W. NIEDERHUT SAID:
After reading James DiEugenio's latest book, along with reviews of the new CHAOS book about Charles Manson, I'm wondering if the English language needs a new verb, in honor of Vincent Bugliosi -- to "bugliose." Here's my suggestion:
bugliose (booly-OSE) verb. : to bamboozle about historical events with lengthy discourses that completely misrepresent the facts.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh Brother (with a huge Capital B)! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This ridiculous thread authored by Mr. Niederhut just might take first prize in the "Pot/Kettle" category here in the year 2019. Because the only people who are doing any "bamboozling" and "misrepresenting the facts" regarding the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit are the conspiracy theorists, not people like the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, that's for sure. (Just think "Mark Lane" and "Jim Garrison" and "Jim Fetzer", for starters. Three of the greatest bamboozlers of all-time.)
And I find it humorous to see how the number of Bugliosi-haters has grown in just the last few years, with the VB-bashers now not content to verbally assault Vince for just his opinions on the JFK case....but now we're getting a whole new wave of 21st-century Vince bashers, who now suddenly have a desire to toss Vince under the bus for his work on the Charles Manson case as well—even though all rational people who have even a slight knowledge of the details surrounding that particular murder case know beyond any doubt that the "Helter Skelter" theory was rooted in fact (based on what Bugliosi was told by other members of Manson's "Family").* But those facts will naturally be totally ignored by the outer-fringe conspiracy theorists of the world. Pathetic.
* DVP EDIT (AUGUST 2022) --- For proof of this, see Page 245 of the 1994 edition of Vince Bugliosi's book "Helter Skelter: The True Story Of The Manson Murders". On just that page alone, three different people—Gregg Jakobson, Paul Watkins, and Brooks Poston—are quoted by Bugliosi regarding their knowledge of Charles Manson's proposed "black vs. white revolution"/"race war" (aka: "Helter Skelter"). But many conspiracy theorists now apparently want to believe that Vincent Bugliosi himself totally invented the "Helter Skelter" motive/theory out of nothing but whole cloth and his own imagination. Such an absurd notion, however, is merely Bugliosi-bashing crap of the first order, as the quotes found on Page 245 (and other pages) of the book "Helter Skelter" amply demonstrate.
If you want to read some of the best "Vince-isms" (as I like to call my favorite VB quotes), go here....
http://jfk-archives/Favorite Bugliosi Quotes
Samples....
"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent Bugliosi
"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... But with Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Addendum....
And, of course, practically every time an Internet conspiracy theorist opens his mouth, he proves the point that Vince made in this gem....
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy”
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
LOL, ROTF. Man, is everyone as sick as I am of that pot/kettle diversion?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You might be sick to death of it, Jim, but it's oh so undeniably true.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
What does one make of a lawyer [Vincent Bugliosi] who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jim has apparently conveniently forgotten about this discussion we had on August 22, 2016....
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey: Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus [sic; Bugliosi's book is actually 2,824 pages long, including all endnotes and source notes] he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?
DVP SAID:
Okay. Gladly. Here you go....
[Quote On:]
"The Warren Commission overlooked putting the American Rifleman advertisement in its volumes. But conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher points out that the advertisement was for a $12.88 Carcano ($19.95 with scope) that was 36 inches long, weighed 5 1⁄2 pounds, and had a catalog number of C20-T750, though we know the $19.95 Carcano that was sent to Oswald was 40 1⁄5 inches long and weighed 8 pounds, which was closer to the 40-inch Carcano weighing 7 pounds advertised in the November 1963 ad in a different magazine, Field and Stream. But Meagher fails to state the significance of this discrepancy.**
In other words, so what? We know Oswald was shipped his Carcano, serial number C2766 (whether or not it was the same weapon he had ordered, and whether or not he was even aware he received a Carcano a little over 4 inches longer and 3 1⁄2 pounds [sic] heavier than he had ordered), we know it was found in the sniper’s nest [sic], and we know it was the murder weapon."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 392-393 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" [Also pictured below]
** Sources used by Bugliosi for the above book excerpt:
Sylvia Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.48 footnote; fact that Oswald ordered his Carcano from a February 1963 Klein’s advertisement in the American Rifleman magazine: Waldman Exhibit No. 8, 21 H 704; CE 773, 17 H 635;
WR, p.119; 7 H 366, WCT William J. Waldman; advertisement reprinted in “In the Works: Tighter Laws on Gun Sales,” p.4; see also the August 27, 1965, edition of Life magazine [pages 62-65]; Field and Stream ad where yet a different catalog number, C20-750, is used for the Carcano: Holmes Exhibit No. 2, 20 H 174, viii; 7 H 294, WCT Harry D. Holmes; length and weight of Oswald’s Carcano: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Typical DVP. Which is why I swore him off.
