Dunning-Kruger

[borisba...@gmail.com]

In a post (previously ignored by ALL lone nutters collectively), resident imbecile Chuck "No Confederates" Schuyler claimed conspiracy theorists all suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, pretending that we claim to know more than "the experts." Of course when pressed, none of these "experts" are ever identified by believers. When we identify them, believers cry they are "the wrong ones". And despite thread after thread of critics posting findings contrary to the LN narrative which experts agree with, the Idiot returns to this well again and again. It's the surest sign of a loser who can't stop being a loser.

So let's see if critics agree with the experts....or if "Biff" Schuyler does....


"I refuse to accept what the experts say." --Chuckles Dunning-Kruger [not a real quite, but as we'll soon find out it might as well be]



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

Mr. DULLES - Just one other question. Am I correct in assuming from
what you have said that this wound is entirely inconsistent with a
wound that might have been administered if the shot were fired from in
front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind the
President?

Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have
been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than
behind.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes,
could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment
passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor
Connally's right wrist?

Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely ... The reason I
believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either
of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket
appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could
possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given
us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399,
could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally's thigh?

Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely.

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

Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which
inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments
described in that wrist.

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

Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have
inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at
this point to the wound of the President's neck?

Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all
of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing
more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of
the bullet. (Discussion off the record.)

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

Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However,
examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations
and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either
effecting identification or a determination that the print was not
identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply
was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.

Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139
was that you could not produce an identifiable print?

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

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

Perry: "There was an entrance wound in the neck..."

Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?"
Perry: "It appeared to be coming at him."...

Question: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the
front in the throat?"

Perry: "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
throat; yes, that is correct.

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

Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a
cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive
wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and
portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of
underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than
that.

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

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that
I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in
such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and
I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been
extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of
the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp
and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as
well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral
haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way
that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see
that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior
cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted
out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly
from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted
open.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head
wound which you have already mentioned briefly?

Dr. CARRICO - Sure.
This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital
region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area,
with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable
slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more
profuse bleeding from this wound.

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

This is a very small handful of examples stemming from a much broader pattern. In the past few days, LNers have gone from lauding the names of Humes, Boswell and Finck (EXPERTS in "postmortem medicine"), to having been reduced to calling them all mistaken. An incredibly ridiculous fall from grace. But LNers don't believe any of the experts. All they can do is project that bias onto others.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Let's see if Boris the Truther can spin the propeller on his tinfoil beanie and develop this into a specific theory regarding the number of shots, the wounds that were caused, etc.

Give it a try, kook.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Let's see if Boris...


Nothing Boris can do or not do will change the fact that you have JUST
REFUSED TO ACCEPT ANY OF THIS EXPERT TESTIMONY!

Why the cowardice Chuckles?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I "accept" this expert testimony.
>
> Why the cowardice Chuckles?

Why can't you go anywhere with the freaky looking sh!t you keep posting?

Why the cowardice, shrimpy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:46:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Then you lied when you claimed that there was no large wound on the
back of JFK's head.

>> Why the cowardice Chuckles?
>
>Why can't you go anywhere with the freaky looking sh!t you keep posting?

Just did. Proved you a liar.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Let's see if

Bzzt. Wrong answer. The topic of the thread is Dunning-Kruger. Your penchant for believing the experts, versus ours. Do you believe any of the citations listed in the OP? No? Then you're done.

[BT George]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

Let Imbecile show where my comments indicate they were mistaken in any meaningful and material finding of the Autopsy. For that matter, let him show just about anyplace that I indicated that any of their findings *definitely* were wrong. (A fact that does indeed place me in the minority of LNs and CTs.)

He on the other hand, charges them with error in the *principle* finding of the whole thing:

"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
died as a result of *two* perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point *behind* and somewhat *above* the
level of the deceased."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Let this LN scumbag define "meaningful". Because Humes, Finck and Boswell's **multiple** so-called "misuse" of the word "occipital" is pretty meaningful to me.

>
> For that matter, let him show just about anyplace that I indicated that any of their findings *definitely* were wrong.

When you say "could have", "possibly", "might," what you are doing is subbing in the facts with your own lazy speculation (and begging the question without citations to support your claim). Then you wait for a bit, until your speculation metamorphoses into your version of fact. Then you say the issue has been "addressed" and "debunked" by you.

That's how a LNer ferments their speculation into fact. And that is how, by extension of your process, "possibly" and "might" become "definitely."

>
> He on the other hand, charges them with error in the *principle* finding of the whole thing:

Well, it's true that if you're "possibly" "maybe" "perhaps" mistaken about something as serious as the nature of the head wound, it compromises the entire scientific method. That's why the scientific method has steps that can't be willy-nilly skipped and short-cutted.

