Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
Can you quote the part you think helps you?
Click to expand...

So what you're asking is for me to re-post a link that you didn't bother to read in the first place, and then re-posted yourself a few pages back?

Sorry, this is the big leagues, and you're the one trying to prove the ridiculous, not me. I took the time to hunt through all kinds of CT BS to find it, and I posted it after I read the entire thing.

Research means reading a lot.
 
MicahJava said:
Since we've established the validity of my question "How did Dr. Finck see the entry hole in the intact skull after the brain had already been removed", I must remind everyone who still thinks the wound was high in the cowlick area to answer that in a way that isn't completely stupid, otherwise any reasonable person must revert to the original lower EOP location for the entry in the back of the head.
Click to expand...

rQee0vV.gif
Still no adequate refutation of this issue.
rQee0vV.gif
 
MicahJava said:
Nope, doesn't answer anything. Just read the repeated statements of Finck and everyone else. No premise of my question has ever been successfully challenged. So the question stands.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. You don't get one free fringe reset just because you didn't like the evidence the first time around.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Been there, done that. You don't get one free fringe reset just because you didn't like the evidence the first time around.

Hank
Click to expand...

Don't you remember? You had some kind of misunderstanding with the 60's statements of Finck, and 70's Finck came along and cleared everything up once and for all.
 
MicahJava said:
Don't you remember? You had some kind of misunderstanding with the 60's statements of Finck, and 70's Finck came along and cleared everything up once and for all.
Click to expand...

I remember you claiming the wound of entry on the back of the skull at the supposed level of the "cowlick" had to be cut away from the skull to faciliate the removal of the brain; which, according to you, contradicts the testimony of Finck that he entered the autopsy room after the brain had been removed, yet saw the wound of entry on the skull.

You claimed that here:
MicahJava said:
Addendum: And the devoid cowlick area on the X-rays identified by the HSCA as an entry wound would also have been separated from the skull in order to remove the brain, which would flatly contradict Dr. Finck's repeated statements that he could see the unaffected crater in the intact skull after the autopsy doctors had already removed the brain.
Click to expand...

I remember you also citing the 1965 statement of Finck, and telling everyone that was the evidence the skull had to be sawed open to remove the brain.

You claimed that here:
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...

After that, you saw that blow up in your face and ran away from that evidence as quickly as you could, because I quoted Finck and Humes saying the precise opposite. Now you're claiming Finck's 1978 statements - where he said "I don't recall" and the like a dozen times or more - are the key statements, and the 1965 statements should be disregarded or I am interpreting them incorrectly.

We covered your argument extensively the first time around. No free fringe reset just because you didn't like the evidence the first time around. Review these posts and see how your arguments amounted to nothing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876302&postcount=352

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876344&postcount=357

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876465&postcount=384

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876503&postcount=387

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876525&postcount=390

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876604&postcount=394

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11877009&postcount=408

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11878226&postcount=421

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11887600&postcount=556

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11888102&postcount=560

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11888746&postcount=583

All the best,

Hank
 
Last edited:
Nope.

I have no problem with the autopsy, more to the point - since there are not enough photographs available to the public there is no way to dispute the report.

There was only one bullet wound to the head, and there is no reasonable doubt about where it came from. :thumbsup:
 
HSienzant said:
I remember you citing the 1965 statement of Finck, and telling everyone that was the evidence, then you saw that blow up in your face and ran away from that evidence as quickly as you could. Now you're claiming Finck's 1978 statements - where he said "I don't recall" and the like a dozen times or more.

We covered your argument extensively. No free fringe reset just because you didn't like the evidence the first time around. Review these posts and see how your arguments amounted to nothing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876302&postcount=352

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876344&postcount=357

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876465&postcount=384

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876503&postcount=387

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876525&postcount=390

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876604&postcount=394

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11877009&postcount=408

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11878226&postcount=421

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11887600&postcount=556

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11888102&postcount=560

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11888746&postcount=583

All the best,

Hank
Click to expand...

I don't need to click your obsessively catalogued links, I have a decent enough memory. Everything you have ever tried saying to answer my question has been debunked. May as well be trolling.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't need to click your obsessively catalogued links, I have a decent enough memory. Everything you have ever tried saying to answer my question has been debunked. May as well be trolling.
Click to expand...

Debunked...okay...so you ask us for proof, we provide you proof, you refuse to read what we post, and you end up back where you started.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't need want to be reminded so I won't to click your obsessively catalogued links, I have a decent enough memory. Everything you I have ever tried saying to answer my question your evidence has been debunked. May as well be trolling.
Click to expand...

FTFY

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I don't need to click your obsessively catalogued links, I have a decent enough memory. Everything you have ever tried saying to answer my question has been debunked. May as well be trolling.
Click to expand...

Declaring victory after getting trounced by the evidence isn't a new tactic among conspiracy theorists. Your approach is amusing but not surprising. This isn't my first rodeo. I've been debating the JFK assassination since the early 1990's - starting with Prodigy. I've seen this before.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
He wants a free fringe reset so we go around in circles and eventually tire of refuting him.

Hank
Click to expand...

You've had your say, Potion Seller, but I'll have mine. You're a rascal. You're a rascal with no respect for knights. No respect anything, except your potions!
 
HSienzant said:
Declaring victory after getting trounced by the evidence isn't a new tactic among conspiracy theorists. Your approach is amusing but not surprising. This isn't my first rodeo. I've been debating the JFK assassination since the early 1990's - starting with Prodigy. I've seen this before.

Hank
Click to expand...

In no universe have you had a victory on the EOP wound subject.
 
HSienzant said:
Now you're claiming Finck's 1978 statements - where he said "I don't recall" and the like a dozen times or more - are the key statements . . . .
Click to expand...

Typical CT selectivity. They also cite Buell Frazier's WC testimony to claim that the bag found in the TSBD couldn't have been the one Oswald had in the car that morning, despite Frazier's Guinness Book world record for the number of times a person can say, "I didn't really pay much attention."
 
MicahJava said:
You've had your say, Potion Seller, but I'll have mine. You're a rascal. You're a rascal with no respect for knights. No respect anything, except your potions!
Click to expand...

And in your universe, I'm a rascal with no respect for knights, and you're the knight going into battle and you come armed with a water balloon?

Hilarious.

And you want my strongest potion? It's called evidence.

And you can't handle it.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom