[Ben Holmes]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Patrick, 

Regarding the unfathomable logic, Ben is simply assuming what he needs to prove regarding Kilduff's knowledge (that Kilduff saw the body, which is a claim not in evidence)... and he's ignoring the fact that Kilduff, even if he saw a large wound in the temple area of the President's head, couldn't make the determination whether it was an entrance or an exit wound (as I pointed out to a previous poster, not only is Kilduff not qualified to make that determination - he's a assistant press secretary, not a forensic pathologist - but there's no evidence Kilduff or Dr. Burkley examined the head to the degree necessary to make that determination. That's why we have autopsies, I said. Ben prefers not to discuss what the autopsy found, and what Humes testified to - a small entry wound in the back of the head [determined by the beveling on the skull]). Instead he want to focus on the large wound and simply assume it's an entrance (which is what the prior poster was doing as well). So telling someone to watch the video doesn't establish anything other than where the large wound was (above the ear), which we already knew from the eyewitness testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza like Bill Newman, Abraham Zapruder, and Ike Altgens, as well as from the Zapruder film, the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays and the autopsy photographs. Kilduff's locating the large wound above the ear merely confirms the other evidence is correct. (Original found here.)

Patty whimpers: "Hank, Thanks for the post, Mr Holmes is clearly a gulf away from Ms Bates' excellent advice!"

You lied, Henry lied, and it's clear that neither one of you is capable of addressing your lies...

How embarrassing that you're now attributing false statements that Henry made to ME...

REALLY embarrassing that Henry is doing the same...

Both of you have been schooled on where Kilduff got the information about the head wound - and now you can't admit that you were wrong...

But ANYONE can view Malcolm Kilduff's Press Conference on Youtube, and he TELLS YOU where he got the information... from Dr. Burkley.

That both of you need to lie on this issue simply goes to show that you understand the weakness of your case...

Truly amusing that even though Patrick PROVABLY knew that Dr. Burkley was the source of Malcolm Kilduff's description of the wound, that he turns around and lies about it.

Claiming now that it was Dr. Perry...

The truth simply cannot be found on the side of believers... they lie at the drop of a hat.

Then absolutely REFUSE to take responsibility for their lies, and publicly defend or retract them.

[Patrick C]

You are so fulll  of nonsense Ben.

Hank admirably crushed your silly argument that Mac K thought there was an entry wound in the right  temple.

I actually linked you to an interview with Kilduff which virtually confirms that the whole argument is a waste of time anyway.

I was never sure that Burkley was the source - he could have been and I may have referenced that. It could have been Perry....as Kilduff seems to state here at 13:30 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSpw9w5GGYk

Whether it was Dr Burkley or Dr Perry really makes no difference. Kilduff did not have a determination of the direction of the shot nor the precise nauture of the wound as in entrance or exit. As Hank said to you - "that is why we have autopisies".

Once again you offer up a rather pathetic attempt to make some point and you fail. CLEARLY no one at that time knew if Kennedy had been shot from the front - how could they? 

That you fail to recognize the frankly pointlessness of your silly stance on this matter speaks volumes about your ability to assimilate information sensibly, logically and rationally. It is quite simply embarrassingly poor.

You certainly don't need me to make you look foolish - you have done it all by yourself.

I can only assume you had not watched the Mac K interview otherwise you would know that Mac K seems to indicate that it was Perry who advised him that Kennedy died of a gunshot wound to the head.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-23-2016, 03:33 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You are so fulll  of nonsense Ben.

Hank admirably crushed your silly argument that Mac K thought there was an entry wound in the right  temple.

Nope.

The "argument" was about where he got his information.

Henry clearly LIED about what I'd stated.

YOU'VE ALSO LIED ABOUT WHERE KILDUFF SAID HE GOT HIS INFORMATION.

And when this was pointed out, you disappeared for a week...

And I suspect, you'll refuse to retract your lie, and state publicly where Kilduff SAID he got the information.

(10-23-2016, 03:33 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I actually linked you to an interview with Kilduff which virtually confirms that the whole argument is a waste of time anyway.

Since I've linked to the original video before, and it says exactly what I've stated it says - you're simply lying again.

WHERE DID MALCOLM KILDUFF ACTUALLY SAY HE GOT HIS INFORMATION ABOUT JFK'S WOUNDS?

