Contortion Olympics

[borisba...@gmail.com]

"[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint. There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease." - Dr. Charles Gregory

Little known fact: after retiring from politics, Governor Connally joined Cirque Du Soleil. With flexibility like that, he'd be able to.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

I challenged Puddy to cite a photo showing such a position, and he
ran.

No believer has **EVER** shown how this is possible - yet all you need
do is take a photo of a hand in a position to take such a wound, and
post it online.

Not a difficult thing to do. Chuckles is always demanding that we
perform tests - yet this easiest of all tests is something he'll never
do.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> > by assumption

By *what*, lurkers?

>began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is
> > the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
> > centimeters above the wrist joint. There is a second wound presumed to
> > be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its
> > palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above
> > the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease." - Dr. Charles
> > Gregory

Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?

> > Little known fact: after retiring from politics, Governor Connally
> > joined Cirque Du Soleil. With flexibility like that, he'd be able to.

Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.

And as usual, the retards look at the wrong thing incorrectly. Lurkers can look at the film of the assassination and see the motion of Connally wrist at teh saem time Kennedy is reacting from being shot. Just the sort of motions the SBT needs are there for honest people to see.

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

> I challenged Puddy to cite a photo showing such a position, and he
> ran.

I challenged beb to make an argument and he couldn`t, lurkers. He felt there was something I needed to do to correct his deficiency.

> No believer has **EVER** shown how this is possible -

Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let the retards show it is impossible.

> yet all you need
> do is take a photo of a hand in a position to take such a wound, and
> post it online.
>
> Not a difficult thing to do. Chuckles is always demanding that we
> perform tests - yet this easiest of all tests is something he'll never
> do.

Let beb support beb`s ideas, lurkers. The retard have to grow up and learn to make arguments and then be prepared to defend those arguments. Never happen.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> > > by assumption
>
> By *what*, lurkers?

By this...

Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?

Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.

>
> Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?

LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.

>
> Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.

Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.

>
> And as usual, the retards look at the wrong thing incorrectly. Lurkers can look at the film of the assassination and see the motion of Connally wrist at teh saem time Kennedy is reacting from being shot. Just the sort of motions the SBT needs are there for honest people to see.
>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest. Predictably, Bud the Anti-Science retard was foolish enough to reproduce this gif after I couldn't find it.

>
> Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let the retards show it is impossible.

And the retard did. With his own gif.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> > > by assumption
>
> By *what*, lurkers?
>
> >began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is
> > > the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
> > > centimeters above the wrist joint. There is a second wound presumed to
> > > be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its
> > > palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above
> > > the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease." - Dr. Charles
> > > Gregory
>
> Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
>
> > > Little known fact: after retiring from politics, Governor Connally
> > > joined Cirque Du Soleil. With flexibility like that, he'd be able to.
>
> Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
>

> And as usual, the FOUL AND DEMEANING LANGUAGE EXCISED look at the wrong thing incorrectly. Lurkers can look at the film of the assassination and see the motion of Connally wrist at teh saem time Kennedy is reacting from being shot. Just the sort of motions the SBT needs are there for honest people to see.

>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> > I challenged Puddy to cite a photo showing such a position, and he
> > ran.
>
> I challenged beb to make an argument and he couldn`t, lurkers. He felt there was something I needed to do to correct his deficiency.
>
> > No believer has **EVER** shown how this is possible -
>

> Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let the THE DEMEAN-ER PERSISTS! show it is impossible.

>
> > yet all you need
> > do is take a photo of a hand in a position to take such a wound, and
> > post it online.
> >
> > Not a difficult thing to do. Chuckles is always demanding that we
> > perform tests - yet this easiest of all tests is something he'll never
> > do.
>

> Let beb support beb`s ideas, lurkers. The DISPARAGING WORD WHICH REFLECTS MORE ON BUD PLUS (perhaps even worse) SUBJECT-VERB DISAGREEMENT to grow up and learn to make arguments and then be prepared to defend those arguments. Never happen.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> > > > by assumption
> >
> > By *what*, lurkers?
>
> By this...
>
> Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
>
> Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it

He *what*?

> to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
>
>
> >
> > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
>
>
> LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.

I call it looking at information correctly.

> >
> > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
>
> Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.

Wound ballistics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA

> > And as usual, the retards look at the wrong thing incorrectly. Lurkers can look at the film of the assassination and see the motion of Connally wrist at teh saem time Kennedy is reacting from being shot. Just the sort of motions the SBT needs are there for honest people to see.
> >
> > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.

This is called just saying stuff.

> Predictably, Bud the Anti-Science retard was foolish enough to reproduce this gif after I couldn't find it.

Why does this retard think there was so much movement of the wrist at this point in time?

> >
> > Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let the retards show it is impossible.
>
> And the retard did. With his own gif.

The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> > > > > by assumption
> > >
> > > By *what*, lurkers?
> >
> > By this...
> >
> > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
> >
> > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
>
> He *what*?

If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.

>
> > to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
> >
> >
> > LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.
>
> I call it looking at information correctly.

Can't imagine why someone who thinks they look at anything correctly would want to expunge *every* expert who worked on the case.

>
> > >
> > > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
> >
> > Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.
>
> Wound ballistics?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA

Dunning-Kruger. Bud the Anti-Science Retard thinks he knows more than the Warren Commission, who saw Dr. Gregory fit to ask a number of questions relating to wound ballistics and his experiences with them.

> > >
> > > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
> >
> > Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.
>
> This is called just saying stuff.

The right stuff correctly, lurkers.

>
> The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.

If it wasn't an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to discredit Dr. Gregory.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> > > > > > by assumption
> > > >
> > > > By *what*, lurkers?
> > >
> > > By this...
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
> > >
> > > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
> >
> > He *what*?
>
> If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.

Why? You brought this up, I`m still waiting for you to make an argument. Quoting people isn`t making an argument.

