Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Today at 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 10:12 am by Stan Dane

» What strange affidavits these are!
Yesterday at 11:43 pm by Ed. Ledoux

»  How Jack Ruby's Entry Could Have Been Coordinated
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:59 pm by Vinny

» JFK Conference
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:55 pm by Vinny

» Kennedys and King website
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:01 pm by barto

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 4:59 pm

David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2013 - 04:28 AM
I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave



#2 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 647 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 10 September 2013 - 04:39 AM
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave




Hello Dave
 
Have you had a chance to look at the thread "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" What do you think about the so called Prayer Man at the top of the stairs at the TSBD? It sure looks like Oswald, and no one seems to be able to identify him either. Your thoughts?

#3 Robert Morrow

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,183 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX
  • Interests:I welcome phone calls and emails relating to the JFK assassination. My phone is 512-306-1510 in Austin, TX and my email is Morrow321@aol.com. If you would like my "LBJ and CIA murdered JFK" file, please email me. It has LOTS of super info and web links.

    ALSO ===>

    I would bet my house, my car, and my bank account that the Clintons & Buddy Young sent 3 Arkansas state trooper goons to beat the living hell out of and nearly murder Gary Johnson (the lawyer for Larry Nichols & neighbor of Gennifer Flowers) on June 26, 1992. They did this because Gary Johnson had security camera videotapes of Bill Clinton often entering Gennifer's condo. The Clintons were denying the Bill/Gennifer affair at that time. The Clinton thugs then stole the tapes. Watch the "New Clinton Chronicles" and go to minute 48 for the Gary Johnson interview.

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:19 AM
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
 
Roger Stone has a new book coming out which indicts Lyndon Johnson, the CIA and the mafia in the JFK assassination. http://www.amazon.co...rds=roger stone
 
Roger Stone will also have information from multiple high level US political players - all indicting Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination: Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Henry Cabot Lodge and several other high level American political players all thought LBJ did. Not only that:
 
Roger Stone from 9/2/13: "Bill Casey's nephew told me last nite when he asked DCI who killed JFK

Casey said " Johnson's fingers were in the soupbowl""
 
That is William Casey, former Reagan campaign manager and later head of the CIA - indicting Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination. Not in Stone's book - but he was told this recently by a nephew of William Casey.
 
Stone also had conversations with Roy Cohn and Tony "Fats" Salerno of the NY Genovese mafia family in 1979. Guess who they indicted in the JFK assassination? Read Stone's book.
 
Not to mention the KGB who was convinced by Sept. 1965 that "LBJ Did It."

So how do the skeptics of the skeptics handle all that blockbuster revelatory information. Just ignore it because it does not fit one's theory?
 
Richard Nixon also told Roger Stone that he knew exactly who Jack Ruby was - an LBJ man from the 1940's who was put on the HUAC as a paid informant. This is out of Nixon's mouth not out of some internet document.
 
As soon as Nixon saw Jack Ruby kill Oswald on 11/24/63 Nixon knew exactly what the score was and who was most likely behind the JFK assassination.
 
Richard Nixon on the day of the murder of Oswald - looked at the TV; his face turned white and he (Nixon) said "I know that man!"
 
Roger Stone had some long conversations with John Mitchell, Nixon's attorney general who was very close to Nixon for a long time. What does he say? Read Roger Stone's book and you will find out.
 
How about Waggoner Carr? There is blockbuster material on him as well in Roger Stone's book and who he was convinced was behind the JFK assassination.
 
And, finally, some people embrace the term skeptic or "critic" when it comes to the JFK assassination.
 
I don't. I am a researcher and amateur historian of the JFK assassination and I know who did it and why.
 

Edited by Robert Morrow, 10 September 2013 - 08:22 AM.
#4 Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin

  • 4,912 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:18 AM
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
Congratulations, David. I'll have to get an online issue and read it.


#5 Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,746 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 10 September 2013 - 01:35 PM
This is terrific news, Dave. I'll get my copy at the local newsstand as I have doubts as to how safe CIA safe houses really are.


#6 David Andrews

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,455 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2013 - 03:43 PM
Stone also had conversations with Roy Cohn and Tony "Fats" Salerno of the NY Genovese mafia family in 1979. Guess who they indicted in the JFK assassination? Read Stone's book.
 
Robert, as longtime Roy Cohn watcher, I have to ask what Cohn allegedly said.
 
I saw Roy Cohn when he spoke at NYU in the early 1980s - did not get to speak with him, though.



#7 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:29 PM
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
 
Hi Dave,
 
So...what do you say about the clothing evidence?
 
After all, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to be associated with his throat wound.
 
You remember the bullet holes in JFK's clothes, don't you, Dave?


#8 Robert Morrow



    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,183 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX
  • Interests:I welcome phone calls and emails relating to the JFK assassination. My phone is 512-306-1510 in Austin, TX and my email is Morrow321@aol.com. If you would like my "LBJ and CIA murdered JFK" file, please email me. It has LOTS of super info and web links.

    ALSO ===>

    I would bet my house, my car, and my bank account that the Clintons & Buddy Young sent 3 Arkansas state trooper goons to beat the living hell out of and nearly murder Gary Johnson (the lawyer for Larry Nichols & neighbor of Gennifer Flowers) on June 26, 1992. They did this because Gary Johnson had security camera videotapes of Bill Clinton often entering Gennifer's condo. The Clintons were denying the Bill/Gennifer affair at that time. The Clinton thugs then stole the tapes. Watch the "New Clinton Chronicles" and go to minute 48 for the Gary Johnson interview.

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:55 PM
David Andrews, on 10 Sept 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:
David Andrews wrote:Stone also had conversations with Roy Cohn and Tony "Fats" Salerno of the NY Genovese mafia family in 1979. Guess who they indicted in the JFK assassination? Read Stone's book.
 
Robert, as longtime Roy Cohn watcher, I have to ask what Cohn allegedly said.
 
I saw Roy Cohn when he spoke at NYU in the early 1980s - did not get to speak with him, though.
 
Roger Stone was asked to run New York state for the 1980 Reagan campaign. Stone had a meeting with Roy Cohn at the same time with Tony "Fats" Salerno the front man for the Genovese crime. Cohn and Salerno were both supporting Ronald Reagan for president.
 
Read Roger Stone's book and see who they pinned the JFK assassination on. It comes out November 6th.
 
Roy Cohn had an outrageous hatred of Robert Kennedy. Both of them had worked on the staff of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950's.


#9 Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 4,171 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:52 PM
Dave,
 
I hope to read your article. What do you say about the large wound in the back of JFK's head, seen in Dallas and at Bethesda alike?
 
I used to subscribe to Skeptic and another "skeptical" mag called Skeptical Inquirer. The thing about these "skeptics" is that I don't recall them ever being skeptical at all about the U.S. government (I can't think of anything to be more skeptical about). They are only skeptical toward private researchers and others who postulate "conspiracy" theories and such. If the government says that that UFO was just a weather balloon or the planet Venus, then these skeptics say you can believe it was a weather balloon or the planet Venus. These are skeptics? They sound more like government mouthpieces.
 
But I hope your article is different.


#10 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:57 PM
All due respects to Dave
For his wonderful work on Garrison
 
I won't spend a dime
until Dave answers
the question above
about
Prayer Man


#11 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:30 PM
When Dave last checked in at 12:35am today he may have missed this.
 
Let's bump it, since it involves the crucial physical evidence in the murder of JFK -- the location of the holes in the clothing.
 
Right, Dave?
 
 
Cliff Varnell, on 10 Sept 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
 
Hi Dave,
 
So...what do you say about the clothing evidence?
 
After all, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to be associated with his throat wound.
 
You remember the bullet holes in JFK's clothes, don't you, Dave?
 


#12 Richard Coleman

    Experienced Member

  • Members

  • 73 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2013 - 04:53 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 11 Sept 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
When Dave last checked in at 12:35am today he may have missed this.
 
Let's bump it, since it involves the crucial physical evidence in the murder of JFK -- the location of the holes in the clothing.
 
Right, Dave?
 
 
Cliff Varnell, on 10 Sept 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
 
Hi Dave,
 
So...what do you say about the clothing evidence?
 
After all, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to be associated with his throat wound.
 
You remember the bullet holes in JFK's clothes, don't you, Dave?
 
 
Hi Cliff.

While the McAdamses bleat about JFK's jacket "bunching", thus trying to reconcile a low bullet hole for a high entrance wound, nobody - I mean NOBODY - at least that I ever heard of - has ever tried to claim that his SHIRT  also BUNCHED under his jacket. Yet the hole in the shirt matches exactly the jacket hole.
 
Hey Dave! what about the shirt Dave? Dave?? Yoo hoo, Dave......WHAT ABOUT THE SHIRT?


#13 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:36 PM
Richard Coleman, on 11 Sept 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:
Richard Coleman wrote:

 
Cliff Varnell, on 11 Sept 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:

 
When Dave last checked in at 12:35am today he may have missed this.
 
Let's bump it, since it involves the crucial physical evidence in the murder of JFK -- the location of the holes in the clothing.
 
Right, Dave?
 
 
Cliff Varnell, on 10 Sept 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:

 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
 
Hi Dave,
 
So...what do you say about the clothing evidence?
 
After all, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to be associated with his throat wound.
 
You remember the bullet holes in JFK's clothes, don't you, Dave?
 
 
Hi Cliff.
 
While the McAdamses bleat about JFK's jacket "bunching", thus trying to reconcile a low bullet hole for a high entrance wound, nobody - I mean NOBODY - at least that I ever heard of - has ever tried to claim that his SHIRT  also BUNCHED under his jacket. Yet the hole in the shirt matches exactly the jacket hole.
 
Hey Dave! what about the shirt Dave? Dave?? Yoo hoo, Dave......WHAT ABOUT THE SHIRT?
 
 
 
Hi Richard,
 
The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.
 
The defect in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.
 
The jacket was bunched up a fraction of an inch in Dealey Plaza.  The shirt wasn't bunched up at all.
 
The Weaver photo shows a great shot of this.
 

 
Check out the smooth floor of the jacket indentation on the right shoulder.
 

 
The jacket was elevated a fraction of an inch and the shirt wasn't elevated at all.
 
Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter of debate but a fact to be observed.


#14 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:48 PM
D'oh!  There I go again!  Hi-jacking a thread when I already vowed not to do so and started a thread solely for Dave's comments on the clothing evidence...That's one amends I owe...

Richard -- perhaps we should take our discussion here:
 
http://educationforu...showtopic=20432


#15 David Andrews

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,455 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2013 - 08:22 PM
A timeline occurs to me:
 
1) JFK shot in throat through windshield
 
2) Raises fists in involuntary reaction
 
3) Jacket bunches slightly
 
4) JFK shot in back
 
Case closed?


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wzdSXI-p9KYJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D1+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Last edited by Tom Scully on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:38 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Title Edit, and question added.)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:00 pm


  • Prev


  • Page 2 of 19
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


  • Next
  • »


  • Please log in to reply
  • Go to first unread post

275 replies to this topic
#16 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 11 September 2013 - 11:48 PM
Robert Morrow, on 10 Sept 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:
Robert Morrow wrote:Richard Nixon also told Roger Stone that he knew exactly who Jack Ruby was - an LBJ man from the 1940's who was put on the HUAC as a paid informant. This is out of Nixon's mouth not out of some internet document.
 
As soon as Nixon saw Jack Ruby kill Oswald on 11/24/63 Nixon knew exactly what the score was and who was most likely behind the JFK assassination.
 
Richard Nixon on the day of the murder of Oswald - looked at the TV; his face turned white and he (Nixon) said "I know that man!"
 
How about Waggoner Carr? There is blockbuster material on him as well in Roger Stone's book and who he was convinced was behind the JFK assassination.
 
 
I don't. I am a researcher and amateur historian of the JFK assassination and I know who did it and why.
 
 
And we have watched you developing
Into a good one,
When you are looking up
Just don't keep looking down
 
I am especially interested
in Waggoner Carr
and will happily fork over
fifteen bucks
to Mister Stone
 
Mr Stone sounds like
a rock we can turn 
into a boulder
rolling down 
the Rockies
 
But not a dime
for those
dumb skeptics

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll, 11 September 2013 - 11:50 PM.
#17 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,779 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:35 AM
David Andrews, on 11 Sept 2013 - 2:22 PM, said:
David Andrews wrote:

A timeline occurs to me:
 
1) JFK shot in throat through windshield
 
2) Raises fists in involuntary reaction
 
3) Jacket bunches slightly
 
4) JFK shot in back
 
Case closed?
 The jacket was in the process of dropping fractions of an inch incrementally throughout the Dealey Plaza limo ride.
 
When you raise your arm it causes the fabric of your shirt to INDENT along the shoulder-line.
 
This phenomenon occurs billions of times a day on this planet.
 
Gentle reader, turn your head to the right, glance down upon the top of your right shoulder-line, raise your arm and wave like JFK.
 
What happens to the fabric of your shirt along the shoulder-line?
 
It indents.  Every time.
 
It indents when Dave Reitzes waves his arm.  Every single time.
 
Why does he think it didn't happen with JFK?

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 12 September 2013 - 03:09 AM.
#18 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,779 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:15 AM
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
Dave,
 
Are you familiar with the term "special pleading"?
 
Looks like your article is a veritable SpecialPleadingPalooza!

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 12 September 2013 - 03:17 AM.
#19 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,779 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:01 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 11 Sept 2013 - 9:15 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
Dave,
 
Are you familiar with the term "special pleading"?
 
Looks like your article is a veritable SpecialPleadingPalooza!
 
 
This is interesting.  Dave Reitzes checked out at 11:32pm without comment on the clothing evidence.
 
The header writes itself -- "Dave Reitzes' Special Pleading -- What It Means and Why It Matters"


#20 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:40 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
The header writes itself
 
Dave Reitzes's  
Special Pleading
 
What It Means and Why It Matters
 
 
Nice one
Cliff
 
Dave starts
several threads
in recent days
then he runs away.
 
Hit and run Dave


#21 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,779 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:07 PM
J. Raymond Carroll, on 12 Sept 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:
J. Raymond Carroll wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
The header writes itself
 
Dave Reitzes's  
Special Pleading
 
What It Means and Why It Matters
 
 
Nice one
Cliff
 
Dave starts
several threads
in recent days
then he runs away.
 
Hit and run Dave
 
 
Post and paddle.
 
Conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is not a matter to debate but a fact to observe.
 
Dave Reitzes' loud silence on the T3 back wound/clothing evidence proves it once again.


#22 David Andrews

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,455 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:56 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 11 Sept 2013 - 8:35 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Andrews, on 11 Sept 2013 - 2:22 PM, said:
David Andrews wrote:

A timeline occurs to me:
 
1) JFK shot in throat through windshield
 
2) Raises fists in involuntary reaction
 
3) Jacket bunches slightly
 
4) JFK shot in back
 
Case closed?
 The jacket was in the process of dropping fractions of an inch incrementally throughout the Dealey Plaza limo ride.
 
When you raise your arm it causes the fabric of your shirt to INDENT along the shoulder-line.
 
This phenomenon occurs billions of times a day on this planet.
 
Gentle reader, turn your head to the right, glance down upon the top of your right shoulder-line, raise your arm and wave like JFK.
 
What happens to the fabric of your shirt along the shoulder-line?
 
It indents.  Every time.
 
It indents when Dave Reitzes waves his arm.  Every single time.
 
Why does he think it didn't happen with JFK?
 
 
But what happens along the timeline I suggest, if the back wound occurs after the throat wound that makes both arms fly up involuntarily?


#23 Ray Mitcham

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 231 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport. U.K.

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:35 PM
David, try it yourself. If you arms go towards your throat, your jacket and shirt don't rise.


#24 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,779 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:56 PM
Ray Mitcham, on 12 Sept 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
Ray Mitcham wrote:

David, try it yourself. If you arms go towards your throat, your jacket and shirt don't rise.
 
The fabric of your shirt will indent, and likely the fabric of your jacket as well.
 
Here's JFK with a raised right arm and an indentation in the jacket at the right base of his neck.
 

 
What sayest thou, David Reitzes?


#25 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,779 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:04 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
The header writes itself -- "Dave Reitzes' Special Pleading -- What It Means and Why It Matters"
 
 
 
Dave, I know you have a tough row to hoe with this one. 
 
Either you ignore the T3-back-wound/clothing evidence entirely and demonstrate the logical fallacy of special pleading, or you advance a non sequitur -- JFK's jacket had a fold in it therefore the fold involved 6+ inches of wadded up clothing.
 
Special pleading or non sequitur -- I don't envy you your choices here, Dave, with all due respect.


#26 David Andrews

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,455 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:48 PM
Ray Mitcham, on 12 Sept 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
Ray Mitcham wrote:David, try it yourself. If you arms go towards your throat, your jacket and shirt don't rise.
 
With both elbows flying up?  If you believe some medical thinking, it's not a throat clutch but an involuntary reaction to a bullet brushing a thoracic vertebra, elbow-raising muscles reacting.

Edited by David Andrews, 13 September 2013 - 01:35 AM.
#27 Ken Davies

    Experienced Member

  • Members

  • 149 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2013 - 01:05 AM
IF one views the Zapruder film in slow motion or via frame by frame on a good screen, it is quite clear that JFK was not clutching at his throat. (although I have read numerous times that he was doing so). His fists are clenched. I believe that he was reacting to a bullet hitting him. It may have been involuntary, of he may have been trying to protect his face.  Was the president ever instructed by the Secret Service on defensive measures in case of a frontal assault?


#28 B. A. Copeland

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 356 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2013 - 11:54 AM
Ken Davies, on 12 Sept 2013 - 7:05 PM, said:
Ken Davies wrote:IF one views the Zapruder film in slow motion or via frame by frame on a good screen, it is quite clear that JFK was not clutching at his throat. (although I have read numerous times that he was doing so). His fists are clenched. I believe that he was reacting to a bullet hitting him. It may have been involuntary, of he may have been trying to protect his face.  Was the president ever instructed by the Secret Service on defensive measures in case of a frontal assault?
 
You know Mr Davies, I have always wondered why people say "clutched his throat" when it seems to me that his arms/hands are in front of his face....he may have thrown them up after being shot in the back (can't imagine how painful that is but I'm sure it would cause me to throw my arms up somewhat). Perhaps the gesture is a result of being hit in the throat but maybe the film itself but it seems debatable. There are probably tons of good documents/books on this subject that I have to dig up. I bet if anyone would know about SS protocol, it would be Palamara.

Edited by B. A. Copeland, 13 September 2013 - 11:55 AM.
#29 David Lifton

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 854 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:48 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 1:04 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
The header writes itself -- "Dave Reitzes' Special Pleading -- What It Means and Why It Matters"
 
 
 
Dave, I know you have a tough row to hoe with this one. 
 
Either you ignore the T3-back-wound/clothing evidence entirely and demonstrate the logical fallacy of special pleading, or you advance a non sequitur -- JFK's jacket had a fold in it therefore the fold involved 6+ inches of wadded up clothing.
 
Special pleading or non sequitur -- I don't envy you your choices here, Dave, with all due respect.
 
Good point.
 
Again and again, the article is superficial and one-sided.
 
Take a look at how he handles Vietnam and the obvious policy reversal.
 
He doesn't even mention JFK's own NSAM 263--signed on October 11, 1963--but he quotes McGeorge Bundy from the early 1990s, that we really don't know what JFK "would have done" etc. 
 
Reitzes is still "on the rebound" from years of having bought into John Armstrong's stuff. 
 
Now his mental pendulum has swung way over in the other direction.
 
DSL


#30 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,779 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 03:21 PM
David Lifton, on 13 Sept 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:
David Lifton wrote:
 
Now his mental pendulum has swung way over in the other direction.
 
DSL
 
 
 
His defense of the SBT grows weaker by the year.
 
Now he's giving JFK a back wound in the neck.
 
How does one get a back wound in the neck?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:02 pm

#31 David Lifton

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 854 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2013 - 10:14 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Ray Mitcham, on 12 Sept 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
Ray Mitcham wrote:

David, try it yourself. If you arms go towards your throat, your jacket and shirt don't rise.
 
The fabric of your shirt will indent, and likely the fabric of your jacket as well.
 
Here's JFK with a raised right arm and an indentation in the jacket at the right base of his neck.
 

 
What sayest thou, David Reitzes?
 
 This is an excellent picture to make your point.
 
DSL


#32 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2013 - 04:03 AM
Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave


#33 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:12 AM
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave
 
Yes, I too object to those who have posted on this thread without having read the article. Why don't you post the link to how people can subscribe to Skeptic and read it Dave?
 
I think the references to Prayer Man, holes in the jacket and LBJ should be kept in their proper threads, and its getting pretty boring reading about Robert Morrow's LBJ witch hunt on every thread.
 
I have read the article and comment on it at my blogpost - http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com
Appologies for format and double post as I will correct that as soon as I can.
 
I think Dave squandered a great opportunity to educate people about the assassination and instead he takes a sophmoric view of the Conspiracy Theories, when he could have focused on all the new things we have learned in the past few years, especially the new documents.
 
As for answering any questions, Dave, I have a few - how could you mention Jeff Morely without mentioning his FOIA lawsuit against the CIA? How could you not mention the fact that the silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the excessive government secrecy, the destruction of records, the failure of Congress to oversee the JFK Act and the continued with holding of so many documents on grounds of national security that they can't tell us how many there are still being withheld? 
 
And also Dave, do you really believe that Conspiracy Theorists don't practice safe sex or allow their children to be vacinated?
 
That sounds a lot like General Ripper of Dr. Strangelove.
 
Bill Kelly


#34 Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 4,167 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:28 AM
Thanks, Bill, you've saved me the time (and money) of reading the article.
 
No, wait, I better read it to find out why I don't practice safe sex.


#35 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:51 AM
William Kelly, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:
William Kelly wrote:
 
I think the references to Prayer Man, holes in the jacket and LBJ should be kept in their proper threads, and its getting pretty boring reading about Robert Morrow's LBJ witch hunt on every thread.
 
 
Does Dave mention the single bullet?
 
Or does he beg the question and make the assumption that three shots did the job?
 
If you think I'm going to spend money on this you're mistaken..


#36 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 09:05 AM
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave
 
Any article which attempts to cast doubt on the fact of conspiracy must defend the single bullet theory or beg the question.
 
Begging the question
Special pleading
Non sequitur
 
What's on the menu, Dave.


#37 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 09:24 AM
William Kelly, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:
William Kelly wrote:
 
As for answering any questions, Dave, I have a few - how could you mention Jeff Morely without mentioning his FOIA lawsuit against the CIA? How could you not mention the fact that the silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the excessive government secrecy, the destruction of records, the failure of Congress to oversee the JFK Act and the continued with holding of so many documents on grounds of national security that they can't tell us how many there are still being withheld? 

 
 
 
You left out the crucial detail, Bill.
 
Silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the fact of conspiracy itself.
 
Which is where the clothing holes come in, Bill.


#38 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2013 - 10:08 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 14 Sept 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:
William Kelly wrote:
 
As for answering any questions, Dave, I have a few - how could you mention Jeff Morely without mentioning his FOIA lawsuit against the CIA? How could you not mention the fact that the silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the excessive government secrecy, the destruction of records, the failure of Congress to oversee the JFK Act and the continued with holding of so many documents on grounds of national security that they can't tell us how many there are still being withheld? 

 
 
 
You left out the crucial detail, Bill.
 
Silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the fact of conspiracy itself.
 
Which is where the clothing holes come in, Bill.
 
 
Dave doesn't mention the holes in the clothes, he only mentions the most easily debunked conspiracy theories, and thanks for starting the thread on the conspircy coming through the holes, though I don't think Reitzes really wants to be educated on the subject.  
 
Everyone has their own pet reason for beliving what they do - if they think Oswald did it, they say the fact he owned the gun and was in the building at the time is all you need to know to believe he's guilty.
 
Robert Morrow believes Mad Brown, while others think Lovelady in the doorway is proof or the Zapruder film is faked.
 
You point to the photos of the bullet holes in the clothes as proof, while I think that the second floor lunchroom encounter exonerates Oswald as the Sixth Floor Sniper.
 
If the article was really important or even worthwhile I would post it at CC2 blog, but there's really nothing new, though I hadn't heard of RFK's quote that Dave calls attention to: "That fella Harvey Lee Oswald, or whatever his name is, really let something loose in this country."
 
Thanks for that one Dave.
 
I'm afraid this is just the begging of a Lone-Nutter onslaught - a new and coordinated media offensive that will try to establish once and for all the historical fact that JFK was killed by a deranged lone nut and there's nothing new under the sun and youn can't do anything about it.
 
BK
 
 
Cliff Varnell, on 14 Sept 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:
William Kelly wrote:
 
As for answering any questions, Dave, I have a few - how could you mention Jeff Morely without mentioning his FOIA lawsuit against the CIA? How could you not mention the fact that the silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the excessive government secrecy, the destruction of records, the failure of Congress to oversee the JFK Act and the continued with holding of so many documents on grounds of national security that they can't tell us how many there are still being withheld? 

 
 
 
You left out the crucial detail, Bill.
 
Silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the fact of conspiracy itself.
 
Which is where the clothing holes come in, Bill.
 


#39 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 15 September 2013 - 05:59 PM
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave
 
That's not what's going on in this thread, Dave.
 
In the face of uncontested evidence of 2+ shooters in Dealey you simply don't have anything to say.


#40 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 623 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 15 September 2013 - 07:08 PM
Quote:
 
 
"And also Dave, do you really believe that Conspiracy Theorists don't practice safe sex or allow their children to be vacinated?
 
That sounds a lot like General Ripper of Dr. Strangelove."
 
 
 
We CT's do protect our precious bodily fluids, though.

#41 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 07:12 PM
As I mentioned to Dave, the case for conspircy doesn't require two shooters, but in fact, even if the Sixth Floor sniper was the only gunman, it was still a conspiracy since it wasn't Oswald, who was elsewhere in the building at the time.
 
 
Even if you believe Oswald was the lone assassin, he clearly wasn't crazy or deranged, - as Captain Fritz said after hours of interrogation - "he isn't crazy," but in fact fits the classic covert operational personality profile - like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrtick Hemming and Antonio Veciana - and the MO - Modus Operandi was that of a covert intelligence operation. That's why I call it the Dealey Plaza Operation.
 
Rather than argue with Dave I'd like to develop a dialog that examines the evidence - including the holes in the clothes, but I think he likes to argue or stimulate it and the challenge to soberly and objectively examine the evidence is just a ruse.


#42 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 15 September 2013 - 08:01 PM
William Kelly, on 15 Sept 2013 - 1:12 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:As I mentioned to Dave, the case for conspircy doesn't require two shooters, but in fact, even if the Sixth Floor sniper was the only gunman, it was still a conspiracy since it wasn't Oswald, who was elsewhere in the building at the time.
 
What the case for conspiracy "requires" is utterly beside the point.
 
The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.
 
Period.  Discussion over.
 
Why concede to something -- 3 shots -- that was impossible? 
 
Besides, in your scenario Jack Ruby could have shot Kennedy with three rounds and used his contacts in the Dallas Police to unwittingly detain Oswald and allow Ruby to silence his patsy.
 
No conspiracy.
 
Call it a "silly no-conspiracy theory."


#43 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 16 September 2013 - 01:22 AM
David Andrews, on 11 Sept 2013 - 2:22 PM, said:
David Andrews wrote:A timeline occurs to me:
 
 
4) JFK shot in back
 
Case closed?
 
Hello David 
 
I got news
 
No one in Dallas
saw
 
This back
wound
 
Were you sneaking around again
At
Parkland?


#44 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 16 September 2013 - 01:24 AM
A little bit
of
Comedy
for a change
of pace
 
 
this PM
to me
from
Pat Speerhttp://educationforu...2&st=0#msg11977


#45 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 16 September 2013 - 01:35 AM
William Kelly, on 15 Sept 2013 - 1:12 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
 
Even if you believe
Oswald was
the lone assassin
 
he clearly wasn't crazy
or deranged
 
- as Captain Fritz said
after hours of interrogation -
 
he isn't crazy
 
but in fact fits the classic covert
operational personality profile
 
- like Frank Sturgis,
Gerry Patrtick Hemming and Antonio Veciana - 
 
and the MO -
 
Modus Operandi
was that of a covert intelligence operation.
 
That's why I call it the Dealey Plaza Operation.
 
Rather than argue with Dave
I'd like to develop a dialog that examines the evidence
 
including the holes in the clothes
 
but I think
he likes to argue
or stimulate it
and the challenge
to soberly
and objectively examine
the evidence
 
is just a ruse
 
Sorry Bill
You missed the boat 
 
Le Oswald
knew less
than you
or me
 
 
He was
never
a plotter
or
Assassin
 
I am sure you know
the old story
about
the drunk
searching
for his car keys
under
a street lamp
 
He lost his keys
out there
in the
darkness
 
But there is more
LIGHT
here
 
the dummy 
protested
 
 
 
 
 

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll, 16 September 2013 - 01:46 AM.

  • Prev


  • Page 3 of 19
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


  • Next
  • »

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:04 pm

#46 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,771 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 05:15 AM
Quote

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.

 
Period.  Discussion over.
 
 
This is not an original observation.  Far from it.
 
http://spot.acorn.ne...sue/schotz.html
 
From "The Waters of Knowledge versus The Waters of Uncertainty:
Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy"


by E. Martin Schotz
 
Quote
 
 
WHAT THE WATERS OF KNOWLEDGE TELL US
Over and over again we hear people asking for more and more information from the government. I suggest to you that the problem is not that we have insufficient data. The problem is that we dare not analyze the data we have had all along. In fact we need very little data. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned you can throw almost the whole 26 volumes of the Warren Commission in the trash can. All you need to do is look at this.
 

Here [left] is the Warren Commission drawing of the path of the "magic" bullet. And here is a photograph of the hole in the President's jacket.
 
Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal fraud.
 
Think of this for a moment. The Warren Report is an obvious criminal act of fraud and no history department in any college or university is willing to say so. What does such silence mean?
 
It means that we are dealing with something that has effected every history department of every college and university in our society, every major newspaper and magazine, and all means of mass communication. It has effected virtually every "loyal American." This phenomenon is what George Orwell in his novel 1984 called "crimestop" or "protective stupidity".
According to Orwell, "crimestop" is really a form of self mind control in which we find the effected individual "stopping short, as if by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought... not grasping analogies... failing to perceive logical errors... misunderstanding the simplest arguments... and being bored or repelled by any train of thought" if such is inimicable to the powers that be.
 
As a clinician, I look at "crimestop" as a mass psychological illness, an involuntay intellectual emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our society.
 
 
 
 


#47 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 16 September 2013 - 10:05 AM
J. Raymond Carroll, on 15 Sept 2013 - 7:35 PM, said:
J. Raymond Carroll wrote: 
William Kelly, on 15 Sept 2013 - 1:12 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
 
Even if you believe
Oswald was
the lone assassin
 
he clearly wasn't crazy
or deranged
 
- as Captain Fritz said
after hours of interrogation -
 
he isn't crazy
 
but in fact fits the classic covert
operational personality profile
 
- like Frank Sturgis,
Gerry Patrtick Hemming and Antonio Veciana - 
 
and the MO -
 
Modus Operandi
was that
of a covert
intelligence operation.
 
That's why
I call it
the Dealey Plaza
Operation
 
I am with you
on the last part
 
But take issue
on the first part
 
Mr. Bugliosi's big fat book
is correct
like
a busted clock
twice a day
 
Bug cites
Harold Weisberg
saying
John Newman
found
NO EVIDENCE
that young Mr. O
was an agent
for anybody


#48 Ray Mitcham

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 218 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport. U.K.

Posted 16 September 2013 - 03:46 PM
Ray, adjust the margins of your page. you are getting no more than three words per line, and wasting bandwidth. 
 
(Or are trying to be a latter day Heaney? If so, you are failing miserably and making yourself look a prat)


#49 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:26 PM
Ray Mitcham, on 16 Sept 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:
Ray Mitcham wrote:Ray,
 
adjust the margins
of your page.
 
you are getting no more
than three words per line
and
wasting bandwidth. 
 
Or are trying to be
a latter day Heaney?
 
If so,
you are failing
miserably
 
and making yourself
look a prat
 
 
Greetings Ray
 
I am as impressed
by
Your name
 
as by
your gift
of Poetry
 
See you in New York
for the October
Conference
 
In your case,
Ray
 
You will buy
your own drinks
 
unless you can
convince me
you've done
 
SOMETHING
 
to help solve
 
the world's greatest
Murder Mystery
 
Apart from
Giving us
all
good
laughs
 
Just when they are needed!

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll, 16 September 2013 - 04:56 PM.
#50 Ray Mitcham

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 218 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport. U.K.

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:54 PM
Sad.


#51 J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,447 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:57 PM
Happy!


#52 Ian Kingsbury

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 558 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:just far enough north of London
  • Interests:Coaching football ,reading ,watching West Ham when pos. trying not to comment on West Ham when pos. unhealthy thirst for knowledge any knowledge.

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:59 PM
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave


Its hit my bin already but I will wait too!.
#53 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,771 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 04:22 PM
Ian Kingsbury, on 17 Sept 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:
Ian Kingsbury wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave


Its hit my bin already but I will wait too!.
 
Ian, this isn't adding up for me.
 
Bill Kelly says the article is about silly conspiracy theories non-JFK related.
 
But the cover of Skeptic Magazine indicates the article is about the 50 years of JFK conspiracy theories.
 
Dave Reitzes headed this thread "New JFK Article".
 
Other than Robert Kennedy's purported comment about Oswald -- anything said about JFK?
 
Or is this a cynical bait and switch?


#54 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:55 PM
Robert Prudhomme, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
Hello Dave
 
Have you had a chance to look at the thread "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" What do you think about the so called Prayer Man at the top of the stairs at the TSBD? It sure looks like Oswald, and no one seems to be able to identify him either. Your thoughts?
 
 
I'll stand by the relevant conclusion in my article. Thanks for asking.
 
Dave


#55 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:58 PM
Evan Burton, on 10 Sept 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:
Evan Burton wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
 
Congratulations, David. I'll have to get an online issue and read it.
 
 
Thanks, Evan. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think my conclusions will be very popular at this forum. Constructive criticism is always welcome, of course.
 
Dave


#56 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 12:02 AM
Ron Ecker, on 10 Sept 2013 - 1:52 PM, said:
Ron Ecker wrote:Dave,
 
I hope to read your article. What do you say about the large wound in the back of JFK's head, seen in Dallas and at Bethesda alike?
 
I used to subscribe to Skeptic and another "skeptical" mag called Skeptical Inquirer. The thing about these "skeptics" is that I don't recall them ever being skeptical at all about the U.S. government (I can't think of anything to be more skeptical about). They are only skeptical toward private researchers and others who postulate "conspiracy" theories and such. If the government says that that UFO was just a weather balloon or the planet Venus, then these skeptics say you can believe it was a weather balloon or the planet Venus. These are skeptics? They sound more like government mouthpieces.
 
But I hope your article is different.
 
The starting point for my article is the question of what it means to be a skeptic in this highly controversial case. I look forward to your feedback.
 
Dave


#57 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 12:11 AM
J. Raymond Carroll, on 10 Sept 2013 - 3:57 PM, said:
J. Raymond Carroll wrote:All due respects to Dave
For his wonderful work on Garrison
 
I won't spend a dime
until Dave answers
the question above
about
Prayer Man
 
That's a shame, Ray. The groundbreaking, first-generation researcher whose conclusions on the evidentiary value of photographic blow-ups are endorsed in my article is liable to be quite disappointed that you won't even give his expert opinion a chance.
 
You should take this opportunity to apologize to him. He's posting in this thread.
 
Dave


#58 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 614 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:44 AM
David Reitzes, on 17 Sept 2013 - 5:55 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Robert Prudhomme, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote:David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
Hello Dave
 
Have you had a chance to look at the thread "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" What do you think about the so called Prayer Man at the top of the stairs at the TSBD? It sure looks like Oswald, and no one seems to be able to identify him either. Your thoughts?
 
I'll stand by the relevant conclusion in my article. Thanks for asking.
 
Dave

You seem like a very intelligent man. Surely you must have some idea who this so called Prayer Man is.
#59 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:23 AM
I don't think anyone should post anything on this thread anymore until they have read the article, and address the issues Reitzes discusses, as he has requested, and I think a reasonable request.
 
http://www.pocketmag...2&title=Skeptic
 
http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/app/
I have read the article and posted my comments on it at my blog:
 
http://jfkcountercou...ptic-essay.html
 
And I'd like Dave to respond to my questions - Why didn't he mention Morley's FOIA case against the CIA, why not mention that there are so many assassination documents still being withheld from the public for reasons of national security that they can't count them all, and why not have a sober analysis of the evidence?
There are threads devoted to the topic of "Prayer Man" and "Reitzes opinion of the holes in the clothes," and those topics should be discussed there. Where are the moderators?
Thanks for staying on subject.
And thanks to Dave for responding to the questions he brings up in his article.
BK


#60 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,771 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:45 AM
William Kelly, on 17 Sept 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:I don't think anyone should post anything on this thread anymore until they have read the article, and address the issues Reitzes discusses, as he has requested, and I think a reasonable request.
 
Dave started the thread 3 weeks ahead time but he doesn't want us to discuss anything?
 
Until the zine hit the stands, what? -- we were supposed to spend the time congratulating him?
 
It's only a question of which logical fallacies he abuses the most.  Lone Nutters carry that consistency with them.



  • «
  • Prev


  • Page 4 of 19
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6


  • Next
  • »

Back to JFK Assassination Debate · Next Unread Topic →

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:06 pm

#61 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,088 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:39 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 18 Sept 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 17 Sept 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:I don't think anyone should post anything on this thread anymore until they have read the article, and address the issues Reitzes discusses, as he has requested, and I think a reasonable request.
 
Dave started the thread 3 weeks ahead time but he doesn't want us to discuss anything?
 
Until the zine hit the stands, what? -- we were supposed to spend the time congratulating him?
 
It's only a question of which logical fallacies he abuses the most.  Lone Nutters carry that consistency with them.
 
