The Truly Magical Bullet

[Mitch Todd]

Mitch, someone did modify the original image by removing T1 and replacing it with C7. It was Trojan himself. He's not able to discuss or defend his position in a reasonable manner. Just ask him where he got the 12? from.

I can't say I know who actually did it. Just that someone did, and the fact of fabrication completely destroys whatever argument JT was trying to make. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the 12? came from the same place as his earlier "Newsweek" faux pas.

He also doesn't understand Occam's Razor. (hint for the ill-advised: It's not the simplest explanation that is most likely to be correct, it's the one that make the fewest assumptions, postulates, axioms, and other a priori assertions).

[Jack Trojan]

Yeah, well, about that CT image. Why does the "C7" in "C7 intervertebral disc" look so bright compared to the rest of the text in the image? In fact, why does the image look so much like the "T1-T2 intervertebral disc" image from this site: https://mrimaster.com/anatomy%20neck%20axial.html ? Also, why is the subclavian artery visible in an image of the neck (think of the meaning of the word "subclavian" for a second). Or parts of the pleural cavity, for that matter.

I would say that someone, at some point, modified the original image from, removing "T1-T2" and crudely replacing it with "C7"

I modified the image to show C7 to corroborate the x-ray. That's precisely where the bullet hit JFK's spine. Do you think that by modifying the image somehow discredits my post and that I was trying to sneak one by you? Paranoid much?

[Jack Trojan]

Mitch, someone did modify the original image by removing T1 and replacing it with C7. It was Trojan himself. He's not able to discuss or defend his position in a reasonable manner. Just ask him where he got the 12? from.

I got the  12? from you dufus.

[Jack Trojan]

He also doesn't understand Occam's Razor. (hint for the ill-advised: It's not the simplest explanation that is most likely to be correct, it's the one that make the fewest assumptions, postulates, axioms, and other a priori assertions).

Fewest assumptions = simplest. EOS

But by all means, how many assumptions (and denial) must you make to accept the SBT versus that CE-399 was planted?

Show us Occam's Razor in the hands of an expert, such as yourself.

[Mitch Todd]

I modified the image to show C7 to corroborate the x-ray. That's precisely where the bullet hit JFK's spine. Do you think that by modifying the image somehow discredits my post and that I was trying to sneak one by you? Paranoid much?

Yes it does, and yes you were. And no, I'm not. Though I probably should be with you.

The honest approach would have been to not alter the image and explain why you chose it instead of one of the actual C7 images. The rest of us would still laugh at you for it, but we'd think you were an earnest dweeb, and not a dishonest schmuck.

For that matter, of the three axial sections traversing T1, you chose....none of them. You chose the image of a section below T1. And then you still had to cut and paste part of an illustration from somewhere else to make it all work the way you wanted to.

[Tim Nickerson]

I can't say I know who actually did it.

I can because he originally posted the image unmodified on May 8.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,606.msg14037.html#msg14037

He posted the image in modified form on May 31 and I called him out on it.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,70.msg16424.html#msg16424

[Tim Nickerson]

I got the  12? from you dufus.

Did not, you moron.

[Jack Trojan]

Yes it does, and yes you were. And no, I'm not. Though I probably should be with you.

The honest approach would have been to not alter the image and explain why you chose it instead of one of the actual C7 images. The rest of us would still laugh at you for it, but we'd think you were an earnest dweeb, and not a dishonest schmuck.

For that matter, of the three axial sections traversing T1, you chose....none of them. You chose the image of a section below T1. And then you still had to cut and paste part of an illustration from somewhere else to make it all work the way you wanted to.

An honest approach? That's comical coming from a LNer. Did you think I modified an "official" autopsy image of JFK? Or is it because that's all you got? I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray. I could only find an overhead scan showing T1 so I modified it to show C7. I didn't realize LNers needed a disclaimer that it wasn't an "official" image of JFK and to use it at your own risk. You guys need to get a clue.

So what about the x-ray image, Sheriff? I modified that one too to show the bullet hole thru C7. Is that one dishonest too?