[Ben Holmes]

Quote:Much of the speculation that has persisted in one form or another since November 22-24 came from people who usually spoke in good faith. Some of the errors have resulted simply from a lack of complete knowledge at the time of the event. In this category are the statements attributed to doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital who attended the dying President and described his wounds to the press afterward. It remained for the autopsy in Washington, completed early the next morning, to ascertain the full facts concerning the wounds. The correction of earlier assertions of fact on the basis of later and fuller analysis or investigation is a normal part of the process of accumulation of evidence. But it is not often that the process is conducted in such an intense glare of worldwide publicity, and later corrections have difficulty overtaking the original sensational reports. - Warren Commission Report, pg 638.

But there are only two wounds involved here... one, an Occipital-Parietal wound - which BOTH Parkland and Bethesda (as well as the Autopsy Report) stated existed. So no "correction of earlier assertions of fact" were made on this wound...

The only wound under dispute was the throat wound - WHICH THE AUTOPSY NEVER EXAMINED - AND CLAIMED NOT TO EVEN KNOW ABOUT.

So the contention of the Warren Commission that "correction of earlier assertions of fact" on the basis of an Autopsy that DID NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE DISPUTED "FACTS" - is an absolute and complete lie on their part.

It's interesting that believers continue telling lies on these issues... Patrick, for example; claiming that Dr. Baden was correct when he stated that the wound was not in the Parietal-Occipital... This is a tactic that David Von Pein is guilty of as well...

In other words, instead of trying to derive a theory from the facts, believers refuse to even acknowledge the facts... and keep pretending that the facts aren't what they are.

[Ben Holmes]

I'm not surprised that Patrick refuses to answer this.

Indeed, no Warren Commission Supporter can explain why the WC lied about the evidence in this case.

I daresay even the lawyers on the commission were surprised to see the amount of scrutiny their 'work' has undergone over the decades...

And rightfully so.