JFK's Head Wound Location

***Ben Holmes*** · 11-12-2016, 04:48 PM

John McAdams Wrote:
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:From the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:

Quote:Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car?

"Rear," of course, is extremely vague.

Here is Hill in a 1990s documentary putting the wound "above the ear."

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm

You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you.

BTW, do you think the Zapruder film is faked?

Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?

John McAdams is, as usual, being entirely deceptive... and this can be shown by one question...

Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

Now, an honest man, anyone familiar with the technical jargon, would instantly use "occipital," or "occipital region," or even "occipital-parietal" - since all three terms describe a wound to the BACK of the head. So when McAdams asserted that "Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you." - he was quite provably lying.

McAdams - and I also predict, Patrick Collins - will not offer any answer to the question of how to describe a wound to the back of the head - because it would prove that McAdams is, as usual, simply lying. And it's quite difficult indeed to get believers to admit that another believer is lying.

The wound was described repeatedly as being in the back of the head. That's where it was.

And neither John McAdams, Patrick Collins, Henry Sienzant, or any other Warren Commission believer can HONESTLY argue otherwise.

P.S. If Patrick answers this - I predict in advance that he'll refuse to answer the above posted hypothetical question.

Ray Mitcham · 11-24-2016, 01:49 PM

Seems you were right, Ben. Patirck can't answer it.

Patrick C · 11-25-2016, 03:30 PM

(11-12-2016, 04:48 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
John McAdams Wrote:
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:From the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:

Quote:Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car?

"Rear," of course, is extremely vague.

Here is Hill in a 1990s documentary putting the wound "above the ear."

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm

You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you.

BTW, do you think the Zapruder film is faked?

Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?

John McAdams is, as usual, being entirely deceptive... and this can be shown by one question...

Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

Now, an honest man, anyone familiar with the technical jargon, would instantly use "occipital," or "occipital region," or even "occipital-parietal" - since all three terms describe a wound to the BACK of the head. So when McAdams asserted that "Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you." - he was quite provably lying.

McAdams - and I also predict, Patrick Collins - will not offer any answer to the question of how to describe a wound to the back of the head - because it would prove that McAdams is, as usual, simply lying. And it's quite difficult indeed to get believers to admit that another believer is lying.

The wound was described repeatedly as being in the back of the head. That's where it was.

And neither John McAdams, Patrick Collins, Henry Sienzant, or any other Warren Commission believer can HONESTLY argue otherwise.

P.S. If Patrick answers this - I predict in advance that he'll refuse to answer the above posted hypothetical question.

The usual crap from Ben. I dont agree with everything every lone gunmann supporter says - for example I dont follow everything Max Holland thinks about the missing bullet.

The head wound, caused by the single bullet fired by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, blew out the area above the ear. the wound was primarily on the side of the head. In terms of the area of the skull, damage was mainly parietal, extending to the temporal and occipital areas as in "somewhat".

Scalp and bone was ripped open and so possibly when the body was lain on the gurney in a suppine position, blood would have fallen to the floor and brain could well have protruded downward giving the impression that the wound was further back in the head.

The area of the wound is clearly shown in the X rays - as in which bone is missing. Descrptions by the Dallas doctors are subjective and error prone to a small extent.

There is no doubt that a bullet entered the rear of the head. The Zapruder film is supportive of this but offers no proof.

Sensationalist pro conspiracy believers who invent multiple shooter scenarios only add to the confusion that exists in this palpably open and shut case which was solved by the DPD by Saturday 23 Novemember 1963.

Your prediction that I would not answer the question is of course wrong Ben. Was McAdams lying ? I don't give a monkeys. Maybe he was misleading, but your fixation with semantics is tedious, boring and often misunderstood on your part.

***Ben Holmes*** · 11-25-2016, 08:55 PM

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(11-12-2016, 04:48 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: ....

John McAdams is, as usual, being entirely deceptive... and this can be shown by one question...

Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

Now, an honest man, anyone familiar with the technical jargon, would instantly use "occipital," or "occipital region," or even "occipital-parietal" - since all three terms describe a wound to the BACK of the head. So when McAdams asserted that "Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you." - he was quite provably lying.

McAdams - and I also predict, Patrick Collins - will not offer any answer to the question of how to describe a wound to the back of the head - because it would prove that McAdams is, as usual, simply lying. And it's quite difficult indeed to get believers to admit that another believer is lying.

The wound was described repeatedly as being in the back of the head. That's where it was.

And neither John McAdams, Patrick Collins, Henry Sienzant, or any other Warren Commission believer can HONESTLY argue otherwise.

P.S. If Patrick answers this - I predict in advance that he'll refuse to answer the above posted hypothetical question.

The usual crap from Ben. I dont agree with everything every lone gunmann supporter says - for example I dont follow everything Max Holland thinks about the missing bullet.

And yet, what I stated was ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You did indeed demonstrate yet again ... just how much a coward you are... and refused to answer the question.

Patrick CAN'T answer it, because it would demonstrate just how dishonest he is... so he evidently prefers to be known as a coward.

Once again... given the presumption that a wound were in the back of the head, what medical terminology would be appropriate to describe it?

All Patrick has are ad hominems... he can't debate the facts.

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: The head wound, caused by the single bullet fired by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald,

Speculation.

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: ... blew out the area above the ear. the wound was primarily on the side of the head.

Again, speculation. It's NOT based on the autopsy or the eyewitnesses. This explains why Patrick refuses to answer direct questions on the medical evidence.

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: In terms of the area of the skull, damage was mainly parietal, extending to the temporal and occipital areas as in "somewhat".

The only true statement you've made thus far. Your only problem with honesty is admitting where this is located on the head.

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Scalp and possibly bone was ripped open and so when the body was lain on the gurney in a suppine position, blood would have fallen to the floor and brain could well have protruded downward giving the impression that the wound was further back in the head.

Sheer speculation - and means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with regards to the Autopsy - WHICH DESCRIBED THE WOUND IN THE SAME MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY...

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: The area of the wound is clearly shown in the X rays - as in which bone is missing. Descrptions by the Dallas doctors are subjective and error prone to a small extent.

The X-rays are of rather doubtful authenticity, and the descriptions by the Dallas doctors HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE PROSECTORS.

This explains why you refuse to answer the question above...

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: There is no doubt that a bullet entered the rear of the head. The Zapruder film is supportive of this but offers no proof.

The evidence supports that... your problem is that the evidence also supports a frontal shot striking the right temple.

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Sensationalist pro conspiracy believers who invent multiple shooter scenarios only add to the confusion that exists in this palpably open and shut case which was solved by the DPD by Saturday 23 Novemember 1963.

One does not have to "invent" what the evidence shows...

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Your prediction that I would not answer the question is of course wrong Be.

And yet, no answer has been given by you. You're simply lying again.

YOU WILL BE TOTALLY UNABLE TO QUOTE MY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION - THEN QUOTE YOUR ANSWER TO IT...

Tell us Patrick, why do you constantly lie?

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Was McAdams lying ? I don't give a monkeys. Maybe he was misleading, but your fixation with semantics is tedious, boring and often misunderstood on your part.

Believers never point out when other believers lie.

***Ben Holmes*** · 11-25-2016, 10:43 PM

(11-24-2016, 01:49 PM)Ray Mitcham Wrote: Seems you were right, Ben. Patirck can't answer it.

Of course he can't. Patrick's a coward, just like most believers.

I can give a credible and reasonable answer to anything they can dare to ask about the case or evidence... the opposite simply isn't true.

It's simply a FACT that a majority of witnesses who were recorded in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll - Patrick refuses to admit it - indeed, he's publicly stated the opposite. A provable lie on his part.

Believers are forced to run, because the evidence simply doesn't support their faith.

And they aren't honest enough to admit it.

Patrick C · 11-26-2016, 01:22 AM

(11-25-2016, 10:43 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(11-24-2016, 01:49 PM)Ray Mitcham Wrote: Seems you were right, Ben. Patirck can't answer it.

Of course he can't. Patrick's a coward, just like most believers.

I can give a credible and reasonable answer to anything they can dare to ask about the case or evidence... the opposite simply isn't true.

It's simply a FACT that a majority of witnesses who were recorded in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll - Patrick refuses to admit it - indeed, he's publicly stated the opposite. A provable lie on his part.

Believers are forced to run, because the evidence simply doesn't support their faith.

And they aren't honest enough to admit it.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Of course he can't. Patrick's a coward, just like most believers.

Bull shit

Ben Holmes Wrote:I can give a credible and reasonable answer to anything they can dare to ask about the case or evidence... the opposite simply isn't true.

Bull shit - you can do no such thing.

Ben Holmes Wrote:It's simply a FACT that a majority of witnesses who were recorded in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll

Absolute bull shit. Making stuff up like that just make you look like an idiot.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick refuses to admit it - indeed, he's publicly stated the opposite. A provable lie on his part.

Believers are forced to run, because the evidence simply doesn't support their faith.

And they aren't honest enough to admit it.

You are so full of tripe Ben. I do hope one day we can engage in a public debate on this case...though I think you struggle with the concept of debate.

***Ben Holmes*** · 11-26-2016, 03:32 AM

(11-26-2016, 01:22 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:Of course he can't. Patrick's a coward, just like most believers.

Bull shit

Ben Holmes Wrote:I can give a credible and reasonable answer to anything they can dare to ask about the case or evidence... the opposite simply isn't true.

Bull shit - you can do no such thing.

Ben Holmes Wrote:It's simply a FACT that a majority of witnesses who were recorded in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll

Absolute bull shit. Making stuff up like that just make you look like an idiot.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick refuses to admit it - indeed, he's publicly stated the opposite. A provable lie on his part.

Believers are forced to run, because the evidence simply doesn't support their faith.

And they aren't honest enough to admit it.

You are so full of tripe Ben. I do hope one day we can engage in a public debate on this case...though I think you struggle with the concept of debate.

And still no answer to the question...

Patrick proves me right virtually everytime he posts... The coward STILL can't answer the question, or quote where he previously did...

Patrick C · 11-26-2016, 01:34 PM

Have you considered taking yourself of to a eminent psychologist - the way your mind works would be useful for scienctific endevour and discovery.....

(11-26-2016, 03:32 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(11-26-2016, 01:22 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:Of course he can't. Patrick's a coward, just like most believers.

Bull shit

Ben Holmes Wrote:I can give a credible and reasonable answer to anything they can dare to ask about the case or evidence... the opposite simply isn't true.

Bull shit - you can do no such thing.

Ben Holmes Wrote:It's simply a FACT that a majority of witnesses who were recorded in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll

Absolute bull shit. Making stuff up like that just make you look like an idiot.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick refuses to admit it - indeed, he's publicly stated the opposite. A provable lie on his part.

Believers are forced to run, because the evidence simply doesn't support their faith.

And they aren't honest enough to admit it.

You are so full of tripe Ben. I do hope one day we can engage in a public debate on this case...though I think you struggle with the concept of debate.

And still no answer to the question...

Patrick proves me right virtually everytime he posts... The coward STILL can't answer the question, or quote where he previously did...

Are you still banging on about McAdams and the location of the head wound? I have answered that question several times. As it seems I frequently do, even though nothing penetrtaes your thick skull.

The fatal shot fired by lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald caused a parietal exit wound which "somewhat" extended into the temporal and occipital regions according to the medical report. However McAdams addresses this subject on his web site. The semantics are perhaps significant here and his last sentence rather telling.

Conspiracy kooks who support the ridiculous notion that Kennedy was shot from the front will see their argument fails - especially when one considers the simple fact that the back of the head would largely not be visible to the medical staff at Parkland.

The unadulterated Zapruder film clear shows the back of Kennedy's head intact. As does Nix. The back of the head is in shade as the limo is heading into the early afternoon sun.

How McAdams described the wound is on his web site:-

Quote

*Conspiracy books assume that "occipital" must mean the area of the occipital bone. Thus an "occipital" wound must imply missing occipital bone. Yet the House Select Committee Forensic Pathology Panel clearly isn't using the word in this way.Likewise, in the late 1960s, four eminent forensic pathologists examined the autopsy materials at the request of Attorney General Ramsey Clark. They concluded:

Quote:The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head was struck from behind a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head.

Yet 100 mm. (about four inches) above the external occipital protuberance is in fact parietal bone. This is the exact point of entrance in the drawing done by Ida Dox for the House Select Committee (see above, right). Yet it is in the "occipital region." The Boston Globe, in an article addressing this issue, noted the following:

Quote:To critics of the official investigations, it is inconceivable that the presumably skilled Dallas doctors, conversant with anatomical terms, would consistently misuse words like "cerebellum" and "occipital" and say that the wound extended into the back of the head if, in fact, it did not.But speaking to the occipital question, Grossman [one of the Parkland doctors and] a neurosurgeon, suggested that part of the confusion surrounding the location of the head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term "occipital" is used. While the occiput refers specifically to a bone in the lower back section of the head, Grossman said many doctors loosely use the term to refer to "the back fifth of the head . . . there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It's all very imprecise." (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)

Grossman's position is supported by the "Glossary" of medical definitions offered by the House Select Committee on Assassinations:Occipital-parietalThe upper, back part of the head and skull.Occipital regionThe back part of the head.See the House Select Committee, Volume 7, page 213.Of course, the issue is much like that of witnesses who said the large defect was in the "back" of the head. "Back" can mean occipital bone, or it can mean the top of the head toward the back. Back can mean "posterior," in other words.What the conspiracy theorists are doing is to exploit the imprecision of the English language to argue for wounds that fit their theories.*

End quote

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm

I think that about wraps up my involvement in this "non subject", if you bozos want to consider believing in fairy tales and wrap youselves up in illusions that is up to you.

Here is where Doris Nelson who wrapped up JFK's head before they put the body in the coffin - placed the wound.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nelson.jpg

Right above the ear.

One for you "GK gunman, back of the head was blown" out dim witts to consider hey.

***Ben Holmes*** · 11-26-2016, 02:59 PM

(11-26-2016, 01:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(11-26-2016, 03:32 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Patrick proves me right virtually everytime he posts... The coward STILL can't answer the question, or quote where he previously did...

Are you still banging on about McAdams and the location of the head wound? I have answered that question several times. As it seems I frequently do, even though nothing penetrtaes your thick skull.

Just to remind everyone of what the hypothetical question was, here it is again:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

...

P.S. If Patrick answers this - I predict in advance that he'll refuse to answer the above posted hypothetical question.

Still no answer....

Patrick C · 11-27-2016, 01:54 PM

Ben Holmes Wrote:Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

Ah so that is the "question" ....and the point of the question is what....? To help you decide that the descriptions of the head wound show that JFK was struck from the front because the wound was occipital? Even though the Zapruder film shows the wound to be above the ear....

Anyway,

To start, depends what you mean by the "back of the head". Most people would say the back of the head was the whole area behind the ear. The medical profession as I have stated to you, often use occipital and occipital / parietal to describe the back of the head.The JFK wound was largely parietal and extended somewhat into the occipital and temporal bones.

McAdmas gives an excellent, well balanced and senisble appraisal of the whole thing on his web site including this quote from Dr Grossman.

Quote:But speaking to the occipital question, Grossman [one of the Parkland doctors and] a neurosurgeon, suggested that part of the confusion surrounding the location of the head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term "occipital" is used. While the occiput refers specifically to a bone in the lower back section of the head, Grossman said many doctors loosely use the term to refer to "the back fifth of the head . . . there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It's all very imprecise." (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)

Of course you will not be satisifed by the above, which I as an educated man, would suggest to you is more than an adequate explanation of the whole silly debate of the location of the head wound.

You may continue to tie yourself up in knots Ben with your twisted and cryptic logic, obviously it appeals to you, for me it gives me mild amusement for a few minutes each week and reminds me of the gulf that exists between people like you and intelligent and rational human beings who run the rings around you that you do not see. Pip Pip.