John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn SBT Debunked
Cliff
> Cliff,
> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
> view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
location of JFK's back wound.
This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
the low back wound.
Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
back wound.
So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
allow any possibility of the SBT.
> especially when it easily lends itself to
> alternative explanations?
What alternative explanations can you logically reconcile
with the following facts?
1) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2+" below
the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1 -- which means that 4+" of clothing
fabric had to be "bunched up" entirely above C7/T1, at the
base of JFK's neck.
2) Every photographic image of JFK from the west side
of Houston St. (to JFK's left) shows the jacket collar riding
ABOVE the top of the shirt collar.
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
3) Every photographic image of JFK taken from the south side
of Elm St. (to JFK's left) show the jacket collar riding BELOW
the top of the shirt collar, at a normal position at the base of
JFK's neck.
The jacket collar clearly DROPPED.
On your website, Dr Rahn, you wrote:
(quote on)
The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded back
over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than
the top of the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
(quote off)
The Towner film directly refutes the John Hunt/Kenneth Rahn
claim that Croft #3 shows the jacket at the level of JFK's ears.
As a scientist, Dr. Rahn, can you explain how disparate, concrete
objects (JFK's jacket collar, and the 4+" of "bunched" fabric) could
occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at
the same time?
> I would call that an extremely risky position,
> both practically and logically.
It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
Again, the SBT requires multi-inch movement of JFK's
shirt and jacket IN TANDEM even though the photo evidence
shows that the shirt and jacket moved seperately.
The physical evidence is irrefutable: the SBT stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
rob.s...@gmail.com
Rob
John Canal
says...
>
>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>> Cliff,
>
>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
>> view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
>
>The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
>location of JFK's back wound.
>
>This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
>4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
>(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
>the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
Hi Cliff,
Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
[IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
goes.
In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
took the clothing from Greer for examination?
And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
to do?
And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that "predicament",
they came up with the following course of action?
1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
them match ["roughly"].
2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
[death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be gone/confiscated
for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
"mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].
4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
[hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
And note the following:
1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
clothing "wasn't available".
2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
clothing was bunched up on the President's back. IOW, I think he's was saying
that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
his face sheet to match the hole in the body...and told the world that they saw
the clothing during the autopsy and explained that the mismatch was probably due
to bunching.
3. It should make no sense whatsoever to the logical person for the prosectors
to have forgotten to ask for the clothing, have been denied access to them, or
have been told the clothing was somewhere that made them "unavailable".
4. It cannot be proven, with 100% certainty, that the clothing WASN'T bunched up
on his back.
5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
Cheers,
John Canal
Cliff
At least two shooters fired at JFK on 11/22/63.
The physical evidence, corroborated by documentary and
eyewitness evidence, is irrefutable.
The rest is speculation.
Cliff Varnell
Gerry Simone (W)
I agree with you Cliff.
In fact, doesn't even one Willis or Betzner photo from the rear of JFK
just before the time of the so-called 1st shot to hit JFK (or is it the
so-called SBT) show a bit of JFK's shirt collar above the jacket collar?
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1129105267.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cliff
John Canal wrote:
> In article <1129105267.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Cliff
> says...
> >
> >Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> >> Cliff,
> >
> >> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
> >> view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
> >
> >The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
> >location of JFK's back wound.
> >
> >This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
> >4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
> >(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
> >the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
>
> Hi Cliff,
>
> Twice before in the past five years or so I've posted this "alternative possible
> [IMO] scenario" and both times it was treated pretty much in the ridiculous
> category....by just about EVERYONE (on both sides).
>
> Notwithstanding, let me throw it out again....and again I stress that I think
> it's a "possible" scenario, which I don't think can be 100% disproven. Here
> goes.
>
> In spite of what he said, what if Greer didn't have a brain cramp and did offer
> to show the clothing to the prosectors...and they did the make sense thing and
> took the clothing from Greer for examination?
Hi John,
You've got a problem here right off the bat -- Greer turned the clothing
over to the FBI upon his return to Washington.
It was the FBI who refused to share the clothing evidence with the
autopsists.
Why? We can only speculate, but here's my two cents:
J. Edgar Hoover had to wait until 10 am 11/23/63 to receive his marching
orders from LBJ -- suppress all evidence of conspiracy.
Until then, I believe Hoover wanted to make the case for a conspiracy to
pin the deed on Castro. Hoover and Gen. Curtis LeMay (I speculate) were
the top advocates of an Operation Northwoods-type response to the JFK
assassination: blame Castro and invade Cuba. I speculate that Johnson had
to confer with the Joint Chiefs to hash out the problems that a captured,
living Oswald presented for an Op Northwoods response, and it was Johnson
and the Joint Chiefs who decided to suppress evidence of conspiracy.
Good soldier Hoover went along, but I don't think he was happy about it.
>
> And, what if, after they saw that the hole in the clothing did NOT match the
> hole in the body, they (maybe not all three) were initially at a loss for what
> to do?
I don't buy it. The autopsists never examined the clothing.
>
> And, what if, after they discussed the best way to handle that "predicament",
> they came up with the following course of action?
>
> 1. Knowing that the drawn hole on autopsy face sheet would definitely be
> compared to the hole in the clothing, probably sooner rather than later, make
> them match ["roughly"].
>
> 2. Knowing that the hole's location on the death certificate was more definitive
> than the description of the hole's location in the autopsy report and that it
> [death certificate location] would definitely be compared to the hole in the
> clothing, make that match ["roughly"] as well.
>
> 3. Assuming that the autopsy photo of the back wound would be gone/confiscated
> for at least the forseeable future, don't worry at this time about that
> "mismatch" [hole in the clothing not matching the hole in the photo/his body].
>
> 4. Knowing that his body would be gone soon, don't worry about the mismatch
> [hole in the body not matching the hole in the clothing].
>
> 5. Simply say they never saw the clothing, and get the cooperation on that of
> certain Sec. Svc. Agents.
I don't buy it. The FBI had the clothing and Hoover wasn't about to share
it with anyone unless it was decided higher up to blame Castro.
>
> And note the following:
>
> 1. That the explanation of each prosector about why they didn't examine the
> clothing was not consistent. Going from memory, one said he asked to see the
> clothing and his request was denied while another said that he was told the
> clothing "wasn't available".
Same thing, basically.
>
> 2. In 1992 Boswell blurted out a statement to Dennis Breo (JAMA) that, taken
> literally, supports the above scenario. He said he screwed up not knowing the
> clothing was bunched up on the President's back.
The clothing wasn't bunched up on his back. The jacket was bunched
sideways in Betzner #3 at Z186 -- witness the vertical fold in the jacket
to the left of midline.
A vertical bunch can only be caused by the fabric easing sideways.
> IOW, I think he's was saying
> that, had he known the clothing was bunched up, he would have drawn the hole on
> his face sheet to match the hole in the body
Why would he match the face sheet to clothing defects he didn't examine?
Adm Burkley marked the face sheet "verified" and filled out the Death
Certificate stating the back wound was "in the vicinity of T3."
>...and told the world that they saw
> the clothing during the autopsy and explained that the mismatch was probably due
> to bunching.
They didn't see the clothing. Period.
>
> 3. It should make no sense whatsoever to the logical person for the prosectors
> to have forgotten to ask for the clothing, have been denied access to them, or
> have been told the clothing was somewhere that made them "unavailable".
Makes all the sense in the world when the aftermath of the assassination
is considered in the Cold War context of Operation Northwoods. Hoover
wasn't going to share evidence with anyone until Johnson told him how
Oswald was going to be played -- lone nut, or commie conspirator.
>
> 4. It cannot be proven, with 100% certainty, that the clothing WASN'T bunched up
> on his back.
Yes it can. 100%. The jacket collar rode in a normal position at the
base of JFK's neck. The Towner film shows this clearly. 4+" of clothing
fabric cannot be bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on
the jacket collar.
The shirt and the jacket can be observed moving independently in Dealey
Plaza, while the SBT requires a gross movement of both garments in tandem.
This event cannot be replicated.
It is impossible for two disparate, concrete objects to
occupy the exact same physical space at the same time.
>
> 5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
>
> Cheers,The
>
> John Canal
Cheers,
Cliff Varnell
Gerry Simone (W)
Doesn't Boswell's autopsy sketch confirm the location of the hole in the
jacket? Isn't this what Cliff just said when he referred to 'corroborated
by the autopsy face sheet'?
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dijf4...@drn.newsguy.com...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John Canal
With all due respect, John, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with
that statement. I am reading it repeatedly in Larry's book "JFK Myths".
Statements may have differences; that needs to be acknowledged.
Unreliable is, imo, a different matter.
Pamela
Our hearts go out to all those affected by Katrina and now Rita. The
citizens and their pets will need our help for a long time to come. I
encourage everyone to follow your heart and contribute and share as you
are able. Two of my favorites are the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org
and the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
The JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X page,
now at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com
Check out www.themagicflute.org for info about me as a flute player and
teacher.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41vqk1tcu9c2qv35o...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Oct 2005 14:34:12 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>5. Witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>John Canal
>
> With all due respect, John, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with
> that statement. I am reading it repeatedly in Larry's book "JFK Myths".
> Statements may have differences; that needs to be acknowledged.
> Unreliable is, imo, a different matter.
If you read any of the many books on the subject by Elizabeth Loftus, you
will see proof of the general unreliability of witnesses. You will also see
the circumstances under which they can be better and worse. If you want a
quick summary, see the short essay "Shadings of eyewitness testimony" on my
JFK site, at
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Shadings_of_eyewitness_testimony.html .
Ken Rahn
John Canal
says...
Cliff,
Help me out here. Can you tell me the source of your info, re. Greer
turning over the clothing to the FBI, "upon his return to Washington"?
It's been a while, and, due to the hurricanes that hit our area last year,
I only have about 2% of the research material I once had...but according
to my notes Greer did not turn over the clothes to anyone "upon his return
to DC"...at least right away.
Anyway, he [Greer] told the HSCA, upon his arrival in Washington, he
directed agent Rybka to put the shopping bag with JFK's clothing and
effects in his locker at the White House.
That's consistent with his story that about 8:00 AM on the 23rd the White
House called (woke him up) asking for JFK's St. Christopher medal. He went
on to say that he dressed and went to the WH and gave the medal and wallet
to Ken O'Donnell. (Doc # 1870-10099-10491)
Evidently later on Saturday, according to RIF# 180-100090-10263 (an
11-23-63 document), Greer supposedly turned over the clothing and effects
to SAIC Robert Bouck.
If all that's correct, then my wierd theory still would be alive. Again,
maybe the source you have for Greer giving the FBI the clothing trumps the
above sources which tell a different story, i.e. that he had control of
the clothing during the autopsy.
To try to make the evidence NOT create a problem for the one gunman
conclusion. IOW, he matched the face sheet location with the hole in the
clothing (two pieces of evidence he knew would be scrutinized very
soon)...even though he knew the location of the hole in the body didn't
match the location of the hole in the clothes. Again, he wasn't worried
about "that" mismatch, because the body and photos would be gone and the
description of the location in the autopsy report was based on anatomic
reference points ON JFK's BODY....which made them pretty much useless in
evidenciary value.
Later, Burkley was in sync with this little cover-up and made sure the
location of the entry in his death certificate (which they knew would also
be scrutinized very soon) matched the face sheet and clothes.
Cliff, I hope you don't think, because I'm a LNer, I don't think the
government didn't lie or tamper with the evidence? I'm not mCAdams, you
know. :-)
John C.
Cliff
I stand corrected. Greer didn't return to DC right away. He was at
Bethesda during the autopsy, and according to Finck it was a "senior
officer" at the autopsy who denied Finck's request to see the clothing.
> It's been a while, and, due to the hurricanes that hit our area last year,
> I only have about 2% of the research material I once had...but according
> to my notes Greer did not turn over the clothes to anyone "upon his return
> to DC"...at least right away.
>
> Anyway, he [Greer] told the HSCA, upon his arrival in Washington, he
> directed agent Rybka to put the shopping bag with JFK's clothing and
> effects in his locker at the White House.
>
> That's consistent with his story that about 8:00 AM on the 23rd the White
> House called (woke him up) asking for JFK's St. Christopher medal. He went
> on to say that he dressed and went to the WH and gave the medal and wallet
> to Ken O'Donnell. (Doc # 1870-10099-10491)
>
> Evidently later on Saturday, according to RIF# 180-100090-10263 (an
> 11-23-63 document), Greer supposedly turned over the clothing and effects
> to SAIC Robert Bouck
>
So if the holes in the clothes didn't match the wound in the back you had
4+" of clothing piled up at the base of JFK's neck even though JFK's
jacket collar readily dropped to the base of his neck.
John, you can't get 4+" of clothing fabric to bunch up at C7 without
pushing up on the jacket collar.
You can't get 2+" of jacket to bunch up in tandem with 2+" of shirt -- the
two garments don't move in tandem.
Your theory is refuted by the physical evidence.
>
> Later, Burkley was in sync with this little cover-up and made sure the
> location of the entry in his death certificate (which they knew would also
> be scrutinized very soon) matched the face sheet and clothes.
>
> Cliff, I hope you don't think, because I'm a LNer, I don't think the
> government didn't lie or tamper with the evidence? I'm not mCAdams, you
> know. :-)
Do you think the government would lie???
:->
Cliff
Anthony Marsh
> Willis rear slide doesn't show bunching. That's just before a shot.
>
> Doesn't Boswell's autopsy sketch confirm the location of the hole in the
> jacket? Isn't this what Cliff just said when he referred to 'corroborated
> by the autopsy face sheet'?
>
No, not down to the nearest sixteenth of an inch. The reference drawing
does not agree with JFK's body type and the dot represents the position of
the wound schematically, not accurately.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
Hoover did not generate the Castro conspiracy theories. He was only
reacting to them. He fell for them, he did not invent them.
Anthony Marsh
Cliff wrote:
> Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>
>>Cliff,
>
>
>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
>>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
>
>
> The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
> location of JFK's back wound.
>
Dead wrong. It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
same location as the holes in clothing indicate. Look at the Best
Evidence. The body itself. We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
JFK's vertebrae.
> This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
> 4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
> (marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
> the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
>
Low back? As in lumbar?
Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
had been injected with that morning.
> 2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
> the low back wound.
>
> Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
> back wound.
>
> So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
> stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
> allow any possibility of the SBT.
>
>
Yeah, and then what?
Cliff
http://www.public-action.com/911/abcnorthwds/index.html
Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
it on Castro.
They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
alive nixed that idea.
Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
Cliff
Anthony Marsh
Thanks for the link, but we've know about Northwoods for quite a while
and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover.
> Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
DGI agent.
Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
how stupid Hoover was.
> faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
> qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
> it on Castro.
>
That ain't the half of it.
> They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
> alive nixed that idea.
>
I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
> Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
>
Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
> That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
>
I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
> Cliff
Cliff
I speculate otherwise. Any investigation into a terrorist attack
unleashed
on US soil would neceessairly involve Hoover's FBI. The Joint Chiefs
couldn't have handled it alone. For Operation Northwoods to work they
needed Hoover, who would have been all-too-willing to help.
>
> > Hoover didn't fall for anything. The extreme anti-Communist right-wing
>
> On the very same day that his lab was telling him that the Pedro Charles
> letters were a hoax, Hoover was citing them as PROOF that Oswald was a
> DGI agent.
My point exactly. Hoover was hot to paint Oswald as a Castro agent.
Thank you for bringing this up, Anthony.
> Unfortunately, English has never invented the right words to describe
> how stupid Hoover was.
>
> > faction of the U.S. military, who had a sturdy ally in Hoover, had no
> > qualms about a plan to shoot John Glenn out of the sky if they could pin
> > it on Castro.
> >
>
> That ain't the half of it.
>
> > They wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, but Oswald captured
> > alive nixed that idea.
> >
>
> I know the concept, but please explain the mechanics and logistics of
> how they would kill Oswald to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.
By painting Oswald as a DGI agent.
But he needed to be brought in dead, not alive.
>
> > Hoover was prepared to go along with a Northwoods-type response.
> >
>
> Hoover was clueless. He was not a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination.
I didn't say he was. We're discussing the aftermath of the
assassination.
>
> > That's my two cents. If you want to speculate otherwise, feel free.
> >
>
> I prefer not to speculate. I prefer to stick to the documents and evidence.
Keep it coming! So far the evidence you cite is consistent with my
speculation.
Cliff
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Cliff wrote:
>
> > Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> >
> >>Cliff,
> >
> >
> >> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
> >>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
> >
> >
> > The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
> > location of JFK's back wound.
> >
>
> Dead wrong.
Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
> It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
> same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar.
I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
dress shirt.
I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
at any time in Dealey Plaza.
When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
Answer: never.
> Look at the Best
> Evidence.
In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
"best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
have noted for decades.
> The body itself.
Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
much in the way of the back wound.
> We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
See for ourselves -- what?
>From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
> no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the one she developed.
The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
The clothing can.
> What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
> JFK's vertebrae.
At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
documented fact corroborated by the following...
>
> > This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
> > 4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
> > (marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
> > the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
> >
>
> Low back?
It is commonly understood in these discussions that
"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
refers to C7/T1.
> As in lumbar?
You're flailing.
> Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
> had been injected with that morning.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
determine the location of T3.
>
> > 2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
> > the low back wound.
> >
> > Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
> > back wound.
> >
> > So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
> > stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
> > allow any possibility of the SBT.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, and then what?
Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
Anthony, you appear to have no more success with this than
Dr. Rahn.
Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
Cliff wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>Cliff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cliff,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
>>>>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
>>>
>>>
>>>The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
>>>location of JFK's back wound.
>>>
>>
>>Dead wrong.
>
>
> Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
> chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
>
All of which does not prove that they are fakes. I'd like to see you just
spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes. It seems that you
must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
your theory.
>
>
>>It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
>>same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
>
>
> We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
> photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
>
> I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
> bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
> jacket collar.
>
Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
said.
> I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
> moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
> dress shirt.
I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
>
> I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
> empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
> at any time in Dealey Plaza.
>
Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
bunched up.
> When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
> empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
>
> Answer: never.
>
>
>>Look at the Best
>>Evidence.
>
>
> In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
> disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
>
> The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
> "best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
> Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
> have noted for decades.
>
>
>>The body itself.
>
>
> Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
> much in the way of the back wound.
>
>
>
>>We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
>
>
> See for ourselves -- what?
>
>>From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:
>
> (quote on, emphasis added))
>
> Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
> Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
> taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
> as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
> described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
>
How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
> 1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
>
> 2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
> that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
> of view.
>
> 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
> present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
> IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
> MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
> WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
> LANDMARKS.
>
> 4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
> the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
> date and place of the examination.
>
> (quote off)
>
Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
autopsy photos.
> IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
>
>
>>no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
>
>
> With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
>
> obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
>
> And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
> Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
> extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
> photos are not the one she developed.
>
And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
> The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
>
> The clothing can.
>
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
autopsy photos.
>
>
>>What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
>>JFK's vertebrae.
>
>
> At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
> and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
> on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
> documented fact corroborated by the following...
>
No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
the manubrium.
>
>>>This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
>>>4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
>>>(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
>>>the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
>>>
>>
>>Low back?
>
>
> It is commonly understood in these discussions that
> "low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
> refers to C7/T1.
>
I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
top of the shoulders?
>
>>As in lumbar?
>
>
> You're flailing.
>
>
>>Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
>>had been injected with that morning.
>
>
> Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
> determine the location of T3.
>
No.
>
>>>2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
>>>the low back wound.
>>>
>>>Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
>>>back wound.
>>>
>>>So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
>>>stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
>>>allow any possibility of the SBT.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, and then what?
>
>
> Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
>
You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
Anthony Marsh
It never got that far. It was only a proposal. It was never approved and
never put into effect.
Cliff
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Cliff wrote:
>
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>Cliff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Cliff,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
> >>>>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
> >>>location of JFK's back wound.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Dead wrong.
> >
> >
> > Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
> > chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
> >
>
> All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
> I'd like to see you just
> spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
possession.
Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
location of the back wound.
> It seems that you
> must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
> your theory.
No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
>
> >
> >
> >>It is not necessary that the wound on a body be exactly in the
> >>same location as the holes in clothing indicate.
> >
> >
> > We're not discussing "a body," in general, but rather the well
> > photographed body of JFK in the limo in Dealey Plaza.
> >
> > I defy you to demonstrate how 4+" of clothing fabric could be
> > bunched up at the base of the neck without pushing up on the
> > jacket collar.
> >
>
> Again, don't preach to the choir and don't foist on me things that I never
> said.
>
> > I defy to to demonstrate how a suit coat with padded shoulders
> > moves up 2+" in tandem with a tucked-in custom made
> > dress shirt.
>
> I did not say that the padded shoulders moved up 2+ inches.
>
> >
> > I defy you to make a fact-based argument -- more than another
> > empty claim -- that JFK's jacket was bunched up more than 3/4"
> > at any time in Dealey Plaza.
> >
>
> Then I counter defy you to show that JFK's jacket was bunched up at all at
> any time even to 3/4". The point is that we know it was at some time
> bunched up.
Sure.
Here's a photo that shows JFK's jacket elevated 3/4":
http://mcadms.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
The top of the shirt collar normally rode a half inch above the top of the
jacket collar, and a bit more than a half inch below his hairline. In
Altgens the jacket collar is over the top of the shirt collar but below
the hairline.
Give a millimeter or two.
>
> > When are you "C7/T1 inshoot" people ever going to make more than
> > empty claims about the movements of JFK's clothing?
> >
> > Answer: never.
> >
> >
> >>Look at the Best
> >>Evidence.
> >
> >
> > In my opinion Lifton did the JFK research community a grave
> > disservice when he used this as the title of his book.
> >
> > The hopelessly compromised medical evidence is NOT the
> > "best evidence" of conspiracy -- it's the clothing defects, as
> > Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman and many others
> > have noted for decades.
> >
> >
> >>The body itself.
> >
> >
> > Go ahead and dig it up -- but I don't think you'll find
> > much in the way of the back wound.
> >
> >
> >
> >>We can see for ourselves in the autopsy photos,
> >
> >
> > See for ourselves -- what?
> >
> >>From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:
> >
> > (quote on, emphasis added))
> >
> > Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
> > Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
> > taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
> > as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
> > described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
> >
>
> How can you even cite them when you call them fakes?
No, Anthony, I pointed out that there is no chain of possession.
It is *possible* they are fakes.
Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
produced...
>
> > 1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
> >
> > 2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
> > that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
> > of view.
> >
> > 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
> > present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
> > IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
> > MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
> > WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
> > LANDMARKS.
> >
> > 4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
> > the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
> > date and place of the examination.
> >
> > (quote off)
> >
>
> Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
> autopsy photos.
Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
>
> > IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
> >
> >
> >>no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
> >
> >
> > With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
> >
> > obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
> >
> > And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
> > Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
> > extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
> > photos are not the one she developed.
> >
>
> And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
>
> > The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
> >
> > The clothing can.
> >
>
> And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
> type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
> autopsy photos.
Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
clothing of JFK?
No one.
Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
No. They've been measured repeatedly.
So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
>
> >
> >
> >>What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
> >>JFK's vertebrae.
> >
> >
> > At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
> > and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
> > on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
> > documented fact corroborated by the following...
> >
>
> No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
> the manubrium.
You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
>
> >
> >>>This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
> >>>4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
> >>>(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
> >>>the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Low back?
> >
> >
> > It is commonly understood in these discussions that
> > "low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
> > refers to C7/T1.
> >
>
> I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
> what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
> top of the shoulders?
That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
>
> >
> >>As in lumbar?
> >
> >
> > You're flailing.
> >
> >
> >>Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
> >>had been injected with that morning.
> >
> >
> > Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
> > determine the location of T3.
> >
>
> No.
Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
>
> >
> >>>2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
> >>>the low back wound.
> >>>
> >>>Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
> >>>back wound.
> >>>
> >>>So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
> >>>stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
> >>>allow any possibility of the SBT.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yeah, and then what?
> >
> >
> > Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
> >
>
> You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
And other than bland denials -- you haven't made a counter
argument yet.
Unchallenged.
As always.
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
Only because Oswald was captured alive.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>Cliff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cliff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Cliff,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
>>>>>>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
>>>>>location of JFK's back wound.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dead wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
>>>chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
>>>
>>
>>All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
>
>
> But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
> the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
>
No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative. There is a
difference. And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
clearly state what you think.
>
>>I'd like to see you just
>>spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
>
>
> The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
> possession.
>
You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
are fakes. You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
disproves your theory. If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
> Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
> location of the back wound.
>
>
You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
>
>>It seems that you
>>must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
>>your theory.
>
>
> No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
>
Don't demand perfection and reject evidence if it is not perfect.
Junk. Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
Then where are you?
No chain of possession whatsoever? As in they came off the street or
were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
> It is *possible* they are fakes.
>
Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
> Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
> produced...
>
I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
that you can not even see the back wound.
>
>>>1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
>>>
>>>2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
>>>that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
>>>of view.
>>>
>>>3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
>>>present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
>>>IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
>>>MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
>>>WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
>>>LANDMARKS.
>>>
>>>4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
>>>the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
>>>date and place of the examination.
>>>
>>>(quote off)
>>>
>>
>>Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
>>autopsy photos.
>
>
> Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
> back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
> as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
>
Could be? What the Hell does that mean? You think it could also be a
blood clot? Or maybe some artificially created wound? What?
>
>>>IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
>>>
>>>
>>>With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
>>>
>>>obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
>>>
>>>And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
>>>Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
>>>extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
>>>photos are not the one she developed.
>>>
>>
>>And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
>
>
> And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
>
Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
know. You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
>
>
>>>The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
>>>
>>>The clothing can.
>>>
>>
>>And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
>>type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
>>autopsy photos.
>
>
> Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
> clothing of JFK?
>
> No one.
>
So you are going on testimony alone? Bad mistake. Testimony is often the
weakest type of evidence.
> Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
>
Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
> No. They've been measured repeatedly.
>
And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
> So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
> and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
> create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
>
I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
could find someone who would propose such a theory and how would you
disprove it, much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
wacky?
>
>>>
>>>>What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
>>>>JFK's vertebrae.
>>>
>>>
>>>At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
>>>and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
>>>on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
>>>documented fact corroborated by the following...
>>>
>>
>>No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
>>the manubrium.
>
>
> You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
> wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
> and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
>
I know the wound wasn't shallow. Don't tell me you still cling to the
shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
can not stop within an inch. It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa
pine. Wake up, man.
As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
in the TSBD. Are you proposing a difference shooter location. Spit it out.
O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible, because
it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
Very stupid speculation. By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
>
>>>>>This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
>>>>>4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
>>>>>(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
>>>>>the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Low back?
>>>
>>>
>>>It is commonly understood in these discussions that
>>>"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
>>>refers to C7/T1.
>>>
>>
>>I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
>>what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
>>top of the shoulders?
>
>
> That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
>
>
>>>>As in lumbar?
>>>
>>>
>>>You're flailing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
>>>>had been injected with that morning.
>>>
>>>
>>>Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
>>>determine the location of T3.
>>>
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
>
And it varies from individual to individual.
> T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
>
On all people? If you don't know where C7 was on JFK then you don't know
where T3 was on JFK. That is the same mistake that Burkley made.
>
>>>>>2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
>>>>>the low back wound.
>>>>>
>>>>>Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
>>>>>back wound.
>>>>>
>>>>>So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
>>>>>stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
>>>>>allow any possibility of the SBT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, and then what?
>>>
>>>
>>>Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
>>>
>>
>>You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
>
>
> You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
>
I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
Cliff
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Cliff wrote:
>
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>Cliff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Cliff wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Cliff,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
> >>>>>>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
> >>>>>location of JFK's back wound.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Dead wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
> >>>chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
> >>>
> >>
> >>All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
> >
> >
> > But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
> > the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
> >
>
> No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative.
Not when the Dealey Plaza photos show that the jacket was riding in a
normal position on JFK's back at Z186.
When are going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
> There is a
> difference.
See above.
> And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
> autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
to obtain accurate measurements.
> You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
> clearly state what you think.
You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
"not perfect."
>
> >
> >>I'd like to see you just
> >>spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
> >
> >
> > The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
> > possession.
> >
>
> You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
> are fakes.
Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
wound.
Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
> You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
> disproves your theory.
When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
no chain of possession.
Got any more photos that fit the bill?
> If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
> disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.
Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
>
> > Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
> > location of the back wound.
> >
> >
>
> You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.
Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
>
> >
> >>It seems that you
> >>must do that and only do that is a particular piece of evidence disproves
> >>your theory.
> >
> >
> > No, Anthony, it seems that you don't process the word DEFICIENT.
> >
>
> Don't demand perfection and reject evidence if it is not perfect.
Big difference between "not perfect" and "difficult or impossible to
obtain accurate measurements."
But by all means, cling to your dependence on "deficient" evidence --
after all, it's all you have.
Let's see, the photo shows the jacket over the shirt collar,
but to conclude that the jacket is elevated is -- "junk"?
Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
> Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
> Then where are you?
Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
the photograph that it is "fake."
Saundra Kay Spencer's testimony under oath breaks the chain of possession.
> As in they came off the street or
> were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
>
> > It is *possible* they are fakes.
> >
>
> Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.
Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
>
> > Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
> > produced...
> >
>
> I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
> that you can not even see the back wound.
Moot point.
>
> >
> >>>1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
> >>>
> >>>2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
> >>>that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
> >>>of view.
> >>>
> >>>3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
> >>>present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
> >>>IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
> >>>MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
> >>>WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
> >>>LANDMARKS.
> >>>
> >>>4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
> >>>the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
> >>>date and place of the examination.
> >>>
> >>>(quote off)
> >>>
> >>
> >>Then please stipulate that you are not able to see the back wound in the
> >>autopsy photos.
> >
> >
> > Why would I do that? There is an artifact in Fox 5 that *could* be the
> > back wound. But since the photo is so poorly produced, and is DEFICIENT
> > as evidence of the location of the back wound, the point is moot.
> >
>
> Could be? What the Hell does that mean? You think it could also be a
> blood clot? Or maybe some artificially created wound? What?
