06-29-2016, 03:37 PM
John McAdams Wrote:So we should believe you, rather than every forensic pathologist who has ever looked at the materials.
(interestingly, Dale Hayes also tries to argue the same nonsense...)
The underlying hidden presumption, and John knows this to be incorrect, is that the "forensic pathologists" had access to ALL the evidence relevant to their task.
We know now, of course, that they didn’t.
I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER ignoring (or more properly, ‘considering correctly) the opinions of those who weren’t in receipt of ALL relevant facts.
For example, no-one continues to believe in the Piltdown Man… yet the information that uncovered that fraud COULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN to the paleoanthropologists of the day – had they but examined the skull & jaw. John does not, I'd presume, complain that I don't accept "expert opinion" in that case – as I PERSONALLY know more facts about that skull & jaw than thousands of experts did during the more than 40 years that Piltdown was accepted.
Likewise, had the HSCA's medical panel been allowed to hear the medical testimony of those who were there, and knew firsthand… who knows how they would have judged the evidence???