+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: Education Forum closing yet again... (/Thread-Education-Forum-closing-yet-again)
Education Forum closing yet again... - Albert Doyle - 27-02-2014
Cliff Varnell Wrote:How many times was JFK shot in the head?
If you think about it the correct answer is "As many times as they needed to do a pre-autopsy to cover it up". Cliff, don't fall for the Von Pein, Amazon book review troll demand for perfect evidence. I keep telling people once you have reasonable evidence of government malfeasance the standard for evidence drops significantly in your favor. You then have to come up with a lot less evidence to make your case. You no longer have to worry about it, the government criminals who murdered Kennedy do.
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Was there pre-autopsy surgery to the head?
I think Lifton and Horne have presented cases that deserve more respect than this. I believe most researchers already know the answers that there was visible surgery noted at the official autopsy and remarkably different wounds than those witnessed at Parkland. The answer is, yes, absolutely. In fact Pitzer most-likely recorded it and was murdered for it.
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Lots of reasons to believe so but we still don't know who did it where or when, if it happened at all.
In my opinion the Horne evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. The brain evidence is conclusive and you can back-track from there. What is your point, that there might be veracity to the Warren Report version?
Cliff Varnell Wrote:&So research into the medical evidence has all the air sucked out of it by a study of unknowable things, paying relatively little attention to the back and throat wounds which are eminently knowable.
Strange hobby, is the best I can say of the head wound(s?) research.
I think describing the Horne evidence as "unknowable" isn't respectful enough of what has already been shown. In my opinion they are all valid and all accumulative to the evidence. Researchers should be less defensive of their pet theories and more open-minded about the total evidence.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Cliff Varnell - 27-02-2014
Albert Doyle Wrote:[quote=Cliff Varnell]
How many times was JFK shot in the head?
If you think about it
I don't waste much time thinking about it, no thanks.
the correct answer is "As many times as they needed to do a pre-autopsy to cover it up". Cliff, don't fall for the Von Pein, Amazon book review troll demand for perfect evidence.
I have no idea what you're talking about, Albert. The evidence of conspiracy is absolutely perfect -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.
Albert, turn your head to the right, glance down upon the shirt fabric on your right shoulder-line, and slowly raise your right hand and wave, as if JFK waving on Elm St.
Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT. This is the opposite action of the shirt required by the SBT, which therefore stands debunked.
See how easy that is, Albert?
I keep telling people once you have reasonable evidence of government malfeasance the standard for evidence drops significantly in your favor.
Rubbish. The evidence of government malfeasance is obvious, has been for 50 years, and requires no "experts" to make a case for conspiracy any "vegetable" (as Vincent Salandria put it) could figure out with a mere glance at the location of the bullet holes in the clothes.
You then have to come up with a lot less evidence to make your case. You no longer have to worry about it, the government criminals who murdered Kennedy do.
The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.
How much simpler can you get?
All this crap about the head wounds is nothing but busy work to distract from the more telling back and throat wounds.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Cliff Varnell - 27-02-2014
Cliff Varnell Wrote:If you think about it
I don't waste much time thinking about it, no thanks.
Albert, as a point of clarification David Lifton and I are research-friends. David is one of the few who understand the central issue in the case -- what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?
He and Doug Horne have done yeoman's work in this area, and while I do not agree with their conclusions regarding the back/throat wounds I appreciate their exploration of this very small universe I call -- Truly Relevant Issues of the JFK Assassination.
I give a hoot about the headwound/s and I defy your ability to explain it to a five year old.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Albert Doyle - 27-02-2014
Cliff Varnell Wrote:I give a hoot about the headwound/s and I defy your ability to explain it to a five year old.
Which should make you worry after saying "I have no idea what you are talking about". lol
I've seen your shirt wound location stuff on the Education Forum. I don't have any problem with it. Though I'm not sure it should then become a monomania used to bash anyone who speaks of any other equally valid conspiracy evidence over the head with. Geesh Cliff, lighten up.
I think Lifton and Horne have made a good enough case that something needed to be covered-up during the pre-autopsy. At that point a five year old would realize you don't need any precise explanations of the exact wounds. I don't think there's any disagreement here.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Cliff Varnell - 28-02-2014
Albert Doyle Wrote:[quote=Cliff Varnell]
I give a hoot about the headwound/s and I defy your ability to explain it to a five year old.
Which should make you worry after saying "I have no idea what you are talking about". lol
Not to worry. What David Von Pein writes in Amazon reviews is nothing I spend any time considering, so no, I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to it.
Should I? Should I be concerned with what DVP writes in Amazon reviews?
You seem to attribute significance to it, although I can't imagine what that could be.
I've seen your shirt wound location stuff on the Education Forum. I don't have any problem with it. Though I'm not sure it should then become a monomania used to bash anyone who speaks of any other equally valid conspiracy evidence over the head with. Geesh Cliff, lighten up.
It isn't equally valid. False equivalence. There is a tremendous amount of conflicting evidence in regards to the headwound/s -- there is tremendous consistency in regard to the back and throat wounds as long as one understands that properly prepared evidence trumps improperly prepared evidence.
Serves the cover-up to direct attention to the most complex data sets.
I think Lifton and Horne have made a good enough case that something needed to be covered-up during the pre-autopsy. At that point a five year old would realize you don't need any precise explanations of the exact wounds. I don't think there's any disagreement here.
My argument is that the headwound/s study, within the JFK Critical Community, has become mono-manical at the expense of the study of the more revealing back/throat wounds.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Cliff Varnell - 28-02-2014
There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.
How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:
"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"
To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.
Once.
By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.
The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!
What was the hot topic at Wecht?
The headwound/s.
So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::
Education Forum closing yet again... - Bob Prudhomme - 28-02-2014
Cliff Varnell Wrote:There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.
How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:
"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"
To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.
Once.
By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.
The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!
What was the hot topic at Wecht?
The headwound/s.
So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::
Perhaps another good question would be: Why did certain bullets not penetrate further or cause more damage than they did?
It is easy to dismiss the back wound, which only penetrated an inch or two (according to Humes), as a "short shot" caused by a defective cartridge, but this is unlikely in the extreme. While Italian 6.5mm Carcano military ammunition was known to be very unreliable, often causing hangfires and misfires, the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition made by the Western Cartridge Co. did not share this reputation. It is believed, in some circles, that the bullet that struck JFK in the back first struck a branch of the Texas live oak that stood between the SN and the limo but this also seems unlikely. This bullet left a round hole, and a bullet striking a large limb should have been tumbling when it struck JFK, and left a "keyhole" type of wound. If it were a small branch, and not big enough to disturb the flight of the bullet significantly, the bullet should have retained much of its original muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and penetrated well into JFK's pleural cavity.
There are oddities about other bullet strikes in the limo, as well. I will let you respond to my above remarks before I bring them up.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Cliff Varnell - 28-02-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.
How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:
"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"
To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.
Once.
By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.
The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!
What was the hot topic at Wecht?
The headwound/s.
So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::
Perhaps another good question would be: Why did certain bullets not penetrate further or cause more damage than they did?
It is easy to dismiss the back wound, which only penetrated an inch or two (according to Humes), as a "short shot" caused by a defective cartridge, but this is unlikely in the extreme. While Italian 6.5mm Carcano military ammunition was known to be very unreliable, often causing hangfires and misfires, the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition made by the Western Cartridge Co. did not share this reputation. It is believed, in some circles, that the bullet that struck JFK in the back first struck a branch of the Texas live oak that stood between the SN and the limo but this also seems unlikely. This bullet left a round hole, and a bullet striking a large limb should have been tumbling when it struck JFK, and left a "keyhole" type of wound. If it were a small branch, and not big enough to disturb the flight of the bullet significantly, the bullet should have retained much of its original muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and penetrated well into JFK's pleural cavity.
There are oddities about other bullet strikes in the limo, as well. I will let you respond to my above remarks before I bring them up.
Your remarks are on point, Bob. We have two wounds inconsistent with conventional ammunition -- shallow, minor damage, no exits, and no rounds recovered during the autopsy.
As you say, it's hard to believe that a "short shot" occurred at all much less twice.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Bob Prudhomme - 28-02-2014
Actually, Cliff, I believe there were more than two wounds inconsistent with what should have been produced by a 6.5mm Carcano bullet.
I do not believe the wound to Connally's right wrist could have been caused by the bullet that entered him from behind, under the right armpit. The fact that this bullet was supposed to have struck the back side of his right wrist, hitting the radius bone full on, and exited the palm side of his wrist, excludes this possibility, as it would have been impossible (unless his elbow was double jointed) for Connally to be able to hold his forearm in a position that would have presented the back side of his wrist to the bullet.
That being said, the bullet hole in Connally's shirt cuff was not a neat round hole but, rather, was 2.5 cm. long; the approximate length of a Carcano bullet. This leaves two possibilities; 1) this bullet struck something on its way to Connally's wrist and was tumbling when it hit his wrist or 2) this bullet was travelling at such a low velocity, it de-stabilized and began tumbling before it struck Connally.
Connally's surgeon stated that a rifle wound to the wrist should have destroyed the bones in his wrist and that such a wound would often result in amputation. At the very least, the bullet should have travelled through Connally's radius bone rather than being stopped by it. Even if one subscribes to the SBT, the bullet had not travelled through enough matter to have slowed it this much, especially if one remembers that 6.5mm FMJ bullets were used to kill elephants in Africa; exclusively with head shots.
The other oddities that bother me are the crack in the limo windshield and the bullet dent in the trim above the limo's windshield. It is just remotely possible the crack in the windshield was caused by a tiny piece of shrapnel from JFK's head. The mortician Tom Robinson did report two small shrapnel wounds in JFK's face and it is possible the crack in the windshield was caused this way.
The dent in the windshield trim is another matter, though. It definitely looks as if it was made by a much larger piece of metal and has all of the appearances of an intact bullet striking the trim nose first. Once again, though, there does not seem to be sufficient damage to the windshield trim to account for a rifle bullet hitting it, as a FMJ bullet travelling at just over 2000 fps should have done far more damage. And I cannot see this strike being tied to any of the wounds, including the fatal head shot, as there was no evidence of a bullet exiting JFK's face. Even if one subscribes to the "cowlick" entry wound in JFK's head, its required exit path should have taken it into the back of Connally's jump seat.
So, it seems we now have at least four bullets to be explained away by the "short shot" theory. The odds of this occurring in WCC ammunition are remote, to say the least, and having four "short shots" out of a box of twenty would have to be a record for WCC ammunition.
Education Forum closing yet again... - Dawn Meredith - 28-02-2014
Cliff Varnell Wrote:There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.
How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:
"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"
To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.
Once.
By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.
The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!
What was the hot topic at Wecht?
The headwound/s.
So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::
WHAT??? Wecht went on tv and said one bullet caused both the throat and back wounds? Did you hear this correctly? I saw him at COPA - he was the keynote speaker and he did not say anything remotely intellectually dishonest as this. Could the damn media have edited his words? Certainly not the first time. NBC did this to Garrison decades ago to make him look like a fool.
Dawn.