It just means there's a "question."

Savvy "question"...?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
produced...
I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
that you can not even see the back wound.
Moot point.
As I keep pointing out, you can never give a direct answer.
Yada yada yada...Hey, that does feel good!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
Could be? What the Hell does that mean? You think it could also be a
blood clot? Or maybe some artificially created wound? What?
How many times do I need to reiterate this?
The authenticity of the photos is in question. Don't blame me for that --
blame the person who is on records as having developed the photos and the
person on record as having operated the camera.
No, the authenticity of the photos is NOT in question. Did you bother
reading ALL the ARRB materials?
Cite the part that directly contradicts Spencer.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Their statements undercut your wacky theory.
I don't have a theory here about this.
You claim the wound was at C7/T1 even if the
jacket wasn't elevated (it wasn't).

The base of JFK's neck almost 4 inches below
his clothing collars?

That's the wackiest theory of them all!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Not my problem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
know.
I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
back at Z186.
My point is that once you start using the crutch of having to claim that
some evidence is fake, where does it end?
Stop using this strawman crutch. I said it was "possible"
the autopsy photos were faked.

Jeesh...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Eventually you'll have to
claim that ALL the evidence is fake.
Unlike others who post here daily, I go as far as the evidence goes -- the
rest I label "speculation."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
is certified fake.
I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
You can't even state what is black and what is white. You'd come up with
an evasive answer or claim that perhaps the black is faked and is really
white.
*Perhaps* -- yes, we call that a "gray" area.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
clothing of JFK?
No one.
So you are going on testimony alone?
No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
There is plenty of testimony. Tell us exactly what you think is lacking.
You can't follow the argument?

There is no testimony that the clothing evidence is fake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Bad mistake.
When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
straw.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Testimony is often the
weakest type of evidence.
That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
photos of the jacket are primary.
No. They are indicative, not definitive.
So you say -- but you can't argue it factually.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
discussion here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
No. They've been measured repeatedly.
And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
And what if some conspiracy author claims that the holes in JFK's
clothes were manufactured?
Who cares what "some conspiracy author" claims?

No one who handled the clothing makes that claim.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
could find someone who would propose such a theory
No, it's idiotic.
Post by Anthony Marsh
and how would you
disprove it,
You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
*can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
I didn't say I would.
Oh?

You wrote above:

(quote on)

And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create
the same type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as
you do about the autopsy photos.

(quote off)

But keep dancing in circles -- this is fun.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
wacky?
What theory?
That the JFK back wound was at T-3.
It's a proven fact given the location of the clothing holes, the Dealey
Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position at Z186, four
contemporaneous documents, and the statements of a dozen people who saw
the wound.

Oh yeah, JFK wasn't shot at Z186. A second or two didn't make a
difference since his posture didn't change.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
position at Z186.
Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
Please quantify what you mean. Of course the jacket fell at some point.
Right before the turn onto Elm St.

I've only been posting the same thing in this and dozens of
other threads.

That you have to dance around it speaks of the paucity of
facts in of your non-critique.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
I know the wound wasn't shallow.
You examined the wound?
It is more than just the wound. It is the damage to the lung, the
trachea and the exit through the throat.
A half-dozen medical people at Parkland described it
as an entry.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.
Neither did all the forensic pathologists who examined this case, but
they unanimously concluded that it was a transiting wound.
And they all disregard the statements of those who
saw the body.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you claim
to be smarter than every forensic pathologist on this planet?
I'll go with the statements of those who handled the body.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't tell me you still cling to the
shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
can not stop within an inch.
I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
OK, then give us your wacky theory.
I don't have one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
merely parroting the official line.
No. I know it was a WCC MC bullet fired from the sniper's nest.
It wasn't an ice bullet.
That's the difference between us, Anthony. I don't
make claims about what I *know* unless I can back
it up.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
in the TSBD.
Why would you make that assumption?
The angle comes from knowing where the rifle was when it was fired.
See above.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
if not probable.
Yeah, so do I. So what? Show me what location and what angle you are
talking about.
The evidence I cite doesn't speak to that.

All that can be proven is that the back wound was
too low to allow any possibility of the SBT.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Spit it out.
O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
Which means only that such a thing is possible, not that it was true in
this case.
There you go with that "true" nonsense. You don't know one way
or the other, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Now, please tell me that you really believe it was an ice
bullet. Please.
I don't *believe* that which I cannot prove.

I do know that 7 weeks before the assassination Gen. Maxwell Taylor was in
Saigon and sat down with top military journalist Richard Starnes and
warned that the CIA was inclined to overthrow the US gov't.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html

The CIA was capable of firing an ice bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
because
it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
Very stupid speculation.
Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
Nor was he competent to do so.
Finck? Why not?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Nor could he expect to do so under those conditions.
Why not?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
have examined it then. No?
Why do you misrepresent this way? I never said that the wound was shallow.
I mis-wrote, this should read, "You say you *know* that the wound was NOT
shallow -- you must have examined it then?"

Well?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
No.
Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
And it varies from individual to individual.
Yeah, that's why I say 2-3 inches...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
On all people?
Adult males of average size, yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you don't know where C7 was on JFK then you don't know
where T3 was on JFK.
C7 is that prominent knobby one at the base of the neck.
Every human has one.
JFK had one.
2-3" below C7 is T3.
Post by Anthony Marsh
That is the same mistake that Burkley made.
Looks like the only person at the autopsy who got anything
right was Anthony Marsh.
They did figure out that he had been killed earlier that day.
Good one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
Uh-hunh. There's the tiny fracture at T1 that could have
been a pre-existing condition, or been caused by the round
that hit JFK's throat.
Oh, please. Compare that X-ray to premortem X-rays.
When were they taken?
Post by Anthony Marsh
There was no
pre-existing fracture.
And yes the bullet which exited JFK's throat caused the fracture. The
throat wound was not an entrance.
Not according to the Parkland personnel.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Don't forget that one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
And other than bland denials -- you haven't made a counter
argument yet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Unchallenged.
As always.
Gentle reader, please note that Anthony refers to the above as
a "wacky theory" but never argues against the facts I lay out.
Ever.
Always.
Always dancing. See above.

I wrote: You cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK's jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186.

You responded: I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Long before you came into the debate.
Right. You appear to be arguing that it doesn't
matter where the defects are in the jacket,
the inshoot was C7/T1.

C7/T1 four inches below the clothing collars?

That position of yours is as wacky as it gets.


Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
2005-10-22 02:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative.
Not when the Dealey Plaza photos show that the jacket was riding in a
normal position on JFK's back at Z186.
JFK was not hit at Z-186.
Bingo! Thank you for the passive acknowledgement that JFK's jacket rode
in a normal position at Z186.
Passive? Your problem is that you are seeking out enemies where there
are only allies in order to try to be the hero.
Post by Cliff
It is an uncontested fact.
At Z173 JFK turned to the right and began waving his right hand. His
posture didn't change until he was shot.
Then surely you should be criticizing Dale Myers' diagram used by
Sturdivan which shows JFK's hand up at Z-223 preparing for a shot to
come at Z-224.
Post by Cliff
Clothing doesn't leap up a man's back on its own power, Anthony.
Silly argument.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
No response. Answer: never.
The same response always: silly argument.
Post by Cliff
The physical evidence is irrefutable.
Irrefutable about what? When JFK was hit? Tell me the exact frame in
which he was hit.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
There is a
difference.
See above.
Post by Anthony Marsh
And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
to obtain accurate measurements.
Why can't you just answer a question directly instead of hiding behind
something. Can you see the back wound or not?
Why are you hiding behind this strawman?
I ask you simply is you can see the back wound or not and you label this
as a strawman argument? I am not trying to put words into you mouth. I
want to hear directly from you what YOU can see.
Post by Cliff
Why can't you process the fact that the Fox 5 autopsy photo is very poor
evidence of the location of the back wound?
It is poor quality. It is not useless.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
clearly state what you think.
You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
"not perfect."
You don't know which autopsy photos are deficient.
Yes, we do -- the HSCA singled out the photo of the back wound (Fox 5) as
especially deficient.
Yeah, so?
Post by Cliff
(quote on, again)
In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were
positioned in such a manner to make it difficult OR IMPOSSIBLE to obtain
accurate measurements of critical features (SUCH AS THE WOUND IN THE UPPER
BACK) from anatomical landmarks.
(quote off, emphasis added)
"[S]uch as the wound in the upper back."
Got it?
No.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
You haven't seem them
all so you don't even know which ones they were talking about and what
the issues were.
Yes, English is my first language. I know what "impossible" means, and I
understand that "such as the wound in the upper back" in this context
refers to autopsy photos of the wound in JFK's upper back.
You have a problem figuring out what the HSCA concluded?
What the HSCA concluded does not mean that we are stuck with that forever.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Even the word deficient does not mean useless.
From "best evidence" to "not useless."
Quite a nose dive there, Anthony.
I am talking about the body itself. Not the worst photos of the body.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
They did
not say useless.
I didn't either. I just quote from the record.
Out of context.
Post by Cliff
"...[D]ifficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical
features (such as the wound in the upper back)..."
Is that what "useless" means?
No.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
possession.
You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
are fakes.
Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
wound.
As I said, you can not even come right out and claim that they are fakes.
Why come right out and say something that can't be proven?
I am complaining about your constant attempts to duck questions and
avoid giving direct answers. Just come right out and say what you think.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
disproves your theory.
When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
no chain of possession.
Who said what?
(quote on, emphasis added)
Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy
in addition to what you've already described?
A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that
showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --
you know, down in Dallas or something, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THE ONES I
WORKED ON.
(quote off)
So what? She worked on other photos.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Got any more photos that fit the bill?
Lots, even films.
Which of the photos and films taken from the west side of Houston St. have
been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
them?
Which of the photos and films taken from the south side of Elm St. have
been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
them?
Answer: none of them
She did not develop the autopsy photos we have in evidence.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.
I do so every day.
You're doing a bang-up job. Your "best evidence" has been reduced by your
own admission to "not useless."
Litotes. Not useless is slightly better than useless.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
I AM arguing for that particular point.
Didn't you just claim that you refute my argument on a daily basis?
I may refute your logic and some specific arguments, but agree with the
overall conclusions.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
location of the back wound.
You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.
Why can't you give a direct answer?
It's a moot point. But keep dancing. As noted above, you've gone from
Fox 5 being "the best evidence" to it being "not useless."
Why can't you give a direct answer?
I never said that Fox 5 is the best evidence.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
Why do you think that the word deficient means useless?
I didn't use the word useless. You did.
The HSCA clarified the observation of the autopsy photo's "deficiencies"
with the phrase "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements
etc..."
Why do you think deficient evidence is "the best evidence"?
I said the body is the best evidence. Not any particular photo.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
Don't demand perfection and reject evidence if it is not perfect.
Big difference between "not perfect" and "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements."
But by all means, cling to your dependence on "deficient" evidence --
after all, it's all you have.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
Post by Cliff
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
Post by Cliff
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
Sure.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
The top of the shirt collar normally rode a half inch above the top of the
jacket collar, and a bit more than a half inch below his hairline. In
Altgens the jacket collar is over the top of the shirt collar but below
the hairline.
Junk.
Let's see, the photo shows the jacket over the shirt collar,
but to conclude that the jacket is elevated is -- "junk"?
What photo?
Altgens on Houston St. You've seen it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Taken when?
