Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
Do you not believe Finck when he says he examined the entry wound in the empty cranium?
Click to expand...

Do you believe Fink when he says he examined the entry wound in the empty cranium?

Why/why not?

Cite information that he could/could not observe and what properties of the cranium condition do you believe or not believe? And why/why not?
 
Axxman300 said:
Because you ignore a mountain of counter testimony.

Because you cherry-pick statements often without understanding what they mean.

Because you refuse to acknowledge human nature in any form, the idea that nobody's perfect, the idea that professionals often disagree, that people misremember things, and that many people will say anything to get their name in the papers/on TV/in a book.

Because you assume a cover-up without solid evidence.

Because you don't read anything that runs counter to CT. Example: The brain's removal has been clarified in a couple of links posted at least twice, yet you continue to be baffled,and this means that you either didn't read it, or that you didn't grasp the information.
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
Do you not believe Finck when he says he examined the entry wound in the empty cranium?
Click to expand...

And no, nothing about the removal of the brain from the perspective of the cowlick entry theory has been "clarified" from any of you.
 
abaddon said:
Didn't seem to trouble the Egyptians.
Click to expand...

When the Egyptions removed a human's brain through the NOSE, it didn't come out looking like this.

EK7QCLM.jpg
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The Egyptions took the brain out little pieces you could fit through the nose.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but no... The method you are thinking of is the one with the hook? We know they put the hook in and stirred until the brain poured out of its own volition.

Back on topic:

Quotes you already posted suggested that only cutting the skin and lifting bone away was required for removing JFK's brain.

Any suggestion this was not possible is from your own, flawed, interpretation.

Further more, the brain damage you are saying HAD to be observed, is better explained by trauma from the real entry wound (that you dismiss as a cowlick).
 
MicahJava said:
When the Egyptions removed a human's brain through the NOSE, it didn't come out looking like this.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/EK7QCLM.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Although you didn't mention it, I will, as this is a drawing, not a picture of the brain. From what I read, it was composed after viewing the skull X-rays and images of the president prior to the head wound. Why do you believe that this represents how the brain looked after removal?
 
MicahJava said:
I probably couldn't properly remove a brain, but this is a simpler issue that involves common sense.
Click to expand...

Have you ever handled a human brain shortly after the death of the human? Do you have any kind of feel for how malleable it is, how much it can be deformed without rupturing the tissues, how much it can be squashed through a hole smaller than its normal cross-section? I sure as hell haven't, and don't. Common sense isn't very helpful in dealing with things you haven't sensed, and one of the pitfalls of lack of experience in a subject is that you don't know which bits are obvious and which bits aren't. So your uninformed opinion is worthless, mainly because, being uninformed, you're not even in a position to judge how much of it is uninformed.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Have you ever handled a human brain shortly after the death of the human? Do you have any kind of feel for how malleable it is, how much it can be deformed without rupturing the tissues, how much it can be squashed through a hole smaller than its normal cross-section? I sure as hell haven't, and don't. Common sense isn't very helpful in dealing with things you haven't sensed, and one of the pitfalls of lack of experience in a subject is that you don't know which bits are obvious and which bits aren't. So your uninformed opinion is worthless, mainly because, being uninformed, you're not even in a position to judge how much of it is uninformed.

Dave
Click to expand...

Here is a video showing the consistency of a human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY

So no, it can't squeeze through the 5-inch defect shown in the Ida Dox drawings.
 
bknight said:
Although you didn't mention it, I will, as this is a drawing, not a picture of the brain. From what I read, it was composed after viewing the skull X-rays and images of the president prior to the head wound. Why do you believe that this represents how the brain looked after removal?
Click to expand...

What? That's a sketch made by tracing one of the official brain photographs.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Can you give some more examples of you using your opinion as evidence?
Click to expand...
MicahJava said:
So no, it can't squeeze through the 5-inch defect shown in the Ida Dox drawings.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's another good one where you are an uninformed lay person with no knowledge applicable to topics where you want to apply your uninformed opinions.

Keep 'em coming!
 
MicahJava said:
Here is a video showing the consistency of a human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY

So no, it can't squeeze through the 5-inch defect shown in the Ida Dox drawings.
Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting tactic, MJ- when someone says a common-sense opinion is no substitute for an informed one (in an area requiring experience and expertise), respond by pretending a YouTube video will take up the slack.
 
MicahJava said:
Here is a video showing the consistency of a human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY

So no, it can't squeeze through the 5-inch defect shown in the Ida Dox drawings.
Click to expand...

Straw man. Nobody here (or at the autopsy, even) ever said it was removed through a five-inch hole.

Do you remember what WAS said? Can you summarize it, or better yet, quote it, and try to rebut the actual words of Finck and Humes? Or do those words not count because those words are now on a different page and we have to start all over?

Do CTs do a great imitation of Dustin Hoffman in that movie he made with Tom Cruise, or what?

Hank
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
What conclusion would CTists accept if there were a review of the autopsy materials? CTists often make calls for a "new investigation" of their favorite CT. What conclusion would you accept?
Click to expand...

In my experience with CTists (some of it directly from having once been one), the only conclusion they would accept is no conclusion at all; as JayUtah says, to prolong the discussion, not resolve the question it's about, is the real aim. It's why they hang like grim death to the (discredited) audio evidence presented to the HSCA in 1978- even though the ultimate conclusion then was still that LHO fired all the shots that killed JFK and wounded Connally, the (unjustified) possibility of another shooter is the fog they're looking for, never mind that it doesn't go anywhere and that there is no other evidence to support that scenario. It's also why they shy away from the concept of consilience- they have no intention of acknowledging a standard of reasonable expectations from available evidence they know they can't meet (all the while demanding the "official story" live up to a standard of impossible perfection).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom