[Guest]

Lee Abbott Wrote:Ergo, if the authorities only recorded statements from those that said a certain number of shots, or switched the number, that considerably changes the ballgame...

But they did not and they did not have control over the media reporting that very afternoon.....during which almost everyone said they heard 3 or 2 or 3 shots - read Phantom Shot !!!

Of course there were some who thought they heard more shots.....some thought there were one or two shots AFTER the head shot....from memory maybe Brehm, even Jean Hill.

And ALMOST ALL of these people that day, said the shots came from the SAME location be that to the rear or to the front......

[Ben Holmes]

Guest Wrote:

Lee Abbott Wrote:Ergo, if the authorities only recorded statements from those that said a certain number of shots, or switched the number, that considerably changes the ballgame...

But they did not and they did not have control over the media reporting that very afternoon.....during which almost everyone said they heard 3 or 2 or 3 shots - read Phantom Shot !!!

Of course there were some who thought they heard more shots.....some thought there were one or two shots AFTER the head shot....from memory maybe Brehm, even Jean Hill.

And ALMOST ALL of these people that day, said the shots came from the SAME location be that to the rear or to the front......

I'm amused at this last statement... believers somehow believe that if virtually all pointed to one direction, then the shots must have come from one direction.

Not noticing that those closest to one area or another tended to refer to the shots coming from the closest area.

The evidence is well explained by multiple shot locations - it's not explained AT ALL by pretending only one location.

Depending on how you read the statements & testimony, by some accounts the MAJORITY of witnesses place the shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. By the logic employed here - this shows that they came from the TSBD, and a majority of witnesses were mistaken.

I find such reasoning to be quite silly.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm amused at this last statement... believers somehow believe that if virtually all pointed to one direction, then the shots must have come from one direction.

Wrong, it does mean that the shots MUST have come from one direction, it is merely persuasive that they did.

Ben Holmes Wrote:The evidence is well explained by multiple shot locations - it's not explained AT ALL by pretending only one location.

Absolute bunkum, the evidence is compelling that shots were fired from one location above and behind the limo.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Depending on how you read the statements & testimony, by some accounts the MAJORITY of witnesses place the shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. By the logic employed here - this shows that they came from the TSBD, and a majority of witnesses were mistaken.

In that instance clearly yes - but why not?

I do not agree that the account totals such as those by Thompson (39% TSBD / 52% GK), Gallanor (44% TSBD / 48% GK) are accurate though, McAdams is far more accurate in his interpretation of the witness statements and concludes 59% TSBD and 31% GK

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm">http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm</a><!-- m -->

TWO directions.....3%

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find such reasoning to be quite silly.

On the contrary, the reasoning is perfectly logical Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm amused at this last statement... believers somehow believe that if virtually all pointed to one direction, then the shots must have come from one direction.

Wrong, it does mean that the shots MUST have come from one direction, it is merely persuasive that they did.

Nope.

The eyewitnesses CANNOT be "persuasive" that shots came from only one direction. Based on the eyewitness data, you can only conclude multiple directions for originating shots.

What you are using is evidence for one location, and an absence of physical evidence (shells, rifle, etc) for the other location.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The evidence is well explained by multiple shot locations - it's not explained AT ALL by pretending only one location.

Absolute bunkum, the evidence is compelling that shots were fired from one location above and behind the limo.

And, as I just pointed out, you are relying on more than the eyewitness statements... and rather than evidence, you're relying on an absence of physical evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Depending on how you read the statements & testimony, by some accounts the MAJORITY of witnesses place the shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. By the logic employed here - this shows that they came from the TSBD, and a majority of witnesses were mistaken.

In that instance clearly yes - but why not?

It's not surprising that you dislike eyewitness accounts... I've repeatedly asked believers for the name of an eyewitness whom they accept in ALL their 1963-64 statements & testimony... and I'VE NEVER GOTTEN AN ANSWER!

Patrick C Wrote:I do not agree that the account totals such as those by Thompson (39% TSBD / 52% GK), Gallanor (44% TSBD / 48% GK) are accurate though, McAdams is far more accurate in his interpretation of the witness statements and concludes 59% TSBD and 31% GK

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm">http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm</a><!-- m -->

TWO directions.....3%

McAdams is the premier disinfo agent on the Internet. And since you'll refuse to defend the lies told by McAdams, why would you think anyone would believe your cite?

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find such reasoning to be quite silly.

On the contrary, the reasoning is perfectly logical Ben.

Nope... you only believe eyewitnesses who support your faith... that's not "logical" at all.

[Guest]

Ben Holmes Wrote:McAdams is the premier disinfo agent on the Internet. And since you'll refuse to defend the lies told by McAdams, why would you think anyone would believe your cite?

No matter, he shows the exact witness statement and deduces the source of the shot per witness accurately. Gallanor and Thompson get it wrong sometimes and their figures are therefor wrong....

You can check for yourself as I am sure you have.

[Patrick C]

I touched base with Martin Hay ref the JFK neck wound entry theory....his response is below and there is an interesting statistic...

Good to see that Martin as usual has an informed and sensible view on what is after all a "sensational theory area" - and crackpot theory to boot - that the anterior neck wound was an entry ....a theory that I find astonishing and always did...

Quote

"At the end of the day, the fact that there was no exit in the rear, no damage to the spine, and no bullet found in the body means that there simply couldn't have been an entrance in the throat IMHO.


Bowron wasn't paid or qualified to distinguish between entrance and exit wounds. And even experienced emergency room doctors are frequently wrong about such things (a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1993 showed them to be wrong 52% of the time) which is why they are instructed not to make such determinations. Here's a relevant passage from the premiere textbook for emergency doctors, Rosen's Emergency Medicine"

Quote:-

The emergency physician is in the ideal position to evaluate and document the state of gunshot wound because he or she sees and explores it before it is disturbed, distorted, or destroyed by surgical intervention. Documentation of gunshot wounds should include the anatomic location of the wound as well as its size, shape, and distinguishing characteristics, and digital photographs of the wound should be taken. Wounds should be described according to the standard anatomic position with the arms to the sides and the palms up.


Clinicians should not describe wounds as "entrance" or "exit" but should document, using appropriate forensic terminology, a detailed description of the wound, including its appearance, characteristics, and location without attempting to interpret the wound type or bullet caliber. Exit wounds are not always larger than entrance wounds, and wound size does not consistently correspond to bullet caliber. [my emphasis]




At the end of the day, the fact that there was no exit in the rear, no damage to the spine, and no bullet found in the body means that there simply couldn't have been an entrance in the throat IMHO.


Bowron wasn't paid or qualified to distinguish between entrance and exit wounds. And even experienced emergency room doctors are frequently wrong about such things (a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1993 showed them to be wrong 52% of the time) which is why they are instructed not to make such determinations. Here's a relevant passage from the premiere textbook for emergency doctors, Rosen's Emergency Medicine:



The emergency physician is in the ideal position to evaluate and document the state of gunshot wound because he or she sees and explores it before it is disturbed, distorted, or destroyed by surgical intervention. Documentation of gunshot wounds should include the anatomic location of the wound as well as its size, shape, and distinguishing characteristics, and digital photographs of the wound should be taken. Wounds should be described according to the standard anatomic position with the arms to the sides and the palms up.


Clinicians should not describe wounds as "entrance" or "exit" but should document, using appropriate forensic terminology, a detailed description of the wound, including its appearance, characteristics, and location without attempting to interpret the wound type or bullet caliber. Exit wounds are not always larger than entrance wounds, and wound size does not consistently correspond to bullet caliber. [emphasis by Martin]

End Quote....

[Ben Holmes]

Guest Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:McAdams is the premier disinfo agent on the Internet. And since you'll refuse to defend the lies told by McAdams, why would you think anyone would believe your cite?

No matter, he shows the exact witness statement and deduces the source of the shot per witness accurately. Gallanor and Thompson get it wrong sometimes and their figures are therefor wrong....

You can check for yourself as I am sure you have.

You didn't answer the question.

It was a simple one.

Since you will refuse to defend McAdam's choices, (indeed, I rather doubt if I could find any believer who would), why would you think that people will believe your cite?

An assertion that no-one is willing to defend isn't much of an assertion, is it?

This also shows just how strongly you believe what you're posting... (or rather, how weakly you believe it...)

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I touched base with Martin Hay ref the JFK neck wound entry theory....his response is below and there is an interesting statistic...

Good to see that Martin as usual has an informed and sensible view on what is after all a "sensational theory area" - and crackpot theory to boot - that the anterior neck wound was an entry ....a theory that I find astonishing and always did...

How can it be an "informed and sensible" opinion - when it's based on nothing other than speculation?

There is NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that rebuts the original description of the wound.

So what is "informed" about Martin & your opinion?

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:There is NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that rebuts the original description of the wound.

The description is subjective !!! Did you not read that post......

DUH !!!

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:There is NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that rebuts the original description of the wound.

The description is subjective !!! Did you not read that post......

DUH !!!

"subjective" - as one dictionary puts it, "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

But this isn't really true, is it Patrick?

This is like saying the water in the ocean is wet... Then pontificating that such a statement is merely "subjective".

But if everyone shares this "subjective opinion" - then what is "subjective" about it?

The implication in your claim is that there are others, who having seen the wound, or perhaps only hearing an accurate description of it, would hold A DIFFERENT OPINION... But you'll never cite for that...