1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza [sic], contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.
We can deal with your arguments this way:
Have it your way, "loud noises" vs "heard three shots". I don't see the difference, except you are changing the witness testimony. It was they, not I, that characterized the three loud noises they heard as shots. If they called it "shots", shouldn't we call it "shots"? You are back to ignoring the testimony and arguing with the witnesses perceptions, after telling us the witnesses who picked the grassy knoll as the source of ALL the shots were reliable in picking the grassy knoll as the source of SOME of the shots. Are they reliable or not? Can we trust their perceptions or not? Why are your ignoring what they said when it suits your purposes? How come you contradict your own arguments so frequently?
PREDICTION: You will ignore all the above.
The "contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired" is false. No pathologist who examined the extant autopsy evidence ever concluded there were more than three shots. This is simply an assertion by you backed by nothing except your own opinion.
You won't be able to cite any medical evidence that indicates four or more shots. NONE. You just made up that claim.
2. You don't need any shells to know that.
What part of
"Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true" did you not understand?
What do you have to say about the autopsy report, three autopsy doctors, and 6+ autopsy witnesses who all gave statements indicating that Kennedy had a small wound near the external occipital protuberance? Do you think the people who examined every corner of Kennedy's body don't know the difference between the base of the head and the top of the head?
With the occipital-blowout theory, at least you could say maybe the witnesses saw Kennedy's head at an odd angle which created a sort of optical illusion. The EOP wound concerns people who examined the body, peeled back the scalp, messed with the skull and the brain, etc.
What part of
"Despite my reposting it an additional three times, he avoided responding to the point, changing the subject, answering different questions, and attempting to deflect the conversation each time. Each time he employs these tactics, he shows he cannot answer simple questions asking him to reach reasonable conclusions" did you not understand?
You're avoiding responding to the point, deflecting, answering different questions not asked, and changing the subject once more.
In the autopsy report, and all the subsequent testimony and medical reviews, I not once came across the language that the autopsists "
messed with the skull and the brain". Is this an official conclusion, or just you exposing your lack of medical expertise, and giving us yet another reason to question the conclusions you've reached?
Now, try again. For the seventh time:
Here's now the fifth sixth seventh time I am asking MicahJava the same simple question. Remember, MicahJava, I am only looking for your most reasonable conclusion here. Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime.
Can you answer the question?
Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion.
Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy.
Just the most reasonable.
Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true:
1. 90% of the witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 minutes after the shooting.
What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here?
Hank