> > > to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
> > >
> > >
> > > LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.
> >
> > I call it looking at information correctly.
>
> Can't imagine why someone who thinks they look at anything correctly would want to expunge *every* expert who worked on the case.

Silly assertion.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
> > >
> > > Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.
> >
> > Wound ballistics?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA
>
> Dunning-Kruger. Bud the Anti-Science Retard thinks he knows more than the Warren Commission, who saw Dr. Gregory fit to ask a number of questions relating to wound ballistics and his experiences with them.

What training did Dr Gregory have in wound ballistics?

> > > >
> > > > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
> > >
> > > Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.
> >
> > This is called just saying stuff.
>
> The right stuff correctly, lurkers.

Empty claims. *Show* that Connally`s wrist was in no position to be struck from a bullet exiting his chest. *Show* another viable trajectory.

> > The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.
>
> If it wasn't an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to discredit Dr. Gregory.

I didn`t discredit Dr Gregory and you made no argument.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
>>> by assumption
>
> By *what*, lurkers?

He used this word to indicate that various lines of evidence lead clearly to
the conclusion, as he did not actually see the bullet passing through the
wrist at the time of wounding. He is drawing an inference from physical
evidence, not just handwaving.

>
>> began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is
>>> the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
>>> centimeters above the wrist joint. There is a second wound presumed
>>> to be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its
>>> palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above
>>> the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease." - Dr. Charles
>>> Gregory
>
> Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics,
> lurkers?

Plenty. He saw active service in the US Navy as a doctor during the Korean
War, was at the time of testimony Head of the Department of Orthopedic
Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, and in
testimony he estimated that he had directly seen and treated about 500 such
bullet wounds. He had both training, and extensive experience, of treating
bullet wounds. His testimony (Warren Commission v. 4, pp117ff) provided
multiple lines of evidence for the fact that the bullet entered the back of
the wrist and exited the palm side (dorsal and volar), including the
location of fibres from his coat on the entry side, the way the wrist was
badly fractured, and the fragments of lead found in the wound.

He was a very qualified expert for giving this testimony.

Later on he also testified that the wrist wound was more consistent with one
of the fragments found in the limo afterwards, and not by CE399 (also known
as "the magic bullet").

>
>>> Little known fact: after retiring from politics, Governor Connally
>>> joined Cirque Du Soleil. With flexibility like that, he'd be able
>>> to.
>
> Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone
> speaking outside of their area of expertise.

If you intend to demean Dr Gregory's experience with bullet wounds, you are
so very mistaken.

>
> And as usual, the retards look at the wrong thing incorrectly.
> Lurkers can look at the film of the assassination and see the motion
> of Connally wrist at teh saem time Kennedy is reacting from being
> shot. Just the sort of motions the SBT needs are there for honest
> people to see.
>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
>> I challenged Puddy to cite a photo showing such a position, and he
>> ran.
>
> I challenged beb to make an argument and he couldn`t, lurkers. He
> felt there was something I needed to do to correct his deficiency.
>
>> No believer has **EVER** shown how this is possible -
>
> Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let the retards show it is impossible.
>
>> yet all you need
>> do is take a photo of a hand in a position to take such a wound, and
>> post it online.
>>
>> Not a difficult thing to do. Chuckles is always demanding that we
>> perform tests - yet this easiest of all tests is something he'll
>> never do.
>
> Let beb support beb`s ideas, lurkers. The retard have to grow up
> and learn to make arguments and then be prepared to defend those
> arguments. Never happen.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:08:32 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> > > > > > by assumption
> > > >
> > > > By *what*, lurkers?
> > >
> > > By this...
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
> > >
> > > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
> >
> > He *what*?
>
> If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.

Fallacy of composition. A data point in dispute doesn't negate the body of evidence which shows a single bullet pierced JFK and tumbled through Connally.

>
> >
> > > to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
> > >
> > >
> > > LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.
> >
> > I call it looking at information correctly.
>
> Can't imagine why someone who thinks they look at anything correctly would want to expunge *every* expert who worked on the case.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
> > >
> > > Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.
> >
> > Wound ballistics?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA
>
> Dunning-Kruger. Bud the Anti-Science Retard thinks he knows more than the Warren Commission,

Which found "persuasive evidence" the bullet which pierced JFK also caused Connally's wounds. Boris the anti-science retard missed that part of the WCR, apparently.

>who saw Dr. Gregory fit to ask a number of questions relating to wound ballistics and his experiences >with them.

More proof the WC was an honest broker in trying to determine what happened in Dallas that day.

>
>
> > > >
> > > > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
> > >
> > > Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.
> >
> > This is called just saying stuff.
>
> The right stuff correctly, lurkers.

Yet the WC and HSCA disagree with Boris, lurkers.

>
> >
> > The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.
>
> If it wasn't an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to discredit Dr. Gregory.

What Dr. Gregory said doesn't discredit the Single Bullet Fact.

Tomorrow marks the 55 year anniversary of the tinfoil beanie gang's 'Nerf darts at the established JFK murder case' competition.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 11:05:23 AM UTC-5, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> >>> by assumption
> >
> > By *what*, lurkers?
>
> He used this word to indicate that various lines of evidence lead clearly to
> the conclusion,

The word is also used to indicate that it is not established fact.

> as he did not actually see the bullet passing through the
> wrist at the time of wounding.

Yet retards make a big deal that the Single Bullet Theory is just a theory. The bar is set so far by retard hobbyists that a high speed camera catching the bullet in flight is required. Here the musings of some doctor is considered solid stuff.

> He is drawing an inference from physical
> evidence, not just handwaving.

Here is another doctor drawing inferences from the physical evidence...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA

> >> began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is
> >>> the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
> >>> centimeters above the wrist joint. There is a second wound presumed
> >>> to be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its
> >>> palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above
> >>> the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease." - Dr. Charles
> >>> Gregory
> >
> > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics,
> > lurkers?
>
> Plenty.

