[Ben Holmes]

(09-13-2016, 09:57 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(09-12-2016, 07:02 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  As one critic noted in the Amazon forums:

Quote:Does anyone seriously doubt that Agent Sienzant would be delighted to have me out of the way?

He's referring to Henry Sienzant - who disappeared while I was posting on the Amazon forums, but has since reappeared now that I've been banned from Amazon.

Henry won't come near this forum, he's learned from hard experience that I'm perfectly happy to counter his nonsense, and point out his lies. Henry would rather not post here - knowing that he'd have to face questions such as the one Patrick is currently running from... (David Von Pein is equally afraid...)

For example, here's just one that Patrick is currently avoiding...
 

What percentage of the Parietal is in the BACK of the head?

And presuming that the witnesses previously shown were correct in their visual representation of where the wound was, is there ANYTHING about the description in the Autopsy Report that contradicts that?

The general consensus among the wound deception theory supporters is that there was a conflict between Parkland and Bethesda. If you have some other take on that - fine.

Yep... the HSCA lied on that issue - and you absolutely REFUSE to address this lie, and give ANY sort of credible explanation.

Nothing Parkland said in describing the wounds they saw was contradicted by Bethesda... NOTHING!

When the medical testimony was released by the ARRB - it showed that the descriptions between Parkland and Bethesda WERE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT regarding the locations of the wounds...
 

(09-13-2016, 09:57 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  The bullet entered the back of the head and exited the right temple. The exit wound above the ear resulted from the shock wave that followed the bullet that was fired by the lone assassin in the SE 6th corner TSBD.

This is your opinion, and unsupported by the actual evidence.

Indeed, it's IMPOSSIBLE for the sole description of the wound to be "above" the ear... it was clearly BEHIND the ear. It may have been both, but it's not possible that it was not behind the ear. Another misleading statement by the forum's leading liar (now that Mark has run away...)
 

(09-13-2016, 09:57 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  You tell us what % of the pariatel is in the back of the head....I am not going to bother.

No Patrick - it's not that you won't bother - it's that YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

No matter the number you assign, the MAJORITY of the Parietal is in the back of the head. And you're simply too much of a coward to admit this.

Because once you admit it, it becomes A FACT that the large wound on JFK's head was IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

I predicted you'd run from it... and as in virtually all of my predictions, I was 100% correct.
 

(09-13-2016, 09:57 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  You are the one who has the issue and impossible task of showing there was more than one shooter. The evidence does NOT support that scenario. Keep on dreaming Benny.

I 'prove' it virtually every day...

Each time I force you to run ... to show your cowardice... to blatantly lie about the evidence... to run from the evidence...

Each time I do this - I prove that your faith is nonsense.

For example, your yellow cowardice prevented you from answering the question: And presuming that the witnesses previously shown were correct in their visual representation of where the wound was, is there ANYTHING about the description in the Autopsy Report that contradicts that?

Why is that, Patrick?