28-02-2014, 01:13 AM
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.