|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
16th October 2017, 06:04 PM | #1961 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
How is this evidence of anything other than Finck was late?
Quote:
Quote:
This is not evidence, you make a statement based on Wikipedia as if it definitive to all autopsies ever performed. The question is: How did they remove JFK's brain? The answer is that they did it the conventional way for the majority of the skull using a bone saw. In the areas where the skull fracturing was severe they either cut carefully, or eased the brain out by manipulating the fractures. We know this because Humes recounted this process.
Quote:
Dr. Hume detailed the removal of the brain. We've linked to it twice. You have posted photos of the head that show that the scalp was excised, and the skull sawed on the left side. Your own cut and paste storm contradicts your statement.
Quote:
Quote:
Preserving the wound area perhaps? How is this in any way suspicious? |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 06:37 PM | #1962 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
So they are more reliable when nearly all of them are wrong as opposed to half of them?
Granting for the moment your claim that the witnesses were split relatively evenly for the knoll vs. the Depository as the source of the shots (that's not close to true, but I'll grant it for the time being), your claim that any of these witnesses could be accurate and confirm your theorizing is beyond belief. First of all, let's point out that only a very few (less than five) witnesses suggested shots came from multiple locations. Out of all the other witnesses who responded, most named ONE location only (many others said "don't know"). And that one location varied, from "the overpass", "the railroad yards", "the Sexton Building" (the old name for the Depository), "the Depository", etc. Lumping all non-Depository responses (like "overpass") into grassy knoll responses inflates that count for the knoll, but that's not even my complaint here. Your arguments conflict with each other. You cannot argue for reliable witnesses AND argue for multiple shooting locations. But that's exactly what you do. Why do they conflict? Because the vast majority of witnesses thought the shots came from ONE location, not several. But in your theory all the shots didn't come from one place, the shots came from several different locations. So all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the knoll must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the Depository and elsewhere, according to your theory. And all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the Depository must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the knoll and elsewhere, according to your theory. You cannot reconcile your two arguments, for reliable witnesses AND multiple shooting locations, because nearly all the witnesses who named a source named one location, not multiple locations. So all those witnesses who named only one source got it wrong, and that makes them unreliable. My theory has only about half (it's actually fewer than that) the witnesses being wrong for thinking all the shots came from the knoll. And the other half (those who thought all the shots came from the Depository) being right. Only conspiracy-land theorists like yourself would think claiming nearly 100% of the witnesses got the location of some of the shots wrong would establish to a reasonable person's satisfaction that witnesses are reliable. I'm sure you think that's some high-level thinking on your part. Most people would see right through that delusional nonsense. How reliable can witnesses be when nearly all of them thought shots came from one location, and your theory has multiple shooting locations? They were nearly all wrong about the source of some of your shots, according to your own arguments. I asked you this before, and you ignored the question. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
16th October 2017, 06:45 PM | #1963 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 07:10 PM | #1964 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
A guy on a CT site thought the test was crap? Be-still my heart.
Quote:
My favorite part:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The equipment mapped Dealey Plaza's sonic footprint, so they didn't need to put people out around the plaza, for the same reason nobody uses abacus any more. This guy's really going to flip out when he finds out doctors don't do blood-letting for gout any more.
Quote:
D
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 07:40 PM | #1965 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I know science frightens you, but the what they did was map the acoustical footprint of Dealey Plaza. This allowed them to simulate how sound waves move and reflect within this space, and the quality/degradation of the sound as it traveled.
Sound is something science has a good handle on. Sound waves are not equal. For example I could never hear my bass player when we practiced because we were in a small room. The bass frequencies don't resolve for 12 feet from the speaker, and that's where you put the microphone.
Quote:
Why would you use a suppressor with supersonic ammunition and then hope the sound travels the way you need it to? Do you understand how stupid that is? I can't think of anyone I know who has used a suppressor in combat who thought the device made them invisible. The enemy sure found them fast after a few shots. And you're asking a lot from 1963 silencer technology.
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 08:02 PM | #1966 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Truth be told, it has an alias. It sometimes goes by the name of "the Triple Overpass". The original literature (as well as most Dallas citizens) referred to the structure pretty much 50-50 for each name. But over the years, "Triple Underpass" has fallen out of favor in the CT literature, and "Triple Overpass" has become the predominant name for the structure. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
16th October 2017, 09:36 PM | #1967 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I like how for a while now some of you guys have just resorted to constantly implying that the issues with the medical evidence can just be dismissed as if it had already been refuted in previous, more epic Internet jousts that everybody remembers.
Nobody can refute the mountain of evidence for the EOP wound, because most of the evidence for it lies in the overwhelming consensus between witnesses to Kennedy's body. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Charles Boyers, George Burkley Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, and you could probably add Tom Robinson to that list because he not only told the HSCA that he saw the doctors inserting a probe in the base of the head, but also told the ARRB that he saw the end of the probe emerge from the tracheotomy site. But let's take a quick look at EOP wound witness Francis X. O'Neil. In his deposition to the HSCA on 1/10/1978, "O'Neill said that the autopsy doctors felt that the bullet that entered the head struck the center, low portion of the head and exited from the top, right side, towards the front.". Here are the diagrams he drew: O'Neil is the only person to ever draw a diagram of Kennedy's head wounds from memory and place the mark representing entry above the ears. It's a crude drawing, but it's technically above the level of the ears. However, it is not anatomically correct. Kenney's real hairline would be lower in relation to his ears, for example. His placement on his drawing is nowhere near the top of the head where the theoretical "upper cowlick entry wound" was. O'Neil obviously qualifies as a strong EOP wound witness, this is sealed by his description "center, low portion of the head". Would you call this the "lower portion" of your head? No, that trajectory enters the top of the head. But the wound the autopsy doctors remember was on the lower portion of the back of Kennedy's head. No autopsy participant ever described that wound as being on the top of the head. P.S. O'Neil did not elaborate on this wound he reported seeing while testifying to the ARRB or being interviewed by Law. |
16th October 2017, 10:31 PM | #1968 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Not just the internet. And yes, it's been crushed..
Quote:
Quote:
Richard Lipsey was not a doctor, and he says this:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your pet theory is dependent on all of the film evidence, and eye-witness evidence, and the autopsy all being wrong. You base it on cherry-picked quotes, and CTist woo without any honest brokers in the mix. Your meltdown today indicates you know you've have nothing solid to offer in the way of evidence, that's why we have to suffer through well worn out theories about acoustic evidence, silenced weapons, and other nonsense. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
17th October 2017, 04:38 AM | #1969 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
For cripes sake, listen to Cyril Wecht's crap on the "magic bullet." It's total nonsense. Because he wasn't smart enough to put the people seated in the car in the right positions.
He has no credibility in this case. Credentials or not, how can you trust anything by a guy who is known to be so obviously wrong? |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
17th October 2017, 05:16 AM | #1970 |
Mistral, mistral wind...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
|
Am I reading all this right? MJ's go-to argument is to cite the autopsy doctors' evidence in order to impeach their conclusions? "This is what the doctors said, but I don't care what they said"? His issue (not the issue) with the medical evidence, as put forth by the doctors who saw the body (or, later, the photos and X-rays), is that he thinks the entry wound was too low on the back of the head to have come from Oswald's high position. Wherever that wound was, those doctors had no problem with their evidence leading to the conclusion that it was consistent with that trajectory; MJ, from the weighty depths of his GoogleU education, begs to differ.
Ha. |
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King |
|
17th October 2017, 05:46 AM | #1971 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
17th October 2017, 06:38 AM | #1972 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
So you lead in your desperate search for a change of subject with a 15-year after-the-fact recollection.
That we have already discussed in the past and told you why it won't do. We know too much about memory, and we know how fallible it is. Hilarious. Just another attempt at a fringe reset by you. Sorry, no. That is not convincing. Why not tell us why you think Mark Lane arguments are better than the multiple government investigations into this case? You made the claim but cannot cite anything that Mark Lane said that's accurate. Curious, isn't it? You could also try to address any of the other open questions you scurried from after your preposterous claims were dismantled. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
17th October 2017, 06:46 AM | #1973 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Yes, I know.
What many people don't know is that Wecht, before he got sucked into conspiracy theory nonsense, actually reviewed the autopsy materials in the late 1960s and concluded the autopsy doctors got it exactly right. Even in the document cited by MicahJava, we can find no dispute with those conclusions. I like to remind MicahJava that while he's dumpster diving for the one quote he needs to support his silly argument that the head shot exited the throat that even the guy who he's citing and who is a legitimate forensic pathology expert never said the autopsy doctors got it wrong. Citing Wecht to protest the autopsy is a big mistake on MicahJava's part. As you note, Wecht's biggest complaint is not with the autopsy conclusions (with which he agrees) but with the Warren Commission's conclusion about one bullet hitting both men and emerging with slight damage. MJ confuses the two and thinks Wecht is on his side. He's not. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
17th October 2017, 07:24 AM | #1974 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
17th October 2017, 07:38 AM | #1975 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
This is, let's not forget, the poster who recently accused The Big Dog of quote mining for providing context for the quote that he'd just posted a misleading extract from.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
17th October 2017, 10:21 AM | #1976 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I will say it again, if you need the assassination to be a conspiracy you won't find it in Dealey Plaza.
Bob Baer's recent History Channel excursion is the way to go. Lot's of questions about Oswald's activities in New Orleans, and back in Dallas. Shady characters. Angry Cuban exiles. Sneaky Cuban spies. All of those things were real, none of them are traceable today, and when you throw someone unstable like Oswald in the mix you you have the Rube Goldberg of CT's where nobody can be singled out or eliminated, and leaves Oswald as the lone shooter. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
17th October 2017, 08:52 PM | #1977 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
FBI Agents are trained to observe, remember and record what they see on a daily basis. So I think the 15-year-old testimony of O'Neil becomes significant because he was willing to communicate that the entry wound was in the lower head area.
Also, are you willing to say that Roy Kellerman was lying in his Warren Commission testimony to support the official story, or do you think that three months fudged his memory in exactly the same way? Kellerman pointed to his lower head area behind his ear to indicate the location of the wound and said the entry wound he claimed to witness was "within his hairline". The EOP wound really is the greatest mystery in the forensic evidence, isn't it? It's almost as if the least you could do is declare the case impossible to solve. Nobody can claim to prove that all of Kennedy's wounds were caused by two shots fired from above and behind unless they start with the EOP wound. The single assassin scenario officially cannot be considered true unless further evidence can be brought forth. While it would be very important for a group of experts familiar with the technology used to create the autopsy photos and X-rays to look for evidence of a wound near the EOP, it ultimately does not matter very much now because the corroboration of the three autopsy doctors and six or more other autopsy witnesses is more than enough evidence. |
17th October 2017, 10:02 PM | #1978 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Your faith in the FBI is clearly selective considering you discount the rest of their conclusions about the assassination. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your ignorance about the 6.5x52mm round is well documented.
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry dude, only two Carcano round hit JFK from behind. No silenced guns (lol). |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
17th October 2017, 10:06 PM | #1979 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
October 26...next week...National Archives record release...
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
18th October 2017, 03:06 AM | #1980 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Does this argument apply to all FBI agents at all times, or just O'Neill's 15-year after the fact recollection because you need it so badly?
Since he's so good at recording, please point out the precise location O'Neill recorded in his memorandum for the record shortly after the autopsy (rather than his 15 year later recollection). You can find that memorandum here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....eId=4&tab=page We saw the same argument from Robert Harris about a rifle found on the fourth floor near a stairwell. That wasn't a poor recollection, made decades later, about the rifle found on the sixth floor. And a simple mistake anyone could make. Oh no, Federal agents are better at this sort of thing because Harris needed a second rifle in the Depository and by golly, it just had to be true. It's not. What contemporaneous statements of O'Neil do you have confirming this wound location you claim O'Neill was trained to record? Exactly the same way? Not at all. That location would be far too low if it was located at the hairline. It's below the EOP by inches and misses the skull entirely. If it's being placed within the hair, that is meaningless, as it could be anywhere on his head. There are numerous forensic pathologists who studied the evidence who beg to differ with you. We have plenty of evidence, but you have an outsized tendency to ignore it all. There's the autopsy x-rays. The autopsy photos. The autopsy report. The reviews of the extants autopsy materials by various pathologists. The rifle recovered from the Depository. The three shells recovered from the Depository. The two large fragments of a bullet recovered from the limo The nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland. Oswald's fresh fingerprints on the trigger guard. The paper bag recovered from the Depository with Oswald's prints on it. The two witnesses to Oswald with a large paper bag on the morning of the assassination. The suspect making a special trip on a Thursday back to the place where his rifle was stored within the garage of a woman his wife was staying with. The suspect attempting to patch things up with his wife that evening, telling her he'd buy her the washing machine she wanted, if only she'd move back in with him. The wife telling him, "No thank you, buy something nice for yourself. And the rifle missing from its storage place the next discovered. Together, all these pieces of evidence tell a uniform story of a disgruntled young man who wanted to be famous. And accomplished that. There really isn't anything else needed. All from decades after the fact, cherry-picked by you, caused by a magic bullet that you can't even get out of the head, yet wasn't found within the head, with contrary recollections all dismissed by you as wrong? Fired from a rifle you have no evidence of? By a shooter nobody saw? Causing damage that left no evidence behind? And then another bullet that left no trace struck the head from another unseen gunman causing damage that fooled everyone but you into thinking it was an exit wound? No, not hardly sufficient. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
18th October 2017, 05:54 AM | #1981 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
What's an "EOP wound"?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Don't you get tired of being wrong? |
18th October 2017, 07:00 AM | #1982 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
18th October 2017, 09:17 AM | #1983 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
18th October 2017, 09:26 AM | #1984 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Ok so it looks like most of you realize that the anti-EOP stance is a sinking ship, so you guys plug your ears and scream to yourself "the autopsy doctors concluded two shots fired from behind!". Guess what, we don't even know that's what they really thought. There is evidence that the autopsy doctors exhausted a variety of scenarios, including a EOP-throat connection, before arriving to the current official story. It doesn't mean that's what they personally thought. We don't know what they're hiding. Remember before how I demonstrated that the autopsy doctors probably lied about only discovering the truth about the throat wound until the day after the autopsy?
