Tweet
David Orsam: Once again, you seem to forget that you when you said "such a person" to Payne-James, that meant someone who had suffered MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.
No, I was referring to a person like Nichols, which I specified very clearly. And people suffering massive blood loss will also stop bleeding at some point. In this case, normally at around three or five minutes - that, at least, is likelier than a longer period of time.
This "such a person" had already been defined by you in the first question when you asked Payne-James to assume desanguination.
Exsanguination is not the process of loosing every blood molecule. It is bleeding out what you can bleed out. Do you see any immediate reason that Nichols would not bleed out? I know that Payne-James worked from the assumption that she would do so - more likely in three or five minutes than in seven.
You make the baseless assumption that she would bleed more powerfully for that perios of time, and then it would go over to a less powerful bleeding. Nobody ever suggested that in my conversation with Payne-James. Instead, he said, in response to my question about how long it would take for the bleeding to be over and stop completely, that it could be a question of three, five or seven minutes, but that the lower estimations were more likely to be correct.
Waky-waky, David. It´s better than wacky-wacky, or maky-uppie.
That word you pretend does not exist in your questions.
But you have had my questions quoted, so you now perfectly well that I don´t deny anything at all, accept for your weird suggestions.
You now want to create the illusion that in asking Payne-James about "bleeding", a word he did not use himself, he must have been thinking about oozing, even though when answering your question he referred to "flow".
And you know this ... exactly how? How does the mastermind David Orsam conclude that he answered a question I did not ask instead of the question I DID ask? How does that idea arise in your head? Is it in direct contact with your digestive system? He directly answered my question aboyt bleeding, and that is how it goes down in history. End of. Whine as much as you like about it.
And this was in the context of a massive blood loss that you had asked him to assume.
I did not have to ask him to assume massive bloodloss, david - I think he figured that out for himself. The context of the question had nothing to do with massive bloodloss other than in the sense that we all know that there was massive bloodloss in Nichols´ case.
The simple fact is that Payne-James said precisely nothing about oozing. He was not directing his mind to it. Whereas Dr Biggs has told us that there is nothing surprising about 20 minutes of oozing after death.
The-bleeding-would-STOP-, more-likely-in-three-or-five-minutes-than-in-seven.
Are you trying to infer that the oozing is not part of the bleeding? The what is it?
You have been revealed as a phantasist and a very rude disinformer, conjuring up alternative facts. There comes a time when we need to look ourselves in the mirror, and it has come for you now. It is not a pretty sight, I fear.
The idea that Payne-James was saying that blood is not likely to ooze from a neck wound much more than 7 minutes after death is utterly absurd.
To be perfectly fair he never said any such thing at all, so let´s not suggest that he did. But if you can prove that blood will always ooze for at least seven minutes in any case of exsanguination, while alive or post mortem, then feel free to do so! I have asked Gareth for the same revelation, and I await your response with much fascination.
If you can´t produce the material, you will of course have revealed yourself as a trader of complete bogus. I am anticipating that very development myself, I must say.
No, I was referring to a person like Nichols, which I specified very clearly. And people suffering massive blood loss will also stop bleeding at some point. In this case, normally at around three or five minutes - that, at least, is likelier than a longer period of time.
This "such a person" had already been defined by you in the first question when you asked Payne-James to assume desanguination.
Exsanguination is not the process of loosing every blood molecule. It is bleeding out what you can bleed out. Do you see any immediate reason that Nichols would not bleed out? I know that Payne-James worked from the assumption that she would do so - more likely in three or five minutes than in seven.
You make the baseless assumption that she would bleed more powerfully for that perios of time, and then it would go over to a less powerful bleeding. Nobody ever suggested that in my conversation with Payne-James. Instead, he said, in response to my question about how long it would take for the bleeding to be over and stop completely, that it could be a question of three, five or seven minutes, but that the lower estimations were more likely to be correct.
Waky-waky, David. It´s better than wacky-wacky, or maky-uppie.
That word you pretend does not exist in your questions.
But you have had my questions quoted, so you now perfectly well that I don´t deny anything at all, accept for your weird suggestions.
You now want to create the illusion that in asking Payne-James about "bleeding", a word he did not use himself, he must have been thinking about oozing, even though when answering your question he referred to "flow".
And you know this ... exactly how? How does the mastermind David Orsam conclude that he answered a question I did not ask instead of the question I DID ask? How does that idea arise in your head? Is it in direct contact with your digestive system? He directly answered my question aboyt bleeding, and that is how it goes down in history. End of. Whine as much as you like about it.
And this was in the context of a massive blood loss that you had asked him to assume.
I did not have to ask him to assume massive bloodloss, david - I think he figured that out for himself. The context of the question had nothing to do with massive bloodloss other than in the sense that we all know that there was massive bloodloss in Nichols´ case.
The simple fact is that Payne-James said precisely nothing about oozing. He was not directing his mind to it. Whereas Dr Biggs has told us that there is nothing surprising about 20 minutes of oozing after death.
The-bleeding-would-STOP-, more-likely-in-three-or-five-minutes-than-in-seven.
Are you trying to infer that the oozing is not part of the bleeding? The what is it?
You have been revealed as a phantasist and a very rude disinformer, conjuring up alternative facts. There comes a time when we need to look ourselves in the mirror, and it has come for you now. It is not a pretty sight, I fear.
The idea that Payne-James was saying that blood is not likely to ooze from a neck wound much more than 7 minutes after death is utterly absurd.
To be perfectly fair he never said any such thing at all, so let´s not suggest that he did. But if you can prove that blood will always ooze for at least seven minutes in any case of exsanguination, while alive or post mortem, then feel free to do so! I have asked Gareth for the same revelation, and I await your response with much fascination.
If you can´t produce the material, you will of course have revealed yourself as a trader of complete bogus. I am anticipating that very development myself, I must say.
Comment