|
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. |
18th October 2017, 10:26 AM | #2001 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Hilarious. I guess you're in full fringe reset mode at this point.
At a base level, we know that's what they thought. That's exactly what they recorded in the autopsy. You can read it for yourself. https://www.archives.gov/files/resea...ppendix-09.pdf The wounds were inflicted from behind and above. See page six. That's what they reported and that's what they testified to. You're not a mind-reader, but here you are, expecting us to believe you somehow know they weren't telling the truth in their autopsy. You've come full circle from quoting the autopsy doctors recollections from decades after the fact to try to prove your argument. Now you're suggesting they must have been lying from the get-go, all to keep your fantasy wounds alive. There's a logical contradiction in your varying arguments you now must address and attempt to explain away. Or even if they are hiding anything, but that's apparently that's the ball you've picked up and you're going to be running with now. No, I don't remember that. I remember you trying to argue that point, only to have it smashed back into your court. 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, 10:36 AM | #2002 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
No, the autopsy report does say the scalp wound was extended IN THE CORONAL PLANE before the brain was removed.
Those are the only incisions noted to the head in the autopsy report. Do research to determine what this means, and get back to us when you understand the point made. Is this the fifth or sixth time the words coronal plane have been pointed out to you? Autopsy report, page 5: https://www.archives.gov/files/resea...ppendix-09.pdf Definition of coronal plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_plane Yes, the skull was badly fractured by the bullet passing through it, making it relatively easy to remove the brain by cutting the scalp only. Also the fifth or sixth time you're ignoring this information. You're not an expert. Nobody cares what you think. You and which forensic pathologists say that? Oh, it's just you. 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, 10:43 AM | #2003 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
He's assuming it. He has to assume it, and avoid all references and testimony to the contrary, because without that assumption, he has no argument.
He ignores the dotted line above the right ear in the very drawing he shows us, that shows the wound with that piece of fractured skull pulled back is much larger that it is with the piece of skull in place. He ignores the comminuted fractures of the skull, and the fact that only scalp cuts were necessary to remove the brain, exactly as noted in the autopsy report. It's really that simple. He's closing his eyes, singing "La La La I can't hear you!" as loud as he can every time we mention the contrary evidence. 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, 10:45 AM | #2004 |
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, 10:53 AM | #2005 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Right, except for the words 'silly', and "except" which I excised for you. You pretend the two sentences conflict, but they don't.
The autopsy report says coronal cuts to the scalp were the only incisions made to the head, and this was done to examine the brain. You are so close to understanding the point. Looks like it's time for a fringe reset and a change of subject. 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, 10:56 AM | #2006 |
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, 11:02 AM | #2007 |
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, 11:26 AM | #2008 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
Indeed the autopsy report contains the following passages Page 4:
Quote:
Quote:
|
18th October 2017, 11:57 AM | #2009 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
18th October 2017, 12:01 PM | #2010 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
18th October 2017, 12:18 PM | #2011 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
18th October 2017, 12:31 PM | #2012 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Wow. Never have I found someone so intent on proving me correct. I told you this is about evidence, not your opinion, and advised you to learn the difference.
You still haven't. You once more tell me your opinion. Already addressed that point: Nobody cares what your opinion is. Cite the evidence. 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, 12:33 PM | #2013 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Two men with rifles couldn't fit in the sniper's nest.
That's me pretending to be a conspiracy theorist and deliberately misinterpreting your point merely to prolong the conversation. Being a CT is, like, so easy. Actually studying the evidence and determining the truth, hard. 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, 03:51 PM | #2014 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Until you learn to read.
Quote:
And no, the government doesn't want you to believe the brain was removed through a five inch hole in the skull. This didn't happen. Humes sawed the skull cap off on the left side, and worked around the heavily shattered right side to remove the brain. He has testified to this under oath. There is no mystery.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
18th October 2017, 03:54 PM | #2015 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
18th October 2017, 04:08 PM | #2016 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Actually, we're too busy laughing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The doctors didn't lie. The fiber evidence from the coat, shirt, and necktie all point to an entry in the upper back and exiting through the throat. You want a conspiracy, but you're too lazy to find one. You bring CT's in here that are 40 years old and beaten to death, and wonder why we don't take you seriously. You have no original ideas on the subject, you refuse to learn objective facts (like what a 6.5x52mm round can do, and what a subsonic 9mm or .45 cannot do). When cornered you reset back to page one like we haven't already torn your theory to pieces. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
19th October 2017, 07:06 AM | #2017 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
#as expected.
