[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You still haven't answered my question: If the doctors were wrong that the Harper's fragment was a piece of JFK's occipital bone, then which part of his head did it come from and why isn't the wound seen on any photos from Bethesda?

er...oh dear....the bone is a segment of the skull that is missing from the exit wound which is largely parietal (above the ear) "extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital areas". This wound is visible in the Zapruder film, but more importantly is apparent in the autopsy picture on the internet although these pictures are not especially clear.

Yet Patrick claims that Dr. Baden was correct when he stated "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."

As any intelligent reader can determine, these two statements by Patrick CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

Either the wound existed in the occipital-parietal area, or it didn't.

And Patrick cannot answer this without retracting one or the other of his contradicting statements...

[Patrick C]

(10-03-2016, 02:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You still haven't answered my question: If the doctors were wrong that the Harper's fragment was a piece of JFK's occipital bone, then which part of his head did it come from and why isn't the wound seen on any photos from Bethesda?

er...oh dear....the bone is a segment of the skull that is missing from the exit wound which is largely parietal (above the ear) "extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital areas". This wound is visible in the Zapruder film, but more importantly is apparent in the autopsy picture on the internet although these pictures are not especially clear.

Yet Patrick claims that Dr. Baden was correct when he stated "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."

As any intelligent reader can determine, these two statements by Patrick CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

Either the wound existed in the occipital-parietal area, or it didn't.

And Patrick cannot answer this without retracting one or the other of his contradicting statements...

Tripe. My post - which you have quoted only partially EXPLAINED clearly whether or not Baden was correct or not.

Do you understand the concept of mathematical sets Ben Holmes...?

THREE bones were damaged.

So stating that the wound was not in the parietal occipital area IF he meant to qualify the wound as being parietal - occipital AND temporal, then it is NOT "just" parietal occipital.

However in common parlance "including" two objects as part of a three object location or image is not seen as incorrect even if one part is missing.

I don't expect that you will understand the above if you did not understand the post the first time.

There are, as I have reminded you  on several ocassions, some good simple books on English comprehension - I suggest you try a couple.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-04-2016, 02:53 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(10-03-2016, 02:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You still haven't answered my question: If the doctors were wrong that the Harper's fragment was a piece of JFK's occipital bone, then which part of his head did it come from and why isn't the wound seen on any photos from Bethesda?

er...oh dear....the bone is a segment of the skull that is missing from the exit wound which is largely parietal (above the ear) "extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital areas". This wound is visible in the Zapruder film, but more importantly is apparent in the autopsy picture on the internet although these pictures are not especially clear.

Yet Patrick claims that Dr. Baden was correct when he stated "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."

As any intelligent reader can determine, these two statements by Patrick CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

Either the wound existed in the occipital-parietal area, or it didn't.

And Patrick cannot answer this without retracting one or the other of his contradicting statements...

Tripe. My post - which you have quoted only partially EXPLAINED clearly whether or not Baden was correct or not.

Do you understand the concept of mathematical sets Ben Holmes...?

THREE bones were damaged.

So stating that the wound was not in the parietal occipital area IF he meant to qualify the wound as being parietal - occipital AND temporal, then it is NOT "just" parietal occipital.

However in common parlance "including" two objects as part of a three object location or image is not seen as incorrect even if one part is missing.

I don't expect that you will understand the above if you did not understand the post the first time.

There are, as I have reminded you  on several ocassions, some good simple books on English comprehension - I suggest you try a couple.

This is really simple, Patrick.

When Dr. Baden stated: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said," was he telling the truth?

[Patrick C]

The wound is where the medical report puts it.

And you know where that is.

The wound that was caused by a single bullet fired from above and behind that was largely parietal and somewhat occiptal and temporal.

It really is that simple.

There was no shot from the Knoll, unless it missed and the shooter disappeared into thin air. I guess that cannot be technically ruled out in as much as you cannot prove something did not happen within the realms of reality.

Keep dreaming Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-04-2016, 07:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The wound is where the medical report puts it.

And you know where that is.

The wound that was caused by a single bullet fired from above and behind that was largely parietal and somewhat occiptal and temporal.

It really is that simple.

There was no shot from the Knoll, unless it missed and the shooter disappeared into thin air. I guess that cannot be technically ruled out in as much as you cannot prove something did not happen within the realms of reality.

Keep dreaming Ben.

You ran from it, so here it is again:

This is really simple, Patrick.

When Dr. Baden stated: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said," was he telling the truth?

Why can't you answer this, Patrick?

[Patrick C]

I have answered your question Ben Holmes. 

That you don't see that is your problem.

By the way...JFK was killed by a single shot to the head from the rear.

Keep dreaming Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-04-2016, 07:45 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I have answered your question Ben Holmes. 

That you don't see that is your problem.

By the way...JFK was killed by a single shot to the head from the rear.

Keep dreaming Ben.

You ran from it, so here it is again:

This is really simple, Patrick.

When Dr. Baden stated: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said," was he telling the truth?

Why can't you answer this, Patrick?

Your cowardice has twice prevented you from answering...
 

WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE!!!

[Patrick C]

I have answered your question twice now. Do you have reading issues...?

Search for "mathematical sets".

Putting banners up like what a coward you are highlighted in yellow just makes you look like a baby. Grow up Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-07-2016, 04:37 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I have answered your question twice now. Do you have reading issues...?

Search for "mathematical sets".

Putting banners up like what a coward you are highlighted in yellow just makes you look like a baby. Grow up Ben.

Here's the question again: When Dr. Baden stated: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said," was he telling the truth?

Simply cut & paste your answer to this question.

You can't, of course, BECAUSE YOU'RE LYING ABOUT HAVING ANSWERED IT.

When Dr. Baden stated: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said," was he telling the truth?

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question...

[Patrick C]

The wound was parietal extending somewhat into the temporal and occiptal plates.

That you feel that you don't have answer to your question, despite the fact that I have answered it twice, is of no interest to me and of no consequence to a study of the case. It is mere self indulgent tedium on your part Ben.

Cheerio.