Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

A Buffoon Speaks!

300 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 10, 2019, 6:38:52 PM6/10/19
to
> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> "somewhat" into the front ...


Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...


AN OUTRIGHT LIE?


Or will the cowardice continue?

Bud

unread,
Jun 10, 2019, 6:52:09 PM6/10/19
to
He may have mistakenly thought the temporal was in the front. I did too until I looked it up recently.

https://www.clevelandclinic.org/healthinfo/ShowImage.ashx?PIC=4275&width=325

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2019, 7:05:46 PM6/10/19
to
Ah yes, whenever a LNer needs an excuse, they almost always run to the same one: "mistaken."

Except it's the second time your lying scum friend made a "mistake" by using descriptors that did not appear in the AR. Also coincidence, in both cases these "mistakes" serve the LN narrative. Much like the "mistakes" of all the witnesses whose accounts absolve Oswald.

Let bub show he's not a mistake, lurkers.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 10, 2019, 7:23:49 PM6/10/19
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
And again, another prediction fulfilled perfectly!

Believers like to twist the English language into supporting their
lies...

Looks like "Chickenshit's" a coward too! (is that a surprise to
anyone?)

Bud

unread,
Jun 10, 2019, 7:38:31 PM6/10/19
to
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 7:23:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> >>> "somewhat" into the front ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> >>
> >>
> >> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> >>
> >>
> >> Or will the cowardice continue?
> >
> > He may have mistakenly thought the temporal was in the front. I did too until I looked it up recently.
> >
> > https://www.clevelandclinic.org/healthinfo/ShowImage.ashx?PIC=4275&width=325
>
>
> And again, another prediction fulfilled perfectly!

It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots, I merely point out the truth for any audience that might be out there.

For quite some time, until quite recently, I thought the quote about the wound extending into the temporal meant extending into the front. I imagined a football shaped wound with one end into the occipital and the front tip in the temporal. Just yesterday or the day before did I catch my error looking at an illustration of the brain.

But I`m sure you idiots will be happy to write up some explanation you like better.

> Believers like to twist the English language into supporting their
> lies...

You are too stupid to understand the meaning of the word. You erroneously believe it means to say something untrue.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2019, 8:29:09 PM6/10/19
to
>
> It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots,

Like where the occipital is and why that's important.


>
> For quite some time, until quite recently, I thought the quote about the wound extending into the temporal meant extending into the front.

That's because you're a moron.

>
> I imagined a football shaped wound with one end into the occipital and the front tip in the temporal.

What new information did bub glean from observing the chiefly parietal wound extended into the temporal and occipital?

>
> Just yesterday or the day before did I catch my error looking at an illustration of the brain.

Too bad there wasn't a JFK forum full of critics telling you 500 times that you were in error. It might have saved you some time.

>
> But I`m sure you idiots will be happy to write up some explanation you like better.
>
> > Believers like to twist the English language into supporting their
> > lies...
>
> You are too stupid to understand the meaning of the word. You erroneously believe it means to say something untrue.

Thus why he used the word "lies". Unlike BT Barnum, critics will use the correct words and not simply sub in something that sounds good, hoping no one will notice.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 10:54:12 AM6/11/19
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots,
>
>Like where the occipital is and why that's important.

Indeed!

This *one* fact is all you need know...

That believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that the occipital is
ENTIRELY in the back of the head.

Because that *one* fact proves that the large wound was located in the
back of JFK's head.

And once believers are caught publicly acknowledging this as a fact,
they're stuck with the contradicting evidence.
Message has been deleted

BT George

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 2:02:21 PM6/11/19
to
It was an error going from memory. The correct statement is *temporal*. (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)

But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696


Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone, it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was. Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:

"The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."

Now where is that sinus located?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144

Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?


Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:

The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
ventricles**.

Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwibm4W4gOLiAhVBQ6wKHVqgBtEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2FMPDODZ%2F1-12673487&psig=AOvVaw3h_UZLstgJhR6EBC7ehCHC&ust=1560362229220087

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN9f7SgOLiAhVKeawKHVBuCXUQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Femedicine.medscape.com%2Farticle%2F1923254-overview&psig=AOvVaw2ZuMje4Cd052GgleCVGfZp&ust=1560362282254947

Ohhh looky again. Is that more towards the BOH or the front like the "B" brothers need it to be?

So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head. Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?

Bud

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 2:45:46 PM6/11/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 10:54:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >> It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots,
> >
> >Like where the occipital is and why that's important.
>
> Indeed!
>
> This *one* fact is all you need know...

The only thing the audience here needs to know is that you guys brought up the wounds in Kennedy`s head weeks and weeks ago and have yet to make a conspiracy related argument concerning them.

> That believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that the occipital is
> ENTIRELY in the back of the head.

So?

> Because that *one* fact proves that the large wound was located in the
> back of JFK's head.

How so?

> And once believers are caught publicly acknowledging this as a fact,
> they're stuck with the contradicting evidence.

Make the argument that the evidence is in conflict. Do something besides emit hot air.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 3:46:24 PM6/11/19
to
> > > Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> > > "somewhat" into the front ...
> >
> >
> > Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> >
> >
> > AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> >
> >
> > Or will the cowardice continue?
>
> It was an error going from memory.

No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative, when it said nothing of the kind.

And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.


>
> The correct statement is *temporal*.

Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.

>
> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)

Start now.

>
> But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures

Okay.

https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8

https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5

https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.

>
>
> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone, it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.

This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half doublethink, all LNer.


>
> Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
>
> "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
>
> Now where is that sinus located?
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
>
> Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?

Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.

Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.

Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?

https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6

https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17

https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598


Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***

But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:

There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144

This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.

>
>
> Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:

No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 4:30:39 PM6/11/19
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
>>>
>>>
>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
>>
>> It was an error going from memory.
>
> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it
> twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative,
> when it said nothing of the kind.

Simple logic demonstrates it was a lie as well...

Every single time... EVERY SINGLE TIME, a believer states something
that is contrary to the known truth - it supports their faith.

If it were random error - then at least *SOME* of the time, an
erroneous assertion would support conspiracy.


> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing
> must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
>
>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
>
> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending
> into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call
> "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.

"extending somewhat..."

But when the truth is stated, rather than the lie, the wound
**MOVES**.

The claim was that it was more frontal.

The fact is that it's in the BACK OF THE HEAD on the right side.

So the argument made by these lies actually prove the opposite.


>> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
>
>Start now.


An *HONEST* admission of error would be to properly place the large
wound IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

This troll clearly isn't honest enough to do so.
Yep... all in the back of the head.


>> and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
>>
>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>>
>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>
> Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to
> explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.


Or to answer the simple question: "What part of the occipital is *NOT*
in the rear of the head?"

Or the related question: "What percentage of the Parietal can be
described as in the back of the head?"


>> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone,
>> it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of
>> the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
>
> This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he
> apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half
> doublethink, all LNer.

And, needless to say, it's simply a lie.

The wound extended into the occipital. THAT'S A FACT.

And that one fact, **ALL BY ITSELF** - shows that the wound was in the
back of the head.

No matter *how* you define "back of the head."


This one fact proves believers both liars and cowards.


>> Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
>>
>> "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
>> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
>> saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
>>
>> Now where is that sinus located?
>>
>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
>>
>> Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
>
>Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.


This entire argument is based on the tears in the scalp, and not the
wound location... which was quite well documented in para. 1 of the
Autopsy Report:

1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

That paragragh is all you need to prove believers to be both liars and
cowards... because **NONE** of them will publicly state that this is
an accurate statement.


>Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
>
>Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
>
>Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
>
>https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
>
>https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
>
>https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
>
>
>Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
>
>But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
>
>There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
>
>Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
>
>This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
>
>>
>>
>> Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
>
>No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.

This is all that's needed:

1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

Produce a drawing of a wound that *MATCHES* that description, yet is
*NOT* in the back of the head.

Can't be done.

Nor will any believer attempt it.

Bud

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 4:40:12 PM6/11/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:46:24 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> > > > "somewhat" into the front ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> > >
> > >
> > > AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> > >
> > >
> > > Or will the cowardice continue?
> >
> > It was an error going from memory.
>
> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative, when it said nothing of the kind.
>
> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
>
>
> >
> > The correct statement is *temporal*.
>
> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital."

Who or what are you quoting?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 4:55:35 PM6/11/19
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:46:24 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
>>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
>>>
>>> It was an error going from memory.
>>
>> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative, when it said nothing of the kind.
>>
>> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
>>
>> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital."
>
> Who or what are you quoting?


"wound ... was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending "somewhat" into the
front ..."

"Chickenshit" is too stupid to figure it out... he simply doesn't know
the evidence well enough to recognize it.

Amusingly, we critics INSTANTLY noted where the lie originated...

The correct quote is:

1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

I predict that "Chickenshit" will refuse to state that this is
correct.

Bud

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 4:59:17 PM6/11/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> >>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Or will the cowardice continue?
> >>
> >> It was an error going from memory.
> >
> > No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it
> > twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative,
> > when it said nothing of the kind.
>
> Simple logic demonstrates it was a lie as well...
>
> Every single time... EVERY SINGLE TIME, a believer states something
> that is contrary to the known truth - it supports their faith.

Empty claim. Hot air.

> If it were random error - then at least *SOME* of the time, an
> erroneous assertion would support conspiracy.

You claimed there was evidence of conspiracy, but when I challenged you to produce some you refused. As far as I know there is no support for conspiracy.

> > And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing
> > must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
> >
> >> The correct statement is *temporal*.
> >
> > Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending
> > into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call
> > "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
>
> "extending somewhat..."

Yes, correct your fellow believer`s lies.

> But when the truth is stated, rather than the lie, the wound
> **MOVES**.
>
> The claim was that it was more frontal.
>
> The fact is that it's in the BACK OF THE HEAD on the right side.

It is always good to have a visual aid...

https://youtu.be/n1f2TR19fDk

> So the argument made by these lies actually prove the opposite.
>
>
> >> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
> >
> >Start now.
>
>
> An *HONEST* admission of error would be to properly place the large
> wound IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

What constitutes the back of the head?

> This troll clearly isn't honest enough to do so.
>
>
> >> But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> >
> >Okay.
> >
> >https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> >
> >https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> >
> >https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
>
>
> Yep... all in the back of the head.
>
>
> >> and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> >>
> >> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >>
> >> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >
> > Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to
> > explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
>
>
> Or to answer the simple question: "What part of the occipital is *NOT*
> in the rear of the head?"

What part of the occipital is not on one side of the head or the other?

> Or the related question: "What percentage of the Parietal can be
> described as in the back of the head?"

What constitutes the back of the head?

> >> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone,
> >> it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of
> >> the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
> >
> > This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he
> > apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half
> > doublethink, all LNer.
>
> And, needless to say, it's simply a lie.
>
> The wound extended into the occipital. THAT'S A FACT.

Note when the autopsy says something Ben approves of he calls it FACT (all in capitals).

> And that one fact, **ALL BY ITSELF** - shows that the wound was in the
> back of the head.
>
> No matter *how* you define "back of the head."

Until you define it it doesn`t mean anything.

>
> This one fact proves believers both liars and cowards.

Still waiting for you to make an assassination related conspiracy argument using these wounds.

>
> >> Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
> >>
> >> "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> >> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> >> saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
> >>
> >> Now where is that sinus located?
> >>
> >> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> >>
> >> Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
> >
> >Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
>
>
> This entire argument is based on the tears in the scalp, and not the
> wound location... which was quite well documented in para. 1 of the
> Autopsy Report:
>
> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

https://youtu.be/n1f2TR19fDk

> That paragragh is all you need to prove believers to be both liars and
> cowards... because **NONE** of them will publicly state that this is
> an accurate statement.

The audience can see whether they can spot a wound of over 5 inches in the right side of Kennedy`s head in the partietal area in the Zapruder film segment I linked to.

>
> >Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
> >
> >Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> >
> >Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
> >
> >https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
> >
> >https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
> >
> >https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
> >
> >
> >Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
> >
> >But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
> >
> >There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
> >
> >Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> >
> >This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
> >
> >No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
>
> This is all that's needed:
>
> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>
> Produce a drawing of a wound that *MATCHES* that description, yet is
> *NOT* in the back of the head.
>
> Can't be done.
>
> Nor will any believer attempt it.

I won`t willingly or knowingly take one ounce of weight from your burden.

Bud

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 5:03:27 PM6/11/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:46:24 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> >>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
> >>>
> >>> It was an error going from memory.
> >>
> >> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative, when it said nothing of the kind.
> >>
> >> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital."
> >
> > Who or what are you quoting?
>
>
> "wound ... was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending "somewhat" into the
> front ..."
>
> "Chickenshit" is too stupid to figure it out... he simply doesn't know
> the evidence well enough to recognize it.
>
> Amusingly, we critics INSTANTLY noted where the lie originated...
>
> The correct quote is:

I know what the *correct* quote is. My question was who or what was Boris quoting when he put what he wrote in quotes.

Suddenly you aren`t interested in being a stickler, are you hypocrite?

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 5:04:47 PM6/11/19
to
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital."
> >
> > Who or what are you quoting?
>
>
> "wound ... was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending "somewhat" into the
> front ..."
>
> "Chickenshit" is too stupid to figure it out... he simply doesn't know
> the evidence well enough to recognize it.

I saw bub's post, but I simply ignored it because it was so stupid...and also because bub claims to have me on "ignore," and I would hate to point out what a liar he is.

BT George

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 5:39:46 PM6/11/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:46:24 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> > > > "somewhat" into the front ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> > >
> > >
> > > AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> > >
> > >
> > > Or will the cowardice continue?
> >
> > It was an error going from memory.
>
> No, it was a lie.

Which is itself a lying statement.

And I know it was a lie, because you did it twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative, when it said nothing of the kind.

I don't care it I did it 175 times. If I was going from memory, then any statement is only as good as the memory. (Something you clowns could learn about witnesses.)

>
> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
>

How so is it opposite? Any buffoon who read my last post *knows* that my point is justified in concluding that the damage to the temporal was in all probability, *forward* of the rest (or at least most) of the rest of the damage mentioned. ...And it was *CERTAINLY* forwards of the BOH.


>
> >
> > The correct statement is *temporal*.
>
> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
>

Now you are lying. The statement about the occipital was never at issue. Why would you think I would be correcting something I never misstated? Also, show *one* time that *I* have ever denied it was in the AR, nor even said that there was no related damage there whatsoever.


> >
> > (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
>
> Start now.
>

Boy you are slow on the uptake. *READ* AGAIN. An Imbecile---you excepted---can see that I *was* being honest in admitting my error in going from memory.


> >
> > But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
>
> Okay.
>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
>
> >
> > and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> >
> > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >
> > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>
> Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
>

I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links and all other evidence that shows he and beb are making an untenable argument. :-)

> >
> >
> > Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone, it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
>
> This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half doublethink, all LNer.
>


Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is* towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the BOH...where you idiots need it to be to further your point. (That is assuming you have one for a change.)

>
> >
> > Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
> >
> > "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> > extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> > saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
> >
> > Now where is that sinus located?
> >
> > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> >
> > Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
>
> Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
>

As always by pointing out anatomical *facts*. :-)

> Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
>
> Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.

The debate about the entrance location of the Cowlick vs. near EOP is entirely separate, and as Dufii knows, one I have touched on before. The second wound as I have said *repeatedly* is being largely obscured in the BOH photo by Boswell's hand holding part of the loose skin together to hold up the head. (JFK sure wasn't holding it up himself for the photo!!!)
This fact is easily appreciated by comparing it to the John Mytton GIFs that Imbecile is well familiar with, but doesn't care to admit argues against the photo fakery his notions require him to believe in:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170


>
> Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
>
>
> Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***

"Boris" appears to be confusing what is talked about here. The section regarding...

"Clearly visible in the above described **large skull defect*** and exuding
from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
disruption of the superior saggital sinus.

...does *not* refer back to the language that says:

"Situated in the **posterior scalp** approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the **external occipital protuberance** is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
skull."

That language is referring to the much smaller wound of *entrance* that truly is in the BOH. Rather, the mention of "...above described large skull defect" is referring back to the initial paragraph of this section entitled "Missile Wounds" that states:

"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Hence the damage "Boris" mentions is included in describing a wound that was *extensive* in terms of the directions it radiated into due to the explosive forces at work when the fragmented bullet split up and exited JFK's skull. Regarding this, I have already stated:

"So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head. Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?"

...And the "B" brothers still need to 'splain that.

BTW, also included in the language is this, further demonstrating the fact that the damage goes *well* forward of what one would expect if the "B" brothers were onto something trying to make this large wound a "BOH" wound in any meaningful sense of orientation:


The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the **tip
of the **frontal** lobe anteriorly**.

Now where is the tip of the brain's frontal lobe?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiOrpbYqeLiAhXGl54KHc7dAKkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cognifit.com%2Ffrontal-lobe%2F&psig=AOvVaw06j9jBdHVZZZAp8-Seya-e&ust=1560373308022709


>
> But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
>
> There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
>
> Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
>
> This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
>

So "Boris" intends to explain how he thinks the *convergence* of these sinuses proves that the damage to the Saggital Sinus occurred rearwards, when that sinus *clearly* extends well forwards also? ...Especially in light of the language I quoted above about the frontal lobe, and regarding the stuff "Boris" just snipped below. ...Which I shall restore.

> >
> >
> > Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
>
> No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.


Nah. I think my "autobiography" says something *you* wish the Lurkers wouldn't pay any attention too:

The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
ventricles**.

Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:

https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/meds/ckb/24/12424tn.jpg

(NOTE: I deleted the prior links that don't seem to take you to the image, the one above should work.)

Bud

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 6:42:53 PM6/11/19
to
<BUMP> For The Chickenshit

BT George

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 6:50:05 PM6/11/19
to
Ooops. I forgot the link to a working picture that shows the Genu of the Corpus Callosum:

https://operativeneurosurgery.com/doku.php?id=genu


...Now what direction is that located towards Imbecile? Front or BOH? Hmmm????

Bud

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 7:15:22 PM6/11/19
to
<BUMP>

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 7:44:07 PM6/11/19
to
> > >
> > > It was an error going from memory.
> >
> > No, it was a lie.
>
> Which is itself a lying statement.

No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable. Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.

You're a lying stink of shit. You absolutely need to be, to support your faith. And you'll prove it again, right now...

> > >
> > > The correct statement is *temporal*.
> >
> > Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
> >
>
> Now you are lying. The statement about the occipital was never at issue.

It absolutely is. The proof of that is 1.) No LNer has ever admitted on record where the occipital is, even though they all know (unless you count "silly" is an answer), and 2.) You can't recreate that damage as described, or attribute it to any visible damage in the BOH photo. You can't. And you never will.


>
> Why would you think I would be correcting something I never misstated? Also, show *one* time that *I* have ever denied it was in the AR, nor even said that there was no related damage there whatsoever.


Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head, and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times, and specifically.

You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.


>
>
> > >
> > > (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
> >
> > Start now.
> >
>
> Boy you are slow on the uptake. *READ* AGAIN. An Imbecile---you excepted---can see that I *was* being honest in admitting my error in going from memory.

I know you're a liar, but there's no sense rehashing an I-said/you-said argument.

>
>
> > >
> > > But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> >
> > https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> >
> > https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9

No comment?

> >
> > >
> > > and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >
> > Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
> >
>
> I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links

Spoken by an idiot so blatantly dishonest that he'd never point out....not only did I not ignore the link, I then went on to **cite** from it.

Liars lie, lurkers. That's what liars do.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone, it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
> >
> > This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half doublethink, all LNer.
> >
>
>
> Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is* towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the BOH...

Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.


>
> >
> > >
> > > Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
> > >
> > > "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> > > extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> > > saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
> > >
> > > Now where is that sinus located?
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > >
> > > Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
> >
> > Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
> >
>
> As always by pointing out anatomical *facts*. :-)
>
> > Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
> >
> > Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
>
> The debate about the entrance location of the Cowlick vs. near EOP is entirely separate, and as Dufii knows,

And as Dufii known as BT Barnum knows, the argument isn't--and never was--whether or not there was damage to the FRONT of the head.

>
> one I have touched on before. The second wound as I have said *repeatedly* is being largely obscured in the BOH photo by Boswell's hand holding part of the loose skin together to hold up the head. (JFK sure wasn't holding it up himself for the photo!!!)

Though apparently he was holding it up himself in the Z-film. You never did "splain" that, and you never will.

>
> This fact is easily appreciated by comparing it to the John Mytton GIFs that Imbecile is well familiar with,

I am well familiar with the non-medical non-evidence from the non-expert.

>
> but doesn't care to admit argues against the photo fakery his notions require him to believe in:
>
> https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170

So the BOH photo is fake? I wonder why you would go there?

>
>
> >
> > Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
> >
> > https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
> >
> > https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
> >
> > https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
> >
> >
> > Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
>
> "Boris" appears to be confusing what is talked about here. The section regarding...
>
> "Clearly visible in the above described **large skull defect*** and exuding
> from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
> represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
> point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
> disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
>
> ...does *not* refer back to the language that says:
>
> "Situated in the **posterior scalp** approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> right and slightly above the **external occipital protuberance** is a
> lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
> the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> skull."
>
> That language is referring to the much smaller wound of *entrance* that truly is in the BOH.

What wound?

>
> Rather, the mention of "...above described large skull defect" is referring back to the initial paragraph of this section entitled "Missile Wounds" that states:
>
> "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>
> Hence the damage "Boris" mentions is included in describing a wound that was *extensive* in terms of the directions it radiated into due to the explosive forces at work when the fragmented bullet split up and exited JFK's skull.

BT Barnum would like lurkers to believe JFK's head exploded into a million pieces internally, and remained intact externally. That the same "explosive forces" causing a skull to fracture like that would also not be an "explosive" enough "force" to create any entry wound at all. That the Harper fragment dislodged from the back of his head, shot forward out the front of his head, before flying backward again, without damaging the exterior of the back of Kennedy's head. And that the "absence of bone and scalp" isn't actually a thing.

But I wouldn't call BT Barnum a liar for any of this. Because he *actually* believes it.

>
> "So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.

What did I tell you before about phrases like "possibly" and "may well"? Speculation is not worth the shit on my shoe, especially when it's coming from a non-expert zealot circus troll.


>
> Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?"

No need. The AR explains it for me. In more ways than one.

And I would never deny a large wound at the front of his head. But you are denying a large wound at the back. This makes the AR your problem. Not mine. And that's why you have to spin every word in that fucking report to whatever spin you can "may have, possibly" get out of it.

You don't believe a single witness. Not one. Not the SS. Not the Kennedy family. Not the 25 medical experts who were there, who saw the wound, who described the wound, who MEASURED the wound.

You don't believe in "explosive forces" or kinetic energy.

You don't believe diagrams.

And you certainly don't believe words have meaning. Which is why you take your own creative liberties with the autopsy report, and also why you simply hand-wave away words like falx cerebri and THE O WORD, as if they're filler prepositions that, if truncated, would not change the meaning of the autopsy report one bit.

And, I think, you don't believe yourself. You're a liar. And you know it.


>
> BTW, also included in the language is this, further demonstrating the fact that the damage goes *well* forward of what one would expect if the "B" brothers were onto something trying to make this large wound a "BOH" wound in any meaningful sense of orientation:

This is merely a repeat of your old strawman that just because we acknowledge a BOH wound, we can't also acknowledge a wound in the front. Unlike you, we understand that bullets make two wounds. One going in. One going out.

>
>
> The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
> longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
> in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
> which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the **tip
> of the **frontal** lobe anteriorly**.
>
> Now where is the tip of the brain's frontal lobe?
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiOrpbYqeLiAhXGl54KHc7dAKkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cognifit.com%2Ffrontal-lobe%2F&psig=AOvVaw06j9jBdHVZZZAp8-Seya-e&ust=1560373308022709
>
>
> >
> > But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
> >
> > There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
> >
> > Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> >
> > This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
> >
>
> So "Boris" intends to explain how he thinks the *convergence* of these sinuses proves that the damage to the Saggital Sinus occurred rearwards, when that sinus *clearly* extends well forwards also?

My intention was to prove you a cherry-picking liar by omission. And I did so.

>
> ...Especially in light of the language I quoted above about the frontal lobe, and regarding the stuff "Boris" just snipped below. ...Which I shall restore.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
> >
> > No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
>
>
> Nah. I think my "autobiography" says something *you* wish the Lurkers wouldn't pay any attention too:
>
> The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
> latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
> ventricles**.
>
> Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:
>
> https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/meds/ckb/24/12424tn.jpg
>
> (NOTE: I deleted the prior links that don't seem to take you to the image, the one above should work.)
>
> Ohhh looky again. Is that more towards the BOH or the front like the "B" brothers need it to be?
>
> So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.

Good. You lose.

David Healy

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 9:11:47 PM6/11/19
to
Top Post Only: Is that urine running down your leg, old man? LMAO! A liar defending other .john liars, how quaint!

David Healy

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 9:14:11 PM6/11/19
to
Top Post Only: You've been caught lying, multiple times. You're giving CR a bad name, straighten the hell up!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 10:51:51 AM6/12/19
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:11:46 -0700 (PDT), David Healy
<healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Top Post Only: Is that urine running down your leg, old man? LMAO! A liar defending other .john liars, how quaint!



It was, of course, rhetorical... when I asked if there were *ANY*
believers willing to publicly state that it's a lie that the autopsy
report stated that the wound was "extending somewhat into the front".

It *IS* a lie, but no believer was willing to publicly state that.

Nor is it a memory issue... there's *NOTHING* that would lead someone
to mistakenly take an occipital/parietal/temporal wound, and move it
to the front.

It's simply a lie.

And in today's Internet, where even the most casual lurker can Google
for the Autopsy Report, and read it for themselves - it's a STUPID
lie.

Clearly... believers who post too often in censored forums where their
lies aren't pointed out - have problems when they post in an
uncensored forum.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 11:19:31 AM6/12/19
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:44:06 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>>> It was an error going from memory.
>>>
>>> No, it was a lie.
>>
>> Which is itself a lying statement.
>
> No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable.
> Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report
> at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a
> believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports
> their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once
> would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.
>
> You're a lying stink of shit. You absolutely need to be, to support
> your faith. And you'll prove it again, right now...


Is'n't it amusing? When believers lie, we can CITE & QUOTE the
relevant evidence PROVING that they lied.

But when they whine that we are lying, it's always an empty claim...

This troll has "admitted" that it was an "error" - but he's still
lying, because he won't publicly state that the wound was in the BACK
OF THE HEAD.

If he were truly an honest man, this would be a simple statement to
make.

BECAUSE THERE'S NO PART OF THE OCCIPITAL THAT IS *NOT* LOCATED IN THE
BACK OF THE HEAD.


>>>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
>>>
>>
>> Now you are lying. The statement about the occipital was never at issue.
>
> It absolutely is. The proof of that is 1.) No LNer has ever
> admitted on record where the occipital is, even though they all know
> (unless you count "silly" is an answer), and 2.) You can't recreate
> that damage as described, or attribute it to any visible damage in the
> BOH photo. You can't. And you never will.


"front" is an issue, but "occipital" ... which is ENTIRELY in the rear
of the head... isn't?

This is simply another STUPID lie.


>> Why would you think I would be correcting something I never
>> misstated? Also, show *one* time that *I* have ever denied it was in
>> the AR, nor even said that there was no related damage there
>> whatsoever.
>
>
> Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are
> directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head,
> and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the
> autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times,
> and specifically.
>
>You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.

Indeed. And willing to try to lie about it in an uncensored forum with
knowledgeable critics who aren't shy about pointing out lies.

Rather stupid...

There's not a *SINGLE* believer willing to publicly state that they
believe the Autopsy Report - yet every single one of them will quickly
cite it in support of their theory that JFK was only shot from behind.

That's practically a dictionary definition of hypocrisy.


>>>> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
>>>
>>> Start now.
>>>
>>
>> Boy you are slow on the uptake. *READ* AGAIN. An Imbecile---you
>> excepted---can see that I *was* being honest in admitting my error in
>> going from memory.
>
>I know you're a liar, but there's no sense rehashing an I-said/you-said argument.

"Honesty" would entail a public admission that the Autopsy Report
placed the wound in the BACK of the head.

Lying and claiming that it extended into the front, then retracting
that lie, without addressing what the Autopsy Report ACTUALLY said is
still a lie.

Where's the "honesty?" I don't see it.


>>>> But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>> https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
>>>
>>> https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
>>>
>>> https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
>
>No comment?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>>>
>>> Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
>>>
>>
>> I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links
>
>Spoken by an idiot so blatantly dishonest that he'd never point out....not only did I not ignore the link, I then went on to **cite** from it.
>
>Liars lie, lurkers. That's what liars do.


Indeed true.

And let's not forget that when they're too embarrassed to lie, they
simply demonstrate cowardice by running away.


>>>> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone,
>>>> it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of
>>>> the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
>>>
>>> This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he
>>> apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half
>>> doublethink, all LNer.
>>
>>
>> Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but
>> *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so
>> the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is*
>> towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the
>> Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal
>> regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a
>> large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the
>> BOH...


That's an unsupportable lie.


> Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more
> "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point
> out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than
> simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink
> you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the
> AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate
> on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.


If this troll were as honest as he keeps claiming, why is he afraid of
stating what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?

Indeed, a fairly good percentage of the parietal is also in the back
of the head.

It's incredibly *easy* to put a wound located in the
occipital/parietal in the back of the head, but this moron will
*NEVER* show how it could be described as *other* than a back of the
head wound.


....


>> So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had
>> *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front*
>> of the head.


It's takes a REALLY dishonest person to whine that the occipital is
not in the back of the head - which is clearly your intention here.

You're a liar.

The occipital is not merely "toward" the back of the head.

>Good. You lose.

He lost the moment he posts in an uncensored forum where knowledgeable
people can point out his lying.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 12:21:14 PM6/12/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 6:44:07 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was an error going from memory.
> > >
> > > No, it was a lie.
> >
> > Which is itself a lying statement.
>
> No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable. Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.
>

Your sounding more desperate all the time to disqualify me with ad hominem as you shall demonstrate your next breath.

> You're a lying stink of shit. You absolutely need to be, to support your faith. And you'll prove it again, right now...
>

You will prove *nothing* because a mistake is *not* a lie. But you and beb like swimming in deceit, so the idea of an honest mistake is, not surprisingly I guess, quite foreign to you.

> > > >
> > > > The correct statement is *temporal*.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
> > >
> >
> > Now you are lying. The statement about the occipital was never at issue.
>
> It absolutely is. The proof of that is 1.) No LNer has ever admitted on record where the occipital is, even though they all know (unless you count "silly" is an answer), and 2.) You can't recreate that damage as described, or attribute it to any visible damage in the BOH photo. You can't. And you never will.
>

Hey Imbecile. The occipital bone is located towards the underneath side of the BOH. I have told you before that though this comment in the AR may be an error, but it may not be also. It could be referring to radiating damage HFB noted because they believed it to be related to the wound of exit. I say *believed* because it's also possible---given the fact the bullet traversed the right side of the head from front to back, shattering and exploding out as it went---that this damage was actually caused by simple fragmenting of the skull by the explosive forces at work. And/or it could have been caused by the path of the bullet as it traveled and thus *not* directly as a result of the exit.

But even if it *was* related to the exit itself, the language *SOMEWHAT* does not permit an interpretation of a significant extent into occipital bone or the BOH. And if you are too clueless to figure out how Boswell holding the head by pulling together parts of the loose flap for the BOH pictures is obscuring the (obviously) large extent of that wound as reflected in the earlier autopsy photos showing his body prone with the flap(s) open and exposed, I cannot help that.

>
> >
> > Why would you think I would be correcting something I never misstated? Also, show *one* time that *I* have ever denied it was in the AR, nor even said that there was no related damage there whatsoever.
>
>
> Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head, and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times, and specifically.
>

No sir. I am maintaining just what I said about the effect of Boswell's action.

> You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.
>

An incorrect statement, yes.

>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
> > >
> > > Start now.
> > >
> >
> > Boy you are slow on the uptake. *READ* AGAIN. An Imbecile---you excepted---can see that I *was* being honest in admitting my error in going from memory.
>
> I know you're a liar, but there's no sense rehashing an I-said/you-said argument.
>

As I told beb, expertise at certain things, does not automatically confer expertise in identifying that flaw in others. Your attributes as a liar, are quite obviously so short circuited by your attributes as an Imbecile, that you cannot render a correct assessment of when someone else is telling the truth.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > > https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> > >
> > > https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> > >
> > > https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
>
> No comment?
>


No need to comment on what *I* have already adequately explained for honest and intelligent people to evaluate.


> > >
> > > >
> > > > and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > >
> > > Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
> > >
> >
> > I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links
>
> Spoken by an idiot so blatantly dishonest that he'd never point out....not only did I not ignore the link, I then went on to **cite** from it.
>
> Liars lie, lurkers. That's what liars do.
>

Cite it, while ignoring, and not dealing with any counter points I have made. Good job "Boris"! :-)

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone, it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
> > >
> > > This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half doublethink, all LNer.
> > >

Read below for yourselves Lurkers and decide if I did not clarify and openly acknowledge where I was wrong, while *correctly* pointing out the underlying facts that exerted influence upon why I had a memory error in the first place. "Boris" is too stupid or stubborn to note the difference, I trust you are not.

> >
> >
> > Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is* towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the BOH...
>
> Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.
>

"Boris" has 25 "experts" who were engaged in performing (under dire and time compressed circumstances) their *true* expertise of being emergency room MD's. They were *not* being asked to serve outside this expertise as experts in post mortem medicine. ...You know, the branch of medicine Imbecile recently came to learn, encompasses the conducting autopsies. :-)

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
> > > >
> > > > "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> > > > extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> > > > saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
> > > >
> > > > Now where is that sinus located?
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > > >
> > > > Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
> > >
> > > Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
> > >
> >
> > As always by pointing out anatomical *facts*. :-)
> >
> > > Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
> > >
> > > Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> >
> > The debate about the entrance location of the Cowlick vs. near EOP is entirely separate, and as Dufii knows,
>
> And as Dufii known as BT Barnum knows, the argument isn't--and never was--whether or not there was damage to the FRONT of the head.
>

And "Boris" point is what Lurkers? Does he even really know?

> >
> > one I have touched on before. The second wound as I have said *repeatedly* is being largely obscured in the BOH photo by Boswell's hand holding part of the loose skin together to hold up the head. (JFK sure wasn't holding it up himself for the photo!!!)
>
> Though apparently he was holding it up himself in the Z-film. You never did "splain" that, and you never will.
>

What a weird comment. I see nothing hard to understand about his movements in the Z-film. Perhaps "Boris" can explain to you Lurkers how the just shot JFK---body still in motion from the shooting---in *any* meaningful way compares to the fully *dead* and growing stiff with rigormortis body of JFK in autopsy room!?!

> >
> > This fact is easily appreciated by comparing it to the John Mytton GIFs that Imbecile is well familiar with,
>
> I am well familiar with the non-medical non-evidence from the non-expert.
>

Yet feels competent as a non-medical expert to:

1) Pick and choose from *his* interpretations of *inferior* evidence from medical experts in unrelated fields.

2) Assert the primacy of his *non-medical* interpretations of the meaning of the comments in the AR over the interpretations of the *medical experts* (who were properly carrying out an endeavor in their field of medicine) as is abundantly evident by his flouting of their *conclusions*.

Hypocrite any, folks?

> >
> > but doesn't care to admit argues against the photo fakery his notions require him to believe in:
> >
> > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
>
> So the BOH photo is fake? I wonder why you would go there?
>

....Duh! Because *"Boris"* is going there, even as he is going there (repeatedly) on the Z-Film. :-)


> >
> >
> > >
> > > Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
> > >
> > > https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
> > >
> > > https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
> > >
> > > https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
> > >
> > >
> > > Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
> >
> > "Boris" appears to be confusing what is talked about here. The section regarding...
> >
> > "Clearly visible in the above described **large skull defect*** and exuding
> > from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
> > represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
> > point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
> > disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> >
> > ...does *not* refer back to the language that says:
> >
> > "Situated in the **posterior scalp** approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> > right and slightly above the **external occipital protuberance** is a
> > lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> > corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
> > the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> > skull."
> >
> > That language is referring to the much smaller wound of *entrance* that truly is in the BOH.
>
> What wound?
>

If "Boris" doesn't understand the wound I am referring to above by now, no wonder he keeps getting lost in this whole thing. I must recommend he take up something else as a hobby. This one is clearly *not* for him. :-)

> >
> > Rather, the mention of "...above described large skull defect" is referring back to the initial paragraph of this section entitled "Missile Wounds" that states:
> >
> > "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> > involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> > temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> > absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
> >
> > Hence the damage "Boris" mentions is included in describing a wound that was *extensive* in terms of the directions it radiated into due to the explosive forces at work when the fragmented bullet split up and exited JFK's skull.
>
> BT Barnum would like lurkers to believe JFK's head exploded into a million pieces internally, and remained intact externally. That the same "explosive forces" causing a skull to fracture like that would also not be an "explosive" enough "force" to create any entry wound at all. That the Harper fragment dislodged from the back of his head, shot forward out the front of his head, before flying backward again, without damaging the exterior of the back of Kennedy's head. And that the "absence of bone and scalp" isn't actually a thing.
>

The above statement is fraught with so many errors, I refuse to even begin. Simply put, the first sentence (first two words excepted) is just about the only thing "Boris" states correctly about my position. (I encourage any and all to look up some of the descriptions later given by HFB to the HSCA and ARRB of the state of JFK's skull and see if that generalization is not pretty darn correct.) Just about everything else he uttered is either incorrect, or I have never stated any such thing.

> But I wouldn't call BT Barnum a liar for any of this. Because he *actually* believes it.
>

What I believe, and what "Boris" asserts I believe, are often at considerable variance folks. Just keep that in mind.

> >
> > "So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
>
> What did I tell you before about phrases like "possibly" and "may well"? Speculation is not worth the shit on my shoe, especially when it's coming from a non-expert zealot circus troll.
>

Says a man *far* more guilty of the evils he accuses me of as I have shown above. As for his dislike of my using cautionary words, that merely betrays his predilection for arriving a hastily drawn blanket determinations that he does not care to be scrutinized on. Moreover, as he and beb have *amply* shown, each and every misstatement (whether real or merely perceived) or inexactititude will be jumped upon as a lying deception.

>
> >
> > Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?"
>
> No need. The AR explains it for me. In more ways than one.
>

In his own feeble mind Lukers. In his own feeble mind.

> And I would never deny a large wound at the front of his head. But you are denying a large wound at the back. This makes the AR your problem. Not mine. And that's why you have to spin every word in that fucking report to whatever spin you can "may have, possibly" get out of it.
>

Yet "Boris" is at a loss to explain why HFB have *never* described the wounds to be as he says, nor have *any* of the FP's who have reviewed the medical evidence they left behind done so. Their conclusion in the AR contradicts the above notions, as does the conclusion of *every* forensic pathology review ever undertaken. ...I'm afraid it's just beb "Boris". Who you gonna' trust Lurkers?

> You don't believe a single witness. Not one. Not the SS. Not the Kennedy family. Not the 25 medical experts who were there, who saw the wound, who described the wound, who MEASURED the wound.
>

Note his reliance on the words of those *not* conducting an autopsy, and that his last claim is simply and only *his* (and beb's) private, non-medical expert opinion.

> You don't believe in "explosive forces" or kinetic energy.
>
> You don't believe diagrams.
>
> And you certainly don't believe words have meaning. Which is why you take your own creative liberties with the autopsy report, and also why you simply hand-wave away words like falx cerebri and THE O WORD, as if they're filler prepositions that, if truncated, would not change the meaning of the autopsy report one bit.
>
> And, I think, you don't believe yourself. You're a liar. And you know it.
>

See how by a tirade of ad hominem and blanket misstatements he hopes you don't notice the vapidness of his arguments folks?

>
> >
> > BTW, also included in the language is this, further demonstrating the fact that the damage goes *well* forward of what one would expect if the "B" brothers were onto something trying to make this large wound a "BOH" wound in any meaningful sense of orientation:
>
> This is merely a repeat of your old strawman that just because we acknowledge a BOH wound, we can't also acknowledge a wound in the front. Unlike you, we understand that bullets make two wounds. One going in. One going out.
>

Then what's his point Folks? There *was* one going in---into the BOH where it made a much smaller wound that is typical of entrances. There was one going out---on the right side more towards the front, where it made a much larger wound that is typical of exits. All the "B" Brothers have to do is to acknowledge this obvious truth that all the *hard* evidence supports, as does virtually *all* the testimony of those engaged as experts in forensic pathology and wound ballistics.

> >
> >
> > The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
> > longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
> > in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
> > which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the **tip
> > of the **frontal** lobe anteriorly**.
> >
> > Now where is the tip of the brain's frontal lobe?
> >
> > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiOrpbYqeLiAhXGl54KHc7dAKkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cognifit.com%2Ffrontal-lobe%2F&psig=AOvVaw06j9jBdHVZZZAp8-Seya-e&ust=1560373308022709
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
> > >
> > > There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
> > >
> > > Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > >
> > > This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
> > >
> >
> > So "Boris" intends to explain how he thinks the *convergence* of these sinuses proves that the damage to the Saggital Sinus occurred rearwards, when that sinus *clearly* extends well forwards also?
>
> My intention was to prove you a cherry-picking liar by omission. And I did so.
>

In his own feeble mind. In his own feeble mind.

> >
> > ...Especially in light of the language I quoted above about the frontal lobe, and regarding the stuff "Boris" just snipped below. ...Which I shall restore.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
> > >
> > > No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
> >
> >
> > Nah. I think my "autobiography" says something *you* wish the Lurkers wouldn't pay any attention too:
> >
> > The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
> > latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
> > ventricles**.
> >
> > Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:
> >
> > https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/meds/ckb/24/12424tn.jpg
> >
> > (NOTE: I deleted the prior links that don't seem to take you to the image, the one above should work.)
> >
> > Ohhh looky again. Is that more towards the BOH or the front like the "B" brothers need it to be?
> >
> > So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
>
> Good. You lose.

Spoken by a true Imbecile! ...But I'll let you Lurkers be the judges.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 12:23:43 PM6/12/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 8:14:11 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> Top Post Only: You've been caught lying, multiple times. You're giving CR a bad name, straighten the hell up!
>

Now, now, Sot. How many times must I tell you that coming out of your *Denial* is the first step towards Recovery.

chucksch...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 12:33:57 PM6/12/19
to
Here's an easy way to cut through Ben's baloney:

Ben, post what you think happened with JFK's autopsy, start-to-finish. Give us the backstory, your take on how the wound(s) were altered and when this occurred, the number of shots JFK received and where, and so on.

This will quiet him...

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 2:01:39 PM6/12/19
to
> >
> > No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable. Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.
> >
>
> Your sounding more desperate all the time to disqualify me with ad hominem

If that were true, I'd point out that you don't even know how to spell "you're"

>
> as you shall demonstrate your next breath.

All I did was call you a liar. Then I proved it. Then I proved it again. Then again. And now I'll have to do it again.

>
> > > > >
> > > > > The correct statement is *temporal*.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now you are lying. The statement about the occipital was never at issue.
> >
> > It absolutely is. The proof of that is 1.) No LNer has ever admitted on record where the occipital is, even though they all know (unless you count "silly" is an answer), and 2.) You can't recreate that damage as described, or attribute it to any visible damage in the BOH photo. You can't. And you never will.
> >
>
> Hey Imbecile. The occipital bone is located towards the underneath side of the BOH.

Now point out the damage to it in the BOH photo, as concurrent with the AR and witnesses.

>
> I have told you before that though this comment in the AR may be an error, but it may not be also.

You don't get to decide what "may" or "may not" be in error in relation to the AR. "May" it be in error that JFK was shot once, from above and behind, as per the AR?

(Imagine trying to pull this one off, lurkers! The LN desperation...)

>
> It could be

"may"...."could"..."possibly"

Garbage.

>
> referring to radiating damage HFB noted because they believed it to be related to the wound of exit.

Imagine looking at the damage as seen in the BOH photo and "mistakenly" believing there is an exit wound's worth of damage there.

>
> I say *believed* because

Because you are forced to speculate.

>
> it's also possible---

"possible"...."could be"..."might"...

>
> given the fact the bullet traversed the right side of the head from front to back,

LOL! Finally, a "mistake" made by BT Barnum that absolves Oswald. Another amusing Freudian slip, troll?


>
> shattering and exploding out as it went---that this damage was actually caused by simple fragmenting of the skull by the explosive forces at work.

It takes a LNer to believe that "simple" and "explosive force" go in the same sentence together when describing the annihilation of a skull from a high-velocity bullet. In this case, "simple" is a weasel word subtly inserted to explain away the lack of damage to the back of the head.


>
> And/or it could have been caused by the path of the bullet as it traveled and thus *not* directly as a result of the exit.
>
> But even if it *was* related to the exit itself, the language *SOMEWHAT*

Like the word "chiefly," the circus troll believes the word "somewhat" protects him somehow.


>
> does not permit an interpretation of a significant extent into occipital bone or the BOH.

But the word "occipital" does. And so does the words "falx cerebri" for that matter. But do tell us, doctor, why you get to decide what interpretations are permitted and which aren't? Cite your medical credentials.

>
> And if you are too clueless to figure out how Boswell holding the head by pulling together parts of the loose flap for the BOH pictures is obscuring the (obviously) large extent of that wound as reflected in the earlier autopsy photos showing his body prone with the flap(s) open and exposed, I cannot help that.

So I'll ask a third time, where in the Z-film was Boswell's hand holding up the back flaps of Kennedy's head? The other idiot answered "attached to his wrist," so you'll have to come up with a better answer than that.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Why would you think I would be correcting something I never misstated? Also, show *one* time that *I* have ever denied it was in the AR, nor even said that there was no related damage there whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head, and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times, and specifically.
> >
>
> No sir. I am maintaining just what I said about the effect of Boswell's action.

No doubt Boswell was doing exactly that. Since nurse Audrey Bell was certain this flap was hinged at the top, someone would have to hold it in place.

>
> > You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.
> >
>
> An incorrect statement, yes.

Except when you're busy espousing that mention of the "occipital" in the AR "may be" an error. Among things.


> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> > > >
> > > > Okay.
> > > >
> > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> > > >
> > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> > > >
> > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
> >
> > No comment?
> >
>
>
> No need to comment on what *I* have already adequately explained for honest and intelligent people to evaluate.

Who cares about your explanation? You weren't there. They were. And they ALL corroborate each other. Every single one of them.

>
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > > >
> > > > Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links
> >
> > Spoken by an idiot so blatantly dishonest that he'd never point out....not only did I not ignore the link, I then went on to **cite** from it.
> >
> > Liars lie, lurkers. That's what liars do.
> >
>
> Cite it, while ignoring, and not dealing with any counter points I have made. Good job "Boris"! :-)

The citation is right in the body of this post, moron. Anyone can see it. Now point out all your ever-lucid counterpoints that weren't addressed.


>
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is* towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the BOH...
> >
> > Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.

> >
>
> "Boris" has 25 "experts"

I like how the circus troll puts "experts" in quotation marks. As if they're not. This is what LNers do when witnesses contradict the official narrative. Discredit at all costs. Doubly insulting, when the ones doing the discrediting have no accomplishments of their own. Pathetic.

>
> who were engaged in performing (under dire and time compressed circumstances)

Circumstances to which they are well accustomed.

>
> their *true* expertise of being emergency room MD's.

If this doesn't sound like defense attorney filibustering bullshit, I don't know what does.

>
> They were *not* being asked to serve outside this expertise as experts in post mortem medicine.

The only way they can see what they saw is if they were "asked." All the while, the circus troll cannot reconcile how such "mistaken" experts were able to measure and even touch the wound, and then ALL corroborate each other on where it was, and its nature.


> > > > >
> > > > > Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> > > > > extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> > > > > saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
> > > > >
> > > > > Now where is that sinus located?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > > > >
> > > > > Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
> > > >
> > > > Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As always by pointing out anatomical *facts*. :-)
> > >
> > > > Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
> > > >
> > > > Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> > >
> > > The debate about the entrance location of the Cowlick vs. near EOP is entirely separate, and as Dufii knows,
> >
> > And as Dufii known as BT Barnum knows, the argument isn't--and never was--whether or not there was damage to the FRONT of the head.
> >
>
> And "Boris" point is what Lurkers? Does he even really know?

That you're trying to focus attention on one part of the head, and away from another. And that you did it poorly, because the superior saggital sinus and falx cerebri aren't even what/where you think they are.


>
> > >
> > > one I have touched on before. The second wound as I have said *repeatedly* is being largely obscured in the BOH photo by Boswell's hand holding part of the loose skin together to hold up the head. (JFK sure wasn't holding it up himself for the photo!!!)
> >
> > Though apparently he was holding it up himself in the Z-film. You never did "splain" that, and you never will.
> >
>
> What a weird comment.

Not weird to anyone who understand where I'm going with this.

>
> I see nothing hard to understand about his movements in the Z-film.

You're a bona fide moron, I'm afraid. The point was, of course, that you've whined repeatedly that there is no BOH damage visible in the photo because Boswell is holding up the flap of scalp. Only, there is no flap of scalp in the Z-film. So...who was holding it up in the Z-film?

Now that I've explained it in a way a third-grader understands, feel free to not understand it some more.

>
> > >
> > > This fact is easily appreciated by comparing it to the John Mytton GIFs that Imbecile is well familiar with,
> >
> > I am well familiar with the non-medical non-evidence from the non-expert.
> >
>
> Yet feels competent as a non-medical expert to:
>
> 1) Pick and choose from *his* interpretations of *inferior* evidence from medical experts in unrelated fields.

Dunning-Kruger. Who other than you decided it was "inferior"? And if it was inferior, why is it corroborative?


>
> 2) Assert the primacy of his *non-medical* interpretations of the meaning of the comments in the AR over the interpretations of the *medical experts* (who were properly carrying out an endeavor in their field of medicine) as is abundantly evident by his flouting of their *conclusions*.

A liar lies, lurkers. That's what liars do.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lDtOzLNk-QU/H1U2J6sqBgAJ

That's a post BT Barnum never addressed. He musta "missed" it. Nevertheless, therein lies direct citations from not only the "experts" (ie., medical personnel and doctors who apparently don't know shit), but also from the REAL experts...you know, the ones specializing in postmortem medicine. Or something. An excerpt from the post....

*************

Okay, so let's consult those who performed the autopsy....

Boswell: "The wound was fairly low in the back of the head and the bone was completely gone"

Humes: "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter..."

Finck: "The FATAL WOUND (sic) - entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."

And even though Finck indicates "entry" here, you are forced to deny this claim anyway, because you can't find that wound anywhere in the BOH photo. Strangely enough, this is EXACTLY where Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland, Grossman ***and everyone else*** put that wound. You know, all those mistaken experts. They could find it well enough. But you can't. Not in the BOH photo. And that's what's known as a catch-22.

************

Liars lie, lurkers.


>
> Hypocrite any, folks?

If I were a hypocrite, I'd counter John Mytton's [who is that again??] "evidence" with the research of Sherry Fiester, who, unlike John "Who Is That Again" Mytton, DOES have forensic experience and is a 30-year senior crime scene investigator, and dissected both the head wound and trajectory better than John "Not the British Member of Parliament Guy" Mytton ever could or will.

But I didn't. I don't have to.

>
> > >
> > > but doesn't care to admit argues against the photo fakery his notions require him to believe in:
> > >
> > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> >
> > So the BOH photo is fake? I wonder why you would go there?
> >
>
> ....Duh!

That's what I'm sayin'

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
> > > >
> > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
> > > >
> > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
> > > >
> > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
> > >
> > > "Boris" appears to be confusing what is talked about here. The section regarding...
> > >
> > > "Clearly visible in the above described **large skull defect*** and exuding
> > > from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
> > > represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
> > > point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
> > > disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> > >
> > > ...does *not* refer back to the language that says:
> > >
> > > "Situated in the **posterior scalp** approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> > > right and slightly above the **external occipital protuberance** is a
> > > lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> > > corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
> > > the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> > > skull."

Tsk-tsk. There's that not-believing-the-autopsy-report stuff we talked about, troll.

> > >
> > > That language is referring to the much smaller wound of *entrance* that truly is in the BOH.
> >
> > What wound?
> >
>
> If "Boris" doesn't understand the wound I am referring to above by now, no wonder he keeps getting lost in this whole thing. I must recommend he take up something else as a hobby. This one is clearly *not* for him. :-)

That doesn't answer my question, though. Does it?

>
> > >
> > > Rather, the mention of "...above described large skull defect" is referring back to the initial paragraph of this section entitled "Missile Wounds" that states:
> > >
> > > "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> > > involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> > > temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> > > absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> > > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
> > >
> > > Hence the damage "Boris" mentions is included in describing a wound that was *extensive* in terms of the directions it radiated into due to the explosive forces at work when the fragmented bullet split up and exited JFK's skull.
> >
> > BT Barnum would like lurkers to believe JFK's head exploded into a million pieces internally, and remained intact externally. That the same "explosive forces" causing a skull to fracture like that would also not be an "explosive" enough "force" to create any entry wound at all. That the Harper fragment dislodged from the back of his head, shot forward out the front of his head, before flying backward again, without damaging the exterior of the back of Kennedy's head. And that the "absence of bone and scalp" isn't actually a thing.
> >
>
> The above statement is fraught with so many errors, I refuse to even begin.

BT Barnum's post is fraught with so many errors, I refuse to even begin.

No wait.

I'm going to confront them head-on.

It would be cowardly not to, and may implicitly prove him right.

>
> Simply put, the first sentence (first two words excepted) is just about the only thing "Boris" states correctly about my position. (I encourage any and all to look up some of the descriptions later given by HFB to the HSCA and ARRB of the state of JFK's skull and see if that generalization is not pretty darn correct.) Just about everything else he uttered is either incorrect, or I have never stated any such thing.

Name the "experts on postmortem medicine" on these panels, and tell us which of them physically SAW and HANDLED Kennedy's ACTUAL HEAD.

>
> > But I wouldn't call BT Barnum a liar for any of this. Because he *actually* believes it.
> >
>
> What I believe, and what "Boris" asserts I believe, are often at considerable variance folks. Just keep that in mind.

You believe the official narrative. It encompasses everything I listed. Did I miss something?

>
> > >
> > > "So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
> >
> > What did I tell you before about phrases like "possibly" and "may well"? Speculation is not worth the shit on my shoe, especially when it's coming from a non-expert zealot circus troll.
> >
>
> Says a man *far* more guilty of the evils he accuses me of as I have shown above.

How so?


> > >
> > > Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?"
> >
> > No need. The AR explains it for me. In more ways than one.
> >
>
> In his own feeble mind Lukers. In his own feeble mind.

Repeating an ad hominem twice doesn't doubly refute my argument.


>
> > And I would never deny a large wound at the front of his head. But you are denying a large wound at the back. This makes the AR your problem. Not mine. And that's why you have to spin every word in that fucking report to whatever spin you can "may have, possibly" get out of it.
> >
>
> Yet "Boris" is at a loss to explain why HFB have *never* described the wounds to be as he says, nor have *any* of the FP's who have reviewed the medical evidence they left behind done so.

They never handled Kennedy's head.

>
> Their conclusion in the AR contradicts the above notions, as does the conclusion of *every* forensic pathology review ever undertaken. ...I'm afraid it's just beb "Boris". Who you gonna' trust Lurkers?

I'll trust those who saw and handled the head. They are primary sources. And anyone so partial to "historical null hypotheses" like you and Schmucky Schuler claim to be should know the difference between "primary" and "secondary" sources.

>
> > You don't believe a single witness. Not one. Not the SS. Not the Kennedy family. Not the 25 medical experts who were there, who saw the wound, who described the wound, who MEASURED the wound.
> >
>
> Note his reliance on the words of those *not* conducting an autopsy, and that his last claim is simply and only *his* (and beb's) private, non-medical expert opinion.

Another lie. See above. Humes/Finck/Boswell ALL cited.


>
> > You don't believe in "explosive forces" or kinetic energy.

No comment from the troll.

> >
> > You don't believe diagrams.

No comment from the troll.

> >
> > And you certainly don't believe words have meaning. Which is why you take your own creative liberties with the autopsy report, and also why you simply hand-wave away words like falx cerebri and THE O WORD, as if they're filler prepositions that, if truncated, would not change the meaning of the autopsy report one bit.

No comment from the troll.

> >
> > And, I think, you don't believe yourself. You're a liar. And you know it.
> >
>
> See how by a tirade of ad hominem and blanket misstatements he hopes you don't notice the vapidness of his arguments folks?

No refutation whatsoever from the troll.

>
> >
> > >
> > > BTW, also included in the language is this, further demonstrating the fact that the damage goes *well* forward of what one would expect if the "B" brothers were onto something trying to make this large wound a "BOH" wound in any meaningful sense of orientation:
> >
> > This is merely a repeat of your old strawman that just because we acknowledge a BOH wound, we can't also acknowledge a wound in the front. Unlike you, we understand that bullets make two wounds. One going in. One going out.
> >
>
> Then what's his point Folks? There *was* one going in---into the BOH where it made a much smaller wound that is typical of entrances.

Point it out, then. And point it out in a way that is CORROBORATIVE with the AR.


> > >
> > > The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
> > > longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
> > > in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
> > > which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the **tip
> > > of the **frontal** lobe anteriorly**.
> > >
> > > Now where is the tip of the brain's frontal lobe?
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiOrpbYqeLiAhXGl54KHc7dAKkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cognifit.com%2Ffrontal-lobe%2F&psig=AOvVaw06j9jBdHVZZZAp8-Seya-e&ust=1560373308022709
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
> > > >
> > > > There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
> > > >
> > > > Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > > >
> > > > This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.

[there's that source I apparently never cited]

> > > >
> > >
> > > So "Boris" intends to explain how he thinks the *convergence* of these sinuses proves that the damage to the Saggital Sinus occurred rearwards, when that sinus *clearly* extends well forwards also?
> >
> > My intention was to prove you a cherry-picking liar by omission. And I did so.
> >

Silence from the troll here. Couldn't even *try* to defend himself.

> > >
> > > ...Especially in light of the language I quoted above about the frontal lobe, and regarding the stuff "Boris" just snipped below. ...Which I shall restore.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
> > > >
> > > > No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nah. I think my "autobiography" says something *you* wish the Lurkers wouldn't pay any attention too:
> > >
> > > The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
> > > latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
> > > ventricles**.
> > >
> > > Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:
> > >
> > > https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/meds/ckb/24/12424tn.jpg
> > >
> > > (NOTE: I deleted the prior links that don't seem to take you to the image, the one above should work.)
> > >
> > > Ohhh looky again. Is that more towards the BOH or the front like the "B" brothers need it to be?
> > >
> > > So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
> >
> > Good. You lose.
>
> Spoken by a true Imbecile! ...But I'll let you Lurkers be the judges.

Spoken by someone who just watched you admit that there was extensive damage to the front and back of head.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 2:02:49 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:44:06 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>>> It was an error going from memory.
> >>>
> >>> No, it was a lie.
> >>
> >> Which is itself a lying statement.
> >
> > No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable.
> > Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report
> > at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a
> > believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports
> > their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once
> > would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.
> >
> > You're a lying stink of shit. You absolutely need to be, to support
> > your faith. And you'll prove it again, right now...
>
>
> Is'n't it amusing? When believers lie, we can CITE & QUOTE the
> relevant evidence PROVING that they lied.
>

So speaks the king of lies!!!

> But when they whine that we are lying, it's always an empty claim...
>
> This troll has "admitted" that it was an "error" - but he's still
> lying, because he won't publicly state that the wound was in the BACK
> OF THE HEAD.
>
> If he were truly an honest man, this would be a simple statement to
> make.
>
> BECAUSE THERE'S NO PART OF THE OCCIPITAL THAT IS *NOT* LOCATED IN THE
> BACK OF THE HEAD.
>

What part of *chiefly* Parietal, but extending *SOMEWHAT* into the Temporal and Occipital regions places this wound as *meaningfully* in the BOH? beb has no good answer, because he cannot square circles any more than "Boris".

>
> >>>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now you are lying. The statement about the occipital was never at issue.
> >
> > It absolutely is. The proof of that is 1.) No LNer has ever
> > admitted on record where the occipital is, even though they all know
> > (unless you count "silly" is an answer), and 2.) You can't recreate
> > that damage as described, or attribute it to any visible damage in the
> > BOH photo. You can't. And you never will.
>
>
> "front" is an issue, but "occipital" ... which is ENTIRELY in the rear
> of the head... isn't?
>
> This is simply another STUPID lie.
>

And beb is now going to show where *I* ever said there was definitely *no* damage to the BOH area related to this wound? (Still less where I said the AR didn't indicate that?)

>
> >> Why would you think I would be correcting something I never
> >> misstated? Also, show *one* time that *I* have ever denied it was in
> >> the AR, nor even said that there was no related damage there
> >> whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are
> > directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head,
> > and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the
> > autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times,
> > and specifically.
> >
> >You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.
>
> Indeed. And willing to try to lie about it in an uncensored forum with
> knowledgeable critics who aren't shy about pointing out lies.
>
> Rather stupid...
>


Yes beb is. And his comments betray it repeatedly.

> There's not a *SINGLE* believer willing to publicly state that they
> believe the Autopsy Report - yet every single one of them will quickly
> cite it in support of their theory that JFK was only shot from behind.
>
> That's practically a dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
>

So once again Lurkers, have you seen beb or "Boris" quoting me as disbelieving the AR report in any meaningful way? And since they manifestly disagree with its *conclusions* and I/fellow LN's do not, who are the hypocrites here?

>
> >>>> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
> >>>
> >>> Start now.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Boy you are slow on the uptake. *READ* AGAIN. An Imbecile---you
> >> excepted---can see that I *was* being honest in admitting my error in
> >> going from memory.
> >
> >I know you're a liar, but there's no sense rehashing an I-said/you-said argument.
>
> "Honesty" would entail a public admission that the Autopsy Report
> placed the wound in the BACK of the head.
>

No. **Really** bad *interpretation* would entail such and "admission". That's the "B" Brothers job!

> Lying and claiming that it extended into the front, then retracting
> that lie, without addressing what the Autopsy Report ACTUALLY said is
> still a lie.
>
> Where's the "honesty?" I don't see it.
>

beb couldn't spot honesty if it confronted him first thing out of bed every morning an slapped the snot out of him.

>
> >>>> But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> >>>
> >>> Okay.
> >>>
> >>> https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> >>>
> >>> https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> >>>
> >>> https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
> >
> >No comment?
> >
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >>>
> >>> Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links
> >
> >Spoken by an idiot so blatantly dishonest that he'd never point out....not only did I not ignore the link, I then went on to **cite** from it.
> >
> >Liars lie, lurkers. That's what liars do.
>
>
> Indeed true.
>

..As assessed by the king of lying.

> And let's not forget that when they're too embarrassed to lie, they
> simply demonstrate cowardice by running away.
>

Hmmm. Remind me again Lurkers, who is it around here who hides out behind his Killfilter!?!

>
> >>>> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone,
> >>>> it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of
> >>>> the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
> >>>
> >>> This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he
> >>> apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half
> >>> doublethink, all LNer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but
> >> *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so
> >> the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is*
> >> towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the
> >> Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal
> >> regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a
> >> large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the
> >> BOH...
>
>
> That's an unsupportable lie.
>

Yes it is an unsupportable "lie", because it is instead a supportable *truth*. :-)

>
> > Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more
> > "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point
> > out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than
> > simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink
> > you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the
> > AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate
> > on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.
>
>
> If this troll were as honest as he keeps claiming, why is he afraid of
> stating what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?
>

Let beb show *one* place where I said anything other than that the occipital Region lies on the underneath/back side of the skull. He *loves* implying denial that I have *never* made.

> Indeed, a fairly good percentage of the parietal is also in the back
> of the head.
>

Does he mean the part that also extends somewhat into the Temporal Region? And where does the Temporal bone lie in relation to the majority of the Occipital Region?

https://images.slideplayer.com/25/8037711/slides/slide_5.jpg

BTW, if beb and "Boris" are correct, perhaps they would like to indicate a *credible* wound track for the smaller wound that the AR *clearly* places in the BOH (as do the BOH pictures)? I mean from where was this gunman firing if the wound went in back there then---as they would have you believe---exited primarily towards the BOH?

> It's incredibly *easy* to put a wound located in the
> occipital/parietal in the back of the head, but this moron will
> *NEVER* show how it could be described as *other* than a back of the
> head wound.
>

Uhhh. The Parietal bone was essentially destroyed. Look at what I linked to above Lurkers, and ask yourself if an irregularly shaped wound 13 cm. (a shade over 5 inches) at it's largest extent absolutely precludes such a description? Especially since---as already mentioned---the *majority* of the Temporal region (that was involved to the same "somewhat" degree as the Occipital) lies *forwards* of the Occipital area. Does that kind of interpretation not better comport with this language regarding the brain examination:

The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
which extends **from** the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly **to** the **tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly.**

Sure sounds like a missile entered the low, BOH as stated in the AR, then exited going towards the right/front. ...Funny that.

>
> ....
>
>
> >> So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had
> >> *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front*
> >> of the head.
>
>
> It's takes a REALLY dishonest person to whine that the occipital is
> not in the back of the head - which is clearly your intention here.
>
> You're a liar.
>
> The occipital is not merely "toward" the back of the head.
>

Well actually it is the underneath/BOH. Part of that underneath goes well forwards from this illustration. Would you disagree Lurkers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral4.png

Then check out the 360 degree view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_animation.gif



> >Good. You lose.
>
> He lost the moment he posts in an uncensored forum where knowledgeable
> people can point out his lying.

LOL! Well it Bud and Chuck chime in and want to point to my lying some place, then what beb says might be true. But until then, consider the source Lurkers. ...Consider the source.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 2:05:08 PM6/12/19
to
> >
>
> Hmmm. Remind me again Lurkers, who is it around here who hides out behind his Killfilter!?!

Bud, apparently.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/neoW7XkiLjk/1rXXz2hvBQAJ

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 3:36:38 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 1:01:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable. Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.
> > >
> >
> > Your sounding more desperate all the time to disqualify me with ad hominem
>
> If that were true, I'd point out that you don't even know how to spell "you're"
>

See how weak his arguments go? A few common spelling or grammar errors are quite convincing to you that I am wrong, right folks? Much more important than my correct usage of quaint devices like logic and reason!

> >
> > as you shall demonstrate your next breath.
>
> All I did was call you a liar. Then I proved it. Then I proved it again. Then again. And now I'll have to do it again.
>

Say an imbecile and liar.

> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The correct statement is *temporal*.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now you are lying. The statement about the occipital was never at issue.
> > >
> > > It absolutely is. The proof of that is 1.) No LNer has ever admitted on record where the occipital is, even though they all know (unless you count "silly" is an answer), and 2.) You can't recreate that damage as described, or attribute it to any visible damage in the BOH photo. You can't. And you never will.
> > >
> >
> > Hey Imbecile. The occipital bone is located towards the underneath side of the BOH.
>
> Now point out the damage to it in the BOH photo, as concurrent with the AR and witnesses.
>

Perhaps "Boris" should point out why the true medical professionals employed to examine the evidence disagree with him, not me?


> >
> > I have told you before that though this comment in the AR may be an error, but it may not be also.
>
> You don't get to decide what "may" or "may not" be in error in relation to the AR. "May" it be in error that JFK was shot once, from above and behind, as per the AR?
>

Yet this hypocrite gets to decide the *conclusion* is wrong? And if he denies this, I will *gladly* link back to where he asserted just that a while back.

> (Imagine trying to pull this one off, lurkers! The LN desperation...)
>

LOL!!!! *H*Y*P*O*C*R*I*T*E*.

> >
> > It could be
>
> "may"...."could"..."possibly"
>
> Garbage.
>

Proper use of logical speculation. Very unlike "Boris" irresponsible use of those same devices.

> >
> > referring to radiating damage HFB noted because they believed it to be related to the wound of exit.
>
> Imagine looking at the damage as seen in the BOH photo and "mistakenly" believing there is an exit wound's worth of damage there.
>

Well except for the part no one imagines such a thing but the "B" Brothers. :-)

> >
> > I say *believed* because
>
> Because you are forced to speculate.
>

It would seem wise when the statement is not so clear as to allow for a definitive interpretation without having the chance to ask HFB what exactly they meant. I'm pretty sure the HSCA FPP and ARRB personnel did ask them for elaboration. ...Don't recall them ever saying that a large exit wound ever existed centered on the BOH.

> >
> > it's also possible---
>
> "possible"...."could be"..."might"...
>

Yeah. That's what honesty requires one to say when carefully dealing with evidence that is subject to the interpretation of laymen. I am willing to admit I am one. Doesn't seem like "Boris" thinks he is, or that his status as such calls into question his peculiar interpretation of the AR findings.

> >
> > given the fact the bullet traversed the right side of the head from front to back,
>
> LOL! Finally, a "mistake" made by BT Barnum that absolves Oswald. Another amusing Freudian slip, troll?
>

Nah. It's just writing too many words while trying to do my job at the same time. Clearly it should have read back to front, and is a strong illustration of the fact I need to curtail continuing extended arguments with idiots and do more of what I am actually being paid to do.

>
> >
> > shattering and exploding out as it went---that this damage was actually caused by simple fragmenting of the skull by the explosive forces at work.
>
> It takes a LNer to believe that "simple" and "explosive force" go in the same sentence together when describing the annihilation of a skull from a high-velocity bullet. In this case, "simple" is a weasel word subtly inserted to explain away the lack of damage to the back of the head.
>

The above critique is simply silly Lurkers. The desperation at having no substance to offer is evident now.

>
> >
> > And/or it could have been caused by the path of the bullet as it traveled and thus *not* directly as a result of the exit.
> >
> > But even if it *was* related to the exit itself, the language *SOMEWHAT*
>
> Like the word "chiefly," the circus troll believes the word "somewhat" protects him somehow.
>

Well only because unlike "Boris" *I* understand that words like that actually have a bearing on what is a *reasonable* interpretation. :-)
>
> >
> > does not permit an interpretation of a significant extent into occipital bone or the BOH.
>
> But the word "occipital" does. And so does the words "falx cerebri" for that matter. But do tell us, doctor, why you get to decide what interpretations are permitted and which aren't? Cite your medical credentials.
>

And he intends to address my counter points about the Genu of the Corpus Callosum and the Third Ventricle while extolling his medical credentials when Lurkers?

> >
> > And if you are too clueless to figure out how Boswell holding the head by pulling together parts of the loose flap for the BOH pictures is obscuring the (obviously) large extent of that wound as reflected in the earlier autopsy photos showing his body prone with the flap(s) open and exposed, I cannot help that.
>
> So I'll ask a third time, where in the Z-film was Boswell's hand holding up the back flaps of Kennedy's head? The other idiot answered "attached to his wrist," so you'll have to come up with a better answer than that.
>

First, there are no "back flaps". Second, the Z-film would be a lot less gruesome if Boswell *had* been there to hold those flaps together. Research the Z Frames for yourselves folks, but he below images and article should give a flavor of how pronounced the right/front damage to JFK's head was:

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017_11_02_13_11_45.png

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000010.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000010.htm


> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would you think I would be correcting something I never misstated? Also, show *one* time that *I* have ever denied it was in the AR, nor even said that there was no related damage there whatsoever.
> > >
> > >
> > > Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head, and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times, and specifically.
> > >
> >
> > No sir. I am maintaining just what I said about the effect of Boswell's action.
>
> No doubt Boswell was doing exactly that. Since nurse Audrey Bell was certain this flap was hinged at the top, someone would have to hold it in place.
>

~Shrug Lurkers.

> >
> > > You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.
> > >
> >
> > An incorrect statement, yes.
>
> Except when you're busy espousing that mention of the "occipital" in the AR "may be" an error. Among things.
>

As indeed it might be, though not necessarily a brain burp, but a matter of interpreting a difficult and involved wound as even the AR language hints at by stating that in some aspects of the damage are difficult to adequately describe.

>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
> > >
> > > No comment?
> > >
> >
> >
> > No need to comment on what *I* have already adequately explained for honest and intelligent people to evaluate.
>
> Who cares about your explanation? You weren't there. They were. And they ALL corroborate each other. Every single one of them.
>

Well except they really don't. But let "Boris" keep telling himself that.

> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > > > >
> > > > > Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links
> > >
> > > Spoken by an idiot so blatantly dishonest that he'd never point out....not only did I not ignore the link, I then went on to **cite** from it.
> > >
> > > Liars lie, lurkers. That's what liars do.
> > >
> >
> > Cite it, while ignoring, and not dealing with any counter points I have made. Good job "Boris"! :-)
>
> The citation is right in the body of this post, moron. Anyone can see it. Now point out all your ever-lucid counterpoints that weren't addressed.
>

Genu of CC, Third Ventricle, position of most of the Temporal in relation to Occipital are a few examples folks are data he would rather not interact with that shows he *is* ignoring information that shows how difficult it would be for a wound centered on the BOH to account for.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is* towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the BOH...
> > >
> > > Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.
>
> > >
> >
> > "Boris" has 25 "experts"
>
> I like how the circus troll puts "experts" in quotation marks. As if they're not. This is what LNers do when witnesses contradict the official narrative. Discredit at all costs. Doubly insulting, when the ones doing the discrediting have no accomplishments of their own. Pathetic.
>

You judge if I have not characterized their true expertise accurately folks.

> >
> > who were engaged in performing (under dire and time compressed circumstances)
>
> Circumstances to which they are well accustomed.
>

LOL!!!! So they have had to frequently operate on the POTUS for a few minutes, had the body removed before they could make any contemporaneous notes, then had cameras microphones and assassination buffs shoved in their faces for years asking them to opine authoritatively on aspects normally left for the autopsy?

> >
> > their *true* expertise of being emergency room MD's.
>
> If this doesn't sound like defense attorney filibustering bullshit, I don't know what does.
>

He doesn't know much now does he folks?

> >
> > They were *not* being asked to serve outside this expertise as experts in post mortem medicine.
>
> The only way they can see what they saw is if they were "asked." All the while, the circus troll cannot reconcile how such "mistaken" experts were able to measure and even touch the wound, and then ALL corroborate each other on where it was, and its nature.
>

Once again he asserts a "full corroboration" that was not there to begin with, and in some cases, was arrived at by giving hand gestures *years* after the fact based on their memories and *countless* tellings and retellings by others of the events. He also glibly ignores that many of these same doctors were convinced otherwise as to where the wounds were when they saw the autopsy photos for themselves.

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> > > > > > extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> > > > > > saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now where is that sinus located?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As always by pointing out anatomical *facts*. :-)
> > > >
> > > > > Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
> > > > >
> > > > > Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> > > >
> > > > The debate about the entrance location of the Cowlick vs. near EOP is entirely separate, and as Dufii knows,
> > >
> > > And as Dufii known as BT Barnum knows, the argument isn't--and never was--whether or not there was damage to the FRONT of the head.
> > >
> >
> > And "Boris" point is what Lurkers? Does he even really know?
>
> That you're trying to focus attention on one part of the head, and away from another. And that you did it poorly, because the superior saggital sinus and falx cerebri aren't even what/where you think they are.
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > one I have touched on before. The second wound as I have said *repeatedly* is being largely obscured in the BOH photo by Boswell's hand holding part of the loose skin together to hold up the head. (JFK sure wasn't holding it up himself for the photo!!!)
> > >
> > > Though apparently he was holding it up himself in the Z-film. You never did "splain" that, and you never will.
> > >
> >
> > What a weird comment.
>
> Not weird to anyone who understand where I'm going with this.
>

Doubtless where no (sane) man has ever gone before. :-)

> >
> > I see nothing hard to understand about his movements in the Z-film.
>
> You're a bona fide moron, I'm afraid. The point was, of course, that you've whined repeatedly that there is no BOH damage visible in the photo because Boswell is holding up the flap of scalp. Only, there is no flap of scalp in the Z-film. So...who was holding it up in the Z-film?
>
> Now that I've explained it in a way a third-grader understands, feel free to not understand it some more.
>


See my prior comments Lurkers on this subject.

> >
> > > >
> > > > This fact is easily appreciated by comparing it to the John Mytton GIFs that Imbecile is well familiar with,
> > >
> > > I am well familiar with the non-medical non-evidence from the non-expert.
> > >
> >
> > Yet feels competent as a non-medical expert to:
> >
> > 1) Pick and choose from *his* interpretations of *inferior* evidence from medical experts in unrelated fields.
>
> Dunning-Kruger. Who other than you decided it was "inferior"? And if it was inferior, why is it corroborative?
>

Says the hypocrite.

>
> >
> > 2) Assert the primacy of his *non-medical* interpretations of the meaning of the comments in the AR over the interpretations of the *medical experts* (who were properly carrying out an endeavor in their field of medicine) as is abundantly evident by his flouting of their *conclusions*.
>
> A liar lies, lurkers. That's what liars do.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lDtOzLNk-QU/H1U2J6sqBgAJ
>
> That's a post BT Barnum never addressed. He musta "missed" it. Nevertheless, therein lies direct citations from not only the "experts" (ie., medical personnel and doctors who apparently don't know shit), but also from the REAL experts...you know, the ones specializing in postmortem medicine. Or something. An excerpt from the post....
>

I guess Stupid thinks I see every post on this NG and then reply to them even when they are *not* addressed to me.

> *************
>
> Okay, so let's consult those who performed the autopsy....
>
> Boswell: "The wound was fairly low in the back of the head and the bone was completely gone"
>

Citations might help. Context? Timing of he testimony? (I.e, Was this going from memory, and if so, how *old* was that memory?)

> Humes: "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter..."
>

DUH!

> Finck: "The FATAL WOUND (sic) - entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."
>
> And even though Finck indicates "entry" here, you are forced to deny this claim anyway, because you can't find that wound anywhere in the BOH photo. Strangely enough, this is EXACTLY where Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland, Grossman ***and everyone else*** put that wound. You know, all those mistaken experts. They could find it well enough. But you can't. Not in the BOH photo. And that's what's known as a catch-22.
>
> ***********
>

Cite me *ever* contradicting that the entrance was more or less right where Fink is stating above? Show me *ever* denying the claim based on the BOH photo. Don't bother. I'll save you the time showing I haven't:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/Tg55AZljBgAJ

It will take some work Lurkers, but you'll see the upshot is that I believe that HFB were likely correct, and though I have seen non conspiratorial speculations on why the BOH photos makes the entry wound *appear* to be higher up, I have not firmly settled upon one as the definite explanation.

> Liars lie, lurkers.
>

He ought to know folks. ...He ought to know.

>
> >
> > Hypocrite any, folks?
>
> If I were a hypocrite, I'd counter John Mytton's [who is that again??] "evidence" with the research of Sherry Fiester, who, unlike John "Who Is That Again" Mytton, DOES have forensic experience and is a 30-year senior crime scene investigator, and dissected both the head wound and trajectory better than John "Not the British Member of Parliament Guy" Mytton ever could or will.
>
> But I didn't. I don't have to.
>

It's good he didn't. Observe and attend Lurkers:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0FHksEIIv2g/fbu3kZ_yBAAJ

Follow the link therein Folks. Soak in the *rich* irony of upon whom "Boris" seems to trust. :-)

> >
> > > >
> > > > but doesn't care to admit argues against the photo fakery his notions require him to believe in:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > >
> > > So the BOH photo is fake? I wonder why you would go there?
> > >
> >
> > ....Duh!
>
> That's what I'm sayin'
>

He says it well. He possess the necessary expertise.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
> > > >
> > > > "Boris" appears to be confusing what is talked about here. The section regarding...
> > > >
> > > > "Clearly visible in the above described **large skull defect*** and exuding
> > > > from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
> > > > represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
> > > > point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
> > > > disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> > > >
> > > > ...does *not* refer back to the language that says:
> > > >
> > > > "Situated in the **posterior scalp** approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> > > > right and slightly above the **external occipital protuberance** is a
> > > > lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> > > > corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
> > > > the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> > > > skull."
>
> Tsk-tsk. There's that not-believing-the-autopsy-report stuff we talked about, troll.
>

Read the AR conclusions Folks. Tell me again *who* it is who doesn't believe in it?

> > > >
> > > > That language is referring to the much smaller wound of *entrance* that truly is in the BOH.
> > >
> > > What wound?
> > >
> >
> > If "Boris" doesn't understand the wound I am referring to above by now, no wonder he keeps getting lost in this whole thing. I must recommend he take up something else as a hobby. This one is clearly *not* for him. :-)
>
> That doesn't answer my question, though. Does it?
>

Since the question is clueless, I cannot say, nor do I need to.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Rather, the mention of "...above described large skull defect" is referring back to the initial paragraph of this section entitled "Missile Wounds" that states:
> > > >
> > > > "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> > > > involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> > > > temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> > > > absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> > > > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
> > > >
> > > > Hence the damage "Boris" mentions is included in describing a wound that was *extensive* in terms of the directions it radiated into due to the explosive forces at work when the fragmented bullet split up and exited JFK's skull.
> > >
> > > BT Barnum would like lurkers to believe JFK's head exploded into a million pieces internally, and remained intact externally. That the same "explosive forces" causing a skull to fracture like that would also not be an "explosive" enough "force" to create any entry wound at all. That the Harper fragment dislodged from the back of his head, shot forward out the front of his head, before flying backward again, without damaging the exterior of the back of Kennedy's head. And that the "absence of bone and scalp" isn't actually a thing.
> > >
> >
> > The above statement is fraught with so many errors, I refuse to even begin.
>
> BT Barnum's post is fraught with so many errors, I refuse to even begin.
>
> No wait.
>
> I'm going to confront them head-on.
>
And fail miserably. :-)

> It would be cowardly not to, and may implicitly prove him right.
>

Well there is the fact that I *am* right.

> >
> > Simply put, the first sentence (first two words excepted) is just about the only thing "Boris" states correctly about my position. (I encourage any and all to look up some of the descriptions later given by HFB to the HSCA and ARRB of the state of JFK's skull and see if that generalization is not pretty darn correct.) Just about everything else he uttered is either incorrect, or I have never stated any such thing.
>
> Name the "experts on postmortem medicine" on these panels, and tell us which of them physically SAW and HANDLED Kennedy's ACTUAL HEAD.
>

Uhhh that would be HFB. You know. The ones who arrived at an AR conclusion that "Boris" disagrees with!

> >
> > > But I wouldn't call BT Barnum a liar for any of this. Because he *actually* believes it.
> > >
> >
> > What I believe, and what "Boris" asserts I believe, are often at considerable variance folks. Just keep that in mind.
>
> You believe the official narrative. It encompasses everything I listed. Did I miss something?
>

Might help if he got specific about what in the "official" narrative I believe that does not have good factual evidence in its favor. "Good" and "factual" being defined in the manner that normal, intelligent, persons would ascribe to; thus preempting nearly anything "Boris" might have to offer.

> >
> > > >
> > > > "So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
> > >
> > > What did I tell you before about phrases like "possibly" and "may well"? Speculation is not worth the shit on my shoe, especially when it's coming from a non-expert zealot circus troll.
> > >
> >
> > Says a man *far* more guilty of the evils he accuses me of as I have shown above.
>
> How so?
>

See Folks. He cannot even see a single drop of water that makes up his *sea* of speculative nonsense.

>
> > > >
> > > > Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?"
> > >
> > > No need. The AR explains it for me. In more ways than one.
> > >
> >
> > In his own feeble mind Lukers. In his own feeble mind.
>
> Repeating an ad hominem twice doesn't doubly refute my argument.
>

No. But stating a verity twice, does underscore the flimsy basis upon which "Boris" thinks he has made a good argument.

>
> >
> > > And I would never deny a large wound at the front of his head. But you are denying a large wound at the back. This makes the AR your problem. Not mine. And that's why you have to spin every word in that fucking report to whatever spin you can "may have, possibly" get out of it.
> > >
> >
> > Yet "Boris" is at a loss to explain why HFB have *never* described the wounds to be as he says, nor have *any* of the FP's who have reviewed the medical evidence they left behind done so.
>
> They never handled Kennedy's head.
>

HFB never handled JFK's head?!? Now *THAT* is new revelation dear Lurkers.

> >
> > Their conclusion in the AR contradicts the above notions, as does the conclusion of *every* forensic pathology review ever undertaken. ...I'm afraid it's just beb "Boris". Who you gonna' trust Lurkers?
>
> I'll trust those who saw and handled the head. They are primary sources. And anyone so partial to "historical null hypotheses" like you and Schmucky Schuler claim to be should know the difference between "primary" and "secondary" sources.
>

You see Folks how the fact I cited HFB's own *conclusion* *after* handling Kennedy's head went straight over his head folks?


> >
> > > You don't believe a single witness. Not one. Not the SS. Not the Kennedy family. Not the 25 medical experts who were there, who saw the wound, who described the wound, who MEASURED the wound.
> > >
> >
> > Note his reliance on the words of those *not* conducting an autopsy, and that his last claim is simply and only *his* (and beb's) private, non-medical expert opinion.
>
> Another lie. See above. Humes/Finck/Boswell ALL cited.
>

Yes. Inadequately, without context, sometimes poorly interpreted, and utterly *ignored* as to the conclusion they arrived at in the very AR report under discussion.

>
> >
> > > You don't believe in "explosive forces" or kinetic energy.
>
> No comment from the troll.
>

OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *stupid* assertion. Problem solved.

> > >
> > > You don't believe diagrams.
>
> No comment from the troll.
>

OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *stupid* assertion. Problem solved.

> > >
> > > And you certainly don't believe words have meaning. Which is why you take your own creative liberties with the autopsy report, and also why you simply hand-wave away words like falx cerebri and THE O WORD, as if they're filler prepositions that, if truncated, would not change the meaning of the autopsy report one bit.
>
> No comment from the troll.
>

OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *hypocritical* (and *stupid*) set of assertions. Problem solved.

> > >
> > > And, I think, you don't believe yourself. You're a liar. And you know it.
> > >
> >
> > See how by a tirade of ad hominem and blanket misstatements he hopes you don't notice the vapidness of his arguments folks?
>
> No refutation whatsoever from the troll.
>

I can't help it if nearly every word I say goes past the empty space between "Boris" ears folks.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > BTW, also included in the language is this, further demonstrating the fact that the damage goes *well* forward of what one would expect if the "B" brothers were onto something trying to make this large wound a "BOH" wound in any meaningful sense of orientation:
> > >
> > > This is merely a repeat of your old strawman that just because we acknowledge a BOH wound, we can't also acknowledge a wound in the front. Unlike you, we understand that bullets make two wounds. One going in. One going out.
> > >
> >
> > Then what's his point Folks? There *was* one going in---into the BOH where it made a much smaller wound that is typical of entrances.
>
> Point it out, then. And point it out in a way that is CORROBORATIVE with the AR.
>

Oh dear. See what I mean about *every* thing I say whizzing right past his empty noggin? Read the AR conclusions, Lurkers. Decide for yourselves who is struggling to make a sensible set of arguments.

>
> > > >
> > > > The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
> > > > longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
> > > > in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
> > > > which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the **tip
> > > > of the **frontal** lobe anteriorly**.
> > > >
> > > > Now where is the tip of the brain's frontal lobe?
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiOrpbYqeLiAhXGl54KHc7dAKkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cognifit.com%2Ffrontal-lobe%2F&psig=AOvVaw06j9jBdHVZZZAp8-Seya-e&ust=1560373308022709
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
> > > > >
> > > > > Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > > > >
> > > > > This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
>
> [there's that source I apparently never cited]

>

And ignores that he has *never* addressed what said below.

> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So "Boris" intends to explain how he thinks the *convergence* of these sinuses proves that the damage to the Saggital Sinus occurred rearwards, when that sinus *clearly* extends well forwards also?
> > >
> > > My intention was to prove you a cherry-picking liar by omission. And I did so.
> > >

All he "proved" is that he has made no point that sets aside proof for forward damage. I know it, *he* knows it, and I trust anyone who has actually read the full set of exchanges know it.

>
> Silence from the troll here. Couldn't even *try* to defend himself.
>

Uhhhh your guess is as good as mine what Imbecile was just babbling about.

> > > >
> > > > ...Especially in light of the language I quoted above about the frontal lobe, and regarding the stuff "Boris" just snipped below. ...Which I shall restore.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
> > > > >
> > > > > No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nah. I think my "autobiography" says something *you* wish the Lurkers wouldn't pay any attention too:
> > > >
> > > > The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
> > > > latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
> > > > ventricles**.
> > > >
> > > > Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:
> > > >
> > > > https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/meds/ckb/24/12424tn.jpg
> > > >
> > > > (NOTE: I deleted the prior links that don't seem to take you to the image, the one above should work.)
> > > >
> > > > Ohhh looky again. Is that more towards the BOH or the front like the "B" brothers need it to be?
> > > >
> > > > So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
> > >
> > > Good. You lose.
> >
> > Spoken by a true Imbecile! ...But I'll let you Lurkers be the judges.
>
> Spoken by someone who just watched you admit that there was extensive damage to the front and back of head.

With the above re-assertion of a statement that was *clearly* the opposite of what I had intended to say, I am signing off from this particular exchange that is *WAY* past any point of usefulness. I will leave it to persons with a brain and honesty (clearly excepting the "B" Brothers and the Drunkard) to decide in these exchanges where is the footprint of honesty, intelligence, and sanity.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 3:38:02 PM6/12/19
to
Do you deny beb hides behind his?

chucksch...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 4:07:24 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 1:01:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable. Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.
> > >
> >
> > Your sounding more desperate all the time to disqualify me with ad hominem
>
> If that were true, I'd point out that you don't even know how to spell "you're"

You forgot the period Grammar Nazi, and I don't mean *your* monthly period.
>
> >
> > as you shall demonstrate your next breath.
>
> All I did was call you a liar. Then I proved it. Then I proved it again. Then again. And now I'll have to do it again.

There are no mistakes in the world of a Truther.
How many shots hit JFK in the head, Boris?

Run.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 4:19:48 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 3:07:24 PM UTC-5, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 1:01:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No, you lied. Beyond a doubt, you lied, and it was calculable. Because you've taken liberties with the wording of the autopsy report at least twice in as many days. And as Ben rightfully pointed out, a believer's "misstatement" contrary to the known truth always supports their faith, and that if it were a random error then at least once would an erroneous assertion support conspiracy. Law of averages.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your sounding more desperate all the time to disqualify me with ad hominem
> >
> > If that were true, I'd point out that you don't even know how to spell "you're"
>
> You forgot the period Grammar Nazi, and I don't mean *your* monthly period.
> >

LOL! Yeah. He's made a couple of them since the first time he took me to task for making such an error, but I have so far refused stoop to his level of inanity. (Probably throw my back out if I did.)

> > >
> > > as you shall demonstrate your next breath.
> >
> > All I did was call you a liar. Then I proved it. Then I proved it again. Then again. And now I'll have to do it again.
>
> There are no mistakes in the world of a Truther.
>

...No "truths" in it either.
Do I "hear" silence?

> Run.

...Yeah!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 4:33:02 PM6/12/19
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:33:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here we have Chuckles desperately trying to deny that the occipital is
in the back of the head.

Can you cite for your wacky claim, Chuckles?


> Ben, post what you think happened with JFK's autopsy,
> start-to-finish. Give us the backstory, your take on how the wound(s)
> were altered and when this occurred, the number of shots JFK received
> and where, and so on.
>
>This will quiet him...

What I ALREADY have posted shuts you up, Chuckles.

Are you a masochist? Why would you demand *MORE* from me that you'll
also run from???

Run coward... RUN!!

We'll never see any citation that supports Chuckles' claim that the
occipital isn't in the back of the head.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 4:38:40 PM6/12/19
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>There are no mistakes in the world of a Truther.

