[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:PC "The wound could have been either entry or exit or words to that effect."

This was AFTER the massive intimidation of the Parkland doctors... The EARLIEST opinion was that the throat wound was an entry wound. Henry Sienzant even went so far as to blatantly lie on this point - claiming that they'd stated it could have been either an entry or exit at the Parkland Press Conference.

But this simply isn't true.

The Parkland doctors were "convinced" that their opinion was incorrect on the basis of an Autopsy Report THAT NEVER DISSECTED OR EVEN KNEW ABOUT the throat wound during the autopsy.

That's a fact.

One that you cannot get around."

Perry stated later that he regretted making what was after all a rash judgement...you can't be certain of that wound being an entry in the trauma room situation. Any reliable surgeon would tell you that.

Perry was not bullied. There was no frontal entry to be bullied about.

So the neck wound as an entry for me is a NON STARTER....always has been. It is truly a big a red herring as the Phantom GK Gunman.......

Why on earth you guys can't position some sensible simple rear sourced shot scenario is utterly astonishing.

Again you rely on later statements by Perry - rather than his first un-influenced statements.

Instead of letting the evidence show you what happened, you start with the WCR's theory, and try to force the evidence to fit. When we have early and quite unimpeachable evidence for a frontal shot - it's no wonder that you demand that everyone only look for a "sensible simple rear sourced shot scenario"

No thankyou... I'll stick with the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Was it your intention to misplace the limo so dramatically?

Not interested in the limo ref that pic and NO - I wanted to ask which storm drain you believed the picture you posted was....

Then it's good that I point out that it's not credible that you don't know which storm drain is being referred to...

And that your graphic was quite misleading... in placing the limo at a place where such a shot would have been virtually impossible... instead of where the limo was actually at.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:It could have come from higher and been deflected by the glass....

Personally I find the notion of a frontal shot through the windshield with other people in the way from a low vantage point rather an ill conceived plan in the first place - granted one might say that the plan was not necessarily to fire through the glass......it just happened that way.......

Sheer nonsense.

Still desperately trying to place the location of the shooter in an impossible location on top of the overpass.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I was aware of those notes, but I have always had the view he was describing an additional wound on the right temple which was a next to the tear he describes - caused by the fatal bullet exiting the side of the head.

Then you've been caught lying again. You stated: "No evidence at all for wounds to the face and I have NEVER read that before either."

Yet now you admit that there is evidence for wounds to the face, and that you HAVE read this before.

Astonishing how easy it is to catch believers in lies.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Garry Puffer Wrote:"face" and "forehead" are quite different.

Yes I agree, but where are the shrapnel wounds to JFK's face in the autopsy photos....which were taken hour before the mortician did his work...?

Simply produce the negative, so we can examine it in the detail needed to view such things.

Patrick C Wrote:Why is there no report of cuts to the face in the medical reports or for that matter in the oral testimonies of the surgeons for example the JAMA interviews of the 90s........

There's a tremendous amount of testimony & information simply never taken by the Warren Commission. Don't mistake lack of information with a lack of history.

Patrick C Wrote:

Garry Puffer Wrote:And how about that "large gaping hole in the back of the head"? A misstatement or a misremembering also?

Oh absolutely a miss remembering - there can be no doubt about it. The wound is above the ear as the Z film shows - though I accept the Z film does not prove where the shot comes from.

Dr Robert Grossman is pretty clear on where the wound is in his BBC Radio 4 interview which he gave post 2000 (above the ear). His role was minor so he was not focused on resuscitation and he was staring into the wound.

Dr. Grossman wasn't ever in the emergency room. You cannot produce any contemporary evidence for Dr. Grossman being associated with the JFK case in any manner. Nor will you even try...

The evidence for a wound in the BACK of the head is overwhelming. Indeed, even the Autopsy Report, which you claim to believe - places the wound in the back of the head.

So if you want to pretend that the wound wasn't in the occipital-parietal, you're going to be forced to deny the Autopsy Report publicly.

And if you admit that the wound was in the occipital-parietal - then all you need to do is explain what portion of the occipital isn't located at the back of the head.

But you won't.

You'll remain silent on these issues. (My crystal ball is busy predicting again...)

Patrick C Wrote:And of course we need the X rays and photos to be faked for a hole in the back of the head.......another fantasy of course.

There's a reason that the justice system regards eyewitnesses as more credible than photographs.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:And if you admit that the wound was in the occipital-parietal - then all you need to do is explain what portion of the occipital isn't located at the back of the head.

The wound was "somewhat occipital and temporal" mainly parietal as describes at autopsy / report.

There is no conflict in that with a rear sourced head shot which produced the entry wound we see in the back of the head in the records.

However, nothing I say will make your change your mind on the ridiculous fairy tale that you believe in - the phantom Grassy Knoll Gunman.....so there is little if any point in responding to the fatal shot non issue.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:And if you admit that the wound was in the occipital-parietal - then all you need to do is explain what portion of the occipital isn't located at the back of the head.

The wound was "somewhat occipital and temporal" mainly parietal as describes at autopsy / report.

And yet, you still cannot point to ANY PART OF THE OCCIPITAL WHATSOEVER that is not located in the back of the head.

Indeed, a wound "involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" could be ENTIRELY in the back of the head - based solely on that description.

Patrick C Wrote:There is no conflict in that with a rear sourced head shot which produced the entry wound we see in the back of the head in the records.

If this were totally true, then there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to re-define where the wound was... Nor would the Rydberg drawing be so dishonest:

Dishonesty like this is only required when the facts don't match up with the theory.

Patrick C Wrote:However, nothing I say will make your change your mind on the ridiculous fairy tale that you believe in - the phantom Grassy Knoll Gunman.....so there is little if any point in responding to the fatal shot non issue.

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.

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...)

[William Charleston]

There's a reason that the justice system regards eyewitnesses as more credible than photographs.

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Garry Puffer Wrote:"face" and "forehead" are quite different.

That statement is consistent with the methodology needed to solve the JFK "mystery"

1. Listen to the witnesses tell us what happened.
2. Use only evidence the US government could NOT have forged to prove which witnesses "got it right."

To hide the truth, the US government had to convince the public the witnesses were WRONG about their descriptions when in fact, the witnesses were usually right and the government's lies were of course wrong.

[Patrick C]

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 is for a wound that was chiefly parietal and somewhat extending into the occipital and temporal bones.....as we see in the Z film.

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...

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"......

[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?"