Note where this is located: it's in the end notes. Now if the End Notes were in the book, that is one thing.
In RH, they are not in the book. They are on a CD that goes with the book. In other words, the reader has to take it out, insert it into the computer and then read another thousand or so pages of sources and further material.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So, Jim, since I proved in 2016 (via the above Endnotes quotation) that Vincent Bugliosi positively did "tell the reader" about the "36-inch" vs. "40-inch" rifle discrepancy, can we at least agree that you chose your words poorly when you asked the following two questions in 2016 and 2019?....
"Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?" -- Jim D.; August 2016
"What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!" -- Jim D.; August 2019
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?
Now, let me ask this: How many people read all of the CD?
(Sound of crickets in the night.)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, I have certainly read every page of the "Reclaiming History" endnotes. So your crickets in the night have just been forever silenced. 😉
And I continue to reference various parts of Vince Bugliosi's book on a regular basis (both the physical hardcover volume and the 1,000+ pages of CD-ROM endnotes). The book—including the very important endnotes—is an invaluable source of factual information concerning the events of November 22, 1963 (despite the conspiracy theorists' condemnation of it).
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
The obvious question is: why did VB not include this in the text?
I can tell you why since I analyzed the book. Vince did not want to include anything that he thought could give him a serious problem in the text of the book. So he put it on the CD. So he could more easily dismiss it. And this is what he usually did.
But he even got worse with things he knew he could not handle, on those issues he just left it out, e.g. the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph. This is why it's a dishonest book. He says at the outset he will not do that. He did. And there is no denying that it was deliberate. Because the information was right there in his end notes sources, he just ignored it.
BTW, David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle also. The WR does not bring the issue up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The Warren Commission undoubtedly didn't feel the need to bring up the 36-inch/40-inch rifle-length discrepancy because they knew beyond all doubt that Klein's had definitely shipped the Kennedy murder weapon to Lee Oswald in March of '63. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact for all time. The key to knowing this fact, of course, is the rifle's serial number—C2766—which is a number that appears on both Waldman #7 and the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the National Archives today.
Plus, when we examine the Klein's Catalog Numbers on the two pertinent rifle-purchasing documents in this case—Waldman #7 and CE773—we can see that the catalog numbers are identical —— C20-T750.
And it's also important to take note of the fact that even after Klein's Sporting Goods changed their magazine ads from the 36-inch rifle to the 40-inch model, the internal Klein's catalog number remained the same for at least a few months after Oswald purchased his gun, with the two Klein's advertisements pictured below proving that fact. Both of these Klein's ads depict a catalog number of C20-T750 for the $19.95 Rifle + Scope package that Oswald ordered in March 1963. The top ad is from the February '63 American Rifleman magazine (which was the source for Oswald's purchase), while the bottom ad (which is advertising a 40-inch Italian carbine) comes from later in 1963....
JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID:
Putting contrary information in notes or appendices is a common tactic to downplay, dismiss, discredit, or simply to bury the information that undercuts a book's thesis. The WC did that with its 26 volumes. Dale Myers did it with his Tippit book.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But there was really no good reason for Vince Bugliosi to want to "bury" the rifle-length discrepancy. And that's because the solution to the "discrepancy" is a very obvious and non-conspiratorial one. Klein's simply ran out of 36-inch Italian rifles shortly before they received Oswald's order in the mail, and therefore they shipped him a 40-inch model instead. Simple as that.
And that is a very reasonable and logical explanation, especially when considering the fact that in the very next ad that Klein's ran in American Rifleman (on page 55 of the April '63 issue; there was no Klein's ad at all in the March issue), the length of the rifle had changed from 36 inches to 40.
More here....
W. NIEDERHUT SAID:
I've never been a fan of censorship, but a few of the bugliosers here probably need to be filtered.
A professor at my alma mater used to tell his students to, "Read the good stuff. Life is too short to waste reading crap."
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
No cult welcomes heretics in its midst. The JFK conspiracy community is simply a cult, no different from any other. It is essentially a religion with its own little denominations and denominational squabbles but ultimately a brotherhood united by a one-point statement of faith: Oswald Didn't Act Alone. It's all way beyond "maintaining bias." It is "preserving dogma." Any critic is challenging who these folks are at their very core. You may as well try to proselytize a 32nd-degree Scientologist into Eastern Orthodoxy.
