Discussion:
Another question for Chris/mainframetech
Add Reply
bigdog
2018-07-19 04:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.

Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.

If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
mainframetech
2018-07-19 23:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one. OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-20 17:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Training and expertise certainly aren't required to write fiction.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Tell us what the difference is between claiming something and flatly
stating it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
But you have no explanation for why your massive blowout in the BOH
doesn't show up in that photo.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one.
How do you know they didn't look?
Post by mainframetech
OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Your answer to all these conundrums. They didn't see what you think you
see so they must not have looked.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.
It is a fact the review panels have far more training and expertise than
you.

It is a fact that they saw far more evidence than you have.

I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
mainframetech
2018-07-22 01:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Training and expertise certainly aren't required to write fiction.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Tell us what the difference is between claiming something and flatly
stating it.
"Claiming" is a term used when suggesting that there is some doubt as
to the truth of the statement in question. You use it often to try and
minimize the statements of others that you don't agree with. Not much
different than you calling some one a "clown" when you don't like what
they said.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
But you have no explanation for why your massive blowout in the BOH
doesn't show up in that photo.
Of course I do. Alteration was critical and used to fool the medical
panels that investigated the autopsy after the public complained about
possible trickery. If those 'leaked' autopsy photos were shown to the
panels, there's no doubt why they concluded that there was a shot to the
BOH as the cause of death. Worse if they showed them the Ida Dox copies
of the photos. At least one of them she put in a bullet hole where they
told her to, but the original photo had no bullet hole showing at all.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one.
How do you know they didn't look?
Because they would have seen it if they did. It was clearly a bullet
wound. You wouldn't know about that though.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Your answer to all these conundrums. They didn't see what you think you
see so they must not have looked.
Nope, won't do. They may well have looked, but they may not have
ENLARGED the photo, which is important to seeing the proof of a frontal
shot.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.
It is a fact the review panels have far more training and expertise than
you.
It is a fact that they saw far more evidence than you have.
It is a fact that they didn't ENLARGE the photo in question, or they
would have seen the cause of death.
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.

Chris
Spence
2018-07-22 18:40:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I listened to two "experts" who said the earth was flat, Kooks quoting
kooks is not evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-24 05:13:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spence
I listened to two "experts" who said the earth was flat, Kooks quoting
kooks is not evidence.
Sounds like you were depending on your OPINIONS! Who's a "kook?
Plenty of them in the LN ranks too you know!

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 01:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spence
I listened to two "experts" who said the earth was flat, Kooks quoting
kooks is not evidence.
Wrong. Not experts.
YOU have no evidence. I have the evidence.
Jason Burke
2018-07-25 17:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Spence
I listened to two "experts" who said the earth was flat, Kooks quoting
kooks is not evidence.
Wrong. Not experts.
YOU have no evidence. I have the evidence.
You don't got jack sh*t.
If you did, your idols at CNN and MSNBC would be all over it like honkys
on that stuff that's produced in Vietnam.

Thing is, you KNOW you ain't got Jack.

But then, what would be your reason for getting out of bed in the morning?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 19:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Spence
I listened to two "experts" who said the earth was flat, Kooks quoting
kooks is not evidence.
Wrong. Not experts.
YOU have no evidence. I have the evidence.
You don't got jack sh*t.
If you did, your idols at CNN and MSNBC would be all over it like honkys
on that stuff that's produced in Vietnam.
Thing is, you KNOW you ain't got Jack.
But then, what would be your reason for getting out of bed in the morning?
Look at my WEb site. You can find files there that no one else had.
I have to get out of bed every day just to see what nonsense you are
posting. Thank you for being my alarm clock.
bigdog
2018-07-22 21:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Training and expertise certainly aren't required to write fiction.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Tell us what the difference is between claiming something and flatly
stating it.
"Claiming" is a term used when suggesting that there is some doubt as
to the truth of the statement in question.
That is also true when you state things flatly.