>
> "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> died as a result of *two* perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> projectiles were fired from a point *behind* and somewhat *above* the
> level of the deceased."

Show how this paragraph does not put a shooter in the Dal-Tex or County Courthouse building just as easily.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Let Imbecile show

Notice he skipped this, lurkers.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

The contents of that post were also included in the post he responded to. It was just flat-out ignored. That was not an accident.

[BT George]

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Let Imbecile show
>
> Notice he skipped this, lurkers.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>

I skipped a silly and untrue set of statements. As is made clear by "Boris" trying to convince the Lurkers that I made a blanket statement that their use of the word "Occipital" itself was a mistake in every place it was encountered in the AR. As a matter of fact, it was *only* in regard to the larger wound "extended somewhat" into the Occipital that I said it *might* be a flat out mistake in wording at that point, or perhaps they incorrectly attributed *real* Occipital damage they observed to the exit itself, when it was really collateral fragmentation caused by the concussive force that tremendously fragmented much of the skull that remained more or less "intact" being held together mainly by connective muscle tissues and skin.

> The contents of that post were also included in the post he responded to. It was just flat-out ignored. That was not an accident.

I should say not! I skipped "Boris" silly set of mischaractezations of the true positions vis-vis experts. He likes to site the opinions of experts when he thinks they prove his point. But he is no more faithful to them the second they contradict his beliefs, than any LN he seeks to criticize. What "Boris'" cherry picking overlooks---quite intentionally---is that the vast majority of opinion in the communities that really count most in such questions (Pathology/Forensic Pathology/Ballistics/Wound Ballistics/Fingerprint Examiners) have weighed in in *favor* of things that support the LN conclusion. (E.g., the SBT as the *best* and most *likely* explanation of the sequence of wounds JFK and Connally suffered, CE399 damage consistent with the sequence and velocities involved, the bulk of the palm/fingerprint evidence tested pointing squarely at our boy Oswald.

Moreover, not only has the opinion of the *bulk* of these traditional disciplines supported the LN Theory, but most experts in additional disciplines like Photographic Analysis, Anthropology, Computer Animation---and even Astrophysics---have weighed in and in favor of some of the very things "Boris" and company wish to dispute like the authenticity of the photographic records of the event and autopsy, and the reasonableness of the trajectory from the SN on the 6th Floor of the TSBD. Lurkers need only consult the records for the expert findings/opinons obtained in the WC, the Clark and Rockefeller Panels, and the HSCA (readily available Online) to get a flavor for themselves regarding what the *bulk* of true *expert* opinion in this case has supported.

"Boris" wishes it weren't so. But it is, and always will be.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Notice he skipped this, lurkers.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> >
>
> I skipped a silly and untrue set of statements.

SO that's a "no" from BT Barnum. He doesn't believe these expert statements. In fact, not only does he not believe them, they are "silly and untrue."

A little long-winded and verbose, but...that's how you say "NO", Chuck. See? Now admit that you also don't believe these "silly" experts. Show us that a LN can disagree with every expert assessment and still **not** be afflicted with Dunning-Kruger. Go ahead. We can't wait to hear it.


Dun......Dun-dun-dun-dun-DUNNN
Dun-dun-DUNNN, dun-dun-dun-dun-DUNNN
Dun-Dun-Dunningggg
Dunning-Kroooo
Ooooo-gerrr...

[David Healy]

WOW! This post is getting to areas only AAJ morning chatroom denizen's cover. Great Post! A glimpse into the faithfuls's shit thinking.

They know they've lost the war but they still have to post in order to collect...

[BT George]

See Goof. You are drunk again. Collect what you moron? Who in this *world* do you think would pay someone to coverup the “truth” about a 55 year old crime that most Americans under
their 50 only vaguely know about or consider a curiosity. For sure the “guilty” if there was a conspiracy and coverup are all either dead or very old geezers by now.

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 10:14:23 AM UTC-7, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> In a post (previously ignored by ALL lone nutters collectively), resident imbecile Chuck "No Confederates" Schuyler claimed conspiracy theorists cutt



Wha--? Did Humes simply mis-speak here, or was he getting at something?

[Ben Holmes]

It's truly an interesting statement... and one that **SHOULD** have
been examined by the Warren Commission had they actually been
interested in investigating what happened.

This is just one of many examples proving that the Warren Commission
was a fraud.

[BT George]

This is a statement about the *exit* and fully supports that the shots came from behind and exited the front with no question whatsoever. That Humes last statement was a bungled word or an incomplete attempt to state things differently is *obvious* because he would be self-contradicting in the same sentence. (I know he was a brilliant body alterer per Horne and beb, but incompetent "plotter" as a witness, but REALLY??? Can't we may safely assume that he was not revealing a deep "secret" here in the bounds of a couple of apparently diametrically opposite sentences?)

See below, emphasis and comments mine:

Senator COOPER - Within limited accuracy.
That being true then my second question was whether the point of entry of the bullet, point A, and the, what you call the **exit**--

Commander HUMES - **Exit**.
Senator COOPER - Did you establish them so exactly that they could be related to the degree of angle of the trajectory of the bullet?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; to our satisfaction we did ascertain that fact.

Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.

Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely **inconsistent with a wound** that might have been administered **if the shot were fired from in front or the side** of the President: it had to be fired from **behind** the President?

Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from **other** than **behind**. Or to have exited from other than behind. (See blow comments.)

"Boris and beb will scoff, but based on the *context* it should be clear to an *unbiased* party that this is a simply a botched word or phrase. Humes either meant to say "front" rather than behind (It's hardly rare for humans to screw up changes of direction in wording in close proximity--such as these two consecutive sentences.) or he may have been intending to say/communicate, "Or to have exited (in the way it did having come) from other than behind. To treat it otherwise is to reinforce *exactly* the first part of the quote I posted from Bugliosi the other day:

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi [VB]; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy” (W.W. Norton & Co.)(c.2007)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> > In a post (previously ignored by ALL lone nutters collectively), resident imbecile Chuck "No Confederates" Schuyler claimed conspiracy theorists cutt
>
>
>
> Wha--? Did Humes simply mis-speak here, or was he getting at something?
>
> Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have
> been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than
> behind.

I suspect he was alluding to bullets from two different directions, meaning multiple head shots. It's a theory I've heard but am still undecided on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:37:50 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

There was one author, can't recall who - who thought that perhaps Dr.
Humes was trying to give clues to what really happened...

Unwilling to buck the system, but unwilling also to lie with impunity.

It's certainly possible.


And his statement certainly shows that the Warren Commission wasn't
really interested in investigating this case... they were only
interested in supporting their theory.

Not a **SINGLE** believer will dare dispute that fact. There are too
many examples in the testimony...

[David Healy]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:42:10 AM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
[...]

> This is a statement about the *exit* and fully supports that the shots came from behind and exited the front with no question whatsoever.

[...]

no question? Then what's the point for a board like this? To give you acid reflex because you have questions to confront? Dude, wake up!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 2:51:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:37:50 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> > In a post (previously ignored by ALL lone nutters collectively), resident imbecile Chuck "No Confederates" Schuyler claimed conspiracy theorists cutt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wha--? Did Humes simply mis-speak here, or was he getting at something?
> >>
> >> Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have
> >> been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than
> >> behind.
> >
> > I suspect he was alluding to bullets from two different directions,
> > meaning multiple head shots. It's a theory I've heard but am still
> > undecided on.
>
> There was one author, can't recall who - who thought that perhaps Dr.
> Humes was trying to give clues to what really happened...
>
> Unwilling to buck the system, but unwilling also to lie with impunity.

It might have been Harrison Livingstone. I do recall in one of his "Hoax of the Century" books him describing how a few of the doctors left subtle "trails of breadcrumbs" of evidence, such as severely under-weighing (or over-weighing, can't remember which) Kennedy's liver so that it was plainly obvious to any medical expert that the weight was completely incorrect.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:13:37 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 2:51:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:37:50 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> In a post (previously ignored by ALL lone nutters collectively), resident imbecile Chuck "No Confederates" Schuyler claimed conspiracy theorists cutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wha--? Did Humes simply mis-speak here, or was he getting at something?
>>>>
>>>> Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have
>>>> been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than
>>>> behind.
>>>
>>> I suspect he was alluding to bullets from two different directions,
>>> meaning multiple head shots. It's a theory I've heard but am still
>>> undecided on.
>>
>> There was one author, can't recall who - who thought that perhaps Dr.
>> Humes was trying to give clues to what really happened...
>>
>> Unwilling to buck the system, but unwilling also to lie with impunity.
>
> It might have been Harrison Livingstone. I do recall in one of his
> "Hoax of the Century" books him describing how a few of the doctors
> left subtle "trails of breadcrumbs" of evidence, such as severely
> under-weighing (or over-weighing, can't remember which) Kennedy's
> liver so that it was plainly obvious to any medical expert that the
> weight was completely incorrect.

JFK's brain, too. Despite having a good percentage of it simply gone,
it weighed more than the average...


I'll have to go back and re-read Livingstone...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

In fact yes, it *was* the brain, not the liver, which was weighed. It's been several years since I read it. But the "trail of breadcrumbs" analogy definitely stands out in my mind.