They are not searching for truth. They know the Truth - about the JFK assassination, the King assassination, 9/11, UFOs and every other subject in which conspiracy thinking predominates. If you dare to disagree, you don't know the Truth and are probably quite stupid as well or possibly even a disinformation agent planted by those Dark Forces who are trying to maintain the conspiracy.
Be my guest, evict the Lone Nut heretics from your midst! Let Jim [DiEugenio] and some of the others wear robes and funny hats and decide, like the college of cardinals, who is worthy! I used to post under the illusion that this forum actually had a substantial body of readers who might appreciate different perspectives. Now I know it's just a whacked-out cult with a tiny readership, and I post only to amuse myself when I am otherwise Really Bored.
LANCE PAYETTE LATER SAID:
I have figured out the respective roles of contributors such as DVP and myself. Those such as DVP are Professors of Evidence, who confront conspiracy theorists with the errors and gaps in their conspiracy scenarios. This is invaluable, but I would not have the patience or depth of knowledge to do it. Those such as myself are Professors of Logic, who examine conspiracy scenarios and theories and ask things like "Does that make any sense? How would that work in the real world? Why would the planners of a Presidential assassination have done that or taken all those unnecessary risks?" The roles overlap to some extent, of course.
The problem I had with JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy is that it seemed to me that McAdams was too willing to dive directly into the nuts and bolts of conspiracy theories, to confront the "evidence" directly. This is playing the game on the conspiracy theorists' turf, and a good conspiracy theorist will just keep moving the goal posts as we see on almost every thread here. Even if I had DVP's depth of knowledge, I wouldn't have the patience to do what he does. I believe the way to begin is always to ask "Even if what you suggest were true, would it make any sense at all?"
Here, Cliff's Irrefutable Solution presents a true evidentiary conundrum, a perfectly legitimate issue. The bullet hole evidence could indeed point to a conspiracy. If there was no conspiracy, a Lone Nutter must explain this evidence - simple as that. Cliff's mistake, which is why he appears to be a one-dimensional crank and is his own worst enemy, is in insisting that any explanation other than his is impossible, you must deal with the bullet hole evidence in a vacuum and are not allowed to consider it in the context of all the events in Dealey Plaza, and you are a fool if you are not willing to immediately throw in the towel and concede a massive conspiracy with gunmen at the front and rear with dissolving bullets and a complete absence of exit wounds.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
What sort of personality disorder is demonstrated by someone who professes not to care about a subject but goes on and on (and on) about it obsessively?
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
Gosh, now Cliff is a psychiatrist too?
I happen to be in a period of Exceeding Boredom at the moment. While I care little to nothing about the JFK assassination anymore (barring a BOMBSHELL), I am fascinated, as I always have been, by the psychology of these internet communities and conspiracy thinking in general. As long as the Truther Psychiatrist keeps serving up softballs, I'll take a whack at them. If you'll join in, my fun will be doubled!
Wait a minute - Cliff Varnell is calling me obsessive??? Isn't that like the Black Hole of Obsessiveness calling the teapot black? Can we talk about SOMETHING else now - ANYTHING else, I beg you - other than the hole in JFK's shirt? Are you up to 5,000 posts on that subject yet?
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Unlike incompetent lawyers, I grasp the significance of physical evidence found with the body in a murder case.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's interesting to take note of which pieces of physical evidence that most Internet conspiracy theorists consider to be not fake or manufactured to frame a guy named Oswald. Since the clothing holes in JFK's shirt and suit coat are situated lower than the actual bullet hole in the skin of President Kennedy's upper back, conspiracists like Cliff Varnell feel free to travel down the "Something Here Doesn't Look Right" road of conspiracy.
But if many of the CTers are right when they claim that virtually all other pieces of physical evidence in this case have been faked and falsely manufactured in order to frame a guy named Oswald, then I'm just wondering why those crackerjack Patsy Framers didn't fake JFK's shirt and suit jacket too. It would seem that nothing was beyond the capabilities of those ace evidence manipulators, e.g.: per most CTers, the unseen "they" were able to get into the TSBD and up to the sixth floor to rearrange all the ballistics evidence up there so it would perfectly fit the Oswald-Did-It narrative; they were able to break into Ruth Paine's garage and plant some backyard photos depicting the Patsy with the same rifle they managed to plant on the sixth floor; they managed to plant two identifiable bullet fragments in JFK's limousine that traced back to that same rifle they planted in the TSBD; and on and on.
But they forgot about faking the clothing evidence. ~~~slaps forehead~~~
But, then too, nobody's perfect all the time, right? Not even Presidential assassins and cover-uppers. So I guess Cliff is willing to cut the otherwise super-efficient evidence manipulators a little slack when it comes to the shirt and coat. Right, Cliff?
End result (per many conspiracy theorists): JFK's shirt and coat were just about the only pieces of physical evidence in this case that weren't tampered with in some way by the authorities. (Plus, there are the Oswald fingerprints on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest. Most CTers don't think those prints were planted, but only because they feel comfortable utilizing the "He Worked There" cop-out of an excuse to explain why Lee Harvey Oswald's prints were the only ones found on those boxes, excluding the prints of policemen.)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
The military brass at Bethesda refused to let Finck look at the clothing.
They refused to let Humes request a medical examiner from Baltimore to advise them since they were not accustomed to doing trauma type pathologies.
They would not allow a dissection of the back wound.
Something else I just found out. After Malcolm Perry's afternoon conference, either a Secret service guy or FBI guy told him never to repeat the info about an anterior neck wound again.
If you take a look at the time of that conference, this means someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be.
Need I add that every single video recording of that conference is gone? And the Secret Service lied about not having a transcript.
These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's only damning in the mind of a rabid conspiracy theorist who will always look at everything with an eye toward a conceived conspiracy. (Know anybody who fits that bill around here?)
And this assertion below by Jim D. should convince him that he's not being at all reasonable or realistic about the topic of Malcolm Perry and the throat wound....
"...someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be..."
But Jim couldn't care less about a realistic approach to the evidence; he's too invested in promoting conspiracy, no matter how silly he sounds while doing it.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Dead wrong. I've never once said that Dr. Perry or Dr. McClelland were lying. And I'm certainly not saying (or even implying) such a thing now.
Perry was simply wrong about the throat wound being a wound of entry. And McClelland was wrong about some things too. But I've never called either one of those doctors a liar.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
But that is how desperate these loons get. Notice he does not say any of it is wrong. Because it's not.
BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked?
Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp (which we can hear her admit in her own voice in the 1967 interview found here [fast forward to 17:07], where she says that "Oswald was entirely innocent" of not only killing President Kennedy, but she also says she thinks LHO was also innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder and the Walker shooting attempt as well), then by mere implication she pretty much had no choice but to believe that a large amount of the physical evidence against Oswald was faked, manufactured, or manipulated in some manner --- otherwise Oswald is guilty. Simple as that.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Confirmation bias prevents Von Pein from seeing the normal amount of shirt collar above the top of the jacket collar in the Elm St. photos, which means the jacket collar wasn't elevated at all.
David, do you know any small children who could show you how clothing moves?
If so, they can stop you from promoting a fraud.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Don't ya love Cliff Varnell's amazing supernatural ability to be able to see right through JFK's jacket in the Croft picture?
How did you manage to do that, Cliff? Please tell us your secret for seeing through solid objects in order to promote a theory that you know you can never prove if your life hung in the balance.
I anxiously await Cliff's spectacularly inept reply.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Von Pein has a supernatural inability to see that JFK's jacket collar was in its normal position in the Croft photo.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Who cares? We know (and can easily see) that another part of that same jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" on JFK's back.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
The lower margin of the jacket collar was just above the base of the neck where Von Pein claims multiple inches of shirt and jacket were all wadded up.
What do we call someone actively promoting an obvious fraud?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
A JFK conspiracy theorist.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
The jacket was bunched up 1/8".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Don't ya love it when a JFK conspiracy fantasist just makes up things that he cannot possibly know with such "one-eighth of an inch" precision?
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Don't ya love it when a nutter can't do the math -- 4 and 1/8 minus 4 equals 1/8.
Surely there must be some small children in your neighborhood who can explain this to you, David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Once again, we're treated to Cliff's extraordinary X-ray vision. He can SEE that JFK's shirt is not bunched-up at all. Not even a fraction of an inch.
The level of Varnell's arrogance is close to becoming legendary.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
You claim to "see" the shirt is wadded up multiple inches entirely above the base of the neck even though the jacket collar wasn't elevated at all.
Your hypocrisy is well-established, though I'd stop short of calling it legendary.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
ONE hole in the shirt.
ONE hole in the jacket.
ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process).
Surely there must be some small children in your neighborhood who can explain this easy math to you, Cliff.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
False. Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy.
Why do you continue to push this fraud?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I haven't the slightest idea why the conspiracy fantasist named Varnell uttered the above crap. Dr. Humes testified as follows to the Warren Commission (emphasis is my own) [at 2 H 361]....
"We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion."
But I guess Cliff must think the above statement made by Humes was nothing but a lie.
And I guess Cliff thinks Dr. Humes continued to peddle that same lie three years later in this 1967 CBS-TV interview....
In addition, the HSCA in the late 1970s examined the original autopsy photographs depicting President Kennedy's upper-back wound and concluded that the "midpoint" of the entry wound in JFK's back was located "13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process" (7 HSCA 85), which is within one-half centimeter of Humes' 1963 measurement. (One possible explanation for that difference could be that the autopsy surgeons measured the distance to the bottom margin of the wound, vs. measuring it only to the wound's "midpoint".)
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
The notations were written on the autopsy face sheet in pen -- a violation of autopsy protocol.
Humes used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound -- a violation of autopsy protocol.
Humes used 2 moveable landmarks -- a double violation of autopsy protocol.
The more protocol violations the better in Nutter Land.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
When do you plan on defending this bold and incorrect statement of yours?....
"Those measurements were not taken at the time of the autopsy."
Not a single thing you said above about "protocol" proves that the "14cm. from mastoid" measurement wasn't taken at the time of the autopsy.
Try again, Mr. Fantasist. Because your last effort was quite lame.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Because at the time of the autopsy there was a pencil chained to the clip board upon which the autopsy face sheet was filled out by James C. Jenkins, under the direction of Thornton Boswell.
Pencil is proper autopsy protocol.
The notations in pen were added later.
When are you going to show us how you wad multiple inches of shirt and jacket entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar?
Did JFK's jacket collar and this big lump of clothing occupy the same physical space at the same time?
Show us Von Pein or at long last STFU.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Let me try the simple approach yet again (maybe Cliff will suddenly have a "Eureka" moment)....
ONE hole in the shirt.
ONE hole in the jacket.
ONE hole in JFK's upper back (which we know was located 14 centimeters below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process).
--equals--
ONE bullet travelled through all 3 of the above holes.
What's your alternative solution, Cliff? I want to hear it?
If the SAME bullet didn't go through both clothing holes and the only skin wound in JFK's upper back, then what do YOU think happened?
I'm going to guess that you believe this photo below is a fake, right? And you think the "real" wound was located much lower on Kennedy's back, right? (You might have answered those inquiries previously in a discussion(s) that I have archived at my site, but I haven't memorized all of your fantasy-filled posts, so I can't currently remember.)
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Show us how a big shirt fold wrapped in a big jacket fold occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar.
All you can do is repeat the Big Lies over and over.
Show us or STFU.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I guess this means you're not going to answer my "What do you think happened?" question, huh?
(To be expected, of course.)
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
I don't know what happened.
All I know for a fact is that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn't exit, and no round was found at the autopsy; JFK was hit in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was found during the autopsy.
The autopsists speculated JFK was hit with a high tech round that wouldn't show up anywhere during the autopsy.
Maybe that's what happened.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And that batch of pure silliness, which involves two different gunmen firing low-velocity bullets into the man they are hoping to kill with those bullets, is somehow MORE believable and sensible to you than to believe that JFK's shirt was able to "bunch up" to approximately the same level as the jacket?
Incredible.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
The doctors at the autopsy didn't think the idea was silly; the FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was silly; the US Army Special Operations Division -- which developed blood soluble paralytics and toxins for the CIA project MKNAOMI -- didn't think it was silly.
You say discrete objects can occupy the same space at the same time.
You're being the silly one, David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
At the time they were considering such cloak-and-dagger solutions, they hadn't yet confirmed the existence of the bullet wound in JFK's throat. Once that wound was confirmed by the autopsy doctors to be a bullet hole (via Dr. Perry), the solution was obvious to Humes, et al.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Show us how you get the wad of clothing and the jacket collar to occupy the same physical space at the same time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I guess you've never heard of the term "overlapping", eh?
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
Burden of proof is on you.
Demonstrate this or do the world a favor and STFU.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Spoken as if it is me who is constantly bringing up the topic of the clothing 24/7/365.
The irony is thick in here.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
The intellectual dishonesty is thick in here.
Von Pein touts the SBT 24/7/365.
Demonstrate your claims for the SBT or....wait for it...STFU.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh good! Varnell is now going to pretend that I've never once in the past "demonstrated my claims for the SBT". Even though he says "Von Pein touts the SBT 24/7/365". A curious contradiction in logic there.
Demonstrations (and Common Sense) Galore....
And don't forget about the best part (isolated separately at my webpage below because I love it so much)....
THE ULTIMATE IN "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" DENIAL AMONG CONSPIRACY THEORISTS....
David Von Pein
August 1-15, 2019
