Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
I want a one-on-one thread because so far your routine has been to vaguely allude to non-existent earlier, better posts of yours that actually address my arguments
Click to expand...

How would that work any differently than the one on many? You would still ignore any points you can't answer. There might be fewer of them because the 'one' wouldn't necessarily think of all possible rebuttals to your arguments, but it would not change how your routine works.

My 'routine' has been to address your arguments, then link to my original posts pointing out how you're ignoring my points and simply reiterating your points.

See my post immediately prior to this one (about Law's interview of McNeill) for just ONE out of dozens of examples.

Here's the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12145381&postcount=3439

After citing those ignored posts a couple of times by providing the actual links, I then allude to them, but they are not "non-existent" nor "vague". Your rebuttals are either not factual or contain logical fallacies, which I then point out and ask you to address the points without the errors of logic or fact. You never do.



MicahJava said:
including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know.
Click to expand...

You seldom address the points I make. You make a response that is either a logical fallacy (like a straw man argument or a change of subject) or respond that so-and-so was lying (but never explain how you know that).

I link to links to links of my responses to show how many times you've ignored the original post.



MicahJava said:
That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain everyone else who read the point understands it. If any lurker needed further details or was confused by my point they have yet to come forward to say so.

Your arguments citing Lifton and body alteration directly imply Connally's wounds must also be altered, if the President's were. Failure to address the point exposes Lifton's argument - and yours, lifted from Lifton - as worthless inanity.

Here's some of the links to my arguments about that point. Feel free to ignore them, or even more fun, pretend they are 'gibberish' to you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12027483&postcount=1760
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12049447&postcount=2233
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12050013&postcount=2247
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12135493&postcount=3338
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12137669&postcount=3355

Ignore them at the peril to your own credibility. Pretend they are gibberish if you want. Doesn't do your credibility much good.



MicahJava said:
Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.
Click to expand...

Only because you're stuck for an answer. It's not boring to those of us watching your avoidance of the critical points. It's fascinating.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Okay, well I have the autopsy report by my side. The EOP wound is in the autopsy report. 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. All other evidence indicates that "slightly" means slightly, not 4-5 inches above.
Click to expand...

We covered all that months ago.

This is just another fringe reset by you.

Hank
 
Wolverine said:
Actually I think that criticism was levied for repeatedly re-introducing select, debunked arguments, not "only sticking to one or two topics". And rightfully so.
MicahJava said:
Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
Wolverine said:
You're doing it again.
MicahJava said:
I don't play any debunked "4 inch above the EOP" games, but feel free to answer any way you'd like.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

He already did. He pointed out you're doing it again -- invoking a fringe reset, AND invoking a logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof... you're asking him to disprove your contention.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
Click to expand...

Do you?

Why or why not?

Be precise and cite your evidence.

We'll wait.

Hank

PS: Who altered Connally's wounds?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
Click to expand...

Of course it works. There have too many experiments and demonstrations that prove the both the shots that hit targets came from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
 
bknight said:
Of course it works. There have too many experiments and demonstrations that prove the both the shots that hit targets came from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Click to expand...

Please do show me.

BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials? Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.
 
MicahJava said:
BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials? Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.
Click to expand...

Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN.

He found a necktie offered shoring to the flesh and the result was a smaller exit wound.

BTW, you're now changing the subject once more.


MicahJava said:
Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. We covered this extensively in the past.

No free fringe resets for you.


Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN.

He found a necktie offered shoring to the flesh and the result was a smaller exit wound.
Click to expand...

Go on?

Asked and answered. We covered this extensively in the past.

No free fringe resets for you.


Hank
Click to expand...

Answered with gibberish BS which cannot refute the original autopsy report nor can it refute the autopsy participants.
 
MicahJava said:
BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials?
HSienzant said:
Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN.
He found a necktie offered shoring to the flesh and the result was a smaller exit wound. BTW, you're now changing the subject once more.

MicahJava said:
Go on?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No need. Asked and answered. You raised a point and I answered it. You said you had the book, as I recall.



MicahJava said:
Answered with gibberish BS which cannot refute the original autopsy report nor can it refute the autopsy participants.
Click to expand...

