+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: "Respect" for the clothing evidence? (/thread-13647.html)
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Cliff Varnell - 08-02-2015
On the Colby/McAdams thread Jim DiEugenio wrote:
Quote:We all know about the shirt evidence and the jacket evidence and how it does not align with a high back wound. Its been around in a popular way at least since Epstein's book Inquest.
There was no "high back wound."
Can you even come out and say it? The holes in the clothes align with T3.
Vincent Salandria was the first to point out the primacy of the clothing evidence.
The Salandria Group -- Vincent S., Gaeton Fonzi, E. Martin Schotz, Michael Morrissey, Harold Feldman -- all tout the primacy of the clothing evidence.
This has fallen on deaf ears, Jim.
Quote:I respect it, as do most people on our side.
No, Jim, you don't. I recall you bragging about the fact you don't cite it.
Most of your colleagues seem to buy into this notion of a high back wound.
Tink Thompson, Cyril Wecht, Stu Wexler, Pat Speer, John Hunt.
David Mantik has wasted all kinds of words micro-analyzing a wound that never existed.
When was the last time the T3 back wound and front throat entrance wound were discussed at a major JFK conference?
1998?
There is a distinct lack of consensus on this issue that speaks ill of the collective efforts of the JFK Critical Assassination Research Community
Quote: Ed Lopez tried to talk Andy Purdy out of his switcher with the HSCA on that point.
We all know how you are wedded to it. That includes me. Thanks for that contribution.
Do you sneer at Vincent Salandria for being "wedded" to the clothing evidence?
Those who don't grasp the significance of the low back wound/throat entrance don't understand the first thing about the murder of JFK.
I don't care how many books they've written.
I can shut down David Von Pein with one piece of evidence -- something Jim DiEugenio cannot.
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Bob Prudhomme - 08-02-2015
Hi Cliff
If you want to discuss a low back wound, I agree with you 100%. A wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line at T3 is squarely lined up with the top section of JFK's right lung. There is enough in the medical evidence, presented in Appendix VIII of the WCR, about obvious signs of pneumothorax and the placement of a chest tube into JFK's right pleural cavity to more than confirm, in my mind, that JFK had a serious wound to his right lung.
I also believe a "shallow" back wound is preposterous, as rifle bullets simply travel at too high of velocities to cause a wound in flesh less than an inch deep. And while many "experts" have tried to tell us the back wound was caused by a "short shot", likely a result of defective gunpowder robbing the bullet of most of its muzzle velocity, what these "experts" fail to mention is that the "short" in "short shot" means the bullet, due to decreased muzzle velocity, will fall short of its target; often hitting the ground only part way to the target.
I feel certain the bullet that entered JFK's right lung was a type of bullet that suffered disintegration while travelling through soft tissue, explaining why no exit wound was observed at Parkland on the front of JFK's chest.
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Cliff Varnell - 08-02-2015
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Hi Cliff
If you want to discuss a low back wound, I agree with you 100%. A wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line at T3 is squarely lined up with the top section of JFK's right lung. There is enough in the medical evidence, presented in Appendix VIII of the WCR, about obvious signs of pneumothorax and the placement of a chest tube into JFK's right pleural cavity to more than confirm, in my mind, that JFK had a serious wound to his right lung.
I also believe a "shallow" back wound is preposterous, as rifle bullets simply travel at too high of velocities to cause a wound in flesh less than an inch deep.
Hi Bob
You're assuming JFK was struck in the back with a conventional weapon.
That's an assumption that cannot be made.
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Bob Prudhomme - 09-02-2015
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Hi Cliff
If you want to discuss a low back wound, I agree with you 100%. A wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line at T3 is squarely lined up with the top section of JFK's right lung. There is enough in the medical evidence, presented in Appendix VIII of the WCR, about obvious signs of pneumothorax and the placement of a chest tube into JFK's right pleural cavity to more than confirm, in my mind, that JFK had a serious wound to his right lung.
I also believe a "shallow" back wound is preposterous, as rifle bullets simply travel at too high of velocities to cause a wound in flesh less than an inch deep.
Hi Bob
You're assuming JFK was struck in the back with a conventional weapon.
That's an assumption that cannot be made.
Yeah, I guess I'm just old fashioned. However, I have looked very closely at all of the theories involving exotic non-lead projectiles doing the damage in the JFK assassination, and I have come to two conclusions about them.
1. I have yet to see any of these exotic weapons that do not have a chance of leaving some exotic projectile (or part of a projectile) behind for some curious bystander to pick up and start asking embarrassing questions about.
2. You can't beat a high speed lead bullet for efficiency in killing, and the mess this bullet leaves behind makes the resulting death very believable to the public. If JFK had died, and the only wounds visible were a tiny hole in the neck and a "shallow" wound in the back, how long would it take for reporters to start speculating about exotic CIA based toxins as the cause of death?
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Albert Doyle - 09-02-2015
We need to form a referendum and exhume Kennedy's body. I don't know how much viable flesh is left but an analysis of the alleged trajectory would show no damage of the vertebrae.
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - David Josephs - 09-02-2015
'nuf said....
Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and theautopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of theneck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the presenttime.