 
You can read it right now for less than $5
 
http://www.pocketmag...2&title=Skeptic
 
http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/app/
 
If you don't want to buy the mag on line, I have listed the items he discusses though I left out his objection to JFK's Vietnam policy as a reason for his murder.
 
http://jfkcountercou...ptic-essay.html
 
I agree that we should engage him in debate and discussion on these issues, including the holes in the clothes, and he should respond, as he most certainly wrote and sought publication of the article for the purpose of attacking conspiracy theories and CTs and thus generating a response and instigating debate.


#62 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 536 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:02 PM
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:Cliff Varnell, on 18 Sept 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:William Kelly, on 17 Sept 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:I don't think anyone should post anything on this thread anymore until they have read the article, and address the issues Reitzes discusses, as he has requested, and I think a reasonable request.
 
Dave started the thread 3 weeks ahead time but he doesn't want us to discuss anything?
 
Until the zine hit the stands, what? -- we were supposed to spend the time congratulating him?
 
It's only a question of which logical fallacies he abuses the most.  Lone Nutters carry that consistency with them.
 
You can read it right now for less than $5
 
http://www.pocketmag...2&title=Skeptic
 
http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/app/
 
If you don't want to buy the mag on line, I have listed the items he discusses though I left out his objection to JFK's Vietnam policy as a reason for his murder.
 
http://jfkcountercou...ptic-essay.html
 
I agree that we should engage him in debate and discussion on these issues, including the holes in the clothes, and he should respond, as he most certainly wrote and sought publication of the article for the purpose of attacking conspiracy theories and CTs and thus generating a response and instigating debate.

I find debating with LN'ers and CT's who "know" what happened and are set in their convictions to be a waste of time. I prefer discussing the assassination with open minded people who are willing to change their perspectives, should the evidence presented warrant it.
#63 Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 4,163 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:36 PM
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:You can read it right now for less than $5
 
Can I read it somewhere for less than 5 cents?


#64 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,101 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:44 PM
Robert Prudhomme, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:02 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 

I find debating with LN'ers and CT's who "know" what happened and are set in their convictions to be a waste of time. I prefer discussing the assassination with open minded people who are willing to change their perspectives, should the evidence presented warrant it.
 
 
from this perspective Robert and after 20 years of roaming these forums and USENET boards, you're wasting your time... there are no "undecided," nor are there any willing to change their perspective. Most are looking for additional confirmation of their own personal decision-conclusion.
 
Lone nuts have been having a horrible time the last 12 years finding *anything* to confirm 1964 Warren Commission conclusions. PERIOD!


#65 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 536 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:52 PM
David G. Healy, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:44 PM, said:
David G. Healy wrote: 
Robert Prudhomme, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:02 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 

I find debating with LN'ers and CT's who "know" what happened and are set in their convictions to be a waste of time. I prefer discussing the assassination with open minded people who are willing to change their perspectives, should the evidence presented warrant it.
 
 
from this perspective Robert and after 20 years of roaming these forums and USENET boards, you're wasting your time... there are no "undecided," nor are there any willing to change their perspective. Most are looking for additional confirmation of their own personal decision-conclusion.
 
Lone nuts have been having a horrible time the last 12 years finding *anything* to confirm 1964 Warren Commission conclusions. PERIOD!
 
Then I must be a rare man, as I am undecided as to exactly how deeply involved Oswald was in the assassination, if he was , at all.


#66 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:59 PM
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:

 
I agree that we should engage him in debate and discussion on these issues, including the holes in the clothes
 
 
That is not what is going on here, Bill.
 
There is nothing to debate.
 
Dave Reitzes writes -- "...[C]areful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the (Warren) Commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics."
 
The clothing holes destroy that conclusion, and Dave has no answer.  None. 
 
There is no room for opinion here, Bill. 
 
Clothing defects are physical, measurable, observable evidence which occupies a paramount class by itself.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 18 September 2013 - 09:00 PM.
#67 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,088 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:11 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 18 Sept 2013 - 2:59 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:

 
I agree that we should engage him in debate and discussion on these issues, including the holes in the clothes
 
 
That is not what is going on here, Bill.
 
There is nothing to debate.
 
Dave Reitzes writes -- "...[C]areful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the (Warren) Commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics."
 
The clothing holes destroy that conclusion, and Dave has no answer.  None. 
 
There is no room for opinion here, Bill. 
 
Clothing defects are physical, measurable, observable evidence which occupies a paramount class by itself.
 
 
 
Then what is going on here Cliff, you just going to keep yelling at Reitzes for ignoring you? 


#68 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 229 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 01:14 AM
David Lifton, on 13 Sept 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:
David Lifton wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 1:04 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
The header writes itself -- "Dave Reitzes' Special Pleading -- What It Means and Why It Matters"
 
 
 
Dave, I know you have a tough row to hoe with this one. 
 
Either you ignore the T3-back-wound/clothing evidence entirely and demonstrate the logical fallacy of special pleading, or you advance a non sequitur -- JFK's jacket had a fold in it therefore the fold involved 6+ inches of wadded up clothing.
 
Special pleading or non sequitur -- I don't envy you your choices here, Dave, with all due respect.
 
Good point.
 
Again and again, the article is superficial and one-sided.
 
Take a look at how he handles Vietnam and the obvious policy reversal.
 
He doesn't even mention JFK's own NSAM 263--signed on October 11, 1963--but he quotes McGeorge Bundy from the early 1990s, that we really don't know what JFK "would have done" etc. 
 
Reitzes is still "on the rebound" from years of having bought into John Armstrong's stuff. 
 
Now his mental pendulum has swung way over in the other direction.
 
DSL
 
 
I didn't mention NSAM 263?
 
You're sure about that, David?
 
Sounds like someone has altered the body of my text.
 
Dave


#69 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 229 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 01:32 AM
David Lifton, on 13 Sept 2013 - 4:14 PM, said:
David Lifton wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Ray Mitcham, on 12 Sept 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
Ray Mitcham wrote:

David, try it yourself. If you arms go towards your throat, your jacket and shirt don't rise.
 
The fabric of your shirt will indent, and likely the fabric of your jacket as well.
 
Here's JFK with a raised right arm and an indentation in the jacket at the right base of his neck.
 

 
What sayest thou, David Reitzes?
 
 This is an excellent picture to make your point.
 
DSL
 
 
David,
 
I see that the shirt is pictured in one of the photo inserts in BEST EVIDENCE, but I don't see an entry for it in the index. Could you clarify your position on the jacket and shirt? Is it your position that the shirt and jacket are the authentic items of clothing worn by the late president and the hole in the reverse of each is the authentic result of a bullet strike? If so, are we talking about an entrance or exit wound?
 
Dave


#70 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 229 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 01:36 AM
William Kelly, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave
 
Yes, I too object to those who have posted on this thread without having read the article. Why don't you post the link to how people can subscribe to Skeptic and read it Dave?
 
I included the link in my initial post, but it's no trouble to post it again:
 
http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave


#71 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 02:00 AM
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 4:11 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 18 Sept 2013 - 2:59 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:

 
I agree that we should engage him in debate and discussion on these issues, including the holes in the clothes
 
 
That is not what is going on here, Bill.
 
There is nothing to debate.
 
Dave Reitzes writes -- "...[C]areful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the (Warren) Commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics."
 
The clothing holes destroy that conclusion, and Dave has no answer.  None. 
 
There is no room for opinion here, Bill. 
 
Clothing defects are physical, measurable, observable evidence which occupies a paramount class by itself.
 
 
 
Then what is going on here Cliff, you just going to keep yelling at Reitzes for ignoring you? 
 
 
You don't get it. 
 
I'm not yelling at Reitzes to respond -- I'm under-scoring the fact that he has nothing to say in regards to the T3-back-wound/clothing-evidence.
 
Neither do you, Bill.  My citation of E. Martin Schotz was for your benefit as much as Dave's.
 
Since the clothing holes are prima facie evidence of 2+ shootes -- the bullet holes too low to have been associated with the throat wound -- any conclusion to the contrary assumes the burden of proof.
 
Dave Reiztes has never addressed this evidence other than to claim that it can't be valid because I haven't brought it to the attention of the Gov't.(??)
 
Keeping track of Dave's logical fallacies is an interesting little project for the 50th, I think.
 
To claim that the clothing defects are off topic is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the case.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 19 September 2013 - 02:06 AM.
#72 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 02:05 AM
On another JFK Forum Dave Reiztes is claiming that David Lifton and I are trying to goad him into some kind of response.
 
I won't speak for David Lifton, but I know for a fact that Dave Reitzes cannot make any kind of cogent argument for a back wound above T3.
 
I'm not goading anyone.  I'm just wielding a good natured needle.  Dave Reiztes cannot defend his 3 shot scenario.  He won't even attempt to defend it because he can't.
 
Dave's silence on the matter corroborates the salient point -- conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter to debate but a fact to be observed.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 19 September 2013 - 02:19 AM.
#73 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 229 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 02:48 AM
William Kelly, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Yes, I too object to those who have posted on this thread without having read the article. Why don't you post the link to how people can subscribe to Skeptic and read it Dave?
 
I think the references to Prayer Man, holes in the jacket and LBJ should be kept in their proper threads, and its getting pretty boring reading about Robert Morrow's LBJ witch hunt on every thread.
 
I have read the article and comment on it at my blogpost - http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com
Appologies for format and double post as I will correct that as soon as I can.
 
I think Dave squandered a great opportunity to educate people about the assassination and instead he takes a sophmoric view of the Conspiracy Theories, when he could have focused on all the new things we have learned in the past few years, especially the new documents.
 
As for answering any questions, Dave, I have a few - how could you mention Jeff Morely without mentioning his FOIA lawsuit against the CIA? How could you not mention the fact that the silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the excessive government secrecy, the destruction of records, the failure of Congress to oversee the JFK Act and the continued with holding of so many documents on grounds of national security that they can't tell us how many there are still being withheld? 
 
And also Dave, do you really believe that Conspiracy Theorists don't practice safe sex or allow their children to be vacinated?
 
That sounds a lot like General Ripper of Dr. Strangelove.
 
Bill Kelly
 
 
 
Bill asked:
 
"...how could you mention Jeff Morely [Morley] without mentioning his FOIA lawsuit against the CIA?"
 
Me:
 
It wasn't relevant to my article. I wish I had space to cram every conceivable talking point on any imaginable facet of the case in there, but I had to stick with what I thought was most significant. As I have stated numerous times, I applaud Morley's efforts (and anyone else's) to free any and all documents that are relevant to John F. Kennedy's death. If Morley ultimately uncovers evidence that requires me to revise any of my conclusions about the case, I will gladly cross that bridge when I come to it.
 
Bill asked:
 
"How could you not mention the fact that the silly conspiracy theories are propagated by the excessive government secrecy, the destruction of records, the failure of Congress to oversee the JFK Act and the continued with holding of so many documents on grounds of national security that they can't tell us how many there are still being withheld?"
 
Me: 
 
Is it a "fact that the silly conspiracy theories are propagated by" all these things you mention? I would be willing to stipulate that excessive secrecy has fanned some of the flames of suspicion over the years, but I would need to see some pretty strong evidence to consider it a fact that JFK conspiracy theories are all the government's fault. My article is brimming with examples of conspiracy claims and theories that would seem to have little to do with government secrecy.
 
For instance, government secrecy did not cause researchers to credit the testimony of the grassy knoll witnesses or the Parkland Hospital professionals (as discussed in my article), and did not lead researchers to search grainy blow-ups of the Moorman Polaroid for potential assassins (also discussed in my article); uninformed assumptions about the reliability of such evidence did. Now, you might say that amateur researchers relied on such dubious evidence primarily because the Warren Commission declined to insist upon access to the autopsy photographs and X-rays (and, in all candor, only space limitations kept me from addressing that issue in my article, as I had originally intended).
 
But the fallacious nature of that argument becomes apparent when we note that the HSCA undertook a meticulous investigation of the questioned autopsy materials, authenticated those materials, and produced a wealth of hard evidence and expert testimony demonstrating that these materials validated the Warren Commission's conclusions. How did the critical research community respond? For the most part, they simply dismissed the HSCA's conclusions out of hand and continue to do so. So government secrecy apparently isn't the issue after all.
 
Bill asked:
 
"And also Dave, do you really believe that Conspiracy Theorists don't practice safe sex or allow their children to be vacinated?"
 
If you're asking if I believe that JFK conspiracy theorists generally follow such practices, I have no reason to believe that, no, and that's not what my article says. I would encourage you to reread that section of my article and, if desired, consult my cited sources, some of which are freely available online.
 
In all sincerity, I think the "Corrosion" section of my article merits serious consideration from even those who would characterize the preceding 9,500 words as complete, unadulterated horse manure.
 
Dave


#74 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 536 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 19 September 2013 - 02:56 AM
Quote:

"But the fallacious nature of that argument becomes apparent when we note that the HSCA undertook a meticulous investigation of the questioned autopsy materials, authenticated those materials, and produced a wealth of hard evidence and expert testimony demonstrating that these materials validated the Warren Commission's conclusions."

LOL!! Pull the other one, Dave, it plays Jingle Bells!
#75 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 229 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 03:02 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 14 Sept 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:
William Kelly wrote:
 
I think the references to Prayer Man, holes in the jacket and LBJ should be kept in their proper threads, and its getting pretty boring reading about Robert Morrow's LBJ witch hunt on every thread.
 
 
Does Dave mention the single bullet?
 
Or does he beg the question and make the assumption that three shots did the job?
 
If you think I'm going to spend money on this you're mistaken..
 
 
Well, we all make mistakes, don't we?
 
Dave

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:11 pm

#76 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 03:08 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 17 Sept 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Ian Kingsbury, on 17 Sept 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:
Ian Kingsbury wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave


Its hit my bin already but I will wait too!.
 
Ian, this isn't adding up for me.
 
Bill Kelly says the article is about silly conspiracy theories non-JFK related.
 
But the cover of Skeptic Magazine indicates the article is about the 50 years of JFK conspiracy theories.
 
Dave Reitzes headed this thread "New JFK Article".
 
Other than Robert Kennedy's purported comment about Oswald -- anything said about JFK?
 
Or is this a cynical bait and switch?
 
 
It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
 
Dave


#77 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 03:24 AM
Robert Prudhomme, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:02 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 

I find debating with LN'ers and CT's who "know" what happened and are set in their convictions to be a waste of time. I prefer discussing the assassination with open minded people who are willing to change their perspectives, should the evidence presented warrant it.
 
 
I feel the same way. My article certainly doesn't dwell on the subject of open-minded people who are willing to change their perspectives in the face of evidence, but I did include a concise, ten-word, parenthetical statement that at least alludes to the possibility.
 
Dave


#78 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 04:20 AM
David Reitzes, on 18 Sept 2013 - 9:08 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 17 Sept 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Ian Kingsbury, on 17 Sept 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:
Ian Kingsbury wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 13 Sept 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Once my article hits the newsstands, I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions about it. Off-topic questions will likely be ignored.
 
Best,
 
Dave


Its hit my bin already but I will wait too!.
 
Ian, this isn't adding up for me.
 
Bill Kelly says the article is about silly conspiracy theories non-JFK related.
 
But the cover of Skeptic Magazine indicates the article is about the 50 years of JFK conspiracy theories.
 
Dave Reitzes headed this thread "New JFK Article".
 
Other than Robert Kennedy's purported comment about Oswald -- anything said about JFK?
 
Or is this a cynical bait and switch?
 
 
It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
 
Dave
 
 
It's begging the question inside a special pleading.


#79 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 04:43 AM
David Reitzes, on 18 Sept 2013 - 9:24 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Robert Prudhomme, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:02 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 

I find debating with LN'ers and CT's who "know" what happened and are set in their convictions to be a waste of time. I prefer discussing the assassination with open minded people who are willing to change their perspectives, should the evidence presented warrant it.
 
 
I feel the same way. My article certainly doesn't dwell on the subject of open-minded people who are willing to change their perspectives in the face of evidence, but I did include a concise, ten-word, parenthetical statement that at least alludes to the possibility.
 
Dave
 
 
I'd like to know how many open-minded people think JFK had a back wound in his neck?
 
From Reitzes "JFK 100 -- The Single Bullet Theory."
 
http://www.jfk-onlin...jfk100sbth.html
 
My comments in burgundy
 
 
 
Quote
 
Does Oliver Stone have a firm grasp of the facts? Let's examine his claims one by one.
 
"The magic bullet enters the President's back, headed downward at an angle of 17 degrees."
 
This is one figure calculated in the past; Dale Myers's remarkable three-dimensional computer reconstruction of the assassination, Secrets of a Homicide, fixes the angle of declination at 21.4 degrees. (Taking into account the 3-degree downward slope of Elm Street, the angle of the inshoot wound is about 18.4 degrees.)
 
So what fact did Stone get wrong? 
 
The angle of trajectory?
 
But the SBT trajectory fails due to the location of the back wound -- too low to be associated with the throat wound.
 
Reitzes doesn't challenge the description of the wound as in the "back" -- he can't argue the point.
 
So he just blows right by this inconvenient fact and cites a graphic of the bullet striking the base of the neck without bothering to make an argument for a wound in that location.
 
Dave --how did JFK suffer a back wound in the neck?  (A rhetorical question, the man has no answer...)
 
It then moves upward in order to leave Kennedy's body from the front of his neck -- his neck wound number two . . .
 
False. It is not true that the Single Bullet Theory requires the bullet to travel upwards. Oliver Stone is repeating an objection raised by Cyril H. Wecht, the longtime coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, a nationally prominent expert on forensic pathology, and one of the most vociferous critics of the Warren Commission.
 
Dave Reitzes chooses to ignore the location of the clothing defects, the reference to the low back wound in three official contemporaneous documents, and fifteen eye-witnesses who put the wound well below the base of the neck.
 
JFK had a back wound in his neck because Dave Reitzes says so.
 
That's the kind of logic on display here.
 
The confusion arises from a conclusion reached by the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee, of which Dr. Wecht was a member, that reinvestigated the JFK assassination in the late 1970s (HSCA). The panel noted that "when seen in the autopsy position, the outshoot wound [the wound of exit in the President's throat] was described as being at about the same height (or slightly higher) relative to the inshoot wound [the wound of entrance in the President's back]."(3) Dr. Wecht questioned how this could be possible.
 
When panel member Charles S. Petty, the longtime medical examiner of Dallas County, Texas, and ranked by his peers as the "Quintessential Forensic Pathologist," testified before the House committee, he described the bullet as "traveling in a somewhat upward direction, anatomically speaking." (Emphasis added.)(4)
 
Dr. Petty explained to the committee:
 
 
Exhibit A depicts the President's wound as it occurred, as well as the effect the position of the body would have on the bullet's trajectory:Anatomists many years ago decided -- the better to understand each other -- to place a body in a specific position and to relate all of the descriptions of the landmarks of the body to the body in that position. That position actually is a person standing erect facing forward with both palms turned forward. This is the anatomic position and in tracing the in-shoot wound on the back of the late President and connecting it with a more-or-less straight line with the out-shoot wound on the front of the neck, the bullet will have followed a slightly upward direction.
 
 
But the President was not upright at the time he was shot, he was certainly not in the anatomic position, and this explains, I believe, the objection that Dr. Wecht had and his argument that he could not understand how the bullet pursued a downward track from where it was discharged, then an upward track in the President and then a downward track into Mr. Connally.(5)
 
 
 
 

Exhibit A. From the HSCA Exhibits: "Drawing of the lateral cross-section of the chest, depicting the visceral and parietal pleura, lower neck and right lung, with the injuries described to them. Also depicted is a drawing demonstrating the possible trajectories through the neck of President Kennedy, depending on the position of the body."(6)
 
 
Mr. Reitzes apparently thinks that since Dr. Petty begged the question as to the back wound location, so can he.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 19 September 2013 - 04:52 AM.
#80 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 05:15 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 18 Sept 2013 - 8:00 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 4:11 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 18 Sept 2013 - 2:59 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:

 
I agree that we should engage him in debate and discussion on these issues, including the holes in the clothes
 
 
That is not what is going on here, Bill.
 
There is nothing to debate.
 
Dave Reitzes writes -- "...[C]areful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the (Warren) Commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics."
 
The clothing holes destroy that conclusion, and Dave has no answer.  None. 
 
There is no room for opinion here, Bill. 
 
Clothing defects are physical, measurable, observable evidence which occupies a paramount class by itself.
 
 
 
Then what is going on here Cliff, you just going to keep yelling at Reitzes for ignoring you? 
 
 
You don't get it. 
 
I'm not yelling at Reitzes to respond -- I'm under-scoring the fact that he has nothing to say in regards to the T3-back-wound/clothing-evidence.
 
Neither do you, Bill.  My citation of E. Martin Schotz was for your benefit as much as Dave's.
 
Since the clothing holes are prima facie evidence of 2+ shootes -- the bullet holes too low to have been associated with the throat wound -- any conclusion to the contrary assumes the burden of proof.
 
Dave Reiztes has never addressed this evidence other than to claim that it can't be valid because I haven't brought it to the attention of the Gov't.(??)
 
Keeping track of Dave's logical fallacies is an interesting little project for the 50th, I think.
 
To claim that the clothing defects are off topic is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the case.
 
 
 
Okay  Cliff, I'll buy that, then Dave Reitzes wins and you lose because he got his article, however flawed, published in a major mainstream publication that many intellectuals read, and are influenced by, and you haven't got your theory on the holes in the clothes published anywhere except on this forum. 
 
Dave Reitzes wins, Cliff loses. 
 
Bottom line. 
 
Get your theory published in a mainstream publication and you will be recognized and respected, otherwise you are just a contrary poster with a lot of hot air to blow. 
 
Harping on the holes in the clothes may have convinced you there was a conspiracy, but it won't take the case a step further unless you take it to another level, beyond arguing with David Reitzes. 
 
Bk 


#81 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 07:39 AM
William Kelly, on 18 Sept 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
 
Okay  Cliff, I'll buy that, then Dave Reitzes wins and you lose because he got his article, however flawed, published in a major mainstream publication that many intellectuals read, and are influenced by, and you haven't got your theory on the holes in the clothes published anywhere except on this forum. 
 
Gaeton Fonzi published the definitive article on the clothing evidence in August of 1966.
 
"The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter"
 
http://www.kenrahn.c...th_Specter.html
 
Greater Philadelphia Magazine, a mainstream regional publication.
 
Or how about something more recent?
 
"Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012," by Vincent Salandria.
 
http://politicalassa...m/2012/11/1560/
 
I told Specter that I knew there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy notwithstanding his single-bullet theory because the holes in the custom-made shirt and suit jacket of Kennedy could not have ridden up in such a fashion to explain how a shot from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, hitting Kennedy at a downward angle of roughly 17 degrees, and hitting no bone, could have exited from his necktie knot.
 
There are no theories under discussion by Fonzi, Salandria or myself in regards to the clothing evidence.
 
It's a matter of simple observation -- one that Salandria said a "vegetable" could make.
 
Quote

 
Dave Reitzes wins, Cliff loses. 
 
Bottom line. 
 
 
 
Skeptic Magazine loses.  We're gonna jump all over their "critical thinking skills" and go cock-a-doodle do.
 
 
Quote

Get your theory published in a mainstream publication and you will be recognized and respected,
 
 
Respected by those for whom I can barely conceal my contempt?
 
In 1980 I christened and helped launch a musical subgenre -- hardcore punk rock.
 
I've made my mark on society.  I don't need what you call "recognition."
 
 
Quote

otherwise you are just a contrary poster with a lot of hot air to blow. 
 
 
So the arguments of Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi are hot air?
 
I'm merely backing up what they said.
 
 
Quote

Harping on the holes in the clothes may have convinced you there was a conspiracy, but it won't take the case a step further unless you take it to another level, beyond arguing with David Reitzes. 
 
Bk 
 
 
This "other level" doesn't exist, Bill. 
 
If Salandria couldn't get through -- a respected lawyer -- why should some punk rock freakoid succeed with the same argument?


#82 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:41 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 18 Sept 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 18 Sept 2013 - 9:24 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Robert Prudhomme, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:02 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 

I find debating with LN'ers and CT's who "know" what happened and are set in their convictions to be a waste of time. I prefer discussing the assassination with open minded people who are willing to change their perspectives, should the evidence presented warrant it.
 
 
I feel the same way. My article certainly doesn't dwell on the subject of open-minded people who are willing to change their perspectives in the face of evidence, but I did include a concise, ten-word, parenthetical statement that at least alludes to the possibility.
 
Dave
 
 
I'd like to know how many open-minded people think JFK had a back wound in his neck?
 
From Reitzes "JFK 100 -- The Single Bullet Theory."
 
http://www.jfk-onlin...jfk100sbth.html
 
My comments in burgundy
 
 
 
Quote
 
Does Oliver Stone have a firm grasp of the facts? Let's examine his claims one by one.
 
"The magic bullet enters the President's back, headed downward at an angle of 17 degrees."
 
This is one figure calculated in the past; Dale Myers's remarkable three-dimensional computer reconstruction of the assassination, Secrets of a Homicide, fixes the angle of declination at 21.4 degrees. (Taking into account the 3-degree downward slope of Elm Street, the angle of the inshoot wound is about 18.4 degrees.)
 
So what fact did Stone get wrong? 
 
The angle of trajectory?
 
But the SBT trajectory fails due to the location of the back wound -- too low to be associated with the throat wound.
 
Reitzes doesn't challenge the description of the wound as in the "back" -- he can't argue the point.
 
So he just blows right by this inconvenient fact and cites a graphic of the bullet striking the base of the neck without bothering to make an argument for a wound in that location.
 
Dave --how did JFK suffer a back wound in the neck?  (A rhetorical question, the man has no answer...)
 
It then moves upward in order to leave Kennedy's body from the front of his neck -- his neck wound number two . . .
 
False. It is not true that the Single Bullet Theory requires the bullet to travel upwards. Oliver Stone is repeating an objection raised by Cyril H. Wecht, the longtime coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, a nationally prominent expert on forensic pathology, and one of the most vociferous critics of the Warren Commission.
 
Dave Reitzes chooses to ignore the location of the clothing defects, the reference to the low back wound in three official contemporaneous documents, and fifteen eye-witnesses who put the wound well below the base of the neck.
 
JFK had a back wound in his neck because Dave Reitzes says so.
 
That's the kind of logic on display here.
 
The confusion arises from a conclusion reached by the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee, of which Dr. Wecht was a member, that reinvestigated the JFK assassination in the late 1970s (HSCA). The panel noted that "when seen in the autopsy position, the outshoot wound [the wound of exit in the President's throat] was described as being at about the same height (or slightly higher) relative to the inshoot wound [the wound of entrance in the President's back]."(3) Dr. Wecht questioned how this could be possible.
 
When panel member Charles S. Petty, the longtime medical examiner of Dallas County, Texas, and ranked by his peers as the "Quintessential Forensic Pathologist," testified before the House committee, he described the bullet as "traveling in a somewhat upward direction, anatomically speaking." (Emphasis added.)(4)
 
Dr. Petty explained to the committee:
 
 
Exhibit A depicts the President's wound as it occurred, as well as the effect the position of the body would have on the bullet's trajectory:Anatomists many years ago decided -- the better to understand each other -- to place a body in a specific position and to relate all of the descriptions of the landmarks of the body to the body in that position. That position actually is a person standing erect facing forward with both palms turned forward. This is the anatomic position and in tracing the in-shoot wound on the back of the late President and connecting it with a more-or-less straight line with the out-shoot wound on the front of the neck, the bullet will have followed a slightly upward direction.
 
 
But the President was not upright at the time he was shot, he was certainly not in the anatomic position, and this explains, I believe, the objection that Dr. Wecht had and his argument that he could not understand how the bullet pursued a downward track from where it was discharged, then an upward track in the President and then a downward track into Mr. Connally.(5)
 
 
 
 

Exhibit A. From the HSCA Exhibits: "Drawing of the lateral cross-section of the chest, depicting the visceral and parietal pleura, lower neck and right lung, with the injuries described to them. Also depicted is a drawing demonstrating the possible trajectories through the neck of President Kennedy, depending on the position of the body."(6)
 
 
Mr. Reitzes apparently thinks that since Dr. Petty begged the question as to the back wound location, so can he.
 
 
I'd like to know precisely who are the people who claimed Cliff Varnell hijacks threads.
 
When you raise your hands, Cliff has a "home test" he'd like to show you. No, that's not a euphemism.
 
Dave


#83 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 03:24 PM
David Reitzes, on 19 Sept 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
I'd like to know precisely who are the people who claimed Cliff Varnell hijacks threads.
 
As it turns out, I haven't hijacked your thread, Dave.
 
Your article claims that the Warren Commission conclusions have been proven correct.
 
I cite evidence which destroys that conclusion.
 
The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.  Three official, properly prepared contemporaneous documents record the location of this low back wound, and at least 15 eye-witnesses corroborate it.
 
JFK's T3 back wound is a readily established historical fact.
 
If you want to argue otherwise, Dave, the burden of proof is on you, sir.
 
 
Quote

When you raise your hands, Cliff has a "home test" he'd like to show you. No, that's not a euphemism.
 
Dave
 
 
This refers to the research I did in 1997 on JFK sweating.
 
I have a new "home test" for you, Dave.  A dry one.
 
Mr. Reitzes, please glance down upon your right shoulder-line.  See the shirt fabric there?
 
Now, raise your right arm and wave like JFK.
 
See your shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line, Dave?
 
That's the opposite movement you claim occurred with JFK's shirt.
 
Why do you claim JFK's clothing moved differently than yours?
 
(Another series of rhetorical questions, since Dave Reitzes has no answer for any of this.)


#84 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 617 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:23 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 19 Sept 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
I'd like to know precisely who are the people who claimed Cliff Varnell hijacks threads.
 
As it turns out, I haven't hijacked your thread, Dave.
 
Your article claims that the Warren Commission conclusions have been proven correct.
 
I cite evidence which destroys that conclusion.
 
The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.  Three official, properly prepared contemporaneous documents record the location of this low back wound, and at least 15 eye-witnesses corroborate it.
 
JFK's T3 back wound is a readily established historical fact.
 
If you want to argue otherwise, Dave, the burden of proof is on you, sir.
 
 
 
Quote

When you raise your hands, Cliff has a "home test" he'd like to show you. No, that's not a euphemism.
 
Dave
 
 
This refers to the research I did in 1997 on JFK sweating.
 
I have a new "home test" for you, Dave.  A dry one.
 
Mr. Reitzes, please glance down upon your right shoulder-line.  See the shirt fabric there?
 
Now, raise your right arm and wave like JFK.
 
See your shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line, Dave?
 
That's the opposite movement you claim occurred with JFK's shirt.
 
Why do you claim JFK's clothing moved differently than yours?
 
(Another series of rhetorical questions, since Dave Reitzes has no answer for any of this.)
 
Speaking of home tests, Cliff, I have one for you that I have been talking about for years, and yet, not a single person has clued in to just how thoroughly it debunks the Single Bullet Fantasy.
 
As we are told, the Magic Bullet exited just under Connally's right nipple, struck the radius bone of JBC's right forearm near his wrist (the radius is, of the two forearm bones, the one on the same side as the thumb, the other bone is the ulna) fractured the radius and proceeded to pass between the radius and the ulna, from the back side of the forearm to the palm side of the forearm, WITHOUT putting so much as a scratch on the ulna.
 
The above is a physical impossibility, unless JBC was severely double jointed at the elbow and could rotate his forearm further than the typical human. To prove this, sit in a chair and place your right hand in your lap. Imagine a bullet exiting from under your right nipple at a downhill angle of less than 20°, heading for your right leg. Now, attempt to rotate your right forearm far enough to line up the space between the ulna and the radius to allow a bullet to pass between them, specifically, a bullet that strikes only the radius first. Just to be fair, try this at different levels between your lap and your right nipple. As you will quickly discover, the forearm simply cannot be rotated far enough to allow this.
 
As the natural resting position of JBC's right forearm, held in front of him, would actually have the ulna BEHIND the radius, in relation to the alleged trajectory of the Magic Bullet, a bullet striking the radius would tend to do one of three things:
1) be stopped dead at the radius
2) be deflected away from the forearm and continue on its way forward
3) be deflected from the radius and strike the ulna. This last scenario presents the remote possibility of the Magic Bullet passing between ulna and radius, yet requires ricocheting off the ulna to do so. X-rays of JBC's right forearm show no evidence of this.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme, 19 September 2013 - 06:35 PM.
#85 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:21 PM
Cliff wrote: 
 
This "other level" doesn't exist, Bill. 
If Salandria couldn't get through -- a respected lawyer -- why should some punk rock freakoid succeed with the same argument?
 
 
 
BK: 
 
Salandria and Fonzi are old hat, they're decades old, and though correct in their analysis, they don't belong in a thread said to be devoted to discussing Reitzes' Skeptic article, which you have not bothered to read. 
 
I believe there is "another level' - one that changes the game and breaks the case wide open, and eventually resolves it to a legal and moral certainty. 
 
I thought at one time that the discussions on this forum were ground breaking and that they would one day be studied and reviewed by students of the case in the future, and that's why I used to believe it was important to keep threads on topic and not to let the discussions dissolve into stupid arguments that don't add new information to the proceedings or change anyone's mind as to what happened. 
 
I now think that Ray ought to be permitted back to the forum as his poems and music were at least new and interesting and more worthwhile than the continued rehashing of old arguments that to me, are like repeated heavy metal refrain that makes no sense. 
 
Anyone who wants to read the Skeptic article and soberly discuss it, but doesn't want to fork over the five bucks to get it can send me a PM and include an email address and I'll forward you a copy. 
 
BK 


#86 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 12:00 AM
William Kelly, on 19 Sept 2013 - 5:21 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:Cliff wrote: 
 
This "other level" doesn't exist, Bill. 
If Salandria couldn't get through -- a respected lawyer -- why should some punk rock freakoid succeed with the same argument?
 
 
 
BK: 
 
Salandria and Fonzi are old hat, they're decades old, and though correct in their analysis, they don't belong in a thread said to be devoted to discussing Reitzes' Skeptic article, which you have not bothered to read. 
 
 
This is an interesting concept you're introducing here, Bill.
 
Evidence in a murder case subject to the whims of fashion.  Hmmm....
 
Evidence going out of style?  How can that be?
 
A shelf life on facts bestowed by restless pet theorists who want to discuss their new and exciting research to hell with that old fashioned stuff like physical evidence, consensus witness testimony, properly prepared documents.
 
Old hat!
 
And we're to believe that researchers whose ground-breaking work establishing the fact of conspiracy are no longer welcome to discussions of the phony "debate" you're trying to drum up?
 
Wow.
 
Would you be so kind as to prepare a list of the evidence in the murder of JFK which you deem "new hat" and suitable for discussion, Bill?
 
 
 
Quote

I believe there is "another level' - one that changes the game and breaks the case wide open, and eventually resolves it to a legal and moral certainty. 
 
 
You're ready to call a grand jury without grasping the significance of the clothing evidence.
 
Good luck with that, Bill.
 
 
 
Quote

I thought at one time that the discussions on this forum were ground breaking and that they would one day be studied and reviewed by students of the case in the future, and that's why I used to believe it was important to keep threads on topic and not to let the discussions dissolve into stupid arguments that don't add new information to the proceedings or change anyone's mind as to what happened. 
 
 
I'm with E. Martin Schotz.  Pet theorists are always looking for the next hot thing to attach themselves to -- and they can't even appreciate the evidence that's been in front of them for 50 years.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 20 September 2013 - 12:19 AM.
#87 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 September 2013 - 04:10 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 19 Sept 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
I'd like to know precisely who are the people who claimed Cliff Varnell hijacks threads.
 
As it turns out, I haven't hijacked your thread, Dave.
 
Your article claims that the Warren Commission conclusions have been proven correct.
 
I cite evidence which destroys that conclusion.
 
The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.  Three official, properly prepared contemporaneous documents record the location of this low back wound, and at least 15 eye-witnesses corroborate it.
 
JFK's T3 back wound is a readily established historical fact.
 
If you want to argue otherwise, Dave, the burden of proof is on you, sir.
 
 
 
Quote

When you raise your hands, Cliff has a "home test" he'd like to show you. No, that's not a euphemism.
 
Dave
 
 
This refers to the research I did in 1997 on JFK sweating.
 
I have a new "home test" for you, Dave.  A dry one.
 
Mr. Reitzes, please glance down upon your right shoulder-line.  See the shirt fabric there?
 
Now, raise your right arm and wave like JFK.
 
See your shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line, Dave?
 
That's the opposite movement you claim occurred with JFK's shirt.
 
Why do you claim JFK's clothing moved differently than yours?
 
(Another series of rhetorical questions, since Dave Reitzes has no answer for any of this.)
 
 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave


#88 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 617 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 20 September 2013 - 04:14 AM
David Reitzes, on 19 Sept 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 19 Sept 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
I'd like to know precisely who are the people who claimed Cliff Varnell hijacks threads.
 
As it turns out, I haven't hijacked your thread, Dave.
 
Your article claims that the Warren Commission conclusions have been proven correct.
 
I cite evidence which destroys that conclusion.
 
The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.  Three official, properly prepared contemporaneous documents record the location of this low back wound, and at least 15 eye-witnesses corroborate it.
 
JFK's T3 back wound is a readily established historical fact.
 
If you want to argue otherwise, Dave, the burden of proof is on you, sir.
 
 
 
Quote

When you raise your hands, Cliff has a "home test" he'd like to show you. No, that's not a euphemism.
 
Dave
 
 
This refers to the research I did in 1997 on JFK sweating.
 
I have a new "home test" for you, Dave.  A dry one.
 
Mr. Reitzes, please glance down upon your right shoulder-line.  See the shirt fabric there?
 
Now, raise your right arm and wave like JFK.
 
See your shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line, Dave?
 
That's the opposite movement you claim occurred with JFK's shirt.
 
Why do you claim JFK's clothing moved differently than yours?
 
(Another series of rhetorical questions, since Dave Reitzes has no answer for any of this.)
 
 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave
 
Could you just give us the Readers' Digest "Condensed Version" of your article, Dave? Most of your material is quite long winded and gets a bit tedious to read, about a third of the way through.


#89 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 September 2013 - 05:46 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 6:00 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 19 Sept 2013 - 5:21 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:Cliff wrote: 
 
This "other level" doesn't exist, Bill. 
If Salandria couldn't get through -- a respected lawyer -- why should some punk rock freakoid succeed with the same argument?
 
