The Trach Incision -

[Tom Neal]

Bob P.

You asked for the quote and the info. I posted it. No response? Not even an acknowledgement?

This thread has turned into the standard "Larsen bullxxxx festival" so I'm no longer wasting my time with his nonsense.

You stated that your dog was smarter than a named forum member. This same member has gotten the better of Larsen. Thus your dog is also smarter than Larsen...

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Me? Did YOU even read your post? You state people who changed their mind, then post someone elses photo with Bowron's testimony. Why didn't you mention that despite what you said, the text about her was NOT true. You didn't state that wasn't your photo. How could anyone know? Then of course you blame me for your mistake!

No Tom, I blamed you for YOUR mistake. You accused me of changing Nurse Bowron's story, when in fact I said absolutely nothing about anything she had ever said.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Neal said:

More TOTAL BS.

A bullet that perforates the skull is not deflected 180-degrees - it isn't deflected at all. You've decided that it bounced off - not perforated. [Sandy's emphases.]

Something I never said.

Here is what I really said, and I quote:

"The deflection angle of a straight on bullet is 180 degrees! If the bullet doesn't penetrate the target, it will deflect right back toward the gun if there is any kinetic energy left after all loss of energy, e.g. due to bullet deformation."

I won't be replying to any more of Tom's crazy claims about me or what I've said.

[Tom Neal]

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No Tom, I blamed you for YOUR mistake. You accused me of changing Nurse Bowron's story, when in fact I said absolutely nothing about anything she had ever said.

 

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Something I never said.

Here is what I really said, and I quote:

"The deflection angle of a straight on bullet is 180 degrees! If the bullet doesn't penetrate the target, it will deflect right back toward the gun if there is any kinetic energy left after all loss of energy, e.g. due to bullet deformation."

I won't be replying to any more of Tom's crazy claims about me or what I've said.

You posted the statement. You didn't add a disclaimer. That's not my mistake - it's yours.

 

 

[Tom Neal]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Something I never said.

Here is what I really said, and I quote:

"The deflection angle of a straight on bullet is 180 degrees! If the bullet doesn't penetrate the target, it will deflect right back toward the gun if there is any kinetic energy left after all loss of energy, e.g. due to bullet deformation."

I won't be replying to any more of Tom's crazy claims about me or what I've said.

And that was in response to MY statement that it DID. Your statement is totally irrelevant.

Stop posting bullxxxx, and no one will have to respond.

[Tom Neal]

How convenient. Run off and hide.

The problem can't be solved. BS

I don't have time for details. BS the majority of your trajectory is non-existent, yet you call it a detail.

You know more than me about ballistics and physics, but won't state your credentials.

You know more than author's of forensic textbooks. You ignore the overall intent of the statement and the obvious context to make it sound incorrect. Anyone who questioned the statement that wanted the truth would have asked for additional information. Not you: "This is wrong." Then you tell me I know it, too.

I know you make statements that you haven't even investigated, but demand they be accepted as the last word.

I know you accept your own answers over someone elses when you don't know who's more qualified to determine the correct answer.

i.e. You're so full of it in so many categories why should anyone accept anything you say?

BTW, despite the fact that you include Speer and Prudholmme as co-believers in your "theory", NEITHER one of their ideas includes the "bone fragment" that is the crux of your "theory-without-the-details." You stand alone on that. At least Speer shows a complete trajectory, and Bob has actually added some information to his claims. You got "nothin."