More accurately, every single "mistake" on the part of a believer just
happens to support their faith.

Not possible, of course... if they were true mistakes.

Strangely enough, these "mistakes" are never corrected by other
believers... they are invariably caught and pointed out by critics.

That's another impossibility... if they were true mistakes.


Is the occipital "toward" the front of the skull?

David Healy

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 4:59:15 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 8:14:11 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > Top Post Only: You've been caught lying, multiple times. You're giving CR a bad name, straighten the hell up!
> >
>
> Now, now, Sot. How many times must I tell you that coming out of your *Denial* is the first step towards Recovery.

Son, I'm sure the Continued Recovery Program (CR) does not appreciate having *ILK* of your type representing it. Honesty is the first step in recovery idiot. You're a *LIAR.* Hence, you can't be trusted.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 5:01:38 PM6/12/19
to
The summation of the troll's post is similar to the others. It does like this:

1.) I don't understand the autopsy report.
2.) No CTer on earth understands the autopsy report.
3.) The authors of the autopsy report (apparently "HFB", because the troll is too goddamn lazy to write their names) didn't really write what they wrote.
4.) Every medical expert who witnessed the BOH wound was wrong, even though...
5.) Those medical experts didn't even see what we claim they saw anyway.
6.) Never fear, because BT Barnum understands the autospy report, and will tell you what it means, will correct all the witnesses under the guise of "they were all the wrong ones anyway"...even though they didn't actually see what they saw.

But the best one of all is this...

7.) "Occipital" was written into the autopsy report by mistake. By mistake! That's right. That's the new thing. Not only that, it's the new thing not through any citations, or proof that it's the new thing. It's the new thing because BT Barnum says so.

It's astounding.

And Dunning-"Chuck Schuyler"-Kruger is nowhere to be found.

Now let's watch how stand-alone insults with no citations to back them up trump evidence with citations.


>
> See how weak his arguments go?

That's one.

>
> Say an imbecile and liar.

That's two.

>
> Perhaps "Boris" should point out why the true medical professionals employed to examine the evidence disagree with him, not me?

No citation.

> > >
> > > I have told you before that though this comment in the AR may be an error, but it may not be also.

"Mistaken."


> >
>
> Yet this hypocrite

That's three.

>
> gets to decide the *conclusion* is wrong?

It's not based on their findings, but okay, above and behind. No mention as to where from above and behind. No mention as to the number of bullets found in the area. No mention as to the number of shells. You've simply run with a conclusion which on the surface sounds "good 'nuff" but is actually quite vague.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9pPHYlVUIls/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ


But "good 'nuff" is good enough for LNers.


>
> LOL!!!! *H*Y*P*O*C*R*I*T*E*.

That's four.

>
> > >
> > > It could be
> >
> > "may"...."could"..."possibly"
> >
> > Garbage.
> >
>
> Proper use of logical speculation.

Until you decide "speculation" becomes "fact." Then forgot how you came to that point, and decided "fact" was irrefutable evidence.

You have speculation.

The AR is evidence.


>
> > >
> > > referring to radiating damage HFB noted because they believed it to be related to the wound of exit.
> >
> > Imagine looking at the damage as seen in the BOH photo and "mistakenly" believing there is an exit wound's worth of damage there.
> >
>
> Well except for the part no one imagines such a thing but the "B" Brothers. :-)

How so?

>
> > >
> > > I say *believed* because
> >
> > Because you are forced to speculate.

See above.

> > >
> > > it's also possible---
> >
> > "possible"...."could be"..."might"...

See above.


> >
> > It takes a LNer to believe that "simple" and "explosive force" go in the same sentence together when describing the annihilation of a skull from a high-velocity bullet. In this case, "simple" is a weasel word subtly inserted to explain away the lack of damage to the back of the head.
> >
>
> The above critique is simply silly Lurkers.

Silly it may be, it's exactly what you believe.


> >
> > Like the word "chiefly," the circus troll believes the word "somewhat" protects him somehow.
> >
>
> Well only because unlike "Boris" *I* understand that words like that actually have a bearing on what is a *reasonable* interpretation. :-)

Except when you "mistakenly" misuse them. Like when you described the BOH wound as "centered". And extending to the "front."


> >
> > >
> > > does not permit an interpretation of a significant extent into occipital bone or the BOH.
> >
> > But the word "occipital" does. And so does the words "falx cerebri" for that matter. But do tell us, doctor, why you get to decide what interpretations are permitted and which aren't? Cite your medical credentials.
> >
>
> And he intends to address my counter points about the Genu of the Corpus Callosum and the Third Ventricle while extolling his medical credentials when Lurkers?

Don't need to. It's not my assertion that there is no damage elsewhere on the head.

>
> > >
> > > And if you are too clueless to figure out how Boswell holding the head by pulling together parts of the loose flap for the BOH pictures is obscuring the (obviously) large extent of that wound as reflected in the earlier autopsy photos showing his body prone with the flap(s) open and exposed, I cannot help that.
> >
> > So I'll ask a third time, where in the Z-film was Boswell's hand holding up the back flaps of Kennedy's head? The other idiot answered "attached to his wrist," so you'll have to come up with a better answer than that.
> >
>
> First, there are no "back flaps".

See how they appear and disappear, lurkers? Invisible damage in the BOH photo because Boswell is holding up the "flap."

The flap that isn't there now.

And Audrey Bell was, of course, mistaken as all the rest.



> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head, and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times, and specifically.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No sir. I am maintaining just what I said about the effect of Boswell's action.
> >
> > No doubt Boswell was doing exactly that. Since nurse Audrey Bell was certain this flap was hinged at the top, someone would have to hold it in place.
> >
>
> ~Shrug Lurkers.

Not an answer. It's not even as good a non-answer as DVP's "orb roll".

>
> > >
> > > > You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.
> > > >
> > >
> > > An incorrect statement, yes.
> >
> > Except when you're busy espousing that mention of the "occipital" in the AR "may be" an error. Among things.
> >
>
> As indeed it might be,

LOL! This is funny for at least two reasons.

>
> though not necessarily a brain burp, but a matter of interpreting a difficult and involved wound as even the AR language hints at by stating that in some aspects of the damage are difficult to adequately describe.

Suddenly BT Barnum's "postmortem experts" aren't qualified enough to "adequately describe" a head wound.

This is what you have to believe when you're a LNer. It's frankly embarrassing.

>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
> > > >
> > > > No comment?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No need to comment on what *I* have already adequately explained for honest and intelligent people to evaluate.
> >
> > Who cares about your explanation? You weren't there. They were. And they ALL corroborate each other. Every single one of them.
> >
>
> Well except they really don't.

No explanation as to why they don't. No explanation for this lie. This is merely an "accept and believe" statement. I've been called a liar among things by this idiot, though anyone who clicks the links above can see which of us is lying.



> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know "Boris" thinks it would be better if he could *ignore* links
> > > >
> > > > Spoken by an idiot so blatantly dishonest that he'd never point out....not only did I not ignore the link, I then went on to **cite** from it.
> > > >
> > > > Liars lie, lurkers. That's what liars do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cite it, while ignoring, and not dealing with any counter points I have made. Good job "Boris"! :-)
> >
> > The citation is right in the body of this post, moron.

Proven a liar again, and no comment. He just glosses over this fact.

> >
> > Anyone can see it. Now point out all your ever-lucid counterpoints that weren't addressed.
> >
>
> Genu of CC, Third Ventricle, position of most of the Temporal in relation to Occipital are a few examples folks are data he would rather not interact with

Strawman. Mentioned above, no ignoring front-of-head damage.

>
> that shows he *is* ignoring information that shows how difficult it would be for a wound centered on the BOH to account for.

Information that is so difficult to interpret that BT Barnum can interpret it perfectly, even though "HFB" couldn't articulate it properly either. Must be all that "explosive force" that damaged each part of his head except the back.


> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is* towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the BOH...
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Boris" has 25 "experts"
> >
> > I like how the circus troll puts "experts" in quotation marks. As if they're not. This is what LNers do when witnesses contradict the official narrative. Discredit at all costs. Doubly insulting, when the ones doing the discrediting have no accomplishments of their own. Pathetic.
> >
>
> You judge if I have not characterized their true expertise accurately folks.

You've characterized 25 doctors as being unable to identify the existence of a large wound. As in, not study the source of the wound, but merely IDENTIFY it. That means, 25 doctors and 40 witnesses not only were unqualified to analyze the wound, they weren't even qualified to SEE it.

Tell us how accurately you characterized them.

>
> > >
> > > who were engaged in performing (under dire and time compressed circumstances)
> >
> > Circumstances to which they are well accustomed.
> >
>
> LOL!!!! So they have had to frequently operate on the POTUS for a few minutes,

Moving the goalposts. The qualification of your statement was "under dire and time compressed circumstances". To which I responded that these would be circumstances to which they were well accustomed. Maybe you'll tell us next that before 11/22/63 not a single Parkland doctor had seen a gunshot wound.

>
> had the body removed before they could make any contemporaneous notes,

Which they did.

>
> then had cameras microphones and assassination buffs shoved in their faces for years

Bzzt, wrong. Not years. Many were same-day recollection.

The NOVA special was years. Decades, in fact. And you like it better. A lot better.

>
> asking them to opine authoritatively on aspects normally left for the autopsy?

Which corroborated what they saw.

>
> > >
> > > their *true* expertise of being emergency room MD's.

And of course, no ER doctor is accustomed to working under dire and time compressed circumstances. We know this, because you just finished saying so.


> >
> > The only way they can see what they saw is if they were "asked." All the while, the circus troll cannot reconcile how such "mistaken" experts were able to measure and even touch the wound, and then ALL corroborate each other on where it was, and its nature.
> >
>
> Once again he asserts a "full corroboration" that was not there to begin with,

Literally a lie.

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1

Now I've just proven it was a lie. Whereas BT Barnum will never show that his statement is true.

>
> and in some cases, was arrived at by giving hand gestures *years* after the fact

same-day recollection. Corroborated. Dozens of times.

>
> based on their memories and *countless* tellings and retellings by others of the events.

NOVA special, anyone?

>
> He also glibly ignores that many of these same doctors were convinced otherwise as to where the wounds were when they saw the autopsy photos for themselves.

Like who, and when were they shown? Wouldn't be *years* later, would it? Because that would make you look like an asshole, especially in light of your latest filibuster.

> > > > >
> > > > > The debate about the entrance location of the Cowlick vs. near EOP is entirely separate, and as Dufii knows,
> > > >
> > > > And as Dufii known as BT Barnum knows, the argument isn't--and never was--whether or not there was damage to the FRONT of the head.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And "Boris" point is what Lurkers? Does he even really know?
> >
> > That you're trying to focus attention on one part of the head, and away from another. And that you did it poorly, because the superior saggital sinus and falx cerebri aren't even what/where you think they are.

I hear crickets, lurkers.

> >
> > You're a bona fide moron, I'm afraid. The point was, of course, that you've whined repeatedly that there is no BOH damage visible in the photo because Boswell is holding up the flap of scalp. Only, there is no flap of scalp in the Z-film. So...who was holding it up in the Z-film?
> >
> > Now that I've explained it in a way a third-grader understands, feel free to not understand it some more.
> >
>
>
> See my prior comments Lurkers on this subject.

See subsequent demolishment, lurkers.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This fact is easily appreciated by comparing it to the John Mytton GIFs that Imbecile is well familiar with,
> > > >
> > > > I am well familiar with the non-medical non-evidence from the non-expert.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yet feels competent as a non-medical expert to:
> > >
> > > 1) Pick and choose from *his* interpretations of *inferior* evidence from medical experts in unrelated fields.
> >
> > Dunning-Kruger. Who other than you decided it was "inferior"? And if it was inferior, why is it corroborative?

Two questions.

Zero answers.


> >
> > >
> > > 2) Assert the primacy of his *non-medical* interpretations of the meaning of the comments in the AR over the interpretations of the *medical experts* (who were properly carrying out an endeavor in their field of medicine) as is abundantly evident by his flouting of their *conclusions*.
> >
> > A liar lies, lurkers. That's what liars do.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lDtOzLNk-QU/H1U2J6sqBgAJ
> >
> > That's a post BT Barnum never addressed. He musta "missed" it. Nevertheless, therein lies direct citations from not only the "experts" (ie., medical personnel and doctors who apparently don't know shit), but also from the REAL experts...you know, the ones specializing in postmortem medicine. Or something. An excerpt from the post....
> >
>
> I guess Stupid thinks I see every post on this NG and then reply to them even when they are *not* addressed to me.

It was. And you did.

>
> > *************
> >
> > Okay, so let's consult those who performed the autopsy....
> >
> > Boswell: "The wound was fairly low in the back of the head and the bone was completely gone"
> >
>
> Citations might help. Context? Timing of he testimony? (I.e, Was this going from memory, and if so, how *old* was that memory?)
>
> > Humes: "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter..."
> >
>
> DUH!
>
> > Finck: "The FATAL WOUND (sic) - entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."
> >
> > And even though Finck indicates "entry" here, you are forced to deny this claim anyway, because you can't find that wound anywhere in the BOH photo. Strangely enough, this is EXACTLY where Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland, Grossman ***and everyone else*** put that wound. You know, all those mistaken experts. They could find it well enough. But you can't. Not in the BOH photo. And that's what's known as a catch-22.
> >
> > ***********
> >
>
> Cite me *ever* contradicting that the entrance was more or less right where Fink is stating above?

This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.

>
> Show me *ever* denying the claim based on the BOH photo. Don't bother. I'll save you the time showing I haven't:

Don't bother indeed. You've called every medical witness to this event unqualified. You've just denied Humes, Boswell and Finck. You've just called the autopsy report mistaken. You've gone so far as to say "occipital" was mistakenly put into the AR. Four times. You don't believe anything. Literally nothing. Not one person. Not one piece of evidence. And your reasoning is so weak I would qualify it as a death rale. You're a disgrace.


>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/Tg55AZljBgAJ
>
> It will take some work Lurkers, but you'll see the upshot is that I believe that HFB were likely correct, and though I have seen non conspiratorial speculations on why the BOH photos makes the entry wound *appear* to be higher up, I have not firmly settled upon one as the definite explanation.
>
> > Liars lie, lurkers.
> >
>
> He ought to know folks. ...He ought to know.

That's five.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Hypocrite any, folks?

That's six.

> >
> > If I were a hypocrite, I'd counter John Mytton's [who is that again??] "evidence" with the research of Sherry Fiester, who, unlike John "Who Is That Again" Mytton, DOES have forensic experience and is a 30-year senior crime scene investigator, and dissected both the head wound and trajectory better than John "Not the British Member of Parliament Guy" Mytton ever could or will.
> >
> > But I didn't. I don't have to.
> >
>
> It's good he didn't. Observe and attend Lurkers:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0FHksEIIv2g/fbu3kZ_yBAAJ
>
> Follow the link therein Folks. Soak in the *rich* irony of upon whom "Boris" seems to trust. :-)

Nothing in there about the qualifications of John "No One's Ever Heard of Me" Mytton. Just another diversion.


>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > but doesn't care to admit argues against the photo fakery his notions require him to believe in:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > > >
> > > > So the BOH photo is fake? I wonder why you would go there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > ....Duh!
> >
> > That's what I'm sayin'
> >
>
> He says it well. He possess the necessary expertise.

What's the difference what my expertise is? The experts are all "mistaken" anyway.


>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
> > > > >
> > > > > "Boris" appears to be confusing what is talked about here. The section regarding...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Clearly visible in the above described **large skull defect*** and exuding
> > > > > from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
> > > > > represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
> > > > > point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
> > > > > disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...does *not* refer back to the language that says:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Situated in the **posterior scalp** approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> > > > > right and slightly above the **external occipital protuberance** is a
> > > > > lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> > > > > corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
> > > > > the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> > > > > skull."
> >
> > Tsk-tsk. There's that not-believing-the-autopsy-report stuff we talked about, troll.
> >
>
> Read the AR conclusions Folks.

Why, is Oswald mentioned in there somewhere?

>
> Tell me again *who* it is who doesn't believe in it?

You.

(And, just for fun, you don't believe the HSCA conclusion either).

>
> > > > >
> > > > > That language is referring to the much smaller wound of *entrance* that truly is in the BOH.
> > > >
> > > > What wound?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If "Boris" doesn't understand the wound I am referring to above by now, no wonder he keeps getting lost in this whole thing. I must recommend he take up something else as a hobby. This one is clearly *not* for him. :-)
> >
> > That doesn't answer my question, though. Does it?
> >
>
> Since the question is clueless, I cannot say, nor do I need to.

Still doesn't answer. As Finck states:

"entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."

By your own admission...."The occipital bone is located towards the underneath side of the BOH"

So...find it in the photo. Then go about 25mm to the right. Then go "slightly above." You know, right about where every witness drawing PUT THE WOUND....

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

..and answer the question:

What wound?


>
> > >
> > > Simply put, the first sentence (first two words excepted) is just about the only thing "Boris" states correctly about my position. (I encourage any and all to look up some of the descriptions later given by HFB to the HSCA and ARRB of the state of JFK's skull and see if that generalization is not pretty darn correct.) Just about everything else he uttered is either incorrect, or I have never stated any such thing.
> >
> > Name the "experts on postmortem medicine" on these panels, and tell us which of them physically SAW and HANDLED Kennedy's ACTUAL HEAD.
> >
>
> Uhhh that would be HFB. You know. The ones who arrived at an AR conclusion that "Boris" disagrees with!

So nobody on the HSCA and ARRB handled or saw Kennedy's head?


>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?"
> > > >
> > > > No need. The AR explains it for me. In more ways than one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In his own feeble mind Lukers. In his own feeble mind.

That's seven.


> >
> > >
> > > > And I would never deny a large wound at the front of his head. But you are denying a large wound at the back. This makes the AR your problem. Not mine. And that's why you have to spin every word in that fucking report to whatever spin you can "may have, possibly" get out of it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yet "Boris" is at a loss to explain why HFB have *never* described the wounds to be as he says, nor have *any* of the FP's who have reviewed the medical evidence they left behind done so.
> >
> > They never handled Kennedy's head.
> >
>
> HFB never handled JFK's head?!? Now *THAT* is new revelation dear Lurkers.

I don't do lazy internet acronyms, asshole. Spell their names out, otherwise a cursory reading of "HFB" comes across as "HSCA" written by a retard who writes things like "the bullet traversed front to back" by mistake.

>
> > >
> > > Their conclusion in the AR contradicts

Their findings. But whatever. That's for another conversation.


> >
> > I'll trust those who saw and handled the head. They are primary sources. And anyone so partial to "historical null hypotheses" like you and Schmucky Schuler claim to be should know the difference between "primary" and "secondary" sources.
> >
>
> You see Folks how the fact I cited HFB's own *conclusion* *after* handling Kennedy's head went straight over his head folks?

Their conclusions aren't relevant to you, because you don't believe their examination. Speaking of going straight over someone's head.


>
>
> > >
> > > > You don't believe a single witness. Not one. Not the SS. Not the Kennedy family. Not the 25 medical experts who were there, who saw the wound, who described the wound, who MEASURED the wound.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Note his reliance on the words of those *not* conducting an autopsy,

Despite me citing them.

> >
> > Another lie. See above. Humes/Finck/Boswell ALL cited.
> >
>
> Yes. Inadequately, without context, sometimes poorly interpreted, and utterly *ignored* as to the conclusion they arrived at in the very AR report under discussion.

You're lucky you got anything at all, from three guys who collectively wrote "occipital" by mistake multiple times. But feel free to cite something better...like any of them saying there was NO damage to the back of the head.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > You don't believe in "explosive forces" or kinetic energy.
> >
> > No comment from the troll.
> >
>
> OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *stupid* assertion. Problem solved.

That's eight.

>
> > > >
> > > > You don't believe diagrams.
> >
> > No comment from the troll.
> >
>
> OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *stupid* assertion. Problem solved.

That's nine.

>
> > > >
> > > > And you certainly don't believe words have meaning. Which is why you take your own creative liberties with the autopsy report, and also why you simply hand-wave away words like falx cerebri and THE O WORD, as if they're filler prepositions that, if truncated, would not change the meaning of the autopsy report one bit.
> >
> > No comment from the troll.
> >
>
> OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *hypocritical* (and *stupid*) set of assertions. Problem solved.

That's ten.

>
> > > >
> > > > And, I think, you don't believe yourself. You're a liar. And you know it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > See how by a tirade of ad hominem and blanket misstatements he hopes you don't notice the vapidness of his arguments folks?
> >
> > No refutation whatsoever from the troll.

No refutation. (cont.)

> >
>
> I can't help it if nearly every word I say goes past the empty space between "Boris" ears folks.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, also included in the language is this, further demonstrating the fact that the damage goes *well* forward of what one would expect if the "B" brothers were onto something trying to make this large wound a "BOH" wound in any meaningful sense of orientation:
> > > >
> > > > This is merely a repeat of your old strawman that just because we acknowledge a BOH wound, we can't also acknowledge a wound in the front. Unlike you, we understand that bullets make two wounds. One going in. One going out.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then what's his point Folks? There *was* one going in---into the BOH where it made a much smaller wound that is typical of entrances.
> >
> > Point it out, then. And point it out in a way that is CORROBORATIVE with the AR.
> >
>
> Oh dear. See what I mean about *every* thing I say whizzing right past his empty noggin? Read the AR conclusions, Lurkers. Decide for yourselves who is struggling to make a sensible set of arguments.
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
> > > > > longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
> > > > > in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
> > > > > which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the **tip
> > > > > of the **frontal** lobe anteriorly**.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now where is the tip of the brain's frontal lobe?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiOrpbYqeLiAhXGl54KHc7dAKkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cognifit.com%2Ffrontal-lobe%2F&psig=AOvVaw06j9jBdHVZZZAp8-Seya-e&ust=1560373308022709
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
> >
> > [there's that source I apparently never cited]
>
> >
>
> And ignores that he has *never* addressed what said below.
Whatever this means.

>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So "Boris" intends to explain how he thinks the *convergence* of these sinuses proves that the damage to the Saggital Sinus occurred rearwards, when that sinus *clearly* extends well forwards also?
> > > >
> > > > My intention was to prove you a cherry-picking liar by omission. And I did so.
> > > >
>
> All he "proved" is that he has made no point that sets aside proof for forward damage.

Perhaps because that's not what is being debated right now. Strange how that works.


>
> I know it, *he* knows it, and I trust anyone who has actually read the full set of exchanges know it.

I know what? That there's proof of forward-head damage?

Some "gotcha".


>
> >
> > Silence from the troll here. Couldn't even *try* to defend himself.
> >
>
> Uhhhh

Flush.

> > > > >
> > > > > ...Especially in light of the language I quoted above about the frontal lobe, and regarding the stuff "Boris" just snipped below. ...Which I shall restore.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nah. I think my "autobiography" says something *you* wish the Lurkers wouldn't pay any attention too:
> > > > >
> > > > > The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
> > > > > latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
> > > > > ventricles**.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/meds/ckb/24/12424tn.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > (NOTE: I deleted the prior links that don't seem to take you to the image, the one above should work.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ohhh looky again. Is that more towards the BOH or the front like the "B" brothers need it to be?
> > > > >
> > > > > So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
> > > >
> > > > Good. You lose.
> > >
> > > Spoken by a true Imbecile! ...But I'll let you Lurkers be the judges.
> >
> > Spoken by someone who just watched you admit that there was extensive damage to the front and back of head.
>
> With the above re-assertion of a statement that was *clearly* the opposite of what I had intended to say,

Everyone is "mistaken" lurkers...including, apparently, the idiot himself, BT Barnum.

>
> I am signing off from this particular exchange that is *WAY* past any point of usefulness. I will leave it to persons with a brain and honesty (clearly excepting the "B" Brothers and the Drunkard) to decide in these exchanges where is the footprint of honesty, intelligence, and sanity.

You lied, got caught, insinuated every medical expert was inept, and whined.

Champion.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 5:18:44 PM6/12/19
to
>
>
> How many shots hit JFK in the head, Boris?
>
> Run.

Autopsy report says one. But haven't you been paying attention, moron? Humes, Boswell and Finck (or "HFB", apparently) were totally inept. In fact, they "may have," "could," "possibly" have written "occipital" by mistake all along! Over and over again. This is the new revelation.

So we can't trust their conclusions too much, can we?

Run.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 5:56:41 PM6/12/19
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:18:43 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is a point that believers just can't seem to get. They *WANT* the
Autopsy Report... they *NEED* the Autopsy Report. They constantly
*CITE* the Autopsy Report when a question of the number of bullets or
direction of bullets comes up.


BUT THEY DON'T *BELIEVE* THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!


Really though, this is simply an extention of their fear of the
evidence... because the AR is simply evidence... and evidence is what
demolishes the WCR.

The EVIDENCE points to two shots to the head. This contradicts the
"conclusions" - but if conclusions aren't based on the evidence, then
they don't mean much.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 6:06:39 PM6/12/19
to
I've got to say, I've heard a lot of worthless shit from these morons, but explaining away the word "occipital" in the autopsy report by saying Humes, Boswell and Finck put it in there by MISTAKE is some kind of new low. Where's Dunning-Schuyler-Kruger when you need him?

Trick question...no one *needs* him.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 6:06:56 PM6/12/19
to
I don't know who beb is.

Bud

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 6:09:22 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 5:56:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:18:43 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
> >> How many shots hit JFK in the head, Boris?
> >>
> >> Run.
> >
> > Autopsy report says one. But haven't you been paying attention,
> > moron? Humes, Boswell and Finck (or "HFB", apparently) were totally
> > inept. In fact, they "may have," "could," "possibly" have written
> > "occipital" by mistake all along! Over and over again. This is the new
> > revelation.
> >
> >So we can't trust their conclusions too much, can we?
> >
> >Run.
>
> This is a point that believers just can't seem to get. They *WANT* the
> Autopsy Report... they *NEED* the Autopsy Report. They constantly
> *CITE* the Autopsy Report when a question of the number of bullets or
> direction of bullets comes up.
>
>
> BUT THEY DON'T *BELIEVE* THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!
>
>
> Really though, this is simply an extention of their fear of the
> evidence... because the AR is simply evidence... and evidence is what
> demolishes the WCR.

Good thing you let out all this hot air, lest you might just float away.

> The EVIDENCE points to two shots to the head.

When and when?

>This contradicts the
> "conclusions" - but if conclusions aren't based on the evidence, then
> they don't mean much.

It is your figuring that doesn`t mean very much.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 6:14:50 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 3:59:15 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 8:14:11 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > > Top Post Only: You've been caught lying, multiple times. You're giving CR a bad name, straighten the hell up!
> > >
> >
> > Now, now, Sot. How many times must I tell you that coming out of your *Denial* is the first step towards Recovery.
>
> Son, I'm sure the Continued Recovery Program (CR) does not appreciate having *ILK* of your type representing it. Honesty is the first step in recovery idiot. You're a *LIAR.* Hence, you can't be trusted.
>

You state something you could prove about me to save your *life* drunkard. Moreover, the "honesty" you speak of involves coming out of *denial* about the extent of your problem. ...Something you and your pals are in *serious* need of.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 6:17:52 PM6/12/19
to




Let's summarize Imbecile's (latest) reply:

Waaaa! Waaaa! I don't hear you; so I "win"!

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 6:21:49 PM6/12/19
to
Oh how "low" Lurkers of me to pointed out the *fact* the reference could have been in error (most likely one of *interpreting* it as being related to the exit wound, when it may have been actually related to entrance, or to the explosive forces at work in general), but indicated it could have been correct given the extent of the large wound.

> Trick question...no one *needs* him.

Agreed. No one needs another word for "Boris" to determine he is a loon.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 7:31:29 PM6/12/19
to

TOP POST to address the greater points of Stupidity below:

> The AR is evidence.

So is the *conclusion* with which "Boris disagrees. Nor is his *interpretations* of the wound description "evidence" such as he wants you to uncritically believe.

> 7.) "Occipital" was written into the autopsy report by mistake. By mistake!

Let Dufii quote where I said that it definitely *was* a mistake, or show how I argued that the mistake---if it was one---was likely anything more than one of interpretation as to what the exact cause of the related damage was.

> > And he intends to address my counter points about the Genu of the Corpus Callosum and the Third Ventricle while extolling his medical credentials when Lurkers?
>
> Don't need to. It's not my assertion that there is no damage elsewhere on the head.

Can't Lurkers, can't. (...Nor is it *my* assertion that there was only damage to the right/front end of the head.)

> > though not necessarily a brain burp, but a matter of interpreting a difficult and involved wound as even the AR language hints at by stating that in some aspects of the damage are difficult to adequately describe.

> Suddenly BT Barnum's "postmortem experts" aren't qualified enough to "adequately describe" a head wound.
>
> This is what you have to believe when you're a LNer. It's frankly embarrassing.
>

Gee folks, where did I get *that* from?

Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to
radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound
at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest
measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in the production of
numerous fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to 10
cm. in greatest diameter.

The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced
**tax satisfactory verbal description*** and are better appreciated in
photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared.

AND...

When viewed from the vertex the left cerebral hemisphere is intact.
There is marked engorgement of meningeal blood vessels of the left
temporal and frontal regions with considerable associated
sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. The gyri and sulci over the left
hemisphere are of essentially normal size and distribution. Those on
the right are **too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description**.

Boy I was stupid and utterly unjustified to suggest that at times they were dealing with a complex and messy picture! :-)

> You've characterized 25 doctors as being unable to identify the **existence of a large wound**. As in, not study the source of the wound, but merely IDENTIFY it. That means, 25 doctors and 40 witnesses not only were unqualified to analyze the wound, they weren't even qualified to **SEE it**.

Let "Boris" show a brain---if he has one. For *nowhere* did I say the words highlighted by me above or anything like them. Obviously *anyone* not blind is qualified to *see* that a wound exists, or even note it is very large. But only an *idiot* ignores the bloody mess they were confronted with (never cleaned up in their presence) and the fact that with Kennedy lying on his back, the blood and gore would *OF NECESSITY* pool downwards, making the the wound appear inherently more rearward that it necessarily was. That's why they routinely *clean up* the mess before doing a thorough investigation of the extent an nature of the wounds.

And recall folks, the *entirety* of their efforts a Parkland were geared towards keeping Kennedy's heart and lungs going. No one at *any time* got around to investigating and trying to repair the actual wounds!

> > had the body removed before they could make any contemporaneous notes,
>
> Which they did.

Let "Boris" cite the notes taken with the body still before them and show their relevance to the discussion at hand.

> I don't do lazy internet acronyms, asshole. Spell their names out, otherwise a cursory reading of "HFB" comes across as "HSCA" written by a retard who writes things like "the bullet traversed front to back" by mistake.

He means he is too embarrassed to admit he was unfamiliar with a *very* common acronym used in such debate forums for the 3 Pathologists who conducted the autopsy. He also doesn't want to admit, that their disagreement with the wound pattern he is trying to assert as demonstrated by their *own* conclusion, sets aside his point about needing to handle the body to arrive a conclusion that contradicts his own (peculiar) notions.

> > > If I were a hypocrite, I'd counter John Mytton's [who is that again??] "evidence" with the research of Sherry Fiester, who, unlike John "Who Is That Again" Mytton, DOES have forensic experience and is a 30-year senior crime scene investigator, and dissected both the head wound and trajectory better than John "Not the British Member of Parliament Guy" Mytton ever could or will.
> > >
> > > But I didn't. I don't have to.
> > >
> >
> > It's good he didn't. Observe and attend Lurkers:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0FHksEIIv2g/fbu3kZ_yBAAJ
> >
> > Follow the link therein Folks. Soak in the *rich* irony of upon whom "Boris" seems to trust. :-)
>
> Nothing in there about the qualifications of John "No One's Ever Heard of Me" Mytton. Just another diversion.


Notice *his* diversion from his rank *error* in preferring Sherry Fiester's "credentials" to Mytton's!


> Still doesn't answer. As Finck states:
>
> "entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."
>
> By your own admission...."The occipital bone is located towards the underneath side of the BOH"
>
> So...find it in the photo. Then go about 25mm to the right. Then go "slightly above." You know, right about where every witness drawing PUT THE WOUND....
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> ..and answer the question:
>
> What wound?

Well before I answer "Boris" perhaps he should show he has a clue what he is talking about. Note above the rank error he makes for confuses...

> "entry 25mm to the right of the **external occipital protuberance** and slightly above."

(I.e. is a statement about the EOP.)

with...

> By your own admission...."The **occipital bone** is located towards the underneath side of the BOH"

(I.e., is a statement about the entire occipital bone or "region".)!

For the interested Lurker, note the related, but obvious difference in these two concepts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_animation.gif

https://slideplayer.com/slide/8354039/26/images/10/External+occipital+protuberance+%28inion%29.jpg

(NOTE ALSO LURKERS, THE EOP LOCATION VARIES SOMEWHAT FROM PERSON TO PERSON, AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE AR OF "SOMEWHAT" ABOVE THE EOP, IS UNFORTUNATELY NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IN TERMS OF A QUANTIFIABLE MEASUREMENT.)

There is more I could highlight, but enough for now of showing how often "Boris" errs in making interpretations of the data he is presented with or in putting his trust in *credible* sources.


On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 4:01:38 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> The summation of the troll's post is similar to the others. It does like this:
>
> 1.) I don't understand the autopsy report.
> 2.) No CTer on earth understands the autopsy report.
> 3.) The authors of the autopsy report (apparently "HFB", because the troll is too goddamn lazy to write their names) didn't really write what they wrote.
> 4.) Every medical expert who witnessed the BOH wound was wrong, even though...
> 5.) Those medical experts didn't even see what we claim they saw anyway.
> 6.) Never fear, because BT Barnum understands the autospy report, and will tell you what it means, will correct all the witnesses under the guise of "they were all the wrong ones anyway"...even though they didn't actually see what they saw.
>
> But the best one of all is this...
>
> 7.) "Occipital" was written into the autopsy report by mistake. By mistake! That's right. That's the new thing. Not only that, it's the new thing not through any citations, or proof that it's the new thing. It's the new thing because BT Barnum says so.
>
> It's astounding.
>
> And Dunning-"Chuck Schuyler"-Kruger is nowhere to be found.
>
> Now let's watch how stand-alone insults with no citations to back them up trump evidence with citations.
>
>
> >
> > See how weak his arguments go?
>
> That's one.
>
> >
> > Say an imbecile and liar.
>
> That's two.
>
> >
> > Perhaps "Boris" should point out why the true medical professionals employed to examine the evidence disagree with him, not me?
>
> No citation.
>
> > > >
> > > > I have told you before that though this comment in the AR may be an error, but it may not be also.
>
> "Mistaken."
>
>
> > >
> >
> > Yet this hypocrite
>
> That's three.
>
> >
> > gets to decide the *conclusion* is wrong?
>
Message has been deleted

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 8:39:36 PM6/12/19
to
Uh-huh. All the witnesses were mistaken. And all the medical experts weren't qualified enough to even BE mistaken, but then they weren't actually mistaken after all, but it doesn't matter because they were unqualified anyway to have an opinion anyway.

Except "HFB".

They weren't mistaken. Except when they were. Then they weren't again. But then they were briefly. Then they were so inept they misused some medical terminology in a POTUS autopsy report. But then they were the "qualified" experts again. But then they were mistaken. But then their conclusions were correct.

We get it.

David Healy

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 10:16:53 PM6/12/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 3:59:15 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 8:14:11 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > > > Top Post Only: You've been caught lying, multiple times. You're giving CR a bad name, straighten the hell up!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now, now, Sot. How many times must I tell you that coming out of your *Denial* is the first step towards Recovery.
> >
> > Son, I'm sure the Continued Recovery Program (CR) does not appreciate having *ILK* of your type representing it. Honesty is the first step in recovery idiot. You're a *LIAR.* Hence, you can't be trusted.
> >
>
> You state something you could prove about me to save your *life* drunkard. Moreover, the "honesty" you speak of involves coming out of *denial* about the extent of your problem. ...Something you and your pals are in *serious* need of.

there it is friends and neighbors, resentment and decades of repression. Just knowing he's been played like a Stradi is enough to be driven into the arms of AAJ and its merry band of gross, manipulating liars. Remember laddie, it's honesty and admitting you fucked up, that's thee ONLY way out of the mess you find yourself in.

BTW, We wrote the CR manual for you, show a touch of gratitude--also, that BOOK wasn't meant for christians to hide behind Jesus, HE needs no help. Your IQ is worthless...

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 10:28:24 PM6/12/19
to
>
> there it is friends and neighbors, resentment and decades of repression. Just knowing he's been played like a Stradi is enough to be driven into the arms of AAJ and its merry band of gross, manipulating liars. Remember laddie, it's honesty and admitting you fucked up, that's thee ONLY way out of the mess you find yourself in.
>
> BTW, We wrote the CR manual for you, show a touch of gratitude--also, that BOOK wasn't meant for christians to hide behind Jesus, HE needs no help. Your IQ is worthless...


BT Barnum believes doctors in charge of the most important autopsy report of their career would write "occipital" by mistake. Then repeat that mistake three or four times. Then convolute the description of the head wound in a way that even THEY couldn't quite understand. ***But*** they were also "postmortem experts", and of course despite all these shortcomings, their conclusion should also be trusted.

That's the version of "truth" BT Barnum has elected to take with him to the hill he will die on.

I predict an F on his essay.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 10:58:56 PM6/12/19
to
Healy blubbered:

“there it is friends and neighbors, resentment and decades of repression. Just knowing he's been played like a Stradi is enough to be driven into the arms of AAJ and its merry band of gross, manipulating liars. Remember laddie, it's honesty and admitting you fucked up, that's thee ONLY way out of the mess you find yourself in.

BTW, We wrote the CR manual for you, show a touch of gratitude--also, that BOOK wasn't meant for christians to hide behind Jesus, HE needs no help. Your IQ is worthless...”

I respond:

This from a man whom I have *never* seen make a substantive assassination related argument! Keep up denial druggie!

As for your silly Recovery program comparisons, by all means keep forgetting that part where AA got its *whole* 12 Steps and everything its “Big Book” is based on from principles found in the *real* Big Book. ...The one we in CR are *proud* to embrace and unashamedly point people back to when they question their need for internal transformation, outer reform, and relationship restoration.

Feel free to cite where I or anything in CR speaks about or demonstrates “hiding behind Jesus”. ...Unless that whole thingy about seeking to commit your life and will to Him constitutes the “hiding” part your warped imagination. (And yes, note that I said *seeking* to commit, because in practice it’s hard work with many ups and downs, just like anything else worth pursuing.)

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 11:06:37 PM6/12/19
to
“Boris” likes a simple world Lurkers. No shades of grey, no possible errors even among qualified men—well except when *he* wants them to exist. To show how off base his criticism about my attitude towards HFB is, I ask the kind Lurker to look up comments I have made over the years in defense of them and their findings against both CT *and* LN critics. But that’s not good enough for “Boris”. No I must slavishly embrace their immaculate perfection in everything they stated in the AR!

Well “everything” they said that the “B” Brothers agree with. ...Which most *definitely* does NOT include the AR Conclusions they each signed their name too!!!

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 11:14:03 PM6/12/19
to
>
> “Boris” likes a simple world Lurkers. No shades of grey, no possible errors even among qualified men—well except when *he* wants them to exist. To show how off base his criticism about my attitude towards HFB is, I ask the kind Lurker to look up comments I have made over the years in defense of them and their findings against both CT *and* LN critics. But that’s not good enough for “Boris”. No I must slavishly embrace their immaculate perfection in everything they stated in the AR!
>
> Well “everything” they said that the “B” Brothers agree with. ...Which most *definitely* does NOT include the AR Conclusions they each signed their name too!!!

Yes, we understand. You believe they made a plethora of errors, yet they used that erroneous information to come to a conclusion you also agree with. Makes perfect sense.

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 11:17:25 PM6/12/19
to
“Boris” claimed:

“I don't know who beb is.”

Brock (BT) George responds:

To quote someone who should be familiar to “Boris” “Liars lie. It’s what they do!”

BT George

unread,
Jun 12, 2019, 11:32:13 PM6/12/19
to
Let “Boris” cite what constitutes a “plethora” of errors that I accuse HFB (that’s Humes/Fink/Boswell for the uninformed or, “Boris’ case, the slow on the uptake) of making. If he does, he’ll either be lying, grossly exaggerating, or showing he is indeed clueless as to the proper meaning and usage of another term he has seized upon.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 13, 2019, 1:40:47 PM6/13/19
to
>
> Let “Boris” cite what constitutes a “plethora” of errors that I accuse HFB (that’s Humes/Fink/Boswell for the uninformed or, “Boris’ case, the slow on the uptake) of making. If he does, he’ll either be lying, grossly exaggerating, or showing he is indeed clueless as to the proper meaning and usage of another term he has seized upon.

Hilarious. You think they wrote "occipital" by mistake. It was a word used four times in the autopsy report. FOUR is a plethora. And not only that, they used what YOU are now calling mistakes to reach a conclusion. Erroneous findings cannot lead to righteous conclusions. Butterfly effect. The idiot thinks "occipital" is some kind of typo, like mixing up "your" and "you're" in a book. If it's an error, then it's a CRITICAL error with chain reaction repercussions. And one they repeated over, and over, and over, in subsequent reports, and to the HSCA, and to JAMA. Now how many errors is that? More than four at this point.

A plethora.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 13, 2019, 1:43:37 PM6/13/19
to
>
> “I don't know who beb is.”


There's no one here named beb, asshole. Am I supposed to know who that is? I guess Stupid thinks I see every post on this NG even when they are *not* addressed to me. :-)

BT George

unread,
Jun 13, 2019, 6:17:16 PM6/13/19
to
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 12:40:47 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Let “Boris” cite what constitutes a “plethora” of errors that I accuse HFB (that’s Humes/Fink/Boswell for the uninformed or, “Boris’ case, the slow on the uptake) of making. If he does, he’ll either be lying, grossly exaggerating, or showing he is indeed clueless as to the proper meaning and usage of another term he has seized upon.
>
> Hilarious. You think they wrote "occipital" by mistake. It was a word used four times in the autopsy report. FOUR is a plethora. And not only that, they used what YOU are now calling mistakes to reach a conclusion. Erroneous findings cannot lead to righteous conclusions. Butterfly effect. The idiot thinks "occipital" is some kind of typo, like mixing up "your" and "you're" in a book.

Qoute me suggesting it was typo Imbecile.

>If it's an error, then it's a CRITICAL error with chain reaction repercussions. And one they repeated over, and over, and over, in subsequent reports, and to the HSCA, and to JAMA. Now how many errors is that? More than four at this point.
>
> A plethora.

Now he's pitifully trying to claim that noting the *possible* incorrectness of an interpretation on their part regarding Occipital damage they reference when discussing the extent of the large exit wound at one point in the AR gets multiplied into a *fresh* questioning of their conclusions *each* time they restate the very *same thing* going forwards---not only in the AR, but ever forwards throughout all documents and statement made later in history!

Wow Lurkers!!! ...Just wow!!! Sometimes the inanity of this man is so historic in proportions it staggers even those used to seeing it from him.

BT George

unread,
Jun 13, 2019, 6:18:55 PM6/13/19
to
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 12:43:37 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > “I don't know who beb is.”
>
>
> There's no one here named beb, asshole. Am I supposed to know who that is? I guess Stupid thinks I see every post on this NG even when they are *not* addressed to me. :-)

Good. Then you'll best show me up by shutting up every time I address the "non-existent" one.

BT George

unread,
Jun 13, 2019, 6:21:43 PM6/13/19
to
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 5:17:16 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 12:40:47 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Let “Boris” cite what constitutes a “plethora” of errors that I accuse HFB (that’s Humes/Fink/Boswell for the uninformed or, “Boris’ case, the slow on the uptake) of making. If he does, he’ll either be lying, grossly exaggerating, or showing he is indeed clueless as to the proper meaning and usage of another term he has seized upon.
> >
> > Hilarious. You think they wrote "occipital" by mistake. It was a word used four times in the autopsy report. FOUR is a plethora. And not only that, they used what YOU are now calling mistakes to reach a conclusion. Erroneous findings cannot lead to righteous conclusions. Butterfly effect. The idiot thinks "occipital" is some kind of typo, like mixing up "your" and "you're" in a book.
>
> Qoute me suggesting it was (***a***) typo Imbecile. (...Oops! Our resident grammar Nazi was no doubt ready to pounce on my egregious error in missing that little connector I highlighted.)

David Healy

unread,
Jun 13, 2019, 7:29:05 PM6/13/19
to
he's got you running in circles, and making excuses one after another... We know your game. Where's Ken Rahn when you need him? At least he knew when to duck!

David Healy

unread,
Jun 13, 2019, 7:37:53 PM6/13/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
[...]

>
> Feel free to cite where I or anything in CR speaks about or demonstrates “hiding behind Jesus”. ...Unless that whole thingy about seeking to commit your life and will to Him constitutes the “hiding” part your warped imagination. (And yes, note that I said *seeking* to commit, because in practice it’s hard work with many ups and downs, just like anything else worth pursuing.)

It's either Jesus save me, or the Devil made me do it, eh? Which?

"seeking to commit" ? Either you do or you don't commit, what's the seeking shit?

Like you have this grand scheme to pull the wool over family members eyes. That's how folks end up on a morgue's blotter...

Silk sheeters have no idea what I'm talking about do ya? Ya got a boat load of excuses and alibis to plow through yet, enjoy...

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 14, 2019, 11:31:02 AM6/14/19
to
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:17:16 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 12:40:47 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Let “Boris” cite what constitutes a “plethora” of errors that I accuse HFB (that’s Humes/Fink/Boswell for the uninformed or, “Boris’ case, the slow on the uptake) of making. If he does, he’ll either be lying, grossly exaggerating, or showing he is indeed clueless as to the proper meaning and usage of another term he has seized upon.
> >
> > Hilarious. You think they wrote "occipital" by mistake. It was a word used four times in the autopsy report. FOUR is a plethora. And not only that, they used what YOU are now calling mistakes to reach a conclusion. Erroneous findings cannot lead to righteous conclusions. Butterfly effect. The idiot thinks "occipital" is some kind of typo, like mixing up "your" and "you're" in a book.
>
> Qoute me suggesting it was typo Imbecile.

The moron doesn't understand hyperbole, I'm amazed-no-really.

>
> >If it's an error, then it's a CRITICAL error with chain reaction repercussions. And one they repeated over, and over, and over, in subsequent reports, and to the HSCA, and to JAMA. Now how many errors is that? More than four at this point.
> >
> > A plethora.

The idiot doesn't refute my actual point, but goes off on a whining tantrum that I'm forced to leave it, or else it's like I'm "running."

BT George

unread,
Jun 14, 2019, 11:49:01 AM6/14/19
to
On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 10:31:02 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:17:16 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 12:40:47 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let “Boris” cite what constitutes a “plethora” of errors that I accuse HFB (that’s Humes/Fink/Boswell for the uninformed or, “Boris’ case, the slow on the uptake) of making. If he does, he’ll either be lying, grossly exaggerating, or showing he is indeed clueless as to the proper meaning and usage of another term he has seized upon.
> > >
> > > Hilarious. You think they wrote "occipital" by mistake. It was a word used four times in the autopsy report. FOUR is a plethora. And not only that, they used what YOU are now calling mistakes to reach a conclusion. Erroneous findings cannot lead to righteous conclusions. Butterfly effect. The idiot thinks "occipital" is some kind of typo, like mixing up "your" and "you're" in a book.
> >
> > Qoute me suggesting it was typo Imbecile.
>
> The moron doesn't understand hyperbole, I'm amazed-no-really.
>

Even hyperbole has a point. In this case an *unjustified* one.

> >
> > >If it's an error, then it's a CRITICAL error with chain reaction repercussions. And one they repeated over, and over, and over, in subsequent reports, and to the HSCA, and to JAMA. Now how many errors is that? More than four at this point.
> > >
> > > A plethora.
>
> The idiot doesn't refute my actual point, but goes off on a whining tantrum that I'm forced to leave it, or else it's like I'm "running."
>

Actually, Imbecile has long since been refuted, but either doesn't realize it, or hopes that you folks don't. And now (finally growing tired of this never-ending exchange himself) "Boris" is attempting to still try to get the last word in (like his hero the "non existent" beb) by playing the hypocrite and claiming that it is *he* who needs to keep responding lest he be seen to be "running away". Evidently so that I will be "shamed" into letting it go.

But I'll tell you what, if "Boris" wants that last word so badly, here's his big chance. As I said what seems 10^5 posts ago, this has long since ceased to be a productive interaction, so my end of it is over.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 14, 2019, 12:05:12 PM6/14/19
to
On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 11:49:01 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 10:31:02 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:17:16 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 12:40:47 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let “Boris” cite what constitutes a “plethora” of errors that I accuse HFB (that’s Humes/Fink/Boswell for the uninformed or, “Boris’ case, the slow on the uptake) of making. If he does, he’ll either be lying, grossly exaggerating, or showing he is indeed clueless as to the proper meaning and usage of another term he has seized upon.
> > > >
> > > > Hilarious. You think they wrote "occipital" by mistake. It was a word used four times in the autopsy report. FOUR is a plethora. And not only that, they used what YOU are now calling mistakes to reach a conclusion. Erroneous findings cannot lead to righteous conclusions. Butterfly effect. The idiot thinks "occipital" is some kind of typo, like mixing up "your" and "you're" in a book.
> > >
> > > Qoute me suggesting it was typo Imbecile.
> >
> > The moron doesn't understand hyperbole, I'm amazed-no-really.
> >
>
> Even hyperbole has a point. In this case an *unjustified* one.

Translation: words have meaning.

Just not when they're in presidential autopsy reports...written by experts in "postmortem medicine"

>
> > >
> > > >If it's an error, then it's a CRITICAL error with chain reaction repercussions. And one they repeated over, and over, and over, in subsequent reports, and to the HSCA, and to JAMA. Now how many errors is that? More than four at this point.
> > > >
> > > > A plethora.
> >
> > The idiot doesn't refute my actual point, but goes off on a whining tantrum that I'm forced to leave it, or else it's like I'm "running."
> >
>
> Actually, Imbecile has long since been refuted,

No. It's been challenged. Not refuted. You still have to show me how you are smarter and more qualified than the 25 doctors and three experts in "postmortem medicine" who were there and all state the opposite of what you're whining. Then you have to show me how you're smarter than Sibert and O'Neill, who told the ARRB that the BOH photo appeared "doctored," and in no way matched recollection. Then you have to show me you're smarter than Floyd Riebe and John Stringer, who said much the same thing.

Then we can REALLY get started.


>
> but either doesn't realize it, or hopes that you folks don't.

What folks?

>
> And now (finally growing tired of this never-ending exchange himself) "Boris" is attempting to still try to get the last word in (like his hero the "non existent" beb)

Quote me saying this "beb" character is non-existent.


>
> by playing the hypocrite and claiming that it is *he* who needs to keep responding lest he be seen to be "running away". Evidently so that I will be "shamed" into letting it go.

Silly. I would never try to shame you. I know psychopaths don't have shame.


>
> But I'll tell you what, if "Boris" wants that last word so badly, here's his big chance. As I said what seems 10^5 posts ago, this has long since ceased to be a productive interaction, so my end of it is over.

Where's the "occipital" located? By that, I don't mean where on the head. I mean where in the autopsy report.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 9:12:20 AM6/17/19
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 7:23:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
>>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
>>>
>>> He may have mistakenly thought the temporal was in the front. I did too until I looked it up recently.
>>>
>>> https://www.clevelandclinic.org/healthinfo/ShowImage.ashx?PIC=4275&width=325
>>
>>
>> And again, another prediction fulfilled perfectly!
>
> It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots, I merely
> point out the truth for any audience that might be out there.


It is no use to try to explain facts to a liar. They simply lie their
way out of any difficulty...


> For quite some time, until quite recently, I thought the quote
> about the wound extending into the temporal meant extending into the
> front. I imagined a football shaped wound with one end into the
> occipital and the front tip in the temporal. Just yesterday or the day
> before did I catch my error looking at an illustration of the brain.


This is an excellent example of why "Chickenshit" isn't qualified to
say anything at all about this case. He's simply too stupid.


> But I`m sure you idiots will be happy to write up some explanation
> you like better.


You have *nothing* whatsoever on which to base your asserted belief
that the "temporal" meant frontal.

Nothing at all.

Yet you expect intelligent men to accept this excuse for a lie.

Who do you think you're fooling, "Chickenshit?" Do you really believe
lurkers to be this stupid?

Any *intelligent* lurker who didn't know the meaning of a word would
simply Google it.

You're trying to tell everyone that you were too stupid to do so...


>> Believers like to twist the English language into supporting their
>> lies...
>
> You are too stupid to understand the meaning of the word. You
> erroneously believe it means to say something untrue.


Lie: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive


>> Looks like "Chickenshit's" a coward too! (is that a surprise to
>> anyone?)

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 9:12:20 AM6/17/19
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
>>>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
>>>>
>>>> It was an error going from memory.
>>>
>>> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it
>>> twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative,
>>> when it said nothing of the kind.
>>
>> Simple logic demonstrates it was a lie as well...
>>
>> Every single time... EVERY SINGLE TIME, a believer states something
>> that is contrary to the known truth - it supports their faith.
>
> Empty claim. Hot air.


You're asking me to prove a negative.

You could **EASILY** prove me wrong by simply providing an example...
but you can't do it.

So it's clearly obvious who's the one with the empty claim. DUMBASS!


>> If it were random error - then at least *SOME* of the time, an
>> erroneous assertion would support conspiracy.
>
> You claimed there was evidence of conspiracy, but when I
> challenged you to produce some you refused. As far as I know there is
> no support for conspiracy.


Empty claim.

Produce the citation...

But you won't.

And, of course, you're lying about their being no evidence supporting
conspiracy. The earliest medical statements concerning the wound in
JFK's throat is all you need.

But there's far more than that... the earliest concentration on the GK
for a shooter is another example. (Unless "Chickenshit" wants to argue
that Oswald had the ability to teleport)


>>> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing
>>> must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
>>>
>>>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending
>>> into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call
>>> "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
>>
>> "extending somewhat..."
>
> Yes, correct your fellow believer`s lies.


No, correcting his incomplete quote. Critics do this routinely, but
believers are TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer, even when
he's asserting that the Autopsy Report stated that the wound " was
*chiefly* Parietal, but extending "somewhat" into the front ..."

That's a FAR more egregious statement than Boris'... but you remained
silent.


>> But when the truth is stated, rather than the lie, the wound
>> **MOVES**.
>>
>> The claim was that it was more frontal.
>>
>> The fact is that it's in the BACK OF THE HEAD on the right side.
>
> It is always good to have a visual aid...
>
> https://youtu.be/n1f2TR19fDk


Better to have an accurate and official Autopsy Report that you refuse
to publicly assert you believe.


>> So the argument made by these lies actually prove the opposite.
>>
>>
>>>> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
>>>
>>>Start now.
>>
>>
>> An *HONEST* admission of error would be to properly place the large
>> wound IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> What constitutes the back of the head?


It doesn't matter what I offer as a definition - you'll whine.

What you CANNOT whine about is the Occipital - which is ENTIRELY in
the back of the head.

Own it!


>> This troll clearly isn't honest enough to do so.
>>
>>
>>>> But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
>>>
>>>Okay.
>>>
>>>https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
>>>
>>>https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
>>>
>>>https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
>>
>>
>> Yep... all in the back of the head.
>>
>>
>>>> and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>>>
>>> Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to
>>> explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
>>
>>
>> Or to answer the simple question: "What part of the occipital is *NOT*
>> in the rear of the head?"
>
> What part of the occipital is not on one side of the head or the other?


You evade the question - and it's clear *why* you do so - you can't
answer it as you wish you could.


>> Or the related question: "What percentage of the Parietal can be
>> described as in the back of the head?"
>
> What constitutes the back of the head?


Answered above.


>>>> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone,
>>>> it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of
>>>> the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
>>>
>>> This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he
>>> apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half
>>> doublethink, all LNer.
>>
>> And, needless to say, it's simply a lie.
>>
>> The wound extended into the occipital. THAT'S A FACT.
>
> Note when the autopsy says something Ben approves of he calls it
> FACT (all in capitals).


Note that when I specify a FACT - "Chickenshit" is unable to refute
it.


>> And that one fact, **ALL BY ITSELF** - shows that the wound was in the
>> back of the head.
>>
>> No matter *how* you define "back of the head."
>
> Until you define it it doesn`t mean anything.


To morons an liars, perhaps. But the average person? Instantly
understandable.


>> This one fact proves believers both liars and cowards.
>
> Still waiting for you to make an assassination related conspiracy
> argument using these wounds.


All knowledgeable believers in the Warren Commisson are both liars and
cowards... The topic of the BOH wound proves it.


>>>> Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
>>>>
>>>> "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
>>>> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
>>>> saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
>>>>
>>>> Now where is that sinus located?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
>>>>
>>>> Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
>>>
>>>Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
>>
>>
>> This entire argument is based on the tears in the scalp, and not the
>> wound location... which was quite well documented in para. 1 of the
>> Autopsy Report:
>>
>> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
>> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>
> https://youtu.be/n1f2TR19fDk


Anyone notice that "Chickenshit" is again attempting to impugn the
Autopsy Report without actually going on record as having done so?


>> That paragragh is all you need to prove believers to be both liars and
>> cowards... because **NONE** of them will publicly state that this is
>> an accurate statement.
>
> The audience can see whether they can spot a wound of over 5
> inches in the right side of Kennedy`s head in the partietal area in
> the Zapruder film segment I linked to.


The audience can see your cowardice in refusing to address the actual
Autopsy Report.

"Chickenshit" would prefer Hollywood to an Autopsy...


>>>Let's see what the autopsy report actually says RE "superior saggital sinus":
>>>
>>>Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15x6 mm [no such wound in the BOH photo]. Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect [not-so-clearly visible in the BOH photo] and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
>>>
>>>Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
>>>
>>>https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
>>>
>>>https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
>>>
>>>https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
>>>
>>>
>>>Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
>>>
>>>But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
>>>
>>>There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
>>>
>>>Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
>>>
>>>This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
>>>
>>>No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
>>
>> This is all that's needed:
>>
>> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
>> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>>
>> Produce a drawing of a wound that *MATCHES* that description, yet is
>> *NOT* in the back of the head.
>>
>> Can't be done.
>>
>> Nor will any believer attempt it.
>
> I won`t willingly or knowingly take one ounce of weight from your burden.

Another prediction perfectly fulfilled.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 9:12:20 AM6/17/19
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 10:54:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots,
>>>
>>>Like where the occipital is and why that's important.
>>
>> Indeed!
>>
>> This *one* fact is all you need know...
>
> The only thing the audience here needs to know is that you guys
> brought up the wounds in Kennedy`s head weeks and weeks ago and have
> yet to make a conspiracy related argument concerning them.


The only thing the audience here needs to know is that we brought up
the wounds in Kennedy's head weeks and weeks ago, and "Chickenshit" &
Chuckles have run from these facts the entire time.


>> That believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that the occipital is
>> ENTIRELY in the back of the head.
>
> So?


"Chickenshit" merely admits his cowardice...


>> Because that *one* fact proves that the large wound was located in the
>> back of JFK's head.
>
> How so?


"Chickenshit" pretends again that he doesn't know where the occipital
is located.


>> And once believers are caught publicly acknowledging this as a fact,
>> they're stuck with the contradicting evidence.
>
> Make the argument that the evidence is in conflict. Do something
> besides emit hot air.

Lie some more, "Chickenshit"... we're used to it.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 9:12:21 AM6/17/19
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 5:56:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:18:43 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> How many shots hit JFK in the head, Boris?
>>>>
>>>> Run.
>>>
>>> Autopsy report says one. But haven't you been paying attention,
>>> moron? Humes, Boswell and Finck (or "HFB", apparently) were totally
>>> inept. In fact, they "may have," "could," "possibly" have written
>>> "occipital" by mistake all along! Over and over again. This is the new
>>> revelation.
>>>
>>>So we can't trust their conclusions too much, can we?
>>>
>>>Run.
>>
>> This is a point that believers just can't seem to get. They *WANT* the
>> Autopsy Report... they *NEED* the Autopsy Report. They constantly
>> *CITE* the Autopsy Report when a question of the number of bullets or
>> direction of bullets comes up.
>>
>>
>> BUT THEY DON'T *BELIEVE* THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!
>>
>>
>> Really though, this is simply an extention of their fear of the
>> evidence... because the AR is simply evidence... and evidence is what
>> demolishes the WCR.
>
> Good thing you let out all this hot air, lest you might just float away.


Ad hominem never refutes facts.


>> The EVIDENCE points to two shots to the head.
>
> When and when?


Already dealt with... you ran.

Take a look at the side X-ray of JFK - where are the larger bullet
fragments in the trail of fragments?

You won't answer now as you didn't answer then - no believer has EVER
answered this question... because it's scientific proof of a second
shot.

You'll whine, you'll evade... but what you'll never do is refute the
facts I've given.


>> This contradicts the "conclusions" - but if conclusions aren't based
>> on the evidence, then they don't mean much.
>
> It is your figuring that doesn`t mean very much.


Ad hominem doesn't refute what I stated. It merely proves that you've
got no logical argument or facts.

And that fact tells the tale...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 9:12:21 AM6/17/19
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:46:24 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
>>>>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was an error going from memory.
>>>>
>>>> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative, when it said nothing of the kind.
>>>>
>>>> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital."
>>>
>>> Who or what are you quoting?
>>
>>
>> "wound ... was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending "somewhat" into the
>> front ..."
>>
>> "Chickenshit" is too stupid to figure it out... he simply doesn't know
>> the evidence well enough to recognize it.
>>
>> Amusingly, we critics INSTANTLY noted where the lie originated...
>>
>> The correct quote is:
>
> I know what the *correct* quote is.


No, you clearly didn't. Unless you're admitting that you lied when you
pretended not to know...


> My question was who or what was Boris quoting when he put what he
> wrote in quotes.


No, you don't know. I had to explain it to you. This shows why you're
too incompetent to examine this case.


> Suddenly you aren`t interested in being a stickler, are you hypocrite?


There you go lying again, "Chickenshit".

Unlike you, I *DID* correct an incomplete quote... you refused to
correct an OUTRIGHT LIE.

Those are FACTS.

Go again, moron... lie again.


>> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
>> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>>
>> I predict that "Chickenshit" will refuse to state that this is
>> correct.


Another *perfect* prediction!

(Cowards are so *easy* to predict!)


>>>> Going forward, you can just call "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
>>>>
>>>> Start now.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
>>>>
>>>> Okay.
>>>>
>>>> https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
>>>>
>>>> https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
>>>>
>>>> https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
>>>>
>>>> Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone, it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
>>>>
>>>> This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half doublethink, all LNer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
>>>>> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
>>>>> saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
>>>>>
>>>>> Now where is that sinus located?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
>>>>>
>>>>> Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
>>>>
>>>> Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
>>>>

Bud

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 2:34:04 PM6/17/19
to
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:12:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 7:23:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> >>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
> >>>
> >>> He may have mistakenly thought the temporal was in the front. I did too until I looked it up recently.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.clevelandclinic.org/healthinfo/ShowImage.ashx?PIC=4275&width=325
> >>
> >>
> >> And again, another prediction fulfilled perfectly!
> >
> > It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots, I merely
> > point out the truth for any audience that might be out there.
>
>
> It is no use to try to explain facts to a liar. They simply lie their
> way out of any difficulty...

As note, my response was for the audience, not the idiotd.

>
> > For quite some time, until quite recently, I thought the quote
> > about the wound extending into the temporal meant extending into the
> > front. I imagined a football shaped wound with one end into the
> > occipital and the front tip in the temporal. Just yesterday or the day
> > before did I catch my error looking at an illustration of the brain.
>
>
> This is an excellent example of why "Chickenshit" isn't qualified to
> say anything at all about this case. He's simply too stupid.

How many autopsies have I conducted? Or you, for that matter?

> > But I`m sure you idiots will be happy to write up some explanation
> > you like better.
>
>
> You have *nothing* whatsoever on which to base your asserted belief
> that the "temporal" meant frontal.

Thats the funny things about mistakes, it is pretty trivial why they are made once your realize they have been made.

> Nothing at all.
>
> Yet you expect intelligent men to accept this excuse for a lie.

I explained my mistaken belief. Idiots can do what they want with the information.

> Who do you think you're fooling, "Chickenshit?" Do you really believe
> lurkers to be this stupid?

<snicker> You a lurker reading here speaks to some form of intelligence? They have...

A) Almost all the known information in the world.

B) Vast catalogs of high definition porn

C) A moron calling people liars

And they went with "C"?


> Any *intelligent* lurker who didn't know the meaning of a word would
> simply Google it.

Until you could make a conspiracy argument using the wounds in Kennedy`s head why would I bother to look into it at all?

> You're trying to tell everyone that you were too stupid to do so...

I told you I picked up on the error by looking into it deeper, stupid.

> >> Believers like to twist the English language into supporting their
> >> lies...
> >
> > You are too stupid to understand the meaning of the word. You
> > erroneously believe it means to say something untrue.
>
>
> Lie: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

So simply saying something untrue is not a lie. So all you do is *say* there has been an intent to deceive that has been shown to your own personal satisfaction, same standard you use for everything else. And you think the whole world accepts your personal satisfaction as the standard.

>
> >> Looks like "Chickenshit's" a coward too! (is that a surprise to
> >> anyone?)

Let that hot air out, windbag!

Bud

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 3:16:38 PM6/17/19
to
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:12:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
> >>>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
> >>>>
> >>>> It was an error going from memory.
> >>>
> >>> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it
> >>> twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative,
> >>> when it said nothing of the kind.
> >>
> >> Simple logic demonstrates it was a lie as well...
> >>
> >> Every single time... EVERY SINGLE TIME, a believer states something
> >> that is contrary to the known truth - it supports their faith.
> >
> > Empty claim. Hot air.
>
>
> You're asking me to prove a negative.

I`m challenging you to support your claim, there is nothing negative about it. You claimed every time that "A" occurs, "B" can be shown. Get to work.

> You could **EASILY** prove me wrong by simply providing an example...
> but you can't do it.

Shifting the burden.

> So it's clearly obvious who's the one with the empty claim. DUMBASS!
>
>
> >> If it were random error - then at least *SOME* of the time, an
> >> erroneous assertion would support conspiracy.
> >
> > You claimed there was evidence of conspiracy, but when I
> > challenged you to produce some you refused. As far as I know there is
> > no support for conspiracy.
>
>
> Empty claim.
>
> Produce the citation...

Here is where I made the challenge...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/a2vMMNnNFec/1KPn_fBmAQAJ

You claimed there was evidence for conspiracy. I challenged...

"Produce your evidence of conspiracy."

Several response by you, but none ever contained any evidence for conspiracy.

> But you won't.
>
> And, of course, you're lying about their being no evidence supporting
> conspiracy. The earliest medical statements concerning the wound in
> JFK's throat is all you need.

How so?

> But there's far more than that... the earliest concentration on the GK
> for a shooter is another example. (Unless "Chickenshit" wants to argue
> that Oswald had the ability to teleport)

How are these reports evidence for conspiracy?

Isn`t saying they are evidence for conspiracy a circular argument? Couldn`t they just as well be evidence of mistaken sound placement?

> >>> And if it wasn't a lie, then the opposite of what you were arguing
> >>> must be what you meant. In which case, I call parapraxis on you.
> >>>
> >>>> The correct statement is *temporal*.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending
> >>> into the temporal and occipital." Going forward, you can just call
> >>> "occipital" THE O WORD, since it's too verboten for LNers to utter.
> >>
> >> "extending somewhat..."
> >
> > Yes, correct your fellow believer`s lies.
>
>
> No, correcting his incomplete quote.

You are lying, it wasn`t an "incomplete quote". It was something he made up and put in quotes.

> Critics do this routinely, but
> believers are TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer, even when
> he's asserting that the Autopsy Report stated that the wound " was
> *chiefly* Parietal, but extending "somewhat" into the front ..."
>
> That's a FAR more egregious statement than Boris'... but you remained
> silent.

I would have remained silent on Boris`s had you not been such a nitpicking hypocrite.

>
> >> But when the truth is stated, rather than the lie, the wound
> >> **MOVES**.
> >>
> >> The claim was that it was more frontal.
> >>
> >> The fact is that it's in the BACK OF THE HEAD on the right side.
> >
> > It is always good to have a visual aid...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/n1f2TR19fDk
>
>
> Better to have an accurate and official Autopsy Report that you refuse
> to publicly assert you believe.

I have no problem believing that they determined Kennedy had been shot twice from behind.


> >> So the argument made by these lies actually prove the opposite.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> (See how easy it is to be honest and admit when you are wrong---beb and "Boris" should try it sometimes.)
> >>>
> >>>Start now.
> >>
> >>
> >> An *HONEST* admission of error would be to properly place the large
> >> wound IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.
> >
> > What constitutes the back of the head?
>
>
> It doesn't matter what I offer as a definition - you'll whine.

There you go, you keep asking a question about something you can`t even define.

> What you CANNOT whine about is the Occipital - which is ENTIRELY in
> the back of the head.

What constitutes the back of the head?

> Own it!
>
>
> >> This troll clearly isn't honest enough to do so.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> >>>
> >>>Okay.
> >>>
> >>>https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> >>>
> >>>https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> >>>
> >>>https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... all in the back of the head.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> and decide if the temporal does not indeed suggest a position that is---in relation to the Parietal---frontwards vs. the occiptal that the "B" brothers keep crowing about:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif9c6k-uHiAhUMCawKHY1wDPgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclipart-library.com%2Fclipart%2F6Tr5dXyGc.htm&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZvJLr-uHiAhUEQ6wKHUQeDEkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-ap%2Fchapter%2Fthe-skull%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HkWYsjLZ8dt7f-pUf4-SC&ust=1560360356495696
> >>>
> >>> Better to C&P links supporting strawman arguments than it is to
> >>> explain why THE O WORD keeps popping up in the autopsy report.
> >>
> >>
> >> Or to answer the simple question: "What part of the occipital is *NOT*
> >> in the rear of the head?"
> >
> > What part of the occipital is not on one side of the head or the other?
>
>
> You evade the question -

You evade the point. It is all a matter of perspective. You can`t even define the concept you insist everyone weigh in on.

> and it's clear *why* you do so - you can't
> answer it as you wish you could.

You expect me to say whether the wound is in a certain area, but when I ask you what constitutes that area you have nothing.

>
> >> Or the related question: "What percentage of the Parietal can be
> >> described as in the back of the head?"
> >
> > What constitutes the back of the head?
>
>
> Answered above.

Quote your answer, liar.

>
> >>>> Oh why look, it is. So even though it is *not* the Frontal bone,
> >>>> it indeed suggests that the wound probably extended well *forward* of
> >>>> the BOH positions the "B" brothers wish it was.
> >>>
> >>> This is BT Barnum essentially saying that the "mistake" he
> >>> apologized for earlier wasn't actually a mistake. Half backpedal, half
> >>> doublethink, all LNer.
> >>
> >> And, needless to say, it's simply a lie.
> >>
> >> The wound extended into the occipital. THAT'S A FACT.
> >
> > Note when the autopsy says something Ben approves of he calls it
> > FACT (all in capitals).
>
>
> Note that when I specify a FACT - "Chickenshit" is unable to refute
> it.

Shifting the burden, you need to support it. What is your source for the wound extending into the occipital, you cherry picking hypocrite?


> >> And that one fact, **ALL BY ITSELF** - shows that the wound was in the
> >> back of the head.
> >>
> >> No matter *how* you define "back of the head."
> >
> > Until you define it it doesn`t mean anything.
>
>
> To morons an liars, perhaps. But the average person? Instantly
> understandable.

Less hot air, less running, more defining what constitutes the back of the head.

>
> >> This one fact proves believers both liars and cowards.
> >
> > Still waiting for you to make an assassination related conspiracy
> > argument using these wounds.
>
>
> All knowledgeable believers in the Warren Commisson are both liars and
> cowards... The topic of the BOH wound proves it.

Too bad you can`t make conspiracy related assassination arguments using these wounds.

>
> >>>> Let's look at some additional language from the AR that makes this even clearer:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> >>>> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the **superior
> >>>> saggital sinus**, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
> >>>>
> >>>> Now where is that sinus located?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> >>>>
> >>>> Why looks, kinda' forwards don't it?
> >>>
> >>>Allow a liar to lie, and the liar will lie. That's what liars do.
> >>
> >>
> >> This entire argument is based on the tears in the scalp, and not the
> >> wound location... which was quite well documented in para. 1 of the
> >> Autopsy Report:
> >>
> >> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> >> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> >> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/n1f2TR19fDk
>
>
> Anyone notice that "Chickenshit" is again attempting to impugn the
> Autopsy Report without actually going on record as having done so?

How so?

> >> That paragragh is all you need to prove believers to be both liars and
> >> cowards... because **NONE** of them will publicly state that this is
> >> an accurate statement.
> >
> > The audience can see whether they can spot a wound of over 5
> > inches in the right side of Kennedy`s head in the partietal area in
> > the Zapruder film segment I linked to.
>
>
> The audience can see your cowardice in refusing to address the actual
> Autopsy Report.

How does where the z-film shows the wound conflict with the autopsy report?

>
> "Chickenshit" would prefer Hollywood to an Autopsy...

How is the film in conflict with the autopsy?

Bud

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 3:24:04 PM6/17/19
to
You gave z-film frames?

> Take a look at the side X-ray of JFK - where are the larger bullet
> fragments in the trail of fragments?

You still don`t know how to make an argument, do you?

> You won't answer now as you didn't answer then - no believer has EVER
> answered this question... because it's scientific proof of a second
> shot.

Empty claim. Produce the science.

> You'll whine, you'll evade... but what you'll never do is refute the
> facts I've given.

To make an actual argument you need to present ideas and then provide the support for those ideas. If this is the best you can do, you have nothing.

>
> >> This contradicts the "conclusions" - but if conclusions aren't based
> >> on the evidence, then they don't mean much.
> >
> > It is your figuring that doesn`t mean very much.
>
>
> Ad hominem doesn't refute what I stated. It merely proves that you've
> got no logical argument or facts.

What you call "facts" is merely hot air. You make the empty declaration that "the conclusions aren`t based on the evidence" and a simple "How so?" by me stops you in your tracks every time.

> And that fact tells the tale...

Put your ideas and the support for them out there for consideration, coward. I`ll do you the favor of examining them to see if they hold water.

Bud

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 3:39:06 PM6/17/19
to
I knew the "actual" quote from the autopsy report, which is how I knew Boris was mangling it. Just because you are too stupid to make distinctions doesn`t make me a liar.

>
> > My question was who or what was Boris quoting when he put what he
> > wrote in quotes.
>
>
> No, you don't know. I had to explain it to you.

Who was he quoting, then?

> This shows why you're
> too incompetent to examine this case.
>
>
> > Suddenly you aren`t interested in being a stickler, are you hypocrite?
>
>
> There you go lying again, "Chickenshit".
>
> Unlike you, I *DID* correct an incomplete quote...

You are merely lying. Boris said this...

"The correct statement is "chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital."

That isn`t "incomplete", it is made up. It is one liar covering up for another.

> you refused to
> correct an OUTRIGHT LIE.
>
> Those are FACTS.
>
> Go again, moron... lie again.
>
>
> >> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> >> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> >> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
> >>
> >> I predict that "Chickenshit" will refuse to state that this is
> >> correct.
>
>
> Another *perfect* prediction!

See if you can find this in there...

"chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital."

Boris put it in quotes, where was he quoting from? And if it is "incomplete", as you latest cover lie suggests, where can the full quote be found?

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 4:03:15 PM6/17/19
to

>
> Boris put it in quotes, where was he quoting from? And if it is "incomplete", as you latest cover lie suggests, where can the full quote be found?


<snicker> Terrified of the autopsy report again, retard? Why don't you go with the new excuse that "occipital" was placed in the AR by mistake? You didn't step in and correct BT Barnum; I therefore assume you agree with that assessment. Chickenshit.

BT George

unread,
Jun 17, 2019, 5:05:32 PM6/17/19
to
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:37:53 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> [...]
>
> >
> > Feel free to cite where I or anything in CR speaks about or demonstrates “hiding behind Jesus”. ...Unless that whole thingy about seeking to commit your life and will to Him constitutes the “hiding” part your warped imagination. (And yes, note that I said *seeking* to commit, because in practice it’s hard work with many ups and downs, just like anything else worth pursuing.)
>
> It's either Jesus save me, or the Devil made me do it, eh? Which?
>

The second statement is Flip Wilson theology. ...Though Satan certainly is there to lend a helping hand to our bad ideas. But your first statement is a good start. In fact, I've known a *few* persons where calling on Jesus as Lord and Savior was enough to deliver them from their addictions and/or compulsive behaviors.

But for *most* of us, there's going to be a little work involved in pulling out our mostly deeply dug pits. You see in Recovery, being "powerless" doesn't mean being "action-less". ...Perhaps you have failed to understand that, which I suppose would explain a *lot* about you!

> "seeking to commit" ? Either you do or you don't commit, what's the seeking shit?
>

Commitment is both one time, and ongoing. Committing your *life/soul* to Christ for salvation is a one time decision. But serving *consistently* serving Him day in and day out, can only be done by recommitting your *will* to him on an *ongoing* basis. This is the teaching of Scripture, and only a fool would claim Christ, but deny this. (1 John 1:8-10)

> Like you have this grand scheme to pull the wool over family members eyes. That's how folks end up on a morgue's blotter...
>

Seems that you have a pathological need to assume others are pretending. I think it is for the same reason beb is absolutely *obsessed* with falsly accusing others of being liars, cowards, and "child molesters".


> Silk sheeters have no idea what I'm talking about do ya? Ya got a boat load of excuses and alibis to plow through yet, enjoy...

See what I mean Lurkers?

David Healy

unread,
Jun 18, 2019, 12:51:37 AM6/18/19
to
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 2:05:32 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:37:53 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > Feel free to cite where I or anything in CR speaks about or demonstrates “hiding behind Jesus”. ...Unless that whole thingy about seeking to commit your life and will to Him constitutes the “hiding” part your warped imagination. (And yes, note that I said *seeking* to commit, because in practice it’s hard work with many ups and downs, just like anything else worth pursuing.)
> >
> > It's either Jesus save me, or the Devil made me do it, eh? Which?
> >
>
> The second statement is Flip Wilson theology. ...Though Satan certainly is there to lend a helping hand to our bad ideas. But your first statement is a good start. In fact, I've known a *few* persons where calling on Jesus as Lord and Savior was enough to deliver them from their addictions and/or compulsive behaviors.

for how long?
>
> But for *most* of us, there's going to be a little work involved in pulling out our mostly deeply dug pits. You see in Recovery, being "powerless" doesn't mean being "action-less". ...Perhaps you have failed to understand that, which I suppose would explain a *lot* about you!
>
Have you read the Big Book of AA?

> > "seeking to commit" ? Either you do or you don't commit, what's the seeking shit?
> >
>
> Commitment is both one time, and ongoing. Committing your *life/soul* to Christ for salvation is a one time decision. But serving *consistently* serving Him day in and day out, can only be done by recommitting your *will* to him on an *ongoing* basis. This is the teaching of Scripture, and only a fool would claim Christ, but deny this. (1 John 1:8-10)

your first sentence is good, the second is bull shit. Committing *YOUR* will to HIM? Try this on for size: Step 11 "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

>
> > Like you have this grand scheme to pull the wool over family members eyes. That's how folks end up on a morgue's blotter...
> >
>
> Seems that you have a pathological need to assume others are pretending. I think it is for the same reason beb is absolutely *obsessed* with falsly accusing others of being liars, cowards, and "child molesters".

I've know thousands of bullshit artists in recovery (silk sheet detoxes, 30/60/90/120 day programs. Most now are in prison, mental institutions or dead.
>
> > Silk sheeters have no idea what I'm talking about do ya? Ya got a boat load of excuses and alibis to plow through yet, enjoy...
>
> See what I mean Lurkers?

problem chemical abusers are ALWAYS looking to blame others for their own fallings and downfall. You certainly measure up in that category.

BT George

unread,
Jun 18, 2019, 12:41:45 PM6/18/19
to
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:51:37 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 2:05:32 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:37:53 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to cite where I or anything in CR speaks about or demonstrates “hiding behind Jesus”. ...Unless that whole thingy about seeking to commit your life and will to Him constitutes the “hiding” part your warped imagination. (And yes, note that I said *seeking* to commit, because in practice it’s hard work with many ups and downs, just like anything else worth pursuing.)
> > >
> > > It's either Jesus save me, or the Devil made me do it, eh? Which?
> > >
> >
> > The second statement is Flip Wilson theology. ...Though Satan certainly is there to lend a helping hand to our bad ideas. But your first statement is a good start. In fact, I've known a *few* persons where calling on Jesus as Lord and Savior was enough to deliver them from their addictions and/or compulsive behaviors.
>
> for how long?
> >
> > But for *most* of us, there's going to be a little work involved in pulling out our mostly deeply dug pits. You see in Recovery, being "powerless" doesn't mean being "action-less". ...Perhaps you have failed to understand that, which I suppose would explain a *lot* about you!
> >
> Have you read the Big Book of AA?
>
> > > "seeking to commit" ? Either you do or you don't commit, what's the seeking shit?
> > >
> >
> > Commitment is both one time, and ongoing. Committing your *life/soul* to Christ for salvation is a one time decision. But serving *consistently* serving Him day in and day out, can only be done by recommitting your *will* to him on an *ongoing* basis. This is the teaching of Scripture, and only a fool would claim Christ, but deny this. (1 John 1:8-10)
>
> your first sentence is good, the second is bull shit. Committing *YOUR* will to HIM? Try this on for size: Step 11 "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
>


Your selecting Steps in an attempt to make your point. Let's try this one:


Made a decision to turn our ***will*** and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

The only difference in CR is that we flip to order to "lives and our wills" because we believe that surrender to Christ must come *first*, and *then* the will. Because according to the *real* Big Book, if you *won't* do the former, you really *can't* do the latter to God's satisfaction, because it *is* the supreme work:

For example, John 6:28-29:

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”


Then when you believe *obedience* becomes possible as the *real* Big Book once again instructs.

For example, John 15:5:

5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.


> >
> > > Like you have this grand scheme to pull the wool over family members eyes. That's how folks end up on a morgue's blotter...
> > >
> >
> > Seems that you have a pathological need to assume others are pretending. I think it is for the same reason beb is absolutely *obsessed* with falsly accusing others of being liars, cowards, and "child molesters".
>
> I've know thousands of bullshit artists in recovery (silk sheet detoxes, 30/60/90/120 day programs. Most now are in prison, mental institutions or dead.
> >

So? There are people in *all* Recovery programs (all Religions, all endeavors in the human life, etc.) who talk, the talk, but don't do much to walk, the walk. That doesn't mean there aren't dedicated people who may not be perfect, but continue to seek "Progress; not perfection". Which is just recovery lingo. for *exactly* what the Bible teaches about the Christian life.

> > > Silk sheeters have no idea what I'm talking about do ya? Ya got a boat load of excuses and alibis to plow through yet, enjoy...
> >
> > See what I mean Lurkers?
>
> problem chemical abusers are ALWAYS looking to blame others for their own fallings and downfall. You certainly measure up in that category.

And this pot, meets kettle moment was brought to you by David Healy Lurkers. Consider the source folks. ...Just consider the source.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 10:24:15 AM6/25/19
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:12:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 7:23:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
>>>>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
>>>>>
>>>>> He may have mistakenly thought the temporal was in the front. I did too until I looked it up recently.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.clevelandclinic.org/healthinfo/ShowImage.ashx?PIC=4275&width=325
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And again, another prediction fulfilled perfectly!
>>>
>>> It is no use to try to explain simple things to idiots, I merely
>>> point out the truth for any audience that might be out there.
>>
>>
>> It is no use to try to explain facts to a liar. They simply lie their
>> way out of any difficulty...
>
> As note, my response was for the audience, not the idiotd.


When believers get frustrated, the first thing that goes is their
grammar and typing ability.

It's clearly beyond the ability of a liar to publicly acknowledge
another liar...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 10:24:15 AM6/25/19
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> I knew the "actual" quote from the autopsy report...

You pretended not to know it... and you were too dishonest to correct
a fellow believer.

That fact tells the tale...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 10:24:15 AM6/25/19
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:12:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Demonstrate how a wound that was *chiefly* Parietal, but extending
>>>>>>>> "somewhat" into the front ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any believers have the courage to state that this is ... what it is...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or will the cowardice continue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was an error going from memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it was a lie. And I know it was a lie, because you did it
>>>>> twice. Ad-libbing the true contents of the AR to fit your narrative,
>>>>> when it said nothing of the kind.
>>>>
>>>> Simple logic demonstrates it was a lie as well...
>>>>
>>>> Every single time... EVERY SINGLE TIME, a believer states something
>>>> that is contrary to the known truth - it supports their faith.
>>>
>>> Empty claim. Hot air.
>>
>> You're asking me to prove a negative.
>
> I`m challenging you ...

To prove a negative. (Anyone notice that "Chickenshit" can't provide
an example that disproves what I said?)

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 10:24:16 AM6/25/19
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:24:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Your meaningless questions don't refute the truth of what I stated.


>> Take a look at the side X-ray of JFK - where are the larger bullet
>> fragments in the trail of fragments?
>
> You still don`t know how to make an argument, do you?


Just did. You ran.


>> You won't answer now as you didn't answer then - no believer has EVER
>> answered this question... because it's scientific proof of a second
>> shot.
>
> Empty claim. Produce the science.


"CHICKENSHIT" DOESN'T KNOW BASIC SCIENCE!!! DOESN'T KNOW WHAT INERTIA
IS!!! WHAT A MORON!

Bud

unread,
Jun 28, 2019, 5:41:17 PM6/28/19
to
Where?

Bud

unread,
Jun 28, 2019, 5:44:01 PM6/28/19
to
<snicker> Ben starts a post where he crows that he is training me to stop making responses when all he does is cut and run from my responses.

Bud

unread,
Jun 28, 2019, 5:47:12 PM6/28/19
to
As usual you haven`t said anything. Bullets fired when hitting where?

> >> Take a look at the side X-ray of JFK - where are the larger bullet
> >> fragments in the trail of fragments?
> >
> > You still don`t know how to make an argument, do you?
>
>
> Just did.

What was the idea you were arguing in favor of?

> You ran.
>
>
> >> You won't answer now as you didn't answer then - no believer has EVER
> >> answered this question... because it's scientific proof of a second
> >> shot.
> >
> > Empty claim. Produce the science.
>
>
> "CHICKENSHIT" DOESN'T KNOW BASIC SCIENCE!!! DOESN'T KNOW WHAT INERTIA
> IS!!! WHAT A MORON!

You still don`t know how to make an argument.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 9, 2019, 11:33:53 AM7/9/19
to
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
As usual, you've lied. Lie again and tell us you answered the question
of where the larger bullet fragments are seen in the side X-ray of
JFK.


>>>> Take a look at the side X-ray of JFK - where are the larger bullet
>>>> fragments in the trail of fragments?
>>>
>>> You still don`t know how to make an argument, do you?
>>
>> Just did.
>
> What was the idea you were arguing in favor of?


That you're a coward and a liar.

Proved it, too!


>> You ran.
>>
>>>> You won't answer now as you didn't answer then - no believer has EVER
>>>> answered this question... because it's scientific proof of a second
>>>> shot.
>>>
>>> Empty claim. Produce the science.
>>
>> "CHICKENSHIT" DOESN'T KNOW BASIC SCIENCE!!! DOESN'T KNOW WHAT INERTIA
>> IS!!! WHAT A MORON!
>
> You still don`t know how to make an argument.


You don't know how to lie convincingly.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 9, 2019, 11:33:54 AM7/9/19
to
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> <snicker> ...


Notice that "Chickenshit" couldn't deny it?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 9, 2019, 11:33:54 AM7/9/19
to
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
You pretended not to know it, and now you're denying that fact... even
though it's still contained in this thread.

Do you believe that obvious lies will get you anywhere, "Chickenshit?"


>> and you were too dishonest to correct
>> a fellow believer.
>>
>> That fact tells the tale...


And still does...

Bud

unread,
Jul 9, 2019, 3:45:41 PM7/9/19
to
You said this...

"The EVIDENCE points to two shots to the head."

I`m just trying to determine where you got this idea from, and whether it is a valid idea. So far it is an empty declaration, and it seems destined to remain such. You are known for blowing this sort of hot air without supporting it.

> Lie again and tell us you answered the question
> of where the larger bullet fragments are seen in the side X-ray of
> JFK.

I have no ideas about this, why would I answer questions about it?

>
> >>>> Take a look at the side X-ray of JFK - where are the larger bullet
> >>>> fragments in the trail of fragments?
> >>>
> >>> You still don`t know how to make an argument, do you?
> >>
> >> Just did.
> >
> > What was the idea you were arguing in favor of?
>
>
> That you're a coward and a liar.

So you have no assassination related conspiracy arguments to make. I`m sure the audience has concluded that a while ago.

> Proved it, too!
>
>
> >> You ran.
> >>
> >>>> You won't answer now as you didn't answer then - no believer has EVER
> >>>> answered this question... because it's scientific proof of a second
> >>>> shot.
> >>>
> >>> Empty claim. Produce the science.
> >>
> >> "CHICKENSHIT" DOESN'T KNOW BASIC SCIENCE!!! DOESN'T KNOW WHAT INERTIA
> >> IS!!! WHAT A MORON!
> >
> > You still don`t know how to make an argument.
>
>
> You don't know how to lie convincingly.

You science supports you, I ask "How so?" and you go into you usual song and dance routine.

Bud

unread,
Jul 9, 2019, 3:46:42 PM7/9/19
to
I`ve trained Ben to cut and run from everything I write.

Bud

unread,
Jul 9, 2019, 3:47:43 PM7/9/19
to
Where? You`re making stuff up.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2019, 10:46:42 AM7/18/19
to
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Notice that "Chickenshit" couldn't stay on topic?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2019, 10:46:43 AM7/18/19
to
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2019, 10:46:43 AM7/18/19
to
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Already answered below... you simply ran again.

Why the cowardice, "Chickenshit?" Why do you ALWAYS run from the
evidence in this case?


>> Lie again and tell us you answered the question
>> of where the larger bullet fragments are seen in the side X-ray of
>> JFK.
>
> I have no ideas about this, why would I answer questions about it?


Yes "Chickenshit," you clearly *DO* have an idea about this evidence,
for otherwise, you wouldn't be terrified of discussing this evidence.

Denial simply isn't going to work.

Bud

unread,
Jul 23, 2019, 5:29:53 PM7/23/19
to
You remove and run from everything I write, Yellowpants.

Bud

unread,
Jul 23, 2019, 5:33:46 PM7/23/19
to
You are lying, of course. You haven`t explain how what you wrote below support this claim you made...

"The EVIDENCE points to two shots to the head."

> Why the cowardice, "Chickenshit?" Why do you ALWAYS run from the
> evidence in this case?
>
>
> >> Lie again and tell us you answered the question
> >> of where the larger bullet fragments are seen in the side X-ray of
> >> JFK.
> >
> > I have no ideas about this, why would I answer questions about it?
>
>
> Yes "Chickenshit," you clearly *DO* have an idea about this evidence,
> for otherwise, you wouldn't be terrified of discussing this evidence.

This is your idea...

"The EVIDENCE points to two shots to the head."

It is up to you to support it. Stop trying to shift the burden onto me and support your idea.

Bud

unread,
Jul 23, 2019, 5:34:41 PM7/23/19
to
You can`t show where I did. You are making things up.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages