[Ben Holmes]

Paul Schrade Wrote:Thank you Andy for highlighting this portion of Robert Kennedy Jr’s new book on the Skakel case. You have exposed some little known facts and concerns. Bobby describes his Mother’s deep and compelling wisdom when she told him “we needed to let go of our impulse for revenge” as she had to with her husband's murder. Bobby Jr said he saw and felt that up close. While all other members of the Kennedy family agree that revenge is no answer as I do...truth and justice should be. My work with Bobby now is against revenge by “our system”. We must find out who shot Robert Kennedy. Prosecution’s own evidence is clear and conclusive that Sirhan could not and did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Again Robert Jr. advises us as he does in the Skakel case what we must do...“attack the prosecutors, cops, courts for willful misconduct” and their act of revenge in the Robert Kennedy case. The truth is….if Sirhan had been the only gunman that night Robert Kennedy would have lived....in solidarity...PAUL SCHRADE

Taken from the Litchfield County Times, I'd also add that the evidence shows that if Oswald had been the only assassin, John F. Kennedy would have lived as well.

The evidence clearly shows that the shot that killed Kennedy entered from the front.

This explains why the Warren Commission crowd so vehemently reject the evidence for a large back of the head wound... they know precisely what the implications are. No shooter in the Sniper's Nest could have made that shot.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:The evidence clearly shows that the shot that killed Kennedy entered from the front.

Absolute sheer unadultarated tripe.

There is nothing "clearly" about it. The very concept is wayward, wishful conspiracy thinking of the most extreme order. It is within the domain of crackpot body and film alteration speculation that belies common sense.

[Ben Holmes]

(09-11-2016, 03:43 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:The evidence clearly shows that the shot that killed Kennedy entered from the front.

Absolute sheer unadultarated tripe.

There is nothing "clearly" about it. The very concept is wayward, wishful conspiracy thinking of the most extreme order. It is within the domain of crackpot body and film alteration speculation that belies common sense.

I realize how upsetting this is to you... but the evidence for a large back of the head wound, combined with the fact that the X-rays show the largest fragments to the back of the head, is clear supporting evidence for a shot striking JFK's temple. Exactly as the very earliest statements by eyewitnesses indicated.

Ad hominem attacks on those who merely point to the evidence illustrate that you realize just how weak your case is... and forces you to strike out.
 

I'm quite sure you're familiar with this:



Naturally, you're also familiar with this one:



And of course, the classic:

As you well know, this is merely the tip of the iceberg for the evidence of a temple wound, and a large back of the head wound... Naturally, you know all this evidence is from actual eyewitnesses, who were there, and saw; yet you pretend that people who merely point this evidence out, and draw the natural conclusions must be extreme crackpots.

The real story of course, is the fact that you cannot even admit the contradictions in the evidence...

[Ben Holmes]

(09-11-2016, 03:43 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:The evidence clearly shows that the shot that killed Kennedy entered from the front.

Absolute sheer unadultarated tripe.

There is nothing "clearly" about it. The very concept is wayward, wishful conspiracy thinking of the most extreme order. It is within the domain of crackpot body and film alteration speculation that belies common sense.

I'll also add that for someone who accepts evidence for film alteration, yet denigrates those who accept EXACTLY WHAT YOU ACCEPT - is merely a form of self-hatred.

I don't blame you... it must be quite destructive to be forced to lie all the time...

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:...is clear supporting evidence for a shot striking JFK's temple. Exactly as the very earliest statements by eyewitnesses indicated.

Absolute rubbish. Witnesses describes the hair flying forward and the side of his head exploding! Bill Newman "his ear blew off"....

Mac Kilduff pointed to his own temple when he stated it was a head bullet wound, but that was clearly just a gesture. Had he been left handed he would probably have pointed to hsi left temple.

I don't know why you bother "studying" this case if you just make stuff up and ignore evidence that does not support your skewed view of events of Dallas 22 Nov 63,

[Ben Holmes]

(09-11-2016, 05:09 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:...is clear supporting evidence for a shot striking JFK's temple. Exactly as the very earliest statements by eyewitnesses indicated.

Absolute rubbish. Witnesses describes the hair flying forward and the side of his head exploding! Bill Newman "his ear blew off"....

Mac Kilduff pointed to his own temple when he stated it was a head bullet wound, but that was clearly just a gesture. Had he been left handed he would probably have pointed to hsi left temple.

I don't know why you bother "studying" this case if you just make stuff up and ignore evidence that does not support your skewed view of events of Dallas 22 Nov 63,

You can run, Patrick; but you can't hide.

You and Henry Sienzant previously lied, as I recall - about where Kilduff got his information... can you be honest enough to publicly state where Kilduff got his information that he related to the press?

Or will you run again?

[Nick Principe]

Patrick, it is astounding to me your level of persistent denial, that you are shown images of 18 separate witnesses all pointing to the same place, and that your response is to completely ignore every one of them...or perhaps on your least laziest day lump them all in as "mistaken." Which they would have to be, of course; either they're ALL mistaken, or your theory faces a huge problem.

And you've never, at least to my recollection, addressed the lead snowstorm image. Not that anyone would expect you to; even your explanation of the Kilduff image is preposterous, to trivialize pointing to his temple as "just a gesture" due to his right-handedness.
 

(09-11-2016, 05:09 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Mac Kilduff pointed to his own temple when he stated it was a head bullet wound, but that was clearly just a gesture. Had he been left handed he would probably have pointed to hsi left temple.

As a lefty myself, I regard your above comment as a real "pearler."

---

Martin Hay revisits the head wound:

http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspo...chive.html

[Patrick C]

(09-11-2016, 04:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(09-11-2016, 03:43 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:The evidence clearly shows that the shot that killed Kennedy entered from the front.

Absolute sheer unadultarated tripe.

There is nothing "clearly" about it. The very concept is wayward, wishful conspiracy thinking of the most extreme order. It is within the domain of crackpot body and film alteration speculation that belies common sense.

I realize how upsetting this is to you... but the evidence for a large back of the head wound, combined with the fact that the X-rays show the largest fragments to the back of the head, is clear supporting evidence for a shot striking JFK's temple. Exactly as the very earliest statements by eyewitnesses indicated.

Ad hominem attacks on those who merely point to the evidence illustrate that you realize just how weak your case is... and forces you to strike out.
 

I'm quite sure you're familiar with this:



Naturally, you're also familiar with this one:



And of course, the classic:

As you well know, this is merely the tip of the iceberg for the evidence of a temple wound, and a large back of the head wound... Naturally, you know all this evidence is from actual eyewitnesses, who were there, and saw; yet you pretend that people who merely point this evidence out, and draw the natural conclusions must be extreme crackpots.

The real story of course, is the fact that you cannot even admit the contradictions in the evidence...

Ben Holmes Wrote:As you well know, this is merely the tip of the iceberg for the evidence of a temple wound, and a large back of the head wound... Naturally, you know all this evidence is from actual eyewitnesses, who were there, and saw; yet you pretend that people who merely point this evidence out, and draw the natural conclusions must be extreme crackpots.

The temple wound was caused by the shock wave blasting out tissue and the bullet exit which as you know formed a half crescent in the bone. The positioning of the wound was mistakenly placed slightly further back by most of Parkland staff - which as DVP has stated - and I agree, seems somewhat perplexing. But it does not make the wound actually be in the back of the head as you believe.

Most of the doctors accepted quite easily that they were wrong.

The autopsy places the wound as largely parietal extending somewhat to the occipital and temporal bones (not a quote). 

The Zapruder film shows the wound to be above the ear exactly where the medical report puts it.

So either you accept the Parkland staff were out by a few inches or you have to believe that the Zapruder film has been altered and that the medical records have been tampered with AND that the autopsy staff have been part of a cover up to hide a frontal strike.

It is pretty obvious to me what is the more likely....human error and that a single fatal rear sourced shot killed JFK.

As the body was supine, hair and blood would fall down toward the actual back of the head, it is possible this is why the doctors remembered the wound being further back. I have spoken to a number of head trauma surgeons about this over the years and they have stated that that is entirely possible.

[Ben Holmes]

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(09-11-2016, 04:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  As you well know, this is merely the tip of the iceberg for the evidence of a temple wound, and a large back of the head wound... Naturally, you know all this evidence is from actual eyewitnesses, who were there, and saw; yet you pretend that people who merely point this evidence out, and draw the natural conclusions must be extreme crackpots.

The temple wound was caused by the shock wave blasting out tissue and the bullet exit which as you know formed a half crescent in the bone. The positioning of the wound was mistakenly placed slightly further back by most of Parkland staff - which as DVP has stated - and I agree, seems somewhat perplexing. But it does not make the wound actually be in the back of the head as you believe.

This is sheer speculation on your part. You know that the earliest statements about this temple wound was that it was an entry. The fact that the large wound on JFK's head was in the back of the head is supported by virtually ALL of the eyewitnesses, AS WELL AS THE AUTOPSY REPORT - and you know this.

It's only contradicted by autopsy photos that have authenticity problems (they can't be matched to the only camera used by Bethesda), and by the extant Z-film, which EVEN YOU ACCEPT HAS EVIDENCE OF ALTERATION!!

This is, of course; something you continually refuse to address... you simply label it as kooky... then run away. You've admitted that you accept evidence that the government wasn't completely honest with the evidence in this case - yet refuse to explain why.
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Most of the doctors accepted quite easily that they were wrong.

