[Ben Holmes]

(09-06-2016, 08:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(09-05-2016, 06:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Quote:THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit 387) that: "The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared" - part of a memo from Assistant Counsel Arlen Spector to General Counsel J. Lee Rankin on April 30th, 1964. 

And indeed, it's come to pass. The autopsy photos have been compared to the Rydberg drawings, and it's quite obvious to everyone that the drawings were incorrect.

Yet believers still think that the conclusions the Warren Commission came to were still accurate.

Times were different. Mistakes were made.

Kennedy was shot in the back and in the back of the head. No question about it.

Actually no... there IS a question about it. And Spector knew back then that they needed to double-check that we wouldn't discover what he suspected... that the evidence the Warren Commission relied on was wrong.
 

(09-06-2016, 08:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The precise location of the fatal head shot entry should have been cast in stone for all. That Humes seemed somewhat vague on it is probably indicative of the fact that it was the POTUS and not much more.

You pro C folks just grasp at any little discrepancy...and blow it out of all proportion.

Keep on dreaming Ben.

JFK - killed by a sniper to the rear. Two shots and maybe a missed shot. Period.

You don't need lies to support the truth, Patrick.

Such as your lie about Majerus refuting Mark Lane on a topic he never mentioned in his book...

Or, for that matter; your constant uncited claims...