JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Reheat]

You do realise very few people are going to bother with a you tube vid?
Especially 6 hours worth.

We've been over pretty much everything in this thread and its predecessors, but if you have something new (or at least something you think is new) then present away. It'll make a nice change from Micah.

Note...there was no throat entry wound.

I know how repulsive you tube video's are. But, I am not inclined to argue incessantly about his evidence. You don't want to watch is OK by me. I really don't give a ****.

I guess you have more qualifications than the Dr.'s at Parkland Hospital to recognize a bullet entry wound. Dr. Perry performed a tracheotomy in that area, but is is a massive wound in the Bethesda Hospital photos.

I am not interested in an endless diatribe on how you are smarter than the Dr's at Parkland Hospital. Either you review his evidence or refrain from further comments about it. I am simply not interested in a continuing an endless argument for some one unwilling to review substantial evidence.

 

[Tolls]

We have.
Do you know how long this thread has been running?

We have covered the tracheotomy.
We have been over why it was the way it was, from the guy that did the job.

Come on, you've been through the 9/11 rubbish. You know you can't just dump a YouTube without any attempt at putting forward the bits you find compelling.

 

[HSienzant]

It would be nice to assemble yet another panel of experts to study the medical evidence....

If the four prior panels, plus the original autopsists, aren't enough to convince you, why would anyone presume a sixth different group will have any better luck? And this point you're just looking for a better result than the one you've already received in spades. It's all well and good to seek a second opinion, but after a second, third, fourth, and fifth opinion, all confirming the original conclusions, why would you think a sixth, seventh, or eighth would render a different verdict?

Autopsy Conclusions:​

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull... it is our opinion that the deceased died of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles..."

Warren Commission Conclusions:​

"President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right-rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound."

Ramsay Clark Panel Conclusions:​

"The information disclosed by the joint examination of the foregoing exhibits by the members of The Panel supports the following conclusions; The decedent was wounded by two bullets, both of which entered his body from behind. One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above the external occipital protuberance. Based upon the observation that he was leaning forward with his head turned obliquely to the left when this bullet struck, the photographs and X-rays indicate that it came from a site above and slightly to his right."

Rockefeller Commission Conclusions:​

"The five panel members came to the unanimous conclusion that President Kennedy was struck by only two bullets, both of which were fired from the rear, including one that struck the back of the head. Three of the physicians reported that the backward and leftward motion of the President's upper body following the head shot was caused by a "violent straightening and stiffening of the entire body as a result of a seizure-like neuromuscular reaction to major damage inflicted to nerve centers in the brain."
The report added that there was "no evidence to support the claim that President Kennedy was struck by a bullet fired from either the grassy knoll or any other position to his front, right front or right side … No witness who urged the view [before the Rockefeller Commission] that the Zapruder film and other motion picture films proved that President Kennedy was struck by a bullet fired from his right front was shown to possess any professional or other special qualifications on the subject"

HSCA Conclusions:​

"The panel further concluded that the President was struck by "one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front" saying that "this second bullet caused a massive wound to the President's head upon exit." The panel concluded that there was no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head and the possibility that a bullet could have struck him, and yet left no evidence has been extremely remote."

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I guess you have more qualifications than the Dr.'s at Parkland Hospital to recognize a bullet entry wound.

Your cited medical expert (Doug Horne) is a historian by trade.

Let me paraphrase your chief complain: I am not interested in an endless diatribe on how your "medical expert" (Doug Horne) is smarter than all the pathologists who either examined the body and performed the autopsy or examined the extant autopsy materials. Either you review this evidence or refrain from further comments about it. I am simply not interested in continuing an endless argument from someone unwilling to review substantial evidence.

Maybe you can answer a simple question Horne won't touch: If JFK's wounds necessitated alterations, why didn't Connally's? And if they did, where and when were his wounds altered?

