Discussion:
Critical Thinking
(too old to reply)
claviger
2017-08-11 17:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm


Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411


Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766


Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking


Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.

Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.

Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.

Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.

Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.

Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).

Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.

Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.

Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.

Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.

Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
Bud
2017-08-12 14:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411
Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.
Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.
Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.
Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.
Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.
Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).
Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.
Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.
Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.
Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.
Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
These clubs aren`t even in the average conspiracy hobbyist`s bag. They
keep reaching for the "extraordinary claim with little support" club for
all occasions.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-13 13:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by claviger
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411
Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.
Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.
Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.
Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.
Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.
Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).
Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.
Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.
Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.
Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.
Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
These clubs aren`t even in the average conspiracy hobbyist`s bag. They
keep reaching for the "extraordinary claim with little support" club for
all occasions.
Clubs? Are you thinking of Non-Conspiracists United?
bigdog
2017-08-13 03:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411
Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.
Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.
Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.
Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.
Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.
Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).
Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.
Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.
Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.
Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.
Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.

When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.

When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones over the likely ones.

While it is certainly possible the less likely explanation is the correct
one, when one constructs a scenario which requires that in every case, the
less likely explanation is the correct one, the scenario collapses into
implausibility. This is invariably how the Oswald deniers argue for his
innocence. The look at each piece of evidence in isolation without ever
weighing it against the body of evidence as a whole. No one piece of
evidence by itself conclusively proves Oswald was guilty since there is
always an alternative which invariably is the least likely explanation.
With virtually all the evidence, the most likely explanation points to
Oswald's guilt and it is only the least likely one which exonerates him.
If there was only one or two pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt a
reasonable argument for his innocence might be made. However there are
dozens of pieces of evidence (53 by Bugliosi's count) in which the likely
explanation points to his guilt. It becomes preposterous to think that for
every one of these pieces of evidence, the least likely explanation is the
correct one.
deke
2017-08-14 02:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Mitch Todd
2017-08-14 20:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
When have either the jet effect or neuromuscular theories
been debunked, and by whom?

And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
deke
2017-08-15 18:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
When have either the jet effect or neuromuscular theories
been debunked, and by whom
Neurologists have stated that neruomuscular reactions produce random
movements of body parts instead of throwing the body in one particular
direction. Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
John McAdams
2017-08-15 18:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
When have either the jet effect or neuromuscular theories
been debunked, and by whom
Neurologists have stated that neruomuscular reactions produce random
movements of body parts instead of throwing the body in one particular
direction.
Actually, no.

When all the muscles contract, the stronger back muscles dominate.

Read Sturdivan's testimony to the HSCA.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mitch Todd
2017-08-15 23:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
When have either the jet effect or neuromuscular theories
been debunked, and by whom
Neurologists have stated that neruomuscular reactions produce random
movements of body parts instead of throwing the body in one particular
direction.
What neurologists?
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
deke
2017-08-18 00:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-18 17:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
Self-contradictory - if you see the jet of matter being expelled out of
the TOP of the head, then you'd have to say it forced the head down, not
back.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Maybe built up muscle tension being released when the brain was blown
open.
Mitch Todd
2017-08-18 17:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
You don't quite understand how it works. The direction of the
jet isn't controlled by the direction of the bullet, but by the
where the skull fails structurally. And you can't simply assume
that's going to happen only in the direction of the bullet.
A bullet's passage creates considerable force acting radially
around (and at right angles to) the bullet's path. For that
matter, human tissue is mostly water, and tends to behave as a
hydraulic system, where applied forces become distributed
in all directions, no matter the direction of the initial
force. The upshot of all this, if you will, is that it's very
possible that the jet can occur (for instance) perpendicular to
the path of the bullet.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Nope. What I'm talking about is still freshman-level physics.

And I see you dropped the thing about the neurologists.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-19 15:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
You don't quite understand how it works. The direction of the
jet isn't controlled by the direction of the bullet, but by the
where the skull fails structurally. And you can't simply assume
Something like that. You are also presupposing what type of bullet was
used. What about an explosive bullet?
Post by Mitch Todd
that's going to happen only in the direction of the bullet.
A bullet's passage creates considerable force acting radially
around (and at right angles to) the bullet's path. For that
matter, human tissue is mostly water, and tends to behave as a
What if the bullet stops or explodes?
Post by Mitch Todd
hydraulic system, where applied forces become distributed
in all directions, no matter the direction of the initial
force. The upshot of all this, if you will, is that it's very
possible that the jet can occur (for instance) perpendicular to
the path of the bullet.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Nope. What I'm talking about is still freshman-level physics.
And I see you dropped the thing about the neurologists.
r***@gmail.com
2017-08-24 23:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
You don't quite understand how it works. The direction of the
jet isn't controlled by the direction of the bullet, but by the
where the skull fails structurally. And you can't simply assume
Something like that. You are also presupposing what type of bullet was
used. What about an explosive bullet?
I doubt that there ever was an "exploding" bullet in
rifle/pistol caliber where the explosive charge would
generate enough energy to make a difference compared
to the lost kinetic energy of the bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
that's going to happen only in the direction of the bullet.
A bullet's passage creates considerable force acting radially
around (and at right angles to) the bullet's path. For that
matter, human tissue is mostly water, and tends to behave as a
What if the bullet stops or explodes?
The explosion is a result of the cavitation
effect created by the bullet. Cavitation
is going to happen if the bullet goes
all the way through or if it stops along
the way. However, I suspect that a bullet
without enough power behind to pass completely
through genrally won't generate enough pressure
to cause the skull to burst.

I've already handled the explosion case.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
hydraulic system, where applied forces become distributed
in all directions, no matter the direction of the initial
force. The upshot of all this, if you will, is that it's very
possible that the jet can occur (for instance) perpendicular to
the path of the bullet.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Nope. What I'm talking about is still freshman-level physics.
And I see you dropped the thing about the neurologists.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-26 01:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
You don't quite understand how it works. The direction of the
jet isn't controlled by the direction of the bullet, but by the
where the skull fails structurally. And you can't simply assume
Something like that. You are also presupposing what type of bullet was
used. What about an explosive bullet?
I doubt that there ever was an "exploding" bullet in
rifle/pistol caliber where the explosive charge would
generate enough energy to make a difference compared
to the lost kinetic energy of the bullet.
Your guessing doesn't mean shit.
People have been using explosive bullets for over a century.
You obviously have never seen an explosive bullet in action.
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
that's going to happen only in the direction of the bullet.
A bullet's passage creates considerable force acting radially
around (and at right angles to) the bullet's path. For that
matter, human tissue is mostly water, and tends to behave as a
What if the bullet stops or explodes?
The explosion is a result of the cavitation
effect created by the bullet. Cavitation
No, silly. The explosion of the bullet is caused by the explosive
material in the tip.
Post by r***@gmail.com
is going to happen if the bullet goes
all the way through or if it stops along
the way. However, I suspect that a bullet
without enough power behind to pass completely
through genrally won't generate enough pressure
to cause the skull to burst.
Depends on the size and type of explosive.
Post by r***@gmail.com
I've already handled the explosion case.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
hydraulic system, where applied forces become distributed
in all directions, no matter the direction of the initial
force. The upshot of all this, if you will, is that it's very
possible that the jet can occur (for instance) perpendicular to
the path of the bullet.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Nope. What I'm talking about is still freshman-level physics.
And I see you dropped the thing about the neurologists.
r***@gmail.com
2017-08-27 22:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
You don't quite understand how it works. The direction of the
jet isn't controlled by the direction of the bullet, but by the
where the skull fails structurally. And you can't simply assume
Something like that. You are also presupposing what type of bullet was
used. What about an explosive bullet?
I doubt that there ever was an "exploding" bullet in
rifle/pistol caliber where the explosive charge would
generate enough energy to make a difference compared
to the lost kinetic energy of the bullet.
Your guessing doesn't mean shit.
People have been using explosive bullets for over a century.
So what? My point is that the amount of explosive in
those bullets is so small, the energy of the resulting
detonation is tiny compared to the kinetic energy of
the bullet at impact. Essentially, they put a primer
inside the bullet along with a striker that's supposed
to set off the primer at impact. Now, take a rifle
cartridge, remove he bullet, pour out the propellant,
replace the bullet, put the cartridge in a rifle, pull
the trigger, and see how far down the barrel the bullet
gets. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the poor thing to make it out of the muzzle. At
best, the detonation of the material inside the bullet
would, in conjunction with the impact forces, cause the
bullet to structurally fail, something like M193/M856
5.56mm FMJ ammunition. That would cause more of the
bullet's KE to be transferred to the target, and faster,
and you'd have a bigger hole in the end, but you'd have
the same effect using soft-nosed or hollow point
ammunition, which would be more reliable and easier for
the Unnamable Them to explain.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You obviously have never seen an explosive bullet in action.
Exactly how many explosive bullets have you ever seen in
action, Tony? Please tell us all about your extensive
personal experience with them!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
that's going to happen only in the direction of the bullet.
A bullet's passage creates considerable force acting radially
around (and at right angles to) the bullet's path. For that
matter, human tissue is mostly water, and tends to behave as a
What if the bullet stops or explodes?
The explosion is a result of the cavitation
effect created by the bullet. Cavitation
No, silly. The explosion of the bullet is caused by the explosive
material in the tip.
Confusing word choice on my part, and I apologize
for that. I was talking about the explosion of brain,
et al, from the cranium, not the explosion of a
bullet. And yes, it is caused primarily by
cavitation.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
is going to happen if the bullet goes
all the way through or if it stops along
the way. However, I suspect that a bullet
without enough power behind to pass completely
through genrally won't generate enough pressure
to cause the skull to burst.
Depends on the size and type of explosive.
Size is very small. Small arms ammunition is,
as the name implies, pretty small. From that
starting point, you can't remove that much
material without causing structural issues
in the projectile that would interfere with
ballistic performance. And this resulting
tiny space still has to carry a striker and
anvil as well as the explosive itself. As
I've said, the end result has explosive
power on he order of a centerfire rifle
primer.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
I've already handled the explosion case.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
hydraulic system, where applied forces become distributed
in all directions, no matter the direction of the initial
force. The upshot of all this, if you will, is that it's very
possible that the jet can occur (for instance) perpendicular to
the path of the bullet.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Nope. What I'm talking about is still freshman-level physics.
And I see you dropped the thing about the neurologists.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-30 00:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
What would you expect a jet effect to look like in the Zapruder
film?
Self explanatory - a jet of matter protruding from the front of the head.
You don't quite understand how it works. The direction of the
jet isn't controlled by the direction of the bullet, but by the
where the skull fails structurally. And you can't simply assume
Something like that. You are also presupposing what type of bullet was
used. What about an explosive bullet?
I doubt that there ever was an "exploding" bullet in
rifle/pistol caliber where the explosive charge would
generate enough energy to make a difference compared
to the lost kinetic energy of the bullet.
Your guessing doesn't mean shit.
People have been using explosive bullets for over a century.
So what? My point is that the amount of explosive in
those bullets is so small, the energy of the resulting
detonation is tiny compared to the kinetic energy of
the bullet at impact. Essentially, they put a primer
False. You know nothing about explosive bullets, so stop guessing.
I specifically said a normal Carcano bullet with a hollowed out tip
filled with RDX. Straight from the CIA's Technical Services Division to
be used on Castro. It explodes on contact.
Post by r***@gmail.com
inside the bullet along with a striker that's supposed
to set off the primer at impact. Now, take a rifle
cartridge, remove he bullet, pour out the propellant,
replace the bullet, put the cartridge in a rifle, pull
the trigger, and see how far down the barrel the bullet
In fact one guy tried underloading a Carcano and the rifle blew up in
his face.
Post by r***@gmail.com
gets. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the poor thing to make it out of the muzzle. At
You are just talking silly talk. Explosive bullets have been around
since the Civil War and are often used against aircraft.
Post by r***@gmail.com
best, the detonation of the material inside the bullet
would, in conjunction with the impact forces, cause the
bullet to structurally fail, something like M193/M856
5.56mm FMJ ammunition. That would cause more of the
Well, yes, some poorly made explosive bullets do fail. Most noticeably the
.22 Devastators hat Hinckley used. About half of them failed to explode as
designed. By a strange bit of luck the one that hit Reagan first barely
missed him and ricocheted off the limo's frame and flattened out like a
pancake instead of detonating upon impact. The one that hit Brady exploded
as designed and sent 4 or 5 tiny fragments into his brain. The base was
never found at the crime scene.
Post by r***@gmail.com
bullet's KE to be transferred to the target, and faster,
and you'd have a bigger hole in the end, but you'd have
the same effect using soft-nosed or hollow point
ammunition, which would be more reliable and easier for
the Unnamable Them to explain.
Unnamable? You mean you are afraid to name the CIA?
Is that why you signed on as Mr. X?
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
You obviously have never seen an explosive bullet in action.
Exactly how many explosive bullets have you ever seen in
action, Tony? Please tell us all about your extensive
personal experience with them!
None personally. Others have and have described them.
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
that's going to happen only in the direction of the bullet.
A bullet's passage creates considerable force acting radially
around (and at right angles to) the bullet's path. For that
matter, human tissue is mostly water, and tends to behave as a
What if the bullet stops or explodes?
The explosion is a result of the cavitation
effect created by the bullet. Cavitation
No, silly. The explosion of the bullet is caused by the explosive
material in the tip.
Confusing word choice on my part, and I apologize
for that. I was talking about the explosion of brain,
et al, from the cranium, not the explosion of a
bullet. And yes, it is caused primarily by
cavitation.
Or an explosive bullet. You can probably find some good examples from the
AR-15 or M-16 usage Vietnam.

So when we see the Japanese soldiers executing the Chinese prisoners at
Nanking with thier 6.5 FMJ Arisakas and the victims fall forward away from
the rifle, do you say that is cavitation or Jet Effect or neuromuscular
response or some other silly made up argument, or do you have to agree
that the impact of the bullet to the back or their heads knocked them over
and they fell forward, away from the rifle?
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
is going to happen if the bullet goes
all the way through or if it stops along
the way. However, I suspect that a bullet
without enough power behind to pass completely
through genrally won't generate enough pressure
to cause the skull to burst.
Depends on the size and type of explosive.
Size is very small. Small arms ammunition is,
as the name implies, pretty small. From that
No one is talking about small arms. These were military rifles, used in
WWII.
Post by r***@gmail.com
starting point, you can't remove that much
material without causing structural issues
in the projectile that would interfere with
ballistic performance. And this resulting
Sure, which is why the CIA TSD had to do the work.
Post by r***@gmail.com
tiny space still has to carry a striker and
anvil as well as the explosive itself. As
You know where you can shove your striker and anvil.
Stick to the facts and stop making up crap.
Post by r***@gmail.com
I've said, the end result has explosive
power on he order of a centerfire rifle
primer.
You know nothing about RDX, MR. X.
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
I've already handled the explosion case.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
hydraulic system, where applied forces become distributed
in all directions, no matter the direction of the initial
force. The upshot of all this, if you will, is that it's very
possible that the jet can occur (for instance) perpendicular to
the path of the bullet.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
They are certainly straightforward. They also aren't the whole
story, and do not in themselves explain all that much, especially
at a systemic level. That's why Steven Hawking is a physicist and
you are not.
Right! The backward head snap must have been caused by quantum
fluctuations.
Nope. What I'm talking about is still freshman-level physics.
And I see you dropped the thing about the neurologists.
bigdog
2017-08-16 14:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
When have either the jet effect or neuromuscular theories
been debunked, and by whom
Neurologists have stated that neruomuscular reactions produce random
movements of body parts instead of throwing the body in one particular
direction.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, random means it could cause a
movement in any direction. This one was rearward.
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
I think jet effect was a contributing factor to the rearward movement but
not the primary cause. It can be and has been replicated numerous times
experimentally with melons and gelatin filled skulls. Almost invariably
the skull/melon falls backward toward the shooter.
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
You just have to know how to apply them.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-17 02:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
When have either the jet effect or neuromuscular theories
been debunked, and by whom
Neurologists have stated that neruomuscular reactions produce random
movements of body parts instead of throwing the body in one particular
direction.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, random means it could cause a
movement in any direction. This one was rearward.
Post by deke
Regarding the jet effect, look at the Zapruder film. Where do
you see it? It just isn't there.
I think jet effect was a contributing factor to the rearward movement but
not the primary cause. It can be and has been replicated numerous times
experimentally with melons and gelatin filled skulls. Almost invariably
the skull/melon falls backward toward the shooter.
That is false. SHOW me one time, I'll grant you one time. not almost
always. You are making up crap.

Did you ever see the Lattimer test? Not only does the skull go forward,
the ladder also goes forward, away from the gun.


Look at the test where Yardley hits the artificial head from the grassy
knoll angle. Which way does the skull go?


Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by Mitch Todd
And I've found over the years that people who like to bring up
Newton's Laws of Motion really don't understand physics.
Newton's laws are pretty straight forward - you don't have to be Stephen
Hawking to understand them.
You just have to know how to apply them.
Jason Burke
2017-08-14 20:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
So every *qualifed* medical examiner is wrong and you're correct, eh,
Deke?
mainframetech
2017-08-15 12:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
So every *qualifed* medical examiner is wrong and you're correct, eh,
Deke?
The medical examiners had NO opportunity to look into the body with
the organs removed, which only the autopsy team saw. As well, they were
not able to interview the other members of the autopsy team to verify what
was said in the Autopsy Report, which was intentionally incorrect. If
they had that ability at the time they were doing their work, they would
have come back with very different conclusions.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-14 20:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.

Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-15 02:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
Silly. It's not just the weight. It's also the velocity. You are supposed
to be a WC defender so you are supposed to believe the Itek claim that a
shot from behind pushed JFK's head forward about 2 inches in one Zapruder
frame.
Post by bigdog
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
You know nothing about bullets. How do you exaplain the Lattimer
experiments?
Post by bigdog
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
Exactly. Which is why they have to tie the victim to a poll when a
firing squad all shoot at him at the same time. Otherwise he'd go flying
back at the firing squad. ;]>
Post by bigdog
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
No, silly. Most examiners can not tell the difference.
Post by bigdog
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
Nope.
mainframetech
2017-08-15 12:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team. The information they had was only the Autopsy Report (AR),
and that was ordered to say the wrong thing. Critical photos were missing
as per the photographers, and the 'leaked' ones were just ridiculous and
full of errors.

Know too that Douglas Horne had proven that the Z-film was altered
through use of witnesses and factual information, including naming the
equipment available in 1963 to do the altering and how it was used. The
point of the greatest alteration was near frame 312-313 and after.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-15 19:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team. The information they had was only the Autopsy Report (AR),
and that was ordered to say the wrong thing. Critical photos were missing
as per the photographers, and the 'leaked' ones were just ridiculous and
full of errors.
Know too that Douglas Horne had proven that the Z-film was altered
through use of witnesses and factual information, including naming the
equipment available in 1963 to do the altering and how it was used. The
point of the greatest alteration was near frame 312-313 and after.
Chris
Nonsense. I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
bigdog
2017-08-16 14:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
Post by mainframetech
The information they had was only the Autopsy Report (AR),
and that was ordered to say the wrong thing. Critical photos were missing
as per the photographers, and the 'leaked' ones were just ridiculous and
full of errors.
They had a wealth of photos and x-rays which told them conclusively the
fundament finding in the AR that JFK had been shot twice from behind was
the correct one. But of course you are willing to throw that all over
board because of two techies who were in all probability taking part in
their first autopsy of a gun shot victim. But in you wonderfully whacky
world their opinions trump those of all the pathologists including the
three who performed the original autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
Know too that Douglas Horne had proven that the Z-film was altered
through use of witnesses and factual information, including naming the
equipment available in 1963 to do the altering and how it was used. The
point of the greatest alteration was near frame 312-313 and after.
The only thing Dough Horne ever proved was that he has a lot of gullible
readers.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-17 02:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
False. They were unqualified. That is why they were assigned to do the
autopsy. The Three Stooges.
Post by bigdog
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
How about some REAL forensic pathologists?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The information they had was only the Autopsy Report (AR),
and that was ordered to say the wrong thing. Critical photos were missing
as per the photographers, and the 'leaked' ones were just ridiculous and
full of errors.
They had a wealth of photos and x-rays which told them conclusively the
The autopsy doctors were not allowed to see the autopsy photos.
Post by bigdog
fundament finding in the AR that JFK had been shot twice from behind was
the correct one. But of course you are willing to throw that all over
board because of two techies who were in all probability taking part in
Not just the tehchies. Ignore them. Look at the hard evidence. Never
rely on witnesses.
Post by bigdog
their first autopsy of a gun shot victim. But in you wonderfully whacky
You mean Humes and Boswell.
Ice Bullet? Really, dude?
Post by bigdog
world their opinions trump those of all the pathologists including the
three who performed the original autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
Know too that Douglas Horne had proven that the Z-film was altered
through use of witnesses and factual information, including naming the
equipment available in 1963 to do the altering and how it was used. The
point of the greatest alteration was near frame 312-313 and after.
The only thing Dough Horne ever proved was that he has a lot of gullible
readers.
mainframetech
2017-08-18 00:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The information they had was only the Autopsy Report (AR),
and that was ordered to say the wrong thing. Critical photos were missing
as per the photographers, and the 'leaked' ones were just ridiculous and
full of errors.
They had a wealth of photos and x-rays which told them conclusively the
fundament finding in the AR that JFK had been shot twice from behind was
the correct one. But of course you are willing to throw that all over
board because of two techies who were in all probability taking part in
their first autopsy of a gun shot victim. But in you wonderfully whacky
world their opinions trump those of all the pathologists including the
three who performed the original autopsy.
WRONG! Not a single photo or X-ray was present that showed the proof
that was seen by the full autopsy team that the bullet in question did NOT
leave the body of JFK. You've ben shown the proof that the photos were
missing. If the right photos were present, the panels would have no
choice but to rule very differently from what they were forced to rule.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Know too that Douglas Horne had proven that the Z-film was altered
through use of witnesses and factual information, including naming the
equipment available in 1963 to do the altering and how it was used. The
point of the greatest alteration was near frame 312-313 and after.
The only thing Dough Horne ever proved was that he has a lot of gullible
readers.
Cites and links would be nice to back that up. And not some rabid LN
either, but something relevant and objective.

