On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 5:12:13 PM UTC-5,
borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's something I can state definitively. At least 17 of the 18 *qualified* professionals who have examined the body or the documentation of the autopsy have agreed with this statement:
> > >
> > > And where did they agree all the damage was?
> > >
> >
> > They agreed the *entry* wound was
>
> Notice what the troll just did here? I asked him: where did they agree the DAMAGE was? And he shifts the conversation to entry wounds. I'm not discussing entry wounds or exit wounds, because those are products of opinion. I'm discussing head wound damage in concurrence with what EVERYONE saw, because that is a product of FACT.
>
As this imbecile---sounding more like beb himself with every post--shows he cannot read and comprehend what he reads at the same time---just like I said. No shift, I answer the *question* on what they agreed on. And if stupid would read the whole thing and *comprehend* he will see that I cover both wounds. The problem for dummy, is that he doesn't *like* what they agreed on, but he hopes you Lurkers's don't notice that.
> A keen observer will note the number of times this happens during the course of this farcical exchange. The troll wants to discuss "possible" and "maybe" and "could be" points of entry. Not the ACTUAL reported damage to the back of Kennedy's head. There is a reason for this. Keep that reason in mind during the duration of this discourse.
>
A keen observer will note "Boris'" deflection from the *points* I made. He wants to have it both ways with the autopsy evidence. Rejecting virtually all of it, while "cuddling" some language that does not show what he *desperately* wants you to *think* it shows.
>
>
> >
> > in the BOH either towards the EOP (where very credible evidence supports it) or in the Cowlick area, where it appears to be on at least the external scalp in the BOH photos and is supported by some medical (though IMO less compelling) evidence.
>
> That evidence being?
>
Why is Boris diverting from the issue like I *allegedly* did? I thought Stupid just said this was only about the exit wound. (Which dope does not understand does *nothing* to create a large blowout in the BOH like he *needs* in order to have any meaningful point.
But if he (or you) *really* wish(es) to know, the threads in that come up with the below searches will lead to learning all anyone would ever want to know about why some LN's favor the lower entry point. (NOTE: There will be overlap in these searches.)
Results for - BT George BOH, lower entry, cowlick -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/BT$20George$20BOH$2C$20lower$20entry$2C$20cowlick%7Csort:date
Results for - John Canal BOH, lower entry, cowlick -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/John$20Canal$20BOH$2C$20lower$20entry$2C$20cowlick%7Csort:date
Results for - Chad Zimmerman BOH, lower entry, cowlick -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Chad$20Zimmerman$20BOH$2C$20lower$20entry$2C$20cowlick%7Csort:date
> >
> > They also all agreed (with the explained Wecht exception) that the *exit* wound was "a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal....regions".
>
> Say it. Say "occipital", you coward. Don't replace it with ellipses. "Somewhat into the temporal AND OCCIPITAL regions." Scum. Imagine the balls, to omit something like that, and then gloat every time *I* snip every one of this imbecile's ad hominem remarks as if it was something important. Filth.
>
I left it out on purpose folks. The question was not, "What was the full AR report statement?', it was "Where did they ***agree*** all the damage was?"
Do you see the difference Lurkers? I stated the part they all *agreed* upon. And of course, those with actual attention spans can see that I mention the disagreement *NEXT*.
...Imbecile needs to learn to read and *comprehend*.
>
> >
> > As you well know the *only* thing the later panels did not mention was the comment about the *exit* wound also extending "somewhat" into the "occipital" region. This comment could be an outright error on HFB's part, but as I have explained, I think the meaning of that comment indicates that via the shattering of JFK's skull they believed there was radiating damage to even a portion of this lowermost region.
> >
> > I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were the *only* ones to have their hands on the actual *body* and might have seen things not apparent from the X-rays or photos we have. Also, at least 3 other persons with either medical, wound ballistics, or Forensic Pathology expertise have reviewed the evidence since the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA FPP's and agreed with the original nearer the EOP locations. (A potential flaw in the later panels is that they shared a number of significant professional associations and ties between members that might have made throwing HFB under the bus when there was doubt, a bit to easy to do.)
> >
No comments Stupid? Is it because you didn't want to call attention to the fact your last whinings where senseless since I covered the item left off in ellipses? :-)
> >
> > > >
> > > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > > level of the deceased."
> > >
> > > The troll loves to pretend there is no anomalous discrepancy between the conclusion and the examination. Literally *everyone* knows this. Even DVP knows it. And, I suspect, you know it too, which is why you are trying to subtly steer the debate AWAY from the BOH damage and TOWARDS the conclusion, an opinionated account which you KNOW is in complete contradiction with the scientific findings of the autopsy exam. But LNers will always favor opinion over science and eyewitnesses if it incriminates Oswald...and I would say "vice versa", but there's very little of the latter, so it's seldom done.
> > >
> >
> > Read my comments Lurkers, and decide if I have ducked or avoided the issue.
>
> You have. As mentioned above, I asked about the DAMAGE to the back of Kennedy's head; you're trying to slither the conversation in the direction of points of entry. Remember what started this original transaction: "Where was Boswell's hand in the Z-film"?
>
It's real simple folks. Either "Boris" does not understand what he reads; or he is outright *lying*. See why I keep implying he is becoming (maybe even *is*) beb?
> >
> > all I have done is draw reasonable conclusions as to what *best* describes the findings and makes them *much* more credible than "Boris" and his band of brothers delusions.
>
> What best describes the findings are the findings, concurrent with what EVERYONE saw. Describe what they witnessed. Because if you don't, I can link to 30 or 40 witness statement which are all very much the same.
>
Go for it. Show that they are in full agreement on what they saw. Show none of them have ever changed their minds. Show why we should believe them when they were *not* conducting an autopsy of a cleaned up body (nor were qualified to do so) over the Autopsy and photos/X-Rays thereof that have been *thoroughly* reviewed by such trained individuals.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the other one (Wecht) is on record as admitting that the *available* medical evidence supports no other forensic conclusion.
> > >
> > > *You* aren't allowed to cite Wecht, but what I find even more interesting is you emphasized the word "available." Which is frankly what I would have done. But I would have done it to prove a point. You do it because you're too stupid to realize what you just did.
> > >
> >
> > If you dispute my characterization of what Wecht said, I'll be happy to link to my support *again*. What you are too stupid to realize, is that Wecht is thereby admitting that he has nothing but his *beliefs* that a further analysis might have yielded different results.
>
> Moron, I *know* Wecht has nothing but his beliefs. They ALL had nothing but their beliefs in this regard.
>
Good Imbecile. Them make sure *never* to quote Wecht in support of your nonsense.
> >
> > He dared imply nothing further or he would have lost all *professional* credibility. ...Which ought to tell you something about how scientifically reasonable the *general* concurrence of expert opinion that has followed the Autopsy is.
>
> LOL! Is that what you believe that fear of having his credibility compromised tells you? Quite a begged question on your part. But blind faith is provably your thing.
>
LOL! Lurkers, the rich *irony* of this statement ought to speak volumes to you if you have followed "Boris'" work.
Really folks? Is that how you read what I have said? Who appears to be the more locationally and logically challenged when it comes to this topic?
>
> >
> > >But since you're so fond of a gif, why don't you link to it again and cite a single expert whose description of the wound matches it.
> > >
>
> (He doesn't)
>
Because no one described the wound from this picture. Rather they describe it in a way generally consistent with what may be seen in this and various relevant AR pictures. Does "Mr. Science" think that all the FP's that have since reviewed these very photos could not see any "obvious" contradiction if there really was one? Or is it that he thinks *all* of them---even the pro-CT Wecht---were in on it?
If Stupid has found contradicting *experts* of *like* qualifications, let *him* cite *them*.
...And note that he really is dodging the questions. His "fifth" option is a falsehood. He doesn't dare admit which of the four *real* ones, he believes.
> > > >
> >
> > They are autopsy photos, and were reviewed by *every* one of these professionals that has followed.
>
> What do those photos show by way of damage? Or, rather, NOT show?
>
See above. And why would Imbecile, expect them to show the occipital damage from the *exit* wound, that *only* HFB ever noted? The FPP's looked at them, didn't see that, and didn't address the comment, and anyone who reads what the HSCA FPP said, knows they probably just assumed HFB got that wrong. (I have already covered my beliefs above on that very topic.)
You see, what Stupid *really* is driving at it that his answer *is* actually 4). He thinks the photos were faked, and likely believes the body was altered too. (Despite *qualified* individuals in Photograhy and Anthropology vouched for the photos authenticity.) So he Goof really does keep crowing about an isolated detail from a report and exercise he actually places *no* faith in. (...And he wonders why I say he is embroiled in the Fallacy of Self-Contradiction.)
> >
> > Why don't *you* cite where *any* of them indicated that they thought the photos contradicted the entry or exit wound descriptions,
>
> Since you can't properly assess an entry from an exit wound by looking at a black and white photo, their opinions on THAT matter are even less relevant than those whose opinions contradicted their examination, but who at the very least handled the body.
>
Folks, read the AR. What wound do *you* think they are attempting to describe when HFB mention the "somewhat" extending into the "occipital" region comment? Was it the entry or exit according to the totality of what they said? Exit you say? Good. You are *not* illiterate or slow of learning like "Boris"!
>
> other than in the case of the near EOP vs. Cowlick *entry* locations, or perhaps HFB's disputed comment about the *exit* extending "somewhat" into the occipit region? (Each already discussed above.)
>
>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > > > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > > > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > > > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > > > > level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> > > > > > not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> > > > > > wounds"
> > > > >
> > > > > Not unanimously, but yes, I agree that is what they opined. Oh, and 17 or 18 doctors said this, did you say? Won’t be naming any of them, will you? Oh, well. Guess you should have read the article I linked.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Try this:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Humes, Boswell, Finck (original autopsists)
> > > > 2. Carnes, Fisher, Moritz, Morgan (Clark Panel)
> > > > 3. McMeeken, Spitz, Lindenburg, Hodges, Olivier (Rockefeller Commission)
> > > > 4. Baden, Coe, Davis, Wecht (see "available evidence" qualification), Loquvam, Petty, Rose, Spitz (again), Westin (HSCA FPP)
> > > > 5. Cummings - Reviewed the autopsy photos de novo for the 2013 Cold Case JFK specaial.
> > >
> > > And where did they agree all the damage was?
> > >
> >
> > Already answered above.
>
> (But wasn't)
>
But was. Lack of comprehension is an issue he must deal with; not me.
> >
> > Tell me a like consensus of *experts* that contradict their basic agreement?
>
> Since the very autopsy report contradicts itself, this should not be hard.
>
See folks? He doesn't believe in it (despite all the recognized experts who have supported it) yet he keeps basing his arguments on a single comment that he like because he (erroneously) thinks it helps his beliefs out.
> >
> > > >
> > > > But I stand corrected, it was actually 20 of 21 unanimous on the principal conclusions; Wecht disagreeing only that the available evidence might be insufficient to rule out other possibilities.
> > > >
> > > > > "If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't have 44 *unanimous* witnesses. And some of them have since admitted their error. Now why don't you find something that calculates the odds that a large number of non specialists in pathology/forensic pathology who have *not* conducted a thorough and comprehensive search of the wounds would be correct, whereas a *minimum* of 95% of 21 *experts in pathology* got it all wrong?
> > >
> > > Got what wrong, the BOH damage? That *is* what we are discussing, much as you pain to admit it. And once again I've caught you NOT reading something I've cited, or else you could tell us what the error rate is in determining entrance from exit.
> > >
> >
> > Got the basic location (BOH vs. side/front) of the entry vs. exit wounds wrong?
>
> Yes. I know that answer's not as definitive as your "Could have" and "Maybe" and "It's possible". But I do what I can.
>
Definitive "yes's" and "no's" are very good---except when they are wrong, or are simply your speculation. "Boris" doesn't mind being wrong, or calling his opinions "facts", so naturally he thinks he is proving something here when he is not.
> >
> > Tell me where you established that these experts did not overwhelmingly agree with the fact that the smaller *entry* defect was in the BOH, and that the larger *exit* defect was centered chiefly towards the side/frontal regions? But you can't because you *know* what they said, but you don't *like* it.
>
> Tell me on what they were basing their observation? But you can't, because you *know* once the BOH photo is deemed compromised, any *entry* defect is for nothing. Just as you *know* there is no chain of custody on that photo. Just as you *know* that photo just "appeared" much later. Just as you *know* that photo brazenly flat-out CONTRADICTS what ***every single*** medical eyewitness saw AND what the autopsy exam showed. Just as you *know* 16 different Parkland doctors were shown that BOH photo, and just as you *know* all 16 of them failed to recognized that photo as what they had seen in the emergency room. You *know* that photo is suspect, which is why rather than challenging its authenticity, you are forced to simply presume it, and hope no one will notice you are presuming it.
>
See. "Mr. Science" is an alterationist---just like beb. And of course it contradicts the *WRONG* memories of those Parkland *DOCTORS* ***not*** autopisists! And this too, is just like beb. A fundamental misunderstanding of what is considered the more *persuasive* and *reliable* evidence in any *real* court of law.
Remember, here is your choice:
1) Some doctors who spent a few minutes with the bloody body of the POTUS in a vain effort to sustain or revive some semblance of life, failed to be able to accurately observe those wounds and/or remember them.
or
2) Three trained Pathologists (and one a specialist in *Military Round* gunshot wounds) who spent several hours performing an autopsy on the cleaned up body, and then 17 of the next 18 FPP's that eventually reviewed the autopsy photos and X-rays (all of which were *thoroughly* vetted by the HSCA's experts in Photography and Anthropology), all got it wrong, or were all corrupt.
Your answer, will say more about you, than it does the evidence at hand.
>
> >
> > Let me acquaint you with the one logical fallacy and I am avoiding that makes however many other fallacies I supposedly commit irrelevant, and every erudite argument you think you make meaningless:
> >
> > Conflicting Conditions
> > contradictio in adjecto
> >
> > (also known as: a self-contradiction, self-refuting idea)
> >
> > Description: When the argument is self-contradictory and cannot possibly be true.
>
> An example of a conflicting condition would be believing the BOH photo, and the autopsy report, and the witnesses.
>
There is no contradiction that "Boris" can *prove* existed between the AR and the BOH photos, beyond the two I have mentioned and dealt with already. Neither of which overturns the bottom line conclusions of that AR. The only contradiction would be if I also believed the discrepant (and even discrepant with each other) witness accounts, which *I* don't.
> >
> > How so? You insist that something in the AR conflicts with the LN contention that the entry wound was in the BOH and the exit towards the front/side, but then state or imply (in various ways) that the AR as a whole and the evidence that exists to support it cannot be trusted.
>
> No, you're just wearily lying again. And inserting a strawman. I didn't say the AR report can't be trusted. I said the conclusion CONFLICTS with the findings of the examination (which *everyone* knows except, apparently, you). And that when given the choice, I would side with the findings of the examination, because those findings are based on SCIENCE, whereas the conclusions are based on OPINION.
>
LOL! Let these two ill reconcilable statements sink in folks:
"I didn't say the AR report can't be trusted."
"I said the conclusion [of that very report] CONFLICTS with the findings of the examination."
IOW, I trust the reported details fully, but I am going to disagree with the bottom line *meaning* of those details as summarized in the *main* conclusions when I feel like it! Why? Because *I" am laymen supremo; whereas they are but trained professionals in this very area!
> I can easily cite where I said that. Bet you can't cite for your lie, though.
>
Difficult to cite what never occurred.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is that relevant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation: John Mytton has no known relevant field of expertise in these areas, but promulgates a bunch of stuff BT Barnum likes the sound of, so goes with it. I produce statements from 24 medical experts and witness; BT Barnum produces some guy named "John."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Translation. "Boris" cannot interact effectively with what the morphing of the pictures shows, so he attacks the source. ...The very thing he just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)
> > >
> > > The translation is I go with expert evidence, and you go with animation from a questionable source. A gif is not evidence. And "John" is not an expert. Nice try though.
> > >
> >
> > Cite a *recognized expert* in photographic interpretation or experience in post mortem pathology examinations that has reviewed any of the autopsy photos or X-rays and found clear evidence of fakery, or that the AR was fundamentally flawed and inccorect.
>
> David Mantik for a start...but wait, troll...what's this about "recognized experts" now? We're going to all watch you attack the source in a moment, rather than interact effectively with what his conclusions show...the very thing you just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)
>
Go ahead. State Mantik's actual *recognized* *professional* expertise. Show how is trumps that of the *numerous* other experts I have mentioned already.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean those "grainy" images? Why do you figure they conduct autopsy reports? Bud will tell you. In the meantime, yes, we're all very impressed with your anonymous "John's" animation. But I'll go with the witnesses and the report. Thanks anyway.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And now "Boris" resorts to an untruth, or at least a wildly wrong statement. The autopsy photos that Mytton morphed into a gif are far from "grainy" even if they are not available in HD and 3D color. He knows full well that it to the typical "blow ups" of assassination day pictures or over-reliance on some small detail of say the Zapruder film, and CT's constant reliance on the same that Bud was referring to.
> > >
> > > BT Barnum is once again forced to admit a LN talking point is cowardly and weak, though is incognizant of doing so.
> > >
> >
> > Where Lurkers? Do *you* see such an admission? I sure don't,
>
> That's because you're either an imbecile, or you're bad at keeping tabs at the excuses used by your idiot friends, which I like to recycle liberally as a means of mocking you.
>
Yet only mocks himself---repeatedly.
> >
> > > The problem with your little gifs is they're not evidence. And because you're so mired in your faith, you don't even seem to realize the BOH photo shows none of the damage of the other photo, and that's just presuming the legitimacy of the photos (you haven't proven they are legitimate, which you would have to do since you're citing them) as well as the legitimacy of your source.
> > >
> >
> > You haven't shown in what way they are illegitimate.
>
> Nor do I need to, and right now you are Shifting the Burden. They are supposed "evidence" that you cited, therefore the burden is yours to show their legitimacy. I don't need to defuse every silly smoke bomb you throw at me. For example, one way you could prove the authenticity of the BOH photo is to produce its chain of cus...oh, never mind.
>
I don't have a burden to defend the AR pictures, because it's *already* been met. Do I need to link the the relevant HSCA Panel conclusions? "Boris" and his pals keep saying the gif's cannot be trusted, but since it simply merges two *vetted* photos and rotates the image to illustrate the resulting stereoscopic effect (Which if Stupid understood, he would realize *further* vets these very images.), the burden is indeed their's to show how Mytton did violence to the photos---that they don't believe in anyway---by merging and putting them in motion.
Do you see the self contradiction Lurkers in accusing Mytton of alteration, when they *already* think the photos have been altered and are thus meaningless?
>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not about Mytton.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't have brought him up then, should you?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Boris" thinks it better to link to an unsourced gif than to credit the source. ...Go figure.
> > >
> > > The source is some guy named "John." Got it. Very compelling citation. Better than, say, someone who was THERE who have the letters "MD" after their name.
> > >
> >
> > I never said John Mytton was a recognized expert.
>
> Nor do you acknowledge the witnesses who were.
>
Because they are not. Being MD, does not make you an autopsy expert---particularly when that was nowhere near the task you undertook.
> >
> > I *did* say the two photos are as legit
>
> No, as we've established above, you haven't shown this. Next.
>
Actually the HSCA did, as noted above.
>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your cute animation does not show the occipital region, and your animation gifs are not even consistent with each other. Look again, so I don't have to spoonfeed the obvious to you, like I do everything else.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does "Boris" know where the occipital region is?
> > >
> > > I know exactly where it is. The one animation does not show it. The other is an animation of the BOH photo, which shows NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER, which is precisely the point that you're apparently too stupid to understand.
> > >
> >
> > This imbecile has *never* comprehended what I have told him about that damage
>
> I do, I just don't care about your opinion.
>
Which explains whey he never learns anything logical or meaningful.
> >
> > and how (if HFB were indeed correct about it) it might not be evident
>
> "might"
>
> "could"
>
> "possible"
>
See above about unwarranted certainties.
> >
> > in the BOH photos since clearly the flap creating the great defect is being held probably (as Boswell many years later stated) by Boswell's hand,
>
> You mean the hand not present in the Z-film? Back to the original problem, I see. Remember this?
>
See Dope doesn't comprehend that *AS SHOWN IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS I LINKED TO* and merged/animated by Mytton, the flap toward the SIDE/FRONT of JFK's head was so enormous that when JFK was laid back (as did *not* occur anywhere in the Z film) it could have *blocked* clear visibility of what HFB were trying to show---namely the *BOH ENTRANCE WOUND*. And *that* is why Boswell needed to hold it shut.
That he is right, and Imbecile doesn't understand what he sees or reads? I don't think I need to excuse that.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe you could school me and identify where occiput is, and while you're at it the parietal, and where the absence of bone and scalp is in either?
>
> He doesn't. And can't.
>
Because it's already been addressed by me as Stupid knows. He just doesn't *like* what he's been told.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cool, I've seen "seemless" blending of animation proving Donald Trump and Richard Nixon are the same person. Now what do we do? I know...I'll consult some experts. You keep on with the gifs, champ!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well go ahead "Mr. Science" find a source that exposes the evil Mytton's fakery of these pictures.
> > >
> > > Strawman. I'm saying they're not evidence, because they cannot be deemed as reliable.
>
> The troll's got nothing.
>
Just logic and reason. ...Just logic and reason.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Didn't. Read. A. Word.
> > >
> >
> > Oops. Boris has been snipping again. Let's put back my reply:
> >
> > "More like Clueless *couldn't* comprehend a word folks. :-) "
>
> And still hasn't read a word of it. And won't read a word of it. But continues to argue with the article he didn't read. Because that's what educated people do.
I know one thing they shouldn't do. Make self-contradictory arguments. A "Boris" specialty!