|
18th October 2017, 09:37 AM | #1985 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
18th October 2017, 09:40 AM | #1986 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
How did you arrive at your conclusion that the doctors were lying?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
18th October 2017, 09:44 AM | #1987 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
This sounds a lot less like anybody else "realises that the ant-EOP stance is a sinking ship", and more like an excuse why the evidence that does not support your interpretation should be ignored... It is not suspicious that they exhausted a lot of options, before reaching their conclusions, given one wound exit point was obscured by life saving attempts. This does not imply their lied. It does not invalidate their conclusions. It does, however, suggest that you don't actually understand the evidence (as does your insistence on calling it an EOP wound). |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
18th October 2017, 09:44 AM | #1988 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
18th October 2017, 09:45 AM | #1989 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
18th October 2017, 09:53 AM | #1990 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Do we really have to keep going over this? Here if the official HSCA interpretation of this photograph, which depicts an apparently empty cranium of John F. Kennedy that still somehow has an interpreted entry wound and a beveled exit that are only anatomically five inches apart. The government wants us to believe that the entire brain was somehow removed from a high-inch skull cavity. Is there even evidence that it's possible to delicately remove a human brain without removing some occipital bone? I don't think there's a way to properly sever the tentorium cerebelli by reaching your hands underneath the brain from the frontal end. You would also have to sever the brainstem. Removing a brain also typically involves being able to fit your fingers under the temporal areas. Any alleged cowlick entry wound could not remain intact in the skull bone while doing all of that. |
18th October 2017, 10:02 AM | #1991 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
Is there any reason, just looking at that drawing and the damage radiating from the wounds, that the skin could not be cut and folded back?
Any reason why alternate cuts, could not be made, with a bone saw, avoiding the "undamaged" bone? Really? Like I said, I can't see, from the evidence he posts, how Micha Java reaches his conclusions. I can't see any document suggesting only a five inch hole was used, and have no idea why he assumes it is the case. |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
18th October 2017, 10:02 AM | #1992 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
This is utter nonsense and you know it. The image was simplified, removing the brain. Everybody in the universe including CTs the brain was in place for the bullet to damage and destroy the skull. From the autopsy information, they made cuts down to the ear area and the skull was sawed to have a large enough hole to remove the brain.
Quote:
|
18th October 2017, 10:06 AM | #1993 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Oh wow what a brilliant argument, they just cut the skull in a silly way to avoid separating the beveled wounds. Except the autopsy doctors found that the area around the large head wound was so badly damaged that they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a large enough skull cavity.
|
18th October 2017, 10:06 AM | #1994 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
You're the only one singing this song.
You have consistently refused to explain what any discrepancy in headwound location means in the larger context of the established physical evidence. The only thing you do is post the same image and drone on that single riff. The best that you can actually establish is that there are differing opinions on the wound location, with -0- evidence establishing any other shooter location, weapon or any other evidence contradicting the conclusion that LHO assassinated JFK. |
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
18th October 2017, 10:09 AM | #1995 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
18th October 2017, 10:11 AM | #1996 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
18th October 2017, 10:12 AM | #1997 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
18th October 2017, 10:13 AM | #1998 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
18th October 2017, 10:16 AM | #1999 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
18th October 2017, 10:24 AM | #2000 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|