[Ray Mitcham]

Patrick C Wrote:It is shade

No, the photo shows the wound to be at the back of the head.

Nice try though,Patrick.

[Patrick C]

TRIPE....explain why they do...

What are your credentials William...?

Are you just looking at the Moorman photo and thinking...hey well that is an exit wound....

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:TRIPE....explain why they do...

What are your credentials William...?

Are you just looking at the Moorman photo and thinking...hey well that is an exit wound....

Despite the "what are your credentials" ploy, (which is simply nonsense) - I'll actually shock Patrick and agree with him.

The Moorman photo is no more convincing to me than the extant Zapruder film. You tend to see what you want to see. It's simply not fine enough detail to make out.

Of course, that makes me consistent... unlike Patrick, who refers to the Zapruder film to locate wounds.

There's better ways to demonstrate where the wound was - the Autopsy Report being the one that believers are forced to agree with, even though they don't believe it.

[Ray Mitcham]

If you haven't read "A deeper Darker Truth" by Donald T Phillips. I would recommend that you do.

It is an eye opener. If, as I believe ,he invented a program which could find much more information in photos than the eye could see, then he has shown what happened.

[Patrick C]

"A Deeper Darker Truth" is pretty appalling. If the camera and film does not capture an image....their is nothing science can do to change that.

I would suggest that Don Phillips' book is one of the worst books on the case written to date. It is almost a joke.

I am sure the author was well meaning, but really it is one for those who think the word gullible is not in the dictionary.

I have posted my 2009 review on Amazon here. I think on reflection it was rather kind and forgiving....

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Of course, that makes me consistent... unlike Patrick, who refers to the Zapruder film to locate wounds.

I have always made my view clear and consistent that the Zapruder film does not PROVE where the shots came from. It is at best merely persuasive that the head shot came from the rear due to a)the violent forward movement of the head between Z312 and Z313 and b) the presence of visible blood spatter and bone in Z313 of which approx 85% of the visible "cloud" is forward of the EOP......

And I have never said anything more than that Ben in respect of the location of the wound. We know from the film that JFK was shot in the head and that both men were wounded seconds before that......little more.