Putting it another way, why would sane conspirators try to frame a lone-nut shooting only from behind by shooting the victim from multiple locations and then have to jump through hoops to make it look like a lone nut did all the shooting? Why not just shoot the victim only from behind, with one weapon, and frame the lone-nut for owning that weapon?

Alternately, why didn't they simply reveal how Jack, the family man, was actually up to his eyeballs in mistresses? See the Profumo Affair if you're unaware of what the repercussions there can be.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

In his HSCA testimony, Richard Lipsey vividly recalled...

I see. He "vividly recalled" this fifteen years after the event, rather than just "recalled" it or "testified to his recollection that..."

Sorry, that adjective is yours, not his, and is only there to make his recollection seem more compelling.

It's still just his recollection versus the autopsy report prepared that weekend and all the extant autopsy materials.

Lipsey spoke recently about how many of the details of that day were fuzzy back in the '60s and '70s...

https://www.225batonrouge.com/commu...lls-present-president-john-f-kennedys-autopsy

So, do the details stick with you forever, too? For example, what the room looked like and what he looked like?
Not at first, because the first 15 years after I witnessed the autopsy, I was sworn to secrecy under the National Secrets Act and the State Department. I wasn’t able to speak about it for all that time. Everything doesn’t come back to you immediately. But, after a while, I could picture the room, picture what I saw and what I heard. Sure, there’s still fuzzy memories of a few things, but picturing that body lying there is something emblazoned in my memory.

Anyone who knows anything about memory knows those recollections he 'regained' after the fuzziness cleared up are most likely false memories.

Not matter how "vividly" you want to insist it's otherwise.

Oh, and there's this from the same interview:
But, just having been at the autopsy, there’s no question in my mind that there was a lone shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald. I don’t give too much credence to any conspiracy theories.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

We have the Belmont FBI memo, contemporary to the time of the autopsy, which casually mentions a bullet "lodged behind the President's ear": https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=707

Covered that months ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11529020&postcount=1825
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11532367&postcount=1857

It's still hearsay. Belmont wasn't at the autopsy, and he's just repeating something he heard or thought he heard. It's still worthless, it's still not evidence.

Hank

 

[traxy]

I guess you have more qualifications than the Dr.'s at Parkland Hospital to recognize a bullet entry wound. Dr. Perry performed a tracheotomy in that area, but is is a massive wound in the Bethesda Hospital photos.

I am not interested in an endless diatribe on how you are smarter than the Dr's at Parkland Hospital. Either you review his evidence or refrain from further comments about it. I am simply not interested in a continuing an endless argument for some one unwilling to review substantial evidence.

The Parkland doctors don't make the most reliable witnesses believe it or not. They spent a hectic 30 minutes with Kennedy trying to save his life, far less than the hours the autopsy team got.

Their comments on the nature of the headwound are a prime example. Conspiracy believers love to quote the Parkland doctors at length insisting there was a massive rear exit wound, but they don't dig any further into things those same doctors said years later where they fully admit to being in poor positions to see the extent of the damage, that the condition of the head was so decimated that determining where entry and exit wounds were was nearly impossible, and that no one on the Parkland team actually inspected the headwound.

 

[Axxman300]

I'll post this one from the 6th Floor Museum again where the two doctors disagree with each other about the head wound:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo&t=1390s

Both men stood side by side at the end of the table above JFK's head, saw the same thing, and still draw different conclusions. This video underlines the complexity of opinion, and watching the entire thing it also shows that doctors are susceptible to conspiracy thinking (they're human too).

 

[traxy]

I'll post this one from the 6th Floor Museum again where the two doctors disagree with each other about the head wound:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo&t=1390s

Both men stood side by side at the end of the table above JFK's head, saw the same thing, and still draw different conclusions. This video underlines the complexity of opinion, and watching the entire thing it also shows that doctors are susceptible to conspiracy thinking (they're human too).

