[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:How can the location of the large wound in JFK's head be a 'non-issue'? The overwhelming evidence is for an occipital-parietal location - and no matter how it's twisted, that's a difficult location to reconcile with a rear shooter.

I disagree. The overwhelming evidence if for a wound that was chiefly parietal and somewhat extending into the occipital and temporal bones.....as we see in the Z film.

And NOT SEEN in the BOH photo... as you well know.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:That this is true (that it's location is quite difficult to reconcile with a TSBD shooter) is shown by the often funny attempts by believers to re-define the location of the wound. (as even you are doing...)

No - YOU are relocating the wound. I place it right where we see it in the Z film and where the medical report and photos show it to be...

You're lying again, Patrick. I'm placing it exactly where the Autopsy Report stated... I use the SAME medical terminology to locate the wound.

Once again, you refuse to show us in the BOH photo the same wound described in the Autopsy Report ... YOU KNOW THAT THEY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER... and I know you just HATE to use the term "occipital" when describing the wound.

Patrick C Wrote:The bullet enters , breaks up and exits by the temporal region and the following shock wave then breaks open the skull fissures laterally to the path of the bullet as these are the weakest points on the first internal sides of the skull that the pressure wave strikes.

The wound appears to be blown out as if the bullet had entered the left side of the head if you are looking for a through and through straight path. This is not what happened, the wound as I state is really almost side on to the trajectory of the bullet which one might have expected to blow out the forehead or face.....again this does not happen.

It is all well explained in Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths"....perhaps you don't have that one William....?

Worth a read - along with "Phantom Shot"......

As you consistently refuse to defend the books you recommend, why should anyone take your suggestions? Far better would be 'Rush to Judgment', or Douglas Horne's five volume set.

I know you'll refuse to answer, Patrick - but is a wound that is described AS THE AUTOPSY REPORT DESCRIBES IT in the "back of the head?"