The original autopsy report says the bullet entered JFK's head from above and behind. The three autopsy doctors said the same thing. Two large fragments of a bullet were found in the limo after the assassination that were determined to come from the rifle found after the assassination that would have been above and behind the limousine during the assassination.

Those two large bullet fragments came from that rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Those fragments most likely comprised the remnants of the bullet that hit JFK in the back of the head, exiting the top right of the head.

The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, where numerous witnesses said they saw a young slender white male in the window from which a rifle was seen, was traceable to one person, a 24-year-old slender white male named Lee Harvey Oswald, who ordered it from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of 1963, paid for it by money order in his handwriting, had it shipped to his post office box, was photographed holding the rifle by his wife with the family camera, and left his fingerprints and a palmprint on the rifle. Oswald worked in that building from which the shots were fired and was seen with a long homemade paper sack that morning. A long homemade paper sack - long enough to contain the disassembled rifle - was found in the depository within a few feet of the window from which the shooter was seen. It bore Oswald's print.

That's really all you need to know.

You want to quibble all over again about where precisely on the head the entry wound was, go right ahead. But after quoting the doctors on this point, you also turned around and call the doctors who conducted the autopsy and prepared the autopsy report liars when you disagreed with them.

Nobody is buying what you're selling.

So don't expect me to play along again. We covered this extensively in the past, and your arguments about the location of the head wound don't overturn any of the above facts.

The autopsy said one bullet hit JFK in the head, entering the rear of the head, and exiting the top right. We have two large fragments of that bullet, and they are traceable to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Oswald's rifle fired the shot that killed JFK.

Learn to live with the things you cannot change.
And you cannot change that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Hank, I think the Lattimer experiments you're referring to are also featured in this free paper:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf

See? I'm so genuine in my discourse that I'm willing to share (alleged) evidence against conspiracy from time to time if I do come across it. You would never see that from LNers.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, I think the Lattimer experiments you're referring to are also featured in this free paper:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf

See? I'm so genuine in my discourse that I'm willing to share (alleged) evidence against conspiracy from time to time if I do come across it. You would never see that from LNers.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I share evidence against conspiracy all the time.

If you knew about the Lattimer experiments, why'd you ask if the small exit wound had been replicated?

And if you knew about the Lattimer experiments, why'd you ask me to 'go on' after I pointed them out to you?

And if you knew about the Lattimer experiments, why do you suggest now they are only 'alleged' evidence against conspiracy?

And if you're aware they were published in WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW, THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION, why are you questioning their validity?

So much for your 'genuine discourse'.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Once again, MJ, what is your theory of what actually happened. Enquiring minds want to know and for reasons unexplained, you are avoiding this like the plague.
 
MicahJava said:
Please do show me.

BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials? Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.
Click to expand...

You have been presented several demonstrations you just ignore them or hand wave them away because those demonstrations validate the autopsy findings.

I'm not going to search something that has been shown many times. And no I don't have them all bookmarked, go do your own research in something other than a CT book/webpage.
 
MicahJava said:
Definitely some EOP going on there.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood. The question was "what is your theory of what actually happened."?

You have spent years posting about what you think didn't happen. Now how about a coherent summary of what you think did happen? For me you do not even have to explain why, just summarize the sequence of events as you see them. Thanks.
 
Steve said:
I think you misunderstood. The question was "what is your theory of what actually happened."?

You have spent years posting about what you think didn't happen. Now how about a coherent summary of what you think did happen? For me you do not even have to explain why, just summarize the sequence of events as you see them. Thanks.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of great theories out there, but one thing for sure is the EOP wound. Any investigation must explain the EOP wound.
 
Steve said:
I think you misunderstood.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. He didn't have an answer a year ago. He didn't have an answer six months ago. He doesn't have an answer now.

He doesn't know what happened. He only knows what he believes didn't happen. Oswald alone, from the Depository, with a Mannlicher-Carcano.

That's all he has. That belief that it wasn't Oswald alone. Everything else is subservient to that belief. So

So he simply deflects. And like a drowning man, clings to the floating debris in an ocean of evidence point to Oswald.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
There are a lot of great theories out there,
Click to expand...

No, there is only one supported by a consilience of evidence. Which of the others do you subscribe to?

Note that you will be asked to support your theory with a consilience of evidence and it will be held to the same standard you hold the established narrative to.

I'm guessing that you will run away from answering. Just like any other CTist.
 
MicahJava said:
There are a lot of great theories out there, but one thing for sure is the EOP wound. Any investigation must explain the EOP wound.
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood again. I was asking specifically what you think occurred. I doubt that you subscribe to all the "great theories".I expect there is one that best represents your views. Do you have your own theory or is there a specific theory from someone else that accurately reflects you thoughts? All I am asking for is a brief summary, in your own words, of what you think happened that day. Without, of course, any comments on what you do not think happened that day.
Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Definitely some EOP going on there.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered previously. You ignored all the responses.

Here's just one example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11528666&postcount=1815

Particularly these points, which you ignored:
I see no possible wound location anywhere on the back of the head except for the one you keep calling the "cowlick red spot". You remember, the one which is:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it

That one, the one that couldn't possibly be a wound entry location (according to you).

and adding point (e)
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
There are a lot of great theories out there
Click to expand...

No, there's only one supported by the evidence.

Oswald's paper bag. Oswald's rifle. Oswald's ammo. Oswald's finger on the trigger.

What evidence do you have for your favorite?

Or - no surprise - you can choose to punt again.


MicahJava said:
...but one thing for sure is the EOP wound. Any investigation must explain the EOP wound.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about "the EOP wound". There was NO wound in the EOP (external occipital protuberance).

Hank
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
You seem to have misunderstood again.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. He answers a different question when he can't answer the question asked. It's his way of moving the conversation along and pretending there's actually some substance to his responses.

There isn't.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Asked and answered previously. You ignored all the responses.

Here's just one example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11528666&postcount=1815
Click to expand...

Hank, Dr. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a small laceration in the scalp related to the large head wound. So while Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck and John Stringer suggested that the red spot was just a drop of blood, there is no reason why we shouldn't think the red spot could be a small wound of some signifigance. It's just not THE small wound near the external occipital protuberance. Autopsy photographs showing views such as the small head wound and Kennedy's right lung have inexplicably gone missing. So you are working from the context of an incomplete set of photographs.

Particularly these points, which you ignored:
I see no possible wound location anywhere on the back of the head except for the one you keep calling the "cowlick red spot". You remember, the one which is:

(a) in focus
Click to expand...


Source? Still, Not evidence of an entry wound.

(b) in the relative center of the photo
Click to expand...

So?

(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
Click to expand...

Specifically denied by the autopsy pathologists who examined the photographs. Also, the significance of "parted hair" is in question because other photographs show Kennedy's hair parted in a different way. And even if the hair was parted to expose some kind of small wound on the top of the head, still not evidence that it's THE wound.

(d) has a ruler next to it
Click to expand...

Specifically denied by the autopsy pathologists who examined the photographs. But even if that were true, so what? Still not evidence that the red spot is THE wound.


(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described.

Hank
Click to expand...

Wrong. The wound described in the autopsy report is 15 x 6mm, while the red spot is only about 12 mm and mostly pretty circular. What is the significance of "elliptical"? If it were perfectly round, the cowlickers would never get over it.

Notes:

1. I have not seen any photographic evidence that the red spot is situated 4-5 inches above the EOP like the alleged defect on the X-rays. Looking at stereoscopic morphing gifs of the autopsy photographs, the red spot appears to be about 2 inches above the EOP.

2. While you may doubt that the EOP wound could simply be hiding under a bit of hair on the back-of-head photographs, keep in mind that Kennedy's hair also appears to be obscuring the hole in the right temple described by Tom Robinson.

3. The red spot could be an exit for a fragment (which may very well be possible with a shot from behind, a fragment that flew backwards), in which case the autopsy pathologists would have a motive for not addressing it truthfully.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did. This is a difficult crime case. The damage to Kennedy's head was not caused by single shot from the Depository entering 4-5 inches above the EOP and exiting the top of the head. The lower wound right next to the EOP must be accounted for.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did. This is a difficult crime case. The damage to Kennedy's head was not caused by single shot from the Depository entering 4-5 inches above the EOP and exiting the top of the head. The lower wound right next to the EOP must be accounted for.
Click to expand...

