[Patrick C]

(11-12-2016, 04:48 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

John McAdams Wrote:

Bob Prudhomme Wrote:From the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:

Quote:Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car?

 
"Rear," of course, is extremely vague.

Here is Hill in a 1990s documentary putting the wound "above the ear."

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm

You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you.

BTW, do you think the Zapruder film is faked?

Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?

John McAdams is, as usual, being entirely deceptive... and this can be shown by one question...

Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

Now, an honest man, anyone familiar with the technical jargon, would instantly use "occipital," or "occipital region," or even "occipital-parietal" - since all three terms describe a wound to the BACK of the head. So when McAdams asserted that "Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you." - he was quite provably lying.

McAdams - and I also predict, Patrick Collins - will not offer any answer to the question of how to describe a wound to the back of the head - because it would prove that McAdams is, as usual, simply lying. And it's quite difficult indeed to get believers to admit that another believer is lying.

The wound was described repeatedly as being in the back of the head. That's where it was.

And neither John McAdams, Patrick Collins, Henry Sienzant, or any other Warren Commission believer can HONESTLY argue otherwise.

P.S. If Patrick answers this - I predict in advance that he'll refuse to answer the above posted hypothetical question.

The usual crap from Ben. I dont agree with everything every lone gunmann supporter says - for example I dont follow everything Max Holland thinks about the missing bullet.

The head wound, caused by the single bullet fired by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, blew out the area above the ear. the wound was primarily on the side of the head. In terms of the area of the skull, damage was mainly parietal, extending to the temporal and occipital areas as in "somewhat".

Scalp and bone was ripped open and so possibly when the body was lain on the gurney in a suppine position, blood would have fallen to the floor and brain could well have protruded downward giving the impression that the wound was further back in the head.

The area of the wound is clearly shown in the X rays - as in which bone is missing. Descrptions by the Dallas doctors are subjective and error prone to a small extent.

There is no  doubt that a bullet entered the rear of the head. The Zapruder film is supportive of this but offers no proof.

Sensationalist pro conspiracy believers who invent multiple shooter scenarios only add to the confusion that exists in this palpably open and shut case which was solved by the DPD by Saturday 23 Novemember 1963.

Your prediction that I would not answer the question is of course wrong Ben. Was McAdams lying ? I don't give a monkeys. Maybe he was misleading, but your fixation with semantics is tedious, boring and often misunderstood on your part.