None.

> He saw active service in the US Navy as a doctor during the Korean
> War,

That is not training in wound ballistics.

> was at the time of testimony Head of the Department of Orthopedic
> Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School,

That is not training in wound ballistics.

> and in
> testimony he estimated that he had directly seen and treated about 500 such
> bullet wounds.

That is not training in wound ballistics.

> He had both training, and extensive experience, of treating
> bullet wounds.

That is not training in wound ballistics.

He sees the wounds. That doesn`t tell him weapon, caliber, bullet type, distances, trajectories, ect. Olivier is a true wound ballistic expert because he is running tests to determine very specific things, he knows the distances, trajectories, bullet speed, everything is data that is collected. These doctors have none of that at their disposal, they see the end result with little input or context.

Seeing a lot of elephants doesn`t make you an expert about elephants. When you get training in elephants you benefit from the hundreds or thousands of people who have studied elephants. Just looking at them will only allow you to pick up a limited amount of information about them.

> His testimony (Warren Commission v. 4, pp117ff) provided
> multiple lines of evidence for the fact that the bullet entered the back of
> the wrist and exited the palm side (dorsal and volar), including the
> location of fibres from his coat on the entry side,

What testing did he ever perform regarding the existence of fibers in wounds?

> the way the wrist was
> badly fractured,

The badly fractured wrist shows he was shot in the wrist. That isn`t in dispute.

>and the fragments of lead found in the wound.

The lead fragments in the wrist show he was shot in the wrist. That isn`t in dispute.

> He was a very qualified expert for giving this testimony.

He was qualified to say he saw fibers in the wound, or lead fragments in the wound. He was qualified to describe the wound he saw.

And one thing to keep in mind is that there was only one thing he was being called on to do, and that was to mend the wound(s) that Connally had. The wounds were the wounds regardless of which was the bullet that caused them was heading, so it is really of trivial importance to his task of treating of the wounds.

> Later on he also testified that the wrist wound was more consistent with one
> of the fragments found in the limo afterwards, and not by CE399 (also known
> as "the magic bullet").

Based on what? All the testing he performed on bullet fragments causing wounds?

> >>> Little known fact: after retiring from politics, Governor Connally
> >>> joined Cirque Du Soleil. With flexibility like that, he'd be able
> >>> to.
> >
> > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone
> > speaking outside of their area of expertise.
>
> If you intend to demean Dr Gregory's experience with bullet wounds, you are
> so very mistaken.

Not his experience. His expertise.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

What Mike Dworetsky said.

And you know if Gregory found anything supporting the lone gunmen theory, Bud the Anti-Science Retard would have no problem suddenly acquiescing to his expertise.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > If you intend to demean Dr Gregory's experience with bullet wounds, you are
> > so very mistaken.
>
> Not his experience. His expertise.

It's obvious to everyone this idiot has no idea what makes someone an "expert."

[Bud]

Some idiots think that just seeing a lot of something makes a person an expert.

[Bud]

He has no expertise in wound ballistics, the relevant field.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> He has no expertise in wound ballistics, the relevant field.

Yet the Warren Commission saw him fit enough to ask about Connally's wrist wound...and not his dental records. Strange.

And all this bemoaning of Gregory's expertise accomplishes nothing, unless you're trying to argue that the bullet entered the wrist from the other side. Is that what you're arguing? Or are you just whining for the sake of it?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 4:29:45 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > He has no expertise in wound ballistics, the relevant field.
>
> Yet the Warren Commission saw him fit enough to ask about Connally's wrist wound...and not his dental records. Strange.

Strange for conspiracy retards to express such confidence in the WC.

> And all this bemoaning of Gregory's expertise accomplishes nothing,

Especially since you failed to establish his expertise in the relevant field.

> unless you're trying to argue that the bullet entered the wrist from the other side. Is that what you're arguing? Or are you just whining for the sake of it?

I`m still waiting for you to make an argument. You brought this up.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> > unless you're trying to argue that the bullet entered the wrist from the other side. Is that what you're arguing? Or are you just whining for the sake of it?
>
> I`m still waiting for you to make an argument. You brought this up.

Oh, so you're arguing against an argument that hasn't even been made. Good to know, moron.

I trust Dr. Gregory. More so than the experts who testified against his findings....of which there are none. Too bad for you.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 4:47:15 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > unless you're trying to argue that the bullet entered the wrist from the other side. Is that what you're arguing? Or are you just whining for the sake of it?
> >
> > I`m still waiting for you to make an argument. You brought this up.
>
> Oh, so you're arguing against an argument that hasn't even been made. Good to know, moron.

You made no argument to argue against. I was doing what I usually do, point out the flaws in your thinking and putting information in the correct context for you.

> I trust Dr. Gregory.

But can`t seem to use what he said to present an argument.

> More so than the experts who testified against his findings....

What were his "findings"?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 3:29:45 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > He has no expertise in wound ballistics, the relevant field.
>
> Yet the Warren Commission saw him fit enough to ask about Connally's wrist wound...and not his dental records. Strange.

Yet the WC concluded Oswald did fire the shots that killed JFK. No knoll gunmen, no south knoll sniper team firing through the windshield. Strange.

>
> And all this bemoaning of Gregory's expertise accomplishes nothing, unless you're trying to argue that the bullet entered the wrist from the other side. Is that what you're arguing? Or are you just whining for the sake of it?

More wet fireworks by Boris the Truther. 55 years of fizzle.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Yet the Warren Commission saw him fit enough to ask about Connally's wrist wound...and not his dental records. Strange.
>
> Yet the WC concluded Oswald did fire the shots that killed JFK.

Since the WC knew their conclusion before they started, this isn't exactly a mind-blowing finding.

>
> Strange.