How many times do I need to reiterate this?
The authenticity of the photos is in question. Don't blame me for that --
blame the person who is on records as having developed the photos and the
person on record as having operated the camera.
Their statements undercut your wacky theory.
Not my problem.
>
> >
> >>>IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
> >>>
> >>>obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
> >>>
> >>>And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
> >>>Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
> >>>extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
> >>>photos are not the one she developed.
> >>>
> >>
> >>And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
> >
> >
> > And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
> >
>
> Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
> know.
I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
back at Z186.
> You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
> you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
is certified fake.
I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
> >
> >>>The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
> >>>
> >>>The clothing can.
> >>>
> >>
> >>And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
> >>type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
> >>autopsy photos.
> >
> >
> > Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
> > clothing of JFK?
> >
> > No one.
> >
>
> So you are going on testimony alone?
No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
> Bad mistake.
When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
straw.
> Testimony is often the
> weakest type of evidence.
That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
photos of the jacket are primary.
>
> > Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
> >
>
> Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
> hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
discussion here.
>
> > No. They've been measured repeatedly.
> >
>
> And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
>
> > So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
> > and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
> > create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
> >
>
> I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
> could find someone who would propose such a theory
No, it's idiotic.
> and how would you
> disprove it,
You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
*can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
> much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
> wacky?
What theory?
Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
position at Z186.
Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>>What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
> >>>>JFK's vertebrae.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
> >>>and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
> >>>on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
> >>>documented fact corroborated by the following...
> >>>
> >>
> >>No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
> >>the manubrium.
> >
> >
> > You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
> > wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
> > and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
> >
>
>
> I know the wound wasn't shallow.
You examined the wound?
Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.
You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
> Don't tell me you still cling to the
> shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
> can not stop within an inch.
I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
> It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
merely parroting the official line.
> As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
> in the TSBD.
Why would you make that assumption?
> Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
if not probable.
> Spit it out.
> O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
> because
> it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
> Very stupid speculation.
Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
> By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
> determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
have examined it then. No?
>
> >
> >>>>>This evidence of the low back wound is corroborated by
> >>>>>4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
> >>>>>(marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
> >>>>>the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Low back?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>It is commonly understood in these discussions that
> >>>"low back wound" refers to T/3, "high back wound"
> >>>refers to C7/T1.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I do not consider C7/T1 as being "high." If you think that is high, then
> >>what do you call the WC defender fiction about the wound being above the
> >>top of the shoulders?
> >
> >
> > That's the WC SBT location, not the HSCA SBT location.
> >
> >
> >>>>As in lumbar?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're flailing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Burkley is not qualified to "verify" anything, except how much speed JFK
> >>>>had been injected with that morning.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Anyone with a decent knowledge of the human spine can
> >>>determine the location of T3.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No.
> >
> >
> > Yes. C7 is prominent, an identifiable anatomical landmark.
> >
>
> And it varies from individual to individual.
Yeah, that's why I say 2-3 inches...
>
> > T3 is 2-3 inches below C7.
> >
>
> On all people?
Adult males of average size, yes.
> If you don't know where C7 was on JFK then you don't know
> where T3 was on JFK.
C7 is that prominent knobby one at the base of the neck.
Every human has one.
JFK had one.
2-3" below C7 is T3.
> That is the same mistake that Burkley made.
Looks like the only person at the autopsy who got anything
right was Anthony Marsh.
>
> >
> >>>>>2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
> >>>>>the low back wound.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
> >>>>>back wound.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
> >>>>>stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
> >>>>>allow any possibility of the SBT.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Yeah, and then what?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
> >>>
> >>
> >>You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
> >
> >
> > You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
> >
>
> I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
Uh-hunh. There's the tiny fracture at T1 that could have
been a pre-existing condition, or been caused by the round
that hit JFK's throat.
Don't forget that one.
Gentle reader, please note that Anthony refers to the above as
a "wacky theory" but never argues against the facts I lay out.
Ever.
Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
No. You seem to have no historical perspective. Operation Northwoods was
killed before the JFK assassination. It never made it high enough to be
implemented. What you are suggesting is a rogue operation based on the
same concept as Operation Northwoods. I do not rule that out, but it is
unofficial, not official.
Cliff
No kiddin'? Y'think?
[eyes rolling]
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>Cliff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cliff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Cliff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cliff,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
>>>>>>>>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
>>>>>>>location of JFK's back wound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dead wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
>>>>>chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
>>>
>>>
>>>But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
>>>the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
>>>
>>
>>No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative.
>
>
> Not when the Dealey Plaza photos show that the jacket was riding in a
> normal position on JFK's back at Z186.
>
JFK was not hit at Z-186.
> When are going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
>
>
>>There is a
>>difference.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
> > And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
>
>>autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
>
>
> I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
> to obtain accurate measurements.
>
Why can't you just answer a question directly instead of hiding behind
something. Can you see the back wound or not?
>
>
>>You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
>>clearly state what you think.
>
>
> You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
> "not perfect."
>
You don't know which autopsy photos are deficient. You haven't seem them
all so you don't even know which ones they were talking about and what
the issues were. Even the word deficient does not mean useless. They did
not say useless.
>
>>>>I'd like to see you just
>>>>spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
>>>
>>>
>>>The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
>>>possession.
>>>
>>
>>You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
>>are fakes.
>
>
> Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
> the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
> authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
> wound.
>
As I said, you can not even come right out and claim that they are fakes.
> Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
>
>
>>You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
>>disproves your theory.
>
>
> When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
> oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
> no chain of possession.
>
Who said what?
> Got any more photos that fit the bill?
>
>
Lots, even films.
>
>
>
>>If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
>>disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
>
>
> I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.
>
I do so every day.
> Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
> show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
> you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
>
I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
>
>>>Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
>>>location of the back wound.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
>
>
> It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.
>
Why can't you give a direct answer?
> Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
> impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
>
>
Why do you think that the word deficient means useless?
What photo? Taken when?
File not found.
Altgens what? Altgens when? Not at the time of the shot.
> Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
>
>
>
>>Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
>>Then where are you?
>
>
> Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
> the photograph that it is "fake."
>
I am saying that I could use your same tactics.
No.
Who first posted her testimony on the Internet?
>
>>As in they came off the street or
>>were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
>
>
> I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
>
>
>>>It is *possible* they are fakes.
>>>
>>
>>Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
>
>
> I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.
>
And why can't you just come right out and and say that the autopsy
photos are fakes?
> Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
> also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
>
>
Yada, yada, yada. Just his saying something does not make it a fact.
>
>>>Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
>>>produced...
>>>
>>
>>I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
>>that you can not even see the back wound.
>
>
> Moot point.
>
As I keep pointing out, you can never give a direct answer.
No, the authenticity of the photos is NOT in question. Did you bother
reading ALL the ARRB materials?
> Their statements undercut your wacky theory.
>
I don't have a theory here about this.
> Not my problem.
>
>
>
>>>>>IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
>>>>>
>>>>>obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
>>>>>Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
>>>>>extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
>>>>>photos are not the one she developed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
>>>
>>>
>>>And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
>>>
>>
>>Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
>>know.
>
>
> I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
> comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
> Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
> back at Z186.
>
My point is that once you start using the crutch of having to claim that
some evidence is fake, where does it end? Eventually you'll have to
claim that ALL the evidence is fake.
>
>>You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
>>you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
>
>
> I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
> is certified fake.
>
> I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
>
You can't even state what is black and what is white. You'd come up with
an evasive answer or claim that perhaps the black is faked and is really
white.
>
>
>>>>>The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
>>>>>
>>>>>The clothing can.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
>>>>type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
>>>>autopsy photos.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
>>>clothing of JFK?
>>>
>>>No one.
>>>
>>
>>So you are going on testimony alone?
>
>
> No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
>
There is plenty of testimony. Tell us exactly what you think is lacking.
>
>>Bad mistake.
>
>
> When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
> straw.
>
>
>>Testimony is often the
>>weakest type of evidence.
>
>
> That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
> photos of the jacket are primary.
>
No. They are indicative, not definitive.
>
>>>Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
>>>
>>
>>Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
>>hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
>
>
> I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
> discussion here.
>
>
>
>
>>>No. They've been measured repeatedly.
>>>
>>
>>And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
>
>
> Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
> to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
>
And what if some conspiracy author claims that the holes in JFK's
clothes were manufactured?
>
>>>So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
>>>and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
>>>create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
>>>
>>
>>I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
>>could find someone who would propose such a theory
>
>
> No, it's idiotic.
>
>
>
>>and how would you
>>disprove it,
>
>
> You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
> *can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
>
I didn't say I would.
>
> > much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
>
>>wacky?
>
>
> What theory?
>
That the JFK back wound was at T-3.
> Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
> the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
> position at Z186.
>
> Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
>
Please quantify what you mean. Of course the jacket fell at some point.
>
>>>>>>What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
>>>>>>JFK's vertebrae.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
>>>>>and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
>>>>>on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
>>>>>documented fact corroborated by the following...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
>>>>the manubrium.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
>>>wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
>>>and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
>>>
>>
>>
>>I know the wound wasn't shallow.
>
>
> You examined the wound?
>
It is more than just the wound. It is the damage to the lung, the
trachea and the exit through the throat.
> Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.
>
Neither did all the forensic pathologists who examined this case, but
they unanimously concluded that it was a transiting wound. Do you claim
to be smarter than every forensic pathologist on this planet?
> You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
>
>
>> Don't tell me you still cling to the
>>shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
>>can not stop within an inch.
>
>
> I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
>
OK, then give us your wacky theory.
>
>>It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
>
>
> You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
> merely parroting the official line.
>
No. I know it was a WCC MC bullet fired from the sniper's nest.
It wasn't an ice bullet.
>
>
>>As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
>>in the TSBD.
>
>
> Why would you make that assumption?
>
The angle comes from knowing where the rifle was when it was fired.
>
>>Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
>
>
> I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
> if not probable.
>
Yeah, so do I. So what? Show me what location and what angle you are
talking about.
>
>>Spit it out.
>>O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
>
>
> And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
>
>
Which means only that such a thing is possible, not that it was true in
this case. Now, please tell me that you really believe it was an ice
bullet. Please.
>
>>because
>>it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
>>Very stupid speculation.
>
>
> Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
> probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
>
Nor was he competent to do so. Nor could he expect to do so under those
conditions.
>
>
>>By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
>>determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
>
>
> You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
> have examined it then. No?
>
Why do you misrepresent this way? I never said that the wound was shallow.
They did figure out that he had been killed earlier that day.
>
>>>>>>>2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
>>>>>>>the low back wound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
>>>>>>>back wound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
>>>>>>>stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
>>>>>>>allow any possibility of the SBT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, and then what?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
>>>
>>>
>>>You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
>>>
>>
>>I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
>
>
> Uh-hunh. There's the tiny fracture at T1 that could have
> been a pre-existing condition, or been caused by the round
> that hit JFK's throat.
>
Oh, please. Compare that X-ray to premortem X-rays. There was no
pre-existing fracture.
And yes the bullet which exited JFK's throat caused the fracture. The
throat wound was not an entrance.
Always. Long before you came into the debate.
Cliff
> Cliff wrote:
>
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>Cliff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Cliff wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Cliff wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Cliff,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
> >>>>>>>>view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
> >>>>>>>location of JFK's back wound.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Dead wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Improperly produced autopsy photos which lack a clear
> >>>>>chain of possession don't qualify as "physical evidence."
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>All of which does not prove that they are fakes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But it does prove that they are deficient as evidence of the location of
> >>>the back wound, whereas the clothing holes are definitive.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No. Clothes are not definitive. They are indicative.
> >
> >
> > Not when the Dealey Plaza photos show that the jacket was riding in a
> > normal position on JFK's back at Z186.
> >
>
> JFK was not hit at Z-186.
Bingo! Thank you for the passive acknowledgement that JFK's jacket rode
in a normal position at Z186.
It is an uncontested fact.
At Z173 JFK turned to the right and began waving his right hand. His
posture didn't change until he was shot.
Clothing doesn't leap up a man's back on its own power, Anthony.
>
> > When are you going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
No response. Answer: never.
The physical evidence is irrefutable.
> >>There is a
> >>difference.
> >
> >
> > See above.
> >
> >
> > > And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
> >
> >>autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
> >
> >
> > I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
> > to obtain accurate measurements.
> >
>
> Why can't you just answer a question directly instead of hiding behind
> something. Can you see the back wound or not?
Why are you hiding behind this strawman?
Why can't you process the fact that the Fox 5 autopsy photo is very poor
evidence of the location of the back wound?
>
> >
> >
> >>You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
> >>clearly state what you think.
> >
> >
> > You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
> > "not perfect."
> >
>
> You don't know which autopsy photos are deficient.
Yes, we do -- the HSCA singled out the photo of the back wound (Fox 5) as
especially deficient.
(quote on, again)
In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were
positioned in such a manner to make it difficult OR IMPOSSIBLE to obtain
accurate measurements of critical features (SUCH AS THE WOUND IN THE UPPER
BACK) from anatomical landmarks.
(quote off, emphasis added)
"[S]uch as the wound in the upper back."
Got it?
> You haven't seem them
> all so you don't even know which ones they were talking about and what
> the issues were.
Yes, English is my first language. I know what "impossible" means, and I
understand that "such as the wound in the upper back" in this context
refers to autopsy photos of the wound in JFK's upper back.
You have a problem figuring out what the HSCA concluded?
> Even the word deficient does not mean useless.
>From "best evidence" to "not useless."
Quite a nose dive there, Anthony.
> They did
> not say useless.
I didn't either. I just quote from the record.
"...[D]ifficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical
features (such as the wound in the upper back)..."
Is that what "useless" means?
>
> >
> >>>>I'd like to see you just
> >>>>spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
> >>>possession.
> >>>
> >>
> >>You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
> >>are fakes.
> >
> >
> > Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
> > the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
> > authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
> > wound.
> >
>
> As I said, you can not even come right out and claim that they are fakes.
Why come right out and say something that can't be proven?
>
> > Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
> >
> >
> >>You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
> >>disproves your theory.
> >
> >
> > When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
> > oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
> > no chain of possession.
> >
>
> Who said what?
>From Saundra Kay Spencer's ARRB testimony 6/5/97:
(quote on, emphasis added)
Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy
in addition to what you've already described?
A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that
showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --
you know, down in Dallas or something, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THE ONES I
WORKED ON.
(quote off)
>
> > Got any more photos that fit the bill?
> >
> >
>
> Lots, even films.
Which of the photos and films taken from the west side of Houston St. have
been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
them?
Which of the photos and films taken from the south side of Elm St. have
been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
them?
Answer: none of them
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
> >>disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
> >
> >
> > I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.
> >
>
> I do so every day.
You're doing a bang-up job. Your "best evidence" has been reduced by your
own admission to "not useless."
>
> > Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
> > show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
> > you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
> >
>
> I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
I AM arguing for that particular point.
Didn't you just claim that you refute my argument on a daily basis?
>
> >
> >>>Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
> >>>location of the back wound.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
> >
> >
> > It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.
> >
>
> Why can't you give a direct answer?
It's a moot point. But keep dancing. As noted above, you've gone from
Fox 5 being "the best evidence" to it being "not useless."
>
> > Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
> > impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
> >
> >
>
> Why do you think that the word deficient means useless?
I didn't use the word useless. You did.
The HSCA clarified the observation of the autopsy photo's "deficiencies"
with the phrase "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements
etc..."
Why do you think deficient evidence is "the best evidence"?
Altgens on Houston St. You've seen it.
> Taken when?
On Houston St.
> File not found.
I get it on my computer.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
Compare with the photo on the right on this page:
http://cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0244.html
The top of JFK's shirt collar was equi-distant from his hairline and the
top of his jacket collar.
On Houston St. the collar was elevated 3/4".
> Altgens what? Altgens when? Not at the time of the shot.
Taken in Dealey Plaza. You challenged me to cite a photo
taken in Dealey Plaza that shows 3/4" of upwardly displaced
jacket.
See also Houston St. segments of the Nix film, the Hughes film,
the Muchmore film, the Martin film, the Bell film.
All taken from the west side of Houston St, all showing the
jacket collar occuding the shirt collar.
All those photo images faked, Anthony?
>
> > Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
> >>Then where are you?
> >
> >
> > Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
> > the photograph that it is "fake."
> >
>
> I am saying that I could use your same tactics.
I'm not using tactics. I'm citing the evidence.
Circular logic.
> Who first posted her testimony on the Internet?
Who cares?
>
> >
> >>As in they came off the street or
> >>were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
> >
> >
> > I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
> >
> >
> >>>It is *possible* they are fakes.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
> >
> >
> > I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.
> >
>
> And why can't you just come right out and and say that the autopsy
> photos are fakes?
You savvy "possible"...?
Keep pitching the straw, my man. Won't keep you from
drowning here, I'm afraid.
>
> > Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
> > also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
> >
> >
>
> Yada, yada, yada.
That's a great argument. You do this every day, you say?
> Just his saying something does not make it a fact.
No, as I've acknowledged. It just means there's a "question."
Savvy "question"...?
>
> >
> >>>Even *if* they are authentic, the Fox 5 photo is so poorly
> >>>produced...
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't care if they are perfect or not. Please state right here and now
> >>that you can not even see the back wound.
> >
> >
> > Moot point.
> >
>
> As I keep pointing out, you can never give a direct answer.
Yada yada yada...Hey, that does feel good!
Cite the part that directly contradicts Spencer.
>
> > Their statements undercut your wacky theory.
> >
>
> I don't have a theory here about this.
You claim the wound was at C7/T1 even if the
jacket wasn't elevated (it wasn't).
The base of JFK's neck almost 4 inches below
his clothing collars?
That's the wackiest theory of them all!
>
> > Not my problem.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
> >>>>>Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
> >>>>>extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
> >>>>>photos are not the one she developed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
> >>know.
> >
> >
> > I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
> > comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
> > Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
> > back at Z186.
> >
>
> My point is that once you start using the crutch of having to claim that
> some evidence is fake, where does it end?
Stop using this strawman crutch. I said it was "possible"
the autopsy photos were faked.
Jeesh...
> Eventually you'll have to
> claim that ALL the evidence is fake.
Unlike others who post here daily, I go as far as the evidence goes -- the
rest I label "speculation."
>
> >
> >>You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
> >>you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
> >
> >
> > I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
> > is certified fake.
> >
> > I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
> >
>
> You can't even state what is black and what is white. You'd come up with
> an evasive answer or claim that perhaps the black is faked and is really
> white.
*Perhaps* -- yes, we call that a "gray" area.
>
> >
> >
> >>>>>The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The clothing can.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
> >>>>type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
> >>>>autopsy photos.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
> >>>clothing of JFK?
> >>>
> >>>No one.
> >>>
> >>
> >>So you are going on testimony alone?
> >
> >
> > No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
> >
>
> There is plenty of testimony. Tell us exactly what you think is lacking.
You can't follow the argument?
There is no testimony that the clothing evidence is fake.
>
> >
> >>Bad mistake.
> >
> >
> > When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
> > straw.
> >
> >
> >>Testimony is often the
> >>weakest type of evidence.
> >
> >
> > That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
> > photos of the jacket are primary.
> >
>
> No. They are indicative, not definitive.
So you say -- but you can't argue it factually.
>
> >
> >>>Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
> >>hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
> >
> >
> > I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
> > discussion here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>No. They've been measured repeatedly.
> >>>
> >>
> >>And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
> >
> >
> > Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
> > to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
> >
>
> And what if some conspiracy author claims that the holes in JFK's
> clothes were manufactured?
Who cares what "some conspiracy author" claims?
No one who handled the clothing makes that claim.
>
> >
> >>>So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
> >>>and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
> >>>create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
> >>could find someone who would propose such a theory
> >
> >
> > No, it's idiotic.
> >
> >
> >
> >>and how would you
> >>disprove it,
> >
> >
> > You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
> > *can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
> >
>
> I didn't say I would.
Oh?
You wrote above:
(quote on)
And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create
the same type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as
you do about the autopsy photos.
(quote off)
But keep dancing in circles -- this is fun.
>
> >
> > > much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
> >
> >>wacky?
> >
> >
> > What theory?
> >
>
> That the JFK back wound was at T-3.
It's a proven fact given the location of the clothing holes, the Dealey
Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position at Z186, four
contemporaneous documents, and the statements of a dozen people who saw
the wound.
Oh yeah, JFK wasn't shot at Z186. A second or two didn't make a
difference since his posture didn't change.
>
> > Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
> > the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
> > position at Z186.
> >
> > Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
> >
>
> Please quantify what you mean. Of course the jacket fell at some point.
Right before the turn onto Elm St.
I've only been posting the same thing in this and dozens of
other threads.
That you have to dance around it speaks of the paucity of
facts in of your non-critique.
>
> >
> >>>>>>What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
> >>>>>>JFK's vertebrae.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
> >>>>>and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
> >>>>>on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
> >>>>>documented fact corroborated by the following...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
> >>>>the manubrium.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
> >>>wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
> >>>and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>I know the wound wasn't shallow.
> >
> >
> > You examined the wound?
> >
>
> It is more than just the wound. It is the damage to the lung, the
> trachea and the exit through the throat.
A half-dozen medical people at Parkland described it
as an entry.
>
> > Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.
> >
>
> Neither did all the forensic pathologists who examined this case, but
> they unanimously concluded that it was a transiting wound.
And they all disregard the statements of those who
saw the body.
> Do you claim
> to be smarter than every forensic pathologist on this planet?
I'll go with the statements of those who handled the body.
>
> > You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
> >
> >
> >> Don't tell me you still cling to the
> >>shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
> >>can not stop within an inch.
> >
> >
> > I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
> >
>
> OK, then give us your wacky theory.
I don't have one.
>
> >
> >>It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
> >
> >
> > You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
> > merely parroting the official line.
> >
>
> No. I know it was a WCC MC bullet fired from the sniper's nest.
> It wasn't an ice bullet.
That's the difference between us, Anthony. I don't
make claims about what I *know* unless I can back
it up.
>
> >
> >
> >>As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
> >>in the TSBD.
> >
> >
> > Why would you make that assumption?
> >
>
> The angle comes from knowing where the rifle was when it was fired.
See above.
>
> >
> >>Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
> >
> >
> > I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
> > if not probable.
> >
>
> Yeah, so do I. So what? Show me what location and what angle you are
> talking about.
The evidence I cite doesn't speak to that.
All that can be proven is that the back wound was
too low to allow any possibility of the SBT.
>
> >
> >>Spit it out.
> >>O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
> >
> >
> > And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
> >
> >
>
> Which means only that such a thing is possible, not that it was true in
> this case.
There you go with that "true" nonsense. You don't know one way
or the other, Anthony.
> Now, please tell me that you really believe it was an ice
> bullet. Please.
I don't *believe* that which I cannot prove.
I do know that 7 weeks before the assassination Gen. Maxwell Taylor was in
Saigon and sat down with top military journalist Richard Starnes and
warned that the CIA was inclined to overthrow the US gov't.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html
The CIA was capable of firing an ice bullet.
>
> >
> >>because
> >>it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
> >>Very stupid speculation.
> >
> >
> > Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
> > probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
> >
>
> Nor was he competent to do so.
Finck? Why not?
> Nor could he expect to do so under those conditions.
Why not?
>
> >
> >
> >>By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
> >>determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
> >
> >
> > You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
> > have examined it then. No?
> >
>
> Why do you misrepresent this way? I never said that the wound was shallow.
I mis-wrote, this should read, "You say you *know* that the wound was NOT
shallow -- you must have examined it then?"
Well?
Good one.
>
> >
> >>>>>>>2 FBI SAs and 4 Secret Service SAs testified under oath to
> >>>>>>>the low back wound.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
> >>>>>>>back wound.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
> >>>>>>>stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
> >>>>>>>allow any possibility of the SBT.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yeah, and then what?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Attack the cover-up, which has taken on a life of its' own.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You shouldn't be attacking it with such weak arguments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You rely on autopsy photos which have been declared DEFICIENT.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't RELY on the autopsy photos alone. There is much more.
> >
> >
> > Uh-hunh. There's the tiny fracture at T1 that could have
> > been a pre-existing condition, or been caused by the round
> > that hit JFK's throat.
> >
>
> Oh, please. Compare that X-ray to premortem X-rays.
When were they taken?
> There was no
> pre-existing fracture.
> And yes the bullet which exited JFK's throat caused the fracture. The
> throat wound was not an entrance.
Not according to the Parkland personnel.
Always dancing. See above.
I wrote: You cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
show that JFK's jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186.
You responded: I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
> Long before you came into the debate.
Right. You appear to be arguing that it doesn't
matter where the defects are in the jacket,
the inshoot was C7/T1.
C7/T1 four inches below the clothing collars?
That position of yours is as wacky as it gets.
Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
Passive? Your problem is that you are seeking out enemies where there
are only allies in order to try to be the hero.
> It is an uncontested fact.
>
> At Z173 JFK turned to the right and began waving his right hand. His
> posture didn't change until he was shot.
>
Then surely you should be criticizing Dale Myers' diagram used by
Sturdivan which shows JFK's hand up at Z-223 preparing for a shot to
come at Z-224.
> Clothing doesn't leap up a man's back on its own power, Anthony.
>
Silly argument.
>
>>>When are you going to quit dancing around this issue, Anthony?
>
>
>
> No response. Answer: never.
>
The same response always: silly argument.
> The physical evidence is irrefutable.
>
>
Irrefutable about what? When JFK was hit? Tell me the exact frame in
which he was hit.
>
>>>>There is a
>>>>difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>See above.
>>>
>>>
>>> > And please tell me that you can't see for yourself in the
>>>
>>>
>>>>autopsy photo EXACTLY where the back wound was.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll go with the conclusion of the HCSA -- "difficult or impossible
>>>to obtain accurate measurements.
>>>
>>
>>Why can't you just answer a question directly instead of hiding behind
>>something. Can you see the back wound or not?
>
>
> Why are you hiding behind this strawman?
>
I ask you simply is you can see the back wound or not and you label this
as a strawman argument? I am not trying to put words into you mouth. I
want to hear directly from you what YOU can see.
> Why can't you process the fact that the Fox 5 autopsy photo is very poor
> evidence of the location of the back wound?
>
>
It is poor quality. It is not useless.
>
>>>
>>>>You need to stop dancing around these issues and using innuendo and
>>>>clearly state what you think.
>>>
>>>
>>>You need to look up the word "deficient" -- it doesn't mean
>>>"not perfect."
>>>
>>
>>You don't know which autopsy photos are deficient.
>
>
> Yes, we do -- the HSCA singled out the photo of the back wound (Fox 5) as
> especially deficient.
>
Yeah, so?
> (quote on, again)
>
> In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were
> positioned in such a manner to make it difficult OR IMPOSSIBLE to obtain
> accurate measurements of critical features (SUCH AS THE WOUND IN THE UPPER
> BACK) from anatomical landmarks.
>
> (quote off, emphasis added)
>
> "[S]uch as the wound in the upper back."
>
> Got it?
>
No.
>
>>You haven't seem them
>>all so you don't even know which ones they were talking about and what
>>the issues were.
>
>
> Yes, English is my first language. I know what "impossible" means, and I
> understand that "such as the wound in the upper back" in this context
> refers to autopsy photos of the wound in JFK's upper back.
>
> You have a problem figuring out what the HSCA concluded?
>
What the HSCA concluded does not mean that we are stuck with that forever.
>
>>Even the word deficient does not mean useless.
>
>
>>From "best evidence" to "not useless."
>
> Quite a nose dive there, Anthony.
>
I am talking about the body itself. Not the worst photos of the body.
>
>>They did
>>not say useless.
>
>
> I didn't either. I just quote from the record.
>
Out of context.
> "...[D]ifficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical
> features (such as the wound in the upper back)..."
>
> Is that what "useless" means?
>
No.
>
>>>>>>I'd like to see you just
>>>>>>spit out and claim that the autopsy photos are fakes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The autopsy photos *could* be fakes -- given the lack of a chain of
>>>>>possession.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You can't even come right out and make the claim that the autopsy photos
>>>>are fakes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course not. I only go where the evidence goes. The evidence indicates
>>>the autopsy photos lack a chain of possession, and even *if* they are
>>>authentic Fox 5 is "deficient" as evidence of the location of the back
>>>wound.
>>>
>>
>>As I said, you can not even come right out and claim that they are fakes.
>
>
> Why come right out and say something that can't be proven?
>
I am complaining about your constant attempts to duck questions and
avoid giving direct answers. Just come right out and say what you think.
>
>>>Sorry, I'm not buying into your strawman, Anthony.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You will make the claim when and if a particular photo
>>>>disproves your theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>When the individual on record as having developed a photo testifies under
>>>oath that they did not develope said photo, I will conclude that there is
>>>no chain of possession.
>>>
>>
>>Who said what?
>
>
>>From Saundra Kay Spencer's ARRB testimony 6/5/97:
>
> (quote on, emphasis added)
>
> Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy
> in addition to what you've already described?
>
> A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that
> showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --
> you know, down in Dallas or something, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THE ONES I
> WORKED ON.
>
> (quote off)
>
So what? She worked on other photos.
>
>>>Got any more photos that fit the bill?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Lots, even films.
>
>
> Which of the photos and films taken from the west side of Houston St. have
> been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
> them?
>
> Which of the photos and films taken from the south side of Elm St. have
> been pronounced fakes by the individual on record as having developed
> them?
>
> Answer: none of them
>
>
She did not develop the autopsy photos we have in evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you can't figure out that an autopsy photo
>>>>disproves your theory then you will label it as genuine.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't have a theory. I cite the evidence you cannot refute.
>>>
>>
>>I do so every day.
>
>
> You're doing a bang-up job. Your "best evidence" has been reduced by your
> own admission to "not useless."
>
Litotes. Not useless is slightly better than useless.
>
>
>>>Because you cannot refute the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos
>>>show that JFK jacket rode in a normal position on his back at Z186,
>>>you have to advance these wacky strawmen of yours.