JFKs head was an unmitigated disaster the second the bullet hit. Imagine how bad it looked by the time he got into the Parkland emergency room. I honestly don't think it would have been remotely possible to draw any conclusions from the Parkland doctors.

 

[MicahJava]

Not according to what you quoted:

1977 HSCA interview report:
...DR. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and if it had been done, it might be able to prove whether or not there were two bullets. DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes of the possibility of there having been two.

Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA:
Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated.

Hank

I posted the entirety of the material indicating Burkley's dissatisfaction with the official story. When asked "Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?", he replied "I would not care to be quoted on that", so we already know something's up. Then there was that whole thing where his family suddenly decided they weren't going to give Burkley's personal materials on the JFK case to the ARRB.

Of course, you already realize that having the entry wound where the autopsy put it must mean two shots to the head because there wasn't enough damage to the back of the brain.

You have people like Lipsey remembering the doctors referring to the entry wound in the head as an "upper neck" wound, Francis X. O'Neill remembering them feeling "the bullet entered the center, low portion of the head", Chester H. Boyers recalling much of the same, the wound situated near the external occipital protuberance.

And how did Dr. Finck even see the entry wound if skull fragments were removed from that area to get to the brain? That is correct, right? Here's Dr. Boswell's recollection to the ARRB of how large the skull was opened (I'm not sure if the opening could be any smaller and still be adequate to remove the brain):

Come on Hank, isn't it obvious that the wound they're all talking about wasn't high above the ears?

 

[MicahJava]

We have.
Do you know how long this thread has been running?

We have covered the tracheotomy.
We have been over why it was the way it was, from the guy that did the job.

Come on, you've been through the 9/11 rubbish. You know you can't just dump a YouTube without any attempt at putting forward the bits you find compelling.

I brought up Hank's idea of the throat alteration theory being a matter of misinterpretation to David Lifton himself on the London Education Forum, and he replied with some information I've never heard of before:

Micah:

There's important missing history of which you are unaware, and which establishes that Dr. Perry's quote (from the 1990's JAMA article) can be set aside (to put it mildly).

What I will now set forth concerns what happened when Robert Groden and a reporter from a Baltimore newspaper visited Dr. Perry in his office in New York City (in the period 1977-78) when Groden was on the staff of the HSCA, and had access to certain prints of the autopsy photos.

Let's begin with my filmed interview of Robert Groden, conducted at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey in June or July of 1989, a two-night multihour interview. This interview was filmed, professionally, and Pat Valentino was present, and in charge of the sound.

When we interviewed Robert Groden at that time, Robert described, in detail, what happened when he (and a Baltimore news reporter) visited Dr. Malcolm Perry at his New York City office (Perry was then practicing medicine in NYC). Robert Groden was then employed on the staff of the HSCA; and he went to see Perry in New York, the main purpose being get his reaction to see the "stare of death" photo.

Groden showed Dr. Perry the photo--the first time Perry had ever seen it--and Perry shook his head from side to side, and said, referring to the trach incision he had made: "I left the wound inviolate." Let me repeat what Perry said: "I left the wound inviolate."

Now. . .what did he mean by "inviolate"? And how could that be, since he had testified he made his incision through the wound?

Perry was referring to the fact that--based on his unvarnished memory--he had made the incision below the wound. (FYI: This is what Perry had told writer Jimmy Breslin on 11/22/63, and which Breslin then published in the detailed article he wrote, and which was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63. FYI: that identical interview was then published (again) in the Saturday Evening Post in early December, 1963 (referring now to the article titled "Death in Emergency Room One" --from memory).

Now let's turn to the word "inviolate" and set aside whether this was the first time he had used that word, in connection with describing the throat wound, and how he believed he had left it.

When Robert related this, I turned to Pat Valentino and said, "Oh no, Perry is wrong. The transcript from his 1966 CBS interview says "invalid", so Perry must be mistaken". (And in fact, the official CBS transcript does in fact use the word "invalid").

But then came this stunner. Groden happened to have, right there in his residence, an excellent copy of that 1966 CBS interview, and so he played t for us. Naturally, I expected to hear Perry say (just as the transcript quoted him as having said) "invalid."

But no, that's not what Perry said. Perry clearly said "inviolate" !

What the heck? Had the transcript been fiddled with? (You betcha!)

Pat and I both rose up out of our chairs, astonished. (Groden didn't understand our reaction, because--in the interest of an unbiased interview--we hadn't (yet) told him any of this backstory.

But there it was, right there on the screen: Perry had said "I left the wound inviolate" (on screen); and he had told Groden (and the accompanying reporter, at his NYC office), the same thing; he said that he had left the wound "inviolate."

Following this, Pat and I then brought Groden completely up-to-date, filling him in on these details, and we did all of this "on camera," to get his reaction as we talked, and we then interviewed him further about his experiences in New York City, and at Perry's office--all about his certainty that yes, there was no doubt about itL in his New York City office, and while looking at the autopsy photo, Perry had said "inviolate." It was a wonderful filmed interview at a time when I had few of the problems with Groden, that later bloomed (and are described in Pig on a Leash, 2003).

Now, here's some additional follow-up:

ITEM #1: Pat and I (and Groden) --the very next day--then went to a Philadelphia audio lab, with Groden's excellent copy of the filmed interview, and did some precise slowed-up copying to see if we could detect how the world "inviolate" had become "invalid." All I can say is that there was plenty of circumstantial audio evidence of digital hanky-panky. (That work should be repeated, with today's better digitial technology).

ITEM #2: Upon returning to Los Angeles, I located the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden to Perry's NYC office, and spoke with him by phone. He confirmed that Perry had shook his head from side to side, and made clear that the photograph he was looking was not the way he had left the wound.

ITEM #3: Dr. Perry, in a 1988 interview with PBS, tried to demean, and make fun of, me, and the conversation he had had with me in October 1966. Sorry, but that won't work: On October 27, 1966, he told me that the wound was "2-3 cm." And I wrote it down as he said it.

ITEM $4: I deeply regret, after all of this, having to state that I completely forgot to develop this into a "research package" and send it to Jeremy Gunn on the ARRB. At the time, I was working very closely with the ARRB, and with Doug Horne, speaking to Horne multiple times per week (and recording all of our conversations, with full permission) and speaking with Gunn, too. I just plain forget about what happened six years before, in 1989. But this would have been a perfect example of using the ARRB's subpoena powers to "clarify the record", which was their mandate. Perry should have been put under oath, and --on this subject--depositions should have been taken from both Groden, and the Baltimore reporter. To round out the record, I would have been glad to contribute the 1989 filmed interview with Groden, in which he related, in vivid terms, Perry's reaction to first seeing the "stare of death" autopsy photo, and his saying: "I left the wound inviolate."

ITEM #5: My personal opinion of Dr. Perry: he lied. Its as simple as that. Sure, he told the truth on 11/22/63, and yes, he complained about being badgered about changing his opionion, etc. ; but there was no need for all of that in 1967. A man of integrity would have told the truth. Instead, we have the record of Dr. Perry not only going along with an altered transcript; but then, decades later (and you can find this on the Internet) telling he doctors with whom he worked, in Seattle, (and after swearing this one and that one to secrecy), that of course the wound at the front of the throat was an entry.

* * *

Micah: I hope you now realize that what Dr. Perry said, in a 1990s JAMA article, should be viewed skeptically, to say the least; and in my personal opinion, it is basically worthless.

DSL

2/10/2017 - 6:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

 

[MicahJava]

I know how repulsive you tube video's are. But, I am not inclined to argue incessantly about his evidence. You don't want to watch is OK by me. I really don't give a ****.

I guess you have more qualifications than the Dr.'s at Parkland Hospital to recognize a bullet entry wound. Dr. Perry performed a tracheotomy in that area, but is is a massive wound in the Bethesda Hospital photos.

I am not interested in an endless diatribe on how you are smarter than the Dr's at Parkland Hospital. Either you review his evidence or refrain from further comments about it. I am simply not interested in a continuing an endless argument for some one unwilling to review substantial evidence.

Reheat, my main question about the rear blow-out theory is this: If the wound was on the top of the head, and Kennedy was laying down while his head was tilted back, wouldn't this create an optical illusion that made the wound look like it was behind the ear?

 

[HSienzant]

I posted the entirety of the material indicating Burkley's dissatisfaction with the official story.

No, you posted your interpretations of the materials indicating your perception of Burkley's supposed dissatisfaction.

When asked "Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?", he replied "I would not care to be quoted on that", so we already know something's up.

Again, Burkley said nothing against the official story in the one-liner you quote, so you're reduced to telling us how you interpret his reticence to speak. A different interpretation was already offered ("Being misquoted by conspiracy nuts is a possible reason for that"), but you ignored it and don't tell us why your interpretation should take precedence.

Then there was that whole thing where his family suddenly decided they weren't going to give Burkley's personal materials on the JFK case to the ARRB.

Maybe his family decided to hold onto that stuff and put it up for sale at some point in the future? Treating us to your suppositions about why someone did this or didn't say that still doesn't rise to the level of evidence anywhere on this planet.

Of course, you already realize that having the entry wound where the autopsy put it must mean two shots to the head because there wasn't enough damage to the back of the brain.

Please don't tell me what you think I realize, and I will refrain from doing likewise.

You have people like Lipsey remembering the doctors referring to the entry wound in the head as an "upper neck" wound...

Already discussed. He admitted he forgot almost everything in the fifteen years after the assassination, then 'recovered' those memories. That is nonsense, as I pointed out. More than likely, his 'recovered' memories are simply false memories.

Francis X. O'Neill remembering them ... feeling "the bullet entered the center, low portion of the head"

Not precise enough to show a conflict with the autopsy conclusions.

Chester H. Boyers recalling much of the same, the wound situated near the external occipital protuberance.

Actually, Boyers remembers something pretty much identical to the autopsy conclusion: "In regard to the wounds Boyers recalls an entrance wound in the rear of the head to the right of the external occipital protuberance which exited along the top, right side of the head towards the rear and just above the right eyebrow." That doesn't call the location as specified in the autopsy into question whatsoever.

I do remind you that the x-rays and photographs of the body were taken to show these wounds. We need not rely on recollections from 15 or 35 years afgter the event. We should NOT rely on recollections from 15 or 35 years afgter the event. But that is exactly what you do.

And how did Dr. Finck even see the entry wound if skull fragments were removed from that area to get to the brain? That is correct, right?

If you're seeing a conflict between the procedures performed and the recollections from 33-years after the fact of the wound location and size, may I be so bold as to point out the problem may be your over-reliance on the 33-year after the fact recollection?

Here's Dr. Boswell's recollection to the ARRB of how large the skull was opened:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Avlny7j.jpg[/qimg]

Come on Hank, isn't it obvious that the entry they're all talking about wasn't high above the ears?

It's obvious only that your over-reliance on recollections from a third of a century after the assassination is what's wrong with your arguments. These recollections will never rise to the level of evidence.

But that's really all you got, isn't it?

As I pointed out previously, on multiple occasions, and you ignored each time:

As Professor John McAdams noted here,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
(and as I pointed out to you previously):

The contradictions that litter the testimony caused Dr. Jeremy Gunn, Executive Director and General Counsel of the ARRB to conclude the following in a speech at Stanford:

The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony.
I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable.

Likewise, the Final Report of the ARRB stressed the problems with witness testimony:

The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.

What part of 'profoundly unreliable' did you not understand previously?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

If you have any evidence that Henry Hurt or Michael L. Kurtz are "conspiracy nuts" who misquote people left and right, please provide it here. Until then, I'll tend to think they were telling the truth when they said Burkley told them he believed in a conspiracy. Dr. Burkley apparently told a family member once that he thought Oswald had outsider help, but it is clear otherwise that Burkley thought it was a conspiracy because of the medical evidence he saw.

You talk about 15 years this, 30 years that, it's all because the original records and testimonies aren't good enough for you.

I don't know if you saw my edit, but I ask again, how could Dr. Finck see this hypothetical cowlick entry wound if that part of the skull was removed to get to the brain?

 

[Reheat]

Reheat, my main question about the rear blow-out theory is this: If the wound was on the top of the head, and Kennedy was laying down while his head was tilted back, wouldn't this create an optical illusion that made the wound look like it was behind the ear?

According to all of the convincing evidence I've seen the wound was not to the top of Kennedy's heard. It was in the right rear as evidence by all of the 22 Nov testimony. That includes the Dr's at Parkland and Clint Hill, perhaps others, as well. The stuff at the top of his head was done by pathologists at Bethesda during the removal of the brain prior to the autopsy.

I am no longer interested in participating in this thread. There are simply too many here that seem to think they know everything there is to know and who's opinions are more valid than anyone else. That simply results in continued bickering.

A good example is someone telling me that Horne was not a Dr., as if I didn't know that already. I never claimed he was and as far as I know, he never claimed that either. He merely spent several years reviewing the available documents, photos, x-rays etc and interviewing hundreds if not thousands of people with first hand knowledge of the events they were questioned about.

His account and conclusions make more sense to me than anything else I've reviewed over the years. Bye.

 

[traxy]

The massive rear exit wound is a myth. No basis at all in fact. It's contradicted by the Zapruder film, the Nix film, the Muchmore film, the Moorman Polaroid, the autopsy report, the autopsy photographs and the autopsy x-rays.

 

[Axxman300]

JFKs head was an unmitigated disaster the second the bullet hit. Imagine how bad it looked by the time he got into the Parkland emergency room. I honestly don't think it would have been remotely possible to draw any conclusions from the Parkland doctors.

This is true, and the video addresses this. It's a great illustration of the confusion in the room that day.

Parkland was handling 1,200 GSWs a year, so it's not like the doctors were clueless on the subject, but they did not perform forensics, they were trying to save the President....huge difference...

 

[traxy]

This is true, and the video addresses this. It's a great illustration of the confusion in the room that day.

Parkland was handling 1,200 GSWs a year, so it's not like the doctors were clueless on the subject, but they did not perform forensics, they were trying to save the President....huge difference...

I always go back to the gruesome autopsy photo of the top of Kennedy's head taken from the front of the table his body is lying on. Take that disaster and multiply it by 10 fold and you'll have an idea of what the Parkland doctors got a look at when he was only 10 minutes removed from being shot and still bleeding all over the place. No way can you accurately make heads or tails out of the damage in that photo.

 

[Reheat]

Parkland was handling 1,200 GSWs a year, so it's not like the doctors were clueless on the subject

Very good point.

I always go back to the gruesome autopsy photo of the top of Kennedy's head taken from the front of the table his body is lying on. Take that disaster and multiply it by 10 fold and you'll have an idea of what the Parkland doctors got a look at when he was only 10 minutes removed from being shot and still bleeding all over the place. No way can you accurately make heads or tails out of the damage in that photo.

You are confusing what the pathologists did in removing the brain versus a gunshot wound. As has been pointed out, huge difference.

Horne proves the autopsy photos were manipulated with plenty of evidence and not to be trusted. Plus, several of the photos taken are missing. I'm not about to print all of that information. His information is all in the video I recommended. He is not your typical conspiracy kook. Bye.

 

[Tolls]

I am no longer interested in participating in this thread. There are simply too many here that seem to think they know everything there is to know and who's opinions are more valid than anyone else. That simply results in continued bickering.

Can you not see how this could be placed in the "mouth" of a truther?

You were never interested in participating...