|
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. |
20th October 2017, 11:06 AM | #2081 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
How would you remove the brain without also removing the portion containing the purported entry wound on the upper back of the head? This is for the sake of discussion, because any such entry wound would also have to be separated because it was right beside the large defect on the top-right side of the skull which was so shattered that virtually no sawing was needed to remove the brain.
|
20th October 2017, 11:11 AM | #2082 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:15 AM | #2083 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:17 AM | #2084 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:18 AM | #2085 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:20 AM | #2086 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
20th October 2017, 11:21 AM | #2087 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:22 AM | #2088 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:23 AM | #2089 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
"Slightly above the EOP" is not below the cerebellum, it's near where the cerebellum meets the occipital lobe. The brainstem was slightly damaged, and the doctors thought that the damage was caused by the bullet instead of something post-mortem. The doctors took tissue samples of the cerebellum and brainstem because they thought they were directly damaged from the bullet entering near the EOP. That is written in the autopsy report.
|
20th October 2017, 11:23 AM | #2090 |
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). |
|
20th October 2017, 11:25 AM | #2091 |
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). |
|
20th October 2017, 11:26 AM | #2092 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
The direction of the fibers in Kennedy's clothing is not a reliable indicator of the path of the bullet.
See here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2989 Also, you falsely assume that if the back wound was an entry, and the throat wound an exit, that a bullet must have entered the back and exited the throat. Here I have argued that there is much more evidence that the throat wound is an exit for a projectile entering the back of the head. |
20th October 2017, 11:27 AM | #2093 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:34 AM | #2094 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I don't know, ask Dr. Humes. That's what he said. Forensic pathologist Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, so there is n detail from him about that in his statements.
[/quote]How does a bullet follow the path you describe, without trauma radiating outward from the wound path?[/quote] Subsonic bullets often do not cause extensive fractures when entering the head. Also, there is evidence for fractures on the floor of the skull, where the EOP bullet could have encountered after entering. |
20th October 2017, 11:36 AM | #2095 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
20th October 2017, 11:37 AM | #2096 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Actually it's fairly cut and dried. Also, you can't cite yourself as proof.
We know where the shot came from, and where that bullet ended up.
Quote:
Quote:
What you allege is tactically impossible from a shooter's standpoint. What you allege is physically impossible based on the angle you allege compared with the physical location. What you allege is historically impossible, eye-witness testimony saw only one GSW to the head, these witnesses include everyone on the sidewalk less than ten feet away, and the Secret Service chase car directly behind. What you allege is functionally impossible from a real-world conspiracy standpoint. Too many moving parts. You are just not good at this. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 11:39 AM | #2097 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 12:14 PM | #2098 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
20th October 2017, 12:56 PM | #2099 |
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). |
|
20th October 2017, 02:00 PM | #2100 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
20th October 2017, 04:51 PM | #2101 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
You probably CAN see the hole in some of the photographs, just not the low resolution B&W version you've posted. This is not only your failing but every hack who's taken a swing at the handful of pictures and x-rays available to the public - there are over 40 more photographs that the public has not seen. This makes all arguments based on the photographs fallacies.
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2017, 07:01 PM | #2102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
By removing the brain, duh.
No we all know exactly what it is for and it is not discussion Now the hole was too big to remove the brain? and little or no sawing was needed to not remove the brain. It is to laugh. Rollin' rollin' rollin' see those goalposts rollin' RAWHIDE. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
20th October 2017, 07:06 PM | #2103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
21st October 2017, 05:27 AM | #2104 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
How does a bullet follow the path you describe, without trauma radiating outward from the wound path?[/quote]
Subsonic bullets often do not cause extensive fractures when entering the head. Also, there is evidence for fractures on the floor of the skull, where the EOP bullet could have encountered after entering.[/quote] So... Your “arguments” about the skull and brain cavity keep going back to the testimony of somebody NOT there to witness key moments in the autopsy. And when asked how a bullet can avoid causing trauma to the brain, you carefully avoid talking about the bullet passing through the brain at all. Obviously it has dawned on you that regardless of damage to the skull, the path you described a bullet taking would not have to touch areas of the brain we know to be undamaged for the trauma to effect them. In point of fact, we can largely ignore your fantasy, because the damage described to the brain best fits a higher entry point causing trauma within the brain, exactly as bullets are known to do. |
__________________
@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). |
|
21st October 2017, 05:28 AM | #2105 |
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). |
|
21st October 2017, 09:28 AM | #2106 |
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 |
|
21st October 2017, 10:05 AM | #2107 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
We were talking about your claim about how Mark Lane was more accurate than any government investigation.
I documented that he was completely unreliable and showed how he begged the question in his chapter "Why Was Oswald Wanted?" You ignore the points I make entirely, quote nothing from Mark Lane, and then you change the subject! Quote what Mark Lane said about JFK's suit jacket, and defend it, otherwise you're just changing the 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 |
|
21st October 2017, 10:08 AM | #2108 |
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 |
|
21st October 2017, 10:17 AM | #2109 |
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 |
|
21st October 2017, 10:21 AM | #2110 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
21st October 2017, 10:26 AM | #2111 |
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 |
|
21st October 2017, 10:27 AM | #2112 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
21st October 2017, 10:28 AM | #2113 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
21st October 2017, 10:30 AM | #2114 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
21st October 2017, 10:33 AM | #2115 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
21st October 2017, 10:44 AM | #2116 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
21st October 2017, 10:46 AM | #2117 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
21st October 2017, 10:47 AM | #2118 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
21st October 2017, 10:48 AM | #2119 |
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 |
|
21st October 2017, 10:51 AM | #2120 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
When a bullet passes through a medium such as tissue, or brain matter, the displacement of matter ahead of the bullet, just like the bow wave ahead of a ship, causes trauma far beyond the diameter of the bullet.
In the case of the JFK assassination, we know, from descriptions of damage to the brain, that the bullet entered at the point you keep calling "the cowlick", and caused massive trauma, ahead of the bullet's passage, that exploded out of the side of his head. You keep claiming that the bullet entered lower, and travelled downwards. You seem not to grasp that areas of the brain you claim were undamaged, should have been effected by the trauma wave, ahead of the bullet, as it passed downwards. The bullet missing them is not, and has not been, the point, but you refuse to address or explain this anomaly. How can the bullet pass downwards, without causing trauma to the lower reaches of the brain? It makes no sense. You can try and deflect, by talking about skull fractures, and the like, but sooner, or later, you are either going to have to address the trauma issue, or stop pretending you are the one who knows what they are talking about with respect to the 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). |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|