>>>
>>
>>I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
>
>
> I AM arguing for that particular point.
>
> Didn't you just claim that you refute my argument on a daily basis?
>
I may refute your logic and some specific arguments, but agree with the
overall conclusions.
>
>
>>>>>Even if authentic, Fox 5 is deficient as evidence of the
>>>>>location of the back wound.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You mean that you can't even see that there is a back wound?
>>>
>>>
>>>It means that I can read and process the conclusion of the HSCA.
>>>
>>
>>Why can't you give a direct answer?
>
>
> It's a moot point. But keep dancing. As noted above, you've gone from
> Fox 5 being "the best evidence" to it being "not useless."
>
Why can't you give a direct answer?
I never said that Fox 5 is the best evidence.
>
>>>Why you are unable to process the words "deficient" and "difficult or
>>>impossible to obtain accurate measurements" is the only mystery here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why do you think that the word deficient means useless?
>
>
> I didn't use the word useless. You did.
>
> The HSCA clarified the observation of the autopsy photo's "deficiencies"
> with the phrase "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements
> etc..."
>
> Why do you think deficient evidence is "the best evidence"?
>
I said the body is the best evidence. Not any particular photo.
JFK was not shot when he was on Houston Street. Everyone is sure of
that. I have never seen any theory by anyone that JFK was shot while on
Houston Street.
Perhaps you mean Altgens 1-5.
Do you have the negative?
>
>>File not found.
>
>
> I get it on my computer.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
>
> Compare with the photo on the right on this page:
>
> http://cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0244.html
>
> The top of JFK's shirt collar was equi-distant from his hairline and the
> top of his jacket collar.
>
> On Houston St. the collar was elevated 3/4".
>
Yeah, so what? Look at the Weaver photo.
>
>>Altgens what? Altgens when? Not at the time of the shot.
>
>
> Taken in Dealey Plaza. You challenged me to cite a photo
> taken in Dealey Plaza that shows 3/4" of upwardly displaced
> jacket.
>
I challenged you to show that such a photo is not relevant to the shot
which hit JFK. JFK was not hit while on Houston Street.
> See also Houston St. segments of the Nix film, the Hughes film,
> the Muchmore film, the Martin film, the Bell film.
>
> All taken from the west side of Houston St, all showing the
> jacket collar occuding the shirt collar.
>
> All those photo images faked, Anthony?
>
Please cite any time that I have called any photo faked.
That is not MY style.
>
>>>Care to explain this with more than empty dismissals?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Using your tactics, I could then claim that the photo is a fake.
>>>>Then where are you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Please cite the testimony of the person who developed
>>>the photograph that it is "fake."
>>>
>>
>>I am saying that I could use your same tactics.
>
>
> I'm not using tactics. I'm citing the evidence.
>
No, you are using tactics.
Explain.
>
>
>>Who first posted her testimony on the Internet?
>
>
> Who cares?
>
It goes to your attempt to claim that I was unaware of her testimony.
>
>
>>>>As in they came off the street or
>>>>were substitutes created by the CIA? What?
>>>
>>>
>>>I only go where the evidence leads. The rest I label "speculation."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It is *possible* they are fakes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why can't you just come right and say what you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>I did. It is *possible* the autopsy photos are fakes.
>>>
>>
>>And why can't you just come right out and and say that the autopsy
>>photos are fakes?
>
>
> You savvy "possible"...?
>
Weak. You leave open possibilities in case you need to fall back on the
idea that everything which disagrees with you is a fake.
> Keep pitching the straw, my man. Won't keep you from
> drowning here, I'm afraid.
>
>
>>>Floyd Reibe, the man on record as having handled the autopsy cameras has
>>>also stated that the extant autopsy photos are not the ones he shot.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yada, yada, yada.
>
>
> That's a great argument. You do this every day, you say?
>
>
>>Just his saying something does not make it a fact.
>
>
> No, as I've acknowledged. It just means there's a "question."
>
> Savvy "question"...?
>
>
The ARRB knew all these testimonies and still concluded that the autopsy
photos are genuine. What do you have to prove them wrong? Not just
leaving open possibilities?
When the ARRB investigated the provenance of the autopsy photos and
concluded that they were genuine. Spencer did not develop those autopsy
photographs.
>
>>>Their statements undercut your wacky theory.
>>>
>>
>>I don't have a theory here about this.
>
>
> You claim the wound was at C7/T1 even if the
> jacket wasn't elevated (it wasn't).
>
Who claimed what?
> The base of JFK's neck almost 4 inches below
> his clothing collars?
>
Who said that?
> That's the wackiest theory of them all!
>
>
>
>>>Not my problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>IOW, move along folks, there's nuthin' to see here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>no matter how poorly they were taken, exactly where the back wound was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>With all due respect, Anthony, what part of "difficult or impossible to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>obtain accurate measurements" don't you understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And this assessment was made about 18 years before Saundra
>>>>>>>Kay Spencer, the woman on record as having developed the
>>>>>>>extant autopsy photos testified under oath that the extant autopsy
>>>>>>>photos are not the one she developed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And well those might not be. There may be additional photos.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And they *may* have been faked -- we don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure, sure. Then all the evidence could have been faked -- you don't
>>>>know.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't speak in these bland generalities. I take specific evidence as it
>>>comes. No one questions the authenticity of the clothing evidence or the
>>>Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position on JFK's
>>>back at Z186.
>>>
>>
>>My point is that once you start using the crutch of having to claim that
>>some evidence is fake, where does it end?
>
>
> Stop using this strawman crutch. I said it was "possible"
> the autopsy photos were faked.
>
You intentionally leave open that possibility as a crutch.
> Jeesh...
>
>
>
>>Eventually you'll have to
>>claim that ALL the evidence is fake.
>
>
> Unlike others who post here daily, I go as far as the evidence goes -- the
> rest I label "speculation."
>
You can't just stop at what evidence has been spoon fed to you.
>
>>>>You know there is something seriously wrong with your theory when
>>>>you need to depend on the claim that all the evidence is fake.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not promoting a theory and I'm not claiming any evidence
>>>is certified fake.
>>>
>>>I don't live in a black/white world, Anthony.
>>>
>>
>>You can't even state what is black and what is white. You'd come up with
>>an evasive answer or claim that perhaps the black is faked and is really
>>white.
>
>
> *Perhaps* -- yes, we call that a "gray" area.
>
Everything is not gray.
>
>>>
>>>>>>>The Fox 5 autopsy photo (Back Of Head) cannot be linked to JFK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The clothing can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create the same
>>>>>>type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as you do about the
>>>>>>autopsy photos.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Who testified that the clothing in the National Archives isn't the
>>>>>clothing of JFK?
>>>>>
>>>>>No one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you are going on testimony alone?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I'm citing the lack of said testimony.
>>>
>>
>>There is plenty of testimony. Tell us exactly what you think is lacking.
>
>
> You can't follow the argument?
>
> There is no testimony that the clothing evidence is fake.
>
>
Just for fun someone could make that claim.
>
>>>>Bad mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>>When you can't summon a fact-based argument, fling
>>>straw.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Testimony is often the
>>>>weakest type of evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's why the clothing holes and the Dealey Plaza
>>>photos of the jacket are primary.
>>>
>>
>>No. They are indicative, not definitive.
>
>
> So you say -- but you can't argue it factually.
>
>
>
>>>>>Any questions about where the clothing defects are?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course. Not until Groden found the FBI photo did we know that the
>>>>hole in Connally's jacket was actually in the sleeve.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not refering to JBC's clothes. JFK's clothing is under
>>>discussion here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>No. They've been measured repeatedly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And do you think the slits in the shirt collar are genuine or an artifact?
>>>
>>>
>>>Henchcliffe testified that she created them. I have no reason
>>>to doubt her, and the slits are irrelevant to the back wound.
>>>
>>
>>And what if some conspiracy author claims that the holes in JFK's
>>clothes were manufactured?
>
>
> Who cares what "some conspiracy author" claims?
>
> No one who handled the clothing makes that claim.
>
You make arguments having never handled the clothing.
>
>>>>>So unless you want to argue that Greer got ahold of another of JFK's shirt
>>>>>and jacket, put them on some other guy, then shot him -- I'd say you can't
>>>>>create any kind of uncertainty about the authenticity of the clothing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am not a fan of the fake evidence theories, but I am sure that you
>>>>could find someone who would propose such a theory
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's idiotic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>and how would you
>>>>disprove it,
>>>
>>>
>>>You're asking me to disprove a theory you claimed you
>>>*can* make but all of a sudden you *can't*?
>>>
>>
>>I didn't say I would.
>
>
> Oh?
>
> You wrote above:
>
> (quote on)
>
> And how do you know the clothing wasn't faked? I could create
> the same type of uncertainty about its chain of possession as
> you do about the autopsy photos.
>
> (quote off)
>
> But keep dancing in circles -- this is fun.
>
I said that I could create the same type of uncertainty.
>
>
>>> > much as you are immune from realizing that your theory is
>>>
>>>
>>>>wacky?
>>>
>>>
>>>What theory?
>>>
>>
>>That the JFK back wound was at T-3.
>
>
> It's a proven fact given the location of the clothing holes, the Dealey
> Plaza photos that show the jacket in a normal position at Z186, four
> contemporaneous documents, and the statements of a dozen people who saw
> the wound.
>
Wonderful. JFK wasn't shot at Z186.
> Oh yeah, JFK wasn't shot at Z186. A second or two didn't make a
> difference since his posture didn't change.
>
Of course it did change.
>
>>>Please make a fact-based argument against my analysis of
>>>the Dealey Plaza films/photos showing JFK's jacket in a normal
>>>position at Z186.
>>>
>>>Do you dispute the fact that the jacket collar fell?
>>>
>>
>>Please quantify what you mean. Of course the jacket fell at some point.
>
>
> Right before the turn onto Elm St.
>
So?
> I've only been posting the same thing in this and dozens of
> other threads.
>
> That you have to dance around it speaks of the paucity of
> facts in of your non-critique.