Where did other shots come from?
 
Steve said:
You seem to have misunderstood again. I was asking specifically what you think occurred. I doubt that you subscribe to all the "great theories".I expect there is one that best represents your views. Do you have your own theory or is there a specific theory from someone else that accurately reflects you thoughts? All I am asking for is a brief summary, in your own words, of what you think happened that day. Without, of course, any comments on what you do not think happened that day.
Thanks again.
Click to expand...

The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Where did other shots come from?
Click to expand...

Since the EOP wound is almost certainly an entrance for a missile, that shot would have to come from behind, and probably above.

Just look at the situation with MLK. While one single bullet did the trick in that case, there were almost certainly at least two sniper positions, one in the bushes and one in the fire department building. So I do not reject the typical conspiracy theorist notion that there would be other snipers hidden in buildings for the purpose of making sure Kennedy died.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did.
Click to expand...

Actually it's a huge problem. All that matters is what happened.


This is a difficult crime case.
Click to expand...

Hardly. The only reason it's not open and shut is Oswald was shot before he confessed. We have his rifle, his bullets, fired from his place of work on the floor he worked on,DPD Officer Tippet killed by Oswald, attempts to kill second DPD Officer in the theater.

This is what happened.

The damage to Kennedy's head was not caused by single shot from the Depository entering 4-5 inches above the EOP and exiting the top of the head.
Click to expand...

Yes it absolutely was. The bullet was recovered. The damage to the head is exclusive to the 6.5x52mm round.

This is a difficult crime case. The damage to Kennedy's head was not caused by single shot from the Depository entering 4-5 inches above the EOP and exiting the top of the head. The lower wound right next to the EOP must be accounted for.



The lower wound right next to the EOP must be accounted for.
Click to expand...

There is no wound lower to the right. You are misinterpreting a low-resolution photograph the content of which you are not qualified to evaluate. As we've pointed out before, you have not seen all of the photographs from the autopsy, and therefore do not know what they do or do not show.

The only opinion that matters belongs to the men who did the autopsy, and they found only one entrance wound to the back of the head.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did. This is a difficult crime case.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. The weapon was recovered within 40 minutes of the assassination. A paper sack used to transport the weapon was recovered from right next to the window where the shooter was seen, as were three shells traceable to his weapon. The killer was in custody within 90 minutes of the assassination. A nearly whole bullet was discovered at Parkland Hospital that afternoon. And two large fragments were found in the limo that evening. The three shells, the two bullet fragments, and the nearly whole bullet were all determined to have been fired from his weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. His prints were discovered on the weapon, and photographs of him with the weapon were recovered from the Paine's garage (where he stored many of his belongings) within 24 hours.

To this day, 54 years later, there is no evidence pointing to anyone else.
Once more: To this day, there is no evidence pointing to anyone else.

No other shooter was seen, no other weapon was found, no other suspect emerged, no bullets, no shells, no bullet fragments traceable to another weapon. NOTHING.




MicahJava said:
The damage to Kennedy's head was not caused by single shot from the Depository entering 4-5 inches above the EOP and exiting the top of the head.
Click to expand...

And this is where you lose all credibility. There was only one shot to the head, according to the autopsy report you yourself like to cite. Not two bullet wounds to the head. And the evidence indicates exactly where it was.


MicahJava said:
The lower wound right next to the EOP must be accounted for.
Click to expand...

It is. The autopsy report places it above the EOP, not 'right next to the EOP'.

The wound in the autopsy photos is above the EOP.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Since the EOP wound is almost certainly an entrance for a missile, that shot would have to come from behind, and probably above.
Click to expand...
So the shot that entered above the EOP as noted in the autopsy which you've been citing is accounted for. Where does your confusion come from? Were you thinking that there were shots besides those that Oswald fired?
 
MicahJava said:
Since the EOP wound is almost certainly an entrance for a missile, that shot would have to come from behind, and probably above.