You have yet to prove that Horne was lying or mistaken in any way.
But since he was in a position to bring truth to the argument, the LNs
have to attack him and try to get folks to disbelieve him.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-18 18:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis. You also don't understand that is part of a fact
finding process. Ideas are developed and as more information is gathered,
the hypothesis is either proven or disproven. In this case they developed
a hypothesis based on having an entrance wound in the back and no apparent
exit. They were unaware at that point in the proceedings that there as an
exit wound that had been obliterated by the tracheostomy. After seeing
that a bullet had passed through the strap muscles and nicked the trachea
it became apparent to them that the bullet had probably exited the throat
and the tracheostomy incision had been performed over that exit wound.
That was confirmed when after contacting personnel at Parkland. At that
point they discarded the early hypothesis of "no exit". Being a conspiracy
hobbyist, you insist they should have held to that early hypothesis after
it had been disproven. To conspiracy hobbyists, once an idea is expressed
it becomes set in stone and can't be changed even if it is proven wrong.
That's how a Carcano rifle gets magically changed to a Mauser.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The information they had was only the Autopsy Report (AR),
and that was ordered to say the wrong thing. Critical photos were missing
as per the photographers, and the 'leaked' ones were just ridiculous and
full of errors.
They had a wealth of photos and x-rays which told them conclusively the
fundament finding in the AR that JFK had been shot twice from behind was
the correct one. But of course you are willing to throw that all over
board because of two techies who were in all probability taking part in
their first autopsy of a gun shot victim. But in you wonderfully whacky
world their opinions trump those of all the pathologists including the
three who performed the original autopsy.
WRONG! Not a single photo or X-ray was present that showed the proof
that was seen by the full autopsy team that the bullet in question did NOT
leave the body of JFK.
The whole autopsy team did not see that proof. They saw proof that the
bullet had passed through and exited the throat. The two techies were
unable to understand that due to their inexperience with gunshot victims,
but you continue to hold to their opinions and dismiss those expressed by
everyone else who was far more qualified than they were.
Post by mainframetech
You've ben shown the proof that the photos were
missing. If the right photos were present, the panels would have no
choice but to rule very differently from what they were forced to rule.
It doesn't matter if photos were missing or not. The review panels based
their opinions on what they did see and what they did see was proof
positive that JFK was shot twice from behind. If the bones of a T-Rex are
discovered but 5% of them are missing, a paleontologist can still
determine it is a T-Rex based on the 95% of the bones he does have.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Know too that Douglas Horne had proven that the Z-film was altered
through use of witnesses and factual information, including naming the
equipment available in 1963 to do the altering and how it was used. The
point of the greatest alteration was near frame 312-313 and after.
The only thing Dough Horne ever proved was that he has a lot of gullible
readers.
Cites and links would be nice to back that up. And not some rabid LN
either, but something relevant and objective.
You have yet to prove that Horne was lying or mistaken in any way.
But since he was in a position to bring truth to the argument, the LNs
have to attack him and try to get folks to disbelieve him.
Another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof. It's not up to me
to prove Doug Horne is wrong. It is up to you to prove he is right. You
are the one who claimed Doug Horne had proved something. The burden is on
you to prove the validity of that claim. To date you have failed
miserably.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-19 15:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
They said at the end of the process, the autopsy. But as you know it
never ends because we keep finding more evidence.
Post by bigdog
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis. You also don't understand that is part of a fact
finding process. Ideas are developed and as more information is gathered,
the hypothesis is either proven or disproven. In this case they developed
No, you reject new evidence. You claim all the answers were provided by
the WC. You are stuck in 1964.
Post by bigdog
a hypothesis based on having an entrance wound in the back and no apparent
exit. They were unaware at that point in the proceedings that there as an
exit wound that had been obliterated by the tracheostomy. After seeing
that a bullet had passed through the strap muscles and nicked the trachea
it became apparent to them that the bullet had probably exited the throat
and the tracheostomy incision had been performed over that exit wound.
That was confirmed when after contacting personnel at Parkland. At that
point they discarded the early hypothesis of "no exit". Being a conspiracy
hobbyist, you insist they should have held to that early hypothesis after
it had been disproven. To conspiracy hobbyists, once an idea is expressed
it becomes set in stone and can't be changed even if it is proven wrong.
That's how a Carcano rifle gets magically changed to a Mauser.
For the record, it wasn't the conspiracy kooks who magically changed a
Carcano into a Mauser. That was the Dallas cops.

Fire you arrows at the right person.

So, do you still believe in the Ice Bullet Theory?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The information they had was only the Autopsy Report (AR),
and that was ordered to say the wrong thing. Critical photos were missing
as per the photographers, and the 'leaked' ones were just ridiculous and
full of errors.
They had a wealth of photos and x-rays which told them conclusively the
fundament finding in the AR that JFK had been shot twice from behind was
the correct one. But of course you are willing to throw that all over
board because of two techies who were in all probability taking part in
their first autopsy of a gun shot victim. But in you wonderfully whacky
world their opinions trump those of all the pathologists including the
three who performed the original autopsy.
WRONG! Not a single photo or X-ray was present that showed the proof
that was seen by the full autopsy team that the bullet in question did NOT
leave the body of JFK.
The whole autopsy team did not see that proof. They saw proof that the
bullet had passed through and exited the throat. The two techies were
No, they didn't. They SAW only the back wound. They HEARD about the
throat wound from Parkland.
Post by bigdog
unable to understand that due to their inexperience with gunshot victims,
but you continue to hold to their opinions and dismiss those expressed by
everyone else who was far more qualified than they were.
The two autopsy doctors were unqualified to do the autopsy.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've ben shown the proof that the photos were
missing. If the right photos were present, the panels would have no
choice but to rule very differently from what they were forced to rule.
It doesn't matter if photos were missing or not. The review panels based
Right. So to you it doesn't matter if evidence was destroyed as long as
we reach the conclusion that YOU want to hear.
Post by bigdog
their opinions on what they did see and what they did see was proof
positive that JFK was shot twice from behind. If the bones of a T-Rex are
discovered but 5% of them are missing, a paleontologist can still
determine it is a T-Rex based on the 95% of the bones he does have.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Know too that Douglas Horne had proven that the Z-film was altered
through use of witnesses and factual information, including naming the
equipment available in 1963 to do the altering and how it was used. The
point of the greatest alteration was near frame 312-313 and after.
The only thing Dough Horne ever proved was that he has a lot of gullible
readers.
Cites and links would be nice to back that up. And not some rabid LN
either, but something relevant and objective.
You have yet to prove that Horne was lying or mistaken in any way.
But since he was in a position to bring truth to the argument, the LNs
have to attack him and try to get folks to disbelieve him.
Another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof. It's not up to me
to prove Doug Horne is wrong. It is up to you to prove he is right. You
are the one who claimed Doug Horne had proved something. The burden is on
you to prove the validity of that claim. To date you have failed
miserably.
Then it's up to YOU to prove that the WC was correct. But YOU can't.
You chicken out.
John McAdams
2017-08-19 15:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19 Aug 2017 11:04:30 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
For the record, it wasn't the conspiracy kooks who magically changed a
Carcano into a Mauser. That was the Dallas cops.
Tony, many years ago it was *you* who pointed me to the Alyea film,
which shows that the rifle was an MC all along.

What are you doing reciting factoids long since debunked, which you
*know* have been debunked?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-20 01:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 19 Aug 2017 11:04:30 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
For the record, it wasn't the conspiracy kooks who magically changed a
Carcano into a Mauser. That was the Dallas cops.
Tony, many years ago it was *you* who pointed me to the Alyea film,
which shows that the rifle was an MC all along.
What are you doing reciting factoids long since debunked, which you
*know* have been debunked?
You are confused as usual. It was Seymour Weitzman who first called the
rifle a Mauser, not some conspiracy kook. He admitted his error and I
asked all my conspiracy believers to forgive him and move on. People make
mistakes, even cops. His was an honest mistake.

Loading Image...

Please list for me the conspiracy kooks who were there in the TSBD on
11/22/63 and saw the rifle. Mark Lane got there too late. How about Roger
Craig? Remember him? Oh wait, he was a cop. What did he say?



It was the cops who identified it as a Mauser, almost immediately. Why do
you need to cover up for them? It was an honest mistake. Accept that and
move on.

NB: Has anyone visited this Italian town called Carcano that Cronkite
mentioned?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-08-21 23:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet. Stop pretending there was some meeting
to decide that, since there was none. If they had met and decided
something different, then the FBI agents would have reported that. But
since they didn't there was no change in the previous conclusion. It mans
clearly that Humes changed the conclusion on his own later at home, and
the others were told to sign off on it. All under orders. But all this
has been argued out and you haven't come up with anything new on it, so
this is all repetitive, so I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-22 23:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet.
Who said they needed to have a meeting. They were all there and so the
same things. You don't think they were conversing during the procedure?
Post by mainframetech
Stop pretending there was some meeting
to decide that, since there was none.
Nor did there need to be.
Post by mainframetech
If they had met and decided
something different, then the FBI agents would have reported that. But
since they didn't there was no change in the previous conclusion.
The only thing the FBI put in their report was the "no exit" remark. Do
you really think those were the only words spoken during the autopsy or do
you think there was lots of conversation which did not make it into the
FBI's report.
Post by mainframetech
It mans
clearly that Humes changed the conclusion on his own later at home, and
the others were told to sign off on it.
So says the master of illogical conclusions.
Post by mainframetech
All under orders.
As I was saying.
Post by mainframetech
But all this
has been argued out and you haven't come up with anything new on it,
Nor have you.
Post by mainframetech
so
this is all repetitive, so I'm outa here.
That exit door must be a revolving one since you seem to just keep coming
right back in.
mainframetech
2017-08-23 22:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet.
Who said they needed to have a meeting. They were all there and so the
same things. You don't think they were conversing during the procedure?
WRONG! What they said of any import was reported by the FBI agents.
An example is that they ALL said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound
bullet from the body. If they ALL had changed that conclusion, they would
have said something to that effect, and the FBI agent would have reported
it. There was no such report, because they ALL saw the proof in the body
after the organs were removed that they were right in the first place.
Humes went home and wrote a completely false Autopsy Report (AR).


