[Ben Holmes]

(11-27-2016, 01:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

Ah so that is the "question"

Just how stupid are you, Patrick?

The original post only had ONE QUESTION MARK.

There was only one question.

There was only one possible "hypothetical" question.

So tell us Patrick, what reason do you have for any confusion?

Can you explain why you have until now been unable to determine what the question was?

(Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer... you're too much the coward to answer questions like this)
 

(11-27-2016, 01:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  ....and the point of the question is what....? To help you decide that the descriptions of the head wound show that JFK was struck from the front because the wound was occipital? Even though the Zapruder film shows the wound to be above the ear....

Who cares what the "point" of the question is?

It's an excellent demonstration of the fact that I've previously pointed out... that I can answer any question on the case or evidence that you can possibly ask, but believers (and this obviously includes YOU) cannot answer all questions I raise on the case & evidence...

You're simply too dishonest and cowardly...
 

(11-27-2016, 01:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Anyway, 

To start, depends what you mean by the "back of the head". Most people would say the back of the head was the whole area behind the ear. The medical profession as I have stated to you, often use occipital and occipital / parietal to describe the back of the head.The JFK wound was largely parietal and extended somewhat into the occipital and temporal bones.

Ah! FINALLY AN ANSWER!!!
 

Hallelujah!

Now that you've admitted that "occipital" & "parietal" can correctly and accurately describe a wound in the BACK of the head, it's clear that McAdams was lying when he said: "You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you."

Of course, I don't expect you to be able to acknowledge that McAdams was lying...

Believers never acknowledge the lies of other believers...
 

(11-27-2016, 01:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  McAdmas gives an excellent, well balanced and senisble appraisal of the whole thing on his web site including this quote from Dr Grossman.

Quote:But speaking to the occipital question, Grossman [one of the Parkland doctors and] a neurosurgeon, suggested that part of the confusion surrounding the location of the head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term "occipital" is used. While the occiput refers specifically to a bone in the lower back section of the head, Grossman said many doctors loosely use the term to refer to "the back fifth of the head . . . there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It's all very imprecise." (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)

There's no evidence that Dr. Grossman was in the emergency room where JFK was treated... you know that... but once again, you'll be too dishonest to acknowledge that fact.

Nor would any honest man think that "the back fifth of the head" isn't in the back of the head.

So tell us Patrick (watch for it... it's another question mark), can you explain how a wound described as being in the Occipital-Parietal is NOT in the back of the head?

The way to do this, of course, is to simply describe which portion of the Occipital isn't located in the back of the head. The Parietal, of course, is largely in the back of the head, but a portion of it can be described as the top of the head.

But which part of the occipital can be honestly described as being in the "side" of the head?
 

(11-27-2016, 01:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Of course you will not be satisifed by the above, which I as an educated man,  would suggest to you is more than an adequate explanation of the whole silly debate of the location of the head wound.

You somehow failed to note that the "the back fifth of the head" is still in the back of the head.

Indeed ... YOU'VE ADMITTED THAT A WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD CAN BE CORRECTLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS OCCIPITAL OR OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL... even "Parietal" can sometimes describe a wound entirely in the back of the head.

So who's the "educated" man?

Someone who can't find the only question in a post... the only question that could legitimately be called a "hypothetical" question... or someone who's been shown correct on the facts time and time again?
 

(11-27-2016, 01:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You may continue to tie yourself up in knots Ben with your twisted and cryptic logic, obviously it appeals to you, for me it gives me mild amusement for a few minutes each week and reminds me of the gulf that exists between people like you and intelligent and rational human beings who run the rings around you that you do not see. Pip Pip.

Why did it take so long to get a simple answer to a simple question?

Why did it take you so long to figure out what the question was?

Why did you claim to have already answered the question, when you didn't even know what the sole question was? Why are you such a coward?

[Ben Holmes]

I've long noted the habit of believer to disappear for days or weeks ... even months in some cases... when they've been caught in a blatant lie that they cannot defend.

They never have the courage to admit that they lied... or 'misunderstood'... you see, being a believer means never having to say you're sorry.

Patrick claimed to have already answered the question - then later... he finally realized what the only question contained in the post actually was... and clearly, he'd not answered it.

It takes no great intelligence to catch believers in their multitude of lies... it only takes a familiarity with the evidence... the more evidence you're familiar with, the more often you can catch believers telling their lies.

For example, you'll never hear Patrick admitting that there's absolutely no evidence at all that Dr. Grossman was in the emergency room with JFK. None... Nada... Zip... nothing other than his assertion, a decade later as I recall...  (Go ahead and correct me Patrick, if I'm wrong... as you refuse yet again to admit that there's no evidence Dr. Grossman was there.)

Patrick is fully aware that there's no evidence placing Dr. Grossman in the emergency room... but unlike the evidence of most of the real eyewitnesses, what Dr. Grossman says supports the Warren Commission's theory.

And with so little of the evidence in their favor, they need to cling to all that they can...

[Ben Holmes]

It's truly amusing to see the cowardice of believers in action.

Patrick has lost this debate - despite his refusal to even get into details... and clearly, he knows it.

When McAdams stated "You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you." - he was simply lying.

No believer can give a more precise description of a wound to the BACK of the head than the one given by virtually everyone - INCLUDING the autopsy prosectors... 

Even Patrick finally admitted that 'occipital' and 'parietal' are valid descriptions of a wound to the BACK of the head.

McAdams will never directly debate me unless he controls the format - to include the ability to censor anything I say... so only Patrick has tried to defend McAdam's lie...

And failed...