[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:And if you admit that the wound was in the occipital-parietal - then all you need to do is explain what portion of the occipital isn't located at the back of the head.

The wound was "somewhat occipital and temporal" mainly parietal as describes at autopsy / report.

And yet, you still cannot point to ANY PART OF THE OCCIPITAL WHATSOEVER that is not located in the back of the head.

Indeed, a wound "involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" could be ENTIRELY in the back of the head - based solely on that description.

Patrick C Wrote:There is no conflict in that with a rear sourced head shot which produced the entry wound we see in the back of the head in the records.

If this were totally true, then there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to re-define where the wound was... Nor would the Rydberg drawing be so dishonest:

Dishonesty like this is only required when the facts don't match up with the theory.

Patrick C Wrote:However, nothing I say will make your change your mind on the ridiculous fairy tale that you believe in - the phantom Grassy Knoll Gunman.....so there is little if any point in responding to the fatal shot non issue.

How can the location of the large wound in JFK's head be a 'non-issue'? The overwhelming evidence is for an occipital-parietal location - and no matter how it's twisted, that's a difficult location to reconcile with a rear shooter.

That this is true (that it's location is quite difficult to reconcile with a TSBD shooter) is shown by the often funny attempts by believers to re-define the location of the wound. (as even you are doing...)