Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Like Oswald working for the CIA?
|
Red Herring.
Quote:
|
First of all, you've taken "the autopsy was a complete farce" to assert that I meant "each and every single point of the autopsy was incorrect" - which is patently absurd. You could take that to any length, from assuming I meant everything from the name of the deceased, to the time of death, to the date of the autopsy as recorded on the report is false.
|
But you claim that the autopsy evidence was unreliable, then you rely on it.
If they lied about some things, why not all things? You're taking fruit from a tree you claim was poisonous.
That is patently absurd.
Quote:
|
I said the autopsy was a complete farce to describe the overall quality of the procedure. Specifically, in the method it was conducted, Dr. Humes' burning of his notes, poor quality subject photographs, and several inconsistencies and errors. I have no argument with the correct date, subject name, or time of autopsy as recorded in the report! One of the few consistent findings was in fact that no exit point was found for the back wound.
|
Yet your innuendo is that the reason it was a farce because of something that was rather deliberate. You are mainly suggesting that "poor quality" meant that they intended it to be poor quality. Thus, if anything consistent comes out of it, according to your own innuendo and argument, it's just a lie that was agreed on.
Once more, I advise you to really stand back and look at your argument.
Quote:
|
2. If so, what evidence can you provide to support that opinion?
|
The onus is on you to prove your own claim. You're trying to shift the burden of proof; doesn't work that way.