The rest here is your usual repeating of past conversations, so I'm
outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-24 19:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet.
Who said they needed to have a meeting. They were all there and so the
same things. You don't think they were conversing during the procedure?
WRONG! What they said of any import was reported by the FBI agents.
An example is that they ALL said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound
bullet from the body. If they ALL had changed that conclusion, they would
have said something to that effect, and the FBI agent would have reported
it. There was no such report, because they ALL saw the proof in the body
after the organs were removed that they were right in the first place.
Humes went home and wrote a completely false Autopsy Report (AR).
Is that so? So tell us where in the FBI's report that the pathologists
stated after the organs were eviscerated that they could see proof that
the bullet had stopped at the pleura. Can't do it? Didn't think so. It is
absurd to think that no further discussions took place during the course
of the autopsy yet the FBI report is silent about observations made later
on. Like a good conspiracy hobbyist you take every unknown as an
opportunity to fill in the blanks to fit your beliefs. You assume what you
are unable to prove.
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is your usual repeating of past conversations, so I'm
outa here.
AGAIN!!!
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-26 00:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet.
Who said they needed to have a meeting. They were all there and so the
same things. You don't think they were conversing during the procedure?
WRONG! What they said of any import was reported by the FBI agents.
An example is that they ALL said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound
bullet from the body. If they ALL had changed that conclusion, they would
have said something to that effect, and the FBI agent would have reported
it. There was no such report, because they ALL saw the proof in the body
after the organs were removed that they were right in the first place.
Humes went home and wrote a completely false Autopsy Report (AR).
Is that so? So tell us where in the FBI's report that the pathologists
stated after the organs were eviscerated that they could see proof that
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean ground up into little pieces?
I've never seen them do that in any autopsy. Normally the organs are
REMOVED, weighed and examined.
Post by bigdog
the bullet had stopped at the pleura. Can't do it? Didn't think so. It is
Again, he doesn't even know what the pleura is so your words are wasted.
Post by bigdog
absurd to think that no further discussions took place during the course
of the autopsy yet the FBI report is silent about observations made later
on. Like a good conspiracy hobbyist you take every unknown as an
opportunity to fill in the blanks to fit your beliefs. You assume what you
are unable to prove.
That is the beauty of a cover-up. When you cover up everything you leave
it wide open to people's imagination to fill in the blanks.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is your usual repeating of past conversations, so I'm
outa here.
AGAIN!!!
mainframetech
2017-08-26 00:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet.
Who said they needed to have a meeting. They were all there and so the
same things. You don't think they were conversing during the procedure?
WRONG! What they said of any import was reported by the FBI agents.
An example is that they ALL said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound
bullet from the body. If they ALL had changed that conclusion, they would
have said something to that effect, and the FBI agent would have reported
it. There was no such report, because they ALL saw the proof in the body
after the organs were removed that they were right in the first place.
Humes went home and wrote a completely false Autopsy Report (AR).
Is that so? So tell us where in the FBI's report that the pathologists
stated after the organs were eviscerated that they could see proof that
the bullet had stopped at the pleura.
No need, since it simply verified something already known. Why repeat
it when they all knew what it meant?
Post by bigdog
Can't do it? Didn't think so.
LOL! Careful! That's often the way you get caught wrong...:)
Post by bigdog
It is
absurd to think that no further discussions took place during the course
of the autopsy yet the FBI report is silent about observations made later
on. Like a good conspiracy hobbyist you take every unknown as an
opportunity to fill in the blanks to fit your beliefs. You assume what you
are unable to prove.
WRONG! WRONG! How quickly you pretend such a phony comment! You know
full well that the result of removing the organs left a view for ALL that
were there, and it was descried by both Technologists. I said 'described'
what was seen and who saw it, not issued a medical opinion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is your usual repeating of past conversations, so I'm
outa here.
AGAIN!!!
What did you expect? You were told that would be the case. I got
tired of correcting you over and over on your constant repetition.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-26 12:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet.
Who said they needed to have a meeting. They were all there and so the
same things. You don't think they were conversing during the procedure?
WRONG! What they said of any import was reported by the FBI agents.
An example is that they ALL said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound
bullet from the body. If they ALL had changed that conclusion, they would
have said something to that effect, and the FBI agent would have reported
it. There was no such report, because they ALL saw the proof in the body
after the organs were removed that they were right in the first place.
Humes went home and wrote a completely false Autopsy Report (AR).
Is that so? So tell us where in the FBI's report that the pathologists
stated after the organs were eviscerated that they could see proof that
the bullet had stopped at the pleura.
No need, since it simply verified something already known. Why repeat
it when they all knew what it meant?
So you simply assume that because the FBI report was silent about
conversations that took place later on, the pathologists never said
anything else or made any other observations. Brilliant, Sherlock.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Can't do it? Didn't think so.
LOL! Careful! That's often the way you get caught wrong...:)
Never by you. You certainly weren't able to do it in this instance.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It is
absurd to think that no further discussions took place during the course
of the autopsy yet the FBI report is silent about observations made later
on. Like a good conspiracy hobbyist you take every unknown as an
opportunity to fill in the blanks to fit your beliefs. You assume what you
are unable to prove.
WRONG! WRONG! How quickly you pretend such a phony comment! You know
full well that the result of removing the organs left a view for ALL that
were there, and it was descried by both Technologists.
It was also described by the pathologists days after the autopsy but for
some ridiculous reason known only to you, you find the observations by the
techies made decades later to be more credible.
Post by mainframetech
I said 'described'
what was seen and who saw it, not issued a medical opinion.
The pathologists told us what they saw in the report they all signed. You
don't want to believe that so you go with what the techies said. No wonder
you are so confused about such a simple murder case.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is your usual repeating of past conversations, so I'm
outa here.
AGAIN!!!
What did you expect? You were told that would be the case. I got
tired of correcting you over and over on your constant repetition.
If only you would get tired of repeating your silliness.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-26 00:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Repeating long discredited factoids is another flaw in the thinking of the
conspiracy hobbyists. The head was not driven backward. Bullets do not
have the throw weight to propel a man backward as forcefully as we see JFK
move following the headshot. While we can't say positively what caused him
to move backward we can say what didn't. It wasn't the momentum of a
bullet because that is not physically possible.
Determining the direction of the shot based on the direction a victim
falls is foolish because the direction a victim falls is not predicated on
the direction of the shot. The way to tell which direction the shot came
from is the same way it is determined in all gunshot homicides, most of
which are not filmed. You look at the wounds to determine if they are
entrances or exits. Each has unique characteristics. Experienced medical
examiners have looked at the evidence and have unanimously concluded the
entrance would was in the back of the head and the exit in the front
right.
As you well know, the examiners had no opportunity to look into the
body with the organs removed, or to interview all the members of the
autopsy team.
The original three pathologists got to see that and they were the most
qualified people in the room. They all concluded that JFK was hit by two
shots from behind. But of course you don't want to believe that. You
prefer the opinions of a two techies, ages 20 and 21 to tell you what the
medical evidence indicated.
WRONG! They concluded early on that "There's NO EXIT" for the back
wound bullet from the body. Later they saw the proof of their conclusion.
And much further on Humes went home and wrote up an AR that was phony and
disagreed with what they all saw in the body with the organs missing.
You've never understood that conclusions are something reached at the end
of a process, not at the beginning. After they had gathered all the
information they reached a conclusion that was different than their early
working hypothesis.
There was no meeting where they changed their minds after stating that
"There's NO EXIT" for that bullet.
Who said they needed to have a meeting. They were all there and so the
same things. You don't think they were conversing during the procedure?
WRONG! What they said of any import was reported by the FBI agents.
An example is that they ALL said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound
bullet from the body. If they ALL had changed that conclusion, they would
Right, so if the autopsy doctors said something you are obligated to
believe it? So you believe in the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT)?
Where did the evidence go? Oh, it melted. DUH!
Post by mainframetech
have said something to that effect, and the FBI agent would have reported
it. There was no such report, because they ALL saw the proof in the body
after the organs were removed that they were right in the first place.
Humes went home and wrote a completely false Autopsy Report (AR).
The rest here is your usual repeating of past conversations, so I'm
outa here.
Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-14 20:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?

What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.

Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.

So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-15 00:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
Another typical phony argument. It was not the whole body as you framed
the argument. It is just the head. 10 pounds not 170 pounds. Alvarez
demonstrated it. Inside the Target Car demonstrated it. WHen it suits you
you will agree with Itek that a shot from behind thrust his head forward 2
inches in one Zapruder frame. But if the other side needs the head to move
back you will deny it. You only believe in science when it tells what you
WANT to hear.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
That is one of the most childish questions that WC defenders ask. When
someone shoots something that falls backwards the shooter does not move at
all. Nor does the Earth. You are thinking of that joke in the James Bond
movie where Pussy Galore is fired a submachine gun.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
No. Do you really believe there was an entrance wound near the EOP?
Are you THAT gullible? Show it to me.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
That you know nothing and refuse to learn.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-15 16:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
Another typical phony argument. It was not the whole body as you framed
the argument. It is just the head. 10 pounds not 170 pounds. Alvarez
demonstrated it. Inside the Target Car demonstrated it. WHen it suits you
you will agree with Itek that a shot from behind thrust his head forward 2
inches in one Zapruder frame. But if the other side needs the head to move
back you will deny it. You only believe in science when it tells what you
WANT to hear.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
That is one of the most childish questions that WC defenders ask. When
someone shoots something that falls backwards the shooter does not move at
all. Nor does the Earth. You are thinking of that joke in the James Bond
movie where Pussy Galore is fired a submachine gun.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
No. Do you really believe there was an entrance wound near the EOP?
Are you THAT gullible? Show it to me.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
That you know nothing and refuse to learn.
Says the man who calls The Nation a "rightwing" publication.
Jason Burke
2017-08-15 02:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
Easy. Silliness.
mainframetech
2017-08-15 12:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
look at the hair hanging down and see the hole in the forehead there:

Loading Image...

Let me know what you see.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-16 14:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
mainframetech
2017-08-18 00:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-18 18:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Post by mainframetech
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-19 15:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Post by mainframetech
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Jason Burke
2017-08-20 18:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
     The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
    Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
    So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer.  Cute.  Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?

Well, at least in the top half...
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-21 14:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-21 23:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-22 16:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction. What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear. There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-23 13:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
claviger
2017-08-23 13:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.

Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-23 22:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that? Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
No, silly. Bernie didn't win.
Post by claviger
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Ridiculous. He barely won and Hillary got more votes.
Post by claviger
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Uneducated hillbillies are not a Class revolt.
Post by claviger
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
How come they didn't create a cute name like the Tea Party did?
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-24 15:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
No, silly. Bernie didn't win.
Post by claviger
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Ridiculous. He barely won and Hillary got more votes.
Post by claviger
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Uneducated hillbillies are not a Class revolt.
So the old hippie is an elitist. We call that hypocritical.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-24 23:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
No, silly. Bernie didn't win.
Post by claviger
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Ridiculous. He barely won and Hillary got more votes.
Post by claviger
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Uneducated hillbillies are not a Class revolt.
So the old hippie is an elitist. We call that hypocritical.
Who's the hippie? I was never a hippie. I started out liking IKE and then
JFK. I was the person who kept our college open while all the other
colleges were shut down by protests.

The Dean was a fraternity brother of mine and a friend.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-26 00:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
No, silly. Bernie didn't win.
Post by claviger
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Ridiculous. He barely won and Hillary got more votes.
Post by claviger
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Uneducated hillbillies are not a Class revolt.
So the old hippie is an elitist. We call that hypocritical.
Who's the hippie? I was never a hippie.
So you admit that you're an elitist. Thanks, Anthony. But you have already
proved that time and again.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-26 14:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
No, silly. Bernie didn't win.
Post by claviger
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Ridiculous. He barely won and Hillary got more votes.
Post by claviger
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Uneducated hillbillies are not a Class revolt.
So the old hippie is an elitist. We call that hypocritical.
Who's the hippie? I was never a hippie.
So you admit that you're an elitist. Thanks, Anthony. But you have already
proved that time and again.
Silly logic. Not being a hippie does not automatically make the person
part of the elite. Maybe you're not old enough to remember that there
used to be a thing called the Middle Class.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-26 23:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Silly logic. Not being a hippie does not automatically make the person
part of the elite. Maybe you're not old enough to remember that there
used to be a thing called the Middle Class.


Go ahead and pretend that you don't know the reason I called you elitist
was that you referred to people who support Trump as "uneducated
hillbillies." We all saw it, and it proves that you are an elitist. End of
story.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-28 14:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Silly logic. Not being a hippie does not automatically make the person
part of the elite. Maybe you're not old enough to remember that there
used to be a thing called the Middle Class.
Go ahead and pretend that you don't know the reason I called you elitist
was that you referred to people who support Trump as "uneducated
hillbillies." We all saw it, and it proves that you are an elitist. End of
story.
So you are saying that only elitists are smart enough to figure that
out? OK, I guess you mean by that anyone with a college education.
Guilty as charged. And everyone who disagrees with me is a high school
dropout.
bigdog
2017-08-24 00:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey.
I would argue it was an even bigger upset. Polling methodology wasn't as
refined as it is today. All the major polls had a selection bias that
favored Dewey. In the most recent election, the overall popular vote fell
within the +/-3 margin of error of the polling average. What made the
result so shocking was the electoral map seemed to be stacked against
Trump. He was thought to have a very narrow path to victory. He had to win
Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio and then pick off one of the large Great
Lakes states where Hillary was heavily favored. He ended up winning three
of those. Conventional wisdom said he had no chance if he lost Florida. As
it turned out, he could have lost Florida and still won the election. He
drove a steam roller down that narrow path and widened it out.
Post by claviger
It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
It will be interesting to see if the coalition Trump created permanently
realigns the political landscape. Will the white working class voters who
have been a staple of the Democrat coalition since the New Deal now become
Republican voters? Can the more traditional Republicans co-exist with this
new element?

I've long wished we had a viable third party in this country and I was
hoping it would be the Libertarian Party but they just don't seem to gain
traction with most voters who don't take them seriously. Trump was in fact
a Third Party candidate who hijacked one of the major parties. It makes
one wonder what Ross Perot might have done had he chosen to go that route
rather than run as a true Third Party candidate. He wasn't as flamboyant
as Trump but his message was largely the same and he drew voters from both
major parties.
mainframetech
2017-08-24 22:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-26 00:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.

The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-26 14:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I still think that's one of the funniest jokes you've told here.
Helps to derail serious conversations.
mainframetech
2017-08-26 23:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-27 22:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.
Everybody thought Trump was crazy the way he conducted his campaign and
look at the result. He was given no chance to win the nomination and after
he did he was given no chance to win the general election. He fooled all
the pundits by scoring perhaps the greatest upset in the history of
American presidential politics and he did it his way. Why would he stop
now? Sure, Trump is crazy. Crazy like a fox.
mainframetech
2017-08-29 00:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.
Everybody thought Trump was crazy the way he conducted his campaign and
look at the result. He was given no chance to win the nomination and after
he did he was given no chance to win the general election. He fooled all
the pundits by scoring perhaps the greatest upset in the history of
American presidential politics and he did it his way. Why would he stop
now? Sure, Trump is crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Doesn't it embarrass you to say that about Trump? He happened on the
right combination of lies to tell the people and they believed it. He had
no knowledge of the job, and as Hillary often said, he didn't have the
temperament for it. Now we know she was right. There was no fox in the
job of president, there was a clumsy alt-right whacko that was in love
with Putin of Russia. And he got in based on a technical rule in the
electoral college. I seriously doubt they had planned that, since they
all admitted they thought they were going to lose the election.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-29 18:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.
Everybody thought Trump was crazy the way he conducted his campaign and
look at the result. He was given no chance to win the nomination and after
he did he was given no chance to win the general election. He fooled all
the pundits by scoring perhaps the greatest upset in the history of
American presidential politics and he did it his way. Why would he stop
now? Sure, Trump is crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Doesn't it embarrass you to say that about Trump?
Why would it. Trump outsmarted all the smart money.
Post by mainframetech
He happened on the
right combination of lies to tell the people and they believed it.
He saw the discontent among rank and file members of both parties and knew
how to appeal to them. All those things that he said during the campaign
which critics said weren't presidential were just the thing that appealed
to the people who elected him. Working class Democrats saw somebody who
was going to protect their jobs while Republicans saw in him something
they had wanted, a fighter. They were fed up with the milquetoast
leadership that was so afraid of being criticized by the Democrats and the
media that they wouldn't fight for what they campaigned on. Trump took on
the critics and fired back at them and that was his appeal, even among
Republicans who disagreed with him on some issues. Now he is doing the
same thing as President. Why would he change. Why would he suddenly start
listening to his critics. He got elected doing it his way.
Post by mainframetech
He had
no knowledge of the job, and as Hillary often said, he didn't have the
temperament for it.
Hillary might be the last person in the country who should talk about
temperament. This is a woman who was so distraught the night of her
devastating defeat that she couldn't even keep with the time honored
tradition of coming out and addressing here followers while publicly
conceding to her opponent.
Post by mainframetech
Now we know she was right. There was no fox in the
job of president, there was a clumsy alt-right whacko that was in love
with Putin of Russia.
Still in hissy fit mode?
Post by mainframetech
And he got in based on a technical rule in the
electoral college. I seriously doubt they had planned that, since they
all admitted they thought they were going to lose the election.
The electoral college is not a technicality. It is how we have elected our
presidents since the beginning of the republic. Only three men have become
president without first winning an electoral college majority. I'll let
you guess who those three were. To say Trump won on a technicality is
like saying a football team won on the technicality of having scored more
points than their opponent.
mainframetech
2017-08-30 14:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.
Everybody thought Trump was crazy the way he conducted his campaign and
look at the result. He was given no chance to win the nomination and after
he did he was given no chance to win the general election. He fooled all
the pundits by scoring perhaps the greatest upset in the history of
American presidential politics and he did it his way. Why would he stop
now? Sure, Trump is crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Doesn't it embarrass you to say that about Trump?
Why would it. Trump outsmarted all the smart money.
Post by mainframetech
He happened on the
right combination of lies to tell the people and they believed it.
He saw the discontent among rank and file members of both parties and knew
how to appeal to them. All those things that he said during the campaign
which critics said weren't presidential were just the thing that appealed
to the people who elected him. Working class Democrats saw somebody who
was going to protect their jobs while Republicans saw in him something
they had wanted, a fighter. They were fed up with the milquetoast
leadership that was so afraid of being criticized by the Democrats and the
media that they wouldn't fight for what they campaigned on. Trump took on
the critics and fired back at them and that was his appeal, even among
Republicans who disagreed with him on some issues. Now he is doing the
same thing as President. Why would he change. Why would he suddenly start
listening to his critics. He got elected doing it his way.
Post by mainframetech
He had
no knowledge of the job, and as Hillary often said, he didn't have the
temperament for it.
Hillary might be the last person in the country who should talk about
temperament. This is a woman who was so distraught the night of her
devastating defeat that she couldn't even keep with the time honored
tradition of coming out and addressing here followers while publicly
conceding to her opponent.
Post by mainframetech
Now we know she was right. There was no fox in the
job of president, there was a clumsy alt-right whacko that was in love
with Putin of Russia.
Still in hissy fit mode?
Post by mainframetech
And he got in based on a technical rule in the
electoral college. I seriously doubt they had planned that, since they
all admitted they thought they were going to lose the election.
The electoral college is not a technicality. It is how we have elected our
presidents since the beginning of the republic. Only three men have become
president without first winning an electoral college majority. I'll let
you guess who those three were. To say Trump won on a technicality is
like saying a football team won on the technicality of having scored more
points than their opponent.
Face it. He won on luck and the technical gimmick in the electoral
college. If he had won based on intelligence and cleverness, he would
have shown it by now in his job as president.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-31 00:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.
Everybody thought Trump was crazy the way he conducted his campaign and
look at the result. He was given no chance to win the nomination and after
he did he was given no chance to win the general election. He fooled all
the pundits by scoring perhaps the greatest upset in the history of
American presidential politics and he did it his way. Why would he stop
now? Sure, Trump is crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Doesn't it embarrass you to say that about Trump?
Why would it. Trump outsmarted all the smart money.
Post by mainframetech
He happened on the
right combination of lies to tell the people and they believed it.
He saw the discontent among rank and file members of both parties and knew
how to appeal to them. All those things that he said during the campaign
which critics said weren't presidential were just the thing that appealed
to the people who elected him. Working class Democrats saw somebody who
was going to protect their jobs while Republicans saw in him something
they had wanted, a fighter. They were fed up with the milquetoast
leadership that was so afraid of being criticized by the Democrats and the
media that they wouldn't fight for what they campaigned on. Trump took on
the critics and fired back at them and that was his appeal, even among
Republicans who disagreed with him on some issues. Now he is doing the
same thing as President. Why would he change. Why would he suddenly start
listening to his critics. He got elected doing it his way.
Post by mainframetech
He had
no knowledge of the job, and as Hillary often said, he didn't have the
temperament for it.
Hillary might be the last person in the country who should talk about
temperament. This is a woman who was so distraught the night of her
devastating defeat that she couldn't even keep with the time honored
tradition of coming out and addressing here followers while publicly
conceding to her opponent.
Post by mainframetech
Now we know she was right. There was no fox in the
job of president, there was a clumsy alt-right whacko that was in love
with Putin of Russia.
Still in hissy fit mode?
Post by mainframetech
And he got in based on a technical rule in the
electoral college. I seriously doubt they had planned that, since they
all admitted they thought they were going to lose the election.
The electoral college is not a technicality. It is how we have elected our
presidents since the beginning of the republic. Only three men have become
president without first winning an electoral college majority. I'll let
you guess who those three were. To say Trump won on a technicality is
like saying a football team won on the technicality of having scored more
points than their opponent.
Face it. He won on luck and the technical gimmick in the electoral
college. If he had won based on intelligence and cleverness, he would
have shown it by now in his job as president.
Chris
He won by voter suppression and propaganda help from Russia.
bigdog
2017-08-31 14:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.
Everybody thought Trump was crazy the way he conducted his campaign and
look at the result. He was given no chance to win the nomination and after
he did he was given no chance to win the general election. He fooled all
the pundits by scoring perhaps the greatest upset in the history of
American presidential politics and he did it his way. Why would he stop
now? Sure, Trump is crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Doesn't it embarrass you to say that about Trump?
Why would it. Trump outsmarted all the smart money.
Post by mainframetech
He happened on the
right combination of lies to tell the people and they believed it.
He saw the discontent among rank and file members of both parties and knew
how to appeal to them. All those things that he said during the campaign
which critics said weren't presidential were just the thing that appealed
to the people who elected him. Working class Democrats saw somebody who
was going to protect their jobs while Republicans saw in him something
they had wanted, a fighter. They were fed up with the milquetoast
leadership that was so afraid of being criticized by the Democrats and the
media that they wouldn't fight for what they campaigned on. Trump took on
the critics and fired back at them and that was his appeal, even among
Republicans who disagreed with him on some issues. Now he is doing the
same thing as President. Why would he change. Why would he suddenly start
listening to his critics. He got elected doing it his way.
Post by mainframetech
He had
no knowledge of the job, and as Hillary often said, he didn't have the
temperament for it.
Hillary might be the last person in the country who should talk about
temperament. This is a woman who was so distraught the night of her
devastating defeat that she couldn't even keep with the time honored
tradition of coming out and addressing here followers while publicly
conceding to her opponent.
Post by mainframetech
Now we know she was right. There was no fox in the
job of president, there was a clumsy alt-right whacko that was in love
with Putin of Russia.
Still in hissy fit mode?
Post by mainframetech
And he got in based on a technical rule in the
electoral college. I seriously doubt they had planned that, since they
all admitted they thought they were going to lose the election.
The electoral college is not a technicality. It is how we have elected our
presidents since the beginning of the republic. Only three men have become
president without first winning an electoral college majority. I'll let
you guess who those three were. To say Trump won on a technicality is
like saying a football team won on the technicality of having scored more
points than their opponent.
Face it. He won on luck and the technical gimmick in the electoral
college.
So you think our method of electing presidents by electoral college
majority as specified in the Constitution constitutes a gimmick.
Post by mainframetech
If he had won based on intelligence and cleverness, he would
have shown it by now in his job as president.
He is doing now what he did during the campaign. He is pushing the buttons
of his enemies and delighting in seeing them howl. He owns them and they
are too dumb to know they are being played like a fiddle.

Anthony Marsh
2017-08-30 00:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be
impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one
or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The
fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward.
According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an
object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which
indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and
according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced
theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular
reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a
preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many
other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK
case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
Newton's third law of motion says an equal and opposite reaction.
What was
JFK hit with? a cannon ball? What type/kind of bullet causes a
body - and
it was JFK's trunk and not just his head - to go back like that?
Do you
have a suggestion?
What's the simplest explanation for his body - trunk - to go
flying back
like that? And if the shot came from the front, did the shooter
also go
flying back? There isn't a single witness there who says they saw a
shooter go violently flying back at the time of the third shot.
Besides, the autopsy - and followup examination of the physical
evidence -
shows that the shot that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
There is
no evidence, according to the experts who examined the original
material,
that the shots came from anywhere other than behind.
So, what's the simplest explanation for all of this?
???????? The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
?????? Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you
think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
?????? So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than
you
did, you try to force his answer.?? Cute.?? Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, use
email.
Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
That possibility never crossed my mind.
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Only when you like the results. When you don't, you whine about Russians
or whatever boogeymen fit your latest conspiracy theory.
Silly. We don't have a Democracy. I want a Democracy.
Where your candidate always wins.
Trump pulled off the biggest upset since Truman vs Dewey. It was a Middle
Class revolt against business as usual in DC. Both Democrats and
Republicans are still pouting about it. We now have a legitimate Third
Party in play. Get used to it. More on the way.
LOL! That's not a third party! That's a chaotic mess, helping to make
us look like fools around the world!
Antifa is doing a bang up job of that.
The latest in political correctness run amok is MSESPN removing
Asian-American play-by-play man Robert Lee from his assignment to the UVA
home opening football game because of his name. If you are reading this
for the first time you probably are thinking it is a joke. The joke is
listening to MSESPN President John Skipper trying to defend this
ridiculous move.
I've heard that story on the news, and I agree it's plain stupidity.
However, it has nothing to do with the chaotic mess that Trump and his
minions have made of the administration and our image around the world,
and Kelly isn't going to be successful in straightening it all out,
because the mental problems of Trump will get involved and turn everything
upside down over and over. The examples are there from day one when Trump
had to lie through his teeth about the amount of people attending the
inauguration by comparison to the Obama inauguration. Even when everyone
could SEE the difference in the numbers of people in photos.
Everybody thought Trump was crazy the way he conducted his campaign and
look at the result. He was given no chance to win the nomination and after
Yes, that is what about 38% of the public wanted. Crazy. Destroy the
government.
Post by bigdog
he did he was given no chance to win the general election. He fooled all
the pundits by scoring perhaps the greatest upset in the history of
American presidential politics and he did it his way. Why would he stop
now? Sure, Trump is crazy. Crazy like a fox.
No. Crazy like Crazy Eddie. A con man.
claviger
2017-08-22 12:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
You like being part of the 1%.
Golly, Anthony Anthony. In your heart you really wish you were, huh?
Well, at least in the top half...
No, I prefer Democracy.
Really? All you've done is complain about it since the last election.
claviger
2017-08-18 18:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-19 15:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Not necessarily. You are being simple minded. You know nothing about
guns and wounds. The bullet may break up and go in several directions.
YOU can't tell the difference between an entrance wound and and an exit
wound. Neither could the doctors.
You don't know what a hollo-point bullet is. You don't know what a
frangible bullet is. You don't know what an explosive bullet is.
There does not have to be an exit.
You are just guessing as all WC defenders do.
claviger
2017-08-20 21:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Not necessarily. You are being simple minded.
A bullet trajectory connects the weapon to the target. Is this going to
be a ricochet argument you clever trajectorian?
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know nothing about guns and wounds.
Did you serve in the military? Have you ever hunted wild game with a
rifle? Were you an assassin in the CIA?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The bullet may break up and go in several directions.
Before or after making contact with the target?
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't tell the difference between an entrance wound and and an exit
wound. Neither could the doctors.
Please explain this ridiculous statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what a hollo-point bullet is.
I know what a hollow argument is. Thanks for this one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what a frangible bullet is.
Frangible - easily broken; breakable, fragile.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what an explosive bullet is.
A bullet designed to explode on contact after it leaves the barrel.
Post by Anthony Marsh
There does not have to be an exit.
The reason for X-rays.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are just guessing as all WC defenders do.
You are just gassing as all WC critics do.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-21 20:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Not necessarily. You are being simple minded.
A bullet trajectory connects the weapon to the target. Is this going to
be a ricochet argument you clever trajectorian?
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know nothing about guns and wounds.
Did you serve in the military? Have you ever hunted wild game with a
rifle? Were you an assassin in the CIA?
No, but he dreamed of doing those things while he drove his route.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The bullet may break up and go in several directions.
Before or after making contact with the target?
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't tell the difference between an entrance wound and and an exit
wound. Neither could the doctors.
Please explain this ridiculous statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what a hollo-point bullet is.
I know what a hollow argument is. Thanks for this one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what a frangible bullet is.
Frangible - easily broken; breakable, fragile.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what an explosive bullet is.
A bullet designed to explode on contact after it leaves the barrel.
Post by Anthony Marsh
There does not have to be an exit.
The reason for X-rays.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are just guessing as all WC defenders do.
You are just gassing as all WC critics do.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-22 11:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Not necessarily. You are being simple minded.
A bullet trajectory connects the weapon to the target. Is this going to
be a ricochet argument you clever trajectorian?
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know nothing about guns and wounds.
Did you serve in the military? Have you ever hunted wild game with a
rifle? Were you an assassin in the CIA?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The bullet may break up and go in several directions.
Before or after making contact with the target?
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't tell the difference between an entrance wound and and an exit
wound. Neither could the doctors.
Please explain this ridiculous statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what a hollo-point bullet is.
I know what a hollow argument is. Thanks for this one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what a frangible bullet is.
Frangible - easily broken; breakable, fragile.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You don't know what an explosive bullet is.
A bullet designed to explode on contact after it leaves the barrel.
Post by Anthony Marsh
There does not have to be an exit.
The reason for X-rays.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are just guessing as all WC defenders do.
You are just gassing as all WC critics do.
I have research on my side.
mainframetech
2017-08-21 23:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.

It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.

The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.

It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-22 23:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
mainframetech
2017-08-23 22:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see! How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.

You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly. You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision. Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-24 19:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
mainframetech
2017-08-26 00:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
There was a gentleman a year ago that saw it immediately and was
amazed, and knew what it was immediately. And more recently Amy Joyce.
That's 2.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
AHA! Then you're a Trump factuator!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
You're welcome to try the experiment yourself and see what answers you
get. You have all you need to do that right now. You know my simple
instructions, and what photo to use:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg


I won't say let me know the result, as I couldn't trust your reply.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
Oh bullshit! I will show you the page in his book if you're still too
brainless to find it. I did NOT say he predicted the bullet hole, I said
he predicted the look of a bullet hole in flesh. And the bullet hole in
JFK matches his prediction of what a bullet hole like that would look
like. You been caught again! Go to his book and study chapter 4, it's
all about our discussion. When you get there, look for figure 4.16 in
that chapter.

Chris
Mitch Todd
2017-08-28 16:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
mainframetech
2017-08-29 18:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
Yep, Chris was aware that DiMaio worked with the authorities and agreed
with them, but he did NOT see the bullet hole in the forehead or he would
have something different to say. At the time that he did his own review,
there is no chance that he saw the clear bullet hole in the forehead.
And nether did anyone else in the investigation except the list of people
that I have put out. Also at least 2 of the autopsy tam, including Finck
(the only really qualified pathologist there) saw the hole in the forehead
and suspected it was a bullet hole but didn't pursue it. Which also shows
that there were clear orders to ignore those things and come up with a
phony conclusion in the Autopsy Report (AR). Here's the statement that
shows that. It was during an interview of James Jenkins, Technologist:

"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."

From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

So even Finck thought there was suspicion that it was a bullet hole!

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-30 09:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
Yep, Chris was aware that DiMaio worked with the authorities and agreed
with them, but he did NOT see the bullet hole in the forehead or he would
have something different to say.
Gee, you never gave a thought to the idea that he saw a much better
quality version of the photo you didn't judge it to be a bullet hole.
Comparing his credentials to yours, it's pretty easy to know whom to
believe.
Post by mainframetech
At the time that he did his own review,
there is no chance that he saw the clear bullet hole in the forehead.
Of course he didn't. No one else has either although there are some overly
imaginative people who think they do see one.
Post by mainframetech
And nether did anyone else in the investigation except the list of people
that I have put out.
Right. They all overlooked that one photo in which you have convinced
yourself you see a bullet hole. Have you ever considered joining the OIC.
I think you qualify.
Post by mainframetech
Also at least 2 of the autopsy tam, including Finck
(the only really qualified pathologist there) saw the hole in the forehead
and suspected it was a bullet hole but didn't pursue it.
He saw a bullet hole. He never said it was in the forehead and he never
said it was an entry wound. Those are entirely your contributions.
Post by mainframetech
Which also shows
that there were clear orders to ignore those things and come up with a
phony conclusion in the Autopsy Report (AR). Here's the statement that
More contributions from your overly active imagination. No evidence exists
of such orders.
Post by mainframetech
"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA,
Which is not the forehead and does not indicate an entrance wound.
Post by mainframetech
IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear.
Hint: He is not describing the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it.
And Finck never said it was an entrance wound nor did he say it was in the
forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet.
Which doesn't tell us it was an entrance wound or that it was in the
forehead.
Post by mainframetech
He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole.
Which doesn't tell us it was an entrance wound or that it was in the
forehead.
Post by mainframetech
However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
So now you are adding things Doug Horne made up to the things you have
made up.
Post by mainframetech
So even Finck thought there was suspicion that it was a bullet hole!
A bullet hole in the temporal bone does not equate to an entrance wound in
the forehead no matter how hard you try to make it so.
mainframetech
2017-08-31 00:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
Yep, Chris was aware that DiMaio worked with the authorities and agreed
with them, but he did NOT see the bullet hole in the forehead or he would
have something different to say.
Gee, you never gave a thought to the idea that he saw a much better
quality version of the photo you didn't judge it to be a bullet hole.
Comparing his credentials to yours, it's pretty easy to know whom to
believe.
WRONG! You'll never learn. You tried that phony excuse a number of
times in the past, and it never worked, yet here you are repeating it over
again. The quality of the version available here was just fine for
determining what was seen in the photo. You needed to bring up something
so you sounded like you had something valid, but you don't. LNs like
yourself wedded to the WCR can't see anything that opposes the WCR.
Credentials have absolutely nothing to do with what someone sees when they
ENLARGE the photo. None of the medical panels and certainly not DiMaio
ENLARGED the photo or they would have had a different opinion than what
they had said.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
At the time that he did his own review,
there is no chance that he saw the clear bullet hole in the forehead.
Of course he didn't. No one else has either although there are some overly
imaginative people who think they do see one.
That is completely false. Most LNs here cannot see a bullet hole,
though they do see something in the photo that is not natural. However,
there is a list of folks in the case that saw the bullet hole, and I've
shown it to unbiased folks and every one of them immediately were shocked
to see a bullet hole, with no hints. You've been shown the list of those
in the case that saw the bullet hole, and yet you try to pretend that no
one saw it, perhaps to make yourself feel better that you were the only
person who saw nothing. Here's the list so you don't forget:

Dennis David, Bill pitzer, Joe O'Donnell, Tom Robinson, Jerrol Custer
(interview by Walt Brown), James Jenkins, Pierre Finck (from James Jenkins
interview), Seth Kantor, Charles Crenshaw, also probably Father Oscar
Huber, who gave last rites. Said left instead of right eye, probably from
looking down at it from above it would appear on the left of his vision,
but the patient's right.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And nether did anyone else in the investigation except the list of people
that I have put out.
Right. They all overlooked that one photo in which you have convinced
yourself you see a bullet hole. Have you ever considered joining the OIC.
I think you qualify.
WRONG! As usual you prove the point I made long ago, that the majority
of insults and ad hominem attacks come for LNs. They didn't overlook the
photo, they just didn't ENLARGE the one photo that showed the bullet hole,
and therefore took the Autopsy Report's phony description as valid.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Also at least 2 of the autopsy team, including Finck
(the only really qualified pathologist there) saw the hole in the forehead
and suspected it was a bullet hole but didn't pursue it.
He saw a bullet hole. He never said it was in the forehead and he never
said it was an entry wound. Those are entirely your contributions.
WRONG! You never stop putting out disinformation do you? Here's a
passage from an interview of James Jenkins that you've seen many times in
the past, just to show everyone that you have a convenient memory that
fails when proof come out. First, here's the passage:

"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."

From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

A hole of 5 mm diameter is about .2 inches. Just right for a bullet.
Oddly, though Finck saw the wound in the forehead, it was not reported in
the Autopsy Report (AR), where it should have been. Of course, a bullet
hole in the forehead might cause medical experts to come to a different
conclusion about the death, so that couldn't be allowed to be there,
making the AR in error.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Which also shows
that there were clear orders to ignore those things and come up with a
phony conclusion in the Autopsy Report (AR). Here's the statement that
More contributions from your overly active imagination. No evidence exists
of such orders.
WRONG! Don't be silly again. Of course there's evidence, and that's
been shown to you many times. You just can't deal with it. The
statements of the Technologists who were part of the autopsy team make it
known to all that the prosectors ALL saw the proof inside the body when
the organs were removed that the back wound bullet had stopped at the
pleura. Yet after seeing the proof, Humes who wrote up the AR, chose to
describe a completely false set of circumstances. He would not do that on
his own initiative, so he had to have orders to do it. Easy evidence.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA,
Which is not the forehead and does not indicate an entrance wound.
WRONG! Since a bullet wound has an entry and an exit, we have to
decide which of 2 head wounds was the entry, and which was the exit. The
exit was a 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses, and so the
small 5mm diameter hole in the forehead had to be the entrance. Simple.
Norte too, that Jenkins ' description puts the bullet hole FORWARD of the
ear, which is the forehead/temple area I've tried to educate you with.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear.
Hint: He is not describing the forehead.
Forward of the ear in the forehead/temple area. Name anything between
the two. Since the bend from the side to the front of the head is at that
location, some people call it the temple (temporal bone), and some call it
the forehead. However, it's simple to know what they're talking about,
since the bullet hole had a diameter of 5mm (.2 inches).
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it.
And Finck never said it was an entrance wound nor did he say it was in the
forehead.
That non-existent problem was solved above. Since there were 2 head
wounds that might be involved, the BOH had the 'large hole' and the front
at the forehead/temple area had the 5mm bullet hole, which do you think
was the entry? Do you need me to tell you? Or do you have enough
knowledge of bullet wounds to know yourself? I'd better tell you. The
forehead/temple wound was the bullet entry.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet.
Which doesn't tell us it was an entrance wound or that it was in the
forehead.
See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole.
Which doesn't tell us it was an entrance wound or that it was in the
forehead.
See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
So now you are adding things Doug Horne made up to the things you have
made up.
WRONG! Prove that Horne lied or was mistaken in his repeating of the
interview results. Otherwise best you not say things like that. If you
want to promote such fictions, cites and links are necessary. I've
supplied cites and links for what I've said, time for you to do the same
or admit that you're full of it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So even Finck thought there was suspicion that it was a bullet hole!
A bullet hole in the temporal bone does not equate to an entrance wound in
the forehead no matter how hard you try to make it so.
My apologies! For speed I used the term forehead, when the truth is
that it was the forehead/temple area. However, because the size of the
hole was specified (5mm), there is no doubt which would we're speaking of.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-31 00:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
Yep, Chris was aware that DiMaio worked with the authorities and agreed
with them, but he did NOT see the bullet hole in the forehead or he would
have something different to say.
Gee, you never gave a thought to the idea that he saw a much better
quality version of the photo you didn't judge it to be a bullet hole.
Comparing his credentials to yours, it's pretty easy to know whom to
believe.
Post by mainframetech
At the time that he did his own review,
there is no chance that he saw the clear bullet hole in the forehead.
Of course he didn't. No one else has either although there are some overly
imaginative people who think they do see one.
Post by mainframetech
And nether did anyone else in the investigation except the list of people
that I have put out.
Right. They all overlooked that one photo in which you have convinced
yourself you see a bullet hole. Have you ever considered joining the OIC.
I think you qualify.
Post by mainframetech
Also at least 2 of the autopsy tam, including Finck
(the only really qualified pathologist there) saw the hole in the forehead
and suspected it was a bullet hole but didn't pursue it.
He saw a bullet hole. He never said it was in the forehead and he never
said it was an entry wound. Those are entirely your contributions.
Post by mainframetech
Which also shows
that there were clear orders to ignore those things and come up with a
phony conclusion in the Autopsy Report (AR). Here's the statement that
More contributions from your overly active imagination. No evidence exists
of such orders.
Post by mainframetech
"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA,
Which is not the forehead and does not indicate an entrance wound.
Post by mainframetech
IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK???s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear.
Hint: He is not describing the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it.
And Finck never said it was an entrance wound nor did he say it was in the
forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet.
Which doesn't tell us it was an entrance wound or that it was in the
forehead.
Post by mainframetech
He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole.
Which doesn't tell us it was an entrance wound or that it was in the
forehead.
Post by mainframetech
However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
So now you are adding things Doug Horne made up to the things you have
made up.
Post by mainframetech
So even Finck thought there was suspicion that it was a bullet hole!
A bullet hole in the temporal bone does not equate to an entrance wound in
the forehead no matter how hard you try to make it so.
He's hedging his bet by including the temple description with the
forehead. I'm surprised he doesn't add in McClelland's LEFT temple for
good measure. Facts mean nothing to him. Only what kooky witnesses said.
bigdog
2017-08-29 18:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
DiMaio didn't follow Chris's instructions. You need to enlarge that photo
and view it under the light of a full moon while playing an old vinyl
Santana album backward at high speed. Then that entry wound would have
become crystal clear to him.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-30 09:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
DiMaio didn't follow Chris's instructions. You need to enlarge that photo
and view it under the light of a full moon while playing an old vinyl
Santana album backward at high speed. Then that entry wound would have
become crystal clear to him.
Maybe they didn't let him see ALL the autopsy photos. So you say he
agreed with the HSCA that it was a conspiracy?
mainframetech
2017-08-30 14:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
DiMaio didn't follow Chris's instructions. You need to enlarge that photo
and view it under the light of a full moon while playing an old vinyl
Santana album backward at high speed. Then that entry wound would have
become crystal clear to him.
LOL! Said by the one person that couldn't see anything! The outlier.
Do I detect sour grapes?

DiMaio showed an example in his book of a bullet hole from a rifle
shot. The one in the 'leaked' photo was a match for it. DiMaio offered
no opinion on the bullet hole, and wasn't asked for any, since none of the
authorities admitted that they saw it. However, 2 of the autopsy team saw
it, and thought it was suspicious, but they avoided discussing it and
Humes even failed to include the wound in his Autopsy Report (AR).
Couldn't have a bullet hole in the forehead spoken of in the AR...wouldn't
do. It would give away the whole plot.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-31 00:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more than you
did, you try to force his answer. Cute. Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment? Or are you so afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound? That trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet. OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the limo, but
there are a few possibilities. There used to be a flood drain on the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire. And there might be other places too. The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot", when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that. Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
WRONG! What a nerve! Now you're telling others what they are supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
Post by mainframetech
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there. It was because many in the case had spoken of a bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
Post by mainframetech
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Post by mainframetech
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
Post by mainframetech
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole. You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
DiMaio didn't follow Chris's instructions. You need to enlarge that photo
and view it under the light of a full moon while playing an old vinyl
Santana album backward at high speed. Then that entry wound would have
become crystal clear to him.
LOL! Said by the one person that couldn't see anything! The outlier.
Do I detect sour grapes?
DiMaio showed an example in his book of a bullet hole from a rifle
shot. The one in the 'leaked' photo was a match for it. DiMaio offered
no opinion on the bullet hole, and wasn't asked for any, since none of the
authorities admitted that they saw it. However, 2 of the autopsy team saw
it, and thought it was suspicious, but they avoided discussing it and
Humes even failed to include the wound in his Autopsy Report (AR).
Couldn't have a bullet hole in the forehead spoken of in the AR...wouldn't
do. It would give away the whole plot.
How mean. WC defenders are not allowed to see anything.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-30 00:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
     The simplest explanation is to take the photo below and
ENLARGE it and
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
    Let me know what you see.
The same thing the rest of us see when we enlarge the dark spot you think
is a bullet hole. He will see a larger dark spot.
    So rather than taking a chance on his seeing something more
than you
did, you try to force his answer.  Cute.  Why not shut up, since you
weren't the one being talked to at that moment?  Or are you so
afraid that
others will see something you couldn't?
Chris
If this is such a simple explanation why can't you explain the simple
trajectory of the projectile that caused this wound?  That
trajectory will
tell us where the shot came from.
    Apparently you haven't learned a thing, and you probably didn't
pay too
much attention to the previous discussion we had on this topic.
     It in unknown the exact location of the shooter that fired that
bullet.  OBVIOUSLY it had to be from somewhere in front of the
limo, but
there are a few possibilities.  There used to be a flood drain on
the left
of ELM street just past the triple overpass, so that's one
possibility,
and then there is a point just inside the triple overpass where a shooter
could squat down and fire.  And there might be other places too.
The main
point is that a bullet came from in front to strike JFK in the forehead.
You will note that there was a clear through-and-through bullet hole in
the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, which would fit the forehead shot.
Of course that was covered up as quickly as possible, so no one would get
the idea that there were shooters from the front.
    The problem is that the forehead shot matches the exact photo in
"Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio in his chapter 4 under 'entry vs exit
wounds' see figure 4.16 which matches the forehead shot, and has the exact
same raised rim, which the book explains is a fleshy rim that appears in
the first hours of a bullet wound to the head.
     It's rather a sad cover up to say you only saw a "dark spot",
when the
spot when ENLARGED shows much more than just that.  Either you didn't
ENLARGE it, or you were unable to report on what you saw exactly as it
appeared.
The only thing anyone is going to see when they enlarge the photo are
bigger pixels of that dark spot. There is zero indication that dark spot
is a bullet hole, entry or exit. You admitted yourself that you had to
first convince yourself an entry wound was there before you could see it.
    WRONG!  What a nerve!  Now you're telling others what they are
supposed
to see!
No, I am telling them what they will see.
How fearful you must be that you will remain the only outlier
that saw nothing.
I'm hardly the only one who doesn't see a bullet hole there. I know of no
one but you who does although I am sure there are others who have
convinced themselves of the same nonsense.
     You're wrong again about what I saw and why I realized there was a
bullet hole there.  It was because many in the case had spoken of a
bullet
hole there, so I looked and after ENLARGING it I saw the bullet hole
clearly.
So tell us who else on this forum has said they see a bullet hole where
you think you see one.
You (of course) are a deep lover of the WCR, so it affects your
vision.
I am a deep lover of the truth so I refuse to see things that aren't
there. I can see the emperor has no clothes and am willing to say so.
Anyone I've shown it to outside of this forum
"outside this forum". How convenient. That way you don't have to get
corroboration from others. You can just claim others see it.
knew immediately
what they saw, a clear bullet hole.  You can see the raised fleshy rim
predicted by Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" figure 4.16
DiMaio didn't predict anything and he has never said there is an entrance
wound where you think you see one. He supports the lone gunman theory
which would be impossible to do if he believed there was an entry wound in
JFK's forehead. In other words, he doesn't support your silly beliefs.
I wonder if Chris realizes that the ARRB hired DiMaio to review the
autopsy materials, and DiMaio recommended that there was no cause to
question the HSCA's conclusions. That is, DiMaio didn't see Chris'
hole.
I guess you never read the HSCA volumes so you didn't know that the HSCA
hired an expert named Dr. Lawrence Angel who noticed the hole and called
it an exit of the bullet. But you can't even see the hole because you
refuse to look. You call that science?
mainframetech
2017-08-15 12:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by bigdog
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones
I totally agree with this and I'll offer a specific example. The fatal
head shot which hit JFK drove his head violently backward. According to
Newton's second law of motion, when a force is applied to an object, the
object will be accelerated in the direction of the force, which indicates
a shot from the front. This is the most likely explanation and according
to Occam's razor, the simplest one. However, many have embraced theories
(which have been debunked) such as jet effect and neuromuscular reactions
which are least likely explanations in order to support a preconceived
conclusion that the shot came from the rear. I can think of many other
examples of least likely explanations being chosen in the JFK case, but
this one always stands out in my mind.
And backing that up is the bullet hole seen in the stare-of-death photo
when EBNLARGED. A shot from the front had to cause that.

Chris
mainframetech
2017-08-15 12:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411
Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.
Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.
Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.
Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.
Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.
Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).
Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.
Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.
Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.
Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.
Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones over the likely ones.
While it is certainly possible the less likely explanation is the correct
one, when one constructs a scenario which requires that in every case, the
less likely explanation is the correct one, the scenario collapses into
implausibility. This is invariably how the Oswald deniers argue for his
innocence. The look at each piece of evidence in isolation without ever
weighing it against the body of evidence as a whole. No one piece of
evidence by itself conclusively proves Oswald was guilty since there is
always an alternative which invariably is the least likely explanation.
With virtually all the evidence, the most likely explanation points to
Oswald's guilt and it is only the least likely one which exonerates him.
If there was only one or two pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt a
reasonable argument for his innocence might be made. However there are
dozens of pieces of evidence (53 by Bugliosi's count) in which the likely
explanation points to his guilt. It becomes preposterous to think that for
every one of these pieces of evidence, the least likely explanation is the
correct one.
I see so many errors of opinion that it isn't worth going through and
correcting them all.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-16 14:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411
Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.
Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.
Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.
Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.
Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.
Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).
Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.
Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.
Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.
Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.
Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
I see so many errors in logic on these boards that it would be impossible
to list them all. Here are two of the most common.
When faced with multiple possible explanations for a set of facts,
arbitrarily dismissing all but the desired one.
When faced with a likely explanation for a set of facts and one or more
unlikely ones, choosing one of the least likely ones over the likely ones.
While it is certainly possible the less likely explanation is the correct
one, when one constructs a scenario which requires that in every case, the
less likely explanation is the correct one, the scenario collapses into
implausibility. This is invariably how the Oswald deniers argue for his
innocence. The look at each piece of evidence in isolation without ever
weighing it against the body of evidence as a whole. No one piece of
evidence by itself conclusively proves Oswald was guilty since there is
always an alternative which invariably is the least likely explanation.
With virtually all the evidence, the most likely explanation points to
Oswald's guilt and it is only the least likely one which exonerates him.
If there was only one or two pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt a
reasonable argument for his innocence might be made. However there are
dozens of pieces of evidence (53 by Bugliosi's count) in which the likely
explanation points to his guilt. It becomes preposterous to think that for
every one of these pieces of evidence, the least likely explanation is the
correct one.
I see so many errors of opinion that it isn't worth going through and
correcting them all.
So that's why so many permeate your posts.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-13 17:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411
Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.
Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.
Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.
Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.
Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.
Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).
Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.
Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.
Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.
Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.
Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
Now you sound like Chris Higgins who tried to demonize opponents by
saying they were incapable of critical thinking and reason.
As he said about the Middle East:

Critical thinking and reason do not exist in the Middle East as we
understand them here.

So if you can't debate your opponents, just demonize them.
It's called Poisoning the Well. A logical fallacy.
YOU are a logical fallacy.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-13 17:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
What is Critical Thinking - Critical Reading
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills.
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
Our Conception of Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical
thinking is ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411
Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. ‎Critical Thinking: Basic · ‎A Brief
History of the Idea of ...
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking - Wikipedia
Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.
The subject is complex, and there are several different definitions which
generally include ...
‎Definitions · ‎Logic and rationality · ‎Research · ‎Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples - The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Your Career › Job Searching
› Skills & Keywords
Nov 28, 2016 - What critical thinking is, what comprises critical thinking,
why employers value it, and examples of critical thinking skills.
https://www.thebalance.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
List of Critical Thinking Skills
Below is a list of specific skills related to critical thinking.
Each skill includes a definition.
Analysis – Analysis refers to the ability to examine something,
and then
be able to understand what it means, or what it represents.
Clarification – Clarification is the ability to not only restate
information, but
to state it in a way that is easy to understand.
Evaluation – Evaluative skills are those related to assessing or
judging the
validity of an idea.
Explanation – Explanation is similar to clarification, and refers
to the ability
to clearly state information, and even add one's own perspective to that
information.
Inference – This relates to the ability to draw conclusions based on the
information that one is given (which might be limited).
Interpretation – Interpretation is the understanding of information. Often,
it refers to communicating the meaning of information in a format that is
clear for a particular audience.
Judgment – Like evaluation, judgment is the assessment of an idea or a piece of
information.
Objectivity – Being objective means that you evaluate an idea fairly, without bias.
Problem Solving – Problem solving is another important skill that involves
analyzing a problem, generating a solution, and implementing and then
assessing that plan.
Reasoning – Reasoning refers to thinking logically about a question or problem.
You sound like a protege of Rich Higgins:


Loading...