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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Loading Image...


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

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

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

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-02 02:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it!
Because you say so. That spot in the BOH photo has sharp margins and is
distinguishable from the surrounding area. Compare that with your
imaginary bullet hole in the SOD photo. That has no clear margins and
blends right into the surrounding area which is JFK's hair.
Then please explain why the HSCA decided to use the drawing to
illustrate the bullet hole and not the photo.
My understanding is the Kennedy family did not want the autopsy photos
made public so instead the drawing was made to present to the
congressional committee. If I am wrong about that I'm sure someone will
let us know.
If you were telling the truth just then, then you've cracked open the
phony part of the case beautifully! You see, more than the "congressional
committee" were to see that drawing from the HSCA. The medical people, as
well had to see it. So if they showed that phony drawing of the bullet
hole in the BOH, then they were faking out the medical people from the
HCSA! And of course, anyone that would look into the HSCA findings as
well for years to come. Thank you for recognizing that probability.
The review panels got to see all the original photos with 10X
magnification and they based their findings on those. The drawings were
what was seen by the public when they were presented to the committee.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Maybe it's because there is
no bullet hole in the photo...:) The comparison with the real bullet hole
in the forehead won't get you anywhere. Why did they use the drawing?
I just gave you what I believe the explanation was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
The copy BTGeorge posted has much sharper contrast and shows the margins
of the bullet hole much more clearly. Of course even that isn't as sharp
as the original photos which the HSCA had available to them.
Oh, get away with that crap! You know perfectly well that the quality
of the autopsy photo is plenty good to see a bullet hole,
Most of us do.
Post by mainframetech
if there were
one there. Talk about imagining seeing things!
You are the outlier.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Anything we
see on line is a copy of a copy of a copy...etc. Those photos were leaked
long before there was such a thing as digital photography and each time a
photo was copied in those days, there would be some degradation in
quality. We don't know how many generations removed the photos we no have
online are removed from the originals. Once an image is digitized of
course, there is no further degradation as each succeeding copy will be
identical to the previous one but the degradation would taken place long
before the digitation took place.
Post by mainframetech
See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Actually there is a spot that looks very much like a bullet hole. Much
more so than your imaginary one in the forehead/temple and we don't even
have to enlarge the photo to see it.
There is no spot there, including the red spot that Humes has
discounted (he was there, you know).
You really think they took a picture with the ruler to show where a blood
spot was?
I think they put a ruler there to help locate the back wound bullet,
but since they covered that up with a black blob, it seems silly.
Now that's a new one. What black blob?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.
Yes, we are aware that you see things that most other people don't. There
is a word to describe that.
WRONG! I've made any of my learnings clear to others and shown them
how and where to see them. I have spent time with even the most
dunderheaded idiots trying to help they see things that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone else.
Dunderheaded idiots? Apparently you've spent lots of time with them.
Quite bit, but I've learned to cut them off now sometimes.
Chris
mainframetech
2018-08-03 02:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It remains there
anyway. And an interesting item is that a bit earlier today John sent me
off to look at some text from the HCSA, and it described the bullet wound
in the BOH, but it used the Dox DRAWING to show it! They chose not to
show the photo, which had no bullet hole in it! More proof that there was
no bullet hole in the BOH.
The photo the Dox drawing was based on is part of the set that was leaked
to the public. The copy which BTGeorge posted is quite sharp and it looks
very much like a bullet hole.
WRONG! Go look. The HSCA showed the Dox Drawing in place of the
photo of the BOH, because that photo had no bullet hole in it!
Because you say so. That spot in the BOH photo has sharp margins and is
distinguishable from the surrounding area. Compare that with your
imaginary bullet hole in the SOD photo. That has no clear margins and
blends right into the surrounding area which is JFK's hair.
Then please explain why the HSCA decided to use the drawing to
illustrate the bullet hole and not the photo.
My understanding is the Kennedy family did not want the autopsy photos
made public so instead the drawing was made to present to the
congressional committee. If I am wrong about that I'm sure someone will
let us know.
If you were telling the truth just then, then you've cracked open the
phony part of the case beautifully! You see, more than the "congressional
committee" were to see that drawing from the HSCA. The medical people, as
well had to see it. So if they showed that phony drawing of the bullet
hole in the BOH, then they were faking out the medical people from the
HCSA! And of course, anyone that would look into the HSCA findings as
well for years to come. Thank you for recognizing that probability.
The review panels got to see all the original photos with 10X
magnification and they based their findings on those. The drawings were
what was seen by the public when they were presented to the committee.
This all very repetitive. We've ben over it before. It was OBVIOUS
they missed the clue that I've told you about. I'm outa here. Chris
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Maybe it's because there is
no bullet hole in the photo...:) The comparison with the real bullet hole
in the forehead won't get you anywhere. Why did they use the drawing?
I just gave you what I believe the explanation was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Go check!
The drawing was indeed sharp with a bullet hole...right where she was told
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
The copy BTGeorge posted has much sharper contrast and shows the margins
of the bullet hole much more clearly. Of course even that isn't as sharp
as the original photos which the HSCA had available to them.
Oh, get away with that crap! You know perfectly well that the quality
of the autopsy photo is plenty good to see a bullet hole,
Most of us do.
Post by mainframetech
if there were
one there. Talk about imagining seeing things!
You are the outlier.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Anything we
see on line is a copy of a copy of a copy...etc. Those photos were leaked
long before there was such a thing as digital photography and each time a
photo was copied in those days, there would be some degradation in
quality. We don't know how many generations removed the photos we no have
online are removed from the originals. Once an image is digitized of
course, there is no further degradation as each succeeding copy will be
identical to the previous one but the degradation would taken place long
before the digitation took place.
Post by mainframetech
See? No bullet hole where the drawing has one!
Actually there is a spot that looks very much like a bullet hole. Much
more so than your imaginary one in the forehead/temple and we don't even
have to enlarge the photo to see it.
There is no spot there, including the red spot that Humes has
discounted (he was there, you know).