Dead silence on the intimidation & badgering needed, as well as the outright lies. You know, for example; that the Parkland doctors "changed" their opinion on the throat wound based on the Autopsy Report - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECTORS CLAIM NEVER TO HAVE EVEN KNOWN OF THAT WOUND - LET ALONE DISSECTING IT...

So Parkland doctors changed their opinion BASED ON A LIE - and you won't address this fact. Cowardice is rampant in the WCR Supporter's community.
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The autopsy places the wound as largely parietal extending somewhat to the occipital and temporal bones (not a quote).

Which, of course, would be EXACTLY the same description given if the large wound were ENTIRELY IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

I know you won't answer, but I'll ask it anyway... what percentage of the Occipital is located in the "back of the head?"

What percentage of the Parietal is located in the "back of the head?"

You can't honestly answer these two questions, and just as David Von Pein did - you'll run.
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The Zapruder film shows the wound to be above the ear exactly where the medical report puts it.

Is this the same film that you accept contains evidence of its' alteration?

And, of course, you're lying... the medical reports are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the Parkland descriptions. As they are with the Bethesda descriptions... (You won't address it, but the HSCA lied on this point)
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  So either you accept the Parkland staff were out by a few inches or you have to believe that the Zapruder film has been altered and that the medical records have been tampered with AND that the autopsy staff have been part of a cover up to hide a frontal strike.

You're lying again, Patrick.

The medical records (ie. the Autopsy Report), is COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with virtually all the eyewitnesses who put the wound in the back of the head.

You admit that the Zapruder film contains evidence that it was altered...

The prosectors certainly did lie... the trail of fragments alone demonstrate that... I note for the record that you've been completely silent on this SCIENTIFIC HARD EVIDENCE for a frontal shot. The heavier larger fragments were toward the back of the skull - and you not only have no explanation for that fact, you simply refuse to address it. Sheer cowardice on your part, Patrick...
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is pretty obvious to me what is the more likely....human error and that a single fatal rear sourced shot killed JFK.

But when you have to lie about the evidence in order to put forth this opinion - it's clear that you realize the weakness of your case... and fully understand that you cannot be honest about the evidence... you won't, for example; deal with the issues I've raised in this post - because to do so contradicts your "opinions."
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  As the body was supine, hair and blood would fall down toward the actual back of the head, it is possible this is why the doctors remembered the wound being further back. I have spoken to a number of head trauma surgeons about this over the years and they have stated that that is entirely possible.

While this might help explain the Parkland witnesses, it COMPLETELY fails to explain the Bethesda witnesses.

I defy you to find a "head trauma surgeon" who thinks such an explanation would be credible DURING AN AUTOPSY.
 

---

It's interesting to note that you've been dead silent on your lie about Mike Majerus. Why would it be so impossible for an honest man to admit that he made a mistake? You keep claiming to be honest, yet you keep proving otherwise... why is that Patrick?

Just to keep it in your memory, here it is again:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.

[Ben Holmes]

(09-12-2016, 01:29 AM)Nick Principe Wrote:  Patrick, it is astounding to me your level of persistent denial, that you are shown images of 18 separate witnesses all pointing to the same place, and that your response is to completely ignore every one of them...or perhaps on your least laziest day lump them all in as "mistaken." Which they would have to be, of course; either they're ALL mistaken, or your theory faces a huge problem.

And what PROVES Patrick Collin's dishonesty - is the fact that he will NOT publicly admit that the Autopsy Report's placement of this wound is COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with these witnesses who showed on film where they saw the wound.

David Von Pein is the same... he resolutely refused to admit this.

Why are believers so dishonest???
 

(09-12-2016, 01:29 AM)Nick Principe Wrote:  And you've never, at least to my recollection, addressed the lead snowstorm image.

He can't.

It's scientific HARD EVIDENCE for a shot from the front. He claims an education level that would make it impossible for him not to understand the implications of the larger fragments being in the back of the skull.
 

(09-12-2016, 01:29 AM)Nick Principe Wrote:  Not that anyone would expect you to; even your explanation of the Kilduff image is preposterous, to trivialize pointing to his temple as "just a gesture" due to his right-handedness.
 

(09-11-2016, 05:09 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Mac Kilduff pointed to his own temple when he stated it was a head bullet wound, but that was clearly just a gesture. Had he been left handed he would probably have pointed to hsi left temple.

As a lefty myself, I regard your above comment as a real "pearler."

As I recall, both Patrick Collins and Henry Sienzant lied about where Kilduff said he got the information.

I wonder if Patrick is honest enough now to publicly state where Kilduff got his information about the shot to the head... (My crystal ball says no...)