RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Do you know of any CTists who could add value to the discussion?
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
Do you know of any CTists who could add value to the discussion?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
No. I'm just stating what I can see based on the evidence. I have told you how to convince me otherwise, and you have not produced any actual evidence of a suitable quality to overturn that opinion.
I won't pretend to be medically qualified, but your interpretations of evidence seems lacking, and often ignores all objective evidence in favour of witnesses misremembering, and whatever you imagine things should look like.
I won't call you a liar. I will just point out why you are failing to convince anybody that your claims are in any way valid.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Can you quote HS making a claim that Darby was demented, or can you retract and apologise for this post. I can't find any post by HS that could reasonably imply such an accusation.
HSienzant
Philosopher
I see nothing in either link that NAA is not acceptable in court or that it was "debunked". Maybe I am missing it. Can you quote where it says NAA is not acceptable in court "because it was debunked", per your original claim here:
The one study you cited concerns bullet composition, but NAA is used for far more than determining bullet composition. The second link merely quotes a conspiracy theorist's argument. He's not an expert, and his views aren't admissible, although no doubt you see no reason to doubt him. Where's the claim it's no longer acceptable in court?
You suffer from CTism. That can strike at any time and renders one incapable of answering the question asked, and instead raising strawmen in the place of the original question.
We got a good look at that syndrome when Robert Harris was posting here. I would point out what the witnesses said, saying they heard the sound of a shot from a rifle and the separate sound of an impact on the head, and Robert couldn't understand my words, asking about what witnesses said anything about two shots to the head. He was struck incapable of dealing with the actual issue raised, just as you are.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10837726&postcount=53
Contributions are being accepted to fight this deadly syndrome that prevents conspiracy theorists from living a normal existence and actually responding to the point made. Mail your checks to "LOONS, PO BOX C2766, NY, NY, 10017-2766". Contributions are tax deductible.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
You might remember Robert Harris had the same issue when I pointed out the three-decade later recollection of Ellsworth of a rifle being found on the fifth floor was most likely erroneous. He would immediately leap to straw man arguments mis-framing my argument as I was saying the witness was delusional or crazy and the like.
When I pointed out that the story told in Mickey Herskowitz book about Connally hearing a bullet fall out onto the floor in the operating room was most likely not true, as Connally never testified to anything like that, and his sworn testimony is a better source than a book, Harris claimed I was calling Herskowitz a liar.
Etc. etc. They can't address the points actually made, so they immediately start to raise straw men to knock down.
And in fact, MicahJava himself cited the evidence that enables us to question Darby's ID of the fingerprint as Mac Wallace's here:
In that link (a review of Joan Mellen's book by Jim DiEugenio), we read that Joan Mellen points out that Nathan Darby was not a licensed fingerprint analyst at the time he performed his analysis, and in fact, his license had elapsed 14 years earlier. As pointed out in the review:
== quote ==
An important matter that Garrett discovered was that neither Darby nor Hoffmeister was accredited by the IAI at the time they did their work for Jay Harrison in 1998. One must renew one’s license every five years. This is done by taking education credits, continued work experience, and by passing a test. According to Garrett, who had been in charge of the IAI certification programs, Darby’s certification had expired in 1984, fourteen years before Harrison recruited him [to examine the fingerprint].
== unquote ==
I would suggest that, if the above claim is true, letting his license lapse 14 years earlier meant he was retired and he thought he would have no further need for the license, and he might have made errors in his analysis after being away from the field for 14 years. Errors that call into question Darby's specific analysis in this instance, and not the entire field of fingerprint analysis as MicahJava originally suggested here:
All MicahJava can do is mis-frame my argument as I'm saying Darby was 'demented'.
Hank
Last edited:
Micah, ISF rules frown on calling your critics liars. Please keep that in mind, and refrain. More importantly, for your own good, learn that your views are subject to disputation just like any other views.
Last edited:
Moreover, by the late 1970s Rose had been a professor of pathology at the University of Iowa for some years, so he had a great deal of expertise that qualified him for the HSCA panel.
Last edited:
If you'd like to see Robert Harris in present high gear, go to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.assassination.jfk.
What was especially noticeable about Robert (in fact, the two Roberts) in the former ISF/JREF threads was the inability, or unwillingness, to distinguish between fact and inference. Robert is convinced that what he has inferred (in the Zapruder film) to be "startle reactions" in the limo's occupants are facts. From these "facts" he posits sonic and subsonic gunshots, and we're off to the CT races. No amount of articulate skepticism, then or now, has shaken his beliefs.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
NAA is used for other sciences besides bullet lead analysis. But it's use for bullet lead analysis is like alchemy now. Please don't bother me any more with it.
What do you think Darby is? Feeble-minded because he's retired and too old? Come right out and say it, he's either too old to be competent or he's sharp as a tack. Of course, all you want is a BS diversion. Please don't bother me any more with it.
What do you think Darby is? Feeble-minded because he's retired and too old? Come right out and say it, he's either too old to be competent or he's sharp as a tack. Of course, all you want is a BS diversion. Please don't bother me any more with it.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Is it any different that Bob's previous 'high gear'?
The forum you reference, that's the moderated one maintained by John McAdams, correct?
Yeah, sounds like the same Robert we saw here.
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Okay, what about all of the experts who looked at the X-rays and saw no entry wound in the cowlick?
Including Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Meaning that the depressed cowlick fracture would just be a crack in the skull related to the large head wound.
If a projectile entered the EOP location in the scalp and skull without severely damaging the brain underneath it, it would be more challenging to identify it on the X-ray, but it could still be done if some fresh experts were to examine them, possibly enhanced with today's technology.
Last edited:
No, same high gear. And yes, it's the McAdams forum--but very unmoderated, to say the least. Frequent accusations of Nazism, wrangling about Trump and Clinton, repetitious posting amounting to spam, and so on.
Last edited:
Cut to the chase. Are you claiming two shots to JFK's head, or one shot so positioned as to be impossible for LHO to have made it?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So the round, bullet sized hole that they parted the hair to take pictures of specifically is not a bullet hole? And you have said that you agree with the autopsy results? This is representative of the CT stance?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
No, you have repeatedly claimed that "the autopsy" supports the cowlick entry theory, when in reality it doesn't. A bunch of Johnny-come-latelies claimed that the X-ray and BOH photos support that idea, but nobody who was there agrees.
HSienzant
Philosopher
And now you're changing the subject.
You originally brought up Rose as unqualified to be quoted by Bugliosi because he was the guy who never saw the body. Remember?
Now you've learned he was eminently qualified to be quoted as he was a member of the HSCA forensic pathology panel, and saw all the extant autopsy materials as a member of that panel.
So now you want to talk about every other expert and what they thought except Rose.
It's a change of subject. That's clear.
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Nothing in that sentence is accurate. Ask the autopsy doctors, they hated that cowlick crap.
- Status