By positing the argument in this direction, you are essentially agreeing with my position that they considered Dr. Gregory enough of an expert to engage in their line of questioning RE: ballistic wounds. You're likely unaware that your idiotic comment is an "if/then" favoring trust in the WC's methods.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 6:22:45 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Yet the Warren Commission saw him fit enough to ask about Connally's wrist wound...and not his dental records. Strange.
> >
> > Yet the WC concluded Oswald did fire the shots that killed JFK.
>
> Since the WC knew their conclusion before they started, this isn't exactly a mind-blowing finding.

It was obvious your hero Oswald killed JFK. Whether he had help, establishing the how and why, etc. was what the WC tried to get to the bottom of. And commission lawyers like Burt Griffin said they had a free hand in pursuing the case in any direction the evidence dictated.

>
> >
> > Strange.
>
> By positing the argument in this direction, you are essentially agreeing with my position that they considered Dr. Gregory enough of an expert to engage in their line of questioning RE: ballistic wounds. You're likely unaware that your idiotic comment is an "if/then" favoring trust in the WC's methods.

I'm not agreeing with your position.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:15:44 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:08:32 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
>> > > > > > by assumption
>> > > >
>> > > > By *what*, lurkers?
>> > >
>> > > By this...
>> > >
>> > > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
>> > >
>> > > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
>> >
>> > He *what*?
>>
>> If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.
>
> Fallacy of composition. A data point in dispute doesn't negate the
> body of evidence which shows a single bullet pierced JFK and tumbled
> through Connally.

Fallacy of cowardice.

You won't cite this "body of evidence" that says what you claim it
says.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:56:13 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 6:22:45 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Yet the Warren Commission saw him fit enough to ask about Connally's wrist wound...and not his dental records. Strange.
>> >
>> > Yet the WC concluded Oswald did fire the shots that killed JFK.
>>
>> Since the WC knew their conclusion before they started, this isn't exactly a mind-blowing finding.
>
>It was obvious your hero Oswald killed JFK.

Then why can't you produce the evidence for this claim?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It was obvious your hero Oswald killed JFK. Whether he had help, establishing the how and why, etc. was what the WC tried to get to the bottom of. And commission lawyers like Burt Griffin said they had a free hand in pursuing the case in any direction the evidence dictated.

They tried so hard they didn't even bother to cite the Sibert/O'Neill report even once. Not like FBI headquarters didn't have a copy of it or anything.

>
> I'm not agreeing with your position.

Well my position concerns the entrance wound of the wrist, as per Dr. Gregory. And since this entry wound of the wrist is not part of the "null historical" whatever, it's your burden to cite your own evidence which disagrees with my position. But you won't, because you're a stupid piece of shit.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Fallacy of composition. A data point in dispute

I like how you present your denial in the singular..."a data point"...as if there is only one, and not several dozen.

>
> doesn't negate the body of evidence which shows a single bullet pierced JFK and tumbled through Connally.

Negating it is literally *exactly* what those data points do.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:15:44 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:08:32 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> >> > > > > > by assumption
> >> > > >
> >> > > > By *what*, lurkers?
> >> > >
> >> > > By this...
> >> > >
> >> > > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
> >> > >
> >> > > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
> >> >
> >> > He *what*?
> >>
> >> If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.
> >
> > Fallacy of composition. A data point in dispute doesn't negate the
> > body of evidence which shows a single bullet pierced JFK and tumbled
> > through Connally.
>
>
> Fallacy of cowardice.
>
> You won't cite this "body of evidence" that says what you claim it
> says.

The body of evidence examined by the WC, HSCA and other investigations.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Fuck you.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Well my position concerns the entrance wound of the wrist, as per Dr. Gregory. And since this entry wound of the wrist is not part of the "null historical" whatever, it's your burden to cite your own evidence which disagrees with my position. But you won't, because you're a stupid piece of shit.
>
> Fuck you.

The mating call of the loser. And you've left your faith undefended and raped. A real man, you are.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:18:49 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

As predicted, you refused to cite it. You keep making claims, and not
supporting them.

That's a good definition of cowardice.

You're a coward.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Fuck you.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Fuck you.

That's the spirit, Chuck. We all know you can't fight back, but it takes real honesty to give up like you have. Have you run out of lies to spin? Or have you encountered just one expert too many?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:18:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com

>> wrote:
>>
>> > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
>> > by assumption
>
> By *what*, lurkers?

Actually, by the testimony of the treating physician.

>> > began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is
>> > the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
>> > centimeters above the wrist joint. There is a second wound presumed to
>> > be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its
>> > palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above
>> > the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease." - Dr. Charles
>> > Gregory
>

> Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?

No, he's a trained doctor, and knows the difference between an entry
wound, and an exit wound.

He **IS** the expert here, and you're whining won't change that fact.

The Warren Commission took AND accepted his testimony. They did
*NOTHING* to refute it, or make any attempt to have any other experts
weigh in. Who are *you* to contradict the Warren Commission's
findings?

>> > Little known fact: after retiring from politics, Governor Connally
>> > joined Cirque Du Soleil. With flexibility like that, he'd be able to.
>

> Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone
> speaking outside of their area of expertise.

Anyone familiar with where the trajectory of the "SBT" bullet will
recognize where Boris is heading.

You do too, judging from your whining here.


> I'm a retard.

>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
>> I challenged Puddy to cite a photo showing such a position, and he
>> ran.
>
> I challenged beb to make an argument and he couldn`t, lurkers. He
> felt there was something I needed to do to correct his deficiency.

You're lying again, Puddy.

>> No believer has **EVER** shown how this is possible -
>

> Shifting the burden, lurkers. I'm a retard.

It's your burden. One *never* met by the Warren Commission, who simply
accepted the testimony... probably without understanding it.

Had their been a defense counsel, this issue would *certainly* have
been explored.

>> yet all you need
>> do is take a photo of a hand in a position to take such a wound, and
>> post it online.
>>
>> Not a difficult thing to do. Chuckles is always demanding that we
>> perform tests - yet this easiest of all tests is something he'll never
>> do.
>

> Let beb support beb`s ideas, lurkers. I'm a retard.

No, Puddy... this is **YOUR** idea. **YOU** claim that Connally had a
bullet enter the back of his wrist.

Untill you label Dr. Gregory as an incompetent liar, and the Warren
Commission as well, you're stuck with it.

Carry your burden!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:11:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

>> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
>> > > > > > by assumption
>> > > >
>> > > > By *what*, lurkers?
>> > >

>> > > By this...
>> > >
>> > > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
>> > >
>> > > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
>> >
>> > He *what*?
>>
>> If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.
>

> Why? You brought this up, I`m still waiting for you to make an
> argument. Quoting people isn`t making an argument.


Actually, he's just schooling you on your own experts and what they
said.

That you don't recognize that this information doesn't support the
Warren Commission's theory is YOUR problem... You have the strange
belief that you don't have to defend your beliefs, but that's just
your cowardice speaking.

>> > > to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >

>> > > > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
>> > >
>> > >

>> > > LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.
>> >
>> > I call it looking at information correctly.
>>
>> Can't imagine why someone who thinks they look at anything
>> correctly would want to expunge *every* expert who worked on the case.
>

> Silly assertion.


Name *ONE* expert whom you accept completely in their testimony &
statements made in 1963-64.

If you cannot, then you're a proven liar.

>> > > > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
>> > >

>> > > Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.
>> >
>> > Wound ballistics?
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA
>>

>> Dunning-Kruger. Bud the Anti-Science Retard thinks he knows more than the Warren Commission, who saw Dr. Gregory fit to ask a number of questions relating to wound ballistics and his experiences with them.
>
> What training did Dr Gregory have in wound ballistics?

Wound ballistics training is not needed to observe and make the
statements he made.

All you're doing is demonstrating the errors of the Warren Commission
in not calling the experts *YOU* want to hear from.

>> > > > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>> > >
>> > > Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.
>> >
>> > This is called just saying stuff.
>>
>> The right stuff correctly, lurkers.
>

> Empty claims. *Show* that Connally`s wrist was in no position to
> be struck from a bullet exiting his chest. *Show* another viable
> trajectory.

Can't prove a negative...

You **COULD** prove your theory with just a photo showing a wrist in
the position to allow a bullet to strike it as the Warren Commission
said, and as you believe.

Why are you unable to do so?

>> > The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.
>>
>> If it wasn't an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to discredit Dr. Gregory.
>

> I didn`t discredit Dr Gregory


Yes, you did. You refuse to accept the wound descriptions he gave on
the silly assertion (which you can't cite for) that he had no training
in "wound ballistics."


> and you made no argument.


None you're willing to address, certainly.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:11:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
> >> > > > > > by assumption
> >> > > >
> >> > > > By *what*, lurkers?
> >> > >
> >> > > By this...
> >> > >
> >> > > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
> >> > >
> >> > > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
> >> >
> >> > He *what*?
> >>
> >> If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.
> >
> > Why? You brought this up, I`m still waiting for you to make an
> > argument. Quoting people isn`t making an argument.
>
>
> Actually, he's just schooling you on your own experts and what they
> said.

Actually, he has thus far failed to make an argument, lurkers.

> That you don't recognize that this information doesn't support the
> Warren Commission's theory is YOUR problem...

Boris`s inability to make an argument using this information is not my problem, lurkers.

> You have the strange
> belief that you don't have to defend your beliefs, but that's just
> your cowardice speaking.

I merely point out that retards bring these things up, and when I ask "What about it?" they have nothing, lurkers. And somehow they think I need to do something about this.

> >> > > to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.
> >> >
> >> > I call it looking at information correctly.
> >>
> >> Can't imagine why someone who thinks they look at anything
> >> correctly would want to expunge *every* expert who worked on the case.
> >
> > Silly assertion.
>
>
> Name *ONE* expert whom you accept completely in their testimony &
> statements made in 1963-64.

This challenge is coming from a hypocrite who uses a witness to support an idea one minute and calls him a liar the next, lurkers.

> If you cannot, then you're a proven liar.

By posing this challenge beb has proven himself to be retarded, lurkers.

> >> > > > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
> >> > >
> >> > > Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.
> >> >
> >> > Wound ballistics?
> >> >
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA
> >>
> >> Dunning-Kruger. Bud the Anti-Science Retard thinks he knows more than the Warren Commission, who saw Dr. Gregory fit to ask a number of questions relating to wound ballistics and his experiences with them.
> >
> > What training did Dr Gregory have in wound ballistics?
>
> Wound ballistics training is not needed to observe and make the
> statements he made.

Empty claim, lurkers.

> All you're doing is demonstrating the errors of the Warren Commission
> in not calling the experts *YOU* want to hear from.
>
>
> >> > > > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
> >> > >
> >> > > Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.
> >> >
> >> > This is called just saying stuff.
> >>
> >> The right stuff correctly, lurkers.
> >
> > Empty claims. *Show* that Connally`s wrist was in no position to
> > be struck from a bullet exiting his chest. *Show* another viable
> > trajectory.
>
> Can't prove a negative...

So they are shooting blanks, lurkers, making claims they can`t support.

> You **COULD** prove your theory with just a photo showing a wrist in
> the position to allow a bullet to strike it as the Warren Commission
> said, and as you believe.

Boris brought this issue up, lurkers. He quoted a witness but doesn`t seem to be able to advance any ideas using that testimony.

> Why are you unable to do so?

Boris`s idea, I don`t have to do anything, lurkers. I`m pointing out that it is the usual shooting of blanks by conspiracy retards. My work is done.

> >> > The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.
> >>
> >> If it wasn't an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to discredit Dr. Gregory.
> >
> > I didn`t discredit Dr Gregory
>
>
> Yes, you did.

Looking at information correctly is not discrediting the information, lurkers.

> You refuse to accept the wound descriptions he gave on
> the silly assertion (which you can't cite for) that he had no training
> in "wound ballistics."
>
>
> > and you made no argument.
>
>
> None you're willing to address, certainly.

Let beb state what Boris`s argument was, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Actually, he has thus far failed to make an argument, lurkers.

The Idiot continues to argue against an argument never made, lurkers.

>
> Boris`s inability to make an argument using this information is not my problem, lurkers.

Funny how if this information supported the SBT, you'd magically both understand it and not challenge it.

>
> > You have the strange
> > belief that you don't have to defend your beliefs, but that's just
> > your cowardice speaking.
>
> I merely point out that retards bring these things up, and when I ask "What about it?" they have nothing, lurkers. And somehow they think I need to do something about this.

You can't do anything about it but complain. Which is fine, you have nothing to offer anyway. Strange that you've produced the SBT "gif" a dozen times, but can't note that anatomical impossibility of Gregory's testimony. Nor can you cite a single expert who challenges that testimony, because it was never challenged, not even by the Warren Commission.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:41:44 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Actually, he has thus far failed to make an argument, lurkers.
>
> The Idiot continues to argue against an argument never made, lurkers.

Pointing out that an argument has not been made is not arguing against an argument, stupid. You aren`t too good with distinctions.

> >
> > Boris`s inability to make an argument using this information is not my problem, lurkers.
>
> Funny how if this information supported the SBT, you'd magically both understand it and not challenge it.

Still no argument. If you made an argument, what was it?

> >
> > > You have the strange
> > > belief that you don't have to defend your beliefs, but that's just
> > > your cowardice speaking.
> >
> > I merely point out that retards bring these things up, and when I ask "What about it?" they have nothing, lurkers. And somehow they think I need to do something about this.
>
> You can't do anything about it but complain.

I point out that you are retarded, I don`t complain about it.

> Which is fine, you have nothing to offer anyway. Strange that you've produced the SBT "gif" a dozen times, but can't note that anatomical impossibility of Gregory's testimony.

MAKE AN ARGUMENT, STUPID! Show how what you quoted and what the z-film shows is supportive of some idea of yours. Over a dozen posts you`ve made here and you haven`t done it yet.

> Nor can you cite a single expert who challenges that testimony, because it was never challenged, not even by the Warren Commission.

What experts were called to challenge what he said?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

and YOU have been posting for nearly 30 years supporting WCR jacked up conclusions and theories, talk about fizzle....but we know toot's, you'll do anything for a woodie... lmfao!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 1:22:17 PM UTC-8, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Fuck you.
>
> That's the spirit, Chuck. We all know you can't fight back, but it takes real honesty to give up like you have. Have you run out of lies to spin? Or have you encountered just one expert too many?

Chuckles has been de-nutted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 11:26:34 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:11:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:29:11 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > "[Connally's] right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which
>> >> > > > > > by assumption
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > By *what*, lurkers?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > By this...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it
>> >> >
>> >> > He *what*?
>> >>
>> >> If you don't like his evidence and the means with which he reached those conclusions, then produce an expert from the case who indicates a bullet transit from the opposite side of the wrist.
>> >
>> > Why? You brought this up, I`m still waiting for you to make an
>> > argument. Quoting people isn`t making an argument.
>>
>>
>> Actually, he's just schooling you on your own experts and what they
>> said.
>
> Actually, he has thus far failed to make an argument, lurkers.

When the testimony is such that the average intelligent &
knowledgeable person knows that the testified topic is virtually
impossible, then no "argument" need be made.

You already know the "argument."

You've refused to simply post a photo of someone's wrist in such a
position to receive such a wound.

You *could*... of course.

But everyone would realize that you can't use a contortionist to use
as an analogy to Gov. Connally.

Believers have had over 50 years to acknowledge and explain this
testimony...

And have proven their cowardice.

>> That you don't recognize that this information doesn't support the
>> Warren Commission's theory is YOUR problem...
>
> Boris`s inability to make an argument using this information is not my problem, lurkers.

Your cowardice, however, is.

>> You have the strange
>> belief that you don't have to defend your beliefs, but that's just
>> your cowardice speaking.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> >> > > to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.
>> >> >
>> >> > I call it looking at information correctly.
>> >>
>> >> Can't imagine why someone who thinks they look at anything
>> >> correctly would want to expunge *every* expert who worked on the case.
>> >
>> > Silly assertion.
>>
>> Name *ONE* expert whom you accept completely in their testimony &
>> statements made in 1963-64.
>

> This challenge...


Is one you've never answered...

>> If you cannot, then you're a proven liar.
>

> I'm retarded, lurkers.


And a proven liar.

>> >> > > > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wound ballistics?
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA
>> >>
>> >> Dunning-Kruger. Bud the Anti-Science Retard thinks he knows more than the Warren Commission, who saw Dr. Gregory fit to ask a number of questions relating to wound ballistics and his experiences with them.
>> >
>> > What training did Dr Gregory have in wound ballistics?
>>
>> Wound ballistics training is not needed to observe and make the
>> statements he made.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

A self-refuting statement.

>> All you're doing is demonstrating the errors of the Warren Commission
>> in not calling the experts *YOU* want to hear from.
>>
>>
>> >> > > > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is called just saying stuff.
>> >>
>> >> The right stuff correctly, lurkers.
>> >
>> > Empty claims. *Show* that Connally`s wrist was in no position to
>> > be struck from a bullet exiting his chest. *Show* another viable
>> > trajectory.
>>
>> Can't prove a negative...
>
> So they are shooting blanks, lurkers, making claims they can`t support.

Prove that you're not a moron.

>> You **COULD** prove your theory with just a photo showing a wrist in
>> the position to allow a bullet to strike it as the Warren Commission
>> said, and as you believe.
>

> Boris...


Has *NOTHING* to do with your inability to support your faith.

>> Why are you unable to do so?
>

> Boris`s idea...


Again, has NOTHING to do with your cowardice...

>> >> > The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.
>> >>
>> >> If it wasn't an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to discredit Dr. Gregory.
>> >
>> > I didn`t discredit Dr Gregory
>>
>> Yes, you did.
>
> Looking at information correctly is not discrediting the information, lurkers.

Dr. Gregory is either correct... or he's not qualified.

Which is it?

>> You refuse to accept the wound descriptions he gave on
>> the silly assertion (which you can't cite for) that he had no training
>> in "wound ballistics."
>>
>> > and you made no argument.
>>
>> None you're willing to address, certainly.
>
> Let beb state what Boris`s argument was, lurkers.

Let Puddy admit publicly that he can't figure it out.

[Bud]

The usual blaming other people for the retards being unable to make an argument, lurkers.

> You already know the "argument."

Let beb say what the argument was, then, lurkers.

> You've refused to simply post a photo of someone's wrist in such a
> position to receive such a wound.

<snicker> LURKERS, I DON`T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING! Boris and be seem to have some idea, but they can`t seem to put the idea, and the support for that idea on the table for consideration. I only need to point that out, I am under no obligation to offer proof against an idea they can`t even articulate.

> You *could*... of course.
>
> But everyone would realize that you can't use a contortionist to use
> as an analogy to Gov. Connally.

Boris vaguely alluded to the idea of Connally being a contortionist because his can`t make arguments like an adult, lurkers. By doing it this way he makes it seem like he is making an argument without the tedium of putting an idea and the support for that idea out there for review. It put the onus on other people, it`s a cheap and lazy way to shift the burden.

> Believers have had over 50 years to acknowledge and explain this
> testimony...

An idea has been on the table for over fifty years, lurkers. Let them *show* that this wound is inconsistent with that idea, or let them put a better explanation up for consideration. Or they can opt to STFU.

> And have proven their cowardice.

The inability of retards to make arguments reflects on no one but themselves, lurkers.

>
> >> That you don't recognize that this information doesn't support the
> >> Warren Commission's theory is YOUR problem...
> >
> > Boris`s inability to make an argument using this information is not my problem, lurkers.
>
>
> Your cowardice, however, is.

beb can`t contest the truth of what I said, so he tries to talk over it with a hominem, lurkers.

> >> You have the strange
> >> belief that you don't have to defend your beliefs, but that's just
> >> your cowardice speaking.
> >
> > I'm a retard.
> >
> >> >> > > to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Dr Gregory has what training in the field of wound ballistics, lurkers?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > LNers call this the "an expert gave an opinion I don't like" defense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I call it looking at information correctly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can't imagine why someone who thinks they look at anything
> >> >> correctly would want to expunge *every* expert who worked on the case.
> >> >
> >> > Silly assertion.
> >>
> >> Name *ONE* expert whom you accept completely in their testimony &
> >> statements made in 1963-64.
> >
> > This challenge...
>
>
> Is one you've never answered...

beb needs to cut and run from everything I write, lurkers. He is so retarded that he sees this as a sign of bravery.

>
> >> If you cannot, then you're a proven liar.
> >
> > I'm retarded, lurkers.
>
>
> And a proven liar.

How can lurkers be sure of what I write when this retard keeps changing my words?

> >> >> > > > Lurkers will note that Boris made no argument. He quote someone speaking outside of their area of expertise.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Dr. Gregory graduated from wrist school, so's what you know.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wound ballistics?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYEW-pKEmA
> >> >>
> >> >> Dunning-Kruger. Bud the Anti-Science Retard thinks he knows more than the Warren Commission, who saw Dr. Gregory fit to ask a number of questions relating to wound ballistics and his experiences with them.
> >> >
> >> > What training did Dr Gregory have in wound ballistics?
> >>
> >> Wound ballistics training is not needed to observe and make the
> >> statements he made.
> >
> > Empty claim, lurkers.
>
>
> A self-refuting statement.

How so, lurkers?

> >> All you're doing is demonstrating the errors of the Warren Commission
> >> in not calling the experts *YOU* want to hear from.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > > > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yup, with the wrist in no position to be left vulnerable to a bullet penetrating the chest.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is called just saying stuff.
> >> >>
> >> >> The right stuff correctly, lurkers.
> >> >
> >> > Empty claims. *Show* that Connally`s wrist was in no position to
> >> > be struck from a bullet exiting his chest. *Show* another viable
> >> > trajectory.
> >>
> >> Can't prove a negative...
> >
> > So they are shooting blanks, lurkers, making claims they can`t support.
>
>
> Prove that you're not a moron.

non sequitur and ad hominem, lurkers. Since beb can`t contest the truth he tries to talk over it.

>
> >> You **COULD** prove your theory with just a photo showing a wrist in
> >> the position to allow a bullet to strike it as the Warren Commission
> >> said, and as you believe.
> >
> > Boris...
>
>
> Has *NOTHING* to do with your inability to support your faith.

He has nothing to do with beb being retarded, either, lurkers. But he did start this thread, and these are responses to things he wrote, if if beb feels he needs to cut out any mention of this fact.

> >> Why are you unable to do so?
> >
> > Boris`s idea...
>
>
> Again, has NOTHING to do with your cowardice...

beb cuts out what I write because he is afraid of it, lurkers. It contains points he has no answer to. He feels that running from what I write is a sign of bravery.

>
> >> >> > The retard still can`t make an argument. He makes the empty claim that the .gif shows he is right.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it wasn't an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to discredit Dr. Gregory.
> >> >
> >> > I didn`t discredit Dr Gregory
> >>
> >> Yes, you did.
> >
> > Looking at information correctly is not discrediting the information, lurkers.
>
>
> Dr. Gregory is either correct... or he's not qualified.

Notice that I caught beb lying so he changed the argument, lurkers?

And changed it to a false dilemma fallacious argument. Gregory can be be right about something he isn`t qualified to offer an opinion on. He can be qualified in some fields and have no expertise in others.

> Which is it?
>
>
>
> >> You refuse to accept the wound descriptions he gave on
> >> the silly assertion (which you can't cite for) that he had no training
> >> in "wound ballistics."
> >>
> >> > and you made no argument.
> >>
> >> None you're willing to address, certainly.
> >
> > Let beb state what Boris`s argument was, lurkers.
>
>
> Let Puddy admit publicly that he can't figure it out.

beb assumes what he can`t show, that an argument was made, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 13:56:49 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I'm a retard, lurkers.

>
>> You already know the "argument."
>
> Let beb say what the argument was, then, lurkers.

Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?

>> You've refused to simply post a photo of someone's wrist in such a
>> position to receive such a wound.
>
> <snicker> LURKERS, I DON`T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING!

Yes Puddy, you do.

And your INABILITY to do what you need to do explains why so many
people in the U.S. don't believe the WCR.

[Bud]

Notice he couldn`t do it, lurkers? beb and Boris were claiming that Boris made an argument but neither could say what it was.

>
> >> You've refused to simply post a photo of someone's wrist in such a
> >> position to receive such a wound.
> >
> > <snicker> LURKERS, I DON`T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING!
>
>
> Yes Puddy, you do.

No, lurkers, I don`t. Boris couldn`t make an argument, and I pointed that out because I felt like doing so.

> And your INABILITY to do what you need to do explains why so many
> people in the U.S. don't believe the WCR.

Most people in this country believe in angels, lurkers, what do I care what they think?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Notice he couldn`t do it, lurkers? beb and Boris were claiming that Boris made an argument but neither could say what it was.

The position of Connally's wrist was such that an entrance wound from the dorsal side would not have been possible unless it came from the front. It's not that I didn't make an argument, it's that you're too stupid to comprehend it. Now, continue to lie some more.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 08:24:37 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Actually, Puddy has heard this before, and pretends not to know the
argument.

But the proof that he has is that he CONTINUES to refuse to provide a
photo showing how this is possible.

He knows it's not... Gov. Connally was not a contortionist.

[Bud]

Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers. Why can`t these retards ever support their ideas?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers. Why can`t these retards ever support their ideas?

Dr. Gregory supplies this information himself, per the OP. Are you vacant? Where's your .gif this time?

[Bud]

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:19:21 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers. Why can`t these retards ever support their ideas?
>
> Dr. Gregory supplies this information himself,

Who contested that Dr Gregory supplied information, stupid? Try to be a man and use the information he supplied in the advancement of some idea of yours.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 20:41:05 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Notice that Puddy couldn't do it?

Puddy's been running from this issue ever since I first brought it up.

Run Puddy, RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 09:22:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 08:24:37 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Notice he couldn`t do it, lurkers? beb and Boris were claiming that Boris made an argument but neither could say what it was.
>> >
>> > The position of Connally's wrist was such that an entrance wound
>> > from the dorsal side would not have been possible unless it came from
>> > the front. It's not that I didn't make an argument, it's that you're
>> > too stupid to comprehend it. Now, continue to lie some more.
>>
>> Actually, Puddy has heard this before, and pretends not to know the
>> argument.
>>
>> But the proof that he has is that he CONTINUES to refuse to provide a
>> photo showing how this is possible.
>
> Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers.

And yet, it's your burden.


> I'm a retard that can't support my idea.


True, but why not?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 14:23:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:19:21 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers. Why can`t these retards ever support their ideas?
>>
>> Dr. Gregory supplies this information himself,
>
> Who contested that Dr Gregory supplied information, stupid? Try to
> be a man and use the information he supplied in the advancement of
> some idea of yours.

Believers like Puddy prove time and time again that they cannot defend
the Warren Commission Report.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:55:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 09:22:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 08:24:37 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Notice he couldn`t do it, lurkers? beb and Boris were claiming that Boris made an argument but neither could say what it was.
> >> >
> >> > The position of Connally's wrist was such that an entrance wound
> >> > from the dorsal side would not have been possible unless it came from
> >> > the front. It's not that I didn't make an argument, it's that you're
> >> > too stupid to comprehend it. Now, continue to lie some more.
> >>
> >> Actually, Puddy has heard this before, and pretends not to know the
> >> argument.
> >>
> >> But the proof that he has is that he CONTINUES to refuse to provide a
> >> photo showing how this is possible.
> >
> > Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers.
>
>
> And yet, it's your burden.

beb is lying, lurkers. He declared it impossible, he has yet to support that claim.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:24:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:55:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 09:22:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:46:22 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 08:24:37 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Notice he couldn`t do it, lurkers? beb and Boris were claiming that Boris made an argument but neither could say what it was.
>> >> >
>> >> > The position of Connally's wrist was such that an entrance wound
>> >> > from the dorsal side would not have been possible unless it came from
>> >> > the front. It's not that I didn't make an argument, it's that you're
>> >> > too stupid to comprehend it. Now, continue to lie some more.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, Puddy has heard this before, and pretends not to know the
>> >> argument.
>> >>
>> >> But the proof that he has is that he CONTINUES to refuse to provide a
>> >> photo showing how this is possible.
>> >
>> > Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> And yet, it's your burden.
>
> beb is lying, lurkers.

Molesting goats again, I see.

>He declared it impossible, he has yet to support that claim.

The Warren Commission *FIRST* asserted it actually happened, and you
can't defend that provably incorrect assertion.

It could be defended by merely a few minutes with a camera, and the
ability to upload a photo to someplace online - yet you can't do it.