Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[BStrong]

BStrong, I don't need your help proving the brain removal problem, I need your help DISproving it!

In post #335

"You refuse to consider the established evidence as a whole to focus on one narrow and impossible to clarify piece of speculation that neither one of us has any professional expertise or professional experience in - I've seen a bunch of GSW's to the head. That doesn't make me an expert."

Why would you look to me for answers in a field where I have no expertise, and have clearly stated that I have no expertise while completely ignoring the material I post regarding the piece of this issue where I clearly do have professional expertise?

 

[BStrong]

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/november-22-1963-10584

Thank you! That's the one.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Okay, if you think the entry hole was in the cowlick 4 inches above the EOP, how did they remove the brain without separating that part of the skull?

What did the autopsy results say? You've said before that you agree with the autopsy. Were you simply mistaken or did your one CT website tell you to say that?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Okay, if you think the entry hole was in the cowlick 4 inches above the EOP, how did they remove the brain without separating that part of the skull?

With a saw.

 

[MicahJava]

With a saw.

The doctors had to do very little work with a saw to separate enough of the skull to facilitate removal of the brain. The area of the skull surrounding the large defect was so brittle that pieces just naturally broke off. The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays was right beside the large defect, so it almost certainly was among the pieces that easily came off.

And for the life of me, I cannot think of a way you could enlarge the skull cavity enough without also separating the area with the depressed cowlick fracture.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The doctors had to do very little work with a saw to separate enough of the skull to facilitate removal of the brain. The area of the skull surrounding the large defect was so brittle that pieces just naturally broke off. The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays was right beside the large defect, so it almost certainly was among the pieces that easily came off.

And for the life of me, I cannot think of a way you could enlarge the skull cavity enough without also separating the area with the depressed cowlick fracture.

What does the autopsy say?

 

[Axxman300]

What does the autopsy say?

I posted a link late in the other thread wherein Dr Humes discussed how the brain was removed along with just about everything else related to the autopsy. This interview was conducted by a CT-based group, and was hostile to him, and he responded to every answer to the best of his recollection.

MJ didn't bother to read either the pages where the brain being removed was discussed (spoiler: they used the bone saw like they always do), and he didn't read the entire line of questioning.

This is typical with him.

"I want answers!"

Someone posts an answer with a link.

"I want other answers, ones that I agree with."

 

[HSienzant]

And for the life of me, I cannot think of a way you could enlarge the skull cavity enough without also separating the area with the depressed cowlick fracture.

There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

Hank

 

[CORed]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/hzrXmvD.gif[/qimg]Several pages in across two different threads and still no actual rebuttal of this issue.[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/hzrXmvD.gif[/qimg]

Black Knight syndrome at its finest. You have presented extremely weak evidence, and other posters have ripped it to shreds. You are looking at your severed arm, saying "It's only a flesh would".

 

[BStrong]

There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

Hank

I know, and I'm willing to bet that he knows, but honesty is not in him.

I'm waiting for an explanation of why he needs my opinion on something I flatly state I'm not qualified to comment on, while ignoring my contributions in the subject matter that is in my field.

 

[HSienzant]

The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain.

According to whom? You?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Don't get scared of big words like "skull" and "brain".

Ad hominem.

The area of skull around the large defect was very brittle and fractured so easily that the doctors had to do "virtually do no work with a saw" to remove the pieces of bone.

Exactly. So why do you think they had to do anything near the entry wound specifically?

The depressed cowlick fracture was right beside the lower parietal area of the large defect, of course it would have to be separated in the process of removing the brain.

Of course you can cite something besides your own opinion for this?

This is also a simple matter of volume. How much wiggle room do you think an unfixed brain has?

Tell us. This is your argument. You should be prepared to argue specifics. Anything less is just the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

You remove a human brain, you need to create a big enough opening on the top of the head. It definitely couldn't happen while also keeping the HSCA beveled exit location intact.

Again, according to whom? You?

[Per Finck: "The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."

Tell us what Finck and Humes meant by "he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."

Do you understand what that says? Tell us in your own words.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

I doubt MJ will accept your challenge, Hank, so I'll just note that there are several problems with MJ's statement relating to logic and argumentation.

First, there is the argument from personal incredulity. "I can't believe they did it (or didn't do it) this way. Therefore, they didn't (or did)."

Then there is an implied "If I ran the Zoo" fallacy. "My instincts tell me that X is the way things should be done in this highly technical area. Therefore, things were (or were not) done that way. If they weren't, then the experts deviated from correct procedure."

There is also, of course, a complete lack of foundation laid for MJ's claim to being able to discuss areas of medical science and forensics. This is part of a larger problem of lack of demonstrated qualifications which MJ has never confronted, despite requests to do so. Yesterday it was 3D computer animation and graphics.

And there is embedded question-begging and implied burden-shifting, and probably more, if all the unpacking were worth the candle.

MJ may respond "Blah blah blah," as he has done before. What he doesn't, or won't, get is that observance of logical proprieties is vital to sound argument and effective persuasion. This has been recognized for millennia. But, as with other areas, CTs regard their relationship to logic as optional and dispensable. They are argumentative freelancers on a mission from God, or in pursuit of truth or the defeat of evil, or something.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs.

Absolutely I understand that. Remember that Stringer told one story to Lifton in the 1970's about where the large wound was and another to the ARRB 24 years later about that same wound. He moved the location from the back of the head in 1972 to the top-right of the head in 1976. What's that tell you>

It tells me his recollections are not trustworthy. And this is - by your own admission - "some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs".

Untrustworthy recollections is some of your best evidence.

How do you spell toast? I spell it M-I-C-A-H J-A-V-A.

And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.

What part of "Untrustworthy recollections" do you fail to grasp?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You know the ineptitude is getting bad when you wish Hank was back.

I think it was Vonnegut who first opined, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."



Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And have you forgotten how I pointed out that the area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture would've just naturally separated because of how brittle the area around the original large defect was? And how you couldn't remove the brain without first removing that area of the skull?

We haven't forgotten you said that. We haven't forgotten that you never sourced that to any expert opinion either. Last I recall, you were still an uneducated laymen with no medical expertise telling us what you thought.
And we all properly discounted your opinion.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Quote without comment:

Since this photograph was taken after the brain had already been removed, that would mean they somehow took out his entire brain through a skull cavity not much bigger than this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/XGu6qby.jpg[/qimg]

How did they do that?

The areas of the skull around the original large head wound were so brittle, they easily separated into fragments. You also have to have a big enough skull cavity to facilitate the removal of the brain.

[quoting Finck]: "The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I posted a link late in the other thread wherein Dr Humes discussed how the brain was removed along with just about everything else related to the autopsy. This interview was conducted by a CT-based group, and was hostile to him, and he responded to every answer to the best of his recollection.

MJ didn't bother to read either the pages where the brain being removed was discussed (spoiler: they used the bone saw like they always do), and he didn't read the entire line of questioning.

This is typical with him.

"I want answers!"

Someone posts an answer with a link.

"I want other answers, ones that I agree with."

What in Humes' ARRB testimony settles this problem? He only reaffirmed the same exact points which make the brain removal problem a problem to begin with.

 

[MicahJava]

Black Knight syndrome at its finest. You have presented extremely weak evidence, and other posters have ripped it to shreds. You are looking at your severed arm, saying "It's only a flesh would".

A fresh face! What exactly in this thread settles the brain removal problem?

 

[MicahJava]

There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

Hank

Argument from what's your suggestion to the contrary?