 
 
BK: 
 
Salandria and Fonzi are old hat, they're decades old, and though correct in their analysis, they don't belong in a thread said to be devoted to discussing Reitzes' Skeptic article, which you have not bothered to read. 
 
 
This is an interesting concept you're introducing here, Bill.
 
Evidence in a murder case subject to the whims of fashion.  Hmmm....
 
Evidence going out of style?  How can that be?
 
A shelf life on facts bestowed by restless pet theorists who want to discuss their new and exciting research to hell with that old fashioned stuff like physical evidence, consensus witness testimony, properly prepared documents.
 
Old hat!
 
And we're to believe that researchers whose ground-breaking work establishing the fact of conspiracy are no longer welcome to discussions of the phony "debate" you're trying to drum up?
 
Wow.
 
Would you be so kind as to prepare a list of the evidence in the murder of JFK which you deem "new hat" and suitable for discussion, Bill?
 
 
 
Quote

I believe there is "another level' - one that changes the game and breaks the case wide open, and eventually resolves it to a legal and moral certainty. 
 
 
You're ready to call a grand jury without grasping the significance of the clothing evidence.
 
Good luck with that, Bill.
 
 
 
Quote

I thought at one time that the discussions on this forum were ground breaking and that they would one day be studied and reviewed by students of the case in the future, and that's why I used to believe it was important to keep threads on topic and not to let the discussions dissolve into stupid arguments that don't add new information to the proceedings or change anyone's mind as to what happened. 
 
 
I'm with E. Martin Schotz.  Pet theorists are always looking for the next hot thing to attach themselves to -- and they can't even appreciate the evidence that's been in front of them for 50 years.
 
 
 
Cliff, I too am with E. Martin Schotz, who introduced Vince Salandria as the keynote speaker at the Dallas COPA - I forget what year it was, but I was there, and they said that there should be people indicted for crimes related to the assassination - and they didn't and wouldn't say that the case should be further investigated because we already know everything - as we clearly don't. They called for the indictment of those responsible for the assassination, including Ruth and Michael Paine. 
 
And after it was over I obtained Salandria's copy of the speech and posted it on the internet and introduced Salandria to John Kelin who went on to edit Salandria's bio and write the book about the first generation of researchers, and I collaborated with Fonzi on the investigation of a number of inquiries and worked with his editor at Philadelphia Mag and Washingtonian - so I'd like you to tell me something about them that I don't already know. 
 
As for evidence going out of style, no - the clothing evidence is certainly hard evidence that would and should be introduced as evidence in the proper legal venue - a grand jury, just as the shells, the rifle, the bullets and fragments, etc., but like Robert Morrow's obsession with Mad Brown and LBJ, it serves no purpose to continually bring it up and throw it in people's faces after they've already reviewed it and know it, and for you to keep bringing it up only serves to distract others from the real purpose of this forum and the goals of most of the members - trying to determine the truth as to what really happened on 11/22/63. 
 
You want to harp about the holes in the clothes and berate Dave Reitzes, however much he deserves it, then you do it on your own time in your own place, and not here, as this forum, although called the JFK Assassination Debate, has some members who are trying to advance the case with new information and new witnesses, and not just pick silly fights with Lone Nutters. 
 
bk

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:12 pm

#90 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:14 AM
William Kelly, on 19 Sept 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 6:00 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
William Kelly, on 19 Sept 2013 - 5:21 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:Cliff wrote: 
 
This "other level" doesn't exist, Bill. 
If Salandria couldn't get through -- a respected lawyer -- why should some punk rock freakoid succeed with the same argument?
 
 
 
BK: 
 
Salandria and Fonzi are old hat, they're decades old, and though correct in their analysis, they don't belong in a thread said to be devoted to discussing Reitzes' Skeptic article, which you have not bothered to read. 
 
 
This is an interesting concept you're introducing here, Bill.
 
Evidence in a murder case subject to the whims of fashion.  Hmmm....
 
Evidence going out of style?  How can that be?
 
A shelf life on facts bestowed by restless pet theorists who want to discuss their new and exciting research to hell with that old fashioned stuff like physical evidence, consensus witness testimony, properly prepared documents.
 
Old hat!
 
And we're to believe that researchers whose ground-breaking work establishing the fact of conspiracy are no longer welcome to discussions of the phony "debate" you're trying to drum up?
 
Wow.
 
Would you be so kind as to prepare a list of the evidence in the murder of JFK which you deem "new hat" and suitable for discussion, Bill?
 
 
 
Quote

I believe there is "another level' - one that changes the game and breaks the case wide open, and eventually resolves it to a legal and moral certainty. 
 
 
You're ready to call a grand jury without grasping the significance of the clothing evidence.
 
Good luck with that, Bill.
 
 
 
Quote

I thought at one time that the discussions on this forum were ground breaking and that they would one day be studied and reviewed by students of the case in the future, and that's why I used to believe it was important to keep threads on topic and not to let the discussions dissolve into stupid arguments that don't add new information to the proceedings or change anyone's mind as to what happened. 
 
 
I'm with E. Martin Schotz.  Pet theorists are always looking for the next hot thing to attach themselves to -- and they can't even appreciate the evidence that's been in front of them for 50 years.
 
 
 
Cliff, I too am with E. Martin Schotz, who introduced Vince Salandria as the keynote speaker at the Dallas COPA - I forget what year it was, but I was there, and they said that there should be people indicted for crimes related to the assassination - and they didn't and wouldn't say that the case should be further investigated because we already know everything - as we clearly don't. They called for the indictment of those responsible for the assassination, including Ruth and Michael Paine. 
 
And after it was over I obtained Salandria's copy of the speech and posted it on the internet and introduced Salandria to John Kelin who went on to edit Salandria's bio and write the book about the first generation of researchers, and I collaborated with Fonzi on the investigation of a number of inquiries and worked with his editor at Philadelphia Mag and Washingtonian - so I'd like you to tell me something about them that I don't already know. 
 
As for evidence going out of style, no - the clothing evidence is certainly hard evidence that would and should be introduced as evidence in the proper legal venue - a grand jury, just as the shells, the rifle, the bullets and fragments, etc., but like Robert Morrow's obsession with Mad Brown and LBJ, it serves no purpose to continually bring it up and throw it in people's faces after they've already reviewed it and know it,
 
Bill, what gives you the impression Dave Reitzes has "already reviewed it and knows it"?
 
You don't seem to have an inkling of how significant the clothing evidence/T3 back wound is, much less Reitzes..
 
Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter to debate, but a fact to be observed..
 
Why does that statement threaten you so much, Bill?
 

 
and for you to keep bringing it up only serves to distract others from the real purpose of this forum and the goals of most of the members - trying to determine the truth as to what really happened on 11/22/63. 
 
 
Non sequitur.  How can evidence which "goes to the core of the case" be a distraction?
 
That's what Salandria calls the clothing-evidence/T3 back wound, Bill -- "goes to the core of the case."
 
The clothing evidence takes us to the gates of Fort Detrick, Bill, which is a hell of a lot closer to the perps than you'll ever get.
 
Maybe you've hob-nobbed with Vince Salandria but you don't seem to grasp much of his argument.
 
 
 
 
You want to harp about the holes in the clothes and berate Dave Reitzes,
 
 
It's called the prima facie case for conspiracy, Bill. 
 
Bane to Lone Nutters and CT Pet Theorists alike.
 
I get more satisfaction out of pointing to the clothing holes and berating you for objecting to the prima facie case.
 
 
however much he deserves it, then you do it on your own time in your own place, and not here, as this forum,
 
 
You're not in a position to dictate the terms of debate surrounding the fact of conspiracy, Bill.  That you resent a whole class of evidence because it isn't "new" is flat out...silly.
 
Again, the clothing evidence leads to the gates of Fort Detrick.
 
Again, this is closer to the perps than Bill Kelly will ever get.
 
 
although called the JFK Assassination Debate, has some members who are trying to advance the case with new information and new witnesses,
 
 
 
You've done nothing with the old information.
 
That was E. Martin Schotz's point. 
 
 
and not just pick silly fights with Lone Nutters. 
 
 
I'm not picking a fight.
 
Reitzes has nothing to fight with.
 
That  is the point you seem determined to ignore.
 
bk
 

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 20 September 2013 - 11:41 AM.

  • «
  • Prev


  • Page 6 of 19

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:16 pm

#91 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,777 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:25 AM
Quote


 


 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave
 
 
 
 
Dave, you got the wrong impression.
 
I tried to take up Bill Kelly's offer of a free copy, and I PM'd him my e-mail but I haven't heard back.
 
I object to spending any money on the magazine, but I look forward to seeing your entire article.
 
It promises to be a "target-rich environment" for all kinds of logical fallacies.


#92 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,777 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:53 AM
Robert Prudhomme, on 18 Sept 2013 - 8:56 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote:Quote:

"But the fallacious nature of that argument becomes apparent when we note that the HSCA undertook a meticulous investigation of the questioned autopsy materials, authenticated those materials, and produced a wealth of hard evidence and expert testimony demonstrating that these materials validated the Warren Commission's conclusions."

LOL!! Pull the other one, Dave, it plays Jingle Bells!
 
The HSCA dismissed the autopsy photos as improperly produced and of questionable authenticity.
 
 
HSCA Vol 7 (emphasis added)
 
 
 
Quote

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 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.



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.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and
unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally
expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence.
  In fact,
under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable
and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such
poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.
Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about
using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than
informative.  Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of
the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to
point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as
scientific evidence.  Some have questioned their very authenticity.
These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the
photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately
mutilated  to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren
Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish
as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case
gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious
to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the
onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested
with the prosecution.
 
The ARRB killed off the autopsy photos when Saundra Kay Spencer revealed that there was no chain of possession for them.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 20 September 2013 - 11:59 AM.
#93 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,131 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 08:14 PM
well, to this point:
 
Cliff - 3, Reitzes - 0, Kelly - 0 .... rock on, Cliff!


#94 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:27 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 20 Sept 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Quote


 


 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave
 
 
 
 
Dave, you got the wrong impression.
 
I tried to take up Bill Kelly's offer of a free copy, and I PM'd him my e-mail but I haven't heard back.
 
I object to spending any money on the magazine, but I look forward to seeing your entire article.
 
It promises to be a "target-rich environment" for all kinds of logical fallacies.
 
 
Sorry I can't be on line 24/7 - I have sent it off to Cliff and look forward to his informed comments. 
 
And Dave, don't worry, it won't cut into Skeptic subscriptions, only two people want to read it. 
 
BK 


#95 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:29 PM
David G. Healy, on 20 Sept 2013 - 2:14 PM, said:
David G. Healy wrote:well, to this point:
 
Cliff - 3, Reitzes - 0, Kelly - 0 .... rock on, Cliff!
 
Wait Dave, I haven't started to play yet, and you haven't seen my hand. 
 
BK 


#96 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:53 PM
Cliff wrote: ....I'm with E. Martin Schotz.  Pet theorists are always looking for the next hot thing to attach themselves to -- and they can't even appreciate the evidence that's been in front of them for 50 years.
 
 
BK: Cliff, I too am with E. Martin Schotz, who introduced Vince Salandria as the keynote speaker at the Dallas COPA - I forget what year it was, but I was there, and they said that there should be people indicted for crimes related to the assassination - and they didn't and wouldn't say that the case should be further investigated because we already know everything - as we clearly don't. They called for the indictment of those responsible for the assassination, including Ruth and Michael Paine. 
 
And after it was over I obtained Salandria's copy of the speech and posted it on the internet and introduced Salandria to John Kelin who went on to edit Salandria's bio and write the book about the first generation of researchers, and I collaborated with Fonzi on the investigation of a number of inquiries and worked with his editor at Philadelphia Mag and Washingtonian - so I'd like you to tell me something about them that I don't already know. 
 
As for evidence going out of style, no - the clothing evidence is certainly hard evidence that would and should be introduced as evidence in the proper legal venue - a grand jury, just as the shells, the rifle, the bullets and fragments, etc., but like Robert Morrow's obsession with Mad Brown and LBJ, it serves no purpose to continually bring it up and throw it in people's faces after they've already reviewed it and know it,
 
Bill, what gives you the impression Dave Reitzes has "already reviewed it and knows it"?
 
BK: Well, if he's read this thread he's read about it half-dozen times
 
You don't seem to have an inkling of how significant the clothing evidence/T3 back wound is, much less Reitzes..
 
BK: The holes in the clothes are just as important as any other item of evidence and should be considered a part of the whole body of evidence that proves conspiracy. 
 
Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter to debate, but a fact to be observed..
 
BK: And acted upon. You can't just know something like that and just observe it. What do you do? You want to pick a fight with Reitzes with it. 
 
Why does that statement threaten you so much, Bill?
 
BK: What's the threat again? I don't see any threat.  
 
and for you to keep bringing it up only serves to distract others from the real purpose of this forum and the goals of most of the members - trying to determine the truth as to what really happened on 11/22/63. 
 
Non sequitur.  How can evidence which "goes to the core of the case" be a distraction?
 
BK: Going to the core of the case through the holes in the clothes leads to the autopsy, which was deficient in many ways, which is why I have called for a new, proper forensic autopsy be performed on all the victims (JFK, JBC, JDT, LHO) today using the most modern equipment so all of the medical questions can be answered and the debate ended. 
 
That's what Salandria calls the clothing-evidence/T3 back wound, Bill -- "goes to the core of the case."
 
The clothing evidence takes us to the gates of Fort Detrick, Bill, which is a hell of a lot closer to the perps than you'll ever get.
 
BK: Please fill us in on the Ft. Detrick connection to the clothes (did they test them?) - and you don't don't know what perps I've got.
 
Maybe you've hob-nobbed with Vince Salandria but you don't seem to grasp much of his argument.
 
BK: I grasp it, I just don't accept it all - I don't like it when CTs blindly blame the CIA for everything, or refer to the CIA when they really mean the national security state - as Vince later began to refer to it. I'm more specific. 
 
You want to harp about the holes in the clothes and berate Dave Reitzes,
 
 
It's called the prima facie case for conspiracy, Bill. 
 
 
BK: Prima facie - do I have to get my latin dictionary out? 
 
Bane to Lone Nutters and CT Pet Theorists alike.
 
I get more satisfaction out of pointing to the clothing holes and berating you for objecting to the prima facie case.
 
BK: What's to bane, I agree with you what the clothing evidence means, I'm not a CT, and thanks for acknowledging your true purpose here, not to advance what we know or learn anything but to berate people. As long as we all know that's where you stand. 
 
 
however much he deserves it, then you do it on your own time in your own place, and not here, as this forum,
 
 
You're not in a position to dictate the terms of debate surrounding the fact of conspiracy, Bill.  That you resent a whole class of evidence because it isn't "new" is flat out...silly.
 
Again, the clothing evidence leads to the gates of Fort Detrick.
 
Again, this is closer to the perps than Bill Kelly will ever get.
 
 
although called the JFK Assassination Debate, has some members who are trying to advance the case with new information and new witnesses,
 
BK: Give us the Fort Detrick details and it's not me dictating the rules of this forum, it is you who continually ignores the subject of the thread to impose your own willy nilly rehash of what everyone here already knows and has known for decades. 
 
You've done nothing with the old information.
 
That was E. Martin Schotz's point. 
 
 
BK: You don't know what I've done with the old information, or new information - certainly not posted on the internet. 
 
 
and not just pick silly fights with Lone Nutters. 
 
 
I'm not picking a fight.
 
Reitzes has nothing to fight with.
 
That  is the point you seem determined to ignore.
 
bk
 
BK: Okay Cliff, let's have the Fort Detrick connection to the clothes and related perps, but do it in another thread. 
 
This one's supposed to discuss Reitzes' Skeptic article. 


#97 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 636 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:50 PM
Robert Prudhomme, on 19 Sept 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote:Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:David Reitzes, on 19 Sept 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'd like to know precisely who are the people who claimed Cliff Varnell hijacks threads.
 
As it turns out, I haven't hijacked your thread, Dave.
 
Your article claims that the Warren Commission conclusions have been proven correct.
 
I cite evidence which destroys that conclusion.
 
The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.  Three official, properly prepared contemporaneous documents record the location of this low back wound, and at least 15 eye-witnesses corroborate it.
 
JFK's T3 back wound is a readily established historical fact.
 
If you want to argue otherwise, Dave, the burden of proof is on you, sir.
 
 
 
Quote
When you raise your hands, Cliff has a "home test" he'd like to show you. No, that's not a euphemism.
 
Dave
 
 
This refers to the research I did in 1997 on JFK sweating.
 
I have a new "home test" for you, Dave.  A dry one.
 
Mr. Reitzes, please glance down upon your right shoulder-line.  See the shirt fabric there?
 
Now, raise your right arm and wave like JFK.
 
See your shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line, Dave?
 
That's the opposite movement you claim occurred with JFK's shirt.
 
Why do you claim JFK's clothing moved differently than yours?
 
(Another series of rhetorical questions, since Dave Reitzes has no answer for any of this.)
Speaking of home tests, Cliff, I have one for you that I have been talking about for years, and yet, not a single person has clued in to just how thoroughly it debunks the Single Bullet Fantasy.
 
As we are told, the Magic Bullet exited just under Connally's right nipple, struck the radius bone of JBC's right forearm near his wrist (the radius is, of the two forearm bones, the one on the same side as the thumb, the other bone is the ulna) fractured the radius and proceeded to pass between the radius and the ulna, from the back side of the forearm to the palm side of the forearm, WITHOUT putting so much as a scratch on the ulna.
 
The above is a physical impossibility, unless JBC was severely double jointed at the elbow and could rotate his forearm further than the typical human. To prove this, sit in a chair and place your right hand in your lap. Imagine a bullet exiting from under your right nipple at a downhill angle of less than 20°, heading for your right leg. Now, attempt to rotate your right forearm far enough to line up the space between the ulna and the radius to allow a bullet to pass between them, specifically, a bullet that strikes only the radius first. Just to be fair, try this at different levels between your lap and your right nipple. As you will quickly discover, the forearm simply cannot be rotated far enough to allow this.
 
As the natural resting position of JBC's right forearm, held in front of him, would actually have the ulna BEHIND the radius, in relation to the alleged trajectory of the Magic Bullet, a bullet striking the radius would tend to do one of three things:
1) be stopped dead at the radius
2) be deflected away from the forearm and continue on its way forward
3) be deflected from the radius and strike the ulna. This last scenario presents the remote possibility of the Magic Bullet passing between ulna and radius, yet requires ricocheting off the ulna to do so. X-rays of JBC's right forearm show no evidence of this.

Any comments on this?
#98 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:54 PM
Robert Prudhomme, on 20 Sept 2013 - 4:50 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 

Any comments on this?
 
 
Yea, it doesn't belong on this thread. 


#99 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 636 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:41 PM
William Kelly, on 20 Sept 2013 - 4:54 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:Robert Prudhomme, on 20 Sept 2013 - 4:50 PM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote:Any comments on this?
 
Yea, it doesn't belong on this thread.

Fine. Go ahead and take cheap shots at each other, if that is what this thread is all about.

Cliff was discussing debunking the SBT, and I simply offered what I believe to be the coup de grace of SBT debunkers and, as usual, it was totally ignored.
#100 Mark Knight

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,241 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana, USA
  • Interests:1950's International trucks, Farmall tractors, 1946-47 Hudson automobiles, JFK assassination, pre-1980 rock 'n' roll...more later when I have time to think about it.

Posted 21 September 2013 - 11:03 AM
Robert, I believe that Bill's point was that this thread is specifically about Reitzes' article. I also believe that the SBT is a non-starter...but that it can better be discussed on a thread discussing wound ballistics, such as the one James Gordon started some time ago. Mixing it in a thread on Reitzes' article dilutes its effectiveness, IMHO.
Edited by Mark Knight, 21 September 2013 - 11:04 AM.
#101 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,777 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 03:38 PM
Mark Knight, on 21 Sept 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:
Mark Knight wrote:

Robert, I believe that Bill's point was that this thread is specifically about Reitzes' article. I also believe that the SBT is a non-starter...but that it can better be discussed on a thread discussing wound ballistics, such as the one James Gordon started some time ago. Mixing it in a thread on Reitzes' article dilutes its effectiveness, IMHO.
 
 
Since Dave Reitzes assumes the validity of the Single Bullet Theory as the subtext of his article -- how is debunking the SBT off topic?
 
Why should anyone let this fellow off the hook for egregious abuses of evidence and logic?
 
We're supposed to give him a free pass because someone is anal about the "purity" of threads.
 
Nonsense.
 
Dave Reitzes begs the question regarding 4+ shots and needs to be called on it.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 21 September 2013 - 03:40 PM.
#102 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,777 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 04:55 PM
I think this thread is the perfect place to have a discussion about the difference between "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy fact."
 
Dave Reitzes cherry picks the former and ignores the latter.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 21 September 2013 - 04:56 PM.
#103 Don Jeffries

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 1,053 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Writing fiction- my first work, the sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," is in Barnes & Noble bookstores across the country and has been purchased by hundreds of public and college libraries in the United States and around the world. I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a second novel, "Front Row At The Loony Bin," as well as working on a sequel to "The Unreals."

Posted 21 September 2013 - 05:46 PM
As usual, I'm in accord with Cliff's belief that the clothing alone disproves the official story. Normally I agree that someone should read the work of another before criticizing it, but no matter how persuasive the debater, or how brilliant the writer, you simply can't make an impossibility like the SBT credible to anyone who knows the evidence. Thus, Dave's article may be written flawlessly, but unless he can demonstrate that the shirt and jacket in the record weren't JFK's, then his argument has no merit. 
 
As for the idea that being published by a mainstream periodical somehow validates the author, I think that the collective hogwash appearing in the msm for the past fifty years on this subject argues very strongly against that. By this criteria, Posner and Bugliosi have the utmost credibility, while the likes of Doug Horne and Joseph McBride are mere rabble rousers in the peanut gallery, alongside Cliff Varnell the rest of us. 
 
Since Dave's article revolves around the SBT, and the subject has been explored exhaustively on this forum and others, I think it's perfectly appropriate for us to discuss the theory, even without reading the article in question. 

Edited by Don Jeffries, 21 September 2013 - 05:46 PM.
#104 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2013 - 06:25 PM
My point is that Reitzes claims he wants to "carefully and soberly" analyse the evidence - yet he doesn't bother doing that - while others with the Single Bullet bug up their butt repeat over and over the same arguments that have been made for years, - that are certainly valid and I agree with - but without response from Reitzes, so nothing is accomplished. 
 
Most if not all of the items Retizes brings to the table in his article are all old rehashed junk - as if we haven't learned anything new in the past twenty years. 
 
My offer still stands - if anyone wants a copy of the article, PM me with an email address or email me and I will send it to you, though so far only two people have bothered, and since the article is not worth referencing I will not be posting it at my blog, though I do address it. 
 
http://jfkcountercou...ptic-essay.html
 
Jim DiEugenio thinks it worthwhile responding to however, and I look forward to reading his rebuttal. 
 
In the spirit of Ray, - 
 
Last night Billy Walton - with JFK researcher and forum member William Paris on bass - opened their show at the Pub in Browns Mills, NJ with this song - and put on a mighty performance. 
 
▶ Van Morrison - Domino (Digital Remaster) - YouTube
 
Don't want to discuss it
I think it's time for a change
You may get disgusted
And think Im strange
In that case I'll go underground
Get some heavy rest
Never have to worry
About what is worst and what is best

Oh oh domino
Roll me over romeo
There you go
Lord have mercy
I said oh oh domino
Roll me over romeo
There you go
Say it again
I said oh oh domino
I said oh oh domino

There's no need for argument
There's no argument at all
And if you never hear from him
That just means he didn't call
Or vice versa
That depends on where ever you're at
And if you never hear from me
That just means I would rather not

Edited by William Kelly, 21 September 2013 - 06:30 PM.
#105 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 September 2013 - 06:40 PM
I think we should get a rock band together - Steve Barber on drums, Will Paris on bass, Jim Glover and David Crosby on guitar and what does Cliff play? 
 
Mo Murphy also sings and E2Brute - plays keys. Anybody play sax? 
 
The girl who streaked across the Grassy Knoll could make a cameo and we can jam in Dallas during the anniversary catastrophe. 
 
And we need a good name. Any suggestions? 
 
Not the Lone Nutters. 
 
Dealey Plaza Blues Band? 

Edited by William Kelly, 22 September 2013 - 07:13 PM.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:18 pm

#106 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 September 2013 - 11:22 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 20 Sept 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Quote


 


 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave
 
 
 
 
Dave, you got the wrong impression.
 
I tried to take up Bill Kelly's offer of a free copy, and I PM'd him my e-mail but I haven't heard back.
 
I object to spending any money on the magazine, but I look forward to seeing your entire article.
 
It promises to be a "target-rich environment" for all kinds of logical fallacies.
 
 
Constructive criticism is always welcome.
 
Dave


#107 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:26 AM
David Reitzes, on 22 Sept 2013 - 5:22 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 20 Sept 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Quote


 

 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave
 
 
 
 
Dave, you got the wrong impression.
 
I tried to take up Bill Kelly's offer of a free copy, and I PM'd him my e-mail but I haven't heard back.
 
I object to spending any money on the magazine, but I look forward to seeing your entire article.
 
It promises to be a "target-rich environment" for all kinds of logical fallacies.
 
 
Constructive criticism is always welcome.
 
Dave
 
 
Dave, I don't think that's the appropriate response here.
 
Doesn't "constructive criticism" imply that something of value could be salvaged from your piece?
 
I infer as much.  So no, I don't think I can do the "constructive criticism" thing due to the extensive intellectual rot in your article.
 
But, if I may, I'll offer some "creatively destructive criticism" which is what your piece really needs. 
 
Let's see if that'll do the trick!
 
First, let's dispose of this whole "skeptic" frame. 
 
I'm not a "skeptic," I'm a sentient human being.  I'm capable of self-awareness, and this allows me to pay attention to how my clothing moves when I move.  This ability is crucial to understanding the murder of John F. Kennedy..
 
In your article is the now-famous line:
 
 
Quote

Careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics.
 
And who performed this "careful and sober analysis of the evidence"?
 
Dale K. Myers, for one.  On page 46 of Skeptic Magazine, in the lower left corner, is a drawing based on Myers' computer model.
 
This drawing shows a single bullet striking JFK at the base of his neck and exiting his throat and striking Connally.  This particular piece of artwork attempts to reconcile the location of the bullet holes in the clothes with this Single Bullet.  As a result, JFK's jacket collar in this drawing is jacked up well into his hairline.
 
The shirt collar isn't visible in this drawing.
 
Dave, you claim this drawing is highly accurate.
 
It's depiction of the jacket position is an egregious misrepresentation of JFK's clothing in Dealey Plaza, as the photos I've posted earlier in this thread can readily attest.
 
You also cite in your article the Discovery Channel program "Beyond The Magic Bullet."
 
First of all, that final single shot the Australian SBT team fired exited the model's chest!  The producers of the program pretended like it didn't matter.
 
Also, you had my old buddy Chad Zimmerman on that program, and he showed the same thing that the Myers artwork showed:  in order to reconcile the location of the holes in the clothes with the SBT inshoot, the jacket collar had to be elevated into his hairline.
 
But the Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar, the jacket collar was in a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck, ergo the shirt and jacket weren't jacked up multiple inches in tandem entirely above the base of the neck, as required by the SBT..
 
Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality, Dave.  How could the jacket collar and a big wad of clothing occupy the same physical space at the same time?
 
How could a truly objective person think it possible?
 
I'm afraid you've misinterpreted the lessons of Myers' and Zimmerman's work, Dave.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 23 September 2013 - 06:31 AM.
#108 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:11 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 23 Sept 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 22 Sept 2013 - 5:22 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 20 Sept 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Quote


 

 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave
 
 
 
 
Dave, you got the wrong impression.
 
I tried to take up Bill Kelly's offer of a free copy, and I PM'd him my e-mail but I haven't heard back.
 
I object to spending any money on the magazine, but I look forward to seeing your entire article.
 
It promises to be a "target-rich environment" for all kinds of logical fallacies.
 
 
Constructive criticism is always welcome.
 
Dave
 
 
Dave, I don't think that's the appropriate response here.
 
Doesn't "constructive criticism" imply that something of value could be salvaged from your piece?
 
I infer as much.  So no, I don't think I can do the "constructive criticism" thing due to the extensive intellectual rot in your article.
 
But, if I may, I'll offer some "creatively destructive criticism" which is what your piece really needs. 
 
Let's see if that'll do the trick!
 
First, let's dispose of this whole "skeptic" frame. 
 
I'm not a "skeptic," I'm a sentient human being.  I'm capable of self-awareness, and this allows me to pay attention to how my clothing moves when I move.  This ability is crucial to understanding the murder of John F. Kennedy..
 
In your article is the now-famous line:
 
 
Quote

Careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics.
 
And who performed this "careful and sober analysis of the evidence"?
 
Dale K. Myers, for one.  On page 46 of Skeptic Magazine, in the lower left corner, is a drawing based on Myers' computer model.
 
This drawing shows a single bullet striking JFK at the base of his neck and exiting his throat and striking Connally.  This particular piece of artwork attempts to reconcile the location of the bullet holes in the clothes with this Single Bullet.  As a result, JFK's jacket collar in this drawing is jacked up well into his hairline.
 
The shirt collar isn't visible in this drawing.
 
Dave, you claim this drawing is highly accurate.
 
It's depiction of the jacket position is an egregious misrepresentation of JFK's clothing in Dealey Plaza, as the photos I've posted earlier in this thread can readily attest.
 
You also cite in your article the Discovery Channel program "Beyond The Magic Bullet."
 
First of all, that final single shot the Australian SBT team fired exited the model's chest!  The producers of the program pretended like it didn't matter.
 
Also, you had my old buddy Chad Zimmerman on that program, and he showed the same thing that the Myers artwork showed:  in order to reconcile the location of the holes in the clothes with the SBT inshoot, the jacket collar had to be elevated into his hairline.
 
But the Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar, the jacket collar was in a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck, ergo the shirt and jacket weren't jacked up multiple inches in tandem entirely above the base of the neck, as required by the SBT..
 
Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality, Dave.  How could the jacket collar and a big wad of clothing occupy the same physical space at the same time?
 
How could a truly objective person think it possible?
 
I'm afraid you've misinterpreted the lessons of Myers' and Zimmerman's work, Dave.
 
 
I'm detecting an awful lot of negativity, Clifford. Surely it would undercut any attempt at criticism if you appeared to be hopelessly prejudiced toward your subject. I've got an idea. Why don't you start by telling me what you think the strongest and weakest points in my article are.
 
Dave


#109 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:33 PM
Quote


 


 
I'm detecting an awful lot of negativity, Clifford. Surely it would undercut any attempt at criticism if you appeared to be hopelessly prejudiced toward your subject. I've got an idea. Why don't you start by telling me what you think the strongest and weakest points in my article are.
 
Dave
 
 
 
You're taking this too personally, Dave.
 
[Cue Al Pacino in GF1]
 
"It isn't personal, Sonny.  It's strictly business."
 
The only point in your article worth considering in its entirety is your defense of Louis Witt.
 
Otherwise, your entire effort is undermined by your disproven assumptions concerning the Single Bullet.
 
Dale Myers, Chad Zimmerman and David Von Pein have made attempts to reconcile the location of the holes in the clothes with the Single Bullet.
 
Those efforts have utterly failed.  We see Myers failure on pg 46 of Skeptic Magazine.
 
Dave, do you really think it possible that JFK's jacket collar could occupy the same physical space at the same time as a multi-inch wad of suit fabric?
 
Remember, Dave, the burden of proof is on you regarding the Single Bullet, and your friends have failed you miserably.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 25 September 2013 - 03:34 PM.
#110 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:53 PM
Gentle reader,
 
Before receiving a copy of Skeptic (thank you Bill Kelly!) I was sure that Dave Reitzes wouldn't go anywhere near the clothing evidence in his article.
 
So, yes, I admit it, I started out sort of hijacking this thread.  I wanted to demonstrate the logical fallacy of "special pleading."
 
But as it turns out Dave published a Dale Myers-based drawing which showed JFK's jacket collar elevated a good inch into his hairline.  He also made reference to a Discovery program which featured former aajfk moderator Chad Zimmerman jacking a jacket up into a hairline in order to get the bullet holes in the clothes to line up with the SBT inshoot..
 
Game on!
 
 
Cliff Varnell, on 11 Sept 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:
 

 
Check out the smooth floor of the jacket indentation on the right shoulder.
 

 
The jacket was elevated a fraction of an inch and the shirt wasn't elevated at all.
 
Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a matter of debate but a fact to be observed.
 


#111 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:09 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 25 Sept 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:Dave, do you really think it possible that JFK's jacket collar could occupy the same physical space at the same time as a multi-inch wad of suit fabric?

 
 
What I don't understand is how such a scenario could be seriously raised on a scholarly forum such as this.


#112 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:49 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 23 Sept 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 22 Sept 2013 - 5:22 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 20 Sept 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Quote


 

 
I'm sure everyone here can imagine how much it pains me to have to tell people that my article's most outspoken critic (so far, at least) freely admits he hasn't read it and has no intention of doing so.
 
Rock on, Cliff.
 
Dave
 
 
 
 
Dave, you got the wrong impression.
 
I tried to take up Bill Kelly's offer of a free copy, and I PM'd him my e-mail but I haven't heard back.
 
I object to spending any money on the magazine, but I look forward to seeing your entire article.
 
It promises to be a "target-rich environment" for all kinds of logical fallacies.
 
 
Constructive criticism is always welcome.
 
Dave
 
 
Dave, I don't think that's the appropriate response here.
 
Doesn't "constructive criticism" imply that something of value could be salvaged from your piece?
 
I infer as much.  So no, I don't think I can do the "constructive criticism" thing due to the extensive intellectual rot in your article.
 
But, if I may, I'll offer some "creatively destructive criticism" which is what your piece really needs. 
 
Let's see if that'll do the trick!
 
First, let's dispose of this whole "skeptic" frame. 
 
I'm not a "skeptic," I'm a sentient human being.  I'm capable of self-awareness, and this allows me to pay attention to how my clothing moves when I move.  This ability is crucial to understanding the murder of John F. Kennedy..
 
In your article is the now-famous line:
 
 
Quote

Careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the commission's conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics.
 
And who performed this "careful and sober analysis of the evidence"?
 
Dale K. Myers, for one.  On page 46 of Skeptic Magazine, in the lower left corner, is a drawing based on Myers' computer model.
 
This drawing shows a single bullet striking JFK at the base of his neck and exiting his throat and striking Connally.  This particular piece of artwork attempts to reconcile the location of the bullet holes in the clothes with this Single Bullet.  As a result, JFK's jacket collar in this drawing is jacked up well into his hairline.
 
The shirt collar isn't visible in this drawing.
 
Dave, you claim this drawing is highly accurate.
 
It's depiction of the jacket position is an egregious misrepresentation of JFK's clothing in Dealey Plaza, as the photos I've posted earlier in this thread can readily attest.
 
You also cite in your article the Discovery Channel program "Beyond The Magic Bullet."
 
First of all, that final single shot the Australian SBT team fired exited the model's chest!  The producers of the program pretended like it didn't matter.
 
Also, you had my old buddy Chad Zimmerman on that program, and he showed the same thing that the Myers artwork showed:  in order to reconcile the location of the holes in the clothes with the SBT inshoot, the jacket collar had to be elevated into his hairline.
 
But the Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar, the jacket collar was in a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck, ergo the shirt and jacket weren't jacked up multiple inches in tandem entirely above the base of the neck, as required by the SBT..
 
Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality, Dave.  How could the jacket collar and a big wad of clothing occupy the same physical space at the same time?
 
How could a truly objective person think it possible?
 
I'm afraid you've misinterpreted the lessons of Myers' and Zimmerman's work, Dave.
 
 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Cliff.
 
Do you allege forgery in the autopsy photos?
 
Dave


#113 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:20 AM
David Reitzes, on 25 Sept 2013 - 6:49 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Cliff.
 
Do you allege forgery in the autopsy photos?
 
Dave
 
 
I don't allege anything.
 
The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.
 
Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.
 
Thin gruel, indeed.


#114 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,394 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:29 AM
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.

Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.

Thin gruel, indeed.

But, Cliff, what about the fact that the "thin gruel" (aka the autopsy photographs AND X-rays) were determined by the HSCA to be pictures of JFK after death and that the photos and X-rays "had not been altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41]?

How do your arguments about "autopsy protocol" and "no chain of possession" overcome those words we find on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7, Cliff?

Even without any verified chain of possession at all, if the HSCA's Photographic Panel is right, then those pictures definitely are the Real McCoy and they aren't fakes or frauds.

Please tell me why I should just ignore 7 HSCA 41.

Thank you.
Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 05:34 AM.
#115 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 644 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:35 AM
David Von Pein, on 25 Sept 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.

Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.

Thin gruel, indeed.

But, Cliff, what about the fact that the "thin gruel" (aka the autopsy photographs AND X-rays) were determined by the HSCA to be pictures of JFK after death and that the photos and X-rays "had not been altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41]?

How do your arguments about "autopsy protocol" and "no chain of possession" overcome those words we find on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7, Cliff?

Even without any verified chain of possession at all, if the HSCA's Photographic Panel is right, then those pictures definitely are the Real McCoy and they aren't fakes or frauds.

Please tell me why I should just ignore 7 HSCA 41.

Thank you.
 
Goll-ee Dave, ya mean it was all done o-fish-al like with real live ex-purts??? Day-um, it MUST all be true then!! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!


#116 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,394 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:49 AM
Then what's the point of ever having any "ex-purts" examine any of the evidence, Robert P.? You're not going to believe a single thing they say, right?

I think it's quite obvious that most Internet CTers feel the same way. IOW, if some expert says something that leads to Oswald's probable guilt--forget about it!

Admit it, Bob. What I just said about the Internet CT crowd is 100% accurate, isn't it? (And you just proved it with your last juvenile post above.)
Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 06:56 AM.
#117 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:58 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 25 Sept 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 25 Sept 2013 - 6:49 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Cliff.
 
Do you allege forgery in the autopsy photos?
 
Dave
 
 
I don't allege anything.
 
The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.
 
Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.
 
Thin gruel, indeed.
 
 
It sounds like you're advocating a case for forgery. Perhaps I should ask the question a different way.
 
Absent the body itself, the best evidence for determining the location of the entry wound would have to be the autopsy photographs, right?
 
Dave


#118 Ray Mitcham

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 230 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport. U.K.

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:47 AM
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 25 Sept 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 25 Sept 2013 - 6:49 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Cliff.
 
Do you allege forgery in the autopsy photos?
 
Dave
 
 
I don't allege anything.
 
The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.
 
Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.
 
Thin gruel, indeed.
 
 
It sounds like you're advocating a case for forgery. Perhaps I should ask the question a different way.
 
Absent the body itself, the best evidence for determining the location of the entry wound would have to be the autopsy photographs, right?
 
Dave
 
Only if you can guarantee and prove
1)  that they are photographs of the victim, and not a substitute
and
2 ) that they have not been altered in any way.
 
If you can't do both  of the above, then the  statements of the forensic pathologists are the best evidence.

Edited by Ray Mitcham, 26 September 2013 - 11:44 AM.
#119 Don Jeffries

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 1,058 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Writing fiction- my first work, the sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," is in Barnes & Noble bookstores across the country and has been purchased by hundreds of public and college libraries in the United States and around the world. I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a second novel, "Front Row At The Loony Bin," as well as working on a sequel to "The Unreals."

Posted 26 September 2013 - 04:02 PM
The "official" evidence contradicts what numerous, disparate witnesses said about a variety of issues. As Cliff has noted, the chain of possession is shockingly lacking for each piece of the "evidence" against Oswald. You might be able to get away with claiming that people are often mistaken, eyewitness testimony is unreliable, etc. But then you have the holes in JFK's coat and shirt. Those inconvenient holes. The ones that happen, by a startling coincidence, to match up precisely with where Dr. Boswell "mistakenly" placed the back wound on his original autopsy face sheet, where Dr. Burkley located the wound on the death certificate and where Sibert and O'Neill and others reported seeing it. 
 
No "conspiracy theory" is as laughable as the impossible theories devised by LNers such as the SBT, the "bunched up" fabric theory, and the "jet effect" theory to explain why JFK's head appeared to defy the laws of physics that day. This is why we can't take any of you seriously, and the fact that the "experts" selected by the HSCA and other "official" sources continue to defend the indefensible lone assassin myth speaks to their lack of credibility, not ours.  
 
In a nutshell, to accept the official story, one must believe that:
 
- A "loner" with "the fingerprints of intelligence" (as Richard Schweiker so aptly put it) all over him, who had no motive (in fact, was said to have liked Kennedy), who was, in the military's own words, "a rather poor shot," using an outdated weapon that had to be repaired before anyone would volunteer to test fire it, who apparently only purchased the four bullets found on the sixth floor, managed to accomplish what genuine experts have not been able to.
- Easily fled his sniper's lair because no one except a single officer was paying attention to the building for quite some time, as the vast majority of witnesses "mistakenly" believed the grassy knoll area to be the source of gunfire, fled away from the area on foot and then inexplicably took a bus back towards the crime scene, stayed on it long enough to be "identified" by the first of a series of ridiculous witnesses, retrieved a pistol from his rooming house and shot a police officer.
- Was arrested in a theater filled with an incomprehensible number of high ranking law enforcement officials who were curiously interested in a man who allegedly hadn't paid for a movie ticket.
- Was interrogated multiple times over the next few days, with none of the sessions being recorded in any manner
- Protested his innocence vigorously in every electronic snippet left in the public record, and constantly complained about not having an attorney, yet we are supposed to believe the Dallas Bar representatives who visited him and reported he was satisfied with his lack of legal representation.
- Was unnecessarily scheduled to be transferred and left unprotected from the front by the 70 plus police officers in the basement, permitting him to be shot by a nightclub owner who appeared to have quite a dubious, mob-connected background himself, but simply wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of testifying at trial. 
 
It's laughable that we're still discussing these things. Oswald, as he said himself, "didn't shoot any one" that day. All the "experts" in the world will never convince those who've studied this case to accept the official story.  
 


#120 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,778 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 04:33 PM
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

 
Cliff Varnell, on 25 Sept 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:

 
David Reitzes, on 25 Sept 2013 - 6:49 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Cliff.
 
Do you allege forgery in the autopsy photos?
 
Dave
 
 
I don't allege anything.
 
The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.
 
Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.
 
Thin gruel, indeed.
 
 
It sounds like you're advocating a case for forgery. Perhaps I should ask the question a different way.
 
Absent the body itself, the best evidence for determining the location of the entry wound would have to be the autopsy photographs, right?
 
Dave
 
 
No, the best evidence is the shirt.
 
A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt will fit like a "second skin," according to men's fashion kingpin Alan Flusser.
 
Dave, there are two kinds of medical evidence in this case.
 
There is evidence which was produced/prepared/maintained according to proper professional protocols.
 
And then there is evidence improperly produced, which did not follow the proper protocols.
 
The properly prepared/maintained evidence includes: JFK's clothing, Burkley's death certificate (signed off as "verified"), the part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (signed off as "verified"), the contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors who described the throat wound as an entrance, and the FBI report on the autopsy.
 
Physical evidence (clothing holes) plus four properly produced medical documents and the FBI report.
 
That doesn't mention the 15 eye witnesses who described the back wound in a location consistent with the clothing holes, or the half dozen or so eye witnesses to the throat entrance wound.
 
The properly prepared evidence consistently describes a "low" back wound of entrance, no exit, as well as a throat wound of entrance, no exit.
 
The improperly prepared evidence includes the final autopsy report on the back wound location (which cites two wildly improper anatomical landmarks), the autopsy photos (poor quality, no victim ID, no chain of possession), and the part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen.
 
Dave...I think you get the idea.  Properly prepared evidence trumps improper.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 26 September 2013 - 04:46 PM.

  • «
  • Prev


  • Page 8 of 19

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:20 pm

#121 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,369 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:14 PM
Ray Mitcham said
Ray Mitcham wrote:Only if you can guarantee and prove

1) that they are photographs of the victim, and not a substitute

and

2 ) that they have not been altered in any way.

As I just pointed out in this previous post, the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel did conclude those exact two things.

Why don't you believe a single word of 7 HSCA 41, Ray?
Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 05:19 PM.
#122 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,369 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:15 PM
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:The best evidence is the shirt.


Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 05:16 PM.
#123 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:32 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:The best evidence is the shirt.


 
 
 
I think by now the editors of Skeptic Magazine are feeling a little embarrassed.


#124 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:34 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Ray Mitcham said
Ray Mitcham wrote:Only if you can guarantee and prove

1) that they are photographs of the victim, and not a substitute

and

2 ) that they have not been altered in any way.

As I just pointed out in this previous post, the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel did conclude those exact two things.

Why don't you believe a single word of 7 HSCA 41, Ray?
 
 
Now we're writing Assassination Porn.


#125 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,369 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:36 PM
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:I think by now the editors of Skeptic Magazine are feeling a little embarrassed.

The only person who should be feeling a twinge of embarrassment right now is a certain Mr. Clifford Varnell. After all, it wasn't David A. Reitzes who made this hilarious comment just a few minutes ago:
 
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:The best evidence is the shirt.

Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 05:37 PM.
#126 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,369 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:38 PM
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:Now we're writing Assassination Porn.

Sure. It's a conclusion reached by the HSCA that you don't like, therefore it's "Assassination Porn".

Gee, what a surprise.
Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 05:39 PM.
#127 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,094 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:40 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote:Then what's the point of ever having any "ex-purts" examine any of the evidence, Robert P.? You're not going to believe a single thing they say, right?

I think it's quite obvious that most Internet CTers feel the same way. IOW, if some expert says something that leads to Oswald's probable guilt--forget about it!

Admit it, Bob. What I just said about the Internet CT crowd is 100% accurate, isn't it? (And you just proved it with your last juvenile post above.)
 
 
The truth is, Dave--and you know this--that those claiming Oswald did it all by his lonesome have as low regard for "ex-purts" as those claiming he had some help, or wasn't involved at all.
 
And, ironically, the single-bullet theory you two Daves are now defending is the proof.
 
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel--which, if anything, evidenced a strong bias to the proposition Oswald acted alone--thought the single-bullet theory credible under the belief Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when shot. Their study of the Zapruder film led them to conclude this did not happen in the frames where Kennedy is visible. This led them then to conclude he MUST have been shot when behind the sign in the film.
 
The HSCA's staff then pulled a switcheroo on them, and said Kennedy was shot before he went behind the sign in the film. They didn't tell the doctors this, of course. They got the Pathology Panel to sign off on the SBT, then hired a "rocket scientist" to say the Pathology Panel was incorrect, and that Kennedy was in fact leaning sharply forward BEFORE going behind the sign in the film. The credibility of this "rocket scientist" is non-existent, however. To get the head wounds to line-up, he claimed Kennedy was NOT leaning sharply forward when hit in the head. Yes, you got it, the government "ex-purt" upon the government relied to make the single-bullet theory "work" claimed Kennedy was leaning forward, got shot in the back, then sat up in the car, only to get shot in the head--the exact opposite of what is shown in the Zapruder film.
 
In short, 1) single-assassin theorists don't trust the "rocket scientist." 2) they don't trust the Forensic Pathology Panel's placement for Kennedy's back wound, either.  
 
Some conspiracy theorists, however, think the pathology panel was correct about the back wound.
 
So, yeah, the belief in the single-bullet theory evidenced by most single-assassin theorists requires that they have LESS faith in the "ex-purts" than conspiracy theorists, and not the other way around.


#128 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,369 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:58 PM
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:The truth is, Dave--and you know this--that those claiming Oswald did it all by his lonesome have as low regard for "ex-purts" as those claiming he had some help, or wasn't involved at all.

And, ironically, the single-bullet theory you two Daves are now defending is the proof.

[...]

So, yeah, the belief in the single-bullet theory evidenced by most single-assassin theorists requires that they have LESS faith in the "ex-purts" than conspiracy theorists, and not the other way around.

Good point, Pat. And a point well taken about the HSCA's ridiculous conclusions regarding the SBT occurring at the absurdly early time of Z190 (and their additional absurd conclusion that the throat wound in JFK was located higher anatomically on Kennedy's body than the upper-back wound, which is a conclusion that is destroyed by the autopsy photos).

I agree with you that most "LNers" (such as myself) disagree with some of the "ex-purts" (which was Robert Prudhomme's spelling of that word, not mine; I merely repeated it), but my gosh Pat, you'll have to also agree that if we were to take a poll to find out what percentage of the "expert" testimony is accepted by the conspiracy crowd, vs. the percentage of such expert testimony accepted by the lone-assassin believers--it wouldn't even be a close race. The CTers pretty much accept none of the expert testimony, starting with the three autopsy surgeons, and then extending to the Dallas Police Department and the FBI, and then on down to the Warren Commission and the Clark Panel. Then there's the pathologists on the Rockefeller Commission. They're wrong too.

And then the many experts who gave an opinion for the HSCA, including the nine-man FPP. They're ALL WRONG too -- about EVERYTHING -- per most of the conspiracists. And then we have the conclusions reached by the 1982 NAS acoustical panel. They blew it too. (Yes, I think the Queens College "experts" blew it myself. So I guess it's a "wash" on that point. But there are multiple reasons to question the validity of the HSCA's "4th shot" Dictabelt conclusion.)

So, CTers pretty much think that NONE of the "experts" got anything right about the JFK case. Except for Cyril Wecht, it seems that everybody blew it (or was a liar/cover-up agent) -- from Earl Warren to Dr. Humes to G. Robert Blakey to Russell Fisher to Jesse Curry to Henry Wade to Robert A. Frazier to Sebastian Latona....and on and on.

Yes, I disagree with a FEW of the "experts" (very few, actually). But the number that I disagree with can't hold a candle to the number of experts who are summarily dismissed as being wrong or just flat-out liars by the conspiracy theorists of this world.
Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 06:12 PM.
#129 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:07 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:Now we're writing Assassination Porn.

Sure. It's a conclusion reached by the HSCA that you don't like, therefore it's "Assassination Porn".

Gee, what a surprise.
 
 
No, you're mis-representation of the HSCA conclusions about poor quality, improperly produced photos -- that's Assassination Porn.


#130 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:10 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:Now we're writing Assassination Porn.

Sure. It's a conclusion reached by the HSCA that you don't like, therefore it's "Assassination Porn".

Gee, what a surprise.
 
 
No, you're mis-representation of the HSCA conclusions about poor quality, improperly produced photos -- that's Assassination Porn.
 
 
 
The new Skeptic Magazine -- super-slick big-time Assassination Porn.


#131 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,097 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:13 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Cliff Varnell said
Cliff Varnell wrote:Now we're writing Assassination Porn.

Sure. It's a conclusion reached by the HSCA that you don't like, therefore it's "Assassination Porn".

Gee, what a surprise.
 
 
No, you're mis-representation of the HSCA conclusions about poor quality, improperly produced photos -- that's Assassination Porn.
 
 
 
The new Skeptic Magazine -- super-slick big-time Assassination Porn.
 
 
with that moniker--you just buried Skeptic Magazine, Cliff.....


#132 Ray Mitcham

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 212 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport. U.K.

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:22 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Ray Mitcham said
Ray Mitcham wrote:Only if you can guarantee and prove

1) that they are photographs of the victim, and not a substitute

and

2 ) that they have not been altered in any way.

As I just pointed out in this previous post, the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel did conclude those exact two things.

Why don't you believe a single word of 7 HSCA 41, Ray?
 
Their conclusion
 
 
The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
 
Good. you believe in a conspiracy.

Edited by Ray Mitcham, 26 September 2013 - 06:23 PM.
#133 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 514 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:23 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:The truth is, Dave--and you know this--that those claiming Oswald did it all by his lonesome have as low regard for "ex-purts" as those claiming he had some help, or wasn't involved at all.

And, ironically, the single-bullet theory you two Daves are now defending is the proof.

[...]

So, yeah, the belief in the single-bullet theory evidenced by most single-assassin theorists requires that they have LESS faith in the "ex-purts" than conspiracy theorists, and not the other way around.

Good point, Pat. And a point well taken about the HSCA's ridiculous conclusions regarding the SBT occurring at the absurdly early time of Z190 (and their additional absurd conclusion that the throat wound in JFK was located higher anatomically on Kennedy's body than the upper-back wound, which is a conclusion that is destroyed by the autopsy photos).

I agree with you that most "LNers" (such as myself) disagree with some of the "ex-purts" (which was Robert Prudhomme's spelling of that word, not mine; I merely repeated it), but my gosh Pat, you'll have to also agree that if we were to take a poll to find out what percentage of the "expert" testimony is accepted by the conspiracy crowd, vs. the percentage of such expert testimony accepted by the lone-assassin believers--it wouldn't even be a close race. The CTers pretty much accept none of the expert testimony, starting with the three autopsy surgeons, and then extending to the Dallas Police Department and the FBI, and then on down to the Warren Commission and the Clark Panel. Then there's the pathologists on the Rockefeller Commission. They're wrong too.

And then the many experts who gave an opinion for the HSCA, including the nine-man FPP. They're ALL WRONG too -- about EVERYTHING -- per most of the conspiracists. And then we have the conclusions reached by the 1982 NAS acoustical panel. They blew it too. (Yes, I think the Queens College "experts" blew it myself. So I guess it's a "wash" on that point. But there are multiple reasons to question the validity of the HSCA's "4th shot" Dictabelt conclusion.)

So, CTers pretty much think that NONE of the "experts" got anything right about the JFK case. Except for Cyril Wecht, it seems that everybody blew it (or was a liar/cover-up agent) -- from Earl Warren to Dr. Humes to G. Robert Blakey to Russell Fisher to Jesse Curry to Henry Wade to Robert A. Frazier to Sebastian Latona....and on and on.

Yes, I disagree with a FEW of the "experts" (very few, actually). But the number that I disagree with can't hold a candle to the number of experts who are summarily dismissed as being wrong or just flat-out liars by the conspiracy theorists of this world.
 
I imagine you would call JFK's physician, Dr. George Burkley, somewhat of an expert in his field, wouldn't you, Dave? If so, do you disagree with his placement, on the death certificate, of JFK's back wound at the 3rd thoracic vertebra?


#134 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,094 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:30 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:The truth is, Dave--and you know this--that those claiming Oswald did it all by his lonesome have as low regard for "ex-purts" as those claiming he had some help, or wasn't involved at all.

And, ironically, the single-bullet theory you two Daves are now defending is the proof.

[...]

So, yeah, the belief in the single-bullet theory evidenced by most single-assassin theorists requires that they have LESS faith in the "ex-purts" than conspiracy theorists, and not the other way around.

Good point, Pat. And a point well taken about the HSCA's ridiculous conclusions regarding the SBT occurring at the absurdly early time of Z190 (and their additional absurd conclusion that the throat wound in JFK was located higher anatomically on Kennedy's body than the upper-back wound, which is a conclusion that is destroyed by the autopsy photos).

I agree with you that most "LNers" (such as myself) disagree with some of the "ex-purts" (which was Robert Prudhomme's spelling of that word, not mine; I merely repeated it), but my gosh Pat, you'll have to also agree that if we were to take a poll to find out what percentage of the "expert" testimony is accepted by the conspiracy crowd, vs. the percentage of such expert testimony accepted by the lone-assassin believers--it wouldn't even be a close race. The CTers pretty much accept none of the expert testimony, starting with the three autopsy surgeons, and then extending to the Dallas Police Department and the FBI, and then on down to the Warren Commission and the Clark Panel. Then there's the pathologists on the Rockefeller Commission. They're wrong too.

And then the many experts who gave an opinion for the HSCA, including the nine-man FPP. They're ALL WRONG too -- about EVERYTHING -- per most of the conspiracists. And then we have the conclusions reached by the 1982 NAS acoustical panel. They blew it too. (Yes, I think the Queens College "experts" blew it myself. So I guess it's a "wash" on that point. But there are multiple reasons to question the validity of the HSCA's "4th shot" Dictabelt conclusion.)

So, CTers pretty much think that NONE of the "experts" got anything right about the JFK case. Except for Cyril Wecht, it seems that everybody blew it (or was a liar/cover-up agent) -- from Earl Warren to Dr. Humes to G. Robert Blakey to Russell Fisher to Jesse Curry to Henry Wade to Robert A. Frazier to Sebastian Latona....and on and on.

Yes, I disagree with SOME of the "experts". But the number that I disagree with can't hold a candle to the number of experts who are summarily dismissed as being wrong or just flat-out liars by the conspiracy theorists of this world.
 
 
 
Well, yeah, Dave, CTs are a diverse group: if you search among them and treat them as an entity, you will probably find someone who thinks every supposedly expert opinion is a lie.
 
But that's an awfully broad brush. If you focus on the single-bullet theory--the supposed center of the LN universe, around which all conclusions revolve--you will see that LNs regularly and repeatedly embrace the conclusions of Lattimer (which were subsequently rejected by the far-more qualified Forensic Pathology Panel) and Guinn (which were not only rejected by more qualified experts, but refuted by Guinn's own writings on the subject).  In other words, there's no there there. The conclusion Oswald acted alone comes down, more often than not, to someone's misguided BELIEF the back wound photo shows a wound at the base of Kennedy's neck.
 
That this is a BELIEF, and not a rational conclusion, is demonstrated, moreover, not only by the refusal to test their belief using real science, such as a ruler (I've yet to see a photo showing us how the base of Kennedy's neck could be as much as 14 cm below the bottom tip of his skull) but by the reverence shown the high priests of their religion. Let's look at Dr. Lattimer, for example. He claimed that the bullet creating Kennedy's back wound entered at the level of his chin, and not because Kennedy was leaning over. He actually believed Kennedy was a hunchback, whereby a bullet hole 14 cms from the base of his skull, and 2 inches below his shoulder line, would still be at the level of his chin.
 
Well, this is as LOOPY as it gets. Certifiably insane. And yet, how many lone-nutters have rejected this nonsense?


#135 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,369 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 06:43 PM
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Well, yeah, Dave, CTs are a diverse group: if you search among them and treat them as an entity, you will probably find someone who thinks every supposedly expert opinion is a lie.

But that's an awfully broad brush. If you focus on the single-bullet theory--the supposed center of the LN universe, around which all conclusions revolve--you will see that LNs regularly and repeatedly embrace the conclusions of Lattimer (which were subsequently rejected by the far-more qualified Forensic Pathology Panel) and Guinn (which were not only rejected by more qualified experts, but refuted by Guinn's own writings on the subject). In other words, there's no there there. The conclusion Oswald acted alone comes down, more often than not, to someone's misguided BELIEF the back wound photo shows a wound at the base of Kennedy's neck.

That this is a BELIEF, and not a rational conclusion, is demonstrated, moreover, not only by the refusal to test their belief using real science, such as a ruler (I've yet to see a photo showing us how the base of Kennedy's neck could be as much as 14 cm below the bottom tip of his skull) but by the reverence shown the high priests of their religion. Let's look at Dr. Lattimer, for example. He claimed that the bullet creating Kennedy's back wound entered at the level of his chin, and not because Kennedy was leaning over. He actually believed Kennedy was a hunchback, whereby a bullet hole 14 cms from the base of his skull, and 2 inches below his shoulder line, would still be at the level of his chin.

Well, this is as LOOPY as it gets. Certifiably insane. And yet, how many lone-nutters have rejected this nonsense?

Actually, Pat, the Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously true, I don't need any "experts" at all to confirm my belief in that theory (which is, in reality, more of a certainty than a theory here in 2013).

And one of the main reasons to accept the SBT as being true (regardless of WHICH exact Z-Film frame you might want to endorse as the precise "SBT Frame" on the film) is due to what is NOT in evidence in this case, vs. what IS in evidence.

Because if one bullet didn't cause all of Kennedy's non-fatal wounds and all of Connally's wounds, then we simply have no choice but to accept a theory that is far more unrealistic and wholly implausible than is the single-bullet conclusion.

I.E., sans the SBT (any version of the "SBT"), we've got to believe that some bullets just disappeared off the planet without a trace. And the most widely-accepted anti-SBT theory put forth by the CTers (which is a theory that almost all Internet CTers accept today) is the nutty theory that has TWO separate bullets entering John Kennedy's back and throat but NEVER EXITING his body at all.

Which means, via that kind of theory, we've also got to believe in not only TWO whole bullets magically vanishing when they SHOULD have still been inside JFK's body at his autopsy....but we'd also have to accept the notion that these two bullets somehow stopped inside Kennedy's body but did almost NO physical damage to the President's body at all before stopping dead in their tracks.

Now, tell me how accepting such an absurd "Two Bullets Entered But Never Exited" scenario is MORE reasonable (and TRUE) than is a belief in the Single-Bullet Theory that I fully endorse?

Good luck selling the CT version to a jury. You'll need it.
Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 06:47 PM.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:23 pm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:I2VNF13Mtw0J:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D10+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


#136 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,119 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 07:52 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Well, yeah, Dave, CTs are a diverse group: if you search among them and treat them as an entity, you will probably find someone who thinks every supposedly expert opinion is a lie.

But that's an awfully broad brush. If you focus on the single-bullet theory--the supposed center of the LN universe, around which all conclusions revolve--you will see that LNs regularly and repeatedly embrace the conclusions of Lattimer (which were subsequently rejected by the far-more qualified Forensic Pathology Panel) and Guinn (which were not only rejected by more qualified experts, but refuted by Guinn's own writings on the subject). In other words, there's no there there. The conclusion Oswald acted alone comes down, more often than not, to someone's misguided BELIEF the back wound photo shows a wound at the base of Kennedy's neck.

That this is a BELIEF, and not a rational conclusion, is demonstrated, moreover, not only by the refusal to test their belief using real science, such as a ruler (I've yet to see a photo showing us how the base of Kennedy's neck could be as much as 14 cm below the bottom tip of his skull) but by the reverence shown the high priests of their religion. Let's look at Dr. Lattimer, for example. He claimed that the bullet creating Kennedy's back wound entered at the level of his chin, and not because Kennedy was leaning over. He actually believed Kennedy was a hunchback, whereby a bullet hole 14 cms from the base of his skull, and 2 inches below his shoulder line, would still be at the level of his chin.

Well, this is as LOOPY as it gets. Certifiably insane. And yet, how many lone-nutters have rejected this nonsense?
...
Because if one bullet didn't cause all of Kennedy's non-fatal wounds and all of Connally's wounds, then we simply have no choice but to accept a theory that is far more unrealistic and wholly implausible than is the single-bullet conclusion.
...
 
two shooters from the rear, son. Cures all those un-seemly problems. Unless of course you happen to believe in dietetic deep fried chicken...


#137 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:00 PM
David G. Healy said
David G. Healy wrote:two shooters from the rear, son.

Of which there is NO evidence whatsoever....son. No evidence exists at all of a SECOND shooter firing from the rear. So why not just believe in the obvious truth -- one bullet, fired from Oswald's Carcano, wounded both JFK & JBC? That way, I don't need to ask you this too....

What happened to the bullet that went through Kennedy but somehow missed Connally?

And, since you don't believe for a second that CE399 touched any victim on Nov. 22nd, I have to ask this other question too....

What happened to the "real" bullet that hit John Connally? Who disposed of it? And who then replaced it with CE399?
Edited by David Von Pein, 26 September 2013 - 08:03 PM.
#138 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,119 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:43 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
David G. Healy said
David G. Healy wrote:two shooters from the rear, son.

Of which there is NO evidence whatsoever....son. No evidence exists at all of a SECOND shooter firing from the rear. So why not just believe in the obvious truth -- one bullet, fired from Oswald's Carcano, wounded both JFK & JBC? That way, I don't need to ask you this too....

What happened to the bullet that went through Kennedy but somehow missed Connally?

And, since you don't believe for a second that CE399 touched any victim on Nov. 22nd, I have to ask this other question too....

What happened to the "real" bullet that hit John Connally? Who disposed of it? And who then replaced it with CE399?
 
 
two shooters from the rear son.... explains all!  It's called the LONE NUT *POOF* trick.
 
You're not gonna try and get away with you're unfamiliar with sleight of hand, are ya now? And for future consideration: there was NO trial son, hence no evidence submitted, ANYWHERE -- just material for WC review and stewpid lone nut conclusions.
 
You're going to have to do better than this David Von Pein, you're convincing anyone of anything. Your opinions are, well, YOURS -- however divorced from reality they may seem!

Edited by David G. Healy, 26 September 2013 - 09:55 PM.
#139 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:40 PM
Quote
two shooters from the rear son.... explains all!

It most certainly does not "explain all". Try reading my last post again....son. (What happened to "hon"?)
#140 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,759 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:44 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote:I.E., sans the SBT (any version of the "SBT"), we've got to believe that some bullets just disappeared off the planet without a trace. And the most widely-accepted anti-SBT theory put forth by the CTers (which is a theory that almost all Internet CTers accept today) is the nutty theory that has TWO separate bullets entering John Kennedy's back and throat but NEVER EXITING his body at all.

Which means, via that kind of theory, we've also got to believe in not only TWO whole bullets magically vanishing when they SHOULD have still been inside JFK's body at his autopsy....but we'd also have to accept the notion that these two bullets somehow stopped inside Kennedy's body but did almost NO physical damage to the President's body at all before stopping dead in their tracks.
 
 
 
No magic.  Rounds that didn't show up on x-ray.  
 
The autopsists suggested this to the FBI men.
 
High tech weaponry as tested at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
 
Another inconvenient historical fact.
 
Dave, all your ridicule falls flat when you present no facts to the contrary.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 26 September 2013 - 10:56 PM.
#141 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 243 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:39 PM
Ray Mitcham, on 26 Sept 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:
Ray Mitcham wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 25 Sept 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 25 Sept 2013 - 6:49 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Cliff.
 
Do you allege forgery in the autopsy photos?
 
Dave
 
 
I don't allege anything.
 
The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.
 
Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.
 
Thin gruel, indeed.
 
 
It sounds like you're advocating a case for forgery. Perhaps I should ask the question a different way.
 
Absent the body itself, the best evidence for determining the location of the entry wound would have to be the autopsy photographs, right?
 
Dave
 
Only if you can guarantee and prove
1)  that they are photographs of the victim, and not a substitute
and
2 ) that they have not been altered in any way.
 
If you can't do both  of the above, then the  statements of the forensic pathologists are the best evidence.
 
 
Hmm. I thought I was talking to Cliff.
 
Of course, the HSCA photographic panel authenticated the photographs, and no one with their qualifications has ever disputed their conclusion. Not even forensic expert and noted Warren Commission critic Cyril Wecht, who served on the HSCA's forensic pathology panel, has expressed any doubts about the authenticity of the autopsy materials, and he was the only member of the 9-member panel who had doubts about the single bullet theory.
 
Is that not good enough? Only the statements of the forensic pathologists who conducted the President's autopsy are what matter?
 
Weren't Humes and Boswell the very people who proposed the single bullet theory in the first place, in their sworn Warren Commission deposition? I mean, even the Warren Commission counselors working on that aspect of the case, including the infamous Arlen Specter, were skeptical of the proposition until it had been verified to their satisfaction.
 
Would you like source citations, Ray? They're in my article. The one in SKEPTIC. The one this thread is about.
 
Dave


#142 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,118 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:09 AM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Well, yeah, Dave, CTs are a diverse group: if you search among them and treat them as an entity, you will probably find someone who thinks every supposedly expert opinion is a lie.

But that's an awfully broad brush. If you focus on the single-bullet theory--the supposed center of the LN universe, around which all conclusions revolve--you will see that LNs regularly and repeatedly embrace the conclusions of Lattimer (which were subsequently rejected by the far-more qualified Forensic Pathology Panel) and Guinn (which were not only rejected by more qualified experts, but refuted by Guinn's own writings on the subject). In other words, there's no there there. The conclusion Oswald acted alone comes down, more often than not, to someone's misguided BELIEF the back wound photo shows a wound at the base of Kennedy's neck.

That this is a BELIEF, and not a rational conclusion, is demonstrated, moreover, not only by the refusal to test their belief using real science, such as a ruler (I've yet to see a photo showing us how the base of Kennedy's neck could be as much as 14 cm below the bottom tip of his skull) but by the reverence shown the high priests of their religion. Let's look at Dr. Lattimer, for example. He claimed that the bullet creating Kennedy's back wound entered at the level of his chin, and not because Kennedy was leaning over. He actually believed Kennedy was a hunchback, whereby a bullet hole 14 cms from the base of his skull, and 2 inches below his shoulder line, would still be at the level of his chin.

Well, this is as LOOPY as it gets. Certifiably insane. And yet, how many lone-nutters have rejected this nonsense?

Actually, Pat, the Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously true, I don't need any "experts" at all to confirm my belief in that theory (which is, in reality, more of a certainty than a theory here in 2013).

And one of the main reasons to accept the SBT as being true (regardless of WHICH exact Z-Film frame you might want to endorse as the precise "SBT Frame" on the film) is due to what is NOT in evidence in this case, vs. what IS in evidence.

Because if one bullet didn't cause all of Kennedy's non-fatal wounds and all of Connally's wounds, then we simply have no choice but to accept a theory that is far more unrealistic and wholly implausible than is the single-bullet conclusion.

I.E., sans the SBT (any version of the "SBT"), we've got to believe that some bullets just disappeared off the planet without a trace. And the most widely-accepted anti-SBT theory put forth by the CTers (which is a theory that almost all Internet CTers accept today) is the nutty theory that has TWO separate bullets entering John Kennedy's back and throat but NEVER EXITING his body at all.

Which means, via that kind of theory, we've also got to believe in not only TWO whole bullets magically vanishing when they SHOULD have still been inside JFK's body at his autopsy....but we'd also have to accept the notion that these two bullets somehow stopped inside Kennedy's body but did almost NO physical damage to the President's body at all before stopping dead in their tracks.

Now, tell me how accepting such an absurd "Two Bullets Entered But Never Exited" scenario is MORE reasonable (and TRUE) than is a belief in the Single-Bullet Theory that I fully endorse?

Good luck selling the CT version to a jury. You'll need it.
 
 
Nice switcheroo, Dave. You can't say A must have happened because B makes no sense without also disqualifying C-Z.
 
Your homework, then, is to spend some time dreaming up C-Z. Who knows? Maybe there's a CT in you after all!


#143 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:18 AM
Patrick J. Speer said
Patrick J. Speer wrote:Nice switcheroo, Dave. You can't say A must have happened because B makes no sense without also disqualifying C-Z.

Your homework, then, is to spend some time dreaming up C-Z. Who knows? Maybe there's a CT in you after all!

What a bunch of silly doubletalk, Pat. You know darn well the SBT makes the most sense when compared to anything else that's ever been placed on the table.

You're too sharp a guy to not realize what I just said is true. Why fight the obvious?
Edited by David Von Pein, 27 September 2013 - 12:19 AM.
#144 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 243 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:37 AM
Don Jeffries, on 26 Sept 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:
Don Jeffries wrote:The "official" evidence contradicts what numerous, disparate witnesses said about a variety of issues.
 
I'm pretty sure I covered that issue in my article, Don.
 
Have you read my article? You know, the one this thread is about?
 
Dave


#145 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 243 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:44 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 26 Sept 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

 
Cliff Varnell, on 25 Sept 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:

 
David Reitzes, on 25 Sept 2013 - 6:49 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Cliff.
 
Do you allege forgery in the autopsy photos?
 
Dave
 
 
I don't allege anything.
 
The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, held little value as a means of locating the back wound (as per the HSCA), and there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.
 
Poorly made photos with little reliable information and no chain of possession.
 
Thin gruel, indeed.
 
 
It sounds like you're advocating a case for forgery. Perhaps I should ask the question a different way.
 
Absent the body itself, the best evidence for determining the location of the entry wound would have to be the autopsy photographs, right?
 
Dave
 
 
No, the best evidence is the shirt.
 
A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt will fit like a "second skin," according to men's fashion kingpin Alan Flusser.
 
Dave, there are two kinds of medical evidence in this case.
 
There is evidence which was produced/prepared/maintained according to proper professional protocols.
 
And then there is evidence improperly produced, which did not follow the proper protocols.
 
The properly prepared/maintained evidence includes: JFK's clothing, Burkley's death certificate (signed off as "verified"), the part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (signed off as "verified"), the contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors who described the throat wound as an entrance, and the FBI report on the autopsy.
 
Physical evidence (clothing holes) plus four properly produced medical documents and the FBI report.
 
That doesn't mention the 15 eye witnesses who described the back wound in a location consistent with the clothing holes, or the half dozen or so eye witnesses to the throat entrance wound.
 
The properly prepared evidence consistently describes a "low" back wound of entrance, no exit, as well as a throat wound of entrance, no exit.
 
The improperly prepared evidence includes the final autopsy report on the back wound location (which cites two wildly improper anatomical landmarks), the autopsy photos (poor quality, no victim ID, no chain of possession), and the part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen.
 
Dave...I think you get the idea.  Properly prepared evidence trumps improper.
 
 
It seems to me your reasoning on what constitutes best evidence contradicts the legal theory and procedures I'm aware of, Clifford, but I may not be as well educated in the law as you are.
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
Dave


#146 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 243 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:48 AM
Pat Speer, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:
Pat Speer wrote: 
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote:Then what's the point of ever having any "ex-purts" examine any of the evidence, Robert P.? You're not going to believe a single thing they say, right?

I think it's quite obvious that most Internet CTers feel the same way. IOW, if some expert says something that leads to Oswald's probable guilt--forget about it!

Admit it, Bob. What I just said about the Internet CT crowd is 100% accurate, isn't it? (And you just proved it with your last juvenile post above.)
 
 
The truth is, Dave--and you know this--that those claiming Oswald did it all by his lonesome have as low regard for "ex-purts" as those claiming he had some help, or wasn't involved at all.
 
And, ironically, the single-bullet theory you two Daves are now defending is the proof.
 
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel--which, if anything, evidenced a strong bias to the proposition Oswald acted alone--thought the single-bullet theory credible under the belief Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when shot. Their study of the Zapruder film led them to conclude this did not happen in the frames where Kennedy is visible. This led them then to conclude he MUST have been shot when behind the sign in the film.
 
The HSCA's staff then pulled a switcheroo on them, and said Kennedy was shot before he went behind the sign in the film. They didn't tell the doctors this, of course. They got the Pathology Panel to sign off on the SBT, then hired a "rocket scientist" to say the Pathology Panel was incorrect, and that Kennedy was in fact leaning sharply forward BEFORE going behind the sign in the film. The credibility of this "rocket scientist" is non-existent, however. To get the head wounds to line-up, he claimed Kennedy was NOT leaning sharply forward when hit in the head. Yes, you got it, the government "ex-purt" upon the government relied to make the single-bullet theory "work" claimed Kennedy was leaning forward, got shot in the back, then sat up in the car, only to get shot in the head--the exact opposite of what is shown in the Zapruder film.
 
In short, 1) single-assassin theorists don't trust the "rocket scientist." 2) they don't trust the Forensic Pathology Panel's placement for Kennedy's back wound, either.  
 
Some conspiracy theorists, however, think the pathology panel was correct about the back wound.
 
So, yeah, the belief in the single-bullet theory evidenced by most single-assassin theorists requires that they have LESS faith in the "ex-purts" than conspiracy theorists, and not the other way around.
 
 
Pat,
 
I'm told you seek to elevate the level of discourse at this forum.
 
Have you read the article alluded to in the title of my thread?
 
Dave


#147 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,759 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 01:11 AM
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 6:44 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
 
It seems to me your reasoning on what constitutes best evidence contradicts the legal theory and procedures I'm aware of, Clifford, but I may not be as well educated in the law as you are.
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
Dave
 
 
Your mis-characterization of "expertly authenticated photographs" is typically egregious.
 
According to HSCA Vol 7 (emphasis added)
 
 
Quote

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 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.



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.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and
unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally
expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence.
  In fact,
under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable
and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such
poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.
Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about
using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than
informative.  Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of
the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to
point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as
scientific evidence.  Some have questioned their very authenticity.
These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the
photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately
mutilated  to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren
Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish
as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case
gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious
to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the
onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested
with the prosecution.
 
There is no chain of possession for these poor quality, improperly produced photos.
 
Dave, please, show us where improperly produced material for which there is no chain of possession is regarded as legitimate forensic evidence.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 27 September 2013 - 01:16 AM.
#148 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,759 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 01:22 AM
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:39 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:
 
Of course, the HSCA photographic panel authenticated the photographs, and no one with their qualifications has ever disputed their conclusion.
 
 

 
 
 
They disputed the value of their conclusion.
 
Dave, what part of "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound
in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks" eludes you?


#149 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,759 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 01:27 AM
The woman on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos, Saundra Kay Spencer 06/04/97 ARRB
(emphasis added)
 
Quote

 
Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?
A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

Q: Do you recall any books that you have seen with autopsy photographs in them?
A: I can't quote the titles of them.

Q: But you have seen commercially published books with what appear to be autopsy photos in them?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever hear of any discussion related to autopsy photos at NPC?
A: No.

Q: So, did you ever discuss the fact that you had processed those with Mr. Madonia, for example?
A: No.

Q: Did you ever discuss it with anyone else your own work?
A: No.

Q: Or did you hear of anyone else at NPC who had worked on any other autopsy photographs?
A: No.

Q: Did you have any opportunity to observe the content of the negatives and the prints as you were working on them?
A: Yes, I did.

Q: Can you describe for me what you saw as best you can recollect?
A: Briefly, they were very, what I consider pristine for an autopsy. There was no blood or opening cavities, opening or anything of that nature. It was quite reverent in how they handled it.

Q: If I can just ask for some clarification. Do you mean that the body appeared to be clean, had been washed? Is that what you are suggesting?
A: Yes.

Q: And that was different from what you had seen in other autopsy photographs, is that right?
A: Yes. In other autopsies, they have the opening of the cavity and the removing of vital organs for weighing and stuff of this nature. The only organ that I had seen was a brain that was laid beside the body.

Q: And that was in the photograph of President Kennedy?
A: Yes.

Q: So there was a brain in the photograph beside the body, is that correct?
A: Well, yes, by the side of the body, but, it didn't appear that the skull had been cut, peeled back and the brain removed. None of that was shown. As to whose brain it was, I cannot say.
 
 
 
No chain of possession = no forensic value for material of little value to begin with.
 

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 27 September 2013 - 01:28 AM.
#150 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,759 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 01:56 AM
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 6:48 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:
Pat,
 
I'm told you seek to elevate the level of discourse at this forum.
 
Have you read the article alluded to in the title of my thread?
 
Dave
 
The best evidence for locating the back wound is a photograph where it's difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of the back wound?
 
JFK's jacket collar and 6+ inches of wadded up shirt/jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the same time?
 
Somehow, these notions don't seem very scholarly.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 27 September 2013 - 01:57 AM.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:25 pm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CbksYZtWkJcJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D11+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


#151 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,098 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 02:17 AM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 6:18 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote:...
You're too sharp a guy to not realize what I just said is true. Why fight the obvious?
 
 
therefore everyone else on this forum is a moron, right Davey-me-boyo?


#152 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 209 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:59 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 26 Sept 2013 - 7:11 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 6:44 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
 
It seems to me your reasoning on what constitutes best evidence contradicts the legal theory and procedures I'm aware of, Clifford, but I may not be as well educated in the law as you are.
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
Dave
 
 
Your mis-characterization of "expertly authenticated photographs" is typically egregious.
 
According to HSCA Vol 7 (emphasis added)
 
 
Quote

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 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.



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.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and
unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally
expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence.
  In fact,
under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable
and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such
poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.
Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about
using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than
informative.  Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of
the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to
point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as
scientific evidence.  Some have questioned their very authenticity.
These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the
photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately
mutilated  to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren
Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish
as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case
gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious
to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the
onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested
with the prosecution.
 
There is no chain of possession for these poor quality, improperly produced photos.
 
Dave, please, show us where improperly produced material for which there is no chain of possession is regarded as legitimate forensic evidence.
 
 
But, Clifford, as you must be aware, the HSCA itself regarded the autopsy materials as legitimate forensic evidence. They had no problem utilizing these expertly authenticated items as the very foundation of their report's conclusions.
 
So, please, Clifford, just answer the question I asked you. For your convenience, here it is again:
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
All you have to do is provide a satisfactory answer to this simple question, and then, lo, what adventures await us: shirts, jackets, hunches, bunches...
 
But only once you've answered my question.
 
Dave


#153 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 08:50 AM
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 26 Sept 2013 - 7:11 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 6:44 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
 
It seems to me your reasoning on what constitutes best evidence contradicts the legal theory and procedures I'm aware of, Clifford, but I may not be as well educated in the law as you are.
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
Dave
 
 
Your mis-characterization of "expertly authenticated photographs" is typically egregious.
 
According to HSCA Vol 7 (emphasis added)
 
 
Quote

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 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.



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.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and
unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally
expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence.
  In fact,
under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable
and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such
poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.
Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about
using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than
informative.  Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of
the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to
point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as
scientific evidence.  Some have questioned their very authenticity.
These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the
photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately
mutilated  to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren
Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish
as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case
gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious
to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the
onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested
with the prosecution.
 
There is no chain of possession for these poor quality, improperly produced photos.
 
Dave, please, show us where improperly produced material for which there is no chain of possession is regarded as legitimate forensic evidence.
 
 
But, Clifford, as you must be aware, the HSCA itself regarded the autopsy materials as legitimate forensic evidence.
 
 
But, David, as you must be aware, the HSCA itself regarded the authenticity of the autopsy photos as a burden to to borne by the prosecution.
 
 
They had no problem utilizing these expertly authenticated items as the very foundation of their report's conclusions.
 
 
They had no problem utilizing expertly authenticated words like "deficiencies...as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy" and this was before we found out there was no chain of possession for these highly deficient photos.
 
So, please, Clifford, just answer the question I asked you. For your convenience, here it is again:
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
You didn't find the answer in the HSCA cite?  The HSCA laid out the legal barriers to court acceptance of the autopsy photos. 
 
Do I need to cite this for the third time?
 
okay...
 
the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.
 
No such onus exists for the clothing. 
 
If you think such legal barriers do exist -- burden is on you, Dave, as always.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 27 September 2013 - 08:53 AM.
#154 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 09:02 AM
Repeating Lone Nutter talking points over and over while ignoring mountains of contrary evidence doesn't strike me as an appropriate use of a scholarly forum such as this.
 
Just say'n...


#155 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:00 PM
Robert Prudhomme, on 27 Sept 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 27 Sept 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:Repeating Lone Nutter talking points over and over while ignoring mountains of contrary evidence doesn't strike me as an appropriate use of a scholarly forum such as this.
 
Just say'n...

 
 
 
 
Daves R & VP have nothing of substance to say.
 
We get endless repetitions of Nutter talking points and endless opportunities to ridicule those points.
 
The claims the Daves make ain't for debate -- only scorn.

Edited by Pat Speer, 27 September 2013 - 05:46 PM.
removed a naughty word
#156 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,094 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:40 PM
David Von Pein, on 26 Sept 2013 - 6:18 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Patrick J. Speer said
Patrick J. Speer wrote:Nice switcheroo, Dave. You can't say A must have happened because B makes no sense without also disqualifying C-Z.

Your homework, then, is to spend some time dreaming up C-Z. Who knows? Maybe there's a CT in you after all!

What a bunch of silly doubletalk, Pat. You know darn well the SBT makes the most sense when compared to anything else that's ever been placed on the table.

You're too sharp a guy to not realize what I just said is true. Why fight the obvious?
 
 
Sorry, Dave, you're wrong. The SBT does not make the most sense, and I have offered a scenario I think makes more sense on my website, which has only been around for a half a decade. On that website, I show how every person whom you think solved the case--from Specter to Lattimer to Posner to Myers to Bugliosi--moved the back wound in order to make things "work."
 
Well, why did they do this, Dave, if it's so freakin' obvious?
 
You have, dozens if not hundreds of times now, made the argument that Oswald would not have needed to lie about the curtain rods should he have been "innocent."
 
Well, I can make the same argument. WHY does your side ALWAYS misrepresent the location of the back wound in order to make the single-bullet theory "work"?
 
Now, I know what comes next. You/re gonna say that the back wound photo PROVES the back wound was much much higher than the throat wound. In doing so, however, you show your willingness to deceive yourself, as the "high location of the wound in that photo comes purely as a result of the perspective of the photo.
 
So try this at home.
 
1. Take a 14 cm object, such as the long side of a CD case. And place it against the BOTTOM tip of the back of your skull, while standing in the anatomic position. The bottom of the case will rest on your back, inches below where you think it is in the back wound photo.
 
Or try this.
 
2. Look at any human being from behind, while they are standing at attention. Look at their shoulder tip. Now visualize a line connecting their shoulder tips. Then walk around them to the front, and see where this line lies in comparison to their throat below their Adam's Apple.
 
The back wound, anatomically, was either at the level of the throat wound, or below it, and anyone, at this point in time, trying to claim the back wound was well above the throat wound, can not be taken seriously.

Edited by Pat Speer, 27 September 2013 - 05:43 PM.
#157 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 06:03 PM
Quote


The back wound, anatomically, was either at the level of the throat wound,
 
In which case 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the same time as his jacket collar.
 
The above claim cannot be taken seriously.
 
Sorry, Pat -- it's right there on your website.  JFK's jacket collar fell to a normal position at the base of his neck in Dealey Plaza.
 
Pat, how could that occur if there were a 6+ inch wad of clothing entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck?
 
My god, the insanity of these pet theories...

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 27 September 2013 - 06:07 PM.
#158 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,094 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 06:07 PM
In an attempt at getting this thread back on track, as a discussion of Dave Reitzes' article, I have a question.
 
From what I can gather, Dave, your article criticizes the "critics" for their failure to accept the findings of the "experts" when their conclusions run counter to what these "critics" want to believe. 
 
Now, does your article even mention that those proposing Oswald acted alone are EQUALLY or more dismissive of the "experts" when their conclusions run counter to what THEY want to believe?
 
I mean, the HSCA's experts said the back wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound, and yet, as we've seen, few of those thinking Oswald killed Kennedy accept this analysis.
 
The HSCA's experts claimed, as well, that there was acoustic evidence indicating more than three shots were fired, and yet, as you know, few if any of those thinking Oswald killed Kennedy accepted this analysis, even for a minute. (The scientific evidence indicating they were in error wasn't discovered for some time afterward.)
 
And what about the HSCA's photo experts? They concluded Kennedy was most probably hit before going behind the sign, but do those claiming Oswald killed Kennedy accept this, or even acknowledge this? Nope. Nor do they accept the similarly problematic conclusion that the sniper's nest was re-arranged after the shooting..
 
And what about the HSCA's jiggle analysis? While those claiming Oswald acted alone often cite the jiggles in the Zapruder film as support the first shot was fired at Z-160, they avoid like the plague that these same analysts proposing a shot was fired at Z-160 noted a far more prominent jiggle after Z-190, and NO major jiggle circa Z-224, the time most Oswald alone theorists now cite for the second shot.
 
As stated, it's a two-way street, and your (and apparently Skeptic's) failure to see this is evidence for your bias.

Edited by Pat Speer, 27 September 2013 - 06:09 PM.
#159 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,094 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 06:24 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 27 Sept 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Quote


The back wound, anatomically, was either at the level of the throat wound,
 
In which case 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the same time as his jacket collar.
 
The above claim cannot be taken seriously.
 
Sorry, Pat -- it's right there on your website.  JFK's jacket collar fell to a normal position at the base of his neck in Dealey Plaza.
 
Pat, how could that occur if there were a 6+ inch wad of clothing entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck?
 
My god, the insanity of these pet theories...
 
 
 
Your post is not accurate, Cliff. If you'd like to discuss it, I suggest you revive one of the 20 or 30 previous threads you hijacked in order to try to start a fight with me, where I stupidly took the bait.
 
And here's a warning: any posts in which you try to bait people into arguing with you by questioning their sanity will be disappeared.


#160 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 08:13 PM
How did I miss this one??
 
William Kelly, on 22 Sept 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:

I think we should get a rock band together - Steve Barber on drums, Will Paris on bass, Jim Glover and David Crosby on guitar and what does Cliff play? 
 
Mo Murphy also sings and E2Brute - plays keys. Anybody play sax? 
 
The girl who streaked across the Grassy Knoll could make a cameo and we can jam in Dallas during the anniversary catastrophe. 
 
And we need a good name. Any suggestions? 
 
Not the Lone Nutters. 
 
Dealey Plaza Blues Band? 
 
Bill, I'd be the manager but since its your idea that's your gig..
 
I'll be the roadie...no, better yet, I'll be the merch guy.  The merch guy gets to talk to all the girls...


#161 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 08:30 PM
Pat Speer, on 27 Sept 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:
Pat Speer wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 27 Sept 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Quote


The back wound, anatomically, was either at the level of the throat wound,
 
In which case 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the same time as his jacket collar.
 
The above claim cannot be taken seriously.
 
Sorry, Pat -- it's right there on your website.  JFK's jacket collar fell to a normal position at the base of his neck in Dealey Plaza.
 
Pat, how could that occur if there were a 6+ inch wad of clothing entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck?
 
My god, the insanity of these pet theories...
 
 
 
Your post is not accurate, Cliff. If you'd like to discuss it, I suggest you revive one of the 20 or 30 previous threads you hijacked in order to try to start a fight with me, where I stupidly took the bait.
 
 
Why "stupidly" if you had a sound argument to make?  You don't have any argument to make here, Pat, so that's how our discussions leave you feeling, so be it.
 
No, Pat, there was no bait to be taken.  I point out obvious, easily observed facts which run counter to your pet theory and you don't have an argument.
 
You and the Daves never address the clothing evidence and the Dealey Plaza photos which show the jacket collar in a normal position.
 
You guys have the same lone talking point -- cite the autopsy photos which were determined to have been improperly produced and where it is "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of the back wound".
 
That's not an argument. 
 
It's a non sequitur.
 
 
Quote

And here's a warning: any posts in which you try to bait people into arguing with you by questioning their sanity will be disappeared.
 
 
I question the sanity of your pet theory, not you.
 
Are perfectly sane, wonderful, intelligent people not allowed to profess "insane theories"?
 
Are we not allowed to call these otherwise fine people on their egregious special pleading, begging the question, non sequiturs?
 
You seem to think I'm dragging down the discourse here.
 
Well, Pat, your claim requires two distinct objects -- JFK's jacket collar and a multiple-inch wad of shirt/jacket fabric -- to occupy the same physical space at the base of his neck at the same exact time.
 
The only intellectually honest response to that is derision -- is it not?

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 27 September 2013 - 08:31 PM.
#162 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 209 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:53 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 27 Sept 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 26 Sept 2013 - 7:11 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 26 Sept 2013 - 6:44 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
 
It seems to me your reasoning on what constitutes best evidence contradicts the legal theory and procedures I'm aware of, Clifford, but I may not be as well educated in the law as you are.
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
Dave
 
 
Your mis-characterization of "expertly authenticated photographs" is typically egregious.
 
According to HSCA Vol 7 (emphasis added)
 
 
Quote

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 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.



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.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and
unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally
expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence.
  In fact,
under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable
and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such
poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.
Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about
using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than
informative.  Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of
the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to
point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as
scientific evidence.  Some have questioned their very authenticity.
These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the
photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately
mutilated  to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren
Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish
as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case
gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious
to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the
onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested
with the prosecution.
 
There is no chain of possession for these poor quality, improperly produced photos.
 
Dave, please, show us where improperly produced material for which there is no chain of possession is regarded as legitimate forensic evidence.
 
 
But, Clifford, as you must be aware, the HSCA itself regarded the autopsy materials as legitimate forensic evidence.
 
 
But, David, as you must be aware, the HSCA itself regarded the authenticity of the autopsy photos as a burden to to borne by the prosecution.
 
 
They had no problem utilizing these expertly authenticated items as the very foundation of their report's conclusions.
 
 
They had no problem utilizing expertly authenticated words like "deficiencies...as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy" and this was before we found out there was no chain of possession for these highly deficient photos.
 
So, please, Clifford, just answer the question I asked you. For your convenience, here it is again:
 
Could you cite your authoritative legal sources on why the shirt would be considered best evidence of the location of the entry wound, rather than the expertly authenticated photographs of the entry wound itself?
 
You didn't find the answer in the HSCA cite?  The HSCA laid out the legal barriers to court acceptance of the autopsy photos. 
 
Do I need to cite this for the third time?
 
okay...
 
the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.
 
No such onus exists for the clothing. 
 
If you think such legal barriers do exist -- burden is on you, Dave, as always.
 
 
 
Strike two.
 
I didn't expect you to let me off the hook this easily, Clifford.
 
Dave


#163 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,753 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:45 AM
David Reitzes, on 27 Sept 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

Strike two.
 
 
 
 
No, Dave, you struck out a long time ago.
 
We're back in the clubhouse having a post-game brew. 
 
Here's what HSCA Medical Evidence chief Michael Baden said about the clothing evidence (emphasis added):
 
 
"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.  This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath."
 
http://www.history-m..._Vol1_0100b.htm
 
 
The HSCA's Baden acknowledged that the location of the back wound matched the location of the bullet defects in the clothes.
 
Contrast that with what the HSCA medical panel concluded about the autopsy photos -- prima facie inadmissible in court.
 
Dave, if you don't command facts, snide remarks fall flat.
 

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 28 September 2013 - 06:47 AM.
#164 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 209 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:48 AM
Pat Speer, on 27 Sept 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:
Pat Speer wrote:In an attempt at getting this thread back on track, as a discussion of Dave Reitzes' article, I have a question.
 
From what I can gather, Dave, your article criticizes the "critics" for their failure to accept the findings of the "experts" when their conclusions run counter to what these "critics" want to believe. 
 
Now, does your article even mention that those proposing Oswald acted alone are EQUALLY or more dismissive of the "experts" when their conclusions run counter to what THEY want to believe?
 
I mean, the HSCA's experts said the back wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound, and yet, as we've seen, few of those thinking Oswald killed Kennedy accept this analysis.
 
The HSCA's experts claimed, as well, that there was acoustic evidence indicating more than three shots were fired, and yet, as you know, few if any of those thinking Oswald killed Kennedy accepted this analysis, even for a minute. (The scientific evidence indicating they were in error wasn't discovered for some time afterward.)
 
And what about the HSCA's photo experts? They concluded Kennedy was most probably hit before going behind the sign, but do those claiming Oswald killed Kennedy accept this, or even acknowledge this? Nope. Nor do they accept the similarly problematic conclusion that the sniper's nest was re-arranged after the shooting..
 
And what about the HSCA's jiggle analysis? While those claiming Oswald acted alone often cite the jiggles in the Zapruder film as support the first shot was fired at Z-160, they avoid like the plague that these same analysts proposing a shot was fired at Z-160 noted a far more prominent jiggle after Z-190, and NO major jiggle circa Z-224, the time most Oswald alone theorists now cite for the second shot.
 
As stated, it's a two-way street, and your (and apparently Skeptic's) failure to see this is evidence for your bias.
 
Pat,
 
Your questions and your conclusion about me are based on assumed premises, rather than positions I've actually taken. Is prejudice now a scholarly virtue, Pat?
 
Feel free to ask me anything you'd like about the positions actually expressed in my article. I would humbly suggest reading it first.
 
Dave


#165 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 209 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:31 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 28 Sept 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 27 Sept 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

Strike two.
 
 
 
 
No, Dave, you struck out a long time ago.
 
We're back in the clubhouse having a post-game brew. 
 
Here's what HSCA Medical Evidence chief Michael Baden said about the clothing evidence (emphasis added):
 
 
"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.  This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath."
 
http://www.history-m..._Vol1_0100b.htm
 
 
The HSCA's Baden acknowledged that the location of the back wound matched the location of the bullet defects in the clothes.
 
Contrast that with what the HSCA medical panel concluded about the autopsy photos -- prima facie inadmissible in court.
 
Dave, if you don't command facts, snide remarks fall flat.
 
 
 
Yet again, Cliff, you refuse to argue logic and cling to a legal argument you can't justify. Listen up, because this may well be the last time I try to explain it to you.
 
Your very own source, the HSCA, authenticated the best evidence in the case: the autopsy photos and X-rays of the President's body. You want to throw that evidence out on a legal technicality -- think about that, Cliff -- because it falsifies your cherished beliefs about a conspiracy. You don't even have the conviction to declare that evidence forged; you simply need to make it go away because it's inconvenient for you. That seems particularly odd when credible evidence of forgery in the autopsy materials would prove a conspiracy far more definitively than the claim you argue about so obsessively.
 
If you want to argue logic or critical thinking, I'm still your man; but if you want to argue that the HSCA acted illegally in authenticating the autopsy materials and/or admitting them into their investigation, I'm afraid I can't help you. As I advised you over a decade ago, call your congressman, call your senators, call the Justice Department, call anyone with the proper authority to investigate your claims, call influential members of the media to convince them to take action, and do whatever it takes to get something done. If you really believe your position is valid, you have no excuse for not taking such action. Instead, you argue incessantly with hobbyists who have no power whatsoever to validate your claims.
 
If you truly want to learn how your thinking's gone wrong, Cliff, try reading my article with an open mind.
 
If you don't want to learn, I completely understand.
 
Dave

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:27 pm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4X5G1Ni5cv4J:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D12+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


#166 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,171 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:01 AM
David Reitzes, on 28 Sept 2013 - 7:48 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Pat Speer, on 27 Sept 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:
Pat Speer wrote:In an attempt at getting this thread back on track, as a discussion of Dave Reitzes' article, I have a question.
 
From what I can gather, Dave, your article criticizes the "critics" for their failure to accept the findings of the "experts" when their conclusions run counter to what these "critics" want to believe. 
 
Now, does your article even mention that those proposing Oswald acted alone are EQUALLY or more dismissive of the "experts" when their conclusions run counter to what THEY want to believe?
 
I mean, the HSCA's experts said the back wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound, and yet, as we've seen, few of those thinking Oswald killed Kennedy accept this analysis.
 
The HSCA's experts claimed, as well, that there was acoustic evidence indicating more than three shots were fired, and yet, as you know, few if any of those thinking Oswald killed Kennedy accepted this analysis, even for a minute. (The scientific evidence indicating they were in error wasn't discovered for some time afterward.)
 
And what about the HSCA's photo experts? They concluded Kennedy was most probably hit before going behind the sign, but do those claiming Oswald killed Kennedy accept this, or even acknowledge this? Nope. Nor do they accept the similarly problematic conclusion that the sniper's nest was re-arranged after the shooting..
 
And what about the HSCA's jiggle analysis? While those claiming Oswald acted alone often cite the jiggles in the Zapruder film as support the first shot was fired at Z-160, they avoid like the plague that these same analysts proposing a shot was fired at Z-160 noted a far more prominent jiggle after Z-190, and NO major jiggle circa Z-224, the time most Oswald alone theorists now cite for the second shot.
 
As stated, it's a two-way street, and your (and apparently Skeptic's) failure to see this is evidence for your bias.
 
Pat,
 
Your questions and your conclusion about me are based on assumed premises, rather than positions I've actually taken. Is prejudice now a scholarly virtue, Pat?
 
Feel free to ask me anything you'd like about the positions actually expressed in my article. I would humbly suggest reading it first.
 
Dave
 
 
So, let's see if I'm getting this straight. Your article does not criticize the critics for their failure to accept the findings of "experts"?


#167 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,780 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:29 AM


Cliff Varnell, on 28 Sept 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Dave, if you don't command facts, snide remarks fall flat.
 
 
 
This is what I'm talking about.
 
 
Quote
Yet again, Cliff, you refuse to argue logic and cling to a legal argument you can't justify.
 
Pure rhetorical vapor.

Dave, you haven't challenged one fact I've put forth.  You think no one's paying attention?

All you do is repeat your HSCA talking point over and over and pretend the SBT is a proven fact.

Is this what Skeptic Magazine regards as "critical thinking skills"?  

You act as if the clothing evidence doesn't exist, as if the consensus witness testimony to the T3 back wound doesn't exist, as if Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face sheet and the FBI report on the autopsy don't exist.  

You ignore Baden's comments about the clothing evidence, and you ignore the HSCA's repeated denigration of the autopsy photos as evidence.

You ignore Saundra Kay Spencer's testimony breaking the chain of possession.

You claim that the best evidence of the back wound location is a photo of such poor quality "it's difficult or impossible" to accurately locate the wound.

That's your conclusion, Dave, not the HSCA's, and it's absurd on its face.

Your "logic" is nothing but persistent, run of the mill special pleading and the proven recipe for low-grade Assassination Porn.

In fact, the new issue of Skeptic Mag is the Brazilian horse of Assassination Porn.
 
Your man Baden cited the clothing evidence as definitive:
 
"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.  This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath."
 
http://www.history-m..._Vol1_0100b.htm
 
For some reason, the significance of this defies you.
 
What prevents you from processing all this contrary information, Dave?

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 29 September 2013 - 09:33 AM.
#168 Robert Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 649 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:08 PM
He'll never get it, Cliff.
#169 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,780 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:36 PM
Robert Prudhomme, on 29 Sept 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote:

He'll never get it, Cliff.
 
 
By now Skeptic Magazine probably gets it.
 
They've been had.
 
The shorter Dave Reitzes:
 
The best evidence is a photo that's the most deficient.
 
Cock-a-doodle-do...


#170 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:46 PM
Acclaimed conspiracy expert James DiEugenio has posted a less than 100% positive review of my article:
 
http://www.ctka.net/2013/flipflop.html


#171 Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 4,171 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:44 AM
David Reitzes, on 02 Oct 2013 - 5:46 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Acclaimed conspiracy expert James DiEugenio has posted a less than 100% positive review of my article:
 
http://www.ctka.net/2013/flipflop.html
 
Thanks, Dave. The review seems quite devastating. If some article of mine received a review like that, I don't think I would be initiating a link to it. But that's just me.


#172 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:54 AM
 
 
 
Acclaimed conspiracy expert James DiEugenio has posted a less than 100% positive review of my article:
 
http://www.ctka.net/2013/flipflop.html
 
Thanks, Dave. The review seems quite devastating. If some article of mine received a review like that, I don't think I would be initiating a link to it. But that's just me.
 
 
 
Hey,  in Hollywood, there's no such thing as bad publicity, and in the great JFK debate, the only thing that matters is to keep the debate going and don't bother to actually solve the crime. 
 
And at least Jimmy D thought it worthwhile enough to respond to, as I only made it half way through before I gave it up. 
 
"True skepticism means pursing the truth, not dismissing something out of hand..." - Wade Frazier  

Edited by William Kelly, 03 October 2013 - 02:56 AM.
#173 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,135 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:23 AM
David Reitzes, on 02 Oct 2013 - 5:46 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:Acclaimed conspiracy expert James DiEugenio has posted a less than 100% positive review of my article:
 
http://www.ctka.net/2013/flipflop.html
 
 
oh-my .John is not going to be happy... I believe this is what is called "cleaning up the streets with Dave Reitzes."  Got some dancin' to do Dave.


#174 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:34 AM
William Kelly, on 02 Oct 2013 - 8:54 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:"True skepticism means pursing the truth, not dismissing something out of hand..." - Wade Frazier  
 
Typo aside, I couldn't agree more.
 
Dave


#175 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 October 2013 - 05:47 AM
Tune in and check out my world premiere on the radio waves.
 
http://www.newstalk7...e-show-sept-30/
 
---------------------
 
Hour 1 from Monday’s show, including our interview with JFK assassination researcher David Reitzes about his Skeptic magazine cover story on 50 years of JFK conspiracy theories.
 
--------------------
 
 
Dave


#176 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2013 - 06:58 AM
David Reitzes, on 18 Sept 2013 - 7:32 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
David Lifton, on 13 Sept 2013 - 4:14 PM, said:
David Lifton wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 12 Sept 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
Ray Mitcham, on 12 Sept 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
Ray Mitcham wrote:

David, try it yourself. If you arms go towards your throat, your jacket and shirt don't rise.
 
The fabric of your shirt will indent, and likely the fabric of your jacket as well.
 
Here's JFK with a raised right arm and an indentation in the jacket at the right base of his neck.
 

 
What sayest thou, David Reitzes?
 
 This is an excellent picture to make your point.
 
DSL
 
 
David,
 
I see that the shirt is pictured in one of the photo inserts in BEST EVIDENCE, but I don't see an entry for it in the index. Could you clarify your position on the jacket and shirt? Is it your position that the shirt and jacket are the authentic items of clothing worn by the late president and the hole in the reverse of each is the authentic result of a bullet strike? If so, are we talking about an entrance or exit wound?
 
Dave
 
 
I guess I'll have to wait for David's book, where all will finally be revealed.
 
Dave


#177 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,780 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 04:34 PM
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 

 
I guess I'll have to wait for David's book, where all will finally be revealed.
 
Dave
 
 
 
David,
 
You can't defend the notion that the best evidence is the worst photograph -- why are you going after Lifton?


#178 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 250 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:25 PM
David Reitzes, on 28 Sept 2013 - 8:31 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 28 Sept 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 27 Sept 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

Strike two.
 
 
 
 
No, Dave, you struck out a long time ago.
 
We're back in the clubhouse having a post-game brew. 
 
Here's what HSCA Medical Evidence chief Michael Baden said about the clothing evidence (emphasis added):
 
 
"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.  This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath."
 
http://www.history-m..._Vol1_0100b.htm
 
 
The HSCA's Baden acknowledged that the location of the back wound matched the location of the bullet defects in the clothes.
 
Contrast that with what the HSCA medical panel concluded about the autopsy photos -- prima facie inadmissible in court.
 
Dave, if you don't command facts, snide remarks fall flat.
 
 
 
Yet again, Cliff, you refuse to argue logic and cling to a legal argument you can't justify. Listen up, because this may well be the last time I try to explain it to you.
 
Your very own source, the HSCA, authenticated the best evidence in the case: the autopsy photos and X-rays of the President's body. You want to throw that evidence out on a legal technicality -- think about that, Cliff -- because it falsifies your cherished beliefs about a conspiracy. You don't even have the conviction to declare that evidence forged; you simply need to make it go away because it's inconvenient for you. That seems particularly odd when credible evidence of forgery in the autopsy materials would prove a conspiracy far more definitively than the claim you argue about so obsessively.
 
If you want to argue logic or critical thinking, I'm still your man; but if you want to argue that the HSCA acted illegally in authenticating the autopsy materials and/or admitting them into their investigation, I'm afraid I can't help you. As I advised you over a decade ago, call your congressman, call your senators, call the Justice Department, call anyone with the proper authority to investigate your claims, call influential members of the media to convince them to take action, and do whatever it takes to get something done. If you really believe your position is valid, you have no excuse for not taking such action. Instead, you argue incessantly with hobbyists who have no power whatsoever to validate your claims.
 
If you truly want to learn how your thinking's gone wrong, Cliff, try reading my article with an open mind.
 
If you don't want to learn, I completely understand.
 
Dave
 
 
Of course, Cliff "I don't allege anything" Varnell was also being less than 100% candid with us in his views about the autopsy photographs. See for example:
 
http://educationforu...ic=20539&page=2
 
 
------------------------
 
Cliff Varnell, on 14 Oct 2013 - 1:30 PM, said:
 
[...]
 
The strongest evidence of conspiracy is JFK's T3 back wound, the existence of which is confirmed by the bullet holes in the clothing, the verified death certificate, the verified autopsy face sheet, the FBI report on the autopsy, and the consensus statements of at least 15 eye witnesses.
 
But the HSCA found this to be politically radiocative, imho.  It meant that the autopsy photo showing the posterior wound was inauthentic. 
 
-----------------------
 
 
Cliff often refers to the concept of intellectual dishonesty, something he raised in a discussion with me many years ago. As I recall, I noted that I never really was clear about the distinction between intellectual dishonesty and plain, old, garden-variety dishonesty. Cliff couldn't illuminate me on the precise definition of intellectual dishonesty, but declared that he knows it when he sees it.
 
Does he?
 
The HSCA proved that the photos were of John F. Kennedy and their exhaustive tests revealed no evidence of forgery. But this fact contradicts some people's cherished beliefs, so such evidence must be memory-holed.
 
My SKEPTIC article argues that facts must inform beliefs, not the other way around.
 
Dave


#179 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,780 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:34 PM
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:25 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 28 Sept 2013 - 8:31 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 28 Sept 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 27 Sept 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:

Strike two.
 
 
 
 
No, Dave, you struck out a long time ago.
 
We're back in the clubhouse having a post-game brew. 
 
Here's what HSCA Medical Evidence chief Michael Baden said about the clothing evidence (emphasis added):
 
 
"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.  This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath."
 
http://www.history-m..._Vol1_0100b.htm
 
 
The HSCA's Baden acknowledged that the location of the back wound matched the location of the bullet defects in the clothes.
 
Contrast that with what the HSCA medical panel concluded about the autopsy photos -- prima facie inadmissible in court.
 
Dave, if you don't command facts, snide remarks fall flat.
 
 
 
Yet again, Cliff, you refuse to argue logic and cling to a legal argument you can't justify. Listen up, because this may well be the last time I try to explain it to you.
 
Your very own source, the HSCA, authenticated the best evidence in the case: the autopsy photos and X-rays of the President's body. You want to throw that evidence out on a legal technicality -- think about that, Cliff -- because it falsifies your cherished beliefs about a conspiracy. You don't even have the conviction to declare that evidence forged; you simply need to make it go away because it's inconvenient for you. That seems particularly odd when credible evidence of forgery in the autopsy materials would prove a conspiracy far more definitively than the claim you argue about so obsessively.
 
If you want to argue logic or critical thinking, I'm still your man; but if you want to argue that the HSCA acted illegally in authenticating the autopsy materials and/or admitting them into their investigation, I'm afraid I can't help you. As I advised you over a decade ago, call your congressman, call your senators, call the Justice Department, call anyone with the proper authority to investigate your claims, call influential members of the media to convince them to take action, and do whatever it takes to get something done. If you really believe your position is valid, you have no excuse for not taking such action. Instead, you argue incessantly with hobbyists who have no power whatsoever to validate your claims.
 
If you truly want to learn how your thinking's gone wrong, Cliff, try reading my article with an open mind.
 
If you don't want to learn, I completely understand.
 
Dave
 
 
Of course, Cliff "I don't allege anything" Varnell was also being less than 100% candid with us in his views about the autopsy photographs. See for example:
 
http://educationforu...ic=20539&page=2
 
 
------------------------
 
Cliff Varnell, on 14 Oct 2013 - 1:30 PM, said:
 
[...]
 
The strongest evidence of conspiracy is JFK's T3 back wound, the existence of which is confirmed by the bullet holes in the clothing, the verified death certificate, the verified autopsy face sheet, the FBI report on the autopsy, and the consensus statements of at least 15 eye witnesses.
 
But the HSCA found this to be politically radiocative, imho.  It meant that the autopsy photo showing the posterior wound was inauthentic. 
 
-----------------------
 
 
Cliff often refers to the concept of intellectual dishonesty, something he raised in a discussion with me many years ago. As I recall, I noted that I never really was clear about the distinction between intellectual dishonesty and plain, old, garden-variety dishonesty. Cliff couldn't illuminate me on the precise definition of intellectual dishonesty, but declared that he knows it when he sees it.
 
Does he?
 
The HSCA proved that the photos were of John F. Kennedy and their exhaustive tests revealed no evidence of forgery. But this fact contradicts some people's cherished beliefs, so such evidence must be memory-holed.
 
My SKEPTIC article argues that facts must inform beliefs, not the other way around.
 
Dave
 


#180 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,780 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:41 PM

David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:25 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Of course, Cliff "I don't allege anything" Varnell was also being less than 100% candid with us in his views about the autopsy photographs. See for example:
 
http://educationforu...ic=20539&page=2
 
 
 
It's Cliff "I didn't allege anything" Varnell.  Can you discern the distinction?
 
I don't have to make allegations to dispute the value of the Fox 5 back wound photo.  The photo is prima facie inadmissable in court.
 
Do I think the Fox 5 photo is a fake?
 
Of course!  And a bad fake at that -- it shows an abrasion collar at the bottom of the wound, which means the shot came from below.
 
Sorry to have confused you, Dave.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:29 pm

#181 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,757 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:47 PM


 
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:25 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff often refers to the concept of intellectual dishonesty, something he raised in a discussion with me many years ago. As I recall, I noted that I never really was clear about the distinction between intellectual dishonesty and plain, old, garden-variety dishonesty. Cliff couldn't illuminate me on the precise definition of intellectual dishonesty, but declared that he knows it when he sees it.
 
Does he?
 
The HSCA proved that the photos were of John F. Kennedy and their exhaustive tests revealed no evidence of forgery.
 
Dave
 
 
This simply isn't true, Dave.
 
You are completely misrepresenting what the HSCA concluded about the Fox 5 photo.
 
That photo is the entire basis for your assumption regarding the validity of the Single Bullet.
 
The HSCA singled that photo out as particularly deficient, and noted that the photos were of such poor quality as to be prima facie inadmissible.
 
Your Skeptic Magazine article egregiously mis-represents the facts
 
In fact, David, it's an obscenity.


#182 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 233 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:25 AM
Robert Prudhomme, on 29 Sept 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:
Robert Prudhomme wrote:He'll never get it, Cliff.
 
This is supposed to be the Education Forum, Robert. Why don't you educate me?
 
Dave


#183 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 233 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:27 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 16 Oct 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 

 
I guess I'll have to wait for David's book, where all will finally be revealed.
 
Dave
 
 
 
David,
 
You can't defend the notion that the best evidence is the worst photograph -- why are you going after Lifton?
 
 
Obviously, I'd like to see David answer the questions I asked.
 
Dave


#184 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 233 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:28 AM
Cliff Varnell, on 16 Oct 2013 - 5:47 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
 
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:25 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff often refers to the concept of intellectual dishonesty, something he raised in a discussion with me many years ago. As I recall, I noted that I never really was clear about the distinction between intellectual dishonesty and plain, old, garden-variety dishonesty. Cliff couldn't illuminate me on the precise definition of intellectual dishonesty, but declared that he knows it when he sees it.
 
Does he?
 
The HSCA proved that the photos were of John F. Kennedy and their exhaustive tests revealed no evidence of forgery.
 