On Houston St.
JFK was not shot when he was on Houston Street. Everyone is sure of
that. I have never seen any theory by anyone that JFK was shot while on
Houston Street.
Perhaps you mean Altgens 1-5.
Do you have the negative?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
File not found.
I get it on my computer.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
http://cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0244.html
The top of JFK's shirt collar was equi-distant from his hairline and the
top of his jacket collar.
On Houston St. the collar was elevated 3/4".
Yeah, so what? Look at the Weaver photo.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Altgens what? Altgens when? Not at the time of the shot.
Taken in Dealey Plaza. You challenged me to cite a photo
taken in Dealey Plaza that shows 3/4" of upwardly displaced
jacket.
I challenged you to show that such a photo is not relevant to the shot
which hit JFK. JFK was not hit while on Houston Street.
Post by Cliff
See also Houston St. segments of the Nix film, the Hughes film,
the Muchmore film, the Martin film, the Bell film.
All taken from the west side of Houston St, all showing the
jacket collar occuding the shirt collar.
All those photo images faked, Anthony?
Please cite any time that I have called any photo faked.
That is not MY style.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
Then where are you?
Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
the photograph that it is "fake."
I am saying that I could use your same tactics.
I'm not using tactics. I'm citing the evidence.
No, you are using tactics.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Give a millimeter or two.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Look at the Best
Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
No, Anthony, I pointed out that there is no chain of possession.
No chain of possession whatsoever?
Saundra Kay Spencer's testimony under oath breaks the chain of possession.
No.
Circular logic.
Explain.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Who first posted her testimony on the Internet?
Who cares?
It goes to your attempt to claim that I was unaware of her testimony.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in they came off the street or
were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
It is *possible* they are fakes.
Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.
And why can't you just come right out and and say that the autopsy
photos are fakes?
You savvy "possible"...?
Weak. You leave open possibilities in case you need to fall back on the
idea that everything which disagrees with you is a fake.
Post by Cliff
Keep pitching the straw, my man. Won't keep you from
drowning here, I'm afraid.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
Yada, yada, yada.
That's a great argument. You do this every day, you say?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just his saying something does not make it a fact.
No, as I've acknowledged. It just means there's a "question."
Savvy "question"...?
The ARRB knew all these testimonies and still concluded that the autopsy
photos are genuine. What do you have to prove them wrong? Not just
leaving open possibilities?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
produced...
I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
that you can not even see the back wound.
Moot point.
As I keep pointing out, you can never give a direct answer.
Yada yada yada...Hey, that does feel good!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
Could be? What the Hell does that mean? You think it could also be a
blood clot? Or maybe some artificially created wound? What?
How many times do I need to reiterate this?
The authenticity of the photos is in question. Don't blame me for that --
blame the person who is on records as having developed the photos and the
person on record as having operated the camera.
No, the authenticity of the photos is NOT in question. Did you bother
reading ALL the ARRB materials?
Cite the part that directly contradicts Spencer.
When the ARRB investigated the provenance of the autopsy photos and
concluded that they were genuine. Spencer did not develop those autopsy
photographs.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Their statements undercut your wacky theory.
I don't have a theory here about this.
You claim the wound was at C7/T1 even if the
jacket wasn't elevated (it wasn't).
Who claimed what?
Post by Cliff
The base of JFK's neck almost 4 inches below
his clothing collars?
Who said that?
Post by Cliff
That's the wackiest theory of them all!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Not my problem.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
know.
I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
back at Z186.
My point is that once you start using the crutch of having to claim that
some evidence is fake, where does it end?
Stop using this strawman crutch. I said it was "possible"
the autopsy photos were faked.
You intentionally leave open that possibility as a crutch.
Post by Cliff
Jeesh...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Eventually you'll have to
claim that ALL the evidence is fake.
Unlike others who post here daily, I go as far as the evidence goes -- the
rest I label "speculation."
You can't just stop at what evidence has been spoon fed to you.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
is certified fake.
I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
You can't even state what is black and what is white. You'd come up with
an evasive answer or claim that perhaps the black is faked and is really
white.
*Perhaps* -- yes, we call that a "gray" area.
Everything is not gray.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
clothing of JFK?
No one.
So you are going on testimony alone?
No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
There is plenty of testimony. Tell us exactly what you think is lacking.
You can't follow the argument?
There is no testimony that the clothing evidence is fake.
Just for fun someone could make that claim.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Bad mistake.
When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
straw.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Testimony is often the
weakest type of evidence.
That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
photos of the jacket are primary.
No. They are indicative, not definitive.
So you say -- but you can't argue it factually.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
discussion here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
No. They've been measured repeatedly.
And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
And what if some conspiracy author claims that the holes in JFK's
clothes were manufactured?
Who cares what "some conspiracy author" claims?
No one who handled the clothing makes that claim.
You make arguments having never handled the clothing.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
could find someone who would propose such a theory
No, it's idiotic.
Post by Anthony Marsh
and how would you
disprove it,
You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
*can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
I didn't say I would.
Oh?
(quote on)
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create
the same type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as
you do about the autopsy photos.
(quote off)
But keep dancing in circles -- this is fun.
I said that I could create the same type of uncertainty.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
wacky?
What theory?
That the JFK back wound was at T-3.
It's a proven fact given the location of the clothing holes, the Dealey
Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position at Z186, four
contemporaneous documents, and the statements of a dozen people who saw
the wound.
Wonderful. JFK wasn't shot at Z186.
Post by Cliff
Oh yeah, JFK wasn't shot at Z186. A second or two didn't make a
difference since his posture didn't change.
Of course it did change.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
position at Z186.
Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
Please quantify what you mean. Of course the jacket fell at some point.
Right before the turn onto Elm St.
So?
Post by Cliff
I've only been posting the same thing in this and dozens of
other threads.
That you have to dance around it speaks of the paucity of
facts in of your non-critique.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
I know the wound wasn't shallow.
You examined the wound?
It is more than just the wound. It is the damage to the lung, the
trachea and the exit through the throat.
A half-dozen medical people at Parkland described it
as an entry.
So what? ER doctors often make that mistake. There is no practical angle
for an entrance wound to the throat. You keep ducking questions, but this
time I will put the words in your mouth because the lurkers have finally
figured out what you really think. You think that JFK was shot in the
throat from some unknown area in front of the limousine. And shot in the
back with a bullet which went in only an inch or tow and which magically
disappeared. Oh, and so did the throat shot bullet. So you have two
impossible shots with two disappearing bullets. You are not yet ready to
endorse Cutler's flechette theory. Please try to convince us that this is
not a wacky theory. Shots from impossible angles and disappearing bullets.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.
Neither did all the forensic pathologists who examined this case, but
they unanimously concluded that it was a transiting wound.
And they all disregard the statements of those who
saw the body.
You accept as gospel whatever Humes, Boswell and Finck said?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you claim
to be smarter than every forensic pathologist on this planet?
I'll go with the statements of those who handled the body.
And that is the source of your errors.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't tell me you still cling to the
shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
can not stop within an inch.
I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
OK, then give us your wacky theory.
I don't have one.
Yes you do. I just outlined it.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
merely parroting the official line.
No. I know it was a WCC MC bullet fired from the sniper's nest.
It wasn't an ice bullet.
That's the difference between us, Anthony. I don't
make claims about what I *know* unless I can back
it up.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
in the TSBD.
Why would you make that assumption?
The angle comes from knowing where the rifle was when it was fired.
See above.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
if not probable.
Yeah, so do I. So what? Show me what location and what angle you are
talking about.
The evidence I cite doesn't speak to that.
You can't even show me the location of the back wound??
Post by Cliff
All that can be proven is that the back wound was
too low to allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, that and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee. What else?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Spit it out.
O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
Which means only that such a thing is possible, not that it was true in
this case.
There you go with that "true" nonsense. You don't know one way
or the other, Anthony.
I know precisely that the ice bullet theory is NOT possible.
Please do me a favor and admit that you fall for the ice bullet theory.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Now, please tell me that you really believe it was an ice
bullet. Please.
I don't *believe* that which I cannot prove.
Oh, I remember. You leave open possibilities. So according to you it is
possible that aliens are running this planet.
Post by Cliff
I do know that 7 weeks before the assassination Gen. Maxwell Taylor was in
Saigon and sat down with top military journalist Richard Starnes and
warned that the CIA was inclined to overthrow the US gov't.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html
And who posted that here first?
Post by Cliff
The CIA was capable of firing an ice bullet.
And there you have it folks. This guy actually believes that the back
wound could be caused by an ice bullet. And that's not a wacky theory?
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
because
it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
Very stupid speculation.
Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
Nor was he competent to do so.
Finck? Why not?
Because he did not have the experience.
And because he was under military orders.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Nor could he expect to do so under those conditions.
Why not?
Because of the failure to examine the clothing.
Because of the repositioning of the body.
Because rigor mortis was starting.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
have examined it then. No?
Why do you misrepresent this way? I never said that the wound was shallow.
I mis-wrote, this should read, "You say you *know* that the wound was NOT
shallow -- you must have examined it then?"
Well?
Because of the speed of the bullet.
Because of the type of ammunition used.
Because of the bruised right lung tip.
Because of the torn trachea.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
No.
Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
And it varies from individual to individual.
Yeah, that's why I say 2-3 inches...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
On all people?
Adult males of average size, yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you don't know where C7 was on JFK then you don't know
where T3 was on JFK.
C7 is that prominent knobby one at the base of the neck.
Every human has one.
JFK had one.
2-3" below C7 is T3.
Post by Anthony Marsh
That is the same mistake that Burkley made.
Looks like the only person at the autopsy who got anything
right was Anthony Marsh.
They did figure out that he had been killed earlier that day.
Good one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
Uh-hunh. There's the tiny fracture at T1 that could have
been a pre-existing condition, or been caused by the round
that hit JFK's throat.
Oh, please. Compare that X-ray to premortem X-rays.
When were they taken?
(165) The anthropologists also studied the autopsy X-rays
in comparison with premortem X-rays of President Kennedy,
obtained from the Kennedy Library in Waltham, Mass. (9) The
premortem X-rays had been collected by the Library from a number
of different sources (10) over a period of a couple of years.
(11)

