In article <4f9eb93f.922640
...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>On 30 Apr 2012 12:06:14 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>>In article <tf0sp75cong6l4qiuh4a7b4e08ff8ja...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>On 27 Apr 2012 17:03:07 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>That you can derive the mass of a 3-d object from it's 2 dimensional
>>>>representation: "And "bigger" to sensible people means mass, not a larger
>>>>cross section in one view."
>>>You, Ben, are asserting that the fragment in the cowlick area is the
>>>"largest" based on the AP x-rays only.
>>Yep... and despite your denials, in the AP X-ray, it's the LARGEST foreign
>>object seen.
>>That's simply a fact.
>But it's not the largest object in three dimensional reality.
Nah... JFK's head probably fits that description.
Now, once again, despite your denials and changing of topics, the 6.5mm
virtually round object is the LARGEST foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.
>>No need to refer to "sensible people" and the silly idea that they would
>>be determining mass by viewing a 2 dimensional representation.
>You are the one insisting on two dimensions.
>I take three into account.
Then simply provide the method that anyone else can duplicate to determine
the mass of a 3 dimensional object by using it's 2 dimensional
representation.
But you continue to refuse to do so.
Why is that, John?
>>>You are ignoring the fact that the lateral shows it to be just a
>>>sliver.
>>Nah... I'm not ignoring it at all. In the lateral, it is *NOT* the largest
>>foreign object seen.
>Correct.
It's amusing that you can agree when I agree with your statements, but you
change the topic rather than agree with the simple truth I relate.
Once again, despite your denials and change of topics, the 6.5mm virtually
round object IS THE LARGEST FOREIGN OBJECT SEEN IN THE AP X-RAY.
Can you say "Correct" to that blazingly simple and accurate statement?
>>But you don't *know*... since you don't know where the various fragments
>>are in the X-rays.
>I know where the fragment is in the lateral.
You're back to determining the "mass" of a 3 dimensional object by it's 2
dimensional representation.
I defy you to cite for your assertion that this can be done.
>>Now, compare the "mass" of that "sliver" with the "mass" of the "sliver"
>>7x2mm fragment... do so by citation to the testimony or evidence.
>Huh? If you admit it's a sliver, you are admitting very little mass.
Changing the topic again? Here's the very simple question: you have one
"sliver" that is referred to as the 6.5mm virtually round object, and you
have another "sliver" that is referred to as the 7x2mm object.
Simply compare the "mass" of those two objects with each other. Provide
testimony, citation, or some support for your answer that others can
follow.
You've asserted that the fragments that were big enough were removed, yet
you keep refusing to support this statement by showing that it's true.
>>>So it's you who is *insisting* on ignoring the fact that we can see it
>>>in three dimensions. We have the lateral.
>>Since you refuse to even define what those objects are IN THE X-RAYS
>>THEMSELVES, no-one can know what you're talking about.
>I've said exactly where it is. It's embedded in the skull in the
>cowlick area.
That's the 6.5mm object. You've previously stated that you don't know
where the 7x2mm object is in the AP X-ray.
It's not possible to state that the fragments big enough to remove were
removed, if you cannot point to the largest fragments in the X-rays, and
show that they *ARE* the largest fragments.
Knowing where just *ONE* object is - is not enough - you need to be able
to compare it against the other "large" objects.
>>You've already stated that you don't know which one is the 7x2mm fragment,
>>and since that one is the largest fragment actually removed, YOU CAN'T
>>COMPARE IT'S SIZE IN THE X-RAY WITH THE 6.5mm VIRTUALLY ROUND OBJECT.
>You aren't making any sense.
No John, I'm making PERFECT sense.
I have two small balls in my hand right now... one is a tennis ball...
Tell me which one is larger (or, if you insist, which one has more
"mass")... the tennis ball, or the other one?
You pretend that you don't notice that you believe you can answer this
question - because you cannot point to the 7x2mm object in the AP X-ray,
and compare it to the 6.5mm virtually round object.
I can do so because I CAN SEE BOTH BALLS.
I can do so because I CAN SEE BOTH OBJECTS IN THE AP X-RAY.
You claim not to be able to see one of them, yet you can confidently
assert that the objects big enough to remove were, in fact, removed.
In other words, you *CAN* tell me which ball is bigger, WITHOUT BEING ABLE
TO SEE THE OTHER.
I, on the other hand, merely point it out with analogy, that your
statement is not correct.
>>Nor can you point to any testimony by the prosectors insisting that they
>>compared x-ray with x-ray in order to determine "mass" before deciding
>>which ones to remove.
>You can't cite any testimony that they didn't do this.
So you're merely speculating, and trying to hide the fact that you're
basing your assertions on speculation.
>You are using a typical buff argument: "I assert it, now you have to
>disprove it or it's true."
No John... this is YOUR ASSERTION.
That, speaking of the bullet fragments in JFK's head: "the only ones
removed were the ones *big enough* to remove."
Yet you continue to refuse to support that statement.
And I will continue to point out *that* fact.
>>I rather suspect that you'll ignore that point, so I'll repeat it right
>>now:
>>Nor can you point to any testimony by the prosectors insisting that they
>>compared x-ray with x-ray in order to determine "mass" before deciding
>>which ones to remove.
>You point to any testimony saying they did not.
It's *YOUR* assertion, John. *YOU* have to defend it. Your claim is that
"sensible people" use "mass" to determine what the largest objects are in
a 2 dimensional representation.
Or, you can simply admit that your statement is based on speculation.
>>Indeed, you *STILL* refuse to provide any repeatable method for others to
>>determine "mass" by looking at a 2 dimensional representation.
>We have the lateral, which means we have all three dimensions.
Untrue.
And it's a relatively simple exercise to come up with an example of an
object that you cannot determine the mass of no matter *how* many views of
it you have.
Once again, John... you've made a claim about "sensible people" being able
to judge "mass" based on 2 dimensional representations.
Why do you continue to refuse to provide a repeatable method for others to
do this?
Why do you confuse "mass" with "size"?
>>You made the statement that the prosectors removed those fragments "big
>>enough" to remove - and you *STILL* haven't been able to support that
>>statement with citation to the evidence.
>You still haven't been able to prove that the fragment in the cowlick
>was the largest fragment.
In the AP X-ray... it is.
That's a fact, whether you want to admit it or not.
It's *ALSO* a fact that you cannot compare the size of two objects, when
you can't see one of them. You've stated that you don't know where the
7x2mm object is in the AP X-ray - so on *WHAT* are you basing your
assertion?
>>Or retract your silly idea that "sensible people" can determine mass by
>>viewing 2 dimensional representations.
>It's *your* idea!
You've repeated it in this very post, John.
You've asserted that "sensible people" use "mass" to determine size in a 2
dimensional representation.
I'm merely pointing it out repeatedly, until you can either retract it, or
support it.
>>>>The credible explanation for the non-removal of the 6.5mm virtually round
>>>>object still hasn't been proposed. Pretending that "sensible people" doing
>>>>an autopsy thought that this object was just too small of a fragment to
>>>>even be *searched* for, let alone removed, is ... well... silly.
>>>Why don't you just admit that you are an alterationist?
>>Strangely enough, you refused to answer the point.
>You are pulling a Harris.
I'm presuming that this is an ad hominem attack on a poster, rather than a
debate on the evidence. And knowing that this is not allowed by the
charter, I'll refrain from further comment.
>I answered it; you just didn't like the answer.
The credible explanation for the non-removal of the 6.5mm virtually round
object still hasn't been proposed. Pretending that "sensible people" doing
an autopsy thought that this object was just too small of a fragment to
even be *searched* for, let alone removed, is ... well... silly.
The truth, of course, is that the prosectors didn't even *SEE* this
object. But I've simply presumed, for the course of this debate, that they
did. You've tried to pretend that the object was smaller than the 7x2mm
object, which *WAS* the largest object removed.
But anyone can see for themselves - the AP X-ray is widely available
online.
But if you *have* provided a CREDIBLE explanation for why this object
wasn't removed, I must have simply missed it.
Care to quote or cite it again?
>>The credible
>>explanation for the non-removal of the 6.5mm virtually round object still
>>hasn't been proposed.
>Yes it has, you just don't like the answer.
Can you quote or cite it again?
Surely you can't be suggesting that it was simply too small to even *try*
to remove.
>>Do you have a proposal that is credible,
...
read more »
