[Ben Holmes]

Quote:"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck, assuming that the President had been struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have been held by the assassin." (WCR 106)

The citations given for this statement, 'WC 5H 153' and 'WC 5H 137' do NOT state that the surveyor "placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck..." Indeed, there is no citation possible that will support this statement, since the wound was in JFK's back, not the back of his neck. Utilizing false citation like this to support a lie seems to be a frequent tactic of the WC, as well as supporters of the WC (Posner comes to mind)

Indeed, CE 903, which shows this same angle of declination that was measured by the surveyor (17º 43' 30"), fails to show a path beginning at the base of the neck.  Note the string in the background, which was set to exactly this declination.

Why did the WC simply lie about what the surveyor did?  Could it be that the Warren Commission was just trying to find more "evidence" for their theory?  By lying about that evidence?

What is clear, however, is that this is merely another example where the Warren Commission lied... 

And WCR Supporters such as Patrick and Mark simply cannot figure out a way to defend the lies shown here without the ability to use ad hominem.

Other believers such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Dale, David Von Pein... etc... all of whom know about this forum - refuse to post in a forum where they cannot use their only weapons... ad hominem attacks against critic posters. This fact shows that they well understand the weakness of their case - the Warren Commission has lost.