Just look at the situation with MLK. While one single bullet did the trick in that case, there were almost certainly at least two sniper positions, one in the bushes and one in the fire department building.
Click to expand...

Stick to this case.

All that matters is what happened in Dealey Plaza. Another place and another time is blowing smoke.
 
The autopsy (officially) concluded one head shot because the small wound in the skull had internal beveling and the large wound in the skull had external beveling. I am not denying this. The trajectories, how the (official) brain was damaged, how the (official) X-rays show fragment dispersal or fracture patterns are a totally different issue. Kennedy's brain was alledgedly not sectioned. Would anybody care to explain why the brain is sectioned in cases of gunshot wound to the head?
 
MicahJava said:
Since the EOP wound is almost certainly an entrance for a missile, that shot would have to come from behind, and probably above.
Click to expand...

And what weapons were recovered behind and above the President? I know of only one... the one belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Do enlighten us about the other weapons found, and who they belonged to.



MicahJava said:
Just look at the situation with MLK. While one single bullet did the trick in that case, there were almost certainly at least two sniper positions, one in the bushes and one in the fire department building.
Click to expand...

Hilarious!

You want to get hammered on two assassinations simultaneously, apparently.

James Earl Ray, the confessed assassin, was neither in the bushes nor a fire department. He shot from the bathroom window of a rooming house.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Assassination

Let's pretend not to notice you're apparently desperate to change the subject (a logical fallacy of a red herring).

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.
Click to expand...

And they are off and running again... Just another fringe reset by you.

We've covered all this. In detail. About a year ago. A reminder: You are now contradicting the very autopsy report and the very autopsy doctors you just cited a few posts above.

Make up your mind. Either the autopsy doctors got it right, or they got it wrong. But you don't get to cite their conclusions when it suits you, and then turn around and disregard their conclusions when it suits you as well.

Now you're just cherry-picking the parts you like.

And your argument doesn't even make sense. You're arguing for a bullet exiting JFK's throat in the Z190-Z224 range, as we've previously established.

That means you think JFK was struck in the brain by a bullet that went through his head, exited the base of the skull (without leaving any discernable damage!) and then exited his throat, and yet JFK still was able to sit upright for at least five seconds, bring his arms up and out, point to his throat wound, and do all this before a second shot to his head blew the top of his skull off.

That theory is bizarre beyond belief, because it now has you arguing that the autopsy doctors missed a second bullet entry wound in the head, a second bullet exit through the base of the skull (that somehow caused NO damage), missed a bullet in the body (that entered the back and didn't exit the throat according to you), and that none of the roughly 500 witnesses in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination saw the other shooter(s) responsible for these other shots. Or heard more than the three fired from Oswald's rifle. So the witnesses were deaf AND blind when it suits your purposes, and the autopsy doctors got everything wrong except the location of the wound on the back of the head.

Good luck recovering from that bizarre theory.

And that's why conspiracy theorists generally don't offer anything but criticism of the established scenario. Because the moment they start getting definitive is the moment their theory unravels completely.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The autopsy (officially) concluded one head shot because the small wound in the skull had internal beveling and the large wound in the skull had external beveling. I am not denying this. The trajectories, how the (official) brain was damaged, how the (official) X-rays show fragment dispersal or fracture patterns are a totally different issue.
Click to expand...
And it came from the direction of Oswald's sniper nest, as you say. Ok.

Kennedy's brain was alledgedly not sectioned. Would anybody care to explain why the brain is sectioned in cases of gunshot wound to the head?
Click to expand...
Yes, you may enlighten us.
 
HSienzant said:
And they are off and running again... Just another fringe reset by you.

We've covered all this. In detail. About a year ago. A reminder: You are now contradicting the very autopsy report and the very autopsy doctors you just cited a few posts above.

Make up your mind. Either the autopsy doctors got it right, or they got it wrong. But you don't get to cite their conclusions when it suits you, and then turn around and disregard their conclusions when it suits you as well.

Now you're just cherry-picking the parts you like.

Hank
Click to expand...

Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat. It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.

gonoy3H.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom