|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Jul 20, 2007 16:20
>>> "Do you really think there was a massive wound on the back of the head as in the drawing?" <<<
>>> "BTW, that was NOT drawn by McClelland." <<<
But it was based on McClelland's supposed observations, correct? (The
actual "artist" notwithstanding.)
|
| |
| 21 Comments |
|
|
Author: John CanalJohn Canal Date: Jul 20, 2007 20:46
In article <1184913393.044592.324220@ k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, David Von
Pein says...
David,
First, what about my question? I asked you, if, just for argument's sake, there
*****WAS*** such a wound, do you think HB&F (and, perhaps a paranoid superior or
two) would have reported its nature (size/location, etc.) precisely and
unambiguously and expect for one minute that the majority of the thousands of
bonafide and arm-chair forensic experts across the nation would buy the notion
that such a wound was caused by a shot from the rear?
>>>>"Do you really think there was a massive wound on the back of the head as in the
>>>>drawing?" <<<
David, I know this doesn't mean shit to you, but you disappoint me. I told you
F8 was practically the Rosetta Stone for figuring out this BOH wound
issue...and, after you tell me you don't have a clue what's being shown in that
photo and I offer to send you a very user-friendly, color coded graphic that
illustrates what's being shown in F8, you don't even have the courtesy or the
willingness to accept my offer. Thus, like all the other "No-BOH wound, and
cowlick entry confused theorists, you don't bother to understand and factor into
your conclusions a key piece of ev. re. this/these issues.
|
| Show full article (2.66Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony MarshAnthony Marsh Date: Jul 20, 2007 20:50
David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "Do you really think there was a massive wound on the back of the head as in the drawing?" <<<
>>>> "BTW, that was NOT drawn by McClelland." <<<
>
> But it was based on McClelland's supposed observations, correct? (The
> actual "artist" notwithstanding.)
>
>
Nope. It is what a few conspiracy believers think happened. McClelland
made his own drawing which does not show a separate wound in the back of
the head.
|
| Show full article (0.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Jul 21, 2007 00:29
>>> "First, what about my question?" <<<
Sorry, but the forum software has been mighty screwed-up the last few
days. Maybe I missed something.
>>> "I asked you, if, just for argument's sake, there WAS such a wound, do
you think HB&F (and, perhaps a paranoid superior or two) would have
reported its nature (size/location, etc.) precisely and unambiguously and
expect for one minute that the majority of the thousands of bonafide and
arm-chair forensic experts across the nation would buy the notion that
such a wound was caused by a shot from the rear?" <<<
Yes, I do think that REASONABLE armchair experts would buy that
explanation. And do you know why? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE TRUTH. Plain and
simple.
Call me gullible. I don't care. I'm asking for it.
>>> "I told you F8 was practically the Rosetta Stone for figuring out this
BOH wound issue...and, after you tell me you don't have a clue what's
being shown in that photo and I offer to send you a very user-friendly,
color coded graphic that illustrates what's being shown in F8, you don't
even have the courtesy or the willingness to accept my offer." <<<
|
| Show full article (1.51Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John CanalJohn Canal Date: Jul 21, 2007 06:50
>
>>>> "First, what about my question?" <<<
>
>
>Sorry, but the forum software has been mighty screwed-up the last few
>days. Maybe I missed something.
>
>
>>>> "I asked you, if, just for argument's sake, there WAS such a wound, do
>you think HB&F (and, perhaps a paranoid superior or two) would have
>reported its nature (size/location, etc.) precisely and unambiguously and
>expect for one minute that the majority of the thousands of bonafide and
>arm-chair forensic experts across the nation would buy the notion that
>such a wound was caused by a shot from the rear?" <<<
>
>Yes, I do think that REASONABLE armchair experts would buy that
>explanation. And do you know why? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE TRUTH. Plain and
>simple. ...
|
| Show full article (4.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony MarshAnthony Marsh Date: Jul 21, 2007 07:04
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2007 14:50:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> comcast.net> wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "Do you really think there was a massive wound on the back of the head as in the drawing?" <<<
>>>>>> "BTW, that was NOT drawn by McClelland." <<<
>>> But it was based on McClelland's supposed observations, correct? (The
>>> actual "artist" notwithstanding.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope. It is what a few conspiracy believers think happened. McClelland ...
|
| Show full article (1.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Barb JunkkarinenBarb Junkkarinen Date: Jul 21, 2007 22:20
On 20 Jul 2007 14:46:21 -0400, John Canal newsguy.com>
wrote:
>In article <1184913393.044592.324220@ k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, David Von
>Pein says...
>
>David,
>
>First, what about my question? I asked you, if, just for argument's sake, there
>*****WAS*** such...
|
| Show full article (4.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