Post by mainframetech
You use it often to try and
minimize the statements of others that you don't agree with. Not much
different than you calling some one a "clown" when you don't like what
they said.
No, I call them clowns when they make me laugh.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
But you have no explanation for why your massive blowout in the BOH
doesn't show up in that photo.
Of course I do. Alteration was critical and used to fool the medical
panels that investigated the autopsy after the public complained about
possible trickery.
So you are using a photo you claim was altered to prove there was not
entry wound in the BOH. You want us to believe they went to all the
trouble of scrubbing a large blowout wound in the BOH but then forgot to
insert an entry wound. What klutzes.
Post by mainframetech
If those 'leaked' autopsy photos were shown to the
panels, there's no doubt why they concluded that there was a shot to the
BOH as the cause of death.
Oh, so you admit there is an entry wound in that photo.
Post by mainframetech
Worse if they showed them the Ida Dox copies
of the photos. At least one of them she put in a bullet hole where they
told her to, but the original photo had no bullet hole showing at all.
So you think they used the drawing to review the autopsy findings and not
the photos or x-rays. That's funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one.
How do you know they didn't look?
Because they would have seen it if they did. It was clearly a bullet
wound. You wouldn't know about that though.
I guess that's as close as you come to admitting what I have said often.
Your "proof" that they didn't look is that they reached a different
conclusion than you have. It couldn't possibly be that the reason they
reached a different conclusion than you do is because they had so much
more and better evidence and know so much more about forensic medicine
than you do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Your answer to all these conundrums. They didn't see what you think you
see so they must not have looked.
Nope, won't do. They may well have looked, but they may not have
ENLARGED the photo, which is important to seeing the proof of a frontal
shot.
You must think they looked at the online copies of the photos which are
digitized versions of the few leaked ones that were published. They had
the original high quality prints which showed much better detail than what
the copies that were leaked to the public. Dr. Peter Cummings who fairly
recently was allowed to see the original materials made that observation.
But you're going to tell us he couldn't see what you think you see because
he didn't enlarge the originals either. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.
It is a fact the review panels have far more training and expertise than
you.
It is a fact that they saw far more evidence than you have.
It is a fact that they didn't ENLARGE the photo in question, or they
would have seen the cause of death.
What a joke. Nothing shows up when that photo is enlarged that can't be
seen at normal size. All it does is enlarge the black spot that you've
convinced yourself is a bullet hole. It's still just a black spot, not a
bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
BT George
2018-07-25 01:37:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Training and expertise certainly aren't required to write fiction.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Tell us what the difference is between claiming something and flatly
stating it.
"Claiming" is a term used when suggesting that there is some doubt as
to the truth of the statement in question.
That is also true when you state things flatly.
Post by mainframetech
You use it often to try and
minimize the statements of others that you don't agree with. Not much
different than you calling some one a "clown" when you don't like what
they said.
No, I call them clowns when they make me laugh.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
But you have no explanation for why your massive blowout in the BOH
doesn't show up in that photo.
Of course I do. Alteration was critical and used to fool the medical
panels that investigated the autopsy after the public complained about
possible trickery.
So you are using a photo you claim was altered to prove there was not
entry wound in the BOH. You want us to believe they went to all the
trouble of scrubbing a large blowout wound in the BOH but then forgot to
insert an entry wound. What klutzes.
LOL! I see that so far (07/24/18 a.m.) Chris has studiously avoided
responding to this point. Could it me that any answer would make his
far-fetched notions seem even more ridiculous?


And that's the heart of contradiction for the "everthing" damning has been
faked crowd. They simply cannot resist seizing both ends of the Gordian
knot by saying things like the above or that "back and to the left" means
a frontal shot, when in the next breath they are telling you that you
cannot trust what you (and many recognized experts) see in those same
films and photos because they have been "altered".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If those 'leaked' autopsy photos were shown to the
panels, there's no doubt why they concluded that there was a shot to the
BOH as the cause of death.
Oh, so you admit there is an entry wound in that photo.
Post by mainframetech
Worse if they showed them the Ida Dox copies
of the photos. At least one of them she put in a bullet hole where they
told her to, but the original photo had no bullet hole showing at all.
So you think they used the drawing to review the autopsy findings and not
the photos or x-rays. That's funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one.
How do you know they didn't look?
Because they would have seen it if they did. It was clearly a bullet
wound. You wouldn't know about that though.
I guess that's as close as you come to admitting what I have said often.
Your "proof" that they didn't look is that they reached a different
conclusion than you have. It couldn't possibly be that the reason they
reached a different conclusion than you do is because they had so much
more and better evidence and know so much more about forensic medicine
than you do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Your answer to all these conundrums. They didn't see what you think you
see so they must not have looked.
Nope, won't do. They may well have looked, but they may not have
ENLARGED the photo, which is important to seeing the proof of a frontal
shot.
You must think they looked at the online copies of the photos which are
digitized versions of the few leaked ones that were published. They had
the original high quality prints which showed much better detail than what
the copies that were leaked to the public. Dr. Peter Cummings who fairly
recently was allowed to see the original materials made that observation.
But you're going to tell us he couldn't see what you think you see because
he didn't enlarge the originals either. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.
It is a fact the review panels have far more training and expertise than
you.
It is a fact that they saw far more evidence than you have.
It is a fact that they didn't ENLARGE the photo in question, or they
would have seen the cause of death.
What a joke. Nothing shows up when that photo is enlarged that can't be
seen at normal size. All it does is enlarge the black spot that you've
convinced yourself is a bullet hole. It's still just a black spot, not a
bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
mainframetech
2018-07-26 02:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Training and expertise certainly aren't required to write fiction.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Tell us what the difference is between claiming something and flatly
stating it.
"Claiming" is a term used when suggesting that there is some doubt as
to the truth of the statement in question.
That is also true when you state things flatly.
Post by mainframetech
You use it often to try and
minimize the statements of others that you don't agree with. Not much
different than you calling some one a "clown" when you don't like what
they said.
No, I call them clowns when they make me laugh.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
But you have no explanation for why your massive blowout in the BOH
doesn't show up in that photo.
Of course I do. Alteration was critical and used to fool the medical
panels that investigated the autopsy after the public complained about
possible trickery.
So you are using a photo you claim was altered to prove there was not
entry wound in the BOH. You want us to believe they went to all the
trouble of scrubbing a large blowout wound in the BOH but then forgot to
insert an entry wound. What klutzes.
LOL! I see that so far (07/24/18 a.m.) Chris has studiously avoided
responding to this point. Could it me that any answer would make his
far-fetched notions seem even more ridiculous?
And that's the heart of contradiction for the "everthing" damning has been
faked crowd. They simply cannot resist seizing both ends of the Gordian
knot by saying things like the above or that "back and to the left" means
a frontal shot, when in the next breath they are telling you that you
cannot trust what you (and many recognized experts) see in those same
films and photos because they have been "altered".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If those 'leaked' autopsy photos were shown to the
panels, there's no doubt why they concluded that there was a shot to the
BOH as the cause of death.
Oh, so you admit there is an entry wound in that photo.
Post by mainframetech
Worse if they showed them the Ida Dox copies
of the photos. At least one of them she put in a bullet hole where they
told her to, but the original photo had no bullet hole showing at all.
So you think they used the drawing to review the autopsy findings and not
the photos or x-rays. That's funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one.
How do you know they didn't look?
Because they would have seen it if they did. It was clearly a bullet
wound. You wouldn't know about that though.
I guess that's as close as you come to admitting what I have said often.
Your "proof" that they didn't look is that they reached a different
conclusion than you have. It couldn't possibly be that the reason they
reached a different conclusion than you do is because they had so much
more and better evidence and know so much more about forensic medicine
than you do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Your answer to all these conundrums. They didn't see what you think you
see so they must not have looked.
Nope, won't do. They may well have looked, but they may not have
ENLARGED the photo, which is important to seeing the proof of a frontal
shot.
You must think they looked at the online copies of the photos which are
digitized versions of the few leaked ones that were published. They had
the original high quality prints which showed much better detail than what
the copies that were leaked to the public. Dr. Peter Cummings who fairly
recently was allowed to see the original materials made that observation.
But you're going to tell us he couldn't see what you think you see because
he didn't enlarge the originals either. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.
It is a fact the review panels have far more training and expertise than
you.
It is a fact that they saw far more evidence than you have.
It is a fact that they didn't ENLARGE the photo in question, or they
would have seen the cause of death.
What a joke. Nothing shows up when that photo is enlarged that can't be
seen at normal size. All it does is enlarge the black spot that you've
convinced yourself is a bullet hole. It's still just a black spot, not a
bullet hole.
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole. It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
Post by BT George
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.

I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-27 00:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Training and expertise certainly aren't required to write fiction.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Tell us what the difference is between claiming something and flatly
stating it.
"Claiming" is a term used when suggesting that there is some doubt as
to the truth of the statement in question.
That is also true when you state things flatly.
Post by mainframetech
You use it often to try and
minimize the statements of others that you don't agree with. Not much
different than you calling some one a "clown" when you don't like what
they said.
No, I call them clowns when they make me laugh.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
But you have no explanation for why your massive blowout in the BOH
doesn't show up in that photo.
Of course I do. Alteration was critical and used to fool the medical
panels that investigated the autopsy after the public complained about
possible trickery.
So you are using a photo you claim was altered to prove there was not
entry wound in the BOH. You want us to believe they went to all the
trouble of scrubbing a large blowout wound in the BOH but then forgot to
insert an entry wound. What klutzes.
LOL! I see that so far (07/24/18 a.m.) Chris has studiously avoided
responding to this point. Could it me that any answer would make his
far-fetched notions seem even more ridiculous?
And that's the heart of contradiction for the "everthing" damning has been
faked crowd. They simply cannot resist seizing both ends of the Gordian
knot by saying things like the above or that "back and to the left" means
a frontal shot, when in the next breath they are telling you that you
cannot trust what you (and many recognized experts) see in those same
films and photos because they have been "altered".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If those 'leaked' autopsy photos were shown to the
panels, there's no doubt why they concluded that there was a shot to the
BOH as the cause of death.
Oh, so you admit there is an entry wound in that photo.
Post by mainframetech
Worse if they showed them the Ida Dox copies
of the photos. At least one of them she put in a bullet hole where they
told her to, but the original photo had no bullet hole showing at all.
So you think they used the drawing to review the autopsy findings and not
the photos or x-rays. That's funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one.
How do you know they didn't look?
Because they would have seen it if they did. It was clearly a bullet
wound. You wouldn't know about that though.
I guess that's as close as you come to admitting what I have said often.
Your "proof" that they didn't look is that they reached a different
conclusion than you have. It couldn't possibly be that the reason they
reached a different conclusion than you do is because they had so much
more and better evidence and know so much more about forensic medicine
than you do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Your answer to all these conundrums. They didn't see what you think you
see so they must not have looked.
Nope, won't do. They may well have looked, but they may not have
ENLARGED the photo, which is important to seeing the proof of a frontal
shot.
You must think they looked at the online copies of the photos which are
digitized versions of the few leaked ones that were published. They had
the original high quality prints which showed much better detail than what
the copies that were leaked to the public. Dr. Peter Cummings who fairly
recently was allowed to see the original materials made that observation.
But you're going to tell us he couldn't see what you think you see because
he didn't enlarge the originals either. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.
It is a fact the review panels have far more training and expertise than
you.
It is a fact that they saw far more evidence than you have.
It is a fact that they didn't ENLARGE the photo in question, or they
would have seen the cause of death.
What a joke. Nothing shows up when that photo is enlarged that can't be
seen at normal size. All it does is enlarge the black spot that you've
convinced yourself is a bullet hole. It's still just a black spot, not a
bullet hole.
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
mainframetech
2018-07-28 12:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
Oh give up the phony attitude. That is not required for many of the
situations found in the case.
Training and expertise certainly aren't required to write fiction.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
I do NOT "claim" anything, I flatly state that there is a bullet hole
in the photo that you are unable to see.
Tell us what the difference is between claiming something and flatly
stating it.
"Claiming" is a term used when suggesting that there is some doubt as
to the truth of the statement in question.
That is also true when you state things flatly.
Post by mainframetech
You use it often to try and
minimize the statements of others that you don't agree with. Not much
different than you calling some one a "clown" when you don't like what
they said.
No, I call them clowns when they make me laugh.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Yes, and so will anyone else that has the courage to say they looked
for the bullet hole described by the pathologists. Only sad deniers
cannot tell that.
But you have no explanation for why your massive blowout in the BOH
doesn't show up in that photo.
Of course I do. Alteration was critical and used to fool the medical
panels that investigated the autopsy after the public complained about
possible trickery.
So you are using a photo you claim was altered to prove there was not
entry wound in the BOH. You want us to believe they went to all the
trouble of scrubbing a large blowout wound in the BOH but then forgot to
insert an entry wound. What klutzes.
LOL! I see that so far (07/24/18 a.m.) Chris has studiously avoided
responding to this point. Could it me that any answer would make his
far-fetched notions seem even more ridiculous?
And that's the heart of contradiction for the "everthing" damning has been
faked crowd. They simply cannot resist seizing both ends of the Gordian
knot by saying things like the above or that "back and to the left" means
a frontal shot, when in the next breath they are telling you that you
cannot trust what you (and many recognized experts) see in those same
films and photos because they have been "altered".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If those 'leaked' autopsy photos were shown to the
panels, there's no doubt why they concluded that there was a shot to the
BOH as the cause of death.
Oh, so you admit there is an entry wound in that photo.
Post by mainframetech
Worse if they showed them the Ida Dox copies
of the photos. At least one of them she put in a bullet hole where they
told her to, but the original photo had no bullet hole showing at all.
So you think they used the drawing to review the autopsy findings and not
the photos or x-rays. That's funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
They didn't look for evidence of a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, therefore they did not see one.
How do you know they didn't look?
Because they would have seen it if they did. It was clearly a bullet
wound. You wouldn't know about that though.
I guess that's as close as you come to admitting what I have said often.
Your "proof" that they didn't look is that they reached a different
conclusion than you have. It couldn't possibly be that the reason they
reached a different conclusion than you do is because they had so much
more and better evidence and know so much more about forensic medicine
than you do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
OBVIOUSLY they didn't ENLARGE the
photo or they would have seen the wound in question and would have come to
a very different conclusion as to the cause of death.
Your answer to all these conundrums. They didn't see what you think you
see so they must not have looked.
Nope, won't do. They may well have looked, but they may not have
ENLARGED the photo, which is important to seeing the proof of a frontal
shot.
You must think they looked at the online copies of the photos which are
digitized versions of the few leaked ones that were published. They had
the original high quality prints which showed much better detail than what
the copies that were leaked to the public. Dr. Peter Cummings who fairly
recently was allowed to see the original materials made that observation.
But you're going to tell us he couldn't see what you think you see because
he didn't enlarge the originals either. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
You have not presented facts, you have presented a few questions about
things you have no understanding of.
It is a fact the review panels have far more training and expertise than
you.
It is a fact that they saw far more evidence than you have.
It is a fact that they didn't ENLARGE the photo in question, or they
would have seen the cause of death.
What a joke. Nothing shows up when that photo is enlarged that can't be
seen at normal size. All it does is enlarge the black spot that you've
convinced yourself is a bullet hole. It's still just a black spot, not a
bullet hole.
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it! Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
to draw it in. It was figure 13. Here's the 'leaked' photo of the BOH:

Loading Image...


See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-29 01:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it!
Because you say so. That spot in the BOH photo has sharp margins and is
distinguishable from the surrounding area. Compare that with your
imaginary bullet hole in the SOD photo. That has no clear margins and
blends right into the surrounding area which is JFK's hair.
Post by mainframetech
Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
The copy BTGeorge posted has much sharper contrast and shows the margins
of the bullet hole much more clearly. Of course even that isn't as sharp
as the original photos which the HSCA had available to them. Anything we
see on line is a copy of a copy of a copy...etc. Those photos were leaked
long before there was such a thing as digital photography and each time a
photo was copied in those days, there would be some degradation in
quality. We don't know how many generations removed the photos we no have
online are removed from the originals. Once an image is digitized of
course, there is no further degradation as each succeeding copy will be
identical to the previous one but the degradation would taken place long
before the digitation took place.
Post by mainframetech
See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Actually there is a spot that looks very much like a bullet hole. Much
more so than your imaginary one in the forehead/temple and we don't even
have to enlarge the photo to see it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.
Yes, we are aware that you see things that most other people don't. There
is a word to describe that.
mainframetech
2018-07-30 01:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value. As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses. They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it!
Because you say so. That spot in the BOH photo has sharp margins and is
distinguishable from the surrounding area. Compare that with your
imaginary bullet hole in the SOD photo. That has no clear margins and
blends right into the surrounding area which is JFK's hair.
Then please explain why the HSCA decided to use the drawing to
illustrate the bullet hole and not the photo. Maybe it's because there is
no bullet hole in the photo...:) The comparison with the real bullet hole
in the forehead won't get you anywhere. Why did they use the drawing?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
The copy BTGeorge posted has much sharper contrast and shows the margins
of the bullet hole much more clearly. Of course even that isn't as sharp
as the original photos which the HSCA had available to them.
Oh, get away with that crap! You know perfectly well that the quality
of the autopsy photo is plenty good to see a bullet hole, if there were
one there. Talk about imagining seeing things!
Post by bigdog
Anything we
see on line is a copy of a copy of a copy...etc. Those photos were leaked
long before there was such a thing as digital photography and each time a
photo was copied in those days, there would be some degradation in
quality. We don't know how many generations removed the photos we no have
online are removed from the originals. Once an image is digitized of
course, there is no further degradation as each succeeding copy will be
identical to the previous one but the degradation would taken place long
before the digitation took place.
Post by mainframetech
See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Actually there is a spot that looks very much like a bullet hole. Much
more so than your imaginary one in the forehead/temple and we don't even
have to enlarge the photo to see it.
There is no spot there, including the red spot that Humes has
discounted (he was there, you know).
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.
Yes, we are aware that you see things that most other people don't. There
is a word to describe that.
WRONG! I've made any of my learnings clear to others and shown them
how and where to see them. I have spent time with even the most
dunderheaded idiots trying to help they see things that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone else.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-31 01:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it!
Because you say so. That spot in the BOH photo has sharp margins and is
distinguishable from the surrounding area. Compare that with your
imaginary bullet hole in the SOD photo. That has no clear margins and
blends right into the surrounding area which is JFK's hair.
Then please explain why the HSCA decided to use the drawing to
illustrate the bullet hole and not the photo.
My understanding is the Kennedy family did not want the autopsy photos
made public so instead the drawing was made to present to the
congressional committee. If I am wrong about that I'm sure someone will
let us know.
Post by mainframetech
Maybe it's because there is
no bullet hole in the photo...:) The comparison with the real bullet hole
in the forehead won't get you anywhere. Why did they use the drawing?
I just gave you what I believe the explanation was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
The copy BTGeorge posted has much sharper contrast and shows the margins
of the bullet hole much more clearly. Of course even that isn't as sharp
as the original photos which the HSCA had available to them.
Oh, get away with that crap! You know perfectly well that the quality
of the autopsy photo is plenty good to see a bullet hole,
Most of us do.
Post by mainframetech
if there were
one there. Talk about imagining seeing things!
You are the outlier.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Anything we
see on line is a copy of a copy of a copy...etc. Those photos were leaked
long before there was such a thing as digital photography and each time a
photo was copied in those days, there would be some degradation in
quality. We don't know how many generations removed the photos we no have
online are removed from the originals. Once an image is digitized of
course, there is no further degradation as each succeeding copy will be
identical to the previous one but the degradation would taken place long
before the digitation took place.
Post by mainframetech
See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Actually there is a spot that looks very much like a bullet hole. Much
more so than your imaginary one in the forehead/temple and we don't even
have to enlarge the photo to see it.
There is no spot there, including the red spot that Humes has
discounted (he was there, you know).
You really think they took a picture with the ruler to show where a blood
spot was?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.
Yes, we are aware that you see things that most other people don't. There
is a word to describe that.
WRONG! I've made any of my learnings clear to others and shown them
how and where to see them. I have spent time with even the most
dunderheaded idiots trying to help they see things that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone else.
Dunderheaded idiots? Apparently you've spent lots of time with them.
mainframetech
2018-08-01 03:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it!
Because you say so. That spot in the BOH photo has sharp margins and is
distinguishable from the surrounding area. Compare that with your
imaginary bullet hole in the SOD photo. That has no clear margins and
blends right into the surrounding area which is JFK's hair.
Then please explain why the HSCA decided to use the drawing to
illustrate the bullet hole and not the photo.
My understanding is the Kennedy family did not want the autopsy photos
made public so instead the drawing was made to present to the
congressional committee. If I am wrong about that I'm sure someone will
let us know.
If you were telling the truth just then, then you've cracked open the
phony part of the case beautifully! You see, more than the "congressional
committee" were to see that drawing from the HSCA. The medical people, as
well had to see it. So if they showed that phony drawing of the bullet
hole in the BOH, then they were faking out the medical people from the
HCSA! And of course, anyone that would look into the HSCA findings as
well for years to come. Thank you for recognizing that probability.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Maybe it's because there is
no bullet hole in the photo...:) The comparison with the real bullet hole
in the forehead won't get you anywhere. Why did they use the drawing?
I just gave you what I believe the explanation was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
The copy BTGeorge posted has much sharper contrast and shows the margins
of the bullet hole much more clearly. Of course even that isn't as sharp
as the original photos which the HSCA had available to them.
Oh, get away with that crap! You know perfectly well that the quality
of the autopsy photo is plenty good to see a bullet hole,
Most of us do.
Post by mainframetech
if there were
one there. Talk about imagining seeing things!
You are the outlier.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Anything we
see on line is a copy of a copy of a copy...etc. Those photos were leaked
long before there was such a thing as digital photography and each time a
photo was copied in those days, there would be some degradation in
quality. We don't know how many generations removed the photos we no have
online are removed from the originals. Once an image is digitized of
course, there is no further degradation as each succeeding copy will be
identical to the previous one but the degradation would taken place long
before the digitation took place.
Post by mainframetech
See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Actually there is a spot that looks very much like a bullet hole. Much
more so than your imaginary one in the forehead/temple and we don't even
have to enlarge the photo to see it.
There is no spot there, including the red spot that Humes has
discounted (he was there, you know).
You really think they took a picture with the ruler to show where a blood
spot was?
I think they put a ruler there to help locate the back wound bullet,
but since they covered that up with a black blob, it seems silly.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.
Yes, we are aware that you see things that most other people don't. There
is a word to describe that.
WRONG! I've made any of my learnings clear to others and shown them
how and where to see them. I have spent time with even the most
dunderheaded idiots trying to help they see things that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone else.
Dunderheaded idiots? Apparently you've spent lots of time with them.
Quite bit, but I've learned to cut them off now sometimes.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-02 02:34:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it!
Because you say so. That spot in the BOH photo has sharp margins and is
distinguishable from the surrounding area. Compare that with your
imaginary bullet hole in the SOD photo. That has no clear margins and
blends right into the surrounding area which is JFK's hair.
Then please explain why the HSCA decided to use the drawing to
illustrate the bullet hole and not the photo.
My understanding is the Kennedy family did not want the autopsy photos
made public so instead the drawing was made to present to the
congressional committee. If I am wrong about that I'm sure someone will
let us know.
If you were telling the truth just then, then you've cracked open the
phony part of the case beautifully! You see, more than the "congressional
committee" were to see that drawing from the HSCA. The medical people, as
well had to see it. So if they showed that phony drawing of the bullet
hole in the BOH, then they were faking out the medical people from the
HCSA! And of course, anyone that would look into the HSCA findings as
well for years to come. Thank you for recognizing that probability.
The review panels got to see all the original photos with 10X
magnification and they based their findings on those. The drawings were
what was seen by the public when they were presented to the committee.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Maybe it's because there is
no bullet hole in the photo...:) The comparison with the real bullet hole
in the forehead won't get you anywhere. Why did they use the drawing?
I just gave you what I believe the explanation was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
The copy BTGeorge posted has much sharper contrast and shows the margins
of the bullet hole much more clearly. Of course even that isn't as sharp
as the original photos which the HSCA had available to them.
Oh, get away with that crap! You know perfectly well that the quality
of the autopsy photo is plenty good to see a bullet hole,
Most of us do.
Post by mainframetech
if there were
one there. Talk about imagining seeing things!
You are the outlier.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Anything we
see on line is a copy of a copy of a copy...etc. Those photos were leaked
long before there was such a thing as digital photography and each time a
photo was copied in those days, there would be some degradation in
quality. We don't know how many generations removed the photos we no have
online are removed from the originals. Once an image is digitized of
course, there is no further degradation as each succeeding copy will be
identical to the previous one but the degradation would taken place long
before the digitation took place.
Post by mainframetech
See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Actually there is a spot that looks very much like a bullet hole. Much
more so than your imaginary one in the forehead/temple and we don't even
have to enlarge the photo to see it.
There is no spot there, including the red spot that Humes has
discounted (he was there, you know).
You really think they took a picture with the ruler to show where a blood
spot was?
I think they put a ruler there to help locate the back wound bullet,
but since they covered that up with a black blob, it seems silly.
Now that's a new one. What black blob?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.
Yes, we are aware that you see things that most other people don't. There
is a word to describe that.
WRONG! I've made any of my learnings clear to others and shown them
how and where to see them. I have spent time with even the most
dunderheaded idiots trying to help they see things that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone else.
Dunderheaded idiots? Apparently you've spent lots of time with them.
Quite bit, but I've learned to cut them off now sometimes.
Chris
Spence
2018-07-20 00:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
Jason Burke
2018-07-20 21:38:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
All ya gots to do to be an expert is read some other fool's blatherings
on the internet.
mainframetech
2018-07-21 00:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
WRONG again! I have the statements of 2 'controlled demolition'
experts who tell us that the WTC collapses of the 3 towers was indeed
'controlled demolition'. I don't need to be an expert. How you be so
often wrong? Is it because you make this stuff up?

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-07-22 01:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
WRONG again! I have the statements of 2 'controlled demolition'
experts who tell us that the WTC collapses of the 3 towers was indeed
'controlled demolition'. I don't need to be an expert. How you be so
often wrong? Is it because you make this stuff up?
Chris
Sure you do, Chris.
Sure you do.
bigdog
2018-07-21 00:09:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
He has to pretend he knows so much more than the experts in these various
fields because inevitably their opinions conflict with what he wants to
believe. He has no choice but to dismiss their conclusions and substitute
his own.
mainframetech
2018-07-22 01:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
He has to pretend he knows so much more than the experts in these various
fields because inevitably their opinions conflict with what he wants to
believe. He has no choice but to dismiss their conclusions and substitute
his own.
Ah, LNs patting each other on the back for their wise insights! In
actuality, I listened to 2 'controlled demolition' experts as to the fall
of the 3 towers, and they both concluded that it was indeed, 'controlled
demolition'.

Chris
Loading...