We have an expl[B]anation there in the autopsy [/B]that probably a fragmentcame out the front of the neck, butwith the elevation the shot must have comefrom, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture ofwhere the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below theshoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where thepicture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, andthe bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, thatparticular bullet, and go through.
So that how it could turn, and --
Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.
Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said
(the explanation which Rankin refers to does not exist in the existing autopsy report...)
JFK Autopsy
2. The second wound presumably of entry is thatdescribed above in
the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis
of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through
the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound
presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of
Dallas in thelow anterior cervical region
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Tracy Riddle - 09-02-2015
Cliff Varnell Wrote:On the Colby/McAdams thread Jim DiEugenio wrote:
Quote:We all know about the shirt evidence and the jacket evidence and how it does not align with a high back wound. Its been around in a popular way at least since Epstein's book Inquest.
There was no "high back wound."
Can you even come out and say it? The holes in the clothes align with T3.
Vincent Salandria was the first to point out the primacy of the clothing evidence.
The Salandria Group -- Vincent S., Gaeton Fonzi, E. Martin Schotz, Michael Morrissey, Harold Feldman -- all tout the primacy of the clothing evidence.
This has fallen on deaf ears, Jim.
Quote:I respect it, as do most people on our side.
No, Jim, you don't. I recall you bragging about the fact you don't cite it.
Most of your colleagues seem to buy into this notion of a high back wound.
Tink Thompson, Cyril Wecht, Stu Wexler, Pat Speer, John Hunt.
David Mantik has wasted all kinds of words micro-analyzing a wound that never existed.
When was the last time the T3 back wound and front throat entrance wound were discussed at a major JFK conference?
1998?
There is a distinct lack of consensus on this issue that speaks ill of the collective efforts of the JFK Critical Assassination Research Community
Quote: Ed Lopez tried to talk Andy Purdy out of his switcher with the HSCA on that point.
We all know how you are wedded to it. That includes me. Thanks for that contribution.
Do you sneer at Vincent Salandria for being "wedded" to the clothing evidence?
Those who don't grasp the significance of the low back wound/throat entrance don't understand the first thing about the murder of JFK.
I don't care how many books they've written.
I can shut down David Von Pein with one piece of evidence -- something Jim DiEugenio cannot.
I think we should be able to debate and discuss matters here without questioning each others' integrity and motives. The terms "high" and "low" are very vague and relative. I'm the first to admit I don't know whether JFK was really struck in the back, or exactly where, or by what.
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Cliff Varnell - 09-02-2015
Quote:Hi Bob
You're assuming JFK was struck in the back with a conventional weapon.
That's an assumption that cannot be made.
Yeah, I guess I'm just old fashioned. However, I have looked very closely at all of the theories involving exotic non-lead projectiles doing the damage in the JFK assassination, and I have come to two conclusions about them.
1. I have yet to see any of these exotic weapons that do not have a chance of leaving some exotic projectile (or part of a projectile) behind for some curious bystander to pick up and start asking embarrassing questions about.
When did you become familiar with every weapon devised for the US Army Special Operations Division out of Ft. Detrick?
A few weeks ago you didn't appear to have any knowledge of these weapons -- now you're an expert?
2. You can't beat a high speed lead bullet for efficiency in killing, and the mess this bullet leaves behind makes the resulting death very believable to the public.
Or unless the first shot misses and the subject ducks for cover. Then what?
If JFK had died, and the only wounds visible were a tiny hole in the neck and a "shallow" wound in the back, how long would it take for reporters to start speculating about exotic CIA based toxins as the cause of death?
It would have taken 12 years. It wasn't until 1975 that any reporters knew about these weapons. And even then, what mainstream reporters were all that aggressive about JFK murder inquiries?
[/QUOTE]
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Bob Prudhomme - 09-02-2015
Hi Cliff
Think about this scenario. Let's say JFK was shot in the neck (or the back) with a high tech paralyzing dart and, BEFORE anyone has a chance to finish him off with a bullet, Jackie pulls him over onto the seat, or he ducks for cover, or he falls over, or, God forbid, Greer did what he was supposed to do, and put the pedal to the metal and got everyone the hell out of Dodge.
So, now you have JFK paralyzed in the back of the limo on the way to Parkland. Even if the dart magically dissolves in JFK's neck, you still have a hole in his neck and a paralyzed President.
None of the above can be explained away with a lone nut armed with a Carcano. Don't you think any of this might be a bit risky?
"Respect" for the clothing evidence? - Cliff Varnell - 09-02-2015
Tracy Riddle Wrote:I think we should be able to debate and discuss matters here without questioning each others' integrity and motives.The terms "high" and "low" are very vague and relative. I'm the first to admit I don't know whether JFK was really struck in the back, or exactly where, or by what.
A "high" back wound would be at the base of the neck -- the "low" back wound was at T3.
A 2+" difference.
Nothing could be easier than assessing the location of the back wound. The US Gov't, the Corporate media, and a small army of privater citizens have blown so much smoke over the issue it's been effectively obfuscated.
The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.
Tracy, glance down upon your right shoulder-line, then casually raise your right hand and wave a la JFK.
You will observe the fabric of your shirt indent. Indentation is the opposite of what high back wound defenders claim occurred with JFK's shirt.
This is a universal phenomenon which occurs literally hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet.
Anyone can verify this.
A five year old could demonstrate the location of the back wound.