I appreciate your specific responses Mick West, but I am not sure why you quoted my questions in your first response, questions which were completely honest and written out of curiosity because I dont know the answers. Your suggestion that followed would have no capacity to answer those questions, except perhaps for the third, which I already admitted I assumed to be the case and really was a setup for the final question about the efffects of gravity upon a dead persons circulatory system and if a slight decline of the ground would cause the blood to flow in the body away from the head wound thus minimizing blood loss ... all of which, you did not answer, but instead, devised a scenario for experimentation that involved parameters that you chose precisely so the outcome that you wanted would be achieved to make your point. The reality is that you, nor I, cannot possible know is an accurate portrayal of the handling of the body, Your scenario could be very close to how the body was handled. It even might be. But I dont think making up scenarios to explain something is necessarily evidence based debunking, and to be quite frank, is what you accuse conspiracy theorists of doing. Im all good for speculation, but you cant endorse evidence based debunking with irrelevant reenactments of a situation that you dont even know occured in what way. Of course, they had to handle the body, and theres a high probability at some point blood got smeared. But walking it? I dont see any bloody footprints. Truth is that your suggestion/example/insinuation of the events of the handling of the body is pure speculation and even if I carried out that suggestion, it still wouldnt prove anything about this blood situation because nobody knows how they handled the scene, what care they took, among the fact that an experiment with rigidly defined paramters (to achieved the outcome you wish it to) doesnt prove anything in the France event.
Let it be clear, also, that only one person has acknowledge my questions, and as of yet, nobody has made an attempt to answer. I have been doing my own research on it, and have gotten mixed results on some of them.
Now to the blatantly lying issue. Yes, strong words. I will retract the "blatant" word. I shouldnt of used that, but I do sincenerly think he is lying. Does this mean the event was a conspiracy? Of course not. But I do believe you are rationalizing his behavior to fit your narrative. Again, this is what you criticize conspiracy theorists for, and I agree if its applicable. But all of us should be held to the same standard.
I totally see your point. But I think its inaccurate, at least compared to his statement on this issue. He claims to have meant to say sand ... instead of blood. He also claims, that he didnt realize he mixed up his words. I think its safe to assume by his explanation, that he is claiming that even though he said blood, his mind told him he said sand. It happens to all of us from time to time, unfortunately, this happened to him at the worst possible moment. Fine.
Then why did he stop his sentence? and try to fix it at the end? This is the issue. This is where the lie comes in. If he didnt know he said blood instead of sand, which is what he claims, then why stop at all? If you didnt realize it at all, there wouldnt be any reason to stop and try to fix it at the end. If he had carried out his sentence, the sentence he says he meant to say, the sentence he basically says he thought he said (because he didnt realize he mixed up the words), , the sentence in which he had no reason to stop because he claims he never realized he mixed up the words, then theres no reason why he couldnt of finished it in multiple way that are all factual and relevent.
Now, let me meet you half way. Like i said before, i totally see your point. Lets say you are correct, he is telling the truth in as far as he thought he said sand, but towards the end of the sentence, he knew something wasnt right, in the moment, couldnt figure out where he had messed up, and so he twisted it at the end to try to save it the best he could. Then why not say that? Why not say the truth. You claim he isnt lying, then provide an alibi that he, himself, never even offered, which ultimately means, if you are right, he still isnt telling the whole truth. Why couldnt he say, "I knew I butchered it somehow but didnt know how i butchered it so i tried to get back on track at the end." Simple, but more precisely .. Honest.
The truth is Mick West, is that your putting words in his mouth. Your offering him an alibi the he didnt even provide himself. I dont need an explanation from you ... about his explanation. I must take his explanation of its own merit, word for word. Your providing a rationalization to explain why he stop the sentence and tried to fix it, that he never revealed. He made his explanation that doesnt exactly conform to his reaction on the scene, in which you then say, "Well, what he really meant is...." Why do you get to do that? Why do you get to clarify someones else explanation so it less questionable? This is exactly ... exactly .. what conspiracy people do ... rationalize .. to fit the narrative. He never claimed the he knew "something was wrong" as you speculate. Perhaps you are correct ... but ... you dont get to put words in his mouth to provide more more nuanced explanation, cover, or to fill in any gaps or discrepancies.
Also, in my opinion, I dont think the sand is "quite apparent" at all in either the video nor the picture. Let me remind you, that my mention of the sand was about the video. You showing me a still picture of the sand, one which I think it can be assumed was taken later because there are more memorial objects on the ground then in the reporter video, doesnt prove there was sand in the reporter video. There very well could be sand in your picture, but that doesnt prove there was sand in the reporter video. The reason I even brought up the sand is because it is actually VERY important to his explanation. I am not going to accuse you of being dishonest intentionally, i dont think you were because you I dont think you made the connection that Im going to make to even be dishonest about it, but when you quoted what he said, technically speaking, you misquoted him, or at the very least, left off the beginning of his sentence. The beginning of his sentence is "As you can see, the blood (sand) was put on the ground ...." Now, that makes a big difference, because now, there needs to be sand on the ground. Thats why it is important. Like I said earlier, I am not saying there isnt any sand. The video that I saw had bad lighting, and was pixeled especially when the camera zoomed in on the blood area. There very well could be sand there, I just dont think its quite apparent as you claim. On a side note, are you saying that the reddish areas on the ground in your picture is sand? Because that is the only thing that I can see that I would assume you were referring to. Couldnt people interpret the reddish areas as remnents of the blood, blood stains? Im not saying its not sand, but to me or at least on my laptop, it looks reddish, so when you say its quite apparent its sand, I dont think that true, i think one could also interpret that as being blood stains. Like, i said, i dont know. But your picture doesnt prove theres sand in the reporter video. This is a technique, again, that I assume a lot of people would call out a conspiracy theorist on if they had tried to attempt the same switch-a-roosky. Lets be consistent people.
This is just being intellectual honest people. If you are going to scrutinize evidence and ideas, then be fair about it. If your going to post someones explanation in a attempt to throw weight behind debunking, which i have no problem with, then that explanation needs to be scrutinized too. Theres actually a couple more weird things about his explanation, albeit minor, but still things that peaked my interest, but i wont go into them because they are minor. Not to mention the fact that that video was posted, and nobody mentioned the blood, not even the poster. For pages on this thread, people were explaining how the lack of the blood was nothing abnormal, which is fine, but now a video surfaces that has blood, and nothing is said. This behavior opens yourselves up to be criticized that you are cherry picking/ignoring data that doesnt fit your narrative, which I am not accusing anyone of doing, but it can lead down that road.
Truth is , this is actually a non issue. I think he died. But ive noticed that when some of you see or read something that you agree with and fits your narrative, some of you arent holding that to the same scrutiny that you would hold something that you dont agree with or fit your narrative. If you want credibility, at least from me, you need to hold everything to the same standard. And if it doesnt exactly fit, dont rationalize why or put words in people mouths. its intellectually dishonest imo.
(P.S. There was some strawman arguments that others made that I will not spend time answering)