>
>
>>>>>>>>What we do not know directly is how the hole on the back lines up with
>>>>>>>>JFK's vertebrae.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At T3, or a little lower, as established by the holes in the clothing
>>>>>>>and the Dealey Plaza photos that show the jacket riding normally
>>>>>>>on JFK's back (the Towner film/Betzner #3) at Z186 -- a well
>>>>>>>documented fact corroborated by the following...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. A bullet entering at T3 on a downward 18 degree angle would have hit
>>>>>>the manubrium.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're speculating as to the angle of entry. You're speculating that the
>>>>>wound wasn't shallow. FBI SA Francis O'Neill saw the back wound close up
>>>>>and concluded it may have been caused by exotic weaponry -- "ice bullet."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I know the wound wasn't shallow.
>>>
>>>
>>>You examined the wound?
>>>
>>
>>It is more than just the wound. It is the damage to the lung, the
>>trachea and the exit through the throat.
>
>
> A half-dozen medical people at Parkland described it
> as an entry.
>
So what? ER doctors often make that mistake. There is no practical angle
for an entrance wound to the throat. You keep ducking questions, but this
time I will put the words in your mouth because the lurkers have finally
figured out what you really think. You think that JFK was shot in the
throat from some unknown area in front of the limousine. And shot in the
back with a bullet which went in only an inch or tow and which magically
disappeared. Oh, and so did the throat shot bullet. So you have two
impossible shots with two disappearing bullets. You are not yet ready to
endorse Cutler's flechette theory. Please try to convince us that this is
not a wacky theory. Shots from impossible angles and disappearing bullets.
>
>>>Funny, I don't recall any Anthony Marsh attending the autopsy.
>>>
>>
>>Neither did all the forensic pathologists who examined this case, but
>>they unanimously concluded that it was a transiting wound.
>
>
> And they all disregard the statements of those who
> saw the body.
>
You accept as gospel whatever Humes, Boswell and Finck said?
>
>
>>Do you claim
>>to be smarter than every forensic pathologist on this planet?
>
>
> I'll go with the statements of those who handled the body.
>
And that is the source of your errors.
>
>>>You've been holding out on us, Anthony!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't tell me you still cling to the
>>>>shallow wound theory? My God, man. It's 2005, not 1963. The WCC bullet
>>>>can not stop within an inch.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't buy the wacky theory that "the WCC bullet" hit JFK in the back
>>>
>>
>>OK, then give us your wacky theory.
>
>
> I don't have one.
>
Yes you do. I just outlined it.
>
>>>>It can penetrate 47 inches of Ponderosa pine. Wake up, man.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can't link any specific round to JFK's back wound. You are
>>>merely parroting the official line.
>>>
>>
>>No. I know it was a WCC MC bullet fired from the sniper's nest.
>>It wasn't an ice bullet.
>
>
> That's the difference between us, Anthony. I don't
> make claims about what I *know* unless I can back
> it up.
>
>
>>>
>>>>As for the angle, that assumes the firing location was the sniper's nest
>>>>in the TSBD.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would you make that assumption?
>>>
>>
>>The angle comes from knowing where the rifle was when it was fired.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>>>>Are you proposing a difference shooter location.
>>>
>>>
>>>I speculate that other shooter locations were possible,
>>>if not probable.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, so do I. So what? Show me what location and what angle you are
>>talking about.
>
>
> The evidence I cite doesn't speak to that.
>
You can't even show me the location of the back wound??
> All that can be proven is that the back wound was
> too low to allow any possibility of the SBT.
>
Yeah, that and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee. What else?
>
>
>>>>Spit it out.
>>>>O'Neill did not CONCLUDE. He asked if such a thing is possible,
>>>
>>>
>>>And the answer he got back was -- "Yes."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Which means only that such a thing is possible, not that it was true in
>>this case.
>
>
> There you go with that "true" nonsense. You don't know one way
> or the other, Anthony.
>
I know precisely that the ice bullet theory is NOT possible.
Please do me a favor and admit that you fall for the ice bullet theory.
>
>>Now, please tell me that you really believe it was an ice
>>bullet. Please.
>
>
> I don't *believe* that which I cannot prove.
>
Oh, I remember. You leave open possibilities. So according to you it is
possible that aliens are running this planet.
> I do know that 7 weeks before the assassination Gen. Maxwell Taylor was in
> Saigon and sat down with top military journalist Richard Starnes and
> warned that the CIA was inclined to overthrow the US gov't.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html
>
And who posted that here first?
> The CIA was capable of firing an ice bullet.
>
And there you have it folks. This guy actually believes that the back
wound could be caused by an ice bullet. And that's not a wacky theory?
>
>
>>>>because
>>>>it was Humes who speculated that the bullet only went in an inch or two.
>>>>Very stupid speculation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because it conflicts with your wacky theory. Finck conducted a
>>>probe of the wound, found no lane of transit.
>>>
>>
>>Nor was he competent to do so.
>
>
> Finck? Why not?
>
Because he did not have the experience.
And because he was under military orders.
>
>>Nor could he expect to do so under those conditions.
>
>
> Why not?
>
Because of the failure to examine the clothing.
Because of the repositioning of the body.
Because rigor mortis was starting.
>
>
>>>
>>>>By an incompetent autopsy doctor. You don't
>>>>determine facts by guessing. You examine. He failed to do so properly.
>>>
>>>
>>>You say you *know* that the wound was shallow -- you must
>>>have examined it then. No?
>>>
>>
>>Why do you misrepresent this way? I never said that the wound was shallow.
>
>
> I mis-wrote, this should read, "You say you *know* that the wound was NOT
> shallow -- you must have examined it then?"
>
> Well?
>
Because of the speed of the bullet.
Because of the type of ammunition used.
Because of the bruised right lung tip.
Because of the torn trachea.
(165) The anthropologists also studied the autopsy X-rays
in comparison with premortem X-rays of President Kennedy,
obtained from the Kennedy Library in Waltham, Mass. (9) The
premortem X-rays had been collected by the Library from a number
of different sources (10) over a period of a couple of years.
(11)
(166) By studying the premortem X-rays, the anthropologists
were able to observe a number of unique anatomic characteristics
whose absence or presence among the autopsy X-rays would, in
their opinion, be determinative of whether the two sets of X-rays
were of the same person. (12) Some of the anatomic
characteristics they noted included turcica, cranial sutures,
vascular grooves and the air cells of the mastoid bone. (13) The
anthropologists were able to observe enough of these anatomical
features among the autopsy X-rays to conclude that the autopsy
and premortem X-rays were taken of the same individual. (14)
Opinion as to the authenticity of
the films to be used for comparisons
Dr. Robert D. Morris confirms the fact that he did expose X-ray
films on President. John F. Kennedy on Jan. 18, 1961. There are
numerous unique and individual characteristics reproduced in the 15
films illustrating the dentition. The films were acquired from at
least four different sources. Films taken in like areas may be easily
compared with each other. It is my opinion that all films were taken
on the same person, John F. Kennedy.
>
>>There was no
>>pre-existing fracture.
>
>
>>And yes the bullet which exited JFK's throat caused the fracture. The
>>throat wound was not an entrance.
>
>
> Not according to the Parkland personnel.
>
Wrong. You are behind the curve on this.
Nor did I ever contest that point.
> You responded: I am not arguing for or against that particular point.
>
>
>>Long before you came into the debate.
>
>
> Right. You appear to be arguing that it doesn't
> matter where the defects are in the jacket,
> the inshoot was C7/T1.
>
It does matter.
> C7/T1 four inches below the clothing collars?
>
> That position of yours is as wacky as it gets.
>
>
*I* don't have any theory about ice bullets.
Tharindu Krishan
> Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> > Cliff,
> > Doesn't it make you nervous to base your whole
> > view of the assassination on a single piece of evidence,
> The clothing defects are the only direct physical evidence of the
> location of JFK's back wound.
> 4 contemporaneous official documents -- the Death Certificate
> (marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"),
> the FBI autopsy report, and Humes' initial autopsy report.
> the low back wound.
> Another half-dozen witnesses at Bethesda described the low
> back wound.
> So in answer to your question, Dr. Rahn: No, it can be
> stated as a fact that JFK's back wound was too low to
> allow any possibility of the SBT.
> > both practically and logically.
> It's normal for clothing to move in fractions of an inch.
John Corbett
years before I joined this newsgroup. If Cliff hadn't signed his full
name at the bottom of his post, I would have thought it had been written
by Cliff Clavin.
Anthony Marsh
He told me that he bullet hit and fractured T-1.
That likely cause the bullet to be deflected. So the SBT is physically
impossible.
Anthony Marsh
John Corbett
FPP except for Wecht.
Apparently you misunderstood what Baden told you or you simply put your
own spin on what he said.
John Corbett
public.
Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
YOU never talked to him.
> Apparently you misunderstood what Baden told you or you simply put your
> own spin on what he said.
>
call you a liar. And you call that Free Speech?
John Corbett
> I am telling you what he told me.
> YOU never talked to him.
part about the bullet deflecting upward I'm sure came from you because the
FPP report never said that. The HSCA fully endorsed the SBT.
> > Apparently you misunderstood what Baden told you or you simply put your
> > own spin on what he said.
> >
> So McAdams encourages you to call me a liar, but I am not aloowed to
> call you a liar. And you call that Free Speech?
comprehension is very bad.
Anthony Marsh
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What's the point?
"Tharindu Krishan" added nothing of value. He didn't even remark on the
prior posts, he just resurrected the 15-year-old thread.
But of course, Tony has to argue the 15-year-old point with Ken Rahn, who
as far as I can tell, hasn't posted here in at least ten years.
This is the most recent post by Rahn I could find.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/JpLpvyQZpHM/m/B6bl2RoVbywJ
Arguing a point with a guy who hasn't posted here in ten years pretty much
sums up the futility of Marsh's posts.
Hank
Anthony Marsh
you have against Zombies? Are you prejudiced?
> But of course, Tony has to argue the 15-year-old point with Ken Rahn,
> who as far as I can tell, hasn't posted here in at least ten years.
>
a liar.
> This is the most recent post by Rahn I could find.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/JpLpvyQZpHM/m/B6bl2RoVbywJ
>
> Arguing a point with a guy who hasn't posted here in ten years pretty much
> sums up the futility of Marsh's posts.
>
before.
> Hank
>