Creative Speculation

> The photos, as you presented in your deceptive diagram, show nothing because there is no relationship or correspondence between them. Faced with the collapse of your theory, you decide to attack the messenger, as you sought to diminish Fiester, Dolce, Shaw, etc. -

... is abject bullshit.

The diagram I did was an honest attempt to understand what happened, and I told you how I approximated the relative sizes of the photos. Without actually demonstrating anything "deceptive" about the diagram, you declare that there is, but then instead of substantiating that charge, you linked to Speer's diagram -- which actually is deceptive! -- as your "proof." But no, read it again: I did not just say "the above are simply wrong": I showed you that his diagram is deceptive for an actual reason: The head in the right image is much wider than the depth of the head in the left image. (I could show you another reason, too, if you care to see it.)

But after representing that diagram with the ridiculously large head as the paragon of accuracy and ignoring the obvious problem with it, you declare "there is no relationship or correspondence between" the photos in my diagram, and then you have the chutzpah to say "the crux" of my argument is that "the above are simply wrong." And then, when I point out that even his fat-headed JFK still has the back wound above the throat wound, you accuse me of not reading Speer's lame attempt to wave that inconvenient fact away by simply assuming that the 14 cm (or rather his interpretation of it) cannot be wrong, so there must be some other perspective effect -- one he apparently can't even define, much less demonstrate.

And then after claiming the "collapse of (my) theory" in face of this bullshit, you say that pointing out why Speer's diagram is ridiculous is "attacking the messenger?"

This is the kind of silly stuff that makes this forum such fun.

> and in all of those cases the crux of your argument is that the above are simply wrong.

What hypocrisy. In all of those cases the crux of my arguments has been evidence that you deny and reasons that you apparently do not understand. So be it; it's one thing for you to disagree, but your claim that my "argument is that the above are simply wrong" means that either you have devolved into dishonest rhetoric or your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.