From: sirslick@fast.net
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 5:26:22 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 1:39:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:54:32?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:31:41?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > > >>> I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are
other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.
> > > >> Source ?
> > > >
> > > >How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice
which explains how the pathologists were able to
> > > >find the bullet track without using a probe.
> > > No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything.
> > Applying reason to information is how thinking people are able to figure
things out.
> > > Never has been, never will be.
> > > >You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which
explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
> > > >soft tissue.
> > > How did he know this?
> > He was an expert in the relevant field.
> > > Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?
> > Get back to us on that.
> > > >The probe could only go in a fraction of an inch. Are we supposed to
believe that indicates the bullet only went in a fraction
> > > >of an inch or does it make more sense to believe the bullet traveled
much deeper than the probe could go?
> > > Speculation is not science... nor evidence.
> > Conspiracy folks try to make thinking out of bounds, that is how they get
to the places they do (nowhere).
> Once again, Bud tells it like it is and does so concisely.
I try to stay above the fray these days, getting down in the mud only gets
me dirty and entertains the pigs.
Take a look at just one of Ben`s utterances...
"No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything."
There is a load of dishonesty to unpack in just that one sentence, at least
four concepts that he declares without support.
"speculation". The finding of the experts who conducted the forensic
examination didn`t "speculate", they gathered information, drew conclusions
and published their findings. The doctors at Parkland are the ones who
speculated about the throat wound
being an exit.
"legitmate" (sp). Who gets to decide how this subjective qualifier is
applied? My guess is Ben will appoint himself to that position.
"medical means". The definition of medical is "relating to the science of
medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries." "medical" went out the
window when Kennedy passed, it was forensics turn.
"proving". Who decides when something is proven? Again my guess is that Ben
will appoint himself to that position. I can line up experts around the block
but that wouldn`t convince someone who doesn`t believe we landed on the moon.
Neither Ben or Gil can discuss ideas to save their lives (and their calls for
"debate" are laughable). This is why they employ so many weasel words to
obstruct the discussion of ideas, calling reasoning "speculation", demanding
"cites" when someone
expresses an idea, or "proof", or demand their ideas be "refuted". All to
disrupt the application of reason or critical thinking to any issue. If you or
I express any kind of reasoning on any issue they go into this same dance, but
what you won`t see
them do is show that the reasoning they are objecting to is flawed.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
