JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Regnad Kcin]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/3CGQJAD.jpg[/qimg]

Knock yourself out, Regnad Kcin.

He doesn't look well.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, I've seen the pictures of the test skulls. Now time for you to demonstrate, with evidence, that the damage was consistent with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting out of the top-right side of the head. If there wasn't major damage to the cerebellum, why wasn't there?

Shifting the burden of proof isn't taken kindly in these here parts.

 

[MicahJava]

You just told us you hadn't. That your sources were four conspiracy theorists.

You referenced the actual testimony of the eyewitnesses and the expert witnesses not at all.

So I pointed out - again - that you should read that testimony.

And now you're claiming you have.

Which is it?

Hank

Honestly, I haven't anything about the assassination cover-to-cover. I've read enough from all sides to have a grasp of what the official story is. Who cares? I'm a loon with no sources at all! Now time for you to refute me.

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, I've seen the pictures of the test skulls. Now time for you to demonstrate, with evidence, that the damage was consistent with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting out of the top-right side of the head. If there wasn't major damage to the cerebellum, why wasn't there?

The conclusions are those I cited from the expert who actually performed the experiments on the test skulls using Oswald's rifle, identical ammo, and human skulls.

Please look at the photos I cited and note where the entry wound is. Please note the damage to the top right side of the skull in question. Please note the test skull was filled with gelatin, so there was no cerebellum to damage in the test. Please note the conclusion of the wound ballistic expert that the damage was quite similar to the damage JFK suffered.

You are ignoring that entirely, even though earlier you argued it couldn't happen that way, and even suggested the Zapruder film might not be authentic as a work around.

If the Z film is authentic, I think it probably shows a tangential wound at frame 313.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

The conclusions are those I cited from the expert who actually performed the experiments on the test skulls using Oswald rifle, identical ammo, and human skulls.

Please look at the photos I cited and note where the entry wound is. Please note the damage to the top right side of the skull in question. Please note the test skull was filled with gelatin, so there was no cerebellum to damage in the test. Please note the conclusion of the wound ballistic expert that the damage was quite similar to the damage JFK suffered.

You are ignoring that entirely, even though earlier you argued it couldn't happen that way, and even suggested the Zapruder film might not be authentic as a work around.

Hank

Okay, but I'm not talking about skulls right now. I'm talking about brains.

 

[HSienzant]

Honestly, I haven't anything about the assassination cover-to-cover.

I see the problem here.

I've read enough from all sides to have a grasp of what the official story is.

Sorry, that's not what you said before. You cited four conspiracy authors and nothing else. Then you claimed you read the testimony of all the eyewitnesses and the expert witnesses. Now you're saying you've read some stuff from both sides, but nothing 'cover to cover' to have a sufficient 'grasp' of what the official story is. Your story has apparently changed with each telling. Can you clarify?

Who cares?

Really, you should. If you care about getting it right, you need to have a stronger foundation than four conspiracy authors, or a 'grasp' of the official story. I will - again - suggest you start by reading the testimony of the eyewitnesses - all of them, from start to finish - and the expert witnesses - all of them, from start to finish - to get a better grasp on what everyone actually said, and stop relying on conspiracy authors for your 'facts'.

I'm a loon with no sources at all!

Thank you for that admission. Such honesty is refreshing. And quite rare among conspiracy theorists.

Now time for you to refute me.

No one need refute anything you claim. Another mistake by you.

That's the logical fallacy known as Shifting the Burden of Proof.

The way it works is, you make a assertion, you need to prove it.

No one needs to disprove your claims. The onus is entirely on you to establish the claims you make are true.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

HSienzant, connect point A to point B without demolishing the cerebellum.

https://i.imgur.com/F6ghx5m.jpg

Edited by jsfisher: 

Image tags for explicitly copyrighted image removed.

 

[HSienzant]

Okay, but I'm not talking about skulls right now. I'm talking about brains.

No, you were talking about JFK's skull, and have mentioned the EOP in almost every other post. The EOP is a location on the skull, not the brain.

And in fact, you were talking about the skull and the EOP in the post I responded to:

Yes, I've seen the pictures of the test skulls. Now time for you to demonstrate, with evidence, that the damage was consistent with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting out of the top-right side of the head.

The test skull and the expert testimony cited answers your question, so you merely move the goalposts. Surprise us with a logical fallacy we haven't seen before.

And tracking it back one post further, you were still talking about the skull:

Nobody who saw the skull said the cracking extended that far down.

So your claim that you were talking about anything except the skull is false, and the expert testimony I cited concerning experiments with Carcano ammo and human skulls answers the specific issues you did raise.

And your attempt to move the goalposts to something else entirely is very transparent.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

HSienzant, connect point A to point B without demolishing the cerebellum.

https://i.imgur.com/F6ghx5m.jpg

Edited by jsfisher: 

Image tags for explicitly copyrighted image removed.

Why? Because you insist the bullet entered at point A?

I remind you of the logical fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof once more.

These are your claims. You need to establish them. I need not disprove them.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Why? Because you insist the bullet entered at point A?

I remind you of the logical fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof once more.

These are your claims. You need to establish them. I need not disprove them.

Hank

My established claim is that a bullet entered near the EOP, slightly damaged the brain, and smashed the base of the skull. This is based on evidence. I am not shifting the burden of proof.

HSienzant, connect point A to point B without demolishing the cerebellum.

https://i.imgur.com/mu71GAy.jpg

Edited by jsfisher: 

Image tags for explicitly copyrighted image removed.

 

[HSienzant]

My established claim is that a bullet entered near the EOP, slightly damaged the bran, and smashed the base of the skull. This is based on evidence. I am not shifting the burden of proof.

HSienzant, connect point A to point B without demolishing the cerebellum.

https://i.imgur.com/mu71GAy.jpg

Edited by jsfisher: 

Image tags for explicitly copyrighted image removed.

Nobody is disputing it's your established claim. You've made it frequently enough. We all know what you're claiming. The dispute revolves around whether your established claim is established fact. It's not.

So that's what you still need to establish.

I trust that's clear.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

HSienzant, connect point A to point B without demolishing the cerebellum.

Come on, I'm running out of diagrams from Google image searches, and poor old uninformed Micahjava might have to open a medical textbook soon.

 

[HSienzant]

HSienzant, connect point A to point B without demolishing the cerebellum.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/MCIqwQh.jpg[/qimg]

Come on, I'm running out of diagrams from Google image searches, and poor old uninformed Micahjava might have to open a medical textbook soon.

Asked and answered. Your straw man argument is rejected. This is your responsibility to establish your alternate theory of the assassination, including, if you wish to pursue it, the evidence of exactly what bullet did what damage. I know what the experts say.

And I know you're not one of them.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Asked and answered. Your straw man argument is rejected. This is your responsibility to establish your alternate theory of the assassination, including, if you wish to pursue it, the evidence of exactly what bullet did what damage. I know what the experts say.

And you're not one of them.

Hank

I think you know the answer, so you must cling to the notion that literally everybody who saw the body is wrong.

Yeah, go on. Play your red spot. Play so you can't BS.

 

[HSienzant]

I think you know the answer, so you must cling to the notion that literally everybody who saw the body is wrong.

Yeah, go on. Play your red spot. Play so you can't BS.

Once again, nobody cares what you think. You're not an expert here, and your opinions are unsolicited.

If you've got opinions you want to express, go right ahead. But don't confuse your opinions with facts.

We are waiting - rather patiently - for you to establish your opinions are facts.

And, in fact, I did in fact show that some of your opinions are not facts, by citing the experiments by Dr. Olivier and the results he got. You then proceeded to ignore the facts about his tests, and tell me you were talking about the brain, not the skull, when in fact, you were quite clearly talking about the damage to the skull all along.

We are not fooled by this. And you are not bringing up any arguments I haven't seen before.

I've been researching the Kennedy Assassination for 53 years this month.
You? Four conspiracy books.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Once again, nobody cares what you think. You're not an expert here, and your opinions are unsolicited.

If you've got opinions you want to express, go right ahead. But don't confuse your opinions with facts.

We are waiting - rather patiently - for you to establish your opinions are facts.

Hank

I have demonstrated the location of the small head wound as being near the EOP. I have demonstrated that the official evidence doesn't have the cerebellum destroyed by a bullet deflecting through it.

 

[HSienzant]

I have demonstrated the location of the small head wound as being near the EOP. I have demonstrated that the official evidence doesn't have the cerebellum destroyed by a bullet deflecting through it.

In your opinion you have demonstrated that.

You're entitled to your own opinion.

The rest of us share a different opinion of what exactly you've established.

Now, do you want to convince the rest of us, or is convincing yourself all that is necessary?

If the latter, then I am unclear why you're posting here. If the former, you've got some work to do.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

In your opinion you have demonstrated that.

You're entitled to your own opinion.

The rest of us share a different opinion of what exactly you've established.

Now, do you want to convince the rest of us, or is convincing yourself all that is necessary?

If the latter, then I am unclear why you're posting here. If the former, you've got some work to do.

Hank

Oh well that's just your opinion, man! Come on, you gotta have better stuff than that.

 

[HSienzant]

Oh well that's just your opinion, man! Come on, you gotta have better stuff than that.

I don't need any better stuff than that.

You haven't established what you're claiming you've established, except to your own satisfaction.

Have your arguments convinced anyone else? No.

It's that simple.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I don't need any better stuff than that.

You haven't established what you're claiming you've established, except to your own satisfaction.

Have your arguments convinced anyone else? No.

It's that simple.

Hank

Sure, nobody here is going to be convinced of anything new. I didn't think that's what this post was for. This is a battle of evidence.