Re: Huckster Said It - Let's See How True It Is...

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 11:17:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> 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 

  Conspiracy hobbyists insist on looking at all the wrong things. Instead of looking at the findings this expert produced, he looks everywhere but. He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred.
 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
> 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?