[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]