[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.