(10-23-2016, 03:33 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I was never sure that Burkley was the source - he could have been and I may have referenced that. It could have been Perry....as Kilduff seems to state here at 13:30 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSpw9w5GGYk

Whether it was Dr Burkley or Dr Perry really makes no difference. Kilduff did not have a determination of the direction of the shot nor the precise nauture of the wound as in entrance or exit. As Hank said to you - "that is why we have autopisies".

If it "makes no difference" ... then why can't you tell the truth?

WHERE DID MALCOLM KILDUFF ACTUALLY SAY HE GOT HIS INFORMATION ABOUT JFK'S WOUNDS?

There's only one correct answer... and I schooled both you and Henry on this issue in the Amazon forums.

(10-23-2016, 03:33 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Once again you offer up a rather pathetic attempt to make some point and you fail. CLEARLY no one at that time knew if Kennedy had been shot from the front - how could they?

Still bringing up strawmen to fight, aren't you?

Why can't you defend Henry's lie? Or your lie?

Why are you so afraid to answer the question?

WHERE DID MALCOLM KILDUFF ACTUALLY SAY HE GOT HIS INFORMATION ABOUT JFK'S WOUNDS?

(10-23-2016, 03:33 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  That you fail to recognize the frankly pointlessness of your silly stance on this matter speaks volumes about your ability to assimilate information sensibly, logically and rationally. It is quite simply embarrassingly poor.

You certainly don't need me to make you look foolish - you have done it all by yourself.

I can only assume you had not watched the Mac K interview otherwise you would know that Mac K seems to indicate that it was Perry who advised him that Kennedy died of a gunshot wound to the head.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Are you trying to be labeled a liar?

I predict that you'll refuse to answer this post with the only correct answer...

[Patrick C]

(10-18-2016, 02:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Patrick, 

Regarding the unfathomable logic, Ben is simply assuming what he needs to prove regarding Kilduff's knowledge (that Kilduff saw the body, which is a claim not in evidence)... and he's ignoring the fact that Kilduff, even if he saw a large wound in the temple area of the President's head, couldn't make the determination whether it was an entrance or an exit wound (as I pointed out to a previous poster, not only is Kilduff not qualified to make that determination - he's a assistant press secretary, not a forensic pathologist - but there's no evidence Kilduff or Dr. Burkley examined the head to the degree necessary to make that determination. That's why we have autopsies, I said. Ben prefers not to discuss what the autopsy found, and what Humes testified to - a small entry wound in the back of the head [determined by the beveling on the skull]). Instead he want to focus on the large wound and simply assume it's an entrance (which is what the prior poster was doing as well). So telling someone to watch the video doesn't establish anything other than where the large wound was (above the ear), which we already knew from the eyewitness testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza like Bill Newman, Abraham Zapruder, and Ike Altgens, as well as from the Zapruder film, the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays and the autopsy photographs. Kilduff's locating the large wound above the ear merely confirms the other evidence is correct. (Original found here.)

Patty whimpers: "Hank, Thanks for the post, Mr Holmes is clearly a gulf away from Ms Bates' excellent advice!"

You lied, Henry lied, and it's clear that neither one of you is capable of addressing your lies...

How embarrassing that you're now attributing false statements that Henry made to ME...

REALLY embarrassing that Henry is doing the same...

Both of you have been schooled on where Kilduff got the information about the head wound - and now you can't admit that you were wrong...

But ANYONE can view Malcolm Kilduff's Press Conference on Youtube, and he TELLS YOU where he got the information... from Dr. Burkley.

That both of you need to lie on this issue simply goes to show that you understand the weakness of your case...

Truly amusing that even though Patrick PROVABLY knew that Dr. Burkley was the source of Malcolm Kilduff's description of the wound, that he turns around and lies about it.

Claiming now that it was Dr. Perry...

The truth simply cannot be found on the side of believers... they lie at the drop of a hat.

Then absolutely REFUSE to take responsibility for their lies, and publicly defend or retract them.

[Ad Hominem deleted by Forum Administrator]

One final time:

Kilduff quoted Dr Burkley at Parkland on 22 Nov as stating it was a bullet to the head
Kilduff states in his 1991 interview that Perry was the source of the information.

I discovered the 1991 interview last week and posted a link.

There is no point here - it is what it is - who cares - it might have been another doctor who advised Kilduff. It does not matter. 

[Ad Hominem deleted by Forum Administrator]

[Ben Holmes]

(10-25-2016, 04:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  One final time:

Kilduff quoted Dr Burkley at Parkland on 22 Nov as stating it was a bullet to the head
Kilduff states in his 1991 interview that Perry was the source of the information.

I discovered the 1991 interview last week and posted a link.

There is no point here - it is what it is - who cares - it might have been another doctor who advised Kilduff. It does not matter. 

It's good to see you finally admitting the truth.

It's reflective of your dishonest nature that you could not do so the first time the evidence was cited.

Now, tell us why you think a decades old interview that doesn't DIRECTLY conflict with his contemporary statement is grounds for refusing to state the truth?

IOW's, why did you use what YOU assert was an 'implication' to over-ride what Kilduff quite plainly stated in 1963?

[Patrick C]

OMG you have actually made a reasonably sensible post...!!!

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, tell us why you think a decades old interview that doesn't DIRECTLY conflict with his contemporary statement is grounds for refusing to state the truth?

The truth is that Mac K cites two seperate sources. He does not state in which order they came from. 

Ben Holmes Wrote:IOW's, why did you use what YOU assert was an 'implication' to over-ride what Kilduff quite plainly stated in 1963?

I did not. I stated that he seemed to be implying in 1991 that it was Perry who advised that it was a bullet to the head that killed Kennedy.

It does not matter either way which doctor first told him. It may be likely that several doctors conferred with Mac K and he named Burkely because he was the presidents physician and it would seem correct to cite him.

It seems you are obsessed with making countless posts on a misinterpretation - on you part - at a cost to discussing the actual case.

But I expect you will not understand that point - and it has been made more elequently than I by Hank.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  OMG you have actually made a reasonably sensible post...!!!

Actually, I do so quite often. You simply aren't honest enough to acknowledge or respond honestly to them.

It's perfectly reasonable, for example, to point out when you're lying.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, tell us why you think a decades old interview that doesn't DIRECTLY conflict with his contemporary statement is grounds for refusing to state the truth?

The truth is that Mac K cites two seperate sources. He does not state in which order they came from.

 

You didn't answer my question... you evaded my question, and answered a strawman.

I know you'll be too much the coward to actually respond here, and ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY ASKED...

The question alone makes my point however...
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:IOW's, why did you use what YOU assert was an 'implication' to over-ride what Kilduff quite plainly stated in 1963?

I did not. I stated that he seemed to be implying in 1991 that it was Perry who advised that it was a bullet to the head that killed Kennedy.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Anyone can go here - and read post #5.

Tell us Patrick - what do you think you're achieving with all these lies?
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  It does not matter either way which doctor first told him. It may be likely that several doctors conferred with Mac K and he named Burkely because he was the presidents physician and it would seem correct to cite him.

It seems you are obsessed with making countless posts on a misinterpretation - on you part - at a cost to discussing the actual case.

Of course it doesn't matter WHICH doctor told him. It matters that you're willing to lie to confuse the issue... it matters that you can't be honest on this topic that matters.

It matters that you're trying to use a decades later interview implication to over-ride a contemporary filmed direct statement.

It matters that you're desperately speculating ... when the evidence is crystal clear.

The evidence matters, Patrick.

Speculation doesn't.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  But I expect you will not understand that point - and it has been made more elequently than I by Hank.

You're LYING again, Patrick.

You'll NEVER quote any such statement by Henry Sienzant... you can't.

So you're quite the coward as well.

[Patrick C]

(10-26-2016, 02:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  OMG you have actually made a reasonably sensible post...!!!

Actually, I do so quite often. You simply aren't honest enough to acknowledge or respond honestly to them.

It's perfectly reasonable, for example, to point out when you're lying.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, tell us why you think a decades old interview that doesn't DIRECTLY conflict with his contemporary statement is grounds for refusing to state the truth?

The truth is that Mac K cites two seperate sources. He does not state in which order they came from.

 

You didn't answer my question... you evaded my question, and answered a strawman.

I know you'll be too much the coward to actually respond here, and ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY ASKED...

The question alone makes my point however...
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:IOW's, why did you use what YOU assert was an 'implication' to over-ride what Kilduff quite plainly stated in 1963?

I did not. I stated that he seemed to be implying in 1991 that it was Perry who advised that it was a bullet to the head that killed Kennedy.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Anyone can go here - and read post #5.

Tell us Patrick - what do you think you're achieving with all these lies?
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  It does not matter either way which doctor first told him. It may be likely that several doctors conferred with Mac K and he named Burkely because he was the presidents physician and it would seem correct to cite him.

It seems you are obsessed with making countless posts on a misinterpretation - on you part - at a cost to discussing the actual case.

Of course it doesn't matter WHICH doctor told him. It matters that you're willing to lie to confuse the issue... it matters that you can't be honest on this topic that matters.

It matters that you're trying to use a decades later interview implication to over-ride a contemporary filmed direct statement.

It matters that you're desperately speculating ... when the evidence is crystal clear.

The evidence matters, Patrick.

Speculation doesn't.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  But I expect you will not understand that point - and it has been made more elequently than I by Hank.

You're LYING again, Patrick.

You'll NEVER quote any such statement by Henry Sienzant... you can't.

So you're quite the coward as well.

[Ad hominem redacted by Forum Administrator]

It does NOT matter which doctor told Kilduff that JFK was killed by a headshot.

And I am no liar. [Ad hominem redacted by Forum Administrator]

[Ben Holmes]

(10-29-2016, 10:22 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(10-26-2016, 02:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  OMG you have actually made a reasonably sensible post...!!!

Actually, I do so quite often. You simply aren't honest enough to acknowledge or respond honestly to them.

It's perfectly reasonable, for example, to point out when you're lying.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, tell us why you think a decades old interview that doesn't DIRECTLY conflict with his contemporary statement is grounds for refusing to state the truth?

The truth is that Mac K cites two seperate sources. He does not state in which order they came from.

 

You didn't answer my question... you evaded my question, and answered a strawman.

I know you'll be too much the coward to actually respond here, and ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY ASKED...

The question alone makes my point however...
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:IOW's, why did you use what YOU assert was an 'implication' to over-ride what Kilduff quite plainly stated in 1963?

I did not. I stated that he seemed to be implying in 1991 that it was Perry who advised that it was a bullet to the head that killed Kennedy.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Anyone can go here - and read post #5.

Tell us Patrick - what do you think you're achieving with all these lies?
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  It does not matter either way which doctor first told him. It may be likely that several doctors conferred with Mac K and he named Burkely because he was the presidents physician and it would seem correct to cite him.

It seems you are obsessed with making countless posts on a misinterpretation - on you part - at a cost to discussing the actual case.

Of course it doesn't matter WHICH doctor told him. It matters that you're willing to lie to confuse the issue... it matters that you can't be honest on this topic that matters.

It matters that you're trying to use a decades later interview implication to over-ride a contemporary filmed direct statement.

It matters that you're desperately speculating ... when the evidence is crystal clear.

The evidence matters, Patrick.

Speculation doesn't.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  But I expect you will not understand that point - and it has been made more elequently than I by Hank.

You're LYING again, Patrick.

You'll NEVER quote any such statement by Henry Sienzant... you can't.

So you're quite the coward as well.

[Ad hominem redacted by Forum Administrator]

It does NOT matter which doctor told Kilduff that JFK was killed by a headshot.

No, it doesn't.

But the TRUTH matters...

The fact that you consistently get corrected by me on the actual evidence shows that you really don't care one way or the other... as long as your faith is upheld.

(10-29-2016, 10:22 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  And I am no liar. [Ad hominem redacted by Forum Administrator]

Yet, just as predicted, you refuse to offer any quotes from Henry Sienzant that support your claim.

So yes Patrick, you ARE a liar. And every time I point it out, there are usually very simple ways to refute it... such as here, where all you need do is cut & paste the quote from Henry Sienzant.

Yet you refuse to do so...

So yes... YOU ARE A LIAR!!!


P.S. Interesting that you refuse to label Henry Sienzant a liar... even though he clearly was. I'm sure you recall when he claimed that I'd argued that Malcolm Kilduff got his information from viewing the body. A rather outrageous lie that didn't seem to upset you at all.

[Patrick C]

Ignoring the liar comments....

Anyone who saw JFK with a wound to his head would have known it was a bullet that caused it.

I did some numbers on this in the 80s with Mary Ferrell and we estimated that around 50 people would have seen the head wound between the Ambulance bay and Trauma Room 1 - minimum - this includes the 20+ Parkland staff, SS agents and other hospital staff in the car park area and corridor......

22 T1 staff as I recall.....so 50 is probably conservative.