You really think they took a picture with the ruler to show where a blood
spot was?
I think they put a ruler there to help locate the back wound bullet,
but since they covered that up with a black blob, it seems silly.
Now that's a new one. What black blob?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you a question based on those facts. You seem to have no answer
for that question, so instead you resort to playing dodgeball.
Don't play those games with me. It won't work. I've answered all
questions about the information that I have provided. However, you
haven't listened carefully and will come by next week and ask all the same
old stuff again, having forgotten everything you were told.
You didn't answer my question as to whom a neutral observer would find
more compelling, you or the review panels? I'm pretty sure you still
won't.
I have no problem answering that. Now that I know you have a question
here.
I think most observers would choose experts on a panel, that doesn't
mean that I'm wrong though. Only that folks like 'experts'.
There's a good reason for that. They know a lot more than laymen like you.
'Knowing things about a topic' and seeing things that others didn't
see are 2 different things. 'Experts' can easily not see things that some
others see.
Yes, we are aware that you see things that most other people don't. There
is a word to describe that.
WRONG! I've made any of my learnings clear to others and shown them
how and where to see them. I have spent time with even the most
dunderheaded idiots trying to help they see things that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone else.
Dunderheaded idiots? Apparently you've spent lots of time with them.
Quite bit, but I've learned to cut them off now sometimes.
Chris
bigdog
2018-08-04 23:45:49 UTC
Permalink
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
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
mainframetech
2018-08-06 16:07:52 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-07 05:03:35 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?
So in your wonderfully wacky world relying on the opinions of experts in
their fields is a gimmick. It's much better just to make stuff up on your
own.
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:02:30 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?
So in your wonderfully wacky world relying on the opinions of experts in
their fields is a gimmick. It's much better just to make stuff up on your
own.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things. There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm

page 103-104

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 02:05:32 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?
So in your wonderfully wacky world relying on the opinions of experts in
their fields is a gimmick. It's much better just to make stuff up on your
own.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things.
When they do there will be other experts around to point out those
mistakes. No such experts exist in this case. All of the experts who have
seen the evidence have reached the same conclusion. The only people who
dispute that conclusion are laymen who have seen just a fraction of the
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:20:55 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?
So in your wonderfully wacky world relying on the opinions of experts in
their fields is a gimmick. It's much better just to make stuff up on your
own.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things.
When they do there will be other experts around to point out those
mistakes. No such experts exist in this case. All of the experts who have
seen the evidence have reached the same conclusion. The only people who
dispute that conclusion are laymen who have seen just a fraction of the
evidence.
You've just stated a 'hope', not a fact. You can't guarantee that any
group of experts will ALL be fooled or will not be fooled. In this case
most were fooled.




You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo. As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:12:10 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?
So in your wonderfully wacky world relying on the opinions of experts in
their fields is a gimmick. It's much better just to make stuff up on your
own.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things.
When they do there will be other experts around to point out those
mistakes. No such experts exist in this case. All of the experts who have
seen the evidence have reached the same conclusion. The only people who
dispute that conclusion are laymen who have seen just a fraction of the
evidence.
You've just stated a 'hope', not a fact. You can't guarantee that any
group of experts will ALL be fooled or will not be fooled. In this case
most were fooled.
Most??? They are all against you, cowboy.
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
mainframetech
2018-08-11 22:29:05 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?
So in your wonderfully wacky world relying on the opinions of experts in
their fields is a gimmick. It's much better just to make stuff up on your
own.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things.
When they do there will be other experts around to point out those
mistakes. No such experts exist in this case. All of the experts who have
seen the evidence have reached the same conclusion. The only people who
dispute that conclusion are laymen who have seen just a fraction of the
evidence.
You've just stated a 'hope', not a fact. You can't guarantee that any
group of experts will ALL be fooled or will not be fooled. In this case
most were fooled.
Most??? They are all against you, cowboy.
Sorry, sidekick! It just ain't so. There are not really 'sides' as
you like to think of them, but opinions and evidence and those that
believe one or the other. There may have been folks on the panels that
didn't believe what they were being force fed, but they chose to keep
quiet about it, on such an important project. We just don't know. Only
Wecht made any negative comments.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
There was no such conclusion, since we've seen the BOH photos and now
know there was NO BULLET HOLE in the BOH. They had to replace the photo
with no bullet hole with a drawing from Ida Dox because her drawing had
the bullet hole penciled in and it looked a helluva lot better than a
photo with NO HOLE in the BOH.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Nope, won't do. I know (I do NOT theorize) there was no bullet hole
in the BOH whether in 10X magnification or not. That makes the statement
about 10X magnification doubtful. The fact that the HSCA chose to replace
the BOH photo with the BOH drawing because at least that had a bullet hole
in it made it more probable. Real evidence. None of your "theories"
like the WCR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
Since I know the bullet hole is there, if they miss it, there has to
be a reason, and I list those reasons that I consider the most probable.
In the opposite case of the BOH bullet wound, it's even more clear that
they lied and tried to cover it up with the drawing.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-13 05:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things.
When they do there will be other experts around to point out those
mistakes. No such experts exist in this case. All of the experts who have
seen the evidence have reached the same conclusion. The only people who
dispute that conclusion are laymen who have seen just a fraction of the
evidence.
You've just stated a 'hope', not a fact. You can't guarantee that any
group of experts will ALL be fooled or will not be fooled. In this case
most were fooled.
Most??? They are all against you, cowboy.
Sorry, sidekick! It just ain't so. There are not really 'sides' as
you like to think of them, but opinions and evidence and those that
believe one or the other.
That much is true. All the knowledgeable people believe one way and you
believe the other way.
Post by mainframetech
There may have been folks on the panels that
didn't believe what they were being force fed, but they chose to keep
quiet about it, on such an important project. We just don't know. Only
Wecht made any negative comments.
I love when you make these baseless assumptions to try to make your
beliefs seem plausible. Wecht agreed with his colleague's that JFK was
shot twice from behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited
from his throat. That is what the medical evidence indicates. Wecht's
belief in a second gunman isn't based on medical evidence or his expertise
in that area. There is no medical evidence of a second gunman.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
There was no such conclusion, since we've seen the BOH photos and now
know there was NO BULLET HOLE in the BOH.
Leave WE out of this. YOU don't see a bullet hole in the BOH because you
don the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist when looking at the
evidence. That allows you to see things that aren't there and ignore
things that are there.
Post by mainframetech
They had to replace the photo
with no bullet hole with a drawing from Ida Dox because her drawing had
the bullet hole penciled in and it looked a helluva lot better than a
photo with NO HOLE in the BOH.
Competent people who saw the original photos in 10X magnification said
there was a bullet hole there which makes it very easy to dismiss your
observation.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Nope, won't do. I know (I do NOT theorize) there was no bullet hole
in the BOH whether in 10X magnification or not. That makes the statement
about 10X magnification doubtful. The fact that the HSCA chose to replace
the BOH photo with the BOH drawing because at least that had a bullet hole
in it made it more probable. Real evidence. None of your "theories"
like the WCR.
We have competent people who had access to far more and better evidence on
once side of the scale and we have your layman's opinion based on one
photo on the other side of the scale. Guess which way that scale tips.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
Since I know the bullet hole is there, if they miss it, there has to
be a reason, and I list those reasons that I consider the most probable.
In the opposite case of the BOH bullet wound, it's even more clear that
they lied and tried to cover it up with the drawing.
It's amazing how many things you know that are just plain wrong. The odds
that you got this right and all those highly qualified medical examiners
got it wrong is less than the odds of me winning the next Powerball
drawing.
mainframetech
2018-08-14 01:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things.
When they do there will be other experts around to point out those
mistakes. No such experts exist in this case. All of the experts who have
seen the evidence have reached the same conclusion. The only people who
dispute that conclusion are laymen who have seen just a fraction of the
evidence.
You've just stated a 'hope', not a fact. You can't guarantee that any
group of experts will ALL be fooled or will not be fooled. In this case
most were fooled.
Most??? They are all against you, cowboy.
Sorry, sidekick! It just ain't so. There are not really 'sides' as
you like to think of them, but opinions and evidence and those that
believe one or the other.
That much is true. All the knowledgeable people believe one way and you
believe the other way.
Post by mainframetech
There may have been folks on the panels that
didn't believe what they were being force fed, but they chose to keep
quiet about it, on such an important project. We just don't know. Only
Wecht made any negative comments.
I love when you make these baseless assumptions to try to make your
beliefs seem plausible. Wecht agreed with his colleague's that JFK was
shot twice from behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited
from his throat. That is what the medical evidence indicates. Wecht's
belief in a second gunman isn't based on medical evidence or his expertise
in that area. There is no medical evidence of a second gunman.
Oh my! Talk about a foolish assumption! Medical evidence? Perhaps
and perhaps not. A second bullet certainly would constitute proof of a
second gunman, but we need the bullets to prove it. And so we can count
all the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day. Many seen by
authorities, such as Officer 'Steve' Ellis. That at least, proves that
there were more than one gunman.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
There was no such conclusion, since we've seen the BOH photos and now
know there was NO BULLET HOLE in the BOH.
Leave WE out of this. YOU don't see a bullet hole in the BOH because you
don the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist when looking at the
evidence. That allows you to see things that aren't there and ignore
things that are there.
Not much proof in that statement. I guess you realize you're out on a
gangplank over the ocean with that one. It even sounds like an
assumption.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They had to replace the photo
with no bullet hole with a drawing from Ida Dox because her drawing had
the bullet hole penciled in and it looked a helluva lot better than a
photo with NO HOLE in the BOH.
Competent people who saw the original photos in 10X magnification said
there was a bullet hole there which makes it very easy to dismiss your
observation.
Crap!! If that were true, why would they substitute the drawing for
the photo? The photo has plenty of good quality, and if the drawing was
made from it, then the bullet hole would be in the photo, but it's not.
Going to answer my question this time? You avoided it last time. Why
would; they use a drawing with a bullet hole in it, in place of the real
photo? It's gonna be a really thin excuse, I already know it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Nope, won't do. I know (I do NOT theorize) there was no bullet hole
in the BOH whether in 10X magnification or not. That makes the statement
about 10X magnification doubtful. The fact that the HSCA chose to replace
the BOH photo with the BOH drawing because at least that had a bullet hole
in it made it more probable. Real evidence. None of your "theories"
like the WCR.
We have competent people who had access to far more and better evidence on
once side of the scale and we have your layman's opinion based on one
photo on the other side of the scale. Guess which way that scale tips.
You have no proof that they had better photos or other evidence. They
used a drawing to substitute for the real photo that had no bullet hole in
it, which the quality was very good. We can settle this simply with the
real photo and the drawing with the bullet hole. So why did they choose
the drawing to show to people rather than the real photo with the good
quality?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
Since I know the bullet hole is there, if they miss it, there has to
be a reason, and I list those reasons that I consider the most probable.
In the opposite case of the BOH bullet wound, it's even more clear that
they lied and tried to cover it up with the drawing.
It's amazing how many things you know that are just plain wrong. The odds
that you got this right and all those highly qualified medical examiners
got it wrong is less than the odds of me winning the next Powerball
drawing.
You're back to trying to prove something with your own guesses and
assumptions. Why did they use the drawing with the bullet hole in it, and
not the real photo that did not have it?

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-15 00:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There may have been folks on the panels that
didn't believe what they were being force fed, but they chose to keep
quiet about it, on such an important project. We just don't know. Only
Wecht made any negative comments.
I love when you make these baseless assumptions to try to make your
beliefs seem plausible. Wecht agreed with his colleague's that JFK was
shot twice from behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited
from his throat. That is what the medical evidence indicates. Wecht's
belief in a second gunman isn't based on medical evidence or his expertise
in that area. There is no medical evidence of a second gunman.
Oh my! Talk about a foolish assumption! Medical evidence? Perhaps
and perhaps not.
There is no perhaps. The original photos and x-rays were medical evidence
as were the expert opinions of the highly qualified medical examiners who
analyzed them.
Post by mainframetech
A second bullet certainly would constitute proof of a
second gunman, but we need the bullets to prove it.
And you don't have any.
Post by mainframetech
And so we can count
all the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day. Many seen by
authorities, such as Officer 'Steve' Ellis. That at least, proves that
there were more than one gunman.
So after you just said "we need the bullets to prove it" you turn right
around and point to other alleged bullet strikes for which you have no
bullets and present that as "proof" of a second gunman. There is physical
evidence of just 3 shots. The 3 spent shells and the two recovered
bullets. It is theoretically possible although highly unlikely given the
weight of the eye and ear witnesses that only 2 shots were fired and one
of the ejected shells had been fired before 11/22/63 and was still in the
chamber as Oswald prepared to fire.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
There was no such conclusion, since we've seen the BOH photos and now
know there was NO BULLET HOLE in the BOH.
Leave WE out of this. YOU don't see a bullet hole in the BOH because you
don the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist when looking at the
evidence. That allows you to see things that aren't there and ignore
things that are there.
Not much proof in that statement. I guess you realize you're out on a
gangplank over the ocean with that one. It even sounds like an
assumption.
About as much proof as you offer for your "forehead/temple" entry wound.
You say you see one there and you think that suffices as proof.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They had to replace the photo
with no bullet hole with a drawing from Ida Dox because her drawing had
the bullet hole penciled in and it looked a helluva lot better than a
photo with NO HOLE in the BOH.
Competent people who saw the original photos in 10X magnification said
there was a bullet hole there which makes it very easy to dismiss your
observation.
Crap!! If that were true, why would they substitute the drawing for
the photo?
It's been explained to you and you have ignored the explanation. No point
in repeating it.
Post by mainframetech
The photo has plenty of good quality, and if the drawing was
made from it, then the bullet hole would be in the photo, but it's not.
Because you say you can't see it. Most of us can. The review panels
certainly did.
Post by mainframetech
Going to answer my question this time? You avoided it last time. Why
would; they use a drawing with a bullet hole in it, in place of the real
photo? It's gonna be a really thin excuse, I already know it.
As I just told you, that was explained to you. Like Bob Harris, when you
get an answer you don't like you just ignore it, pretend it hasn't been
given, and then come back with the same annoying question. Harris hasn't
been around for many months but you see to be taking up his mantle.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Nope, won't do. I know (I do NOT theorize) there was no bullet hole
in the BOH whether in 10X magnification or not. That makes the statement
about 10X magnification doubtful. The fact that the HSCA chose to replace
the BOH photo with the BOH drawing because at least that had a bullet hole
in it made it more probable. Real evidence. None of your "theories"
like the WCR.
We have competent people who had access to far more and better evidence on
once side of the scale and we have your layman's opinion based on one
photo on the other side of the scale. Guess which way that scale tips.
You have no proof that they had better photos or other evidence.
I have the word of the people who have seen the originals. When copies are
made of photos, there is degradation from one copy to another including
when the photos get digitized. Once digitized, there is no further
degradation as every generation of a digitized photo will be identical to
the first but the degradation has already taken place. Even digitized
photos can be cropped or reduced in size which would cause further
degradation. The leaked photos were copies of the originals. Then those
leaked photos were put into print. Finally they were digitized for posting
in online websites. Each step of the way there is degradation. There is no
way the online versions of these photos are of the same quality as the
originals. They couldn't be.
Post by mainframetech
They
used a drawing to substitute for the real photo that had no bullet hole in
it, which the quality was very good. We can settle this simply with the
real photo and the drawing with the bullet hole. So why did they choose
the drawing to show to people rather than the real photo with the good
quality?
Go back and read the answers you were given the first three times you
asked me this question.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
Since I know the bullet hole is there, if they miss it, there has to
be a reason, and I list those reasons that I consider the most probable.
In the opposite case of the BOH bullet wound, it's even more clear that
they lied and tried to cover it up with the drawing.
It's amazing how many things you know that are just plain wrong. The odds
that you got this right and all those highly qualified medical examiners
got it wrong is less than the odds of me winning the next Powerball
drawing.
You're back to trying to prove something with your own guesses and
assumptions. Why did they use the drawing with the bullet hole in it, and
not the real photo that did not have it?
I guess this is your way of filibustering this discussion. Keep asking the
same inane question over and over again and ignore the answers you have
already been given.
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There may have been folks on the panels that
didn't believe what they were being force fed, but they chose to keep
quiet about it, on such an important project. We just don't know. Only
Wecht made any negative comments.
I love when you make these baseless assumptions to try to make your
beliefs seem plausible. Wecht agreed with his colleague's that JFK was
shot twice from behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited
from his throat. That is what the medical evidence indicates. Wecht's
belief in a second gunman isn't based on medical evidence or his expertise
in that area. There is no medical evidence of a second gunman.
Oh my! Talk about a foolish assumption! Medical evidence? Perhaps
and perhaps not.
There is no perhaps. The original photos and x-rays were medical evidence
as were the expert opinions of the highly qualified medical examiners who
analyzed them.
Post by mainframetech
A second bullet certainly would constitute proof of a
second gunman, but we need the bullets to prove it.
And you don't have any.
Post by mainframetech
And so we can count
all the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day. Many seen by
authorities, such as Officer 'Steve' Ellis. That at least, proves that
there were more than one gunman.
So after you just said "we need the bullets to prove it" you turn right
around and point to other alleged bullet strikes for which you have no
bullets and present that as "proof" of a second gunman. There is physical
evidence of just 3 shots.
That's your opinion, but there is plenty of evidence and eyewitnesses
to say there were more bullets fired into the plaza that day. As to my
comments, don't you know what facetiousness is?