(166) By studying the premortem X-rays, the anthropologists
were able to observe a number of unique anatomic characteristics
whose absence or presence among the autopsy X-rays would, in
their opinion, be determinative of whether the two sets of X-rays
were of the same person. (12) Some of the anatomic
characteristics they noted included turcica, cranial sutures,
vascular grooves and the air cells of the mastoid bone. (13) The
anthropologists were able to observe enough of these anatomical
features among the autopsy X-rays to conclude that the autopsy
and premortem X-rays were taken of the same individual. (14)

Opinion as to the authenticity of
the films to be used for comparisons

Dr. Robert D. Morris confirms the fact that he did expose X-ray
films on President. John F. Kennedy on Jan. 18, 1961. There are
numerous unique and individual characteristics reproduced in the 15
films illustrating the dentition. The films were acquired from at
least four different sources. Films taken in like areas may be easily
compared with each other. It is my opinion that all films were taken
on the same person, John F. Kennedy.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
There was no
pre-existing fracture.
And yes the bullet which exited JFK's throat caused the fracture. The
throat wound was not an entrance.
Not according to the Parkland personnel.
Wrong. You are behind the curve on this.
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Don't forget that one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
And other than bland denials -- you haven't made a counter
argument yet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Unchallenged.
As always.
Gentle reader, please note that Anthony refers to the above as
a "wacky theory" but never argues against the facts I lay out.
Ever.
Always.
Always dancing. See above.
I wrote: You cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK's jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186.
Nor did I ever contest that point.
Post by Cliff
You responded: I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Long before you came into the debate.
Right. You appear to be arguing that it doesn't
matter where the defects are in the jacket,
the inshoot was C7/T1.
It does matter.
Post by Cliff
C7/T1 four inches below the clothing collars?
That position of yours is as wacky as it gets.
*I* don't have any theory about ice bullets.
Post by Cliff
Cliff Varnell
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Tharindu Krishan
2020-11-15 21:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
John Corbett
2020-11-18 01:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
I love when zombie threads get resurrected. This one is from 2005, three
years before I joined this newsgroup. If Cliff hadn't signed his full
name at the bottom of his post, I would have thought it had been written
by Cliff Clavin.
Anthony Marsh
2020-11-20 14:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
I love when zombie threads get resurrected. This one is from 2005, three
years before I joined this newsgroup. If Cliff hadn't signed his full
name at the bottom of his post, I would have thought it had been written
by Cliff Clavin.
Have you even looked at the autopsy photos?
John Corbett
2020-11-21 20:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
I love when zombie threads get resurrected. This one is from 2005, three
years before I joined this newsgroup. If Cliff hadn't signed his full
name at the bottom of his post, I would have thought it had been written
by Cliff Clavin.
Have you even looked at the autopsy photos?
Yes I have. The same ones you have. The few that got leaked to the general
public.
Anthony Marsh
2020-11-22 21:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
I love when zombie threads get resurrected. This one is from 2005, three
years before I joined this newsgroup. If Cliff hadn't signed his full
name at the bottom of his post, I would have thought it had been written
by Cliff Clavin.
Have you even looked at the autopsy photos?
Yes I have. The same ones you have. The few that got leaked to the general
public.
That is not true. Upload what you have.
Anthony Marsh
2020-11-20 14:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Did you ever talk to Dr. Baden? No. I did.
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
John Corbett
2020-11-21 20:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Did you ever talk to Dr. Baden? No. I did.
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
That's funny. Dr. Baden fully accepts the SBT as did his colleagues on the
FPP except for Wecht.

Apparently you misunderstood what Baden told you or you simply put your
own spin on what he said.
Anthony Marsh
2020-11-22 21:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Did you ever talk to Dr. Baden? No. I did.
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
That's funny. Dr. Baden fully accepts the SBT as did his colleagues on the
FPP except for Wecht.
I don't care what you think, I am telling you what he told me.
YOU never talked to him.
Post by John Corbett
Apparently you misunderstood what Baden told you or you simply put your
own spin on what he said.
So McAdams encourages you to call me a liar, but I am not aloowed to
call you a liar. And you call that Free Speech?
John Corbett
2020-11-24 00:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Did you ever talk to Dr. Baden? No. I did.
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
That's funny. Dr. Baden fully accepts the SBT as did his colleagues on the
FPP except for Wecht.
I don't care what you think,
I don't care that you don't care.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I am telling you what he told me.
YOU never talked to him.
I'll take you at your word that he told you the bullet struck T-1. The
part about the bullet deflecting upward I'm sure came from you because the
FPP report never said that. The HSCA fully endorsed the SBT.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Apparently you misunderstood what Baden told you or you simply put your
own spin on what he said.
So McAdams encourages you to call me a liar, but I am not aloowed to
call you a liar. And you call that Free Speech?
I didn't call you a liar.....this time. If you think so, your reading
comprehension is very bad.
Anthony Marsh
2020-11-25 21:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Did you ever talk to Dr. Baden? No. I did.
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
That's funny. Dr. Baden fully accepts the SBT as did his colleagues on the
FPP except for Wecht.
I don't care what you think,
I don't care that you don't care.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I am telling you what he told me.
YOU never talked to him.
I'll take you at your word that he told you the bullet struck T-1. The
part about the bullet deflecting upward I'm sure came from you because the
FPP report never said that. The HSCA fully endorsed the SBT.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Apparently you misunderstood what Baden told you or you simply put your
own spin on what he said.
So McAdams encourages you to call me a liar, but I am not aloowed to
call you a liar. And you call that Free Speech?
I didn't call you a liar.....this time. If you think so, your reading
comprehension is very bad.
John nows they did and he encourages it.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-11-29 01:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Did you ever talk to Dr. Baden? No. I did.
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
Zombie thread resurrected by a (starts with a T and rhymes with "roll").

What's the point?

"Tharindu Krishan" added nothing of value. He didn't even remark on the
prior posts, he just resurrected the 15-year-old thread.

But of course, Tony has to argue the 15-year-old point with Ken Rahn, who
as far as I can tell, hasn't posted here in at least ten years.

This is the most recent post by Rahn I could find.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/JpLpvyQZpHM/m/B6bl2RoVbywJ

Arguing a point with a guy who hasn't posted here in ten years pretty much
sums up the futility of Marsh's posts.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2020-11-30 04:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Cliff
Cliff,
Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
especially when it easily lends itself to
alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
I would call that an extremely risky position,
both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
Did you ever talk to Dr. Baden? No. I did.
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
Zombie thread resurrected by a (starts with a T and rhymes with "roll").
What's the point?
"Tharindu Krishan" added nothing of value. He didn't even remark on the
prior posts, he just resurrected the 15-year-old thread.
I don't think I was the one who resurected the old thread, but what do
you have against Zombies? Are you prejudiced?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
But of course, Tony has to argue the 15-year-old point with Ken Rahn,
who as far as I can tell, hasn't posted here in at least ten years.
I don't still argue with him, but at least he was an honest person, not
a liar.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
This is the most recent post by Rahn I could find.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/JpLpvyQZpHM/m/B6bl2RoVbywJ
Arguing a point with a guy who hasn't posted here in ten years pretty much
sums up the futility of Marsh's posts.
Maybe I was making some moron waware of smething they never herd of
before.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Loading...