[Ben Holmes]

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

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

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.

And yet, what I stated was ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You did indeed demonstrate yet again ... just how much a coward you are... and refused to answer the question.

Patrick CAN'T answer it, because it would demonstrate just how dishonest he is... so he evidently prefers to be known as a coward.

Once again... given the presumption that a wound were in the back of the head, what medical terminology would be appropriate to describe it?

All Patrick has are ad hominems... he can't debate the facts.
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The head wound, caused by the single bullet fired by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald,

Speculation.
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  ... blew out the area above the ear. the wound was primarily on the side of the head.

Again, speculation. It's NOT based on the autopsy or the eyewitnesses. This explains why Patrick refuses to answer direct questions on the medical evidence.
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  In terms of the area of the skull, damage was mainly parietal, extending to the temporal and occipital areas as in "somewhat".

The only true statement you've made thus far. Your only problem with honesty is admitting where this is located on the head.
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Scalp and possibly bone was ripped open and so 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.

Sheer speculation - and means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with regards to the Autopsy - WHICH DESCRIBED THE WOUND IN THE SAME MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY...
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

The X-rays are of rather doubtful authenticity, and the descriptions by the Dallas doctors HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE PROSECTORS.

This explains why you refuse to answer the question above...
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  There is no  doubt that a bullet entered the rear of the head. The Zapruder film is supportive of this but offers no proof.

The evidence supports that... your problem is that the evidence also supports a frontal shot striking the right temple.
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

One does not have to "invent" what the evidence shows...
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Your prediction that I would not answer the question is of course wrong Be.

And yet, no answer has been given by you. You're simply lying again.

YOU WILL BE TOTALLY UNABLE TO QUOTE MY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION - THEN QUOTE YOUR ANSWER TO IT...

Tell us Patrick, why do you constantly lie?
 

(11-25-2016, 03:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

Believers never point out when other believers lie.