Dave
 
 
This simply isn't true, Dave.
 
You are completely misrepresenting what the HSCA concluded about the Fox 5 photo.
 
That photo is the entire basis for your assumption regarding the validity of the Single Bullet.
 
The HSCA singled that photo out as particularly deficient, and noted that the photos were of such poor quality as to be prima facie inadmissible.
 
Your Skeptic Magazine article egregiously mis-represents the facts
 
In fact, David, it's an obscenity.
 
 
Oh, snap!
 
I hope you inform SKEPTIC's editors about all of this.
 
Dave


#185 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,757 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 06:48 AM
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 16 Oct 2013 - 5:47 PM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
 
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:25 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff often refers to the concept of intellectual dishonesty, something he raised in a discussion with me many years ago. As I recall, I noted that I never really was clear about the distinction between intellectual dishonesty and plain, old, garden-variety dishonesty. Cliff couldn't illuminate me on the precise definition of intellectual dishonesty, but declared that he knows it when he sees it.
 
Does he?
 
The HSCA proved that the photos were of John F. Kennedy and their exhaustive tests revealed no evidence of forgery.
 
Dave
 
 
This simply isn't true, Dave.
 
You are completely misrepresenting what the HSCA concluded about the Fox 5 photo.
 
That photo is the entire basis for your assumption regarding the validity of the Single Bullet.
 
The HSCA singled that photo out as particularly deficient, and noted that the photos were of such poor quality as to be prima facie inadmissible.
 
Your Skeptic Magazine article egregiously mis-represents the facts
 
In fact, David, it's an obscenity.
 
 
Oh, snap!
 
I hope you inform SKEPTIC's editors about all of this.
 
Dave
 
 
 
Dave, why don't you post the Dale Myers' drawing (SKEPTIC pg 46) which shows JFK's jacket jacked up into his hairline?
 
I know it's your most cherished belief that such a thing occurred.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 17 October 2013 - 06:49 AM.
#186 Perry Vermeulen

    Member

  • Members

  • 14 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helmond, the Netherlands
  • Interests:Crime, travelling, soccer, history, USA.

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:27 PM
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
David I'm from Holland so I won't find the magazine in stores here Is there any chance that a pdf of your article will be available any time soon? Thanks! Perry


#187 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,757 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:05 PM
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 16 Oct 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 16 Oct 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 

 
I guess I'll have to wait for David's book, where all will finally be revealed.
 
Dave
 
 
 
David,
 
You can't defend the notion that the best evidence is the worst photograph -- why are you going after Lifton?
 
 
Obviously, I'd like to see David answer the questions I asked.
 
Dave
 
 
Why don't you set a good example and answer the questions posed to you about the clothing evidence?
 
You don't have any answer is the problem, right, Dave?


#188 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 233 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:56 AM
Perry Vermeulen, on 17 Oct 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:
Perry Vermeulen wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
David I'm from Holland so I won't find the magazine in stores here Is there any chance that a pdf of your article will be available any time soon? Thanks! Perry
 
 
Perry,
 
Thank you for asking. A PDF version of the issue is available for purchase at SKEPTIC's website:
 
http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
If you decide to get it, I hope you'll post some feedback about it.
 
Dave


#189 Ken Davies

    Experienced Member

  • Members

  • 97 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:57 AM
A public debate would be most interesting. Toronto, spring of 2014?


#190 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,757 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:33 AM
Ken Davies, on 17 Oct 2013 - 6:57 PM, said:
Ken Davies wrote:A public debate would be most interesting. Toronto, spring of 2014?
 
 
What is there to debate?
 
JFK's back wound was too low to have been associated with the throat wound.
 
Making that determination is a simple matter of observation.


#191 Ken Davies

    Experienced Member

  • Members

  • 97 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2013 - 02:28 AM
Cliff, I agree with you. The back wound is evidenced by the autopsy, death certificate, and holes in the coat and jacket.


#192 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,103 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 04:20 AM
David Reitzes, on 17 Oct 2013 - 6:56 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Perry Vermeulen, on 17 Oct 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:
Perry Vermeulen wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 09 Sept 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:I'm very proud to announce my article in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters." Coming soon to finer newsstands and CIA safehouses near you.

http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
Dave
 
David I'm from Holland so I won't find the magazine in stores here Is there any chance that a pdf of your article will be available any time soon? Thanks! Perry
 
 
Perry,
 
Thank you for asking. A PDF version of the issue is available for purchase at SKEPTIC's website:
 
http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/
 
If you decide to get it, I hope you'll post some feedback about it.
 
Dave
 
selling it? Why? LMAO!


#193 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 233 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2013 - 06:59 AM
Ken Davies, on 17 Oct 2013 - 6:57 PM, said:
Ken Davies wrote:A public debate would be most interesting. Toronto, spring of 2014?
 
What's to debate? I published an article. Few here seem to be interested in reading it, much less engaging with its arguments. End of story.
 
Am I surprised? Of course not. When I was a CT, I rarely gave LN arguments much of a chance. Why should I expect anyone here to be different?
 
Still, one has to try. So even though diehard Warren Commission doubters were hardly my target audience, I'll be around if anyone wants to meet me halfway and give my article a chance.
 
Dave


#194 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,757 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 10:16 AM
David Reitzes, on 18 Oct 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Ken Davies, on 17 Oct 2013 - 6:57 PM, said:
Ken Davies wrote:A public debate would be most interesting. Toronto, spring of 2014?
 
What's to debate? I published an article. Few here seem to be interested in reading it, much less engaging with its arguments. End of story.
 
 
Excuse me?  I've pointed out the flaws in your defense of the SBT starting with the inaccurate drawing on page 46 which shows JFK's jacket collar jacked up into his hairline.
 
You have no defense for your assumption the SBT is valid, Dave.
 
You like to pretend otherwise but it's all here on this thread for the world to see.


#195 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 233 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:03 PM
Cliff has resumed his criticism of my article in a thread entitled, "JFK Hit With Paralysising [sic] 'Ice' Bullet." Here is my response:
 
 
Cliff Varnell, on 23 Oct 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 23 Oct 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:You're someone who frequently boasts.  You are someone who infrequently cites evidence.
 
Was my response to your "who are you" question a boast?
 
Indeed it was. 
 
"I'm someone who understands both sides of the argument," sez Reitzes.
 
That's all you do, tout your divine conversion.  As if someone gives a tinker's damn.
 
You can't argue your positions with facts, Dave.  You just like to pretend your biography performs the same function.
 
 
 
From what I've seen, many people around here seem to view my "conversion" from CT to LN with derision. From my perspective, it was quite a learning experience.
 
Big deal.  It doesn't take the place of little things like facts, tho you've convinced yourself it does, clearly.
 
As for a lack of evidence in my writings, to which articles of mine do you refer? I'm pretty conscientious about supporting everything I write with credible evidence, and often link to primary sources so readers can verify what I say.
 
I've pointed out the problems with your Skeptic article, such as your egregious misrepresentation of the clothing evidence, the fallacious SBT re-enactments you cite, the fallacious conclusions you draw concerning the HSCA analysis of the autopsy photos...do we need to go on any more?
 
You have demonstrated a great disregard for facts, David.
 
 
All right, Cliff, even though you and I have been through much of this before, I will try to explain why I feel your concerns are not relevant to the article I wrote.
 
First of all, I don't say a word about the clothing in my article, Cliff.
 
Your complaint seems to be that I elected to include an illustration based on Dale Myers' highly accurate, peer-reviewed 3D computer model, giving the reader an idea of what the SBT trajectory looked like.
 
Here's why your complaint is irrelevant. Nothing in my article states that the SBT had to happen precisely as Myers depicted it, or that it even had to happen at the precise point in time (circa Z223) that Myers, FAA, and others locate it (although I agree that Z223 is the time most strongly supported by the evidence). I also cited the HSCA study, which placed the shot circa Z190. Other commentators, such as Vincent Bugliosi, have expressed doubts about the Z223 timing; Bugliosi places it closer to Z210. Since JFK was out of view of Zapruder's camera, and since our ability to discern the precise moment of a bullet strike from a motion picture is limited to begin with, there will always be room for doubt about the precise timing of the shot.
 
The precise timing doesn't matter. For one thing, the SBT trajectory has been shown to be plausible in each of the hypothesized scenarios. More importantly, if Abraham Zapruder had left his camera home that day and we had no Z film to work from, the evidence would lead us to the SBT for two simple reasons:
 
1. The ovoid shape of the entry wound on Gov. Connally's back, indicating that it was yawing from an impact with another object in between the rifle and Gov. Connally. (I hesitate to call the body of John F. Kennedy an object, but if I refer to a body in between the rifle and JBC, you would no doubt accuse me of using misleading language.); and
 
2. The existence of just a single bullet to explain the non-fatal wounds inflicted upon JFK (the entry wound, the bruising noted internally, and the exit wound) and the wounds inflicted upon Gov. Connally, since there is no bullet other than CE 399 that can be linked to these events. My article endorses a scenario that takes all the extant evidence into account, as further validated with experimental data (see the URL cited below). You have proposed an alternative scenario (in the thread "JFK Hit With Paralysising [sic] 'Ice' Bullet"). I am satisfied to let readers decide who has logic on his side.
 
You complain that I fail to cite evidence for my conclusions. I stand by the sources I cite in my article, and I encourage readers to consult those sources for themselves. Many sources are referenced in my website's discussion of the SBT (part of my critique of Oliver Stone's "JFK"), and there are numerous links to further resources:
 
http://www.jfk-onlin...jfk100sbth.html
 
I don't even state in my article that the SBT is necessary to the LN position. You and I have discussed this issue before. I endorse the SBT because I think all the evidence points to it, not because it's necessary to any particular hypothesis. If you insist it's impossible, I'll be glad to stipulate that it's not required. For example, some on both the LN and CT sides have suggested that JFK was hit circa Z190, while many have argued that Connally was struck circa Z235 or so. That doesn't sound outlandish to me, and Oswald could have easily fired both shots. The evidence for such a scenario seems weak in comparison to the Z223 scenario (see the URL above), but it's possible. It would leave a couple of lingering questions about the shape of the entrance wound on Connally's back and where the bullet that struck JFK went, but these questions don't seem to bother an expert as distinguished as Cyril Wecht (see Bugliosi's discussion of Wecht's views, for example).
 
You complain about errors in the recreations I cite. All experiments have the potential for errors, of course. If you believe errors in these recreations fundamentally invalidate their conclusions, feel free to prove it. You could even get together with other researchers and commission your own recreation of the shooting, making sure that it is 100% accurate in every last detail.
 
In the meantime, it seems to me that you are missing the point: that every reasonably scientific attempt to recreate the shooting has concluded that the SBT is plausible. No such experiment can prove what actually happened, of course, but we can use the results to gauge the plausibility and probability of the proposition (say that three times fast). Readers are encouraged to consult the studies in question and draw their own conclusions.
 
You also complain that I consider the extant photographs of the back to be the best evidence of the location of the bullet entry wound. Of course, I noted in my article that some CTs challenge the authenticity of the evidence, and one of the main points of my article is to explain why I consider such an approach to be illogical. You avoid such arguments and thereby ignore the whole thrust of my article. I propose that you can't see the forest for the trees. 
 
You specifically cite Vincent Salandria's warning about the trap of microanalysis in the signature of every message you post, Cliff. Let me quote it again for anyone who's missed it:
 
"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy.We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..." (emphasis added)
Vincent Salandria, as quoted by Gaeton Fonzi in The Last Investigation
 
Would you disavow Salandria's words if they suddenly didn't apply to a conspiracy anymore? What if the Warren Commission critics "spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination" when logic should have dictated that the WC's conclusion was the most plausible one? 
 
My article argues that this is the case. It would be productive if someone who disagrees would address my actual arguments, instead of attempting to hijack the discussion to particular talking points that even prominent conspiracy-oriented members of the JFK research community consider inconclusive at best.
 
Back to your argument about the autopsy photograph of the entry wound. You have called it inauthentic in another thread, but you declined to say so in your criticisms of my article. Why? Because you're aware that if you call it inauthentic, it would then be incumbent upon you to prove it. And when you believe something you can't prove, you should be hesitant to call it a fact.
 
Finally, leaving my article aside for a moment to address your off-topic concern: If you believe that the wound in the autopsy photograph is inconsistent with the hole in the shirt that you consider to be the best evidence, it's incumbent upon you to prove that. The positioning of JFK's body in the photograph makes it difficult to say if the wound corresponds precisely with the location of the hole in the shirt, but the consensus among forensic experts (cf. Clark Panel, HSCA) and many JFK researchers is that the locations of the wound in the photo and the hole in the shirt are consistent with one another.
 
John Hunt, an ardent proponent of the theory that Oswald was framed for JFK's assassination (and who finds much to criticize about the HSCA's conclusions), found copious evidence to suggest that bunching of the jacket occurred at the time of the shooting, which is highly relevant to your belief that the autopsy photo and the shirt are contradictory, since (as Hunt points out) the holes in the jacket and shirt are consistent with one another:
 
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm
 
When even ardent conspiracy proponents like Hunt, Bill Kelly, and Pat Speer endeavor to convince you that your argument is either incorrect or is simply not as important as you think it is, you might consider listening.
 
If for no other reason than as an intellectual exercise, Cliff, why don't you see if you can put aside your focus on the clothing, and reread my article with an eye to understanding the point I am trying to make. Feel free to criticize my argument as much as you like, but if you could show me that you genuinely understand it, it's possible that you and I both could learn something.
 
Dave

Edited by David Reitzes, 23 October 2013 - 09:12 PM.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oP5jxgndH6QJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D13+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:31 pm

#196 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,129 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:27 PM
Dave Reitzes issues:
 
... "My article argues that this is the case. It would be productive if someone who disagrees would address my actual arguments, instead of attempting to hijack the discussion to particular talking points that even prominent conspiracy-oriented members of the JFK research community consider inconclusive at best " ...
 
The basic lone nut problem for the past 40 years. There is a reason why ALL lone nut-SBT attempts to sell the 1964 Warren Commission Findings/Report have failed. It's this Dave, out here, in the real world it's the *court of public opinion* NOT a court of law. There's no case to try Dave, only egos. Micro-analysing case evidence is so, passe. You have 3000 leaks in the 1964 WCR lone nut dam, how many thumbs again? Nice try, but no cigar...


#197 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,136 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:09 AM
Dave, you asked me awhile back to comment on your article. I was at that time preparing for my appearance at the Wecht Conference (where I broke established protocol by chatting with John McAdams and Max Holland.)
 
In any event, I found the notes I jotted down while reading your article. I'm having trouble reading the notes but this is what I can make out.
 
Early in the article, you make the age-old argument that only a few witnesses said they heard shots from more than one direction, and that it's reasonable to conclude from this that shots came from only one direction. This argument is not nearly as strong as it sounds. When you read--actually read--the statements of the witnesses, it's clear that most of them heard a loud noise from God knows where---and then heard a burst of two sounds. Their statements, then, suggest, they were caught unaware, and identified the location of the shots based purely on the sound (s) of the second blast. There are exceptions to this rule. Several of those in the Secret Service follow-up car had the immediate reaction that the first shot came from behind. This makes it extra revealing then that three passengers in this car, Powers, O'Donnell, and Landis, were later to admit that they thought the last blast came from in front of the limousine.
 
On page 46, you claim the examinations of Kennedy and Connally proved they were hit from above and behind. You are repeating something which I suspect you know is untrue. The entrance wound in Kennedy's head was reportedly low on his head, and the exit high. This suggests he was hit from below and behind.
 
You then wrote that later examinations of the medical evidence affirmed the conclusions of the autopsy report. This is also untrue. The later examinations (with one exception, and it's not who you think it is) proposed that the entrance wound on Kennedy's head was 4 inches higher on his skull, on an entirely different bone than determined at autopsy. Some doubt was also expressed about the back wound/throat wound. You can't say the wounds align when the body is in one position, then move the body location and say the wounds align in that position, and claim you are "affirming" the conclusions regarding the wounds. You have in fact moved them.
 
You cite the ovoid nature of Connally's back wound as evidence the bullet was tumbling and support for the single-bullet theory, yet fail to note that 1) Connally's doctor said the wound was not nearly as ovoid as most LN's like to pretend it is, and gave no indication of being made by a bullet that had previously hit anything; 2) the entrance on Connally's clothes was not ovoid; and 3) Kennedy's head wound was even more ovoid. This argument was smoke dreamt up by Lattimer. It has no basis in reality. Please stop repeating it!
 
You claim Arlen Specter was skeptical of the single-bullet theory, but became convinced of its plausibility after the re-enactment in Dallas. This is the worst kind of nonsense. As demonstrated by the re-enactment photos showing the location of Kennedy's back wound in comparison to the trajectory rod representing Specter's single-bullet theory (photos Specter made sure were not printed in the WC's volumes), Specter knew full well the theory had major problems, and hid this from the record. He, in short order, had 1) Thomas Kelley testify that they used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound in the re-enactment, when they'd used an actual autopsy photo; 2) Kelley testify that the jump seat was 6 inches inboard of the door, when the specs later published by the HSCA showed it to have been 2 1/2 inches from the door, and 3) Shaneyfelt testify that the trajectory rod "approximated" that of the back wound used in the re-enactment when he knew that it passed inches away.
 
You also cite a re-enactment by Failure Analysis as further evidence for the single-bullet theory, and make the claim no careful study has come to the conclusion the theory is nonsense. Yikes! How could you not know that Failure Analysis prepared TWO studies of the single-bullet theory, one for the prosecution and one for the defense? How could you not know that the second one shot holes in the theory, and helped convince a number of lawyers on the ABA's panel there was reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt? This is old news, Dave. Posner was exposed as a fraud a long time ago. He gained access to the re-enactment created by FA for the prosecution, pretended it was a scientific study created for him, and snowed the major media into thinking he'd proved the single-bullet theory. I mean, how could you not know this?
 
You actually cite Thomas Canning's HSCA trajectory analysis as evidence for the single-bullet theory. Wow. I'm beside myself. I thought I shut down this argument years ago. When you actually read--yes, read--the report he created for the HSCA, several FACTS (yes, facts, that I have demonstrated dozens of times over the years, with no response) become clear. 1) Canning was given the authority to move the back wound wherever he needed it to be, in order to have the wounds align wherever he wanted them to align; 2) he moved the back wound two inches up to the base of Kennedy's neck on his exhibits in order to get the bullet's trajectory over the problematic first rib; 3) he also claimed Kennedy was leaning 14 degrees forward in the Croft photo taken just before the shooting--now this wouldn't be so bad except; 4) to get the head wounds to align, he claimed Kennedy was leaning but 8 degrees forward in frame 313 of the Zapruder film. So yeah, the rocket scientist you cite as support for your beloved single-bullet theory claimed Kennedy was leaning forward, shot in the back, sat up a bit in the car, only to be hit in the head. So, tell us Dave, do you believe Kennedy sat up after first getting hit? No? Well then I suggest you stop citing Canning.
 
Enough for now.

Edited by Pat Speer, 24 October 2013 - 01:18 AM.
#198 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:58 AM
Dave, I'll respond to your latest rhetorical exercise in the proper thread sometime before Nov 22.
 
I'll be asking you to post the Dale Myers drawing and the caption, as seen on page 46 of SkepMag.
 
Between now and then I have far more important things to discuss with Chris Newton and Bill Kelly.


#199 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:42 AM
Pat Speer, on 23 Oct 2013 - 7:09 PM, said:
Pat Speer wrote:Dave, you asked me awhile back to comment on your article. I was at that time preparing for my appearance at the Wecht Conference (where I broke established protocol by chatting with John McAdams and Max Holland.)
 
In any event, I found the notes I jotted down while reading your article. I'm having trouble reading the notes but this is what I can make out.
 
Early in the article, you make the age-old argument that only a few witnesses said they heard shots from more than one direction, and that it's reasonable to conclude from this that shots came from only one direction. This argument is not nearly as strong as it sounds. When you read--actually read--the statements of the witnesses, it's clear that most of them heard a loud noise from God knows where---and then heard a burst of two sounds. Their statements, then, suggest, they were caught unaware, and identified the location of the shots based purely on the sound (s) of the second blast. There are exceptions to this rule. Several of those in the Secret Service follow-up car had the immediate reaction that the first shot came from behind. This makes it extra revealing then that three passengers in this car, Powers, O'Donnell, and Landis, were later to admit that they thought the last blast came from in front of the limousine.
 
On page 46, you claim the examinations of Kennedy and Connally proved they were hit from above and behind. You are repeating something which I suspect you know is untrue. The entrance wound in Kennedy's head was reportedly low on his head, and the exit high. This suggests he was hit from below and behind.
 
You then wrote that later examinations of the medical evidence affirmed the conclusions of the autopsy report. This is also untrue. The later examinations (with one exception, and it's not who you think it is) proposed that the entrance wound on Kennedy's head was 4 inches higher on his skull, on an entirely different bone than determined at autopsy. Some doubt was also expressed about the back wound/throat wound. You can't say the wounds align when the body is in one position, then move the body location and say the wounds align in that position, and claim you are "affirming" the conclusions regarding the wounds. You have in fact moved them.
 
You cite the ovoid nature of Connally's back wound as evidence the bullet was tumbling and support for the single-bullet theory, yet fail to note that 1) Connally's doctor said the wound was not nearly as ovoid as most LN's like to pretend it is, and gave no indication of being made by a bullet that had previously hit anything; 2) the entrance on Connally's clothes was not ovoid; and 3) Kennedy's head wound was even more ovoid. This argument was smoke dreamt up by Lattimer. It has no basis in reality. Please stop repeating it!
 
You claim Arlen Specter was skeptical of the single-bullet theory, but became convinced of its plausibility after the re-enactment in Dallas. This is the worst kind of nonsense. As demonstrated by the re-enactment photos showing the location of Kennedy's back wound in comparison to the trajectory rod representing Specter's single-bullet theory (photos Specter made sure were not printed in the WC's volumes), Specter knew full well the theory had major problems, and hid this from the record. He, in short order, had 1) Thomas Kelley testify that they used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound in the re-enactment, when they'd used an actual autopsy photo; 2) Kelley testify that the jump seat was 6 inches inboard of the door, when the specs later published by the HSCA showed it to have been 2 1/2 inches from the door, and 3) Shaneyfelt testify that the trajectory rod "approximated" that of the back wound used in the re-enactment when he knew that it passed inches away.
 
You also cite a re-enactment by Failure Analysis as further evidence for the single-bullet theory, and make the claim no careful study has come to the conclusion the theory is nonsense. Yikes! How could you not know that Failure Analysis prepared TWO studies of the single-bullet theory, one for the prosecution and one for the defense? How could you not know that the second one shot holes in the theory, and helped convince a number of lawyers on the ABA's panel there was reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt? This is old news, Dave. Posner was exposed as a fraud a long time ago. He gained access to the re-enactment created by FA for the prosecution, pretended it was a scientific study created for him, and snowed the major media into thinking he'd proved the single-bullet theory. I mean, how could you not know this?
 
You actually cite Thomas Canning's HSCA trajectory analysis as evidence for the single-bullet theory. Wow. I'm beside myself. I thought I shut down this argument years ago. When you actually read--yes, read--the report he created for the HSCA, several FACTS (yes, facts, that I have demonstrated dozens of times over the years, with no response) become clear. 1) Canning was given the authority to move the back wound wherever he needed it to be, in order to have the wounds align wherever he wanted them to align; 2) he moved the back wound two inches up to the base of Kennedy's neck on his exhibits in order to get the bullet's trajectory over the problematic first rib; 3) he also claimed Kennedy was leaning 14 degrees forward in the Croft photo taken just before the shooting--now this wouldn't be so bad except; 4) to get the head wounds to align, he claimed Kennedy was leaning but 8 degrees forward in frame 313 of the Zapruder film. So yeah, the rocket scientist you cite as support for your beloved single-bullet theory claimed Kennedy was leaning forward, shot in the back, sat up a bit in the car, only to be hit in the head. So, tell us Dave, do you believe Kennedy sat up after first getting hit? No? Well then I suggest you stop citing Canning.
 
Enough for now.
 
Pat,
 
I'm very glad to see your response. As I've said to you before, I appreciate the work you've demonstrated on your website, and you clearly have a lot of knowledge on the medical aspects of the case.
 
Quick question: do you and I agree that all the shots came from behind?
 
Dave


#200 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,136 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2013 - 06:59 AM
David Reitzes, on 23 Oct 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Pat Speer, on 23 Oct 2013 - 7:09 PM, said:
Pat,
 
I'm very glad to see your response. As I've said to you before, I appreciate the work you've demonstrated on your website, and you clearly have a lot of knowledge on the medical aspects of the case.
 
Quick question: do you and I agree that all the shots came from behind?
 
Dave
 
 
My study of the witnesses suggests to me that the last sound heard by most came from west of the building. I see no evidence that this hit anyone, however, and suspect it may have been some sort of firecracker used as a diversionary device. I found some support that snipers use this tactic, moreover, in a military magazine from WWII. It reported that both Japanese and German snipers were known to light long-fused firecrackers, leave their hiding spot, and be far away by the time the firecracker goes off and draws fire from their targets. This diversion served two purposes. 1) it allowed the sniper to get away, while the targets returned fire at the wrong location. 2) it fooled the targets into a false sense of safety, i.e., it led them to believe they were safe as long as they weren't exposed to the location of the firecracker. By using a firecracker in this manner, a sniper could sneak around to the other side of a building, and shoot those closing in on his location from behind.


#201 Chris Newton

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 315 posts


  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Interests:JFK Assassination - Theory & Research
    Military History
    Computer Science
    Photography

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:53 PM
Pat,
 
Quote
...reported that both Japanese and German snipers were known to light long-fused firecrackers...
 
 
I can confirm this tactic:
 
http://www.lonesentr.../tt_trends.html
 
See #6 August 27th 1942 : Japanese Tactics in the Phillipines


#202 Larry Hancock

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,070 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma USA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 03:20 PM
Not to belabor the point but I've been putting forward that view for some time, I suggested the use of a railroad squib but a firecracker would do as well.  A couple of points that would support it were the excessive smoke seen in the trees by the fence-line - much more than I would expect from a weapon discharge and the reports of gunpowder all the way down main street at street level with the wind coming from the right direction to take it down there from the fence-line. 
 
I know that some don't credit the film footage showing the smoke, I do, but regardless the reports of gun powder are consistent and totally out of sync with the official shooting story.  It also fits well
with the tracks, cigarette butts and other evidence of someone waiting behind the fence at virtually the exact point which would be confirmed by the smoke and noise.  
 
This is an important point since it would support the idea of a tactically trained paramilitary team, one trained in ambushes and very possibly sniper type assassinations rather than some pick up
team put together from, oh say, Mafia types.


#203 Chris Newton

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 315 posts


  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Interests:JFK Assassination - Theory & Research
    Military History
    Computer Science
    Photography

Posted 24 October 2013 - 03:56 PM
Larry,
 
Not trying to throw a "wrench" but a recently well cleaned and oiled weapon tends to produce much more smoke the first time it's fired than in subsequent firings. I would assume that if a shooter was a professional that their weapon would be in the best shape possible before being used on an important mission.
 
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of firecrackers though or a "simulator" of some sort.


#204 Larry Hancock

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,070 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma USA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:04 PM
I can follow that Chris, which is probably why I never see much smoke when I'm shooting...grin.  On the other hand I would expect a trained team to know and avoid that given the close
proximity of the fence line to observers.  Not your typical well concealed long range sniper shot I don't think.
 
Certainly it could be smoke from a weapon but given all the other factors including the noise discrepency, I still vote for a firecracker as a diversion. 


#205 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 11:19 PM
Larry Hancock, on 24 Oct 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:
Larry Hancock wrote:Not to belabor the point but I've been putting forward that view for some time, I suggested the use of a railroad squib but a firecracker would do as well.  A couple of points that would support it were the excessive smoke seen in the trees by the fence-line - much more than I would expect from a weapon discharge and the reports of gunpowder all the way down main street at street level with the wind coming from the right direction to take it down there from the fence-line. 
 
I know that some don't credit the film footage showing the smoke, I do, but regardless the reports of gun powder are consistent and totally out of sync with the official shooting story.  It also fits well
with the tracks, cigarette butts and other evidence of someone waiting behind the fence at virtually the exact point which would be confirmed by the smoke and noise.  
 
This is an important point since it would support the idea of a tactically trained paramilitary team, one trained in ambushes and very possibly sniper type assassinations rather than some pick up
team put together from, oh say, Mafia types.
 
 
Nor anti-Castro Cubans, Corsicans, or Dallas Cops.
 
Former or then-current US Army Special Forces personnel?


#206 Larry Hancock

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 1,070 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma USA

Posted 24 October 2013 - 11:47 PM
Cliff, a number of the CIA trained Cuban exiles received extensive paramilitary training.  In particular some of them were prepared to infiltrate Cuba and conduct
sniper class assassination against Castro - one operation even involved pre-sighted weapons apparently based off reconnaissance photos and detailed photo
mapping by NPIC....see SWHT discussion of the Pathfinder operation.
 
In addition, certain of the CIA paramiliary types led extremely well trained, experienced and competent Cuban exile paramilitary groups - for reference see Rip
Robertsons group sent to the Congo in conjunction with the Dragon operations.
 
So no, not Corsicans, Mafia gun men (even though Harrelson was a highly skilled rifle assassin), or Dallas Cops...and led by somebody with extensive combat
experience and trusted by those participating.


#207 Richard Hocking

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 482 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:12 AM
The use of firecrackers as signals or distractions in Dealey Plaza is an interesting topic, and I think some valid ideas are being discussed.
I am open to the possibility of firecracker(s) being used behind the fence on the knoll.
There are a couple issues that I feel should be considered, keeping in mind that the firecracker sound is distinct from the sound of a rifle shot.
One is the 65 witnesses (there may be more than that) in Dealey Plaza who gave testimony that the first shot sounded like a firecracker or motorcycle backfire.  Most of those ear witnesses felt the first shot sounded different than the other shots.
Are there any ear witnesses who stated that the last "shot" sounded like a firecracker?
Another issue is the purpose of the last noise being a firecracker as opposed to a gun shot.  Why would conspirators seek to direct attention to the GK or the fence if the idea was to frame a patsy who was in the TSBD?
Wouldn't drawing attention to the knoll as a sniper position defeat the purpose?


#208 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,136 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:37 AM
Richard Hocking, on 24 Oct 2013 - 6:12 PM, said:
Richard Hocking wrote:The use of firecrackers as signals or distractions in Dealey Plaza is an interesting topic, and I think some valid ideas are being discussed.
I am open to the possibility of firecracker(s) being used behind the fence on the knoll.
There are a couple issues that I feel should be considered, keeping in mind that the firecracker sound is distinct from the sound of a rifle shot.
One is the 65 witnesses (there may be more than that) in Dealey Plaza who gave testimony that the first shot sounded like a firecracker or motorcycle backfire.  Most of those ear witnesses felt the first shot sounded different than the other shots.
Are there any ear witnesses who stated that the last "shot" sounded like a firecracker?
Another issue is the purpose of the last noise being a firecracker as opposed to a gun shot.  Why would conspirators seek to direct attention to the GK or the fence if the idea was to frame a patsy who was in the TSBD?
Wouldn't drawing attention to the knoll as a sniper position defeat the purpose?
 
If a firecracker was fired in the knoll area, its purpose was to serve as a diversion. Let's say, for example, there were two shooters firing from behind, on upper floors of the TSBD and Dal-Tex Building. Well, a firecracker's firing in front of the limo at the end of the shooting would serve as a brief diversion, allowing the actual shooters to escape, without leaving behind any evidence of a second shooter. It would, in sum, allow a TSBD shooter to escape, and allow those subsequently investigating the crime to focus on the TSBD. Pretty clever, IMO.


#209 Chris Newton

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 315 posts


  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Interests:JFK Assassination - Theory & Research
    Military History
    Computer Science
    Photography

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:37 AM
Larry,
 
Quote
 
 
Are there any ear witnesses who stated that the last "shot" sounded like a firecracker?
 
Actually, there is: S.M. Holland from the overpass. I originally discounted this account (the firecracker part) as it might've indicated a different or silenced weapon but considering all the possibilities...
 
Quote
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at Just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a fire-cracker, or something out, and that is just the way it sounded. It wasn't loud as the previous reports or shots.
 
 
Note: I'm not certain if he's describing the "last" shot or not but he's certainly describing an incident behind the fence on the knoll.

Edited by Chris Newton, 25 October 2013 - 02:46 AM.
#210 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:08 AM
My comments in blue...
 
 
Pat Speer, on 23 Oct 2013 - 7:09 PM, said:
Pat Speer wrote:Dave, you asked me awhile back to comment on your article. I was at that time preparing for my appearance at the Wecht Conference (where I broke established protocol by chatting with John McAdams and Max Holland.)
 
In any event, I found the notes I jotted down while reading your article. I'm having trouble reading the notes but this is what I can make out.
 
Early in the article, you make the age-old argument that only a few witnesses said they heard shots from more than one direction, and that it's reasonable to conclude from this that shots came from only one direction. This argument is not nearly as strong as it sounds. When you read--actually read--the statements of the witnesses, it's clear that most of them heard a loud noise from God knows where---and then heard a burst of two sounds. Their statements, then, suggest, they were caught unaware, and identified the location of the shots based purely on the sound (s) of the second blast. There are exceptions to this rule. Several of those in the Secret Service follow-up car had the immediate reaction that the first shot came from behind. This makes it extra revealing then that three passengers in this car, Powers, O'Donnell, and Landis, were later to admit that they thought the last blast came from in front of the limousine.
 
 
Let's distinguish between facts and hypotheses. It is a fact that few witnesses reported that the shots came from more than one direction. You can argue for different ways to get around that, but it's a fact. What you present to counter it is an hypothesis, based on a selective reading of the eyewitness testimony. Why? Because you suspect the shots came from more than one direction. That's what YOU say, not what the witnesses said.
 
It's also highly relevant to your claim that a firecracker or something like it was set off west of the building. While there are a few witnesses you could cite to support a single, firecracker-like sound on the knoll, it's in direct conflict with your "rule" expressed above. So you're forced into the position of arguing that some witnesses heard certain shots while other witnesses heard other shots -- even though the vast majority of the witnesses reported precisely three shots, and very few reported more than three (see my article). Other researchers have taken this same approach but come up with wholly different conclusions, because the eyewitness testimony is all over the place, and it can be used to support any hypothesis you want it to. (Go to alt.assassination.jfk and ask Robert Harris about how eyewitnesses prove his hypothesis about a missed shot at Z285. I guarantee he would absolutely LOVE to talk to you about it.)
 
How do we resolve such discrepancies among eyewitnesses? We don't; we acknowledge what research has been telling us for decades: eyewitness testimony isn't reliable enough to cause us such concerns. See Elizabeth Loftus' EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY or THE SEVEN SINS OF MEMORY by Daniel Schacter. We should rely on the forensic evidence instead.
 
BTW, this firecracker hypothesis would seem to be a little illogical to me from the standpoint of the alleged plotters. Such tactics may be useful in certain situations, but did the conspirators WANT bystanders to think shots came from two or more directions? Wouldn't they be taking a pretty big risk about this if they intended to frame a lone gunman?
 
 
On page 46, you claim the examinations of Kennedy and Connally proved they were hit from above and behind. You are repeating something which I suspect you know is untrue. The entrance wound in Kennedy's head was reportedly low on his head, and the exit high. This suggests he was hit from below and behind.
 
 
Let's bear in mind, again, the distinction between fact and hypothesis. I said that the autopsy pathologists found that JFK and JBC were shot from above and behind, and the later evaluations of the autopsy materials confirmed this. These are facts: the autopsy pathologists reached that conclusion, and the later evaluations confirmed it. You may dispute their conclusions, but I represented the conclusions accurately.
 
I'm aware of the controversial aspects of the entry wound, of course; that's quite different from saying I stated something I "know is untrue." You have an unfortunate habit of attributing dishonest motives to people who disagree with you. As I frequently have to point out, there is no space in a 10,000-word article to explain every controversy or touch upon every conceivable talking point.
 
You suggest that the entry wound was lower; this is your hypothesis, based on eyewitness reports and your own subjective interpretation of inferior quality, published versions of autopsy photographs. This hypothesis is unsupported by any of the forensic experts who worked with superior quality, original photos and X-rays. It is also unsupported by the three autopsy pathologists whose original observations you claim to be validating -- none of them saw in the photos what you see. This alone doesn't prove you're wrong, but I'm going with the best evidence.
 
For the location of the head wounds, I'm going by the most reliable data we have: the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP evaluations of the autopsy materials. I am aware, of course, that some dispute their findings. You must be familiar with John Canal's work, involving a premise of a low entry wound and a hypothesis attempting to reconcile a low wound with the BOH photos. His premise, while unproved, is worthy of consideration because it has attained endorsements from qualified experts. I have encouraged him to submit his work for peer-review in a reputable journal, which he assures me he is attempting to do. (His hypothesis regarding the BOH photos is another matter. Proving his premise doesn't mean his hypothesis about the BOH photos is correct.) Canal is an LN, of course, as are the experts who have endorsed his premise of a low entry wound.
 
Either way, I was correct in stating that the experts concluded that the shots came from above and behind. Even your own website posits that the shot came from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Your hypothetical low-to-high bullet trajectory that "suggests" JFK "was hit from below and behind" is a strawman. You know I don't say anything like that. If it should be proved someday that the entry wound was lower than the HSCA concluded, we can argue then whether it affects the LN scenario. The three autopsy pathologists whose observations you champion didn't think so, and neither do those who support John Canal's work.
 
 
You then wrote that later examinations of the medical evidence affirmed the conclusions of the autopsy report. This is also untrue. The later examinations (with one exception, and it's not who you think it is) proposed that the entrance wound on Kennedy's head was 4 inches higher on his skull, on an entirely different bone than determined at autopsy. Some doubt was also expressed about the back wound/throat wound. You can't say the wounds align when the body is in one position, then move the body location and say the wounds align in that position, and claim you are "affirming" the conclusions regarding the wounds. You have in fact moved them.
 