MicahJava vanishes. He'll be back to argue anew with the same old fringe reset waiting in the wings. When asked to support his opinion, he just offered more of his opinion. He made a number of assertions, and when challenged, could not - and did not, despite constant reminders - support any of them with evidence. 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 |
|
19th October 2017, 07:08 AM | #2018 |
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
|
To be fair, he's busier now, because he's got the added responsibility of doing precisely the same thing in the 9/11 forum.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
19th October 2017, 07:31 AM | #2019 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
19th October 2017, 09:59 AM | #2020 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Why do you LNers pretend to not understand that the HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs is physically impossible? That's a whole brain that they said somehow fit through a five-inch skull cavity. The only way that could be the true interpretation of the photographs is if they placed a previously-separated portion of the skull back, but that contradicts all witness statements on the photographing of the skull.
|
19th October 2017, 10:00 AM | #2021 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
19th October 2017, 10:08 AM | #2022 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
19th October 2017, 10:10 AM | #2023 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
19th October 2017, 10:15 AM | #2024 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Because it's not physically impossible, no pretense is necessary. That's just another example of you Begging the Question. That's where you assume - and imbed in your question - the very point you must prove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question LOGICAL FALLACY #1. Asked and answered multiple times. I've asked you to quote them saying that, somehow you never get around to doing so. That's just another example of you building a straw man argument that you can argue against. But the straw man is not something they actually said. You invented it merely to knock down. And despite being shown how the argument is false from numerous posters above this, you repeat the same strawman argument once more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man LOGICAL FALLACY #2. This conclusion assumes your preceding arguments are true, but they are not. They are logical fallacies. So your conclusion isn't supported by anything you've posted to date. Repeating the same discredited arguments in various forms and guises doesn't make them more true. It makes you less credible. For a change, try addressing what we're saying, and what the forensic panel said. Quote us (and them) and then try showing why that's wrong from the evidence (not from your opinion, which is another sticking point for you). 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 |
|
19th October 2017, 10:15 AM | #2025 |
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). |
|
19th October 2017, 10:17 AM | #2026 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Great, now that you're off work, address the contradiction exposed in your arguments in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1962 Quoting: So they [the Dealey Plaza witnesses-Hank] 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. Which one of the two arguments above are you going to abandon because both your arguments cannot be true? 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 |
|
19th October 2017, 10:35 AM | #2027 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I already explained how that could happen acoustically. Supersonic ammunition with a noise-suppressed rifle shot can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise. Apparently some hunters use this to their advantage, because it works on animals.
Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction. You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity. An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw. A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw. An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back. The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived. The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat. |
19th October 2017, 10:39 AM | #2028 |
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). |
|
19th October 2017, 10:42 AM | #2029 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
It is an illustration, to provide a graphical representation of the event. It is not made to infer that the brain was removed through the hole. You have been linked direct evidence of how the brain was removed. Continual misrepresentation is not going anywhere, nor make it true.
|
19th October 2017, 10:46 AM | #2030 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
19th October 2017, 10:47 AM | #2031 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Showing an irrefutable problem with the official JFK story to lone nutters:
|
19th October 2017, 10:50 AM | #2032 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
That's because there wasn't a hole in the forehead, except the large defect caused by the bullet entry from the rear. It is all in the report, and you presume that hole existed, when in fact it doesn't.
I have already asked/told you the doctors who signed the report all had a change to add an exception, which none did therefore all of them agreed to the findings. Attempting to piece together a scenario where one or more of them disagree, with out of context statements, your beliefs, misrepresenting their testimony 15 years after the fact. |
19th October 2017, 10:57 AM | #2033 |
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). |
|
19th October 2017, 11:08 AM | #2034 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Suppressors are handy for night fighting for limiting muzzle flash, and they make it easier to communicate verbally within the fire team without yelling. Look up Operation Red Wings and you'll see how four SEALs with suppressed weapons didn't exactly melt away into the forest under Taliban fire. And in 1963, nobody was going to use a silencer for a job like Dealey Plaza.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
19th October 2017, 11:10 AM | #2035 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
19th October 2017, 11:10 AM | #2036 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
19th October 2017, 11:14 AM | #2037 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
Historical origin of the CTist mindset:
MJ is either the Black Knight or the invisible horses, take your pick |
|||
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
||||
19th October 2017, 11:37 AM | #2038 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
After re-reading your beliefs, I remembered the very first time I view CT material, where the CT wrote/produced a report/video(I'm not sure which) contending that the autopsy doctors missed a massive exit wound somewhere around the hairline at the back of the Presidents head, because Parkland's personnel remembered it. After doing a little research, it wasn't difficult to find out why no exit wound was discovered during the autopsy. There simply is no exit wound, x-rays showed nothing, images showed nothing. Calling the autopsy doctors procedures flawed is just one of the misunderstanding image/body conditions that spur interest in the CT's agenda. MJ, your attempts resemble the same failed agenda. Again it would be a travesty to call yourself a truth seeker a spinner of yarns perhaps. |
19th October 2017, 11:49 AM | #2039 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
LONG ANSWER:
Still makes no sense for the following reasons: 1. There's no evidence of a noise-suppressed rifle shot. 2. No witnesses saw another rifle other than the one in the sniper's nest. 3. Your argument is that the witnesses wouldn't hear these "noise-suppressed rifle shot(s)", that's why they thought there were only three shots. 4. You're left with the witnesses hearing only the three NON-noise suppressed shots and therefore confusing the source of the three NON-noise suppressed shots. 5. It doesn't explain why almost ALL of the witnesses thought the three non-noise suppressed shots they heard ALL came one source, but generally named two different ones: some witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, some witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Depository. Only less than a handful (less than five) of witnesses thought there were two sources. Your argument relies on the vast majority of witnesses being reliable when you want (when they named the grassy knoll), but yet somehow unreliable when you want at the same time (when they heard only three shots and when they thought all the shots came from only one location). "Apparently" is a dead giveaway you still don't understand acoustics, rifles, bullets, or shooting. You're not arguing from personal experience, you're arguing from what you surmise. The bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, therefore the animal doesn't hear the shot that kills it. STILL PART OF THE LONG ANSWER: Your problem is I do understand your point, and can see right through to the other side. 1. Where's the evidence of a noise-suppressed rifle being used in Dealey Plaza? 2. You beg the question of a noise-suppressed rifle shot (or shots) to argue for more than three shots from Oswald's NON-noise suppressed rifle, to explain why about 90% of the witnesses heard only three shots. 3. Having used the argument that the witnesses didn't hear the "noise-suppressed rifle shot(s)", you cannot use these shots to claim they confused the witnesses as to the source of the shots they did hear. 4. You're left with arguing the witnesses confused the source of the THREE NON-noise suppressed rifle shots, all fired from the Depository, and some thought they all came from the Depository, while others claimed they all came from the knoll. 5. You then somehow claim the knoll witnesses are reliable, when you actually just established the exact opposite. SHORT ANSWER: You just admitted that rifle shots can confuse witnesses as to the source of the shots: "Supersonic ammunition ... can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise." (You haven't established this is unique to noise-suppressed shots only, so I left that part of your claim out). We're done here. The witnesses are unreliable as to the source, you just admitted it. Since there's no evidence of shots from the knoll, other than the witness reports, we can discard those witnesses as mistaken (i.e., "confuse[d] ... [as to] the origin of the noise"). Why are five inch holes in the head a contradiction? How'd you determine that empty skull cavity was five inches? Except the autopsy report notes two entry wounds, both in JFK, both inflicted from above and behind. Who is 'everybody'? Every conspiracy website you consulted? And this is a problem why? This never happens? Ever? Wait, what? How do you know the most revealing autopsy photos are missing, if you never SAW them, and therefore can't speak authoritatively about what's contained in them? Your arguments never make any sense, but they usually take a little more unravelling than this. It's called faulty recall, and trying, 35 years after the fact, to reconcile facts you're being told are true, but that you have no way of verify but accept on faith. You remember one thing, but are being told that can't be right. So you then admit you must be wrong, and change your story. This has never happened to you? 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 |
|
19th October 2017, 11:53 AM | #2040 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Five inches apart when the wound was first examined. Not when the brain was removed.
No, you want us to think the HSCA wants us to think that. I asked you to cite for that claim multiple times in the past. You never have. There's a reason. They never said it. You're guilty of making stuff up. Look, another strawman! 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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|