Huckster claimed: "Ben, like many other posters here, avoids
discussing the evidence and instead resorts to the logical fallacy of
ad hominem. And spamming the group. He says the evidence is on his
side, but where the rubber meets the road, he avoids every opportunity
to discuss the evidence."
Let's see how true that is...
The Post Henry Is Afraid To Read Or Respond To:
I asked for the following statement to be analyzed by believers:
"The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took
pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases. He
was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent, who
came up to him and asked for his clearance. 'Clearance?' said the
corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took away his camera, exposed
all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed film is in the archive.)
'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said. The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He
had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in
photographing gunshot wounds. The photographs of the body's interior
were out of focus ... Before the President was buried, no one, either
in Dallas or Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and
back, and realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the
throat ... ." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a
Medical Examiner", pg. 10-11
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dale refused to answer, Patty refused to answer, only Henry managed
enough courage to post a response. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The cowardice exhibited by believers in this forum is incredible...
they are CONSTANTLY running ... every single one of them ... even
Henry, who *did*, to his credit, offer his analysis. So now it's time
to show just how cowardly and dishonest believers are:
Sure. Baden wasn't there, so he is repeating hearsay for the most
part. Who was there who said all this and why don't you quote some
actual testimony instead of hearsay? let's go through that statement
sentence by sentence and see how much Baden can actually confirm by
claiming he witnessed it."
This, of course, is very poor analysis indeed... Henry is presuming
that Dr. Baden is being used as evidence... but refuses to LOOK AT
WHAT IS BEING SAID.
Or, more accurately, Henry *KNOWS* that what Dr. Baden is saying is
garbage, but is unwilling to correct Dr. Baden - who is a fellow
believer.
Nor was Henry ever concerned with the use of Dr. Baden as an expert.
Here's a few examples from Lil Dale:
"Read especially Dr. Baden's quote - it annihilates Ben's entire set
of beliefs."
"Dr. Baden exposes your little charade, doesn't he?"
"Dr. Baden stated it best: the Parkland doctors were WRONG"
Now, Henry was no-where to be found when Lil Dale was citing Dr. Baden
to counter what the Parkland doctors stated - and Henry had nothing to
say about "hearsay" being used to counter first-hand knowledge.
HENRY HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY WHEN DR. BADEN WAS BEING USED AS
AN EXPERT WITNESS TO COUNTER *ACTUAL* EYEWITNESSES!
But *NOW* - when actually quoting Dr. Baden - it's suddenly hearsay.
:)
Perhaps because he knows quite well just how wrong Dr. Baden is on
these statements - and since Dr. Baden is a believer - doesn't wish to denigrate him.
****************
"The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took
pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases." ****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... it's not "hearsay" - it's flat WRONG. The photographer was
John Stringer, who as Dr. Humes pointed out "The medical school's
director of photography was a civilian, John Stringer." - not a
corpsman.
Nor was the implication that the photographer hadn't ever photographed
an autopsy before correct... as Dr. Humes pointed out, Stringer was
"one of the best medical photographers in the world."
So here's two errors OF FACT that Dr. Baden is guilty of... yet you
refer only to this as "hearsay".
****************
"He was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent,
who came up to him and asked for his clearance."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... again, IT IS FLAT WRONG. Those familiar with the evidence
know that the Secret Service stopped Stringer's assistant, Floyd
Reibe, not the FBI.
Once again, you know that the statement is false, yet you hide that
fact behind a charge of "hearsay".
****************
" 'Clearance?' said the corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took
away his camera, exposed all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed
film is in the archive.)"
****************
Hearsay.
Again, it wasn't the FBI... it was the Secret Service. It's not
"hearsay" - it's WRONG.
Ironically, we see here one of the few accuracies that Dr. Baden is
guilty of - the exposing of film.
****************
" 'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said." ****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... once again, it's WRONG. There was no FBI photographer
there, and you should certainly know that historical fact.
That you try to camouflage Dr. Baden's incorrect statements as
"hearsay" without stating that he was WRONG shows your bias against
the truth.
****************
"The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as
Humes."
****************
Hearsay.
There was no FBI photographer. Dr. Baden was flat wrong. If a critic
were to write a book, and have half the false statements we see here -
you'd go ballistic. But since it's a Warren Commission defender making
these false statements - you refuse to correct him.
****************
"He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in
photographing gunshot wounds."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry - it's a COMPLETE INVENTION. There was no "FBI Photographer"
- and the photographer who WAS there was "one of the best medical
photographers in the world" - who certainly knew his job.
****************
"The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ..."
****************
Did Baden examine the photos of the interior of JFK's body? I
believe so. If so, then, as an expert witness, he can attest to this.
Did he attest to this at any point in testimony? Authors are sometimes unreliable in what they put into their books --- and might inflate any
given story to change its importance. Books are hearsay, as are
newspaper articles and rumors. But let's grant this is accurate for
the sake of argument."