 
What I said was that the autopsy pathologists concluded that a bullet entered from behind the President and exited from the right front, forward of the ear; and the later evaluations confirmed this. This is a fact. I did not have space to get into the controversy about the location of the entry wound. If I thought it was relevant to the conclusion of a single head shot from behind, then I would have been obligated to discuss it. But the autopsy pathologists and the later panels agreed that there was one wound of entry and one wound of exit, and there is no forensic evidence to dispute this conclusion. So the precise location of the entry wound is irrelevant.
 
 
You cite the ovoid nature of Connally's back wound as evidence the bullet was tumbling and support for the single-bullet theory, yet fail to note that 1) Connally's doctor said the wound was not nearly as ovoid as most LN's like to pretend it is, and gave no indication of being made by a bullet that had previously hit anything; 2) the entrance on Connally's clothes was not ovoid; and 3) Kennedy's head wound was even more ovoid. This argument was smoke dreamt up by Lattimer. It has no basis in reality. Please stop repeating it!
 
 
I didn't get it from Lattimer; I got it from the HSCA FPP, based on their evaluations of the autopsy materials and relevant testimony. I'm not concerned about what Connally's doctor said; he wasn't a forensic pathologist (see the study I cite about how trauma specialists make incorrect judgments about bullet wounds over 50% of the time). I'm not concerned about the shape of a bullet hole in a piece of fabric; it's the wound that's important. (Sorry, Cliff.) The head wound is slightly ovoid, due (according to the autopsy pathologists) to the tangential angle of the strike. Some have suggested that this may also be true of JBC's back wound, but the HSCA FPP disagreed.
 
 
You claim Arlen Specter was skeptical of the single-bullet theory, but became convinced of its plausibility after the re-enactment in Dallas. This is the worst kind of nonsense. As demonstrated by the re-enactment photos showing the location of Kennedy's back wound in comparison to the trajectory rod representing Specter's single-bullet theory (photos Specter made sure were not printed in the WC's volumes), Specter knew full well the theory had major problems, and hid this from the record. He, in short order, had 1) Thomas Kelley testify that they used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound in the re-enactment, when they'd used an actual autopsy photo; 2) Kelley testify that the jump seat was 6 inches inboard of the door, when the specs later published by the HSCA showed it to have been 2 1/2 inches from the door, and 3) Shaneyfelt testify that the trajectory rod "approximated" that of the back wound used in the re-enactment when he knew that it passed inches away.
 
 
I know how badly some would like to believe that Specter was a liar, but -- as Skeptic Magazine columnist James Randi likes to point out -- no amount of belief can make something a fact. Your hypothesis about his motives and actions remains just an hypothesis. This is not to suggest that reconstructing the shooting accurately was easy -- it's an incredibly difficult task, and more recent attempts using more accurate data, more advanced technology, and a much larger budget, still had their fair share of problems. Of course Specter had problems making his reconstruction 100% accurate. He didn't have the President and Gov. Connally to work with; he had to settle for stand-ins who weren't built the same way. He didn't have the original car. He didn't have proper access to the best evidence of the wounds: the photos and X-rays. It would have been unrealistic to expect that he could duplicate the shooting down to every last detail.
 
But did he establish the plausibility of the SBT? He thought so, and I agree. More advanced recreations bear this judgment out. The SBT accounted for all the forensic evidence, and was in accord with what we see in the best photographic evidence, the Zapruder film. You have advanced an alternative scenario on your website; I am content to allow others to decide for themselves whose scenario fits the evidence better and is more logical. (A lot of people at this forum may be inclined to write us both off for two things we actually agree on: that the oft-cited Parkland professionals were wrong about a head shot from the front, and that the head snap in Zapruder had nothing to do with a shot from the knoll. I'm glad that we do agree on some aspects of the case.)
 
 
You also cite a re-enactment by Failure Analysis as further evidence for the single-bullet theory, and make the claim no careful study has come to the conclusion the theory is nonsense. Yikes! How could you not know that Failure Analysis prepared TWO studies of the single-bullet theory, one for the prosecution and one for the defense? How could you not know that the second one shot holes in the theory, and helped convince a number of lawyers on the ABA's panel there was reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt? This is old news, Dave. Posner was exposed as a fraud a long time ago. He gained access to the re-enactment created by FA for the prosecution, pretended it was a scientific study created for him, and snowed the major media into thinking he'd proved the single-bullet theory. I mean, how could you not know this?
 
 
A researcher of your caliber shouldn't be recycling such arguments. The FAA study I cite, and which Posner cited, was a model of what actually occurred in Dealey Plaza according to the available evidence. The defense exhibit was based on hypothetical data to help exonerate the "defendant." I omit mention of it for the same reason Posner did: it was not an objective study. (The subject of Posner's integrity is irrelevant to my article, but a failure to address the issue would imply agreement on my part. Posner never said that the FAA study was done for him. This would have been rather bold, given that the FAA materials were a big part of a widely seen Court TV broadcast. A lot of people did complain that the sourcing of the FAA materials in the first edition of his book was inadequate, and I understand that he corrected this in later printings.)
 
 
You actually cite Thomas Canning's HSCA trajectory analysis as evidence for the single-bullet theory. Wow. I'm beside myself. I thought I shut down this argument years ago. When you actually read--yes, read--the report he created for the HSCA, several FACTS (yes, facts, that I have demonstrated dozens of times over the years, with no response) become clear. 1) Canning was given the authority to move the back wound wherever he needed it to be, in order to have the wounds align wherever he wanted them to align; 2) he moved the back wound two inches up to the base of Kennedy's neck on his exhibits in order to get the bullet's trajectory over the problematic first rib; 3) he also claimed Kennedy was leaning 14 degrees forward in the Croft photo taken just before the shooting--now this wouldn't be so bad except; 4) to get the head wounds to align, he claimed Kennedy was leaning but 8 degrees forward in frame 313 of the Zapruder film. So yeah, the rocket scientist you cite as support for your beloved single-bullet theory claimed Kennedy was leaning forward, shot in the back, sat up a bit in the car, only to be hit in the head. So, tell us Dave, do you believe Kennedy sat up after first getting hit? No? Well then I suggest you stop citing Canning.
 
Enough for now.
 
Your Canning argument is probably your strongest, although I take issue with some of your conclusions. As Canning himself described in a widely seen letter to Blakey, he was quite dissatisfied with the compartmentalization of the HSCA's investigation and the lack of cooperation he received from others involved, such as members of the FPP. He had some latitude with the location of the back entry wound, not so he could arbitrarily move it around to fit the SBT, but because of the lack of precise data available of the wound location, which he understandably found quite frustrating. (As noted in my last response to Cliff, the photos in evidence are not terribly useful for judging the exact position of the wound, and of course the available measurements aren't much better.)
 
The HSCA may have also put Canning in a difficult situation by placing the SBT at Z190, an interpretation of the Z film that was not unusual at the time, but was probably incorrect. As demonstrated in the SBT page at my website (cited in my article), I consider the evidence put forward by FAA and others for a Z223 strike much stronger.
 
Was some of Canning's work flawed? Yes, I agree with you. Does that nullify his conclusions? I don't think so. As I said in my last response to Cliff, no experimental recreation is going to be 100% accurate; there is always going to be an error bar. The BBC and Discovery Channel did better using more accurate data, but there will always be mistakes, there will always be insurmountable variables (types of materials used for models, available measurements, etc.), and people will always quibble over minor variances in their conclusions. Try to see the forest for the trees.
 
Your website offers an alternative scenario for the assassination, but it tends to be based on your own lay interpretations of the evidence, and in many cases it creates discrepancies in evidence that you fail to account for (e.g., more bullets than are accounted for in evidence; and a shooter in the Dal-Tex Building, where not even a single witness saw a shooter or heard a shot come from -- and the Dal-Tex Building, unlike the TSBD, was crawling with eyewitnesses). You also offer some hypotheses that seem to be based less on evidence than on a need to corroborate other hypotheses of yours -- such as a tangential bullet strike to the front of the head, based on your need to explain where the massive blowout came from, after you conclude that an earlier head shot circa Z224 ranged downward and exited through the throat, based on your belief that you can see the actual wound of entry in the BOH photos, and your hypothesis that it is too low to have exited the front right of the head, etc.
 
My article, on the other hand, argues that we should draw conclusions from the best evidence, and use critical thinking tools to draw the most logical conclusion. I think I've done that. As with Cliff, I would encourage you to put aside your own conclusions for a moment and reread my article to better understand its overarching argument. I don't expect to "convert" you to my point of view, but I would like to see that you understand it.
 
I would encourage others to read my article and consult the sources I cite; and also consult Pat's very detailed website:
 
http://www.patspeer.com/
 
Then draw your own conclusions, and share them here if you would like.
 
Dave

Edited by David Reitzes, 25 October 2013 - 04:15 AM.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ULiNnlYdMn4J:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D14+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:44 pm

Reserved for posts #'s 211 thru 225

What if they are unrecoverable? Too terrrible a possibility to even contemplate?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 5:58 pm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yBWp92FIg8EJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D16+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



#226 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,156 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 12:06 AM
David Reitzes, on 30 Oct 2013 - 3:35 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:
Pat,
 
Again, I'm glad you choose to respond to what I've said. I mean that sincerely. But step back and look at the big picture for a moment.
 
My article demonstrates that the arguments the Warren Commission skeptics have proposed for the past 50 years are much more worthy of skepticism than the Warren Commission's conclusions.
 
For example, I note some of the reasons that eyewitness testimony of shots from more than one location should be treated skeptically.
 
I note the scientific research showing that eyewitness reports from trauma specialists should be treated skeptically.
 
I demonstrate why enlargements of suspicious phenomena in photographs should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why speculation advanced about the assassination -- from hypotheses regarding the three tramps and the Umbrella Man to conjecture about the allegedly mysterious deaths of alleged witnesses -- should be treated skeptically.
 
I give examples of why lay interpretations of forensic evidence should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why the acoustical theory should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why conjecture about alleged suspects -- from communists to the CIA to the military-industrial complex to organized crime -- should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why conjecture linking Oswald and Ruby to a conspiracy should be treated skeptically.
 
I report some preliminary findings from scientific research into psychological motivations for conspiracy theories and evidence that conspiracy theories are inherently harmful and corrosive.
 
And, last but not least, I explain how critical thinking shows us the way out of the labyrinth the Warren Commission skeptics have created.
 
If I'm hopelessly misguided in all this, you should be taking direct aim at my argument, demonstrating that I've badly misunderstood and misapplied the concept of critical thinking to reach an illogical conclusion. Instead, you're repeating some of the same fallacies I've already illuminated (cherry-picking eyewitness testimony, for example, and rejecting expert interpretations of forensic evidence for your own lay interpretations); and you're nitpicking (for example, citing numerous reasons why you think the arguments for the SBT aren't as strong as I think they are).
 
When you engage in logical fallacies, it sounds like you simply don't understand my argument. And when you nitpick, it sounds remarkably like a concession.
 
Dave
 
 
 
That's pretty silly, Dave.
 
Instead of defending Lattimer's sloppy re-enactment, you attack my right to point it out to you. You consistently try to hide behind "experts," and "critical thinking," as if it's some religion, that only the converted can identify. Have you seen the recent edition of The Economist? It reports that the whole world of "science" is in upheaval, because, as it turns out, the vast majority of scientific studies are not reproduce-able! The top "scientists" in the world are so infected by bias they don't know how to conduct science! Lattimer's tests were flawed from the get-go. They didn't show what he claimed they showed. So please stop pretending they did.
 
Your beef with me seems to be that I am giving "lay interpretations to forensic evidence." Well, that's not quite accurate, is it? My website is largely devoted to reporting what the experts actually say, in textbooks and journals, and then comparing that to what they say regarding the Kennedy assassination.
 
Here's but one example.
 
The autopsy protocol describes Kennedy’s large head wound as follows: “There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter.”
Well, Medicolegal Investigation of Death discusses missing scalp as follows: “A point frequently ignored, or forgotten, in comparing entrance and exit wounds is that approximation of the edges of an entrance wound usually retains a small central defect, a missing area of skin. On the other hand, approximation of the edges of the exit re-establishes the skin’s integrity.”
Medicolegal Investigation of Death was written, of course, by the Clark Panel's Dr. Russell Fisher, and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel's Dr. Werner Spitz.
So how did Spitz (or his friend Baden) deal with this in the report of the HSCA pathology panel? The report referenced the autopsy protocol’s claim scalp was missing and then injected: “It is probably misleading in the sense that it describes 'an actual absence of skin and bone.' The scalp was probably virtually all present, but torn and displaced…”  Well, this, strangely, ignored that Dr. William Kemp Clark, the one Parkland doctor to closely inspect Kennedy’s large head wound, shared the observations of the autopsists, and independently observed “There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue” in an 11-22-63 report written before the commencement of the autopsy.
 
So we're at a divide, here, Dave, Who are the "experts" in this situation? The experts who actually inspected the body? Or the ones who came along later and chose to pretend these earlier experts were wrong--despite all indications to the contrary? Which expert is more expert?
 
You've made your choice, and it has NOTHING to do with science, or critical thinking.
 
You need to be more skeptical. It seems to me that you masquerade as a skeptic, when you're really looking for someone, or some group of individuals, who will do the hard-lifting for you, that you can trust completely.
 
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel was not what you presumably think they were, Dave. They were not a bunch of fiercely independent Quincys arguing it out for truth and justice. I talked to Robert Tannenbaum in Pittsburgh, and he confirmed that the only reason Dr. Wecht was on the panel was because he insisted Wecht be part of the panel. This means that of the 8 other members of the panel. ALL 8 were either closely tied to the Clark Panel's Dr. Russell Fisher, or the City of Dallas. In the case of Dr. Charles Petty...both.
 
Hmmm... what kind of "independent" panel is that? I mean, we have a panel of forensic pathologists, who are supposed to decide who is right between the military doctors to conduct Kennedy's autopsy, and the leader of a secret panel convened for political purposes some years afterward, and the panel is fully stocked with men closely connected to the leader of the secret panel.
 
How does your article in Skeptic address this? Are "experts" still "experts" when they are cherry-picked based on their bias?

Edited by Pat Speer, 31 October 2013 - 03:14 AM.
#227 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 01:42 AM
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Hmmm... what kind of "independent" panel is that? I mean, we have a panel of forensic pathologists, who are supposed to decide who is right between the military doctors to conduct Kennedy's autopsy, and the leader of a secret panel convened for political purposes some years afterward, and the panel is fully stocked with men closely connected to the leader of the secret panel. .... Are "experts" still "experts" when they are cherry-picked based on their bias?

So, Pat, does that mean that you really and truly believe that every member of the HSCA's FPP deliberately lied when they all agreed that the only wound of entry in JFK's head was NOT where the autopsy doctors claimed it was?

All NINE of the FPP members (even Wecht!) agreed that from the available medical evidence, it was clear that President Kennedy had been shot only two times--with both shots entering from the rear.

They ALL lied just so their conclusions would conform with the conclusions reached by the Clark Panel that preceded them?

Is that what you believe? And is that what I'm supposed to believe too (even when I have the proof that indicates the Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP were correct--with that proof staring me in the face every day in the form of JFK's autopsy photos and X-rays)?
Edited by David Von Pein, 31 October 2013 - 01:45 AM.
#228 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 248 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 01:43 AM
My comments in blue.
 
 
Pat Speer, on 30 Oct 2013 - 6:06 PM, said:
Pat Speer wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 30 Oct 2013 - 3:35 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Pat Speer, on 30 Oct 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:
Pat,
 
Again, I'm glad you choose to respond to what I've said. I mean that sincerely. But step back and look at the big picture for a moment.
 
My article demonstrates that the arguments the Warren Commission skeptics have proposed for the past 50 years are much more worthy of skepticism than the Warren Commission's conclusions.
 
For example, I note some of the reasons that eyewitness testimony of shots from more than one location should be treated skeptically.
 
I note the scientific research showing that eyewitness reports from trauma specialists should be treated skeptically.
 
I demonstrate why enlargements of suspicious phenomena in photographs should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why speculation advanced about the assassination -- from hypotheses regarding the three tramps and the Umbrella Man to conjecture about the allegedly mysterious deaths of alleged witnesses -- should be treated skeptically.
 
I give examples of why lay interpretations of forensic evidence should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why the acoustical theory should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why conjecture about alleged suspects -- from communists to the CIA to the military-industrial complex to organized crime -- should be treated skeptically.
 
I explain why conjecture linking Oswald and Ruby to a conspiracy should be treated skeptically.
 
I report some preliminary findings from scientific research into psychological motivations for conspiracy theories and evidence that conspiracy theories are inherently harmful and corrosive.
 
And, last but not least, I explain how critical thinking shows us the way out of the labyrinth the Warren Commission skeptics have created.
 
If I'm hopelessly misguided in all this, you should be taking direct aim at my argument, demonstrating that I've badly misunderstood and misapplied the concept of critical thinking to reach an illogical conclusion. Instead, you're repeating some of the same fallacies I've already illuminated (cherry-picking eyewitness testimony, for example, and rejecting expert interpretations of forensic evidence for your own lay interpretations); and you're nitpicking (for example, citing numerous reasons why you think the arguments for the SBT aren't as strong as I think they are).
 
When you engage in logical fallacies, it sounds like you simply don't understand my argument. And when you nitpick, it sounds remarkably like a concession.
 
Dave
 
 
 
That's pretty silly, Dave.
 
Instead of defending Lattimer's sloppy re-enactment, you attack my right to point it out to you.
 
 
No need to be defensive, Pat. I haven't attacked any right of yours to do anything. I pointed out that you are nitpicking instead of meeting my argument head-on.
 
 
You consistently try to hide behind "experts," and "critical thinking," as if it's some religion, that only the converted can identify. Have you seen the recent edition of The Economist? It reports that the whole world of "science" is in upheaval, because, as it turns out, the vast majority of scientific studies are not reproduce-able! The top "scientists" in the world are so infected by bias they don't know how to conduct science!
 
 
Being familiar with, for example, SKEPTIC publisher Michael Shermer's observations on problems with the scientific method, I am not in the least surprised. I do, however, tend to agree with him that the scientific method is infinitely preferable to the alternative, as discussed here:
 
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk-fringe.html
 
 
Lattimer's tests were flawed from the get-go. They didn't show what he claimed they showed. So please stop pretending they did.
 
 
And we're back to the nitpicking.
 
Instead of proving my argument to be fatally flawed, you simply pick around the edges. If there were no Lattimer tests, if there had been no lapel flip, if there were no SBT, if there had never even been a Zapruder film, the forensic evidence would lead me to precisely the same conclusions I reached in my article.
 
 
Your beef with me seems to be that I am giving "lay interpretations to forensic evidence." Well, that's not quite accurate, is it? My website is largely devoted to reporting what the experts actually say, in textbooks and journals, and then comparing that to what they say regarding the Kennedy assassination.
 
Here's but one example.
 
The autopsy protocol describes Kennedy’s large head wound as follows: “There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter.”
Well, Medicolegal Investigation of Death discusses missing scalp as follows: “A point frequently ignored, or forgotten, in comparing entrance and exit wounds is that approximation of the edges of an entrance wound usually retains a small central defect, a missing area of skin. On the other hand, approximation of the edges of the exit re-establishes the skin’s integrity.”
Medicolegal Investigation of Death was written, of course, by the Clark Panel's Dr. Russell Fisher, and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel's Dr. Werner Spitz.
So how did Spitz (or his friend Baden) deal with this in the report of the HSCA pathology panel? The report referenced the autopsy protocol’s claim scalp was missing and then injected: “It is probably misleading in the sense that it describes 'an actual absence of skin and bone.' The scalp was probably virtually all present, but torn and displaced…”  Well, this, strangely, ignored that Dr. William Kemp Clark, the one Parkland doctor to closely inspect Kennedy’s large head wound, shared the observations of the autopsists, and independently observed “There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue” in an 11-22-63 report written before the commencement of the autopsy.
 
So we're at a divide, here, Dave, Who are the "experts" in this situation? The experts who actually inspected the body? Or the ones who came along later and chose to pretend these earlier experts were wrong--despite all indications to the contrary? Which expert is more expert?
 
You've made your choice, and it has NOTHING to do with science, or critical thinking.
 
 
We're going in circles, Pat. Have you read anything I've posted?
 
First, you are creating a false distinction: whichever set of experts you choose, both placed an entry wound on the rear of the head and an exit wound on the right front. Your lay interpretation is that they're ALL wrong about that. Pardon me for being skeptical.
 
To prop up this hypothesis of yours, you go even further: you throw out all the experts and hypothesize that the entry wound is located somewhere in poor quality, published versions of photographs where NONE of the experts saw it in high quality, original copies. Pardon me for being skeptical.
 
See my earlier response for more on the subject.
 
 
You need to be more skeptical. It seems to me that you masquerade as a skeptic, when you're really looking for someone, or some group of individuals, who will do the hard-lifting for you, that you can trust completely.
 
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel was not what you presumably think they were, Dave. They were not a bunch of fiercely independent Quincys arguing it out for truth and justice. I talked to Robert Tannenbaum in Pittsburgh, and he confirmed that the only reason Dr. Wecht was on the panel was because he insisted Wecht be part of the panel. This means that of the 8 other members of the panel. ALL 8 were either closely tied to the Clark Panel's Dr. Russell Fisher, or the City of Dallas. In the case of Dr. Charles Petty...both.
 
Hmmm... what kind of "independent" panel is that? I mean, we have a panel of forensic pathologists, who are supposed to decide who is right between the military doctors to conduct Kennedy's autopsy, and the leader of a secret panel convened for political purposes some years afterward, and the panel is fully stocked with men closely connected to the leader of the secret panel.
 
How does your article in Skeptic address this? Are "experts" still "experts" when they are cherry-picked based on their bias?
 
 
All this ad hominem is just tap-dancing around my argument, Pat. You really can't see that?
 
I gather you also haven't bothered to read what I said in my previous response to you about a recent challenge to one of the HSCA FPP's findings, why I support further research into that area, and why it doesn't affect my conclusions in the slightest.
 
If you don't want to understand my arguments, that's your right, of course. After all, why should you be any different from any of the other critics of mine posting in this thread?
 
Dave

Edited by David Reitzes, 31 October 2013 - 01:45 AM.
#229 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,156 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 03:24 AM
David Von Pein, on 30 Oct 2013 - 7:42 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Hmmm... what kind of "independent" panel is that? I mean, we have a panel of forensic pathologists, who are supposed to decide who is right between the military doctors to conduct Kennedy's autopsy, and the leader of a secret panel convened for political purposes some years afterward, and the panel is fully stocked with men closely connected to the leader of the secret panel. .... Are "experts" still "experts" when they are cherry-picked based on their bias?

So, Pat, does that mean that you really and truly believe that every member of the HSCA's FPP deliberately lied when they all agreed that the only wound of entry in JFK's head was NOT where the autopsy doctors claimed it was?

All NINE of the FPP members (even Wecht!) agreed that from the available medical evidence, it was clear that President Kennedy had been shot only two times--with both shots entering from the rear.

They ALL lied just so their conclusions would conform with the conclusions reached by the Clark Panel that preceded them?

Is that what you believe? And is that what I'm supposed to believe too (even when I have the proof that indicates the Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP were correct--with that proof staring me in the face every day in the form of JFK's autopsy photos and X-rays)?
 
 
Nice strawman, David. I suspect you know full well that people with a "bias" don't need to lie. They SEE things a certain way, and it affects their judgement.
 
I mean, if you got into an altercation with a cop, and were put on trial, you wouldn't want the jury to be his fellow cops, would you?


#230 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,156 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 03:39 AM
My responses in black;
 
David Reitzes, on 30 Oct 2013 - 7:43 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:We're going in circles, Pat. Have you read anything I've posted?
 
Yep.
 
First, you are creating a false distinction: whichever set of experts you choose, both placed an entry wound on the rear of the head and an exit wound on the right front. Your lay interpretation is that they're ALL wrong about that. Pardon me for being skeptical.
 
WRONG. My conclusion based upon what experts have to say is that they are RIGHT. There is an entrance on the rear of the head. There is an exit wound on the right front. These wounds are not connected, however. So where do I get that from? From the very experts you're accusing me of ignoring! If you'd STUDIED the evidence as opposed to lapping up Lattimer and Bugliosi goop, you'd know that the Clark Panel and HSCA moved the entrance wound because they thought the damage to the brain inconsistent with a bullet's entering low on the head and exiting high on the head. So here you are now defending them, and defending that there was a wound high on the head, even though NOT ONE PERSON TO SEE KENNEDY"S HEAD WOUNDS SAW AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THIS LOCATION.
 
To prop up this hypothesis of yours, you go even further: you throw out all the experts and hypothesize that the entry wound is located somewhere in poor quality, published versions of photographs where NONE of the experts saw it in high quality, original copies. Pardon me for being skeptical.
You miss that the autopsy doctors and photographer claimed to see a wound in this location in both the November 1966 inventory, and the January 1967 report for the Justice Department. OOPS. Were they lying, Dave?


#231 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 03:43 AM
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Nice strawman, David. I suspect you know full well that people with a "bias" don't need to lie. They SEE things a certain way, and it affects their judgement.

Which is really just another way of saying -- I think those guys on the FPP didn't tell the whole truth about what they saw in President Kennedy's autopsy photos and X-rays.

IOW -- They were gilding the lily pretty good.

Right, Pat?
#232 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 03:57 AM
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:...the Clark Panel and HSCA moved the entrance wound because they thought the damage to the brain inconsistent with a bullet's entering low on the head and exiting high on the head.

But that is certainly not the MAIN reason the Clark boys and the FPP concluded that the entry wound was high on JFK's head. As anyone with one working eyeball can easily determine (except for John Canal perhaps), this autopsy photo will, for all time, provide the proof as to where the entry wound was located---it's HIGH on the head, in the cowlick area. Why is this even debatable? .....



And BOTH the HSCA and Clark Panel concluded that the X-ray of JFK's head ALSO shows an entry at just exactly the same position on the head--100mm. above the EOP. Although, granted, I cannot really see a definitive entry hole in the X-ray, but I'm not an "expert" at examining X-rays, nor am I a forensic pathologist. But the majority of the Clark members and all of the FPP members were pathologists and were "experts".

I guess that little extra conclusion about the holes in BOTH the red-spot photo and the X-ray perfectly overlaying each other was just a big mirage--or we've got a bunch of pathetic (i.e., incompetent) forensic pathologists looking at those autopsy materials, huh? Or, alternatively, we've got 17 lying forensic pathologists. I can't see any other options. Can you?



http://jfk-archives....010/06/boh.html



 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:So here you are now defending them, and defending that there was a wound high on the head, even though NOT ONE PERSON TO SEE KENNEDY"S HEAD WOUNDS SAW AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THIS LOCATION.

Sure they did. The above red-spot photo proves that the entry hole in Kennedy's head was located high on the head near the cowlick. So, quite obviously, that IS where ALL of the doctors and witnesses did see the wound---their memories notwithstanding.

Authenticated photos and X-rays trump the memories of witnesses every time. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Edited by David Von Pein, 31 October 2013 - 04:27 AM.
#233 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,156 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 06:15 AM
David Von Pein, on 30 Oct 2013 - 9:43 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Nice strawman, David. I suspect you know full well that people with a "bias" don't need to lie. They SEE things a certain way, and it affects their judgement.

Which is really just another way of saying -- I think those guys on the FPP didn't tell the whole truth about what they saw in President Kennedy's autopsy photos and X-rays.

IOW -- They were gilding the lily pretty good.

Right, Pat?
 
 
Wrong, David.


#234 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,156 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 06:24 AM
You're wrong on both counts, David.
 
First, the red mark near the cowlick was not the entrance wound noted by the autopsy doctors. It was in the wrong bone, and failed to match its description.
 

 
 
 
Second, those studying the x-rays have NOT uniformly claimed there was a bullet hole apparent in the cowlick, matching up with the red mark. Here, count for yourself.
 
February, 1968. Dr. Russell H. Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel notes in its report that "On one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 mm in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm on the internal surface can be sen in profile approximately 100 mm above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." This places the hole in a section of parietal bone that presumably fell to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors claimed to have seen a beveled entrance. Morgan also notes that "embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment" can be observed and that "on the antero-posterior film" this fragment "lies 25 mm to the right of midline." This suggests the fragment is in the depressed bone below the entrance. He then notes "This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter." As the ammunition found in the assassination rifle measured 6.5 mm, this suggests the fragment was a cross-section of the bullet. Morgan then offers that "Immediately adjacent to the hole on the internal surface of the skull, there is localized elevation of the soft tissues. Small fragments of bone lie within portions of these tissues and within the hole itself."

January, 1972. Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, becomes the first independent examiner of the autopsy photos and x-rays. He would later be asked to testify for the Rockefeller Commission. In his article on his examination, published in the May 1972 issue of Resident and Staff Physician, Lattimer presents his conclusions. These conclusions are not truly independent, however. In the article, he admits that a "top roentgenologist, Dr. Russell H. Morgan," had previously reviewed the x-rays, and had "issued a technical report about them, couched in proper medical terms." This is a reference to the report of the Clark Panel. Lattimer then adds "The author wishes to fully acknowledge this report by forensic experts." Throughout the article, moreover, Morgan's influence is obvious. In his depiction of Kennedy's wounds, Lattimer depicts a bullet entrance high on the back of the head and notes "The ovoid 'wound of entry' was fairly high up on the back of the skull, well above the hairline, where the skull was starting to curve forward, and about 10 cm above the occipital tuberosity... The bone at the lower margin of the hole was depressed slightly and the wound in the inner table was characteristically larger than the wound in the outer table (cone shaped), exactly as one would expect from a 'wound of entrance' into the back of the skull." He then asserts "A (6.5 mm diameter) fragment of the bullet had been shaved off by the sharp edge of the thick bone of the skull and was embedded in the margin of the wound of entrance." That Lattimer was simply regurgitating the Clark Panel's report is suggested, moreover, by the fact Lattimer changed his opinion late in life, and ended up believing the bullet entrance on the back of the head was low on the head, as proposed in the autopsy report.

August, 1972. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, becomes the first independent forensic pathologist to view the autopsy photos and x-rays. He would later testify for the Rockefeller Commission and function as a member of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. As reported by writer David Lifton, who accompanied Dr. Wecht to the Archives, Wecht can't find a bullet entrance on the back of the head on the x-rays. For his April 1974 article on his examination, however, Wecht appears to take a cue from Dr. Lattimer, and defers to Dr. Morgan. On Wecht's depiction of Kennedy's skull, as viewed from the side, he presents "a sizable fragment" on the back of the head "at the lower margin of the hole of presumed bullet entry." In the text he then claims that from viewing the autopsy photos and x-rays "one entry wound is definitely identifiable...high on the rear of the skull." That Dr. Wecht was not an expert on x-rays, and was simply deferring to Morgan, is supported, moreover, by the fact Wecht later co-wrote an article with Dr. David Mantik in which they claimed that the small fragment on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays was too small to be the large fragment on the A-P x-ray.

April, 1975. Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist closely associated with the Clark Panel's Dr. Fisher, and a member of both the Rockefeller Commission Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the autopsy materials. In his report, he notes "The missile which struck the right side of the President's head penetrated approximately 10 cm above the occipital protuberance and 2 1/2 cm to the right of the midline." These are the exact measurements offered by the Clark Panel. As a result, it seems more than likely Spitz was yet another deferring to Morgan's opinion regarding the wound location. Even so, it's interesting that in Spitz's 6 page report for the Rockefeller Commission he never mentions the large fragment apparent on the x-rays. Instead, he claims, weakly, that "Nothing in the evidence which I have viewed tends to conflict with my opinion that the two shots which struck the president could have come" from the sniper's nest.

April, 1975. Dr. Richard Lindenberg, a neuropathologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, and another close associate of Dr. Fisher's, views the autopsy materials. He appears to have been yet another to rely on Fisher's and Morgan's conclusions, and notes in his report that a "circumscribed defect in the posterior parietal bone which has the characteristic of an entrance hole" is apparent on the lateral x-ray. He then claims a bullet "hit the right side of the head of the president approximately 2.5 cm from the midline and 10 cm above the occipital protuberance." He notes further that the "bullet became somewhat deformed when it entered the skull and lead was squeezed out of its base. One larger fragment lies outside and next to the lower margin of the entrance wound." Apparently, he felt Lattimer's conclusion the fragment had been "shaved" from the bullet was inaccurate.

April, 1975. Dr. Fred Hodges, the sole radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, views the materials. He notes that, although a bullet entrance is not "readily detected," many "linear fracture lines converge" on the site of the "small round hole...described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone." He notes further that "one large metallic fragment is flattened against the outer table of the occiput." He concludes that "The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity." By concluding there was a bullet entrance in the location described in the autopsy report, Hodges rejects the conclusions of Dr. Morgan and the Clark Panel.

April, 1975. Dr. Robert McMeekin, a forensic pathologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, views the autopsy materials. He is quite vague about what he observes, however. He reports simply that "The evidence presented is consistent" with the fatal bullet's being fired from the sniper's nest. He then notes that from studying the Zapruder film, he concludes that "The motion of the President's head is inconsistent with the shot striking him from any direction other than the rear." Note that he fails to say the medical evidence says as much. Note that he fails to support the wound location and fragment location offered by the Clark Panel. From this it seems reasonable to assume McMeekin believed the Clark Panel and/or the original autopsists had made some mistakes, but didn't want to get in the middle of it. Intriguingly, the man running the Rockefeller Commission's investigation, former Warren Commission counsel David Belin, had presented the members of its medical panel with fourteen points that should be addressed in their reports. Not among them was the actual location of the entrance on Kennedy's skull. Not among them was the actual location of the large fragment on the A-P x-ray. Apparently, Belin had no interest in solving these mysteries.

April, 1975. Dr. Alfred Olivier, a veterinarian, and both a Warren Commission and Rockefeller Commission consultant on wound ballistics, is shown the autopsy materials. His report on his examination is also vague, and notes merely that "It appears that the President was struck by two separate bullets that came from behind, somewhat to the right and above." He offers no support for the entrance wound location offered by the original autopsists, nor the one offered by the Clark Panel. He never mentions the mysterious fragment readily identifiable on the A-P x-ray.

October, 1977. Dr, Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the autopsy materials. In his report on his examination he notes that the fatal bullet's entrance "appears to have been just below obelion and 18 mm to the right of midline." Obelion is a point on the posterior parietal bone along the sagittal suture for which Angel gives no measurements. Angel also notes a "radiopaque lump behind obelion with which cracks appears to mark entry." In other words, he, like Hodges, does not see an entrance on the back of the head, but assumes the presence of one due to the fragment and fractures on the back of the skull. By claiming the entrance was below obelion and that the fragment was behind obelion, moreover, Angel also suggests that the fragment was above the bullet entrance, the opposite of what was suggested by Morgan and the Clark Panel.

February, 1978. Dr. Norman Chase, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, is interviewed by an HSCA investigator. The memo on this interview asserts that while viewing the x-rays, Chase notes an "entry point" on "upper rear head." He reportedly claims further that a "large metal fragment" is "prominent" on the A-P x-ray, and that he "believes it corresponds to the metal fragment in the rear of the head as evidence on the lateral view." This suggests that he does not see an actual hole on the back of the head, and is even unsure if the the large metal fragment is on the back of the head.

February, 1978. Dr. William Seaman, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, is interviewed by an HSCA investigator. The memo on this interview asserts that while viewing the x-rays, Seaman notes a "possible defect" in the "upper rear skull," and that it "could be an entrance wound and could not be a missile exit wound," but can not detect "beveling of the skull at that point." This beveling was not only supposedly detected by Morgan and the Clark Panel, it was measured down to the millimeter, and cited as proof the wound was an entrance wound. And that's not all... Seaman was a colleague of Dr. Lattimer's at Columbia University, and had assisted Lattimer in some of his experiments regarding the Kennedy assassination. (This was acknowledged in the May 1972 issue of Resident and Staff Physician, in an article on Lattimer accompanying Lattimer's article on the Kennedy medical evidence.) It seems quite likely, then, that Seaman was not an entirely unbiased party, as one should expect, but one who knew full well he was supposed to find an entrance at the "upper rear skull." And yet he only found a "possible defect." In the short report on the investigator's discussion with Seaman, for that matter, the large fragment is never mentioned.

March, 1978. Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at Kennedy's autopsy, is finally released from a military order of silence handed down within days of the autopsy. A March 9, 1978 AP article (found in the Reading Eagle) on an interview with Ebersole reports that he now admits "I would say unequivocally the bullet came from the side or back...There is no way that I can see on the basis of the x-rays that the bullet came from anywhere in the 180-degree angle to the front, assuming Kennedy was facing forward. It looked to me like an almost right to left shot from the rear." When, during his March 11, 1978 testimony before the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, Ebersole is shown Kennedy's x-rays and asked if he can identify an entrance location for a bullet, moreover, Ebersole responds "In my opinion it would have come from the side on the basis of the films. I guess that is all that can be said about the films at this time... I would say on the basis of those x rays and x rays only one might say one would have to estimate there that the wound of entrance was somewhere to the side or to the posterior quadrant." By saying that the x-rays only showed that the bullet came from the side or behind, Ebersole was acknowledging that he was unable to note a bullet entrance on the back of the head in the x-rays.

August, 1978. Dr. G.M. McDonnel, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the enhanced images of the x-rays. He had previously viewed the originals. In his report on these examinations, he fails to note a bullet hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Instead, he notes a depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the EOP. He also notes a metallic fragment 1 cm below this fracture, on the outer table of the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP, that is "nearly spherical" on the enhanced A-P image. As he proceeds to describe this fragment as a "spherical shaped contoured metallic fragment" it seems clear he either had trouble finding it on the lateral view, and just named it in accordance with its appearance on the A-P view, or that he thought he saw a corresponding "spherical shaped" fragment on the back of the head in the lateral view. No one else, of course, has claimed to see such a thing.

August, 1978. Dr. David O. Davis, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the enhanced images of the x-rays. In his report on his examination, he fails to note a bullet hole on the back of the skull, but says radiating fractures "seem to more or less emanate from" an "imbedded metallic fragment" 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of the skull. He then notes that "On the frontal view, this metallic fragment is located 2.5 cm to the right of midline, and on the lateral view, it is approximately 3-4 cm above the lambda." As he later says the central point of the skull fractures is 3 cm from midline, this means that, in Davis' analysis, the large bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance.