Post by bigdog
The 3 spent shells and the two recovered
bullets. It is theoretically possible although highly unlikely given the
weight of the eye and ear witnesses that only 2 shots were fired and one
of the ejected shells had been fired before 11/22/63 and was still in the
chamber as Oswald prepared to fire.
mmm, lots of assumptions there!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
There was no such conclusion, since we've seen the BOH photos and now
know there was NO BULLET HOLE in the BOH.
Leave WE out of this. YOU don't see a bullet hole in the BOH because you
don the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist when looking at the
evidence. That allows you to see things that aren't there and ignore
things that are there.
Not much proof in that statement. I guess you realize you're out on a
gangplank over the ocean with that one. It even sounds like an
assumption.
About as much proof as you offer for your "forehead/temple" entry wound.
You say you see one there and you think that suffices as proof.
Ah, so you think that if one person makes assumptions, then another
person can do it too. I see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They had to replace the photo
with no bullet hole with a drawing from Ida Dox because her drawing had
the bullet hole penciled in and it looked a helluva lot better than a
photo with NO HOLE in the BOH.
Competent people who saw the original photos in 10X magnification said
there was a bullet hole there which makes it very easy to dismiss your
observation.
Crap!! If that were true, why would they substitute the drawing for
the photo?
It's been explained to you and you have ignored the explanation. No point
in repeating it.
No, I got no explanation for that ridiculous thing. THAT I would have
remembered. If it had anything to do with quality, then it was crap,
since the quality was good in the photo.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The photo has plenty of good quality, and if the drawing was
made from it, then the bullet hole would be in the photo, but it's not.
Because you say you can't see it. Most of us can. The review panels
certainly did.
"Most of you" saw a bullet hole where? In the drawing or the real
photo?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Going to answer my question this time? You avoided it last time. Why
would; they use a drawing with a bullet hole in it, in place of the real
photo? It's gonna be a really thin excuse, I already know it.
As I just told you, that was explained to you. Like Bob Harris, when you
get an answer you don't like you just ignore it, pretend it hasn't been
given, and then come back with the same annoying question. Harris hasn't
been around for many months but you see to be taking up his mantle.
I haven't heard yet any excuse that makes sense, so you'll have to
make some sense out of your answer. As I said, if you're going to try and
pretend that the photo had bad optics, forget it. It was plenty good.
And Humes already said that the 'red spot' there was NOT the entry wound
in the BOH.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Nope, won't do. I know (I do NOT theorize) there was no bullet hole
in the BOH whether in 10X magnification or not. That makes the statement
about 10X magnification doubtful. The fact that the HSCA chose to replace
the BOH photo with the BOH drawing because at least that had a bullet hole
in it made it more probable. Real evidence. None of your "theories"
like the WCR.
We have competent people who had access to far more and better evidence on
once side of the scale and we have your layman's opinion based on one
photo on the other side of the scale. Guess which way that scale tips.
You have no proof that they had better photos or other evidence.
I have the word of the people who have seen the originals. When copies are
made of photos, there is degradation from one copy to another including
when the photos get digitized. Once digitized, there is no further
degradation as every generation of a digitized photo will be identical to
the first but the degradation has already taken place. Even digitized
photos can be cropped or reduced in size which would cause further
degradation. The leaked photos were copies of the originals. Then those
leaked photos were put into print. Finally they were digitized for posting
in online websites. Each step of the way there is degradation. There is no
way the online versions of these photos are of the same quality as the
originals. They couldn't be.
Well, that doesn't explain Humes saying that the red spot was
"nothing" and that there was no correlation between the scalp and skull
wounds. So your whole story goes up in smoke!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They
used a drawing to substitute for the real photo that had no bullet hole in
it, which the quality was very good. We can settle this simply with the
real photo and the drawing with the bullet hole. So why did they choose
the drawing to show to people rather than the real photo with the good
quality?
Go back and read the answers you were given the first three times you
asked me this question.
I was not given any answer that made any sense, considering Humes and
his statement. I need the explanation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
Since I know the bullet hole is there, if they miss it, there has to
be a reason, and I list those reasons that I consider the most probable.
In the opposite case of the BOH bullet wound, it's even more clear that
they lied and tried to cover it up with the drawing.
It's amazing how many things you know that are just plain wrong. The odds
that you got this right and all those highly qualified medical examiners
got it wrong is less than the odds of me winning the next Powerball
drawing.
You're back to trying to prove something with your own guesses and
assumptions. Why did they use the drawing with the bullet hole in it, and
not the real photo that did not have it?
I guess this is your way of filibustering this discussion. Keep asking the
same inane question over and over again and ignore the answers you have
already been given.
Apparently you haven't realized yet that your silly explanation was not
accepted by Humes, or me. Try again. I've had to repeat my answers to
you many time over on similar questions, I would appreciate you giving me
a reason for a chuckle now and then.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-17 00:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There may have been folks on the panels that
didn't believe what they were being force fed, but they chose to keep
quiet about it, on such an important project. We just don't know. Only
Wecht made any negative comments.
I love when you make these baseless assumptions to try to make your
beliefs seem plausible. Wecht agreed with his colleague's that JFK was
shot twice from behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited
from his throat. That is what the medical evidence indicates. Wecht's
belief in a second gunman isn't based on medical evidence or his expertise
in that area. There is no medical evidence of a second gunman.
Oh my! Talk about a foolish assumption! Medical evidence? Perhaps
and perhaps not.
There is no perhaps. The original photos and x-rays were medical evidence
as were the expert opinions of the highly qualified medical examiners who
analyzed them.
Post by mainframetech
A second bullet certainly would constitute proof of a
second gunman, but we need the bullets to prove it.
And you don't have any.
Post by mainframetech
And so we can count
all the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day. Many seen by
authorities, such as Officer 'Steve' Ellis. That at least, proves that
there were more than one gunman.
So after you just said "we need the bullets to prove it" you turn right
around and point to other alleged bullet strikes for which you have no
bullets and present that as "proof" of a second gunman. There is physical
evidence of just 3 shots.
That's your opinion, but there is plenty of evidence and eyewitnesses
to say there were more bullets fired into the plaza that day. As to my
comments, don't you know what facetiousness is?
Your evidence consists of some people's unsubstantiated guesses as to what
constituted bullet strikes or some creative accounting in which you count
the same shot multiple times. A single bullet can make multiple strikes
and when a bullet fragments, it will multiply the strikes even more. An
example of that is the apparent strike witnesses by Ellis. It is possible
that bullet or a fragment continued down range to cause the injury to
Tague. Another example are the fragments exiting JFK's head. The went on
to strike multiple places inside the limo and it is possible Tague's
injury was caused by one of those. Yet you want to count each of those
strikes as a separate shot which is completely illogical. Then let's look
out your two gouges in the grass. What are the odds that two missed shots
fired at a moving target would end up striking right next to each other?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The 3 spent shells and the two recovered
bullets. It is theoretically possible although highly unlikely given the
weight of the eye and ear witnesses that only 2 shots were fired and one
of the ejected shells had been fired before 11/22/63 and was still in the
chamber as Oswald prepared to fire.
mmm, lots of assumptions there!
No assumptions. Just pointing out possibilities.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
There was no such conclusion, since we've seen the BOH photos and now
know there was NO BULLET HOLE in the BOH.
Leave WE out of this. YOU don't see a bullet hole in the BOH because you
don the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist when looking at the
evidence. That allows you to see things that aren't there and ignore
things that are there.
Not much proof in that statement. I guess you realize you're out on a
gangplank over the ocean with that one. It even sounds like an
assumption.
About as much proof as you offer for your "forehead/temple" entry wound.
You say you see one there and you think that suffices as proof.
Ah, so you think that if one person makes assumptions, then another
person can do it too. I see.
Anyone can make assumptions. If they want to be credible, they need to
supply evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They had to replace the photo
with no bullet hole with a drawing from Ida Dox because her drawing had
the bullet hole penciled in and it looked a helluva lot better than a
photo with NO HOLE in the BOH.
Competent people who saw the original photos in 10X magnification said
there was a bullet hole there which makes it very easy to dismiss your
observation.
Crap!! If that were true, why would they substitute the drawing for
the photo?
It's been explained to you and you have ignored the explanation. No point
in repeating it.
No, I got no explanation for that ridiculous thing. THAT I would have
remembered. If it had anything to do with quality, then it was crap,
since the quality was good in the photo.
OK, one more time. Do you promise to write it down this time so you don't
have to ask again and I don't have to explain it to you AGAIN!!!

The Kennedy family was given possession of the autopsy evidence. They did
not want the gory photos made public so for the public presentation to the
HSCA, drawings were made to represent what the photos showed. Someone
leaked a small number of the photos and x-rays to Groden which is why
there are some which are now in the public domain including the BOH photo
on which the Ida Dox drawing was made.

I'm going to make a copy of this response as well and note the thread it
is in and the time and date it posts. If you come back again and falsely
claim that no one has answered your inane question, I'm going to shove it
back in your face.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The photo has plenty of good quality, and if the drawing was
made from it, then the bullet hole would be in the photo, but it's not.
Because you say you can't see it. Most of us can. The review panels
certainly did.
"Most of you" saw a bullet hole where? In the drawing or the real
photo?
Both.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Going to answer my question this time? You avoided it last time. Why
would; they use a drawing with a bullet hole in it, in place of the real
photo? It's gonna be a really thin excuse, I already know it.
As I just told you, that was explained to you. Like Bob Harris, when you
get an answer you don't like you just ignore it, pretend it hasn't been
given, and then come back with the same annoying question. Harris hasn't
been around for many months but you see to be taking up his mantle.
I haven't heard yet any excuse that makes sense, so you'll have to
make some sense out of your answer. As I said, if you're going to try and
pretend that the photo had bad optics, forget it. It was plenty good.
And Humes already said that the 'red spot' there was NOT the entry wound
in the BOH.
You were just given the answer AGAIN. I suggest you not come back and ask
this silly question in the future or I will embarrass you for it.
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
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Nope, won't do. I know (I do NOT theorize) there was no bullet hole
in the BOH whether in 10X magnification or not. That makes the statement
about 10X magnification doubtful. The fact that the HSCA chose to replace
the BOH photo with the BOH drawing because at least that had a bullet hole
in it made it more probable. Real evidence. None of your "theories"
like the WCR.
We have competent people who had access to far more and better evidence on
once side of the scale and we have your layman's opinion based on one
photo on the other side of the scale. Guess which way that scale tips.
You have no proof that they had better photos or other evidence.
I have the word of the people who have seen the originals. When copies are
made of photos, there is degradation from one copy to another including
when the photos get digitized. Once digitized, there is no further
degradation as every generation of a digitized photo will be identical to
the first but the degradation has already taken place. Even digitized
photos can be cropped or reduced in size which would cause further
degradation. The leaked photos were copies of the originals. Then those
leaked photos were put into print. Finally they were digitized for posting
in online websites. Each step of the way there is degradation. There is no
way the online versions of these photos are of the same quality as the
originals. They couldn't be.
Well, that doesn't explain Humes saying that the red spot was
"nothing" and that there was no correlation between the scalp and skull
wounds. So your whole story goes up in smoke!
Humes's memory seemed to be a bit fuzzy when he testified and/or he was
being defensive about flaws the FPP found in his original work, primarily
his placement of the entry wound. Since the bullet hole in the photo is
higher than he placed it, he might not want to admit that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They
used a drawing to substitute for the real photo that had no bullet hole in
it, which the quality was very good. We can settle this simply with the
real photo and the drawing with the bullet hole. So why did they choose
the drawing to show to people rather than the real photo with the good
quality?
Go back and read the answers you were given the first three times you
asked me this question.
I was not given any answer that made any sense, considering Humes and
his statement. I need the explanation.
I gave you the answer AGAIN earlier in this post. Do you think you can
remember it this time.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
Since I know the bullet hole is there, if they miss it, there has to
be a reason, and I list those reasons that I consider the most probable.
In the opposite case of the BOH bullet wound, it's even more clear that
they lied and tried to cover it up with the drawing.
It's amazing how many things you know that are just plain wrong. The odds
that you got this right and all those highly qualified medical examiners
got it wrong is less than the odds of me winning the next Powerball
drawing.
You're back to trying to prove something with your own guesses and
assumptions. Why did they use the drawing with the bullet hole in it, and
not the real photo that did not have it?
I guess this is your way of filibustering this discussion. Keep asking the
same inane question over and over again and ignore the answers you have
already been given.
Apparently you haven't realized yet that your silly explanation was not
accepted by Humes, or me.
So now the guy you have accused of taking part in the cover up is the guy
you turn to support you. Amazing.
Post by mainframetech
Try again. I've had to repeat my answers to
you many time over on similar questions, I would appreciate you giving me
a reason for a chuckle now and then.
You got your answer, Chuckles.

Anthony Marsh
2018-08-16 02:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There may have been folks on the panels that
didn't believe what they were being force fed, but they chose to keep
quiet about it, on such an important project. We just don't know. Only
Wecht made any negative comments.
I love when you make these baseless assumptions to try to make your
beliefs seem plausible. Wecht agreed with his colleague's that JFK was
shot twice from behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited
from his throat. That is what the medical evidence indicates. Wecht's
belief in a second gunman isn't based on medical evidence or his expertise
in that area. There is no medical evidence of a second gunman.
Oh my! Talk about a foolish assumption! Medical evidence? Perhaps
and perhaps not.
There is no perhaps. The original photos and x-rays were medical evidence
as were the expert opinions of the highly qualified medical examiners who
analyzed them.
Post by mainframetech
A second bullet certainly would constitute proof of a
second gunman, but we need the bullets to prove it.
And you don't have any.
Post by mainframetech
And so we can count
all the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day. Many seen by
authorities, such as Officer 'Steve' Ellis. That at least, proves that
there were more than one gunman.
So after you just said "we need the bullets to prove it" you turn right
around and point to other alleged bullet strikes for which you have no
bullets and present that as "proof" of a second gunman. There is physical
evidence of just 3 shots. The 3 spent shells and the two recovered
bullets. It is theoretically possible although highly unlikely given the
weight of the eye and ear witnesses that only 2 shots were fired and one
of the ejected shells had been fired before 11/22/63 and was still in the
chamber as Oswald prepared to fire.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've already been informed that the evidence shown to the panels
was limited, not only missing photos, but missing X-rays. And you can
easily guess which ones were missing. And if the 'leaked' photos are
copies of the ones they gave to the medical panels, then they really did a
number on them, by showing them altered photos.
It doesn't matter if there were missing photos or not. The panels based
their findings on what the did see which was conclusive proof of two shots
hitting JFK from behind.
There was no such conclusion, since we've seen the BOH photos and now
know there was NO BULLET HOLE in the BOH.
Leave WE out of this. YOU don't see a bullet hole in the BOH because you
don the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist when looking at the
evidence. That allows you to see things that aren't there and ignore
things that are there.
Not much proof in that statement. I guess you realize you're out on a
gangplank over the ocean with that one. It even sounds like an
assumption.
About as much proof as you offer for your "forehead/temple" entry wound.
You say you see one there and you think that suffices as proof.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They had to replace the photo
with no bullet hole with a drawing from Ida Dox because her drawing had
the bullet hole penciled in and it looked a helluva lot better than a
photo with NO HOLE in the BOH.
Competent people who saw the original photos in 10X magnification said
there was a bullet hole there which makes it very easy to dismiss your
observation.
Crap!! If that were true, why would they substitute the drawing for
the photo?
It's been explained to you and you have ignored the explanation. No point
in repeating it.
Post by mainframetech
The photo has plenty of good quality, and if the drawing was
made from it, then the bullet hole would be in the photo, but it's not.
Because you say you can't see it. Most of us can. The review panels
certainly did.
Post by mainframetech
Going to answer my question this time? You avoided it last time. Why
would; they use a drawing with a bullet hole in it, in place of the real
photo? It's gonna be a really thin excuse, I already know it.
As I just told you, that was explained to you. Like Bob Harris, when you
get an answer you don't like you just ignore it, pretend it hasn't been
given, and then come back with the same annoying question. Harris hasn't
been around for many months but you see to be taking up his mantle.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
It's a statement. Sometimes they're true and sometimes not.
So in a lame effort to try to save your ridiculous theories you claim the
panels were lying about what they saw.
Nope, won't do. I know (I do NOT theorize) there was no bullet hole
in the BOH whether in 10X magnification or not. That makes the statement
about 10X magnification doubtful. The fact that the HSCA chose to replace
the BOH photo with the BOH drawing because at least that had a bullet hole
in it made it more probable. Real evidence. None of your "theories"
like the WCR.
We have competent people who had access to far more and better evidence on
once side of the scale and we have your layman's opinion based on one
photo on the other side of the scale. Guess which way that scale tips.
You have no proof that they had better photos or other evidence.
I have the word of the people who have seen the originals. When copies are
made of photos, there is degradation from one copy to another including
when the photos get digitized. Once digitized, there is no further
degradation as every generation of a digitized photo will be identical to
the first but the degradation has already taken place. Even digitized
photos can be cropped or reduced in size which would cause further
degradation. The leaked photos were copies of the originals. Then those
leaked photos were put into print. Finally they were digitized for posting
in online websites. Each step of the way there is degradation. There is no
way the online versions of these photos are of the same quality as the
originals. They couldn't be.
Post by mainframetech
They
used a drawing to substitute for the real photo that had no bullet hole in
it, which the quality was very good. We can settle this simply with the
real photo and the drawing with the bullet hole. So why did they choose
the drawing to show to people rather than the real photo with the good
quality?
Go back and read the answers you were given the first three times you
asked me this question.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, the missing bullet hole would still be hard to see at 10X
magnification, since it's not there in the BOH photo.
As to seeing the
bullet hole in the SOD photo, it might still be hard to see at 10X
magnification if they weren't looking for it, or got too casual about
looking at photos after reading the AR which told them what they would
find.
All this time you've been telling us the reason they didn't see it is
because they didn't enlarge the photo and now you've been shown
documentation that they enlarged it by a factor of 10 and you tell us even
at that magnification your bullet hole is hard to see. You claim it to be
obvious but highly trained professionals magnifying the photo by 10
couldn't see it. Just how large do you have to enlarge the photo before
your bullet shows up.
Since I know the bullet hole is there, if they miss it, there has to
be a reason, and I list those reasons that I consider the most probable.
In the opposite case of the BOH bullet wound, it's even more clear that
they lied and tried to cover it up with the drawing.
It's amazing how many things you know that are just plain wrong. The odds
that you got this right and all those highly qualified medical examiners
got it wrong is less than the odds of me winning the next Powerball
drawing.
You're back to trying to prove something with your own guesses and
assumptions. Why did they use the drawing with the bullet hole in it, and
not the real photo that did not have it?
I guess this is your way of filibustering this discussion. Keep asking the
same inane question over and over again and ignore the answers you have
already been given.
Just as an example, I always said there was a shot from the grassy knoll,
but I couldn't prove it until the acoustical analysis came out. I always
said the bullet hit above the right eye, but I couldn't prove it until I
saw the original Fox 8 photo for myself. I know a couple of WC defenders
are brave enough to see the hole, but most are not even brave enough to
look.

Seek and ye shall find.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-10 13:19:40 UTC
Permalink
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 mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Well, only LNs see it as anything but a bullet hole.
We have a number of CTs on this forum as so far only Marsh and Amy have
joined you in this assessment and Amy hasn't posted anything for quite a
while. It's just you and Marsh in that rowboat now.
LOL! Because someone hasn't posted in a while is reason to ignore
their evidence? Who do you think you're fooling with that phony
dismissal?
Good point. There are much better reasons to dismiss their "evidence".
Primarily being that it isn't evidence. Just your typical conspiracy
hobbyist figuring.
WRONG again! As usual, you try to forget things that you're wrong
about. Everyone here has equal rights and value.
You're half right.
Post by mainframetech
As with any person here
that saw something in a photo, Amy and Marsh have equal value as
witnesses.
0 = 0.
Certainly equal to you, who can't see anything. 0 = 3.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They have given their belief of the photo from the forehead
bullet wound, and you can't take them down any further than anyone that
saw something and described it. Your overbearing effort to dismiss their
evidence won't stand.
Their opinions are not evidence. Neither are yours.
Which then means that YOUR views on the forehead bullet hole are
nothing but opinions!
Mine aren't evidence but the opinions of qualified medical examiners are
and they are all on my side.
Nope. None of them are "on your side". They had no idea about the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so they can't have any opinion
about it.
So the opinion of any expert who doesn't agree with you doesn't count.
That pretty much eliminates all the experts which is really what you want.
You tried that failed gimmick before and it didn't get you anywhere,
so why repeat it?
So in your wonderfully wacky world relying on the opinions of experts in
their fields is a gimmick. It's much better just to make stuff up on your
own.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! You made a mistake in
assuming that I meant that the expert opinions were a gimmick. My comment
was speaking of your attempt to pretend that I was calling the expert's
opinions a gimmick that didn't work for YOU. Expert opinions are often
valid, though they are human and can not only make mistakes, but also be
misled by others who would rather that the experts not find out the truth
about some things.
When they do there will be other experts around to point out those
mistakes. No such experts exist in this case. All of the experts who have
seen the evidence have reached the same conclusion. The only people who
dispute that conclusion are laymen who have seen just a fraction of the
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
There is a suggestion in the HSCA final report, that
they faked proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and that worries me that
they tried to fool the experts as well as congress. To prove there was
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, they showed a Dox drawing of one of the
autopsy photos, and her drawing showed a bullet hole in the right place,
but the original photo it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! Did they
show that drawing to some of the medical panels that investigated the
autopsy findings? If so, it was fakery pure and simple.
It is preposterous to think these medical examiners used a drawing to
reach their conclusions when they had the original photos to look at. It
is the photos and x-rays upon which they based their conclusions and those
showed them unmistakable evidence of an entry wound in the BOH.
But you downplay anyone making determinations from just the photos. You
say the ONLY proper determinations have to be made hands on, handling
the body. Then you are so proud of the autopsy doctors for not examining
the back wound, missing the throat wound and missing the hole in the
forehead. Well, at leas they were smart enough to figure out that he was
shot! Oops, they almost thought the cutdowns were stab wounds!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
You didn't do yourself any favors by posting this. It states quite clearly
that the panel used the photos and transparencies, not the drawing, to
reach their conclusions. It also stated that they used 10X magnification
to look at the photos. That undercuts your previous claims they didn't
enlarge the photos.
Which photos? Fifth generation copies they got off the Internet or the
second generation copies that the CIA handled?
Spence
2018-07-20 00:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
Jason Burke
2018-07-20 21:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
All ya gots to do to be an expert is read some other fool's blatherings
on the internet.
mainframetech
2018-07-21 00:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
You have no training in forensic medicine.
You have looked at the SOD photo and claim to see an entrance wound.
You have looked at the BOH photo and claim there is no entrance wound.
Review panels comprised of the best medical examiners in the country have
looked at seen those photos and a whole lot more. They concluded there was
an entrance wound in the BOH. They found no evidence of an entrance wound
in the forehead.
If those facts were presented to someone with no preconceived ideas, whose
findings do you think they would find more compelling.
He thinks he's an expert in thermite demolitions too.
WRONG again! I have the statements of 2 'controlled demolition'
experts who tell us that the WTC collapses of the 3 towers was indeed
'controlled demolition'. I don't need to be an expert. How you be so
often wrong? Is it because you make this stuff up?

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

Chris
Loading...