ROFLMAO!!!
The one point on which you grant Dr. Baden expert status is the one
where he is most OBVIOUSLY lying.
On all the other points, the passage of time could have made his
recollections fuzzy, he can seem to recall someone taking away
someones camera, and confusing the Secret Service with the FBI for
that incident... but Dr. Baden *NEVER* SAW any interior photos, in OR
out of focus... *NONE EXIST*.
And Henry *KNOWS THIS FOR A FACT*
Anyone can view the inventory of photos from 11/10/66 for themselves:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image00.htm
It's quite clear that there's no interior body shots. There's
testimony that they *were* taken, such as Stringer:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/Image11.htm
Henry also knows that Dr. Humes testified that at least one interior
body photo was taken that isn't found in the collection.
But this information has long been known... Ramsey Clark told LBJ back
in 1967:
http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html
So Henry knows quite well that no interior body photos exist in the
record - YET THIS IS THE ONE ISSUE ON WHICH HE'S WILLING TO GRANT DR.
BADEN ACCURACY ON.
Which means that either Henry is ignorant - which, as this is a
longstanding issue known since 1966-67 time-frame seems incredible, or
Henry is intentionally lying.
Tell us Henry, can you cite ANYTHING for your claim that Dr. Baden was
telling the truth about seeing interior body photos of JFK?
(Despite Henry's claim to be able to cite for *HIS* claims, I don't
expect a citation... Henry will run!)
[And indeed, he has run from this... he got caught lying, and has no
defense, and no retraction of his lies are in sight...]
****************
"Before the President was buried, no one, either in Dallas or
Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and back, and
realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the throat ...
." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a Medical
Examiner", pg. 10-11
****************
Again, hearsay. He wasn't at Parkland in Dallas nor at Bethesda in Washington.
Of course, you know that this is a completely ACCURATE statement.
Perhaps, other than his statement that film had been exposed, the only statement that Dr. Baden makes that is truthful to history.
So here's the evidence that Baden (at best) can personally testify
to: "The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ..." The
rest of it is just hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in a trial."
The one point that you allow as truthful is the one point that YOU
KNOW IS A LIE ON DR. BADEN'S PART. Everything else Dr. Baden said
could be simply mixed up memories... After all, this was written many
years later... but you can't 'remember' something that never happened
at all - there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any interior body photographs, and
quite obvious and credible evidence that they don't exist.
So where did Dr. Baden come up with the "out of focus" idea? HE NEVER
SAW ANY SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS... they don't exist.
You can't cite for them. Nor can you pretend that they exist, but are
simply still classified, BECAUSE THE INVENTORY LISTS NO SUCH
PHOTOGRAPHS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what's your point, exactly,
With your help, I just made it.
Dale was afraid (or too ignorant) to answer... Patty refused to
answer... and YOU REFUSED TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS UNTRUTH OF MOST OF
THESE STATEMENTS.
THAT was my point, and you helped me make it. I knew IN ADVANCE that
no-one would dare state the obvious - that Dr. Baden was clearly wrong
on so many points in just a short paragraph. The point is that
believers refuse to correct other believers even when it's so
BLAZINGLY obvious...
For example, no-one will step up to the plate and point out to you
that there were MANY Grassy Knoll witnesses that you claim ignorance
of... no-one.
And this is the point.
Honest people don't act this way.
Quite surprisingly, you publicly accepted as truthful the one
statement that has contrary evidence going back to 1966-67.
Now, I'd defy you to produce ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there are
interior body photographs taken of JFK during the autopsy that still
exist somewhere - but I know that would be a meaningless challenge...
you can't produce any evidence, and you know it.
For some strange reason, you thought that a lie about internal body
photos would pass muster.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And we're still waiting for your response. We don't expect an answer
anytime soon. If ever." - and I told you I'd be expecting your apology
for that obviously incorrect statement.
[Note: Henry hasn't apologized or retracted his lie.]
Not that I really EXPECT one... you're notoriously dishonest... but
you and Dale owe me one... because you *KNEW* that I'd answer... and
lied.
It's really more of a telling point that you could think that I
wouldn't respond to a thread I've started. Because you clearly aren't
so dumb as to actually BELIEVE I wouldn't respond. So you were simply
lying when you claimed that you weren't expecting this answer.
Now, would you like to offer any citations for your pretended belief
that interior body photos exist of JFK's autopsy?
Or explain why you were so unwilling to point out what YOU MUST HAVE
KNOWN were incorrect statements on Dr. Baden's part?
[Henry refuses to answer this...]
##################################################
Now, after reading the above - can anyone accept Huckster's claim that
"Ben, like many other posters here, avoids discussing the evidence and
instead resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem. And spamming the
group. He says the evidence is on his side, but where the rubber meets
the road, he avoids every opportunity to discuss the evidence."
Or is it clearly, as proven here... a lie?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)