Originally Posted by
MicahJava
See how desperate Hank is to lie and shield the truth from truly honest people. He wants you to think I'm ignoring the passage of autopsy report that said "slightly above the external occipital protuberance", when I did not argue that it was lower.
Except when you did cite Humes recollection that the wound was at the bottom of the hairline -- well below the EOP:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1680
You wrote this:
Quote:
Both Boswell and Humes have said at one point that the small wound could be by that white spot, because all they had to see were the BOH photos. Boswell is probably correct in saying that the wound wasn't that low, but he also explicitly says that the red spot isn't the wound and it's too high.
I didn't lie. I took you at your word. Was that a mistake? Or do just not remember what you said 13 months ago? That wouldn't be a problem if you had a consistent argument. All your claims would not then contradict each other.
Originally Posted by
MicahJava
He wants you to think "slightly above" means "four inches above, nowhere near the external occipital protuberance, not even in the occipital bone".
Please cite where I ever said that. My point is you want everyone to think "slightly above" means at the EOP or below, and it's never meant that.
Originally Posted by
MicahJava
Put it this way: The wound was low enough in the head to remain intact after the top of the skull had been opened up to facilitate removal of the brain. That's what Dr. Finck always said.
The wound could be anywhere on the head and that would be true. As both Finck and Humes noted, the cuts made to facilitate removal of the brain consisted of cuts in the scalp only. They did not need to cut any bone. You're simply assuming what you need to prove.
Hank