[Ben Holmes]

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(09-11-2016, 04:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  As you well know, this is merely the tip of the iceberg for the evidence of a temple wound, and a large back of the head wound... Naturally, you know all this evidence is from actual eyewitnesses, who were there, and saw; yet you pretend that people who merely point this evidence out, and draw the natural conclusions must be extreme crackpots.

The temple wound was caused by the shock wave blasting out tissue and the bullet exit which as you know formed a half crescent in the bone. The positioning of the wound was mistakenly placed slightly further back by most of Parkland staff - which as DVP has stated - and I agree, seems somewhat perplexing. But it does not make the wound actually be in the back of the head as you believe.

This is sheer speculation on your part. You know that the earliest statements about this temple wound was that it was an entry. The fact that the large wound on JFK's head was in the back of the head is supported by virtually ALL of the eyewitnesses, AS WELL AS THE AUTOPSY REPORT - and you know this.

It's only contradicted by autopsy photos that have authenticity problems (they can't be matched to the only camera used by Bethesda), and by the extant Z-film, which EVEN YOU ACCEPT HAS EVIDENCE OF ALTERATION!!

This is, of course; something you continually refuse to address... you simply label it as kooky... then run away. You've admitted that you accept evidence that the government wasn't completely honest with the evidence in this case - yet refuse to explain why.
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Most of the doctors accepted quite easily that they were wrong.

Dead silence on the intimidation & badgering needed, as well as the outright lies. You know, for example; that the Parkland doctors "changed" their opinion on the throat wound based on the Autopsy Report - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECTORS CLAIM NEVER TO HAVE EVEN KNOWN OF THAT WOUND - LET ALONE DISSECTING IT...

So Parkland doctors changed their opinion BASED ON A LIE - and you won't address this fact. Cowardice is rampant in the WCR Supporter's community.
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The autopsy places the wound as largely parietal extending somewhat to the occipital and temporal bones (not a quote).

Which, of course, would be EXACTLY the same description given if the large wound were ENTIRELY IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

I know you won't answer, but I'll ask it anyway... what percentage of the Occipital is located in the "back of the head?"

What percentage of the Parietal is located in the "back of the head?"

You can't honestly answer these two questions, and just as David Von Pein did - you'll run.
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The Zapruder film shows the wound to be above the ear exactly where the medical report puts it.

Is this the same film that you accept contains evidence of its' alteration?

And, of course, you're lying... the medical reports are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the Parkland descriptions. As they are with the Bethesda descriptions... (You won't address it, but the HSCA lied on this point)
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  So either you accept the Parkland staff were out by a few inches or you have to believe that the Zapruder film has been altered and that the medical records have been tampered with AND that the autopsy staff have been part of a cover up to hide a frontal strike.

You're lying again, Patrick.

The medical records (ie. the Autopsy Report), is COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with virtually all the eyewitnesses who put the wound in the back of the head.

You admit that the Zapruder film contains evidence that it was altered...

The prosectors certainly did lie... the trail of fragments alone demonstrate that... I note for the record that you've been completely silent on this SCIENTIFIC HARD EVIDENCE for a frontal shot. The heavier larger fragments were toward the back of the skull - and you not only have no explanation for that fact, you simply refuse to address it. Sheer cowardice on your part, Patrick...
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is pretty obvious to me what is the more likely....human error and that a single fatal rear sourced shot killed JFK.

But when you have to lie about the evidence in order to put forth this opinion - it's clear that you realize the weakness of your case... and fully understand that you cannot be honest about the evidence... you won't, for example; deal with the issues I've raised in this post - because to do so contradicts your "opinions."
 

(09-12-2016, 12:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  As the body was supine, hair and blood would fall down toward the actual back of the head, it is possible this is why the doctors remembered the wound being further back. I have spoken to a number of head trauma surgeons about this over the years and they have stated that that is entirely possible.

While this might help explain the Parkland witnesses, it COMPLETELY fails to explain the Bethesda witnesses.

I defy you to find a "head trauma surgeon" who thinks such an explanation would be credible DURING AN AUTOPSY.
 

---

It's interesting to note that you've been dead silent on your lie about Mike Majerus. Why would it be so impossible for an honest man to admit that he made a mistake? You keep claiming to be honest, yet you keep proving otherwise... why is that Patrick?

Just to keep it in your memory, here it is again:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.