1979. The Report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel does not note an entrance hole apparent on the x-rays, but notes a depressed fracture as a “sharp disruption of the normal smooth contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which places it higher than in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). The report also mentions “suggested beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. In its section on the course of the bullet through the head, moreover, it notes that "embedded within the lower margin of this defect is a radiopaque shadow which, in the opinion of the panel, is a fragment of the missile. This shadow is 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance and 2.5 cm to the right of the midline" in the A-P x-ray. (If one is to assume they shared the trajectory panel's belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line, this means the Pathology Panel felt the bullet fragment ended up to the right and below the bullet's entrance.) The report then notes that "one surface of this fragment...is round. The maximum diameter of the fragment measures .65 centimeter." This last measurement was not provided by any of the panel's radiology consultants, nor was it mentioned in the testimony of the panel's spokesman, Dr. Michael Baden, before the committee. As a result, one can only assume it was added into the report at the last second, and was taken from the findings of Dr. Morgan and the Clark Panel.

1979. The Report of the HSCA Trajectory Panel claims the entrance high on the back of Kennedy's head was 1.8 cm to the right of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. This places the entrance 1 cm below the depressed fracture observed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and on intact bone. This also contradicts the conclusions of the Clark Panel.

January, 1996. Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the AARB. The report on this interview claims that "No entry wound could be located anywhere on the A-P x-ray" by Ubelaker. It notes further that he "could not locate any entry wound to the head on the lateral x-rays," and that he noted a large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray, but "could not find this object anywhere on the lateral x-rays of the head."

February, 1996. Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the ARRB. The report on this interview claims that "No entry wound was seen on the A-P x-ray" by Fitzpatrick. It notes further that he also claims "No entry wound can be found on the lateral head x-rays." It also reports that Fitzpatrick admits he's "puzzled by the fact that the large radio-opaque object in the A-P skull x-ray could not be located on the lateral skull x-rays."

April, 1996. Dr. Robert Kirschner, a forensic pathologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the ARRB. The report on this interview notes that "No entrance wound could be located on either the two lateral x-rays, or the single-A-P x-rays..." by Kirschner. It then claims that he wonders if the supposed large fragment embedded on the back of the head was instead "a plug of bone forced forward into the skull by an entering bullet." This confirms that Kirschner saw no sign of this fragment or plug on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays.


#235 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 06:25 AM
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Wrong, David.

Good. Then even if each of the FPP members had a close association to the "secret panel" known as the Clark Panel, such an association played no part whatsoever in the conclusions they reached regarding President Kennedy's wounds.

Thanks, Pat. It's good to have that straightened out.


Last edited by Tom Scully on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 6:00 pm

#236 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 06:28 AM
The pathologists who studied the photos for the HSCA were unanimous.....

"We, as the panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin.

"And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact.

"If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. ....

"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head."
-- DR. MICHAEL BADEN
#237 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:35 AM
Pat,

Thanks for posting the various quotes from the doctors and radiology consultants.

We can argue all day long about exactly where on JFK's head the 6.5 mm. "object" was located (was it 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline? Or was it--maybe--only 1 cm. to the right of the midline?, etc.).

And we can argue all year long about the exact location of the bullet hole on the back of JFK's head (was it near the EOP? Or was it much higher, 100 mm. above the EOP?).

But from the various reports you provided above, Pat, one thing becomes pretty clear (even in the interview with John Ebersole), and that is:

President Kennedy was shot in the head by one bullet that came FROM BEHIND.

And surely you, Pat Speer, are not suggesting that the doctors who said they could not see ANY bullet hole of entry in the X-rays are (or were) of the opinion that President Kennedy was NOT shot in the back of the head from behind....are you Pat? Because those same people who couldn't positively identify a specific "hole" in the X-rays ALSO surely examined the autopsy photographs too, right? And it couldn't be any clearer as to where the entry wound in the head is located in that red-spot picture. (Pat Speer's own analysis and F-8 charts notwithstanding.)

Bottom Line----

ALL of the reports cited by Patrick J. Speer above support the conclusion that JFK was struck ONLY by bullets that came from BEHIND the President's vehicle on November 22, 1963.

In fact, for any "expert" to look at the autopsy photographs and X-rays in their totality and to conclude anything OTHER than the President being struck from behind by two and only two bullets would be, in my opinion, for that "expert" to have completely taken leave of his senses (and his common sense--and eyesight).

http://jfk-archives....JFK-Head-Wounds
Edited by David Von Pein, 31 October 2013 - 07:41 AM.
#238 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,156 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:42 AM
David Von Pein, on 31 Oct 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Wrong, David.

Good. Then even if each of the FPP members had a close association to the "secret panel" known as the Clark Panel, such an association played no part whatsoever in the conclusions they reached regarding President Kennedy's wounds.

Thanks, Pat. It's good to have that straightened out.
 
 
Geez, what nonsense. You apparently have no notion of what "bias" is. If I hired 8 conspiracy theorists to review Bugliosi's book, do you think they would deliberately LIE about his book? Or would they simply write reviews that reflected their bias?
 
Dr. Michaal Baden, in lining the panel with Fisher devotees and Dallas doctors, hired what was the equivalent of 8 conspiracy theorists to review the autopsy performed by Dr. Humes.


#239 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:53 AM
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Dr. Michaal Baden, in lining the panel with Fisher devotees and Dallas doctors, hired what was the equivalent of 8 conspiracy theorists to review the autopsy performed by Dr. Humes.

That's your opinion.

And your opinion, furthermore, would seem to indicate that the NINE different FPP members were going to back up the Clark Panel's conclusions at all costs, no matter WHAT they might have seen differently in the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Right, Pat?

IOW -- It was predestined, before even one of the nine FPP members ever examined the photos & X-rays, that they were ALL going to come to the unanimous decision that Fisher's panel was 100% right about everything. Is that it, Pat?

In a word -- Hogwash.

Plus -- I would imagine that in seeking out the best and most qualified "forensic pathologists" in America, it probably would have been a tad difficult for Baden to gather too many physicians in that particular field who DIDN'T have at least some marginal "association" or contact with the man considered by many people to be the leading forensic pathologist in the country (or the world?) -- Dr. Russell S. Fisher. (Even though the Clark and HSCA panels did exist ten years apart.)

I'm not suggesting that all nine FPP members rubbed shoulders every day with Dr. Fisher, or that Fisher was buddy-buddy with each FPP doctor. But in the "forensic pathology" community of the 1960s and 1970s, I've heard that Dr. Fisher was a pretty big name. And Dr. Baden did want to get the best in the business. Right? So, do the math.

BTW, come to think of it, why wasn't Dr. Fisher himself put on the HSCA's FPP? He was stilll alive when the HSCA's probe was going on. Fisher died in May of 1984 (at age 67).
Edited by David Von Pein, 31 October 2013 - 08:05 AM.
#240 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,156 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:56 AM
David Von Pein, on 31 Oct 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote:The pathologists who studied the photos for the HSCA were unanimous.....

"We, as the panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin.

"And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact.

"If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. ....

"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head."
-- DR. MICHAEL BADEN
 
 
Dr. Baden was either incompetent when it comes to the Kennedy assassination or a disgusting liar. I prove this in spades all over my webpage.
 
Here are but two examples:
 
He testified with his exhibit upside down and told the House Select Committee the top of Kennedy's head was intact, and the side blown off.
 

 
He ultimately concluded that the Harper fragment came from low on the side of Kennedy's head, in the parietal area, when it was far too big to fit in this location.
 


Edited by Pat Speer, 31 October 2013 - 07:59 AM.


Last edited by Tom Scully on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 6:01 pm

Reserved for post #'s 241 thru 255

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 6:07 pm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r8doEKbTuzkJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D18+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


#256 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 01 November 2013 - 06:12 AM
Patrick J. Speer said
Patrick J. Speer wrote:The red mark was not a bullet entrance.

Pat,

Why is there a ruler being placed very near the red spot in this picture (a spot that you say isn't a bullet hole at all)?

Did they want some "scale" in the picture just to measure a drop of blood on JFK's head here?


Edited by David Von Pein, 01 November 2013 - 06:21 AM.
#257 Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators

  • 5,137 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2013 - 06:58 AM
David Von Pein, on 31 Oct 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Pat Speer said
Pat Speer wrote:Not a single person who ever saw the body saw an entrance wound in the cowlick. Not one.

Sure they did. The [url=http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS JFK-RELATED PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg]autopsy photo[/url] that I've posted a thousand times PROVES they saw an entry wound in the cowlick, regardless of where they THOUGHT it was located....because there's only one bullet hole of entry in the head and it's in the cowlick. And the authenticated autopsy photo proves it.

Why should I just ignore what I would consider to be the BEST evidence of the wound location, Pat?

Yes, the discrepancy between the witnesses and the autopsy pictures is disturbing and a huge head-scratcher--I admit that. But when we've got PHOTOGRAPHS showing us one thing (authentic photos of JFK after death, keep in mind) and the autopsy doctors and report saying something else (with that autopsy report certainly not being clear-cut as to the precise entry-wound location, given the "slightly above" language)....then which of these competing forces should be declared the victor?

Given the fact we've got pictures of where the wound was located -- the answer is pretty clear, IMO.

BTW, if John Canal's theory about "scalp stretching" or "scalp undermining" is correct, we would have had Dr. Humes tell us so -- don't you think?

In fact, it's a virtual certainty that Dr. James Humes would have said something like this to both the HSCA and ARRB if John Canal's cockeyed theory were correct -- if for no other reason, so that Dr. Humes could rescue his credibility and reputation after having so many people say he made a huge 4-inch mistake concerning the location of a critical wound on JFK's body:

Gentlemen of the [HSCA / ARRB] panels, I can easily explain why there is a 4-inch discrepancy between our 1963 observations of the entrance wound in President Kennedy's head compared to what we are looking at in these autopsy photographs, and the explanation is this --- During the process of preparing President Kennedy's body for a possible open-casket funeral, the scalp of the President was undermined--or stretched--to cover the large wound on the front and right side of his head. After this stretching of the scalp, we then had a picture taken of the back of the President's head. And in this picture, the entry wound appears to be much higher on the head than it actually was prior to the stretching procedure. Therefore, there's a four-inch discrepancy.

[Simulated Humes Quote Off.]

Of course, there's still a big problem for John Canal's theory (even if some stretching of the scalp HAD been done), and that is the fact that the bullet hole (regardless of where it STARTED OUT on JFK's head) is still somehow penetrating the area of the head known as the "cowlick" area.

Therefore, if Canal's therory is correct, I guess we have to believe that the bullet hole, which was really located much lower and near the EOP, managed to MERGE with the cowlick area of JFK's head. A remarkable feat indeed.

I mentioned the above fact to Mr. Canal several times in our discussions in the past, and I don't seem to recall receiving any kind of a satisfactory answer from John that would help explain the amazing "EOP Wound Which Merges With The Cowlick" piece of magic.

~shrug~
 
 
So you're promoting your "lay" interpretation of the medical evidence, David, over the interpretations of men like Humes, Boswell, Finck, Ebersole, Stringer, Hodges, Davis, Lattimer, Sturdivan, Zimmerman, Ubelaker, and Fitzpatrick--all of whom saw this same red spot, and came away unconvinced it showed a bullet hole?
 
What say you about this claim, Mr. Reitzes?
 
Does your article deal with the over-zealous claims of LNs, as well as CTs?

Edited by Pat Speer, 01 November 2013 - 07:00 AM.
#258 David Von Pein

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,393 posts


  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 01 November 2013 - 08:16 AM
Care to answer my question that I asked in Post #256, Pat?

I'm interested to know what YOU think the ruler was supposed to be measuring. Just a blood spot?
Edited by David Von Pein, 01 November 2013 - 08:17 AM.
#259 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,129 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 01:39 PM
David Von Pein, on 01 Nov 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:
David Von Pein wrote: 
Patrick J. Speer said
Patrick J. Speer wrote:The red mark was not a bullet entrance.

Pat,

Why is there a ruler being placed very near the red spot in this picture (a spot that you say isn't a bullet hole at all)?

Did they want some "scale" in the picture just to measure a drop of blood on JFK's head here?


 
 
is it any wonder why you've been relegated to JV status (aka: 'B" league ball)?


#260 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:09 AM
David Reitzes, on 31 Oct 2013 - 9:46 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
It sure would be useful for just one conspiracy-oriented researcher -- just one -- to offer some reasonable, constructive criticism of my SKEPTIC article.
 
Cliff Varnell says that's utterly impossible. Bill Kelly says I squandered a great opportunity. Robert Prudhomme says, "LOL!! Pull the other one, Dave, it plays Jingle Bells!" David Healy says, "[CENSORED], [CENSORED], ya [CENSORED] lone-nut piece'a [CENSORED], WCR, [CENSORED], Z FILM...ALTERED! FIRE...BAD!!"
 
Do these researchers speak for everyone here?
 
Dave
 
Certain former members of this forum have been having online conniptions for some time because I'm allowed to post here without fear of repercussions now that all the "good researchers" have left.
 
I gather that at least some of these stellar scholars could return if they wanted to, however...
 
Dave


#261 William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 9,092 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:54 AM
Yea, it's a shame Dave, that the JFK Assassination Debate at the Education Forum has been relegated from the state-of-the-art of the latest research to a silly debate between DVP/Dave Reitzes and conspiracy theorists, but that's what you brought on. 
 
You want to debate and argue when the best researchers are still discovering new information and new witnesses, while you are all tied up in knots and seem to be trying to tie up everyone else too. 
 
Why don't you just give it a break and let others get back to asking and answering questions for awhile. 
 
As for your Skeptic article, not only did you squander an opportunity to do something meaningful, you just rehashed all the BS that nobody  is interested in anymore, and are far removed from any of the latest research. 
 
And you ask for the typical Ed Forum member to offer their opinion on your silly article after you crap all over the board? 
 
At least I took the time to read it, something most forum members aren't likely to do. 


#262 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:28 PM


 
David Reitzes, on 31 Oct 2013 - 9:46 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 

Cliff Varnell says that's utterly impossible.
 

 
 
 
Your article has a drawing of JFK's jacket 3-4" higher than normal. 
 
You choose not to post this drawing because it would reveal the deceptive nature of your article.
 
We spend as much time having fun at your expense as necessary, Dave.
 
Post the drawing published on page 46 of SkepMag and we'll have some more fun at your expense...
 

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 08 November 2013 - 04:29 PM.
#263 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,129 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 05:18 PM
William Kelly, on 07 Nov 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:...
 
And you ask for the typical Ed Forum member to offer their opinion on your silly article after you crap all over the board? 
 
At least I took the time to read it, something most forum members aren't likely to do. 
Nor are they likely too!
 
Hauling Dave out of nutter retirement was a bad move, Understandable, but meaningless. Getting beat over the head with case evidence day after day after day has taken its toll on the nutter contingent--for years now. NOW it's distract and divert. It's all the nutters have.
 
Defending the 1964 Warren Commission Report is a lone nut exercise in futility. As most recently displayed by the Mark Lane Rush to Judgement threads (some 383 threads and counting as of today). the continuing series of threads are located at  alt.conspiracy.jfk. Not to mention what is posted here daily.
 
The best latter day nutters can do regarding the ACJ Lane threads is: "Mark Lane is a liar." That's it, their entire argument debating case evidence. It's no wonder they drag a Reitzes type out of retirement and its no surprise he's here. Here, where nutters with some knowledge, no matter how skewed, may gain an ounce of credibility. But, as the song goes...
 
No banana today Dave, sorry!

Edited by David G. Healy, 08 November 2013 - 05:24 PM.
#264 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2013 - 01:30 AM
David Reitzes, on 23 Oct 2013 - 3:03 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
Cliff has resumed his criticism of my article in a thread entitled, "JFK Hit With Paralysising [sic] 'Ice' Bullet." Here is my response:
 
 
Cliff Varnell, on 23 Oct 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote: 
David Reitzes, on 23 Oct 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:
David Reitzes wrote:You're someone who frequently boasts.  You are someone who infrequently cites evidence.
 
Was my response to your "who are you" question a boast?
 
Indeed it was. 
 
"I'm someone who understands both sides of the argument," sez Reitzes.
 
That's all you do, tout your divine conversion.  As if someone gives a tinker's damn.
 
You can't argue your positions with facts, Dave.  You just like to pretend your biography performs the same function.
 
 
 
From what I've seen, many people around here seem to view my "conversion" from CT to LN with derision. From my perspective, it was quite a learning experience.
 
Big deal.  It doesn't take the place of little things like facts, tho you've convinced yourself it does, clearly.
 
As for a lack of evidence in my writings, to which articles of mine do you refer? I'm pretty conscientious about supporting everything I write with credible evidence, and often link to primary sources so readers can verify what I say.
 
I've pointed out the problems with your Skeptic article, such as your egregious misrepresentation of the clothing evidence, the fallacious SBT re-enactments you cite, the fallacious conclusions you draw concerning the HSCA analysis of the autopsy photos...do we need to go on any more?
 
You have demonstrated a great disregard for facts, David.
 
 
All right, Cliff, even though you and I have been through much of this before, I will try to explain why I feel your concerns are not relevant to the article I wrote.
 
First of all, I don't say a word about the clothing in my article, Cliff.
 
Your complaint seems to be that I elected to include an illustration based on Dale Myers' highly accurate, peer-reviewed 3D computer model, giving the reader an idea of what the SBT trajectory looked like.
 
Here's why your complaint is irrelevant. Nothing in my article states that the SBT had to happen precisely as Myers depicted it, or that it even had to happen at the precise point in time (circa Z223) that Myers, FAA, and others locate it (although I agree that Z223 is the time most strongly supported by the evidence). I also cited the HSCA study, which placed the shot circa Z190. Other commentators, such as Vincent Bugliosi, have expressed doubts about the Z223 timing; Bugliosi places it closer to Z210. Since JFK was out of view of Zapruder's camera, and since our ability to discern the precise moment of a bullet strike from a motion picture is limited to begin with, there will always be room for doubt about the precise timing of the shot.
 
The precise timing doesn't matter. For one thing, the SBT trajectory has been shown to be plausible in each of the hypothesized scenarios. More importantly, if Abraham Zapruder had left his camera home that day and we had no Z film to work from, the evidence would lead us to the SBT for two simple reasons:
 
1. The ovoid shape of the entry wound on Gov. Connally's back, indicating that it was yawing from an impact with another object in between the rifle and Gov. Connally. (I hesitate to call the body of John F. Kennedy an object, but if I refer to a body in between the rifle and JBC, you would no doubt accuse me of using misleading language.); and
 
2. The existence of just a single bullet to explain the non-fatal wounds inflicted upon JFK (the entry wound, the bruising noted internally, and the exit wound) and the wounds inflicted upon Gov. Connally, since there is no bullet other than CE 399 that can be linked to these events. My article endorses a scenario that takes all the extant evidence into account, as further validated with experimental data (see the URL cited below). You have proposed an alternative scenario (in the thread "JFK Hit With Paralysising [sic] 'Ice' Bullet"). I am satisfied to let readers decide who has logic on his side.
 
You complain that I fail to cite evidence for my conclusions. I stand by the sources I cite in my article, and I encourage readers to consult those sources for themselves. Many sources are referenced in my website's discussion of the SBT (part of my critique of Oliver Stone's "JFK"), and there are numerous links to further resources:
 
http://www.jfk-onlin...jfk100sbth.html
 
I don't even state in my article that the SBT is necessary to the LN position. You and I have discussed this issue before. I endorse the SBT because I think all the evidence points to it, not because it's necessary to any particular hypothesis. If you insist it's impossible, I'll be glad to stipulate that it's not required. For example, some on both the LN and CT sides have suggested that JFK was hit circa Z190, while many have argued that Connally was struck circa Z235 or so. That doesn't sound outlandish to me, and Oswald could have easily fired both shots. The evidence for such a scenario seems weak in comparison to the Z223 scenario (see the URL above), but it's possible. It would leave a couple of lingering questions about the shape of the entrance wound on Connally's back and where the bullet that struck JFK went, but these questions don't seem to bother an expert as distinguished as Cyril Wecht (see Bugliosi's discussion of Wecht's views, for example).
 
You complain about errors in the recreations I cite. All experiments have the potential for errors, of course. If you believe errors in these recreations fundamentally invalidate their conclusions, feel free to prove it. You could even get together with other researchers and commission your own recreation of the shooting, making sure that it is 100% accurate in every last detail.
 
In the meantime, it seems to me that you are missing the point: that every reasonably scientific attempt to recreate the shooting has concluded that the SBT is plausible. No such experiment can prove what actually happened, of course, but we can use the results to gauge the plausibility and probability of the proposition (say that three times fast). Readers are encouraged to consult the studies in question and draw their own conclusions.
 
You also complain that I consider the extant photographs of the back to be the best evidence of the location of the bullet entry wound. Of course, I noted in my article that some CTs challenge the authenticity of the evidence, and one of the main points of my article is to explain why I consider such an approach to be illogical. You avoid such arguments and thereby ignore the whole thrust of my article. I propose that you can't see the forest for the trees. 
 
You specifically cite Vincent Salandria's warning about the trap of microanalysis in the signature of every message you post, Cliff. Let me quote it again for anyone who's missed it:
 
"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy.We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..." (emphasis added)
Vincent Salandria, as quoted by Gaeton Fonzi in The Last Investigation
 
Would you disavow Salandria's words if they suddenly didn't apply to a conspiracy anymore? What if the Warren Commission critics "spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination" when logic should have dictated that the WC's conclusion was the most plausible one? 
 
My article argues that this is the case. It would be productive if someone who disagrees would address my actual arguments, instead of attempting to hijack the discussion to particular talking points that even prominent conspiracy-oriented members of the JFK research community consider inconclusive at best.
 
Back to your argument about the autopsy photograph of the entry wound. You have called it inauthentic in another thread, but you declined to say so in your criticisms of my article. Why? Because you're aware that if you call it inauthentic, it would then be incumbent upon you to prove it. And when you believe something you can't prove, you should be hesitant to call it a fact.
 
Finally, leaving my article aside for a moment to address your off-topic concern: If you believe that the wound in the autopsy photograph is inconsistent with the hole in the shirt that you consider to be the best evidence, it's incumbent upon you to prove that. The positioning of JFK's body in the photograph makes it difficult to say if the wound corresponds precisely with the location of the hole in the shirt, but the consensus among forensic experts (cf. Clark Panel, HSCA) and many JFK researchers is that the locations of the wound in the photo and the hole in the shirt are consistent with one another.
 
John Hunt, an ardent proponent of the theory that Oswald was framed for JFK's assassination (and who finds much to criticize about the HSCA's conclusions), found copious evidence to suggest that bunching of the jacket occurred at the time of the shooting, which is highly relevant to your belief that the autopsy photo and the shirt are contradictory, since (as Hunt points out) the holes in the jacket and shirt are consistent with one another:
 
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm
 
When even ardent conspiracy proponents like Hunt, Bill Kelly, and Pat Speer endeavor to convince you that your argument is either incorrect or is simply not as important as you think it is, you might consider listening.
 
If for no other reason than as an intellectual exercise, Cliff, why don't you see if you can put aside your focus on the clothing, and reread my article with an eye to understanding the point I am trying to make. Feel free to criticize my argument as much as you like, but if you could show me that you genuinely understand it, it's possible that you and I both could learn something.
 
Dave
 
 
While I do not contend that the SBT is essential for a finding of no conspiracy, there is some dramatic new evidence supporting the previous experimental data referenced in my SKEPTIC article. It is discussed here, along with some comments of mine about the clothing issue:
 
http://educationforu...showtopic=20661
 
Dave


#265 Stephen Roy

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 658 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 02:12 AM
David G. Healy, on 08 Nov 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:
David G. Healy wrote: 
William Kelly, on 07 Nov 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:...
 
And you ask for the typical Ed Forum member to offer their opinion on your silly article after you crap all over the board? 
 
At least I took the time to read it, something most forum members aren't likely to do. 
Nor are they likely too!
 
Hauling Dave out of nutter retirement was a bad move, Understandable, but meaningless. Getting beat over the head with case evidence day after day after day has taken its toll on the nutter contingent--for years now. NOW it's distract and divert. It's all the nutters have.
 
Defending the 1964 Warren Commission Report is a lone nut exercise in futility. As most recently displayed by the Mark Lane Rush to Judgement threads (some 383 threads and counting as of today). the continuing series of threads are located at  alt.conspiracy.jfk. Not to mention what is posted here daily.
 
The best latter day nutters can do regarding the ACJ Lane threads is: "Mark Lane is a liar." That's it, their entire argument debating case evidence. It's no wonder they drag a Reitzes type out of retirement and its no surprise he's here. Here, where nutters with some knowledge, no matter how skewed, may gain an ounce of credibility. But, as the song goes...
 
No banana today Dave, sorry!
 
David:
Is that all you do, post snarky comments about other people? Have you posted any research in recent years?


#266 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:03 AM
My comments in blue:
 
Stephen Roy, on 15 Nov 2013 - 8:12 PM, said:
Stephen Roy wrote: 
David G. Healy, on 08 Nov 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:
David G. Healy wrote: 
William Kelly, on 07 Nov 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:
William Kelly wrote:...
 
And you ask for the typical Ed Forum member to offer their opinion on your silly article after you crap all over the board? 
 
At least I took the time to read it, something most forum members aren't likely to do. 
 
Nor are they likely too!
 
 
Had longtime students of the JFK assassination been my target audience, it would indeed be disappointing to see so little interest in my conclusions here. Of course, were my arguments faulty, such scholars would obviously be in a better position to prove it than the average reader of a science-based periodical.
 
 
Hauling Dave out of nutter retirement was a bad move, Understandable, but meaningless. Getting beat over the head with case evidence day after day after day has taken its toll on the nutter contingent--for years now. NOW it's distract and divert. It's all the nutters have.
 
Defending the 1964 Warren Commission Report is a lone nut exercise in futility. As most recently displayed by the Mark Lane Rush to Judgement threads (some 383 threads and counting as of today). the continuing series of threads are located at  alt.conspiracy.jfk. Not to mention what is posted here daily.
 
The best latter day nutters can do regarding the ACJ Lane threads is: "Mark Lane is a liar." That's it, their entire argument debating case evidence. It's no wonder they drag a Reitzes type out of retirement and its no surprise he's here. Here, where nutters with some knowledge, no matter how skewed, may gain an ounce of credibility. But, as the song goes...
 
No banana today Dave, sorry!
 
David:
Is that all you do, post snarky comments about other people? Have you posted any research in recent years?
 
 
Why bother? What could he possibly tell us that the eminent scholars at alt.conspiracy.jfk haven't already said?
 
Dave


#267 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 11:25 AM

 
Quote
While I do not contend that the SBT is essential for a finding of no conspiracy,
 
 
 
Dave, where do you "not contend" the validity of the SBT?
 
The validity of the SBT is the subtext of your entire SkepMag article.
 
People should note that you never actively argue anything for the SBT -- you always refer to the faux presentations of others.
 
For instance, you cannot give a fact based defense for conclusions such as the one advanced by Chad Zimmerman on the Discovery Channel Beyond the Magic Bullet show, even though you cite the accuracy of that fraudulent presentation.
 
Chad Zimmerman offered me 10 grand if I could prove his Kennedy stand-in was a proper Kennedy stand-in!
 
As it was, his stand-in demolished his defense of the SBT!
 
Your intellectual passivity on this matter is striking, David Reitzes.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 17 November 2013 - 11:28 AM.
#268 Blair Dobson

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 385 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2013 - 12:22 PM
Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 01:39 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:
 
Respected by those for whom I can barely conceal my contempt?
 
In 1980 I christened and helped launch a musical subgenre -- hardcore punk rock.
 
I've made my mark on society.  I don't need what you call "recognition."
 
 
sorry to thread jack, but  sadly, that is untrue.
 
1) the term "hardcore" appeared in a Canadian fanzine well before you "christened" it. If your pedigree is what you say it is, ask Keithley or Biafra . I know exactly who coined the term and I know Biafra would probably eat you alive for making such a claim.
 
2) you didn't help launch any musical subgenre at any time or at any place least of all "hardcore punk rock" which started in Vancouver.
 
3) the "i don't need what you call recognition" negates your previous preposterous and erroneous claim.
 
threadjack over...

Edited by Blair Dobson, 17 November 2013 - 12:23 PM.
#269 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 01:29 PM
Blair -- thank you for bringing this up!  I cannot tell you what this means to me!
 
Blair Dobson, on 17 Nov 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:
Blair Dobson wrote: 
Cliff Varnell, on 19 Sept 2013 - 01:39 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:
 
Respected by those for whom I can barely conceal my contempt?
 
In 1980 I christened and helped launch a musical subgenre -- hardcore punk rock.
 
I've made my mark on society.  I don't need what you call "recognition."
 
 
sorry to thread jack, but  sadly, that is untrue.
 
1) the term "hardcore" appeared in a Canadian fanzine well before you "christened" it. If your pedigree is what you say it is, ask Keithley or Biafra .
 
I did. 
 
When Joe Keithley brought D.O.A. down to California for his 2013 "Farewell Tour," before he stood for election in Coquitlam, I discussed this with both Joe and Jello Biafra (Dead Kennedys lead singer) in the parking lot of the Phoenix Theater in Petaluma.
 
Conversation went like this:
 
Me: "Joe, I've been going on-line and giving you credit for coming up with the term 'hardcore punk rock.'"
 
Joe:  "No, that was a journalist who wrote that up in an article -- about bands like us, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat.  So we went to our manager at the time and suggested we call our festival 'Hardcore '81.'"
 
Me:  "No, Joe...No, do you remember giving an interview with CREEP magazine back in 1979?"
 
Joe:  "Yeah."
 
Me:  "Do you remember saying, 'D.O.A. is one of only a half-dozen hardcore punk bands in North America.'"?
 
Joe:  "No, I remember the interview but I don't remember saying it."
 
Me:  "Well we sure as hell did!"  (By "we" I refer to the original 7 Seconds.)
 
I then told Joe that a week after Tom Borghino and I formed the original 7 Seconds in January of 1980 I was kicking back at Tom's house when I read that D.O.A. article in CREEP, a San Francisco fanzine.
 
Background found here:
 
http://originalsevenseconds.com/
 
Kevin Seconds and I talked about it and we liked the term so much we started calling 7 Seconds "hardcore new wave"  until we found out that "new wave" was considered un-cool.
 
In May of 1980 I penned an article about the punk rock scene in Reno -- "Reno Breaking Out" -- for CREEP magazine under the pen-name "N. Wine" wherein I wrote:
 
"7 Seconds are hardcore punk rockers, thank you."
 
This pre-dates by many months the article to which you refer, Blair. 
 
Minor Threat didn't form until November of 1980, and 7 Seconds had already performed "Hardcore Rules" at one of the seminal hardcore punk shows at the FAB MAB in Oct. 1980 (D.O.A., Minutemen, Feederz, 7 Seconds).
 
I know exactly who coined the term and I know Biafra would probably eat you alive for making such a claim.
 
Here's exactly what Biafra and Keithley told me:
 
"Cliff, ten years ago you could have done something with this.  Now, no one gives a shit."
 
Joe said it, and Jello sadly nodded in agreement.
 
I like the way it's working out now way better, personally. 
 
For almost 3 decades the origin of the phrase "hardcore punk rock" was kept as a "deep event" by yours truly, partly by design and partly by luck.
 
2) you didn't help launch any musical subgenre at any time or at any place least of all "hardcore punk rock" which started in Vancouver.
 
 
Blair, you're unfamiliar with the history and impact of Black Flag and the original 7 Seconds. 
 
As a musical style & DIY business model HC punk started in the South Bay of Los Angeles County CA in 1976. 
 
Band called Panic, later changed their name to Black Flag. 
 
The first reference to the short-faster-louder DIY style of music being played by bands like Black Flag and D.O.A. -- "hardcore punk rock" -- was from D.O.A. lead singerJoey Shithead (Joe Keithley).
 
And Joe doesn't remember coining the phrase!
 
&So, the first band to self-describe as "hardcore punk rock" -- as a distinct musical sub-genre -- was the original
7 Seconds, mightily inspired by Vancouver.
 
The first journalist to use the expression "hardcore punk rocker" was me, writing as "N. Wine."
 
I knew I was the first when I did it.   Cocky bastid, I was.  That's what the "thank you" was for.
 
 
 
3) the "i don't need what you call recognition" negates your previous preposterous and erroneous claim.
 
threadjack over...
 
Added on edit:  correction on LA county location of the South Bay.

Edited by Cliff Varnell, 10 December 2013 - 10:09 PM.
#270 Blair Dobson

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 385 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2013 - 02:21 PM
lets pick this up in a pm.
 
thread jack over

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bSLR0xjfmTgJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D20430%26page%3D19+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


#271 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 08:19 PM
Blair Dobson, on 17 Nov 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:
Blair Dobson wrote:lets pick this up in a pm.
 
thread jack over
 
It's a Reitzes thread...so...you know...
 
The only thing I'd add at this point is underline the importance of Kevin Seconds' friendship with Ian MacKaye of Minor Threat, formed by the spring of 1981 (after I was out of the band's management).
 
Between the two of them the "hardcore punk/straight edge" movement was launched.
 
Straight edge?  No, I wasn't part of that...
 
'Nuf said.


#272 Cliff Varnell

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 2,776 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:04 PM
Back on topic!
 
This one's for the editorial staff at SkepMag, according to all internet tradition:
 
Shorter David Reitzes:
 
"The SBT works no matter what.  Even if it doesn't -- Oswald acted alone no matter what!"
 
He means it, maaaan...
 
 
 
 
personal note:  emphasis added:
Cliff Varnell, on 17 Nov 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:
Cliff Varnell wrote:

 
I like the way it's working out now way better, personally. 
 
For almost 3 decades the origin of the phrase "hardcore punk rock" was kept as a "deep event" by yours truly, partly by design and partly by luck.
Inspired mightily by V. Vale...


#273 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2013 - 12:47 AM
I did an interview today with KOA 850 AM in Colorado. This is a podcast of the first half of the segment, and there is a link to the second half:
 
http://www.850koa.co...288381481237582
 
Dave


#274 David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members

  • 3,131 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 01:46 AM
David Reitzes, on 21 Nov 2013 - 6:47 PM, said:
David Reitzes wrote: 
I did an interview today with KOA 850 AM in Colorado. This is a podcast of the first half of the segment, and there is a link to the second half:
 
http://www.850koa.co...288381481237582
 
Dave
 
so how much of the interview was devoted to that ever deteriorating Warren Commission SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome Report?


#275 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2013 - 08:44 PM
My SKEPTIC article, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters," is now available online for your reading pleasure:
 
http://www.skeptic.c...why-it-matters/


#276 David Reitzes

    Advanced Member

  • Members

  • 245 posts


  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2013 - 08:45 PM
For anyone who may be interested, Rob Breakenridge in Calvary had me back on his show on the anniversary:
 
https://soundcloud.c...idge-show-nov22


(Mercifully, this thread finally ends here. This is the only forum I have access to that permits cut and paste of full content of other web pages. - Tom Scully)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by James DiEugenio on Fri 03 Jan 2014, 5:31 am

Why is this so important?

A discussion of the lying Dave Reitzes work for the lying Skeptic magazine and the lying  Mike Shermer?

BTW, did Reitzes actually get the last word in?

James DiEugenio

Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Guest on Fri 03 Jan 2014, 9:22 pm

Reitzes seems to have gotten the last word in. Cliff claimed the thread was so important because:


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&page=1
Cliff Varnell
Posted 28 December 2013
........
That thread contains the only capsule history of the origin of hardcore punk rock.

V. Vale (paraphrased):  "If an event isn't recorded in a print/audio/visual medium it didn't happen."

I kept the entire story -- the origin history of hardcore punk rock -- to myself for almost 34 years until I wrote it up on the Skep thread.

Now it "didn't happen" all over again!
 
Interesting in and of itself, but a real bummer over all.That thread contains the only capsule history of the origin of hardcore punk rock.

V. Vale (paraphrased):  "If an event isn't recorded in a print/audio/visual medium it didn't happen."

I kept the entire story -- the origin history of hardcore punk rock -- to myself for almost 34 years until I wrote it up on the Skep thread.

Now it "didn't happen" all over again!
 
Interesting in and of itself, but a real bummer over all.

Cliff also is fully supportive of Simkin's destructive, abusive, hypocritical and dishonest statements and actions, as long as he is not affected in any way. Recovering most of the thread Simkin deleted as a result of banning Reitzes and deleting his posts was satisfying to me on several levels.

I have not intention of informing Cliff that most of the thread is available. As  unimportant as the thread is, from the POV of all of us, Cliff's reaction to its sudden unavailability stirred up a new round of amusing disclaimers from Simkin's impotent "team" of moderators. Cliff and Reitzes claimed to have received some of them and others came in response to Gary Loughran pointing out to "the team" in a couple of emails that it was telling that the only response to Reitzes since October was either no response, or "deleted posts? We are unaware of it.......we'll get back to you...."

I cannot decide who are more of a wonder, a membership who seem not bothered in the least that the leader is disappearing their posts, untolled numbers of threads and some members and all of their posts, lately in total silence, (some even post in praise of these abuses) or a "team" that does not accept that it takes on the stench of the decider who made the team irrelevant, six months ago.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Goban Saor on Fri 03 Jan 2014, 11:00 pm

It’s unfortunate that the internet, which could have been a potent instrument for bringing about true democracy, has largely – apart from a few oases such as this forum – come to mirror the authoritarianism of our pseudo democratic world order.

Goban Saor

Posts : 168
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Mark A. O'Blazney on Sat 04 Jan 2014, 9:21 am

Doesn't the Wayback Machine 'undisappear' removed posts?  Like when you see the old masthead of this forum, for example.  Book burnings.  A grand tradition.

Mark A. O'Blazney

Posts : 100
Join date : 2013-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Sat 04 Jan 2014, 10:43 am

I voted "Or????" because I thought very highly of the "Christianity and Anti-semitism" thread; but then I wrote it, and transcribed a helluva lot of book passages in it.

Added: and "Hitler Had Some Balls" also had some good stuff in it. Ahhhh, memories, where would we be without them?

dwdunn(akaDan)

Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 53
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA

View user profile http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The MOST Important Deleted Thread in the History of the Internet, Or????

Post by Sponsored content Today at 7:11 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum