The entry wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in

[Ben Holmes]

Take from the censored forum:

>http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
>
>
>How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
>obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.

The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.

The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
support a shooter from the rear?

But, to actually answer the question, I rely on the actual Autopsy
Report, and the description of the wounds from dozens of people... you
rely on unsourced photos with no chain of custody.

Watch, as Puddy & Chuckles refuse to address the points raised here.

[BT George]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Take from the censored forum:
>
> >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
> >
> >
> >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
> >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
>
> The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
> an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
> entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
>

beb knows that the tie and collar likely helped limit the expansion of this wound, but he also knows (but will not admit) that *one* Parkland doctor Gene Akin *did* describe the *wound* was slightly ragged; and he also knows that some of them admitted that it could haven been *either* type of wound. Dummy knows these things, but likes his unsupported shots and gunmen better.

> The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
> DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
> of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
> support a shooter from the rear?
>

Let beb cite from the autopsy report where they called the BOH damage referred to part of the entrance wound which the AR *did* clearly describe. Let beb refute that JFK's skull was a broken up mess, and might well have contained damage to the BOH in the form fractures and resulting holes in the scalp that could have been hidden by the hair in the BOH photo, despite it's appearance that there was no other damage back there.

> But, to actually answer the question, I rely on the actual Autopsy
> Report, and the description of the wounds from dozens of people... you
> rely on unsourced photos with no chain of custody.
>

See above folks, then let the bebster explain. He can't, but since the coward *conveniently* put me in his kill file, he often gets to avoid the points I make. But *others* see them, and know why beb is an idiot.

> Watch, as Puddy & Chuckles refuse to address the points raised here.

Watch as Dufus remains behind his Killfilter.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 12:43:14 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Take from the censored forum:
> >
> > >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
> > >
> > >
> > >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
> > >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
> >
> > The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
> > an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
> > entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
> >
>
> beb knows that the tie and collar likely helped limit the expansion of this wound, but he also knows (but will not admit) that *one* Parkland doctor Gene Akin *did* describe the *wound* was slightly ragged; and he also knows that some of them admitted that it could haven been *either* type of wound. Dummy knows these things, but likes his unsupported shots and gunmen better.
>
>
> > The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
> > DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
> > of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
> > support a shooter from the rear?
> >
>
> Let beb cite from the autopsy report where they called the BOH damage referred to part of the entrance wound which the AR *did* clearly describe.

Let BT Barnum refute what *every* *single* *medical* *expert* described seeing, and how even the autopsy report runs concurrent with it.

>
> Let beb refute that JFK's skull was a broken up mess, and might well have contained damage to the BOH in the form fractures and resulting holes in the scalp that could have been hidden by the hair in the BOH photo, despite it's appearance that there was no other damage back there.

I deal with *did* rather than *could have*.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 12:43:14 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > Take from the censored forum:
>> >
>> > >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
>> > >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
>> >
>> > The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
>> > an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
>> > entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
>> >
>>
>> beb knows that the tie and collar likely helped limit the
>> expansion of this wound, but he also knows (but will not admit) that
>> *one* Parkland doctor Gene Akin *did* describe the *wound* was
>> slightly ragged; and he also knows that some of them admitted that it
>> could haven been *either* type of wound. Dummy knows these things,
>> but likes his unsupported shots and gunmen better.

Desperately seeking the outlier that will support his silly theory.

Nor did the tie and collar do anything at all, the wound was ABOVE
both.

And *NO-ONE* asserted that it could be either until they were
intimidated to do so. This troll can't show a *SINGLE* doctor who said
anything other than an 'entry' wound on that first day.

>> > The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
>> > DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
>> > of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
>> > support a shooter from the rear?
>> >
>>
>> Let beb cite from the autopsy report where they called the BOH
>> damage referred to part of the entrance wound which the AR *did*
>> clearly describe.

"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

See how easy that was? I keep the Autopsy Report on my computer for
frequent troll slapping purposes.

Watch as this troll ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to tell us what part of the
occipital isn't located on the BACK of JFK's head... (indeed, even a
large portion of the parital!)

> Let BT Barnum refute what *every* *single* *medical* *expert*
> described seeing, and how even the autopsy report runs concurrent with
> it.

Indeed correct. The troll will run or evade...

>> Let beb refute that JFK's skull was a broken up mess, and might
>> well have contained damage to the BOH

Here it is again:
1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

There's no "might" involved.

>> in the form fractures and
>> resulting holes in the scalp that could have been hidden by the hair

What was holding the hair? There was a lack of bone and scalp. Can't
you read?

>> in the BOH photo, despite it's appearance that there was no other
>> damage back there.

A hole lacking both bone and scalp is certainly "damage."

>I deal with *did* rather than *could have*.

Indeed. This troll relies on an unsourced photo with no chain of
custody... I rely on the actual Autopsy Report and virtually EVERY
SINGLE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who saw and described that wound.

[donald willis]

Is this where the Harper fragment came from??

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 12:43:14 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > Take from the censored forum:
> >> >
> >> > >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
> >> > >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
> >> >
> >> > The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
> >> > an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
> >> > entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
> >> >
> >>
> >> beb knows that the tie and collar likely helped limit the
> >> expansion of this wound, but he also knows (but will not admit) that
> >> *one* Parkland doctor Gene Akin *did* describe the *wound* was
> >> slightly ragged; and he also knows that some of them admitted that it
> >> could haven been *either* type of wound. Dummy knows these things,
> >> but likes his unsupported shots and gunmen better.
>
>
> Desperately seeking the outlier that will support his silly theory.

Desperately ignoring information that goes against your ideas.

> Nor did the tie and collar do anything at all, the wound was ABOVE
> both.

Kennedy`s wound...

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE1_HI.JPG

Kennedy at Love Field...

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184620/m1/1/med_res/

> And *NO-ONE* asserted that it could be either until they were
> intimidated to do so. This troll can't show a *SINGLE* doctor who said
> anything other than an 'entry' wound on that first day.

Ben can`t show that a single doctor made an investigation to determine the facts about that wound.

Why would they include this if it wen`t against their findings?

> There's no "might" involved.
>
>
> >> in the form fractures and
> >> resulting holes in the scalp that could have been hidden by the hair
>
>
> What was holding the hair?

Boswell.

>There was a lack of bone and scalp.

They were holding up the skin in an attempt to show the bullet hole in it.

> Can't
> you read?
>
>
> >> in the BOH photo, despite it's appearance that there was no other
> >> damage back there.
>
>
> A hole lacking both bone and scalp is certainly "damage."
>
>
> >I deal with *did* rather than *could have*.
>
>
> Indeed. This troll relies on an unsourced photo with no chain of
> custody... I rely on the actual Autopsy Report and virtually EVERY
> SINGLE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who saw and described that wound.

Perhaps there is no conflict. Did any of the doctors look at the autopsy photos and say that isn`t what they saw?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > What was holding the hair?
>
> Boswell.
>
> >There was a lack of bone and scalp.
>
> They were holding up the skin in an attempt to show the bullet hole in it.

Interesting. Was Boswell holding the back of his scalp in place in the Zapruder film as well?

[Ben Holmes]

That's what the evidence would show. The Harper fragment was labeled
as Occipital bone by the doctor who handled it.

[Bud]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:30:14 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Of course, if Boswell was holding UP the scalp, then the troll can
easily admit that there was a large hole in the BACK of JFK's head.

Watch him run, however...

[BT George]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 1:16:58 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 12:43:14 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > Take from the censored forum:
> >> >
> >> > >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
> >> > >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
> >> >
> >> > The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
> >> > an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
> >> > entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
> >> >
> >>
> >> beb knows that the tie and collar likely helped limit the
> >> expansion of this wound, but he also knows (but will not admit) that
> >> *one* Parkland doctor Gene Akin *did* describe the *wound* was
> >> slightly ragged; and he also knows that some of them admitted that it
> >> could haven been *either* type of wound. Dummy knows these things,
> >> but likes his unsupported shots and gunmen better.
>
>
> Desperately seeking the outlier that will support his silly theory.
>

IOW, beb only believes the doctors when they agree with him.

> Nor did the tie and collar do anything at all, the wound was ABOVE
> both.
>

How did beb prove that? Does dufus think the bullet entered JFK's collar and tie first, then backed out and bored into his neck before it went "poof" since it was never found? Or maybe beb has a bullet that magically pierced the tie and collar, but didn't wound JFK.

> And *NO-ONE* asserted that it could be either until they were
> intimidated to do so. This troll can't show a *SINGLE* doctor who said
> anything other than an 'entry' wound on that first day.
>

Let beb prove this intimidation. And let beb explain why doctors in a desperate effort to save the POTUS' life would be conducting a thorough forensic analysis. ...He does know most of them spent only a few minutes with the body. Also, can bebby show that *all* the doctors addressed the neck wound on day one, or that any of them said anything more definitive than this (Perry from a day one interview---all emphasis mine.)":


The wound **appeared*** to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was **not time to determine** this at the particular instant.

Yes, I know the second comment was directed at the head wound, but it underscores my point about their limited time and mission.

>
> >> > The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
> >> > DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
> >> > of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
> >> > support a shooter from the rear?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Let beb cite from the autopsy report where they called the BOH
> >> damage referred to part of the entrance wound which the AR *did*
> >> clearly describe.
>
>
> "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>

This has been addressed by me elsewhere, and even below. beb's wants to ignore that explanation, and also ignore that the above is an attempt to describe the **EXIT** wound, not the entrance!

Read this for yourselves lurkers and decide what is being discussed here. Here is the full report, but you want to focus in particular on the MISSILE WOUNDS: and SUMMARY: sections:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

...Oh, and as much as beb and "Boris" scoff at my explanation the the BOH damage *extending* from the direction of the exit wound likely refers to small tears and/or missing scalp caused by damage to the skull, not these words from the MISSILE WOUND section. (Emphasis again mine.)

"**From the irregular margins of the above** scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the **more or less intact scalp** as follows:"

Translation, no huge portion of scalp (or bone) was likely missing back there.

> See how easy that was? I keep the Autopsy Report on my computer for
> frequent troll slapping purposes.
>

..And proceeds to hang himself with it---as usual.

> Watch as this troll ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to tell us what part of the
> occipital isn't located on the BACK of JFK's head... (indeed, even a
> large portion of the parital!)
>

Watch as beb refuses to acknowledge that his objections have been thoroughly explained by me.

>
> > Let BT Barnum refute what *every* *single* *medical* *expert*
> > described seeing, and how even the autopsy report runs concurrent with
> > it.
>

So the autopsist's concluded JFK was shot from the front? Is that what you read lurkers? You see, beb doesn't understand the simple fact that it is the conclusion of the *autopsy* not the descriptions of medical doctors embroiled in a few minutes long emergency revival effort that would be considered dispositive in a court of law, even as it should be in the minds of intelligent and sane persons everywhere.

>
> Indeed correct. The troll will run or evade...
>

...Behold my flight.

>
> >> Let beb refute that JFK's skull was a broken up mess, and might
> >> well have contained damage to the BOH
>
>
> Here it is again:
> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>
> There's no "might" involved.
>

Well since beb now religiously agrees with the descriptions in the autopsy report, surely he is ready to embrace these too:

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits **beveling** of
the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
skull.

and

Received as separate specimens from Dallas, Texas are three
fragments of skull bone which in aggregate **roughly approximate** the
dimensions of the **large defect** described above. At one angle of the
largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly
circular wound **presumably of exit which exhibits beveling of the
outer aspect of the bone** and is estimated to measure approximately
2.5 to 3.0 cm. in diameter.


and

"Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right
posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar. In **each** there is loss
of continuity of the epidermis with **coagulation necrosis** of the tissues
at the wound margins."


(Lurkers note this, and see what coagulation necrosis is indicative of:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24931861)



Leading to this:

"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
wounds"

>
> >> in the form fractures and
> >> resulting holes in the scalp that could have been hidden by the hair
>
>
> What was holding the hair? There was a lack of bone and scalp. Can't
> you read?
>

Looks like it's beb's who either cannot read or comprehend what he is reading.

>
> >> in the BOH photo, despite it's appearance that there was no other
> >> damage back there.
>
>
> A hole lacking both bone and scalp is certainly "damage."
>

Asked and answered folks.

>
> >I deal with *did* rather than *could have*.
>
>
> Indeed. This troll relies on an unsourced photo with no chain of
> custody... I rely on the actual Autopsy Report and virtually EVERY
> SINGLE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who saw and described that wound.

Lurker's do you see anything of what beb's just blurted out in the above? No? Me either. :-)

Now let beb's admit that he *disagrees* with this very same autopsy report on the **main** things it says, yet expects me to play "gotcha" on minor and unclear details.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

A lot of bullshit and "could have's" in your post, including what you think holds up in a court of law, as well as a very self-important idea that *your* explanation of the BOH wound trumps that of *every* *single* witness. But I'll just step in to say this one quick thing...

If the conclusions of the autopsy differ from the findings of the autopsy, you go with the findings. Reason being that "conclusions" is another word for "opinion", and "findings" is another word for "science."

That in mind, it's easy to see which of the two LN believers prefer. And why.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

slam-dunk...

> That in mind, it's easy to see which of the two LN believers prefer. And why.

cha-ching, the nutter's can't escape!

[BT George]

Not *my* explanation. The self-same autopsy report a second a go these guys were holding up as if it where the Constitution. Note how "Boris" thinks he and bebby are better able to read and understand the meaning of an autopsy report that HFB *and* 17 or 18 forensic professionals who have read it and interpreted the photos since. Other than disagreeing with the exact location of the BOH entry (probably erroneously based on a single BOH photograph and where it at least *appears* the entry hole is located), they all agree that it describes only *two* entry wounds *both* from the back. Even Wecht, who postulates a silly GK shot, admits that the *available* medical evidence would not allow him to forensically support another conclusion.

> That in mind, it's easy to see which of the two LN believers prefer. And why.
>

Yet Imbecile cannot see what is easy for he and the other 2 JFK Stooges to accept and what they would like to reject.

[BT George]

Hallucinating again Healy? It was *you* guys that just ran from the same autopsy report you were crowing about earlier.

[Bud]

Then produce the explanations given by each and every witness.

> But I'll just step in to say this one quick thing...
>
> If the conclusions of the autopsy differ from the findings of the autopsy, you go with the findings. Reason being that "conclusions" is another word for "opinion", and "findings" is another word for "science."

They are synonymous, stupid.

And without conclusions you`d only have "there was a wound here and a wound there".

[healyd...@gmail.com]

amazing, straw man and ad hom..... you're a mighty midget of vast imagination...

[BT George]

What straw man? beb and "Boris" like the autopsy report...except when they "don't". And since you cannot perceive who is doing the running here, I was hoping "hallucination" might be a kind explanation. There are others much less charitable. :-)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > A lot of bullshit and "could have's" in your post, including what you think holds up in a court of law, as well as a very self-important idea that *your* explanation of the BOH wound trumps that of *every* *single* witness.
>
> Then produce the explanations given by each and every witness.

Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"? Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.

Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film? And wouldn't his hand
holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 6:15:13 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > A lot of bullshit and "could have's" in your post, including what you think holds up in a court of law, as well as a very self-important idea that *your* explanation of the BOH wound trumps that of *every* *single* witness.
> >
> > Then produce the explanations given by each and every witness.
>
> Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"?

You didn`t like Brock`s *explanations*. You claimed they were in conflict with the *explanations* given by the witnesses. So just what were the *explanations* these witnesses gave?

Because what you were actually talking about is that you didn`t like Brock`s explanations of the evidence as much as you liked your own, but tried to attribute this position to the witnesses.

> Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.
>
> Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film?

Probably attached to his wrist. Do you think your non sequitur advances some idea?

> And wouldn't his hand
> holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?

There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"?
>
> You didn`t like Brock`s *explanations*.

Naturally, his opinion means nothing to me. And *explanations* should have been in quotes, in the context you used it.

>
> You claimed they were in conflict with the *explanations* given by the witnesses. So just what were the *explanations* these witnesses gave?
>
> Because what you were actually talking about is that you didn`t like Brock`s explanations of the evidence as much as you liked your own,

I didn't provide an explanation. I cite sources, but they are not "my own."

>
> but tried to attribute this position to the witnesses.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

>
> > Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.
> >
> > Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film?
>
> Probably attached to his wrist.

No, his wrist was not seen in the Zapruder film. You'd be smart if you weren't so dumb.

>
> Do you think your non sequitur advances some idea?

You advanced it yourself, by evading a real answer. It's clear why you don't answer the question. Everyone knows why, and at this point I have to assume you do as well, which makes you a chickenshit coward. Doesn't it? :-)

>
> > And wouldn't his hand
> > holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?
>
> There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.

Notice the avoidance of the question again. The troll wants to put forward an explanation of the BOH photo by saying Boswell was holding a flap in place. Yet there's no flap in the Z-film, and even Grand Poobah imbecile DVP has no explanation for any of this. Bud doesn't either, hence these "politician" answers, which will undoubtedly continue, to my great amusement (and hopefully yours as well, lurkers).

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:15:12 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Indeed!

Believers like to have their cake and eat it too!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> > And wouldn't his hand
>> > holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?
>>
>> There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.
>
> Notice the avoidance of the question again. The troll wants to put
> forward an explanation of the BOH photo by saying Boswell was holding
> a flap in place. Yet there's no flap in the Z-film, and even Grand
> Poobah imbecile DVP has no explanation for any of this. Bud doesn't
> either, hence these "politician" answers, which will undoubtedly
> continue, to my great amusement (and hopefully yours as well,
> lurkers).

Of *course* Puddy runs... he's a coward.

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 6:47:07 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"?
> >
> > You didn`t like Brock`s *explanations*.
>
> Naturally, his opinion means nothing to me. And *explanations* should have been in quotes, in the context you used it.

I was emphasising the word. You were changing the argument from witness explanations to witness accounts. They aren`t the same, although I doubt you can make the distinction.

> > You claimed they were in conflict with the *explanations* given by the witnesses. So just what were the *explanations* these witnesses gave?
> >
> > Because what you were actually talking about is that you didn`t like Brock`s explanations of the evidence as much as you liked your own,
>
> I didn't provide an explanation. I cite sources, but they are not "my own."

So no explanations are required from us for the things you bring up. When did this start?

And now we have witness accounts for a large wound in the back of Kennedy`s head. You have no explanation for this. Ben does not allow for speculation. Where does that leave us?

With the findings of the autopsy.

> >
> > but tried to attribute this position to the witnesses.
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

That is the information. What is the explanation for this information? You admit you have none. Ben doesn`t like speculation. Now what?

The only possibility is the information just sits there. Or you accept the findings of experts.

> >
> > > Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.
> > >
> > > Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film?
> >
> > Probably attached to his wrist.
>
> No, his wrist was not seen in the Zapruder film. You'd be smart if you weren't so dumb.
>
> >
> > Do you think your non sequitur advances some idea?
>
> You advanced it yourself, by evading a real answer. It's clear why you don't answer the question. Everyone knows why, and at this point I have to assume you do as well, which makes you a chickenshit coward. Doesn't it? :-)

You`re the one doing the chicken dance. You seem to think you were advancing an idea. Can you let us in on what it was?

> >
> > > And wouldn't his hand
> > > holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?
> >
> > There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.
>
> Notice the avoidance of the question again. The troll wants to put forward an explanation of the BOH photo by saying Boswell was holding a flap in place. Yet there's no flap in the Z-film,

You are trying to conduct an autopsy using a grainy home movie filmed from a distance.

> and even Grand Poobah imbecile DVP has no explanation for any of this. Bud doesn't either, hence these "politician" answers, which will undoubtedly continue, to my great amusement (and hopefully yours as well, lurkers).

You want better answers ask better questions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:16:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Ben does not allow for speculation. Where does that leave us?

You're lying again, Puddy.

There's a time and a place for speculation, BUT NOT AS A REPLACEMENT
FOR KNOWN EVIDENCE.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:16:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 6:47:07 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"?
> > >
> > > You didn`t like Brock`s *explanations*.
> >
> > Naturally, his opinion means nothing to me. And *explanations* should have been in quotes, in the context you used it.
>
> I was emphasising the word. You were changing the argument from witness explanations to witness accounts. They aren`t the same, although I doubt you can make the distinction.

Oh, I can. And neither of them help you.

>
> > > You claimed they were in conflict with the *explanations* given by the witnesses. So just what were the *explanations* these witnesses gave?
> > >
> > > Because what you were actually talking about is that you didn`t like Brock`s explanations of the evidence as much as you liked your own,
> >
> > I didn't provide an explanation. I cite sources, but they are not "my own."
>
> So no explanations are required from us for the things you bring up. When did this start?

Reading comprehension problems? *MY* explanations are not required, when I can cite experts and official documents.

>
> And now we have witness accounts for a large wound in the back of Kennedy`s head. You have no explanation for this. Ben does not allow for speculation. Where does that leave us?

I have an explanation, and it leaves us with no need for speculation at all. Every medical expert witnessed what they saw, described it in words, and even illustrated it in pictures for illiterate morons like you. The findings of the autopsy report confirm it. A large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area. *I* can accept that. *You* can't. And that's why you're arguing, because *you* have a problem. And you have *nothing* to offer by way of rebuttal except for one photo with a chain of custody problem. Not good. Not good at all. I'll take the experts. I'll take the autopsy findings. You'll take a dick in your hand for 200, Alex.

>
> With the findings of the autopsy.

Yes, but I brought this up already. If the conclusions of the autopsy differ from the findings of the autopsy, you go with the findings.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/DtrK8OteAwAJ

I explained that. You ignored it. And now you're pretending to school *me* on this. Hilarious. And let me guess, you want lurkers to believe that you are able to interpret and understand what the Parkland witnesses saw better than they did. If a large BOH wound implicated Oswald as the sole assassin, you would understand what "massive opening in the back of the head" (HUTTON) or "a large hole squarely in the occiput" (GROSSMAN) or "the right temporal and occipital bones were missing" (BAXTER) means.

>
> > >
> > > but tried to attribute this position to the witnesses.
> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> That is the information. What is the explanation for this information? You admit you have none. Ben doesn`t like speculation. Now what?
>
> The only possibility is the information just sits there. Or you accept the findings of experts.

I do. All of them, in fact. I accept everything they FOUND relating to his head. Do you accept what they FOUND? Or only what they CONCLUDED (i.e., "opined")?

>
> > >
> > > > Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film?
> > >
> > > Probably attached to his wrist.
> >
> > No, his wrist was not seen in the Zapruder film. You'd be smart if you weren't so dumb.
> >
> > >
> > > Do you think your non sequitur advances some idea?
> >
> > You advanced it yourself, by evading a real answer. It's clear why you don't answer the question. Everyone knows why, and at this point I have to assume you do as well, which makes you a chickenshit coward. Doesn't it? :-)
>
> You`re the one doing the chicken dance. You seem to think you were advancing an idea. Can you let us in on what it was?
>
> > >
> > > > And wouldn't his hand
> > > > holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?
> > >
> > > There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.
> >
> > Notice the avoidance of the question again. The troll wants to put forward an explanation of the BOH photo by saying Boswell was holding a flap in place. Yet there's no flap in the Z-film,
>
> You are trying to conduct an autopsy using a grainy home movie filmed from a distance.

HILARIOUS! I really don't need to say anything more. This answer should be your reflection in the mirror every day, your scarlet A. You're a disgrace. And the tone of this may come off angry, but I'm really quite pleased!

>
> > and even Grand Poobah imbecile DVP has no explanation for any of this. Bud doesn't either, hence these "politician" answers, which will undoubtedly continue, to my great amusement (and hopefully yours as well, lurkers).
>
> You want better answers ask better questions.

Oh, I think it's an EXCELLENT question. And your answer was merely as good as you could give.

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:53:51 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:16:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 6:47:07 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"?
> > > >
> > > > You didn`t like Brock`s *explanations*.
> > >
> > > Naturally, his opinion means nothing to me. And *explanations* should have been in quotes, in the context you used it.
> >
> > I was emphasising the word. You were changing the argument from witness explanations to witness accounts. They aren`t the same, although I doubt you can make the distinction.
>
> Oh, I can. And neither of them help you.

These are your ideas, I don`t need the help.

> >
> > > > You claimed they were in conflict with the *explanations* given by the witnesses. So just what were the *explanations* these witnesses gave?
> > > >
> > > > Because what you were actually talking about is that you didn`t like Brock`s explanations of the evidence as much as you liked your own,
> > >
> > > I didn't provide an explanation. I cite sources, but they are not "my own."
> >
> > So no explanations are required from us for the things you bring up. When did this start?
>
> Reading comprehension problems? *MY* explanations are not required, when I can cite experts and official documents.

The information is the information. Now what?

> >
> > And now we have witness accounts for a large wound in the back of Kennedy`s head. You have no explanation for this. Ben does not allow for speculation. Where does that leave us?
>
> I have an explanation, and it leaves us with no need for speculation at all. Every medical expert witnessed what they saw, described it in words, and even illustrated it in pictures for illiterate morons like you. The findings of the autopsy report confirm it. A large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area.

Ok. What about it?

You weren`t offering any explanations. Brock did, but you blew them off.

Now what?

> *I* can accept that. *You* can't. And that's why you're arguing, because *you* have a problem. And you have *nothing* to offer by way of rebuttal

Against what? You act like you have made an argument that requires a rebuttal. You say "The witnesses said this". I don`t contest they did. Now what?

>except for one photo with a chain of custody problem.

Says who?

> Not good. Not good at all. I'll take the experts. I'll take the autopsy findings.

That Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from behind?

> You'll take a dick in your hand for 200, Alex.
>
>
> >
> > With the findings of the autopsy.
>
> Yes, but I brought this up already. If the conclusions of the autopsy differ from the findings of the autopsy, you go with the findings.

Looks like you didn`t believe me when I told you they both meant the same thing, so I have to school you...

finding; a conclusion reached as a result of an inquiry, investigation, or trial.

conclusion; the end or finish of an event or process.

Synonyms for "findings"...

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/findings

Note the word "conclusion".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/DtrK8OteAwAJ
>
> I explained that. You ignored it. And now you're pretending to school *me* on this. Hilarious. And let me guess, you want lurkers to believe that you are able to interpret and understand what the Parkland witnesses saw better than they did.

Why would these witnesses "interpret" what they themselves said, stupid?

*We* interpret what they said, they don`t. Presumably they know what they meant. You pretend it is the witnesses taking these positions when it is actually you taking the positions and pretending it is theirs.

> If a large BOH wound implicated Oswald as the sole assassin, you would understand what "massive opening in the back of the head" (HUTTON) or "a large hole squarely in the occiput" (GROSSMAN) or "the right temporal and occipital bones were missing" (BAXTER) means.

You aren`t making an argument by merely quoting people.

This is how it works, you take an idea and the support for that idea and you put it on the table for consideration. Make an argument.

> > > >
> > > > but tried to attribute this position to the witnesses.
> > >
> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >
> > That is the information. What is the explanation for this information? You admit you have none. Ben doesn`t like speculation. Now what?
> >
> > The only possibility is the information just sits there. Or you accept the findings of experts.
>
> I do. All of them, in fact. I accept everything they FOUND relating to his head. Do you accept what they FOUND? Or only what they CONCLUDED (i.e., "opined")?

They both mean the same thing.

And do you understand why they perform an autopsy rather than have random people say they saw a wound here and a wound there?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film?
> > > >
> > > > Probably attached to his wrist.
> > >
> > > No, his wrist was not seen in the Zapruder film. You'd be smart if you weren't so dumb.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think your non sequitur advances some idea?
> > >
> > > You advanced it yourself, by evading a real answer. It's clear why you don't answer the question. Everyone knows why, and at this point I have to assume you do as well, which makes you a chickenshit coward. Doesn't it? :-)
> >
> > You`re the one doing the chicken dance. You seem to think you were advancing an idea. Can you let us in on what it was?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > And wouldn't his hand
> > > > > holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?
> > > >
> > > > There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.
> > >
> > > Notice the avoidance of the question again. The troll wants to put forward an explanation of the BOH photo by saying Boswell was holding a flap in place. Yet there's no flap in the Z-film,
> >
> > You are trying to conduct an autopsy using a grainy home movie filmed from a distance.
>
> HILARIOUS! I really don't need to say anything more. This answer should be your reflection in the mirror every day, your scarlet A. You're a disgrace. And the tone of this may come off angry, but I'm really quite pleased!

Imagine how happy you would have been if you were actually able to respond to what I wrote.

> >
> > > and even Grand Poobah imbecile DVP has no explanation for any of this. Bud doesn't either, hence these "politician" answers, which will undoubtedly continue, to my great amusement (and hopefully yours as well, lurkers).
> >
> > You want better answers ask better questions.
>
> Oh, I think it's an EXCELLENT question. And your answer was merely as good as you could give.

The truth.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

yet ANOTHER straw man.... have you no shame?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

TOP POST Only:
Jesus,Mary & Joseph, Dudster! This has got to hurt. Every time you turn around you are losing another piece of your miserable .johnite reputation. O-U-C-H!

[donald willis]

I have to admit I'm getting more and more confused in my researches into the head shot(s). Could someone please diagram a skull and indicate where each side designates the entry and exit wounds? For instance, Marsh says there's no hole at all in the back of the skull. I've seen a photo in which there is one small hole there. The 11/22 medical team seemed, I believe, to suggest a large blow-out at the back of the skull. All three can't be right....

And I assume the "back" of the skull is not the same as the "back" of the "top" of the skull, but maybe some use "back" and "top" interchangeably....

dcw

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"?
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn`t like Brock`s *explanations*.
> > > >
> > > > Naturally, his opinion means nothing to me. And *explanations* should have been in quotes, in the context you used it.
> > >
> > > I was emphasising the word. You were changing the argument from witness explanations to witness accounts. They aren`t the same, although I doubt you can make the distinction.
> >
> > Oh, I can. And neither of them help you.
>
> These are your ideas, I don`t need the help.
>
> > >
> > > > > You claimed they were in conflict with the *explanations* given by the witnesses. So just what were the *explanations* these witnesses gave?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because what you were actually talking about is that you didn`t like Brock`s explanations of the evidence as much as you liked your own,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't provide an explanation. I cite sources, but they are not "my own."
> > >
> > > So no explanations are required from us for the things you bring up. When did this start?
> >
> > Reading comprehension problems? *MY* explanations are not required, when I can cite experts and official documents.
>
> The information is the information. Now what?

Now you sob and complain, while I parade out the medical experts. And unlike Chuck's peacock hyperbole about CE399, this time it really was "ALL THE EXPERTS" who saw a large cavity in the back of Kennedy's head.

>
> > >
> > > And now we have witness accounts for a large wound in the back of Kennedy`s head. You have no explanation for this. Ben does not allow for speculation. Where does that leave us?
> >
> > I have an explanation, and it leaves us with no need for speculation at all. Every medical expert witnessed what they saw, described it in words, and even illustrated it in pictures for illiterate morons like you. The findings of the autopsy report confirm it. A large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area.
>
> Ok. What about it?
>
> You weren`t offering any explanations. Brock did, but you blew them off.
>
> Now what?
>
> > *I* can accept that. *You* can't. And that's why you're arguing, because *you* have a problem. And you have *nothing* to offer by way of rebuttal
>
> Against what? You act like you have made an argument that requires a rebuttal. You say "The witnesses said this". I don`t contest they did.

That's because you can't contest it. All you can do is pretend like you don't know what it means.

Now what?
>
> >except for one photo with a chain of custody problem.
>
> Says who?

You're welcome to comb through this and find what you think supports your position.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43606#relPageId=2&tab=page

Or not. What do I care?

>
> > Not good. Not good at all. I'll take the experts. I'll take the autopsy findings.
>
> That Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from behind?

No, that's what they opined. What did they record in their medical findings while doing the autopsy?

> >
> > Yes, but I brought this up already. If the conclusions of the autopsy differ from the findings of the autopsy, you go with the findings.
>
> Looks like you didn`t believe me when I told you they both meant the same thing, so I have to school you...
>
> finding; a conclusion reached as a result of an inquiry, investigation, or trial.
>
> conclusion; the end or finish of an event or process.
>
> Synonyms for "findings"...
>
> https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/findings
>
> Note the word "conclusion".

Yes, for example, I've "concluded" that you're an idiot, based on my "findings" that you would attribute scientific process to thesaurus.com (which, by the way, also lists the words "discovery" and "data" as synonyms for "findings"...but you just silently kept that out, didn't you?)

Maybe this will help.

https://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

I made sure to use a citation with the word "simple" in it...just for you!

As we can see, there are five steps to the scientific process: Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experimentation, and Conclusion.

Let's skip down to the conclusion part:

https://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html#conclusion

"If your original hypothesis didn't match up with the final results of your experiment, don't change the hypothesis.

Instead, try to explain what might have been wrong with your original hypothesis. What information were you missing when you made your prediction? What are the possible reasons the hypothesis and experimental results didn't match up?"

Now simply show us where in the autopsy report they summated possible reasons why their hypothesis and their experimental results didn't add up.

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/DtrK8OteAwAJ
> >
> > I explained that. You ignored it. And now you're pretending to school *me* on this. Hilarious. And let me guess, you want lurkers to believe that you are able to interpret and understand what the Parkland witnesses saw better than they did.
>
> Why would these witnesses "interpret" what they themselves said, stupid?
>
> *We* interpret what they said, they don`t. Presumably they know what they meant. You pretend it is the witnesses taking these positions when it is actually you taking the positions and pretending it is theirs.
>
> > If a large BOH wound implicated Oswald as the sole assassin, you would understand what "massive opening in the back of the head" (HUTTON) or "a large hole squarely in the occiput" (GROSSMAN) or "the right temporal and occipital bones were missing" (BAXTER) means.
>
> You aren`t making an argument by merely quoting people.
>
> This is how it works, you take an idea and the support for that idea and you put it on the table for consideration. Make an argument.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > but tried to attribute this position to the witnesses.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > >
> > > That is the information. What is the explanation for this information? You admit you have none. Ben doesn`t like speculation. Now what?
> > >
> > > The only possibility is the information just sits there. Or you accept the findings of experts.
> >
> > I do. All of them, in fact. I accept everything they FOUND relating to his head. Do you accept what they FOUND? Or only what they CONCLUDED (i.e., "opined")?
>
> They both mean the same thing.
>
> And do you understand why they perform an autopsy rather than have random people say they saw a wound here and a wound there?

So that they can write a report which officially concurs with what they all saw?

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film?
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably attached to his wrist.
> > > >
> > > > No, his wrist was not seen in the Zapruder film. You'd be smart if you weren't so dumb.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think your non sequitur advances some idea?
> > > >
> > > > You advanced it yourself, by evading a real answer. It's clear why you don't answer the question. Everyone knows why, and at this point I have to assume you do as well, which makes you a chickenshit coward. Doesn't it? :-)
> > >
> > > You`re the one doing the chicken dance. You seem to think you were advancing an idea. Can you let us in on what it was?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And wouldn't his hand
> > > > > > holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.
> > > >
> > > > Notice the avoidance of the question again. The troll wants to put forward an explanation of the BOH photo by saying Boswell was holding a flap in place. Yet there's no flap in the Z-film,
> > >
> > > You are trying to conduct an autopsy using a grainy home movie filmed from a distance.

So that "grainy" gif you keep linking to actually shows nothing.

>
> Imagine how happy you would have been if you were actually able to respond to what I wrote.
>
> > >
> > > > and even Grand Poobah imbecile DVP has no explanation for any of this. Bud doesn't either, hence these "politician" answers, which will undoubtedly continue, to my great amusement (and hopefully yours as well, lurkers).
> > >
> > > You want better answers ask better questions.
> >
> > Oh, I think it's an EXCELLENT question. And your answer was merely as good as you could give.
>
> The truth.

With jokes.

https://www.amazon.com/Truth-jokes-Al-Franken-ebook/dp/B004IE9QZO/ref=sr_1_1?crid=19G5J2GRVP25W&keywords=the+truth+with+jokes&qid=1553397367&s=gateway&sprefix=the+truth+with+%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 11:16:25 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah, so is this the part where you pretend there are none, or the part where you pretend all their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn`t like Brock`s *explanations*.
> > > > >
> > > > > Naturally, his opinion means nothing to me. And *explanations* should have been in quotes, in the context you used it.
> > > >
> > > > I was emphasising the word. You were changing the argument from witness explanations to witness accounts. They aren`t the same, although I doubt you can make the distinction.
> > >
> > > Oh, I can. And neither of them help you.
> >
> > These are your ideas, I don`t need the help.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > You claimed they were in conflict with the *explanations* given by the witnesses. So just what were the *explanations* these witnesses gave?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because what you were actually talking about is that you didn`t like Brock`s explanations of the evidence as much as you liked your own,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't provide an explanation. I cite sources, but they are not "my own."
> > > >
> > > > So no explanations are required from us for the things you bring up. When did this start?
> > >
> > > Reading comprehension problems? *MY* explanations are not required, when I can cite experts and official documents.
> >
> > The information is the information. Now what?
>
> Now you sob and complain, while I parade out the medical experts.

You are really going to do something? So far it has been all noise and no substance.

> And unlike Chuck's peacock hyperbole about CE399, this time it really was "ALL THE EXPERTS" who saw a large cavity in the back of Kennedy's head.

Now what?

> >
> > > >
> > > > And now we have witness accounts for a large wound in the back of Kennedy`s head. You have no explanation for this. Ben does not allow for speculation. Where does that leave us?
> > >
> > > I have an explanation, and it leaves us with no need for speculation at all. Every medical expert witnessed what they saw, described it in words, and even illustrated it in pictures for illiterate morons like you. The findings of the autopsy report confirm it. A large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area.
> >
> > Ok. What about it?
> >
> > You weren`t offering any explanations. Brock did, but you blew them off.
> >
> > Now what?
> >
> > > *I* can accept that. *You* can't. And that's why you're arguing, because *you* have a problem. And you have *nothing* to offer by way of rebuttal
> >
> > Against what? You act like you have made an argument that requires a rebuttal. You say "The witnesses said this". I don`t contest they did.
>
> That's because you can't contest it.

And you go nowhere with it for the same reason. You can`t.

> All you can do is pretend like you don't know what it means.

Tell us what it means.

> Now what?

Apparently nothing.

> >
> > >except for one photo with a chain of custody problem.
> >
> > Says who?
>
> You're welcome to comb through this and find what you think supports your position.

I was asking you to support yours. Whether there is a chain of custody is usually decided on by a judge in some sort of a legal proceeding. Do you have something like this?

> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43606#relPageId=2&tab=page
>
> Or not. What do I care?

What do I care whether you weigh the evidence incorrectly?

> > > Not good. Not good at all. I'll take the experts. I'll take the autopsy findings.
> >
> > That Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from behind?
>
> No, that's what they opined.

That is what they found.

> What did they record in their medical findings while doing the autopsy?

Are you really asking why they gather information during the autopsy?

> > >
> > > Yes, but I brought this up already. If the conclusions of the autopsy differ from the findings of the autopsy, you go with the findings.
> >
> > Looks like you didn`t believe me when I told you they both meant the same thing, so I have to school you...
> >
> > finding; a conclusion reached as a result of an inquiry, investigation, or trial.
> >
> > conclusion; the end or finish of an event or process.
> >
> > Synonyms for "findings"...
> >
> > https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/findings
> >
> > Note the word "conclusion".
>
> Yes, for example, I've "concluded" that you're an idiot, based on my "findings" that you would attribute scientific process to thesaurus.com

Words have meanings. If you want to use them you should know what they mean first.

>(which, by the way, also lists the words "discovery" and "data" as synonyms for "findings"...but you just silently kept that out, didn't you?)

You aren`t showing that "conclusions" and 'finding" mean different things. Why is that?

> Maybe this will help.
>
> https://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
>
> I made sure to use a citation with the word "simple" in it...just for you!
>
> As we can see, there are five steps to the scientific process: Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experimentation, and Conclusion.
>
> Let's skip down to the conclusion part:
>
> https://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html#conclusion
>
> "If your original hypothesis didn't match up with the final results of your experiment, don't change the hypothesis.
>
> Instead, try to explain what might have been wrong with your original hypothesis. What information were you missing when you made your prediction? What are the possible reasons the hypothesis and experimental results didn't match up?"
>
> Now simply show us where in the autopsy report they summated possible reasons why their hypothesis and their experimental results didn't add up.

You are a special kind of stupid. The autopsy of Kennedy was not an experiment. It was a process to determine the cause of death, and the facts relating to that death. Those performing the autopsy were trained. The training was quite possibly the result of experimentation using the scientific method, but the autopsy itself was not an experiment. It was an examination.

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/DtrK8OteAwAJ
> > >
> > > I explained that. You ignored it. And now you're pretending to school *me* on this. Hilarious. And let me guess, you want lurkers to believe that you are able to interpret and understand what the Parkland witnesses saw better than they did.
> >
> > Why would these witnesses "interpret" what they themselves said, stupid?
> >
> > *We* interpret what they said, they don`t. Presumably they know what they meant. You pretend it is the witnesses taking these positions when it is actually you taking the positions and pretending it is theirs.
> >
> > > If a large BOH wound implicated Oswald as the sole assassin, you would understand what "massive opening in the back of the head" (HUTTON) or "a large hole squarely in the occiput" (GROSSMAN) or "the right temporal and occipital bones were missing" (BAXTER) means.
> >
> > You aren`t making an argument by merely quoting people.
> >
> > This is how it works, you take an idea and the support for that idea and you put it on the table for consideration. Make an argument.
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but tried to attribute this position to the witnesses.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > > >
> > > > That is the information. What is the explanation for this information? You admit you have none. Ben doesn`t like speculation. Now what?
> > > >
> > > > The only possibility is the information just sits there. Or you accept the findings of experts.
> > >
> > > I do. All of them, in fact. I accept everything they FOUND relating to his head. Do you accept what they FOUND? Or only what they CONCLUDED (i.e., "opined")?
> >
> > They both mean the same thing.
> >
> > And do you understand why they perform an autopsy rather than have random people say they saw a wound here and a wound there?
>
> So that they can write a report which officially concurs with what they all saw?

1. a postmortem examination to discover the cause of death or the extent of disease.

In this case it was determined that Kennedy was killed by two shots from the rear.

> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just curious to know what kind of sloppy bullshit excuse I'll be dealing with in advance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, and where was Boswell's hand in the Zapruder film?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Probably attached to his wrist.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, his wrist was not seen in the Zapruder film. You'd be smart if you weren't so dumb.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you think your non sequitur advances some idea?
> > > > >
> > > > > You advanced it yourself, by evading a real answer. It's clear why you don't answer the question. Everyone knows why, and at this point I have to assume you do as well, which makes you a chickenshit coward. Doesn't it? :-)
> > > >
> > > > You`re the one doing the chicken dance. You seem to think you were advancing an idea. Can you let us in on what it was?
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And wouldn't his hand
> > > > > > > holding up the skin necessitate the presence of the very hole you're about to deny exists?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a hole there. Oswald`s bullet made it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Notice the avoidance of the question again. The troll wants to put forward an explanation of the BOH photo by saying Boswell was holding a flap in place. Yet there's no flap in the Z-film,
> > > >
> > > > You are trying to conduct an autopsy using a grainy home movie filmed from a distance.
>
> So that "grainy" gif you keep linking to actually shows nothing.

It shows things. It shows people in the car for instance. An idiot might think that if you can`t read Kellerman`s watch to tell what time it was that it shows nothing, but thinking people can use it to make obvious determinations.

> > Imagine how happy you would have been if you were actually able to respond to what I wrote.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > and even Grand Poobah imbecile DVP has no explanation for any of this. Bud doesn't either, hence these "politician" answers, which will undoubtedly continue, to my great amusement (and hopefully yours as well, lurkers).
> > > >
> > > > You want better answers ask better questions.
> > >
> > > Oh, I think it's an EXCELLENT question. And your answer was merely as good as you could give.
> >
> > The truth.
>
> With jokes.

I wasn`t joking. The truth was the best answer I could give.

> https://www.amazon.com/Truth-jokes-Al-Franken-ebook/dp/B004IE9QZO/ref=sr_1_1?crid=19G5J2GRVP25W&keywords=the+truth+with+jokes&qid=1553397367&s=gateway&sprefix=the+truth+with+%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> And unlike Chuck's peacock hyperbole about CE399, this time it really was "ALL THE EXPERTS" who saw a large cavity in the back of Kennedy's head.
>
> Now what?

You lose.

[Bud]

How so?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 11:26:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> And unlike Chuck's peacock hyperbole about CE399, this time it really was "ALL THE EXPERTS" who saw a large cavity in the back of Kennedy's head.
>> >
>> > Now what?
>>
>> You lose.
>
> How so?

If you're too stupid to see why this means you lose, then it isn't
worth the effort to explain it to you.

But I trust lurkers who are knowledgeable about this case see it.

[Bud]

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 11:35:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 11:26:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And unlike Chuck's peacock hyperbole about CE399, this time it really was "ALL THE EXPERTS" who saw a large cavity in the back of Kennedy's head.
> >> >
> >> > Now what?
> >>
> >> You lose.
> >
> > How so?
>
> If you're too stupid to see why this means you lose, then it isn't
> worth the effort to explain it to you.

You never have anything to offer other than hot air and empty declarations.

> But I trust lurkers who are knowledgeable about this case see it.

Isn`t this just a cowardly way to declare victory?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

I was thinking' more along the line of Dud getting SLAM DUNKED, again!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> >> And unlike Chuck's peacock hyperbole about CE399, this time it really was "ALL THE EXPERTS" who saw a large cavity in the back of Kennedy's head.
> >
> > Now what?
>
> You lose.

It's quite obvious the troll doesn't know how to deal with this problem. Notice his answers get shorter when this happens too.

[Mark Ulrik]

Unusual to see the lapdog snap at its Master. Is the CT lovefest officially over? :-(

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Unusual to see the lapdog snap at its Master. Is the CT lovefest officially over? :-(

This must be embarrassing for you, to not only comment on a post you've misread and misunderstood, but to do so in lieu of tackling the problem at hand. Now you've just admitted that you're here, and have been lurking. Maybe you can help your little retard friend with the Boswell problem (notice LNers never help each other?)

What's holding that back flap in place on Kennedy's head in the Z-film? Where's Boswell's hand?

[BT George]

Donald,

The exact location of the BOH wound is itself debated even between many LN's. We all agree there is one, but disagree because there is conflicting evidence on whether the original autopsists located it correctly as near JFK EOP (the small bump you can feel in the back of your skull, though the position and prominence can vary with persons), or whether the BOH photo (which looks closer to JFK's Cowlick) is the correct place. I favor the former, for reasons that may be gleaned from searching my posts about the "lower entry point" over at AAJFK.

Here is my suggestion, though it will take some time. Read Larry Sturdivan's JFK Myths and you will gain a clear understanding of the lower BOH entrance and it's defense. For the higher entry, the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel report is probably the best source.

For the CT's dominant position, I am sure you know they think the larger wound that per the Autopsy report was "involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions..." That is, they believe the shot came in from the front in this area, rather than the fragmented bullet exploding out of this region. (Do some research on typical entry and exits, and I think you will have better appreciation of what argument is more reasonable.)

Here are some good images you can search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+boh+entry+wound+debate&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5ptqS253hAhVMgK0KHdjMBE0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=937


Here are some images/diagrams of the make up of the standard human skull---keep in mind minor shape and locational variances can exist:

https://www.google.com/search?q=skull+bone+diagram&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT4aKD3J3hAhUEZawKHQcqDKcQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=937

[BT George]

You do know this was taken during the autopsy, and that some incisions and flaps were likely created in the process of conducting it? For that matter, the skull and scalp was compromised more than most seem to realize, and it's perfectly possible that during the handling of the skull for the autopsy, new tears (flaps) were created that were not in place immediately after the shot. Your task is to show that the timing of the photo you are babbling about makes such an explanation impossible.

Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170

[donald willis]

Many thanks, BT. No wonder there's some little disagreement re what's where....

dcw

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Here comes the circus troll with his litany of "likleys" and "possibles" again. This should be good. Haven't you been schooled on speculation one too many times?

>
> You do know this was taken during the autopsy, and that some incisions and flaps were likely created in the process of conducting it?

No, and neither do you.

>
> For that matter, the skull and scalp was compromised more than most seem to realize, and it's perfectly possible that during the handling of the skull for the autopsy, new tears (flaps) were created that were not in place immediately after the shot.

What this LN idiot is contending is that incisions were made to the scalp, THEN those very incisions were recorded in the autopsy report as perimortem damage...presumably by the same doctors, who couldn't tell the difference between their own incisions and a ballistic wound blow-out. Fascinating what shit they believe.

>
> Your task is to show that the timing of the photo you are babbling about makes such an explanation impossible.

My task is what?? To debunk every bit of speculation YOU dream up? No, idiot. My task is to cite the experts, and the autopsy report which concurs with what medical witnesses described but that which is mysteriously unseen anywhere else.

Your task is to invent a lot of bullshit, then pass it off as fact without any scientific merit to back it up. Sorry, but that's Arlen Specter's territory, and he'd appreciate you staying out of his 'hood.

>
> Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
>
> https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170

1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?

2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.

3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.

4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:

"Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".

It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"

Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

[BT George]

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 12:56:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here comes the circus troll with his litany of "likleys" and "possibles" again. This should be good. Haven't you been schooled on speculation one too many times?
>
>
> >
> > You do know this was taken during the autopsy, and that some incisions and flaps were likely created in the process of conducting it?
>
> No, and neither do you.
>

Correct. And so my point is at least as valid as whatever one you are trying to make.

> >
> > For that matter, the skull and scalp was compromised more than most seem to realize, and it's perfectly possible that during the handling of the skull for the autopsy, new tears (flaps) were created that were not in place immediately after the shot.
>
> What this LN idiot is contending is that incisions were made to the scalp, THEN those very incisions were recorded in the autopsy report as perimortem damage...presumably by the same doctors, who couldn't tell the difference between their own incisions and a ballistic wound blow-out. Fascinating what shit they believe.
>

Read for comprehensions stupid. I didn't definitively state incisions were made *before* this photo, but noted they could have been. But if you would read to understand, you would notice that I also indicated that incisions might not have been necessary to enlarge the existing flap, or create a new one in the process of handling the head.

> >
> > Your task is to show that the timing of the photo you are babbling about makes such an explanation impossible.
>
> My task is what?? To debunk every bit of speculation YOU dream up? No, idiot. My task is to cite the experts, and the autopsy report which concurs with what medical witnesses described but that which is mysteriously unseen anywhere else.
>

So you agree with the conclusion of at least 17 or 18 autopsy and forensic experts that have found the following to be true?:

..Well you can disagree with the statement about it being near the EOP, since even these experts have disagreed on that.

> Your task is to invent a lot of bullshit, then pass it off as fact without any scientific merit to back it up. Sorry, but that's Arlen Specter's territory, and he'd appreciate you staying out of his 'hood.
>

Spoken by a 9/11 Truther! ...The speculative irony is sweet. :-)

> >
> > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> >
> > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
>
> 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
>

Why is that relevant? Look at the pics stupid.

> 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
>

Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.

> 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
>

This is not about Mytton. Interact with the *point* and how it supports the framework of what I have indicated about the extent of the original defect.

> 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
>
> "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
>

Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.

> It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
>

There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?

> Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
>
> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

No Lurkers. My punishment is to interact with an idiot that babbles about "experts" when he likes what they say is some secondary detail or aspect, but then categorically rejects their *primary* conclusions. :-)

[healyd...@gmail.com]

because the pics are from a questionable source meathead. So you're back to pullin' pud ya gullable dipshit?

[BT George]

Go ahead Goof. Explain why and how you think Mytton altered the well know photos that underlie both gifs.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> > >
> > > You do know this was taken during the autopsy, and that some incisions and flaps were likely created in the process of conducting it?
> >
> > No, and neither do you.
> >
>
> Correct.

Great, so let’s go with the existing evidence instead: the witness accounts, and what was recorded in the autopsy report.

>
> > >
> > > For that matter, the skull and scalp was compromised more than most seem to realize, and it's perfectly possible that during the handling of the skull for the autopsy, new tears (flaps) were created that were not in place immediately after the shot.
> >
> > What this LN idiot is contending is that incisions were made to the scalp, THEN those very incisions were recorded in the autopsy report as perimortem damage...presumably by the same doctors, who couldn't tell the difference between their own incisions and a ballistic wound blow-out. Fascinating what shit they believe.
> >
>
> Read for comprehensions stupid. I didn't definitively state incisions were made *before* this photo, but noted they could have been.

You can't "definitively" state anything. Everything with you is "likely" and "possible" and "could have." Then, when you think no one is looking, you quietly convert those things into fact and then pass it off like you "debunked" something with your worthless speculation. You do it all the time, and that's all you CAN do.

>
> But if you would read to understand, you would notice that I also indicated that incisions might not have been necessary to enlarge the existing flap, or create a new one in the process of handling the head.

See above.

>
> > >
> > > Your task is to show that the timing of the photo you are babbling about makes such an explanation impossible.
> >
> > My task is what?? To debunk every bit of speculation YOU dream up? No, idiot. My task is to cite the experts, and the autopsy report which concurs with what medical witnesses described but that which is mysteriously unseen anywhere else.
> >
>
> So you agree with the conclusion of at least 17 or 18 autopsy and forensic experts that have found the following to be true?:
>
> Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
> lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits **beveling** of
> the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> skull.
>
> and
>
> Received as separate specimens from Dallas, Texas are three
> fragments of skull bone which in aggregate **roughly approximate** the
> dimensions of the **large defect** described above. At one angle of the
> largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly
> circular wound **presumably of exit which exhibits beveling of the
> outer aspect of the bone** and is estimated to measure approximately
> 2.5 to 3.0 cm. in diameter.
>
>
> and
>
> "Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right
> posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar. In **each** there is loss
> of continuity of the epidermis with **coagulation necrosis** of the tissues
> at the wound margins."

Yes, I agree those are the physical, hard facts of what they found in the examination.

>
>
> (Lurkers note this, and see what coagulation necrosis is indicative of:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24931861)
>
>
>
> Leading to this:
>
> "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> wounds"

Not unanimously, but yes, I agree that is what they opined. Oh, and 17 or 18 doctors said this, did you say? Won’t be naming any of them, will you? Oh, well. Guess you should have read the article I linked.

"If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem."

READ things. It's GOOD for you.

>
> ..Well you can disagree with the statement about it being near the EOP, since even these experts have disagreed on that.
>
>
> > Your task is to invent a lot of bullshit, then pass it off as fact without any scientific merit to back it up. Sorry, but that's Arlen Specter's territory, and he'd appreciate you staying out of his 'hood.
> >
>
> Spoken by a 9/11 Truther! ...The speculative irony is sweet. :-)

Ad hominem, Poisoning the Well, Changing the Subject, Avoiding the Issue, Red Herring...and some flat-out lying thrown in for good measure. All in one sentence. Not bad.

>
> > >
> > > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> > >
> > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> >
> > 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
> >
>
> Why is that relevant?

Translation: John Mytton has no known relevant field of expertise in these areas, but promulgates a bunch of stuff BT Barnum likes the sound of, so goes with it. I produce statements from 24 medical experts and witness; BT Barnum produces some guy named "John."

>
> > 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
> >
>
> Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.

You mean those "grainy" images? Why do you figure they conduct autopsy reports? Bud will tell you. In the meantime, yes, we're all very impressed with your anonymous "John's" animation. But I'll go with the witnesses and the report. Thanks anyway.

>
> > 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
> >
>
> This is not about Mytton.

Shouldn't have brought him up then, should you?

>
> Interact with the *point* and how it supports the framework of what I have indicated about the extent of the original defect.

It doesn't support it.

>
> > 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
> >
> > "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
> >
>
> Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.

Your cute animation does not show the occipital region, and your animation gifs are not even consistent with each other. Look again, so I don't have to spoonfeed the obvious to you, like I do everything else.

>
> > It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
> >
>
> There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?

Cool, I've seen "seemless" blending of animation proving Donald Trump and Richard Nixon are the same person. Now what do we do? I know...I'll consult some experts. You keep on with the gifs, champ!

>
>
> > Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
> >
> > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Didn't. Read. A. Word.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:43:28 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > You do know this was taken during the autopsy, and that some incisions and flaps were likely created in the process of conducting it?
>> >
>> > No, and neither do you.
>> >
>>
>> Correct.
>
>
> Great, so let’s go with the existing evidence instead: the witness
> accounts, and what was recorded in the autopsy report.

The trolls can't do that.

They lose if they rely on the actual evidence, and not what someone
such as the Commission *claimed* that the evidence showed...

And this fact tells the tale...

[donald willis]

Case in point: The WR's amazing statement re "the elastic recoil of the skull" (p86), or why the head wound's diameter could be smaller than the diameter of the bullet! Apparently, this was from someone named Humes....

dcw

[BT George]

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:43:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You do know this was taken during the autopsy, and that some incisions and flaps were likely created in the process of conducting it?
> > >
> > > No, and neither do you.
> > >
> >
> > Correct.
>
>
> Great, so let’s go with the existing evidence instead: the witness accounts, and what was recorded in the autopsy report.
>

The latter is what would be considered dispositive in a court of law unless overturned or effectively undermined by like-kind *experts*.

> >
> > > >
> > > > For that matter, the skull and scalp was compromised more than most seem to realize, and it's perfectly possible that during the handling of the skull for the autopsy, new tears (flaps) were created that were not in place immediately after the shot.
> > >
> > > What this LN idiot is contending is that incisions were made to the scalp, THEN those very incisions were recorded in the autopsy report as perimortem damage...presumably by the same doctors, who couldn't tell the difference between their own incisions and a ballistic wound blow-out. Fascinating what shit they believe.
> > >
> >
> > Read for comprehensions stupid. I didn't definitively state incisions were made *before* this photo, but noted they could have been.
>
> You can't "definitively" state anything. Everything with you is "likely" and "possible" and "could have." Then, when you think no one is looking, you quietly convert those things into fact and then pass it off like you "debunked" something with your worthless speculation. You do it all the time, and that's all you CAN do.
>

Here's something I can state definitively. At least 17 of the 18 *qualified* professionals who have examined the body or the documentation of the autopsy have agreed with this statement:

"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
level of the deceased."

And the other one (Wecht) is on record as admitting that the *available* medical evidence supports no other forensic conclusion.

>
> >
> > But if you would read to understand, you would notice that I also indicated that incisions might not have been necessary to enlarge the existing flap, or create a new one in the process of handling the head.
>
> See above.
>

Yep.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Your task is to show that the timing of the photo you are babbling about makes such an explanation impossible.
> > >
> > > My task is what?? To debunk every bit of speculation YOU dream up? No, idiot. My task is to cite the experts, and the autopsy report which concurs with what medical witnesses described but that which is mysteriously unseen anywhere else.
> > >
> >
> > So you agree with the conclusion of at least 17 or 18 autopsy and forensic experts that have found the following to be true?:
> >
> > Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> > right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
> > lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> > corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits **beveling** of
> > the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> > skull.
> >
> > and
> >
> > Received as separate specimens from Dallas, Texas are three
> > fragments of skull bone which in aggregate **roughly approximate** the
> > dimensions of the **large defect** described above. At one angle of the
> > largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly
> > circular wound **presumably of exit which exhibits beveling of the
> > outer aspect of the bone** and is estimated to measure approximately
> > 2.5 to 3.0 cm. in diameter.
> >
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right
> > posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar. In **each** there is loss
> > of continuity of the epidermis with **coagulation necrosis** of the tissues
> > at the wound margins."
>
> Yes, I agree those are the physical, hard facts of what they found in the examination.
>

Good. Then which is it:

1) You agree with the *strong* consensus of the experts as to the meaning of those findings?

2) You fail to comprehend those findings?

3) You comprehend them, but think the (nearly unanimous) experts got it wrong?

4) Everything was faked, so who cares? ...Yet that won't stop me from blithering on about an autopsy report I think was essentially useless, because parts of it serve my purposes?

> >
> >
> > (Lurkers note this, and see what coagulation necrosis is indicative of:
> >
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24931861)
> >
> >
> >
> > Leading to this:
> >
> > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> > not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> > wounds"
>
> Not unanimously, but yes, I agree that is what they opined. Oh, and 17 or 18 doctors said this, did you say? Won’t be naming any of them, will you? Oh, well. Guess you should have read the article I linked.
>

Try this:

1. Humes, Boswell, Finck (original autopsists)
2. Carnes, Fisher, Moritz, Morgan (Clark Panel)
3. McMeeken, Spitz, Lindenburg, Hodges, Olivier (Rockefeller Commission)
4. Baden, Coe, Davis, Wecht (see "available evidence" qualification), Loquvam, Petty, Rose, Spitz (again), Westin (HSCA FPP)
5. Cummings - Reviewed the autopsy photos de novo for the 2013 Cold Case JFK specaial.

But I stand corrected, it was actually 20 of 21 unanimous on the principal conclusions; Wecht disagreeing only that the available evidence might be insufficient to rule out other possibilities.

> "If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem."
>

You don't have 44 *unanimous* witnesses. And some of them have since admitted their error. Now why don't you find something that calculates the odds that a large number of non specialists in pathology/forensic pathology who have *not* conducted a thorough and comprehensive search of the wounds would be correct, whereas a *minimum* of 95% of 21 *experts in pathology* got it all wrong?

> READ things. It's GOOD for you.
>

*Comprehend* the *meaning* of what you read. Then try to apply *solid* logic and reason for a change.

> >
> > ..Well you can disagree with the statement about it being near the EOP, since even these experts have disagreed on that.
> >
> >
> > > Your task is to invent a lot of bullshit, then pass it off as fact without any scientific merit to back it up. Sorry, but that's Arlen Specter's territory, and he'd appreciate you staying out of his 'hood.
> > >
> >
> > Spoken by a 9/11 Truther! ...The speculative irony is sweet. :-)
>
> Ad hominem, Poisoning the Well, Changing the Subject, Avoiding the Issue, Red Herring...and some flat-out lying thrown in for good measure. All in one sentence. Not bad.
>

...Especially when it makes the point that an unreliable source on the subject of speculation, is attempting to critic the efforts of someone who prefers to base things on the *total* picture of the *hard* evidence, coupled with the application of logic and common sense as to what is possible in the *real* world.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > >
> > > 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
> > >
> >
> > Why is that relevant?
>
> Translation: John Mytton has no known relevant field of expertise in these areas, but promulgates a bunch of stuff BT Barnum likes the sound of, so goes with it. I produce statements from 24 medical experts and witness; BT Barnum produces some guy named "John."
>

Translation. "Boris" cannot interact effectively with what the morphing of the pictures shows, so he attacks the source. ...The very thing he just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)

> >
> > > 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
> > >
> >
> > Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.
>
> You mean those "grainy" images? Why do you figure they conduct autopsy reports? Bud will tell you. In the meantime, yes, we're all very impressed with your anonymous "John's" animation. But I'll go with the witnesses and the report. Thanks anyway.
>

And now "Boris" resorts to an untruth, or at least a wildly wrong statement. The autopsy photos that Mytton morphed into a gif are far from "grainy" even if they are not available in HD and 3D color. He knows full well that it to the typical "blow ups" of assassination day pictures or over-reliance on some small detail of say the Zapruder film, and CT's constant reliance on the same that Bud was referring to.

> >
> > > 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
> > >
> >
> > This is not about Mytton.
>
> Shouldn't have brought him up then, should you?
>

"Boris" thinks it better to link to an unsourced gif than to credit the source. ...Go figure.

> >
> > Interact with the *point* and how it supports the framework of what I have indicated about the extent of the original defect.
>
> It doesn't support it.
>

How so?

> >
> > > 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
> > >
> > > "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
> > >
> >
> > Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.
>
> Your cute animation does not show the occipital region, and your animation gifs are not even consistent with each other. Look again, so I don't have to spoonfeed the obvious to you, like I do everything else.
>

Does "Boris" know where the occipital region is? Does he not understand that once morph shows a very good view of almost he *complete* BOH and the other was to show the extent of the flap? Does either support his contention that the autopsy report is trying to describe a large blowout somewhere in the BOH?

> >
> > > It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
> > >
> >
> > There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?
>
> Cool, I've seen "seemless" blending of animation proving Donald Trump and Richard Nixon are the same person. Now what do we do? I know...I'll consult some experts. You keep on with the gifs, champ!
>

Well go ahead "Mr. Science" find a source that exposes the evil Mytton's fakery of these pictures.

> >
> >
> > > Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
> > >
> > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
> Didn't. Read. A. Word.

More like Clueless *couldn't* comprehend a word folks. :-)

[BT George]

Skin is elastic and it can, and does, stretch, so there is no conflict there.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

same debate I had with Bill Miller... if you change what's claimed as an original source, you have altered a photo, therefore it is questionable. What escapes you regarding this? Little intellectual arrogance, having to deal with someone calling you out?

[BT George]

It would be better if you sought to understand why the only "changes" prove the *legitimacy" of the photos shown in morphed animation. He explains what is proved in the post near the bottom of this:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1264.210.html

This does nothing more than recreate in video format the same 3D stereoscopic effect that occurs when each eye views one of two images of the same scene from a slightly different angle. Any JFK assassination student or researcher worth their salt is familiar with the technique, and what it means, but here is an aid for the uninformed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

[healyd...@gmail.com]

listen troll I'm not interested in your teaching or style... you are pushing altered photos...

> https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1264.210.html
>
> This does nothing more than recreate in video format the same 3D stereoscopic effect that occurs when each eye views one of two images of the same scene from a slightly different angle. Any JFK assassination student or researcher worth their salt is familiar with the technique, and what it means, but here is an aid for the uninformed:

alter case evidence, you .johnites need something... lmfao!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> > Great, so let’s go with the existing evidence instead: the witness accounts, and what was recorded in the autopsy report.
> >
>
> The latter is what would be considered dispositive in a court of law unless overturned or effectively undermined by like-kind *experts*.

Seeing as the latter concurs with the experts, I'll chalk this up to you just enjoying hearing yourself talk.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For that matter, the skull and scalp was compromised more than most seem to realize, and it's perfectly possible that during the handling of the skull for the autopsy, new tears (flaps) were created that were not in place immediately after the shot.
> > > >
> > > > What this LN idiot is contending is that incisions were made to the scalp, THEN those very incisions were recorded in the autopsy report as perimortem damage...presumably by the same doctors, who couldn't tell the difference between their own incisions and a ballistic wound blow-out. Fascinating what shit they believe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Read for comprehensions stupid. I didn't definitively state incisions were made *before* this photo, but noted they could have been.
> >
> > You can't "definitively" state anything. Everything with you is "likely" and "possible" and "could have." Then, when you think no one is looking, you quietly convert those things into fact and then pass it off like you "debunked" something with your worthless speculation. You do it all the time, and that's all you CAN do.
> >
>
> Here's something I can state definitively. At least 17 of the 18 *qualified* professionals who have examined the body or the documentation of the autopsy have agreed with this statement:

And where did they agree all the damage was?

>
> "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> level of the deceased."

The troll loves to pretend there is no anomalous discrepancy between the conclusion and the examination. Literally *everyone* knows this. Even DVP knows it. And, I suspect, you know it too, which is why you are trying to subtly steer the debate AWAY from the BOH damage and TOWARDS the conclusion, an opinionated account which you KNOW is in complete contradiction with the scientific findings of the autopsy exam. But LNers will always favor opinion over science and eyewitnesses if it incriminates Oswald...and I would say "vice versa", but there's very little of the latter, so it's seldom done.

>
> And the other one (Wecht) is on record as admitting that the *available* medical evidence supports no other forensic conclusion.

*You* aren't allowed to cite Wecht, but what I find even more interesting is you emphasized the word "available." Which is frankly what I would have done. But I would have done it to prove a point. You do it because you're too stupid to realize what you just did.

False Dilemma Fallacy, and again as with Wecht, the irony lies in your second point. But since you're so fond of a gif, why don't you link to it again and cite a single expert whose description of the wound matches it.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > (Lurkers note this, and see what coagulation necrosis is indicative of:
> > >
> > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24931861)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Leading to this:
> > >
> > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> > > not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> > > wounds"
> >
> > Not unanimously, but yes, I agree that is what they opined. Oh, and 17 or 18 doctors said this, did you say? Won’t be naming any of them, will you? Oh, well. Guess you should have read the article I linked.
> >
>
> Try this:
>
> 1. Humes, Boswell, Finck (original autopsists)
> 2. Carnes, Fisher, Moritz, Morgan (Clark Panel)
> 3. McMeeken, Spitz, Lindenburg, Hodges, Olivier (Rockefeller Commission)
> 4. Baden, Coe, Davis, Wecht (see "available evidence" qualification), Loquvam, Petty, Rose, Spitz (again), Westin (HSCA FPP)
> 5. Cummings - Reviewed the autopsy photos de novo for the 2013 Cold Case JFK specaial.

And where did they agree all the damage was?

>
> But I stand corrected, it was actually 20 of 21 unanimous on the principal conclusions; Wecht disagreeing only that the available evidence might be insufficient to rule out other possibilities.
>
> > "If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem."
> >
>
> You don't have 44 *unanimous* witnesses. And some of them have since admitted their error. Now why don't you find something that calculates the odds that a large number of non specialists in pathology/forensic pathology who have *not* conducted a thorough and comprehensive search of the wounds would be correct, whereas a *minimum* of 95% of 21 *experts in pathology* got it all wrong?

Got what wrong, the BOH damage? That *is* what we are discussing, much as you pain to admit it. And once again I've caught you NOT reading something I've cited, or else you could tell us what the error rate is in determining entrance from exit.

>
>
> > READ things. It's GOOD for you.
> >
>
> *Comprehend* the *meaning* of what you read. Then try to apply *solid* logic and reason for a change.
>
> > >
> > > ..Well you can disagree with the statement about it being near the EOP, since even these experts have disagreed on that.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Your task is to invent a lot of bullshit, then pass it off as fact without any scientific merit to back it up. Sorry, but that's Arlen Specter's territory, and he'd appreciate you staying out of his 'hood.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Spoken by a 9/11 Truther! ...The speculative irony is sweet. :-)
> >
> > Ad hominem, Poisoning the Well, Changing the Subject, Avoiding the Issue, Red Herring...and some flat-out lying thrown in for good measure. All in one sentence. Not bad.
> >
>
> ...Especially when it makes the point that

And when you have to commit five logical fallacies to make that point, the only point you've made is that you're a liar. Wait...six logical fallacies. Forgot: Strawman.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > > >
> > > > 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why is that relevant?
> >
> > Translation: John Mytton has no known relevant field of expertise in these areas, but promulgates a bunch of stuff BT Barnum likes the sound of, so goes with it. I produce statements from 24 medical experts and witness; BT Barnum produces some guy named "John."
> >
>
> Translation. "Boris" cannot interact effectively with what the morphing of the pictures shows, so he attacks the source. ...The very thing he just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)

The translation is I go with expert evidence, and you go with animation from a questionable source. A gif is not evidence. And "John" is not an expert. Nice try though.

>
> > >
> > > > 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.
> >
> > You mean those "grainy" images? Why do you figure they conduct autopsy reports? Bud will tell you. In the meantime, yes, we're all very impressed with your anonymous "John's" animation. But I'll go with the witnesses and the report. Thanks anyway.
> >
>
> And now "Boris" resorts to an untruth, or at least a wildly wrong statement. The autopsy photos that Mytton morphed into a gif are far from "grainy" even if they are not available in HD and 3D color. He knows full well that it to the typical "blow ups" of assassination day pictures or over-reliance on some small detail of say the Zapruder film, and CT's constant reliance on the same that Bud was referring to.

BT Barnum is once again forced to admit a LN talking point is cowardly and weak, though is incognizant of doing so.

The problem with your little gifs is they're not evidence. And because you're so mired in your faith, you don't even seem to realize the BOH photo shows none of the damage of the other photo, and that's just presuming the legitimacy of the photos (you haven't proven they are legitimate, which you would have to do since you're citing them) as well as the legitimacy of your source.

But this will be neither the first nor last time a LNer has been forced to believe two contradicting narratives simultaneously.

>
> > >
> > > > 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is not about Mytton.
> >
> > Shouldn't have brought him up then, should you?
> >
>
> "Boris" thinks it better to link to an unsourced gif than to credit the source. ...Go figure.

The source is some guy named "John." Got it. Very compelling citation. Better than, say, someone who was THERE who have the letters "MD" after their name.

>
>
> > >
> > > Interact with the *point* and how it supports the framework of what I have indicated about the extent of the original defect.
> >
> > It doesn't support it.
> >
>
> How so?

See above.

>
> > >
> > > > 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
> > > >
> > > > "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.
> >
> > Your cute animation does not show the occipital region, and your animation gifs are not even consistent with each other. Look again, so I don't have to spoonfeed the obvious to you, like I do everything else.
> >
>
> Does "Boris" know where the occipital region is?

I know exactly where it is. The one animation does not show it. The other is an animation of the BOH photo, which shows NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER, which is precisely the point that you're apparently too stupid to understand.

>
> Does he not understand that once morph shows a very good view of almost he *complete* BOH and the other was to show the extent of the flap? Does either support his contention that the autopsy report is trying to describe a large blowout somewhere in the BOH?

Maybe you could school me and identify where occiput is, and while you're at it the parietal, and where the absence of bone and scalp is in either?

>
> > >
> > > > It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?
> >
> > Cool, I've seen "seemless" blending of animation proving Donald Trump and Richard Nixon are the same person. Now what do we do? I know...I'll consult some experts. You keep on with the gifs, champ!
> >
>
> Well go ahead "Mr. Science" find a source that exposes the evil Mytton's fakery of these pictures.

Strawman. I'm saying they're not evidence, because they cannot be deemed as reliable.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> >
> > Didn't. Read. A. Word.

And won't read a word. But naturally will argue the article he didn't read all night long. :-)

[donald willis]

So bullet wounds are measured by the diameter of the hole in the skin? Not by the actual hole in, say, the bone underneath? I would think a more consistent substance would be used in such measurements. And I would think that the recording of such diameters would be reflected in the terminology--say, "the elastic recoil of the skin over the bone of the skull". I guess pathologists have their little short-cuts....

The Spanish Inquisitors of yore stretched many body parts on the rack, but I doubt that they ever stretched a skull. Now, the skin OVER the skull, yes. I believe that Lon Chaney achieved some of his remarkable makeups with the use of skin-stretching devices, but don't quote me there....

dcw

[Ben Holmes]

You shouldn't be teasing a troll's ignorance... it probably went over
his head...

[BT George]

The problem isn't me or my teaching style. It's the student and his "learning" style.

> > This does nothing more than recreate in video format the same 3D stereoscopic effect that occurs when each eye views one of two images of the same scene from a slightly different angle. Any JFK assassination student or researcher worth their salt is familiar with the technique, and what it means, but here is an aid for the uninformed:
>
> alter case evidence, you .johnites need something... lmfao!
>

See. You are an imbecile unwilling to learn anything.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

from one vested in lone nut/SBT disinformation? Are you on crack, Einstein?

[BT George]

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:09:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Great, so let’s go with the existing evidence instead: the witness accounts, and what was recorded in the autopsy report.
> > >
> >
> > The latter is what would be considered dispositive in a court of law unless overturned or effectively undermined by like-kind *experts*.
>
> Seeing as the latter concurs with the experts, I'll chalk this up to you just enjoying hearing yourself talk.
>

Better than having to listen to you babble.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For that matter, the skull and scalp was compromised more than most seem to realize, and it's perfectly possible that during the handling of the skull for the autopsy, new tears (flaps) were created that were not in place immediately after the shot.
> > > > >
> > > > > What this LN idiot is contending is that incisions were made to the scalp, THEN those very incisions were recorded in the autopsy report as perimortem damage...presumably by the same doctors, who couldn't tell the difference between their own incisions and a ballistic wound blow-out. Fascinating what shit they believe.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Read for comprehensions stupid. I didn't definitively state incisions were made *before* this photo, but noted they could have been.
> > >
> > > You can't "definitively" state anything. Everything with you is "likely" and "possible" and "could have." Then, when you think no one is looking, you quietly convert those things into fact and then pass it off like you "debunked" something with your worthless speculation. You do it all the time, and that's all you CAN do.
> > >
> >
> > Here's something I can state definitively. At least 17 of the 18 *qualified* professionals who have examined the body or the documentation of the autopsy have agreed with this statement:
>
> And where did they agree all the damage was?
>

They agreed the *entry* wound was in the BOH either towards the EOP (where very credible evidence supports it) or in the Cowlick area, where it appears to be on at least the external scalp in the BOH photos and is supported by some medical (though IMO less compelling) evidence. They also all agreed (with the explained Wecht exception) that the *exit* wound was "a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal....regions".

As you well know the *only* thing the later panels did not mention was the comment about the *exit* wound also extending "somewhat" into the "occipital" region. This comment could be an outright error on HFB's part, but as I have explained, I think the meaning of that comment indicates that via the shattering of JFK's skull they believed there was radiating damage to even a portion of this lowermost region.

I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were the *only* ones to have their hands on the actual *body* and might have seen things not apparent from the X-rays or photos we have. Also, at least 3 other persons with either medical, wound ballistics, or Forensic Pathology expertise have reviewed the evidence since the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA FPP's and agreed with the original nearer the EOP locations. (A potential flaw in the later panels is that they shared a number of significant professional associations and ties between members that might have made throwing HFB under the bus when there was doubt, a bit to easy to do.)

> >
> > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > level of the deceased."
>
> The troll loves to pretend there is no anomalous discrepancy between the conclusion and the examination. Literally *everyone* knows this. Even DVP knows it. And, I suspect, you know it too, which is why you are trying to subtly steer the debate AWAY from the BOH damage and TOWARDS the conclusion, an opinionated account which you KNOW is in complete contradiction with the scientific findings of the autopsy exam. But LNers will always favor opinion over science and eyewitnesses if it incriminates Oswald...and I would say "vice versa", but there's very little of the latter, so it's seldom done.
>

Read my comments Lurkers, and decide if I have ducked or avoided the issue. AFAIC, all I have done is draw reasonable conclusions as to what *best* describes the findings and makes them *much* more credible than "Boris" and his band of brothers delusions.

>
> >
> > And the other one (Wecht) is on record as admitting that the *available* medical evidence supports no other forensic conclusion.
>
> *You* aren't allowed to cite Wecht, but what I find even more interesting is you emphasized the word "available." Which is frankly what I would have done. But I would have done it to prove a point. You do it because you're too stupid to realize what you just did.
>

If you dispute my characterization of what Wecht said, I'll be happy to link to my support *again*. What you are too stupid to realize, is that Wecht is thereby admitting that he has nothing but his *beliefs* that a further analysis might have yielded different results. He dared imply nothing further or he would have lost all *professional* credibility. ...Which ought to tell you something about how scientifically reasonable the *general* concurrence of expert opinion that has followed the Autopsy is.

See how "Boris" dodged that folks? There's nothing false about the dilemma. What is the 5th option I am missing for him to pick? "Boris" should state it clearly, or admit he doesn't really want to answer this.

>But since you're so fond of a gif, why don't you link to it again and cite a single expert whose description of the wound matches it.
>
> >

They are autopsy photos, and were reviewed by *every* one of these professionals that has followed. Why don't *you* cite where *any* of them indicated that they thought the photos contradicted the entry or exit wound descriptions, other than in the case of the near EOP vs. Cowlick *entry* locations, or perhaps HFB's disputed comment about the *exit* extending "somewhat" into the occipit region? (Each already discussed above.)

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (Lurkers note this, and see what coagulation necrosis is indicative of:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24931861)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Leading to this:
> > > >
> > > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > > level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> > > > not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> > > > wounds"
> > >
> > > Not unanimously, but yes, I agree that is what they opined. Oh, and 17 or 18 doctors said this, did you say? Won’t be naming any of them, will you? Oh, well. Guess you should have read the article I linked.
> > >
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > 1. Humes, Boswell, Finck (original autopsists)
> > 2. Carnes, Fisher, Moritz, Morgan (Clark Panel)
> > 3. McMeeken, Spitz, Lindenburg, Hodges, Olivier (Rockefeller Commission)
> > 4. Baden, Coe, Davis, Wecht (see "available evidence" qualification), Loquvam, Petty, Rose, Spitz (again), Westin (HSCA FPP)
> > 5. Cummings - Reviewed the autopsy photos de novo for the 2013 Cold Case JFK specaial.
>
> And where did they agree all the damage was?
>

Already answered above. Tell me a like consensus of *experts* that contradict their basic agreement?

> >
> > But I stand corrected, it was actually 20 of 21 unanimous on the principal conclusions; Wecht disagreeing only that the available evidence might be insufficient to rule out other possibilities.
> >
> > > "If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem."
> > >
> >
> > You don't have 44 *unanimous* witnesses. And some of them have since admitted their error. Now why don't you find something that calculates the odds that a large number of non specialists in pathology/forensic pathology who have *not* conducted a thorough and comprehensive search of the wounds would be correct, whereas a *minimum* of 95% of 21 *experts in pathology* got it all wrong?
>
> Got what wrong, the BOH damage? That *is* what we are discussing, much as you pain to admit it. And once again I've caught you NOT reading something I've cited, or else you could tell us what the error rate is in determining entrance from exit.
>

Got the basic location (BOH vs. side/front) of the entry vs. exit wounds wrong? Tell me where you established that these experts did not overwhelmingly agree with the fact that the smaller *entry* defect was in the BOH, and that the larger *exit* defect was centered chiefly towards the side/frontal regions? But you can't because you *know* what they said, but you don't *like* it.

C'mon "Boris", writing a lot of words isn't helping your cause. You are struggling because you keep citing something you don't fundamentally believe in to begin with. There's no logical way to square that circle.

>
> >
> >
> > > READ things. It's GOOD for you.
> > >
> >
> > *Comprehend* the *meaning* of what you read. Then try to apply *solid* logic and reason for a change.
> >
> > > >
> > > > ..Well you can disagree with the statement about it being near the EOP, since even these experts have disagreed on that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Your task is to invent a lot of bullshit, then pass it off as fact without any scientific merit to back it up. Sorry, but that's Arlen Specter's territory, and he'd appreciate you staying out of his 'hood.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spoken by a 9/11 Truther! ...The speculative irony is sweet. :-)
> > >
> > > Ad hominem, Poisoning the Well, Changing the Subject, Avoiding the Issue, Red Herring...and some flat-out lying thrown in for good measure. All in one sentence. Not bad.
> > >
> >
> > ...Especially when it makes the point that
>
>
> And when you have to commit five logical fallacies to make that point, the only point you've made is that you're a liar. Wait...six logical fallacies. Forgot: Strawman.
>

Yet for all my supposed logical fallacies you cannot establish anything useful from the Autopsy Report. Indeed, all you have established is that you deeply distrust it, and the evidence that support is. So again you try to square a circle.

Let me acquaint you with the one logical fallacy and I am avoiding that makes however many other fallacies I supposedly commit irrelevant, and every erudite argument you think you make meaningless:

Conflicting Conditions
contradictio in adjecto

(also known as: a self-contradiction, self-refuting idea)

Description: When the argument is self-contradictory and cannot possibly be true.

How so? You insist that something in the AR conflicts with the LN contention that the entry wound was in the BOH and the exit towards the front/side, but then state or imply (in various ways) that the AR as a whole and the evidence that exists to support it cannot be trusted. But if it cannot be trusted, what sense does it make to hyper-focus on a detail since that very detail itself may be BS? (BTW, since you keep making the implication that the low damage proves there was significant BOH damage, yet the comment is directed towards the *exit* wound and uses the qualifier "somewhat", the implication itself is self-refuting at many levels.)

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is that relevant?
> > >
> > > Translation: John Mytton has no known relevant field of expertise in these areas, but promulgates a bunch of stuff BT Barnum likes the sound of, so goes with it. I produce statements from 24 medical experts and witness; BT Barnum produces some guy named "John."
> > >
> >
> > Translation. "Boris" cannot interact effectively with what the morphing of the pictures shows, so he attacks the source. ...The very thing he just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)
>
> The translation is I go with expert evidence, and you go with animation from a questionable source. A gif is not evidence. And "John" is not an expert. Nice try though.
>

Cite a *recognized expert* in photographic interpretation or experience in post mortem pathology examinations that has reviewed any of the autopsy photos or X-rays and found clear evidence of fakery, or that the AR was fundamentally flawed and inccorect.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.
> > >
> > > You mean those "grainy" images? Why do you figure they conduct autopsy reports? Bud will tell you. In the meantime, yes, we're all very impressed with your anonymous "John's" animation. But I'll go with the witnesses and the report. Thanks anyway.
> > >
> >
> > And now "Boris" resorts to an untruth, or at least a wildly wrong statement. The autopsy photos that Mytton morphed into a gif are far from "grainy" even if they are not available in HD and 3D color. He knows full well that it to the typical "blow ups" of assassination day pictures or over-reliance on some small detail of say the Zapruder film, and CT's constant reliance on the same that Bud was referring to.
>
> BT Barnum is once again forced to admit a LN talking point is cowardly and weak, though is incognizant of doing so.
>

Where Lurkers? Do *you* see such an admission? I sure don't,

> The problem with your little gifs is they're not evidence. And because you're so mired in your faith, you don't even seem to realize the BOH photo shows none of the damage of the other photo, and that's just presuming the legitimacy of the photos (you haven't proven they are legitimate, which you would have to do since you're citing them) as well as the legitimacy of your source.
>

You haven't shown in what way they are illegitimate. They *clearly* utilized two AR photos in each case in the public domain, and simply demonstrated that it is possible to morph the like portions of the image together and achieve a smooth rotation. What should be an impossibility if either image were faked.

All you have to do is buy glasses like these:

https://www.google.com/search?q=glasses+for+stereoscopic+3d&oq=glasses+for+ster&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.5658j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And look at the two images for yourself and you will get the same 3D effect, sans the rotation I know, I've done it at the behest of Martin Shakelford, and (sort of) seen what he thinks to be an anomaly. But as I told him, it looks pretty good to me, and several recognized experts did this for the HSCA and testified they were good.

> But this will be neither the first nor last time a LNer has been forced to believe two contradicting narratives simultaneously.
>

LOL! Lurkers. See my comments about "Boris" struggles above. :-)

> >
> > > >
> > > > > 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is not about Mytton.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't have brought him up then, should you?
> > >
> >
> > "Boris" thinks it better to link to an unsourced gif than to credit the source. ...Go figure.
>
> The source is some guy named "John." Got it. Very compelling citation. Better than, say, someone who was THERE who have the letters "MD" after their name.
>

I never said John Mytton was a recognized expert. I *did* say the two photos are as legit as any other version of the available AR photos in the public domain, and his efforts merely demonstrate that using the principles of stereoscopy, they are legitimate (unfaked), and therefore help support the conclusions those who *are* recognized professionals drew from reviewing them.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Interact with the *point* and how it supports the framework of what I have indicated about the extent of the original defect.
> > >
> > > It doesn't support it.
> > >
> >
> > How so?
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.
> > >
> > > Your cute animation does not show the occipital region, and your animation gifs are not even consistent with each other. Look again, so I don't have to spoonfeed the obvious to you, like I do everything else.
> > >
> >
> > Does "Boris" know where the occipital region is?
>
> I know exactly where it is. The one animation does not show it. The other is an animation of the BOH photo, which shows NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER, which is precisely the point that you're apparently too stupid to understand.
>

This imbecile has *never* comprehended what I have told him about that damage and how (if HFB were indeed correct about it) it might not be evident in the BOH photos since clearly the flap creating the great defect is being held probably (as Boswell many years later stated) by Boswell's hand, just as IIRC Jackie indicated she had used it to help cover the damage and hold what was left of his brains in before they arrived at Parkland. Indeed the other gif of the flap laid open indicates just how significant the extent of the exit damage was was viewed without being covered up.

>
> >
> > Does he not understand that once morph shows a very good view of almost he *complete* BOH and the other was to show the extent of the flap? Does either support his contention that the autopsy report is trying to describe a large blowout somewhere in the BOH?
>
>
> Maybe you could school me and identify where occiput is, and while you're at it the parietal, and where the absence of bone and scalp is in either?
>

To school "Boris" implies a capacity to *learn* which is *clearly* nowhere in evidence.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?
> > >
> > > Cool, I've seen "seemless" blending of animation proving Donald Trump and Richard Nixon are the same person. Now what do we do? I know...I'll consult some experts. You keep on with the gifs, champ!
> > >
> >
> > Well go ahead "Mr. Science" find a source that exposes the evil Mytton's fakery of these pictures.
>
> Strawman. I'm saying they're not evidence, because they cannot be deemed as reliable.
>

See above.

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > >
> > > Didn't. Read. A. Word.
>

Oops. Boris has been snipping again. Let's put back my reply:

"More like Clueless *couldn't* comprehend a word folks. :-) "

[BT George]

No Healy. That's *you* on crack again. Get off it, you might think better.

[BT George]

And yet beb hides behind the Killfilter. :-)

[healyd...@gmail.com]

in conclusion, we note your lone nut, .john cowardice, Georgie.

[BT George]

> in [de]lusion, we note your lone nut, .john cowardice, Georgie.
>

Now with the above correction in brackets substituted for Healy's original babblings, I fully agree with the revised comment. :-)

[BT George]

It's like this Donald. The key is exactly what was meant in the following by the word "corresponding"?:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a

corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of

the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
skull. "

The stated 15 X 6 measurement was clearly referring directly to the defect in the skin. But I have never taken the word "corresponding" to mean that the bone puncture matched the skin defect as to *exact* measure. Rather, I have always taken it to mean that it lined up with, and was *consistent* with being part of the same entry wound.

Why? Simple. Why on earth would one expect skin and bone to react 100% the same down to the mm in such a case? Indeed, the expectation I would have is that the bone defect would, if anything, be slightly larger than the skin wound---especially since (as I posted to you over at AAJFK the other day about the mechanism of the failure) the bone clearly made enough contact with the bullet to begin to strip off part of its lead casing.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

see how easy it is to *alter* things? And you .john disinformation specialists think you can't learn anything....

[BT George]

See how we *noted* what was altered? Your side could learn from that. :-)

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:05:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Take from the censored forum:
>
> >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
> >
> >
> >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
> >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
>
> The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
> an exit wound?

By being where the bullet exited.

>It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
> entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.

Who said a bullet exit can`t be smaller, quite symmetrical and look like an entry wound to doctors?

> The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
> DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
> of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
> support a shooter from the rear?

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE."

-Lt. Colonel Pierre A. FINCK, MC, USA
Chief, Military Environmental Pathology Division &
Chief, Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

> But, to actually answer the question, I rely on the actual Autopsy
> Report,

The findings of which were that Kennedy was struck twice from behind.

> and the description of the wounds from dozens of people... you
> rely on unsourced photos with no chain of custody.
>
> Watch, as Puddy & Chuckles refuse to address the points raised here.

Watch as you respond with hot air and ad hominem.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:05:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Take from the censored forum:
> >
> > >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
> > >
> > >
> > >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
> > >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
> >
> > The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
> > an exit wound?
>
> By being where the bullet exited.
>
> >It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
> > entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
>
> Who said a bullet exit can`t be smaller, quite symmetrical and look like an entry wound to doctors?
>
> > The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
> > DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
> > of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
> > support a shooter from the rear?
>
> "I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE."
>

Yep. And note that his wording does not necessarily imply the dimensions of the cratered portion also measured exactly 15 X 6 mm. It didn't have to, the alignment, general size, and beveling all testified that it was the skull entrance of the same bullet that made the wound in the scalp, thus "corresponding" to it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > Here's something I can state definitively. At least 17 of the 18 *qualified* professionals who have examined the body or the documentation of the autopsy have agreed with this statement:
> >
> > And where did they agree all the damage was?
> >
>
> They agreed the *entry* wound was

Notice what the troll just did here? I asked him: where did they agree the DAMAGE was? And he shifts the conversation to entry wounds. I'm not discussing entry wounds or exit wounds, because those are products of opinion. I'm discussing head wound damage in concurrence with what EVERYONE saw, because that is a product of FACT.

A keen observer will note the number of times this happens during the course of this farcical exchange. The troll wants to discuss "possible" and "maybe" and "could be" points of entry. Not the ACTUAL reported damage to the back of Kennedy's head. There is a reason for this. Keep that reason in mind during the duration of this discourse.

>
> in the BOH either towards the EOP (where very credible evidence supports it) or in the Cowlick area, where it appears to be on at least the external scalp in the BOH photos and is supported by some medical (though IMO less compelling) evidence.

That evidence being?

>
> They also all agreed (with the explained Wecht exception) that the *exit* wound was "a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal....regions".

Say it. Say "occipital", you coward. Don't replace it with ellipses. "Somewhat into the temporal AND OCCIPITAL regions." Scum. Imagine the balls, to omit something like that, and then gloat every time *I* snip every one of this imbecile's ad hominem remarks as if it was something important. Filth.

>
> As you well know the *only* thing the later panels did not mention was the comment about the *exit* wound also extending "somewhat" into the "occipital" region. This comment could be an outright error on HFB's part, but as I have explained, I think the meaning of that comment indicates that via the shattering of JFK's skull they believed there was radiating damage to even a portion of this lowermost region.
>
> I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were the *only* ones to have their hands on the actual *body* and might have seen things not apparent from the X-rays or photos we have. Also, at least 3 other persons with either medical, wound ballistics, or Forensic Pathology expertise have reviewed the evidence since the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA FPP's and agreed with the original nearer the EOP locations. (A potential flaw in the later panels is that they shared a number of significant professional associations and ties between members that might have made throwing HFB under the bus when there was doubt, a bit to easy to do.)
>
>
> > >
> > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > level of the deceased."
> >
> > The troll loves to pretend there is no anomalous discrepancy between the conclusion and the examination. Literally *everyone* knows this. Even DVP knows it. And, I suspect, you know it too, which is why you are trying to subtly steer the debate AWAY from the BOH damage and TOWARDS the conclusion, an opinionated account which you KNOW is in complete contradiction with the scientific findings of the autopsy exam. But LNers will always favor opinion over science and eyewitnesses if it incriminates Oswald...and I would say "vice versa", but there's very little of the latter, so it's seldom done.
> >
>
> Read my comments Lurkers, and decide if I have ducked or avoided the issue.

You have. As mentioned above, I asked about the DAMAGE to the back of Kennedy's head; you're trying to slither the conversation in the direction of points of entry. Remember what started this original transaction: "Where was Boswell's hand in the Z-film"?

>
> all I have done is draw reasonable conclusions as to what *best* describes the findings and makes them *much* more credible than "Boris" and his band of brothers delusions.

What best describes the findings are the findings, concurrent with what EVERYONE saw. Describe what they witnessed. Because if you don't, I can link to 30 or 40 witness statement which are all very much the same.

>
> >
> > >
> > > And the other one (Wecht) is on record as admitting that the *available* medical evidence supports no other forensic conclusion.
> >
> > *You* aren't allowed to cite Wecht, but what I find even more interesting is you emphasized the word "available." Which is frankly what I would have done. But I would have done it to prove a point. You do it because you're too stupid to realize what you just did.
> >
>
> If you dispute my characterization of what Wecht said, I'll be happy to link to my support *again*. What you are too stupid to realize, is that Wecht is thereby admitting that he has nothing but his *beliefs* that a further analysis might have yielded different results.

Moron, I *know* Wecht has nothing but his beliefs. They ALL had nothing but their beliefs in this regard.

>
> He dared imply nothing further or he would have lost all *professional* credibility. ...Which ought to tell you something about how scientifically reasonable the *general* concurrence of expert opinion that has followed the Autopsy is.

LOL! Is that what you believe that fear of having his credibility compromised tells you? Quite a begged question on your part. But blind faith is provably your thing.

The fifth option is that you still clearly don't know what occipital means, or where it's located. It's not merely located at the back of the head. It's located back and LOW, almost at the base of the neck. Maybe you should look at a diagram, and see why you have a problem. Hint: make sure the diagram doesn't label the parietal as "back" and the temporal as "side of head." I know how much faith you have in "John's" work, but do try and find something a little more scientific.

>
> >But since you're so fond of a gif, why don't you link to it again and cite a single expert whose description of the wound matches it.
> >

(He doesn't)

> > >
>
> They are autopsy photos, and were reviewed by *every* one of these professionals that has followed.

What do those photos show by way of damage? Or, rather, NOT show?

>
> Why don't *you* cite where *any* of them indicated that they thought the photos contradicted the entry or exit wound descriptions,

Since you can't properly assess an entry from an exit wound by looking at a black and white photo, their opinions on THAT matter are even less relevant than those whose opinions contradicted their examination, but who at the very least handled the body.

other than in the case of the near EOP vs. Cowlick *entry* locations, or perhaps HFB's disputed comment about the *exit* extending "somewhat" into the occipit region? (Each already discussed above.)



> > > > >

> > > > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > > > level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> > > > > not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> > > > > wounds"
> > > >
> > > > Not unanimously, but yes, I agree that is what they opined. Oh, and 17 or 18 doctors said this, did you say? Won’t be naming any of them, will you? Oh, well. Guess you should have read the article I linked.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Try this:
> > >
> > > 1. Humes, Boswell, Finck (original autopsists)
> > > 2. Carnes, Fisher, Moritz, Morgan (Clark Panel)
> > > 3. McMeeken, Spitz, Lindenburg, Hodges, Olivier (Rockefeller Commission)
> > > 4. Baden, Coe, Davis, Wecht (see "available evidence" qualification), Loquvam, Petty, Rose, Spitz (again), Westin (HSCA FPP)
> > > 5. Cummings - Reviewed the autopsy photos de novo for the 2013 Cold Case JFK specaial.
> >
> > And where did they agree all the damage was?
> >
>
> Already answered above.

(But wasn't)

>
> Tell me a like consensus of *experts* that contradict their basic agreement?

Since the very autopsy report contradicts itself, this should not be hard.

>
> > >
> > > But I stand corrected, it was actually 20 of 21 unanimous on the principal conclusions; Wecht disagreeing only that the available evidence might be insufficient to rule out other possibilities.
> > >
> > > > "If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem."
> > > >
> > >
> > > You don't have 44 *unanimous* witnesses. And some of them have since admitted their error. Now why don't you find something that calculates the odds that a large number of non specialists in pathology/forensic pathology who have *not* conducted a thorough and comprehensive search of the wounds would be correct, whereas a *minimum* of 95% of 21 *experts in pathology* got it all wrong?
> >
> > Got what wrong, the BOH damage? That *is* what we are discussing, much as you pain to admit it. And once again I've caught you NOT reading something I've cited, or else you could tell us what the error rate is in determining entrance from exit.
> >
>
> Got the basic location (BOH vs. side/front) of the entry vs. exit wounds wrong?

Yes. I know that answer's not as definitive as your "Could have" and "Maybe" and "It's possible". But I do what I can.

>
> Tell me where you established that these experts did not overwhelmingly agree with the fact that the smaller *entry* defect was in the BOH, and that the larger *exit* defect was centered chiefly towards the side/frontal regions? But you can't because you *know* what they said, but you don't *like* it.

Tell me on what they were basing their observation? But you can't, because you *know* once the BOH photo is deemed compromised, any *entry* defect is for nothing. Just as you *know* there is no chain of custody on that photo. Just as you *know* that photo just "appeared" much later. Just as you *know* that photo brazenly flat-out CONTRADICTS what ***every single*** medical eyewitness saw AND what the autopsy exam showed. Just as you *know* 16 different Parkland doctors were shown that BOH photo, and just as you *know* all 16 of them failed to recognized that photo as what they had seen in the emergency room. You *know* that photo is suspect, which is why rather than challenging its authenticity, you are forced to simply presume it, and hope no one will notice you are presuming it.

>
> Let me acquaint you with the one logical fallacy and I am avoiding that makes however many other fallacies I supposedly commit irrelevant, and every erudite argument you think you make meaningless:
>
> Conflicting Conditions
> contradictio in adjecto
>
> (also known as: a self-contradiction, self-refuting idea)
>
> Description: When the argument is self-contradictory and cannot possibly be true.

An example of a conflicting condition would be believing the BOH photo, and the autopsy report, and the witnesses.

>
> How so? You insist that something in the AR conflicts with the LN contention that the entry wound was in the BOH and the exit towards the front/side, but then state or imply (in various ways) that the AR as a whole and the evidence that exists to support it cannot be trusted.

No, you're just wearily lying again. And inserting a strawman. I didn't say the AR report can't be trusted. I said the conclusion CONFLICTS with the findings of the examination (which *everyone* knows except, apparently, you). And that when given the choice, I would side with the findings of the examination, because those findings are based on SCIENCE, whereas the conclusions are based on OPINION.

I can easily cite where I said that. Bet you can't cite for your lie, though.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is that relevant?
> > > >
> > > > Translation: John Mytton has no known relevant field of expertise in these areas, but promulgates a bunch of stuff BT Barnum likes the sound of, so goes with it. I produce statements from 24 medical experts and witness; BT Barnum produces some guy named "John."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Translation. "Boris" cannot interact effectively with what the morphing of the pictures shows, so he attacks the source. ...The very thing he just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)
> >
> > The translation is I go with expert evidence, and you go with animation from a questionable source. A gif is not evidence. And "John" is not an expert. Nice try though.
> >
>
> Cite a *recognized expert* in photographic interpretation or experience in post mortem pathology examinations that has reviewed any of the autopsy photos or X-rays and found clear evidence of fakery, or that the AR was fundamentally flawed and inccorect.

David Mantik for a start...but wait, troll...what's this about "recognized experts" now? We're going to all watch you attack the source in a moment, rather than interact effectively with what his conclusions show...the very thing you just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)

>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.
> > > >
> > > > You mean those "grainy" images? Why do you figure they conduct autopsy reports? Bud will tell you. In the meantime, yes, we're all very impressed with your anonymous "John's" animation. But I'll go with the witnesses and the report. Thanks anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And now "Boris" resorts to an untruth, or at least a wildly wrong statement. The autopsy photos that Mytton morphed into a gif are far from "grainy" even if they are not available in HD and 3D color. He knows full well that it to the typical "blow ups" of assassination day pictures or over-reliance on some small detail of say the Zapruder film, and CT's constant reliance on the same that Bud was referring to.
> >
> > BT Barnum is once again forced to admit a LN talking point is cowardly and weak, though is incognizant of doing so.
> >
>
> Where Lurkers? Do *you* see such an admission? I sure don't,

That's because you're either an imbecile, or you're bad at keeping tabs at the excuses used by your idiot friends, which I like to recycle liberally as a means of mocking you.

>
> > The problem with your little gifs is they're not evidence. And because you're so mired in your faith, you don't even seem to realize the BOH photo shows none of the damage of the other photo, and that's just presuming the legitimacy of the photos (you haven't proven they are legitimate, which you would have to do since you're citing them) as well as the legitimacy of your source.
> >
>
> You haven't shown in what way they are illegitimate.

Nor do I need to, and right now you are Shifting the Burden. They are supposed "evidence" that you cited, therefore the burden is yours to show their legitimacy. I don't need to defuse every silly smoke bomb you throw at me. For example, one way you could prove the authenticity of the BOH photo is to produce its chain of cus...oh, never mind.

> > > > >
> > > > > > 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not about Mytton.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't have brought him up then, should you?
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Boris" thinks it better to link to an unsourced gif than to credit the source. ...Go figure.
> >
> > The source is some guy named "John." Got it. Very compelling citation. Better than, say, someone who was THERE who have the letters "MD" after their name.
> >
>
> I never said John Mytton was a recognized expert.

Nor do you acknowledge the witnesses who were.

>
> I *did* say the two photos are as legit

No, as we've established above, you haven't shown this. Next.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.
> > > >
> > > > Your cute animation does not show the occipital region, and your animation gifs are not even consistent with each other. Look again, so I don't have to spoonfeed the obvious to you, like I do everything else.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does "Boris" know where the occipital region is?
> >
> > I know exactly where it is. The one animation does not show it. The other is an animation of the BOH photo, which shows NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER, which is precisely the point that you're apparently too stupid to understand.
> >
>
> This imbecile has *never* comprehended what I have told him about that damage

I do, I just don't care about your opinion.

>
> and how (if HFB were indeed correct about it) it might not be evident

"might"

"could"

"possible"

>
> in the BOH photos since clearly the flap creating the great defect is being held probably (as Boswell many years later stated) by Boswell's hand,

You mean the hand not present in the Z-film? Back to the original problem, I see. Remember this?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/JBVCZKxbAwAJ

Make some excuse for your friend.

> >
> >
> > Maybe you could school me and identify where occiput is, and while you're at it the parietal, and where the absence of bone and scalp is in either?

He doesn't. And can't.

> > > > >
> > > > > > It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?
> > > >
> > > > Cool, I've seen "seemless" blending of animation proving Donald Trump and Richard Nixon are the same person. Now what do we do? I know...I'll consult some experts. You keep on with the gifs, champ!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well go ahead "Mr. Science" find a source that exposes the evil Mytton's fakery of these pictures.
> >
> > Strawman. I'm saying they're not evidence, because they cannot be deemed as reliable.

The troll's got nothing.

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > > >
> > > > Didn't. Read. A. Word.
> >
>
> Oops. Boris has been snipping again. Let's put back my reply:
>
> "More like Clueless *couldn't* comprehend a word folks. :-) "

And still hasn't read a word of it. And won't read a word of it. But continues to argue with the article he didn't read. Because that's what educated people do.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> > >
>> > > Here's something I can state definitively. At least 17 of the 18 *qualified* professionals who have examined the body or the documentation of the autopsy have agreed with this statement:
>> >
>> > And where did they agree all the damage was?
>> >
>>
>> They agreed the *entry* wound was
>
> Notice what the troll just did here? I asked him: where did they
> agree the DAMAGE was? And he shifts the conversation to entry wounds.

This *one* fact shows the thoughtful person where the truth lies...
believers are simply TERRIFIED of the actual facts in this case.

That's why they refuse to answer simple questions regarding the
evidence in this case - and change the topic, as you noted.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Notice the trolls haven't used the word "consilience" lately? In particular, regarding this problem. Strange timing, that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:57:14 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

That was their 'word of the day'...

A word you'll *never* hear them utter is the actual EVIDENCE.

[Bud]

It confused you when we did. You still show no understanding of what it means in regards to this case.

> In particular, regarding this problem. Strange timing, that.

The consilience of the evidence is that Kennedy was struck twice from behind. Happy now?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The consilience of the evidence is that Kennedy was struck twice from behind. Happy now?

I'd be happier if you expounded on that empty claim by showing us what some of that evidence is.

But you won't.

Which only makes me happier. :-)

[Bud]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:02:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The consilience of the evidence is that Kennedy was struck twice from behind. Happy now?
>
> I'd be happier if you expounded on that empty claim

Can`t be empty. The finding of experts.

> by showing us what some of that evidence is.

What good would it do you, how many autopsies have you performed?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 04:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:02:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > The consilience of the evidence is that Kennedy was struck twice from behind. Happy now?
>>
>> I'd be happier if you expounded on that empty claim
>
> Can`t be empty. The finding of experts.

Still a coward, eh Puddy?

>> by showing us what some of that evidence is.
>
> What good would it do you, how many autopsies have you performed?

You don't believe the experts you refuse to cite.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:47:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 11:35:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 11:26:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> And unlike Chuck's peacock hyperbole about CE399, this time it really was "ALL THE EXPERTS" who saw a large cavity in the back of Kennedy's head.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now what?
>> >>
>> >> You lose.
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> If you're too stupid to see why this means you lose, then it isn't
>> worth the effort to explain it to you.
>
> You never have anything to offer other than hot air and empty declarations.


A provable lie. As proven by your refusal to address my Mark Lane
series and my own scenario I posted.


>> But I trust lurkers who are knowledgeable about this case see it.
>
> Isn`t this just a cowardly way to declare victory?


Nope. I have no intention of proving anything to you, or trying to
convince you of anything. I know you're a liar and a coward, and with
your help I prove it daily.

And when lurkers see where the cowardice & dishonesty always end up,
they can easily see the truth of the Warren Commission.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:21:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 12:43:14 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

>> >> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> > Take from the censored forum:
>> >> >
>> >> > >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
>> >> > >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
>> >> >
>> >> > The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be

>> >> > an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an

>> >> > entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
>> >> >
>> >>

>> >> beb knows that the tie and collar likely helped limit the
>> >> expansion of this wound, but he also knows (but will not admit) that
>> >> *one* Parkland doctor Gene Akin *did* describe the *wound* was
>> >> slightly ragged; and he also knows that some of them admitted that it
>> >> could haven been *either* type of wound. Dummy knows these things,
>> >> but likes his unsupported shots and gunmen better.
>>
>> Desperately seeking the outlier that will support his silly theory.
>
> Desperately ignoring information that goes against your ideas.


This, from the moron who's constantly whining that we cannot correctly
assess the evidence.

Notice that the believers are desperately clinging to a *SINGLE*
witness who asserted something contrary to what everyone else did.
(and those who were in a better position to judge, as well!)



>> Nor did the tie and collar do anything at all, the wound was ABOVE
>> both.
>
> Kennedy`s wound...
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE1_HI.JPG
>
> Kennedy at Love Field...
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184620/m1/1/med_res/


Anyone notice that Puddy is TERRIFIED of quoting anyone who *SAW* the
wound in relation to the tie & collar?

He **WANTS** you to speculate.


>> And *NO-ONE* asserted that it could be either until they were
>> intimidated to do so. This troll can't show a *SINGLE* doctor who said
>> anything other than an 'entry' wound on that first day.
>
> Ben can`t show that a single doctor made an investigation to
> determine the facts about that wound.


And despite that fact, Puddy wants to speculate CONTRARY to what we
*DO* know about that wound.

I can't even count how many times the prosectors were cited by
believers in reference to this wound - A WOUND THEY NEVER SAW OR KNEW
ABOUT DURING THE AUTOPSY.

>> >> > The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
>> >> > DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
>> >> > of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
>> >> > support a shooter from the rear?
>> >> >
>> >>

>> >> Let beb cite from the autopsy report where they called the BOH
>> >> damage referred to part of the entrance wound which the AR *did*
>> >> clearly describe.
>>
>>
>> "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the

>> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into

>> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>>
>> See how easy that was? I keep the Autopsy Report on my computer for
>> frequent troll slapping purposes.
>>
>> Watch as this troll ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to tell us what part of the
>> occipital isn't located on the BACK of JFK's head... (indeed, even a
>> large portion of the parital!)


Puddy ran from this too...



>> > Let BT Barnum refute what *every* *single* *medical* *expert*
>> > described seeing, and how even the autopsy report runs concurrent with
>> > it.
>>
>>
>> Indeed correct. The troll will run or evade...
>>
>>
>> >> Let beb refute that JFK's skull was a broken up mess, and might
>> >> well have contained damage to the BOH
>>
>>
>> Here it is again:
>> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the

>> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into

>> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>
> Why would they include this if it wen`t against their findings?


This **IS** their findings... How can it be contrary to itself?


>> There's no "might" involved.
>>
>>
>> >> in the form fractures and
>> >> resulting holes in the scalp that could have been hidden by the hair
>>
>> What was holding the hair?
>
> Boswell.


You intentionally misunderstand the question.

And therefore still haven't answered it.


>>There was a lack of bone and scalp.
>
> They were holding up the skin in an attempt to show the bullet hole in it.


Speculation can't evade the facts.



>> Can't
>> you read?
>>
>>
>> >> in the BOH photo, despite it's appearance that there was no other
>> >> damage back there.
>>
>>
>> A hole lacking both bone and scalp is certainly "damage."
>>
>>
>> >I deal with *did* rather than *could have*.
>>
>>
>> Indeed. This troll relies on an unsourced photo with no chain of
>> custody... I rely on the actual Autopsy Report and virtually EVERY
>> SINGLE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who saw and described that wound.
>
> Perhaps there is no conflict. Did any of the doctors look at the
> autopsy photos and say that isn`t what they saw?


Pretty much. Finck in particular. But you knew that.

And now you're quite desperately lying about it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:48:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:05:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Take from the censored forum:
>>
>> >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
>> >
>> >
>> >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
>> >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
>>
>> The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be
>> an exit wound?
>
> By being where the bullet exited.

Speculation.

And not based on the actual medical evidence.

>>It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an
>> entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
>
> Who said a bullet exit can`t be smaller, quite symmetrical and
> look like an entry wound to doctors?

Logical fallacy.

>> The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
>> DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
>> of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
>> support a shooter from the rear?
>
> "I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the
> right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm..
> Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater,
> the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone;
> on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this
> occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE."
>
> -Lt. Colonel Pierre A. FINCK, MC, USA
>Chief, Military Environmental Pathology Division &
>Chief, Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch
>Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

Does it surprise anyone at all that Puddy didn't even address the same
wound I spoke of?

Such AMAZING cowardice!

>> But, to actually answer the question, I rely on the actual Autopsy
>> Report,
>
> The findings of which were that Kennedy was struck twice from behind.

You've evaded everything...

Such cowardice!

>> and the description of the wounds from dozens of people... you
>> rely on unsourced photos with no chain of custody.
>>
>> Watch, as Puddy & Chuckles refuse to address the points raised here.
>
> Watch as you respond with hot air and ad hominem.

And indeed, as predicted, you ran from every point I made.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 3:34:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
>> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> >On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 12:43:14 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

>> >> >> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> > Take from the censored forum:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >How can the hole above JFK's right ear be an entrance wound? It's
>> >> >> > >obviously an exit wound proving that he was shot from above and behind.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The first question that comes to mind is how can the throat wound be

>> >> >> > an exit wound? It was smaller, quite symmetrical, and *LOOKED* like an

>> >> >> > entry wound to all the doctors - experienced doctors.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>

>> >> >> beb knows that the tie and collar likely helped limit the
>> >> >> expansion of this wound, but he also knows (but will not admit) that
>> >> >> *one* Parkland doctor Gene Akin *did* describe the *wound* was
>> >> >> slightly ragged; and he also knows that some of them admitted that it
>> >> >> could haven been *either* type of wound. Dummy knows these things,
>> >> >> but likes his unsupported shots and gunmen better.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Desperately seeking the outlier that will support his silly theory.
>> >>

>> >> Nor did the tie and collar do anything at all, the wound was ABOVE
>> >> both.
>> >>

>> >> And *NO-ONE* asserted that it could be either until they were
>> >> intimidated to do so. This troll can't show a *SINGLE* doctor who said
>> >> anything other than an 'entry' wound on that first day.
>> >>
>> >>

>> >> >> > The second question that comes to mind is how can the actual
>> >> >> > DESCRIPTION of JFK's head wounds, which puts a large hole in the BACK
>> >> >> > of his head "proving that he was shot from the front"... be used to
>> >> >> > support a shooter from the rear?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>

>> >> >> Let beb cite from the autopsy report where they called the BOH
>> >> >> damage referred to part of the entrance wound which the AR *did*
>> >> >> clearly describe.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> >> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
>> >> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>> >>
>> >> See how easy that was? I keep the Autopsy Report on my computer for
>> >> frequent troll slapping purposes.
>> >>
>> >> Watch as this troll ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to tell us what part of the
>> >> occipital isn't located on the BACK of JFK's head... (indeed, even a
>> >> large portion of the parital!)
>> >>
>> >>

>> >> > Let BT Barnum refute what *every* *single* *medical* *expert*
>> >> > described seeing, and how even the autopsy report runs concurrent with
>> >> > it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Indeed correct. The troll will run or evade...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Let beb refute that JFK's skull was a broken up mess, and might
>> >> >> well have contained damage to the BOH
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Here it is again:
>> >> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> >> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
>> >> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>> >>

>> >> There's no "might" involved.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> in the form fractures and
>> >> >> resulting holes in the scalp that could have been hidden by the hair
>> >>
>> >>

>> >> What was holding the hair? There was a lack of bone and scalp. Can't

>> >> you read?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> in the BOH photo, despite it's appearance that there was no other
>> >> >> damage back there.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A hole lacking both bone and scalp is certainly "damage."
>> >

>> >Is this where the Harper fragment came from??
>>
>>
>> That's what the evidence would show. The Harper fragment was labeled
>> as Occipital bone by the doctor who handled it.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm


Notice that Puddy merely cites a refence which SUPPORTS what I just
stated.

So Puddy **AGREES** that the Harper Fragment was judged to be
occipital bone by the doctor who HANDLED IT.

Good of you to agree with the truth, Puddy!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:11:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

If this were actually true, rather than a lie, you wouldn't be so
terrified to actually CITE this evidence.

Why is that, Puddy?

[BT George]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 5:12:13 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's something I can state definitively. At least 17 of the 18 *qualified* professionals who have examined the body or the documentation of the autopsy have agreed with this statement:
> > >
> > > And where did they agree all the damage was?
> > >
> >
> > They agreed the *entry* wound was
>
> Notice what the troll just did here? I asked him: where did they agree the DAMAGE was? And he shifts the conversation to entry wounds. I'm not discussing entry wounds or exit wounds, because those are products of opinion. I'm discussing head wound damage in concurrence with what EVERYONE saw, because that is a product of FACT.
>

As this imbecile---sounding more like beb himself with every post--shows he cannot read and comprehend what he reads at the same time---just like I said. No shift, I answer the *question* on what they agreed on. And if stupid would read the whole thing and *comprehend* he will see that I cover both wounds. The problem for dummy, is that he doesn't *like* what they agreed on, but he hopes you Lurkers's don't notice that.

> A keen observer will note the number of times this happens during the course of this farcical exchange. The troll wants to discuss "possible" and "maybe" and "could be" points of entry. Not the ACTUAL reported damage to the back of Kennedy's head. There is a reason for this. Keep that reason in mind during the duration of this discourse.
>

A keen observer will note "Boris'" deflection from the *points* I made. He wants to have it both ways with the autopsy evidence. Rejecting virtually all of it, while "cuddling" some language that does not show what he *desperately* wants you to *think* it shows.

>
>
> >
> > in the BOH either towards the EOP (where very credible evidence supports it) or in the Cowlick area, where it appears to be on at least the external scalp in the BOH photos and is supported by some medical (though IMO less compelling) evidence.
>
> That evidence being?
>

Why is Boris diverting from the issue like I *allegedly* did? I thought Stupid just said this was only about the exit wound. (Which dope does not understand does *nothing* to create a large blowout in the BOH like he *needs* in order to have any meaningful point.

But if he (or you) *really* wish(es) to know, the threads in that come up with the below searches will lead to learning all anyone would ever want to know about why some LN's favor the lower entry point. (NOTE: There will be overlap in these searches.)

Results for - BT George BOH, lower entry, cowlick - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/BT$20George$20BOH$2C$20lower$20entry$2C$20cowlick%7Csort:date

Results for - John Canal BOH, lower entry, cowlick -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/John$20Canal$20BOH$2C$20lower$20entry$2C$20cowlick%7Csort:date

Results for - Chad Zimmerman BOH, lower entry, cowlick -

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Chad$20Zimmerman$20BOH$2C$20lower$20entry$2C$20cowlick%7Csort:date

> >
> > They also all agreed (with the explained Wecht exception) that the *exit* wound was "a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal....regions".
>
> Say it. Say "occipital", you coward. Don't replace it with ellipses. "Somewhat into the temporal AND OCCIPITAL regions." Scum. Imagine the balls, to omit something like that, and then gloat every time *I* snip every one of this imbecile's ad hominem remarks as if it was something important. Filth.
>

I left it out on purpose folks. The question was not, "What was the full AR report statement?', it was "Where did they ***agree*** all the damage was?"

Do you see the difference Lurkers? I stated the part they all *agreed* upon. And of course, those with actual attention spans can see that I mention the disagreement *NEXT*.

...Imbecile needs to learn to read and *comprehend*.

>
> >
> > As you well know the *only* thing the later panels did not mention was the comment about the *exit* wound also extending "somewhat" into the "occipital" region. This comment could be an outright error on HFB's part, but as I have explained, I think the meaning of that comment indicates that via the shattering of JFK's skull they believed there was radiating damage to even a portion of this lowermost region.
> >
> > I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were the *only* ones to have their hands on the actual *body* and might have seen things not apparent from the X-rays or photos we have. Also, at least 3 other persons with either medical, wound ballistics, or Forensic Pathology expertise have reviewed the evidence since the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA FPP's and agreed with the original nearer the EOP locations. (A potential flaw in the later panels is that they shared a number of significant professional associations and ties between members that might have made throwing HFB under the bus when there was doubt, a bit to easy to do.)
> >

No comments Stupid? Is it because you didn't want to call attention to the fact your last whinings where senseless since I covered the item left off in ellipses? :-)

> >
> > > >
> > > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > > level of the deceased."
> > >
> > > The troll loves to pretend there is no anomalous discrepancy between the conclusion and the examination. Literally *everyone* knows this. Even DVP knows it. And, I suspect, you know it too, which is why you are trying to subtly steer the debate AWAY from the BOH damage and TOWARDS the conclusion, an opinionated account which you KNOW is in complete contradiction with the scientific findings of the autopsy exam. But LNers will always favor opinion over science and eyewitnesses if it incriminates Oswald...and I would say "vice versa", but there's very little of the latter, so it's seldom done.
> > >
> >
> > Read my comments Lurkers, and decide if I have ducked or avoided the issue.
>
> You have. As mentioned above, I asked about the DAMAGE to the back of Kennedy's head; you're trying to slither the conversation in the direction of points of entry. Remember what started this original transaction: "Where was Boswell's hand in the Z-film"?
>

It's real simple folks. Either "Boris" does not understand what he reads; or he is outright *lying*. See why I keep implying he is becoming (maybe even *is*) beb?

> >
> > all I have done is draw reasonable conclusions as to what *best* describes the findings and makes them *much* more credible than "Boris" and his band of brothers delusions.
>
> What best describes the findings are the findings, concurrent with what EVERYONE saw. Describe what they witnessed. Because if you don't, I can link to 30 or 40 witness statement which are all very much the same.
>

Go for it. Show that they are in full agreement on what they saw. Show none of them have ever changed their minds. Show why we should believe them when they were *not* conducting an autopsy of a cleaned up body (nor were qualified to do so) over the Autopsy and photos/X-Rays thereof that have been *thoroughly* reviewed by such trained individuals.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the other one (Wecht) is on record as admitting that the *available* medical evidence supports no other forensic conclusion.
> > >
> > > *You* aren't allowed to cite Wecht, but what I find even more interesting is you emphasized the word "available." Which is frankly what I would have done. But I would have done it to prove a point. You do it because you're too stupid to realize what you just did.
> > >
> >
> > If you dispute my characterization of what Wecht said, I'll be happy to link to my support *again*. What you are too stupid to realize, is that Wecht is thereby admitting that he has nothing but his *beliefs* that a further analysis might have yielded different results.
>
> Moron, I *know* Wecht has nothing but his beliefs. They ALL had nothing but their beliefs in this regard.
>

Good Imbecile. Them make sure *never* to quote Wecht in support of your nonsense.

> >
> > He dared imply nothing further or he would have lost all *professional* credibility. ...Which ought to tell you something about how scientifically reasonable the *general* concurrence of expert opinion that has followed the Autopsy is.
>
> LOL! Is that what you believe that fear of having his credibility compromised tells you? Quite a begged question on your part. But blind faith is provably your thing.
>

LOL! Lurkers, the rich *irony* of this statement ought to speak volumes to you if you have followed "Boris'" work.

Really folks? Is that how you read what I have said? Who appears to be the more locationally and logically challenged when it comes to this topic?

>
> >
> > >But since you're so fond of a gif, why don't you link to it again and cite a single expert whose description of the wound matches it.
> > >
>
> (He doesn't)
>

Because no one described the wound from this picture. Rather they describe it in a way generally consistent with what may be seen in this and various relevant AR pictures. Does "Mr. Science" think that all the FP's that have since reviewed these very photos could not see any "obvious" contradiction if there really was one? Or is it that he thinks *all* of them---even the pro-CT Wecht---were in on it?

If Stupid has found contradicting *experts* of *like* qualifications, let *him* cite *them*.

...And note that he really is dodging the questions. His "fifth" option is a falsehood. He doesn't dare admit which of the four *real* ones, he believes.

> > > >
> >
> > They are autopsy photos, and were reviewed by *every* one of these professionals that has followed.
>
> What do those photos show by way of damage? Or, rather, NOT show?
>

See above. And why would Imbecile, expect them to show the occipital damage from the *exit* wound, that *only* HFB ever noted? The FPP's looked at them, didn't see that, and didn't address the comment, and anyone who reads what the HSCA FPP said, knows they probably just assumed HFB got that wrong. (I have already covered my beliefs above on that very topic.)

You see, what Stupid *really* is driving at it that his answer *is* actually 4). He thinks the photos were faked, and likely believes the body was altered too. (Despite *qualified* individuals in Photograhy and Anthropology vouched for the photos authenticity.) So he Goof really does keep crowing about an isolated detail from a report and exercise he actually places *no* faith in. (...And he wonders why I say he is embroiled in the Fallacy of Self-Contradiction.)

> >
> > Why don't *you* cite where *any* of them indicated that they thought the photos contradicted the entry or exit wound descriptions,
>
> Since you can't properly assess an entry from an exit wound by looking at a black and white photo, their opinions on THAT matter are even less relevant than those whose opinions contradicted their examination, but who at the very least handled the body.
>

Folks, read the AR. What wound do *you* think they are attempting to describe when HFB mention the "somewhat" extending into the "occipital" region comment? Was it the entry or exit according to the totality of what they said? Exit you say? Good. You are *not* illiterate or slow of learning like "Boris"!

>
> other than in the case of the near EOP vs. Cowlick *entry* locations, or perhaps HFB's disputed comment about the *exit* extending "somewhat" into the occipit region? (Each already discussed above.)
>
>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> > > > > > died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> > > > > > velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> > > > > > projectiles were fired from a point **behind and somewhat above** the
> > > > > > level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> > > > > > not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> > > > > > wounds"
> > > > >
> > > > > Not unanimously, but yes, I agree that is what they opined. Oh, and 17 or 18 doctors said this, did you say? Won’t be naming any of them, will you? Oh, well. Guess you should have read the article I linked.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Try this:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Humes, Boswell, Finck (original autopsists)
> > > > 2. Carnes, Fisher, Moritz, Morgan (Clark Panel)
> > > > 3. McMeeken, Spitz, Lindenburg, Hodges, Olivier (Rockefeller Commission)
> > > > 4. Baden, Coe, Davis, Wecht (see "available evidence" qualification), Loquvam, Petty, Rose, Spitz (again), Westin (HSCA FPP)
> > > > 5. Cummings - Reviewed the autopsy photos de novo for the 2013 Cold Case JFK specaial.
> > >
> > > And where did they agree all the damage was?
> > >
> >
> > Already answered above.
>
> (But wasn't)
>

But was. Lack of comprehension is an issue he must deal with; not me.

> >
> > Tell me a like consensus of *experts* that contradict their basic agreement?
>
> Since the very autopsy report contradicts itself, this should not be hard.
>

See folks? He doesn't believe in it (despite all the recognized experts who have supported it) yet he keeps basing his arguments on a single comment that he like because he (erroneously) thinks it helps his beliefs out.

> >
> > > >
> > > > But I stand corrected, it was actually 20 of 21 unanimous on the principal conclusions; Wecht disagreeing only that the available evidence might be insufficient to rule out other possibilities.
> > > >
> > > > > "If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't have 44 *unanimous* witnesses. And some of them have since admitted their error. Now why don't you find something that calculates the odds that a large number of non specialists in pathology/forensic pathology who have *not* conducted a thorough and comprehensive search of the wounds would be correct, whereas a *minimum* of 95% of 21 *experts in pathology* got it all wrong?
> > >
> > > Got what wrong, the BOH damage? That *is* what we are discussing, much as you pain to admit it. And once again I've caught you NOT reading something I've cited, or else you could tell us what the error rate is in determining entrance from exit.
> > >
> >
> > Got the basic location (BOH vs. side/front) of the entry vs. exit wounds wrong?
>
> Yes. I know that answer's not as definitive as your "Could have" and "Maybe" and "It's possible". But I do what I can.
>

Definitive "yes's" and "no's" are very good---except when they are wrong, or are simply your speculation. "Boris" doesn't mind being wrong, or calling his opinions "facts", so naturally he thinks he is proving something here when he is not.

> >
> > Tell me where you established that these experts did not overwhelmingly agree with the fact that the smaller *entry* defect was in the BOH, and that the larger *exit* defect was centered chiefly towards the side/frontal regions? But you can't because you *know* what they said, but you don't *like* it.
>
> Tell me on what they were basing their observation? But you can't, because you *know* once the BOH photo is deemed compromised, any *entry* defect is for nothing. Just as you *know* there is no chain of custody on that photo. Just as you *know* that photo just "appeared" much later. Just as you *know* that photo brazenly flat-out CONTRADICTS what ***every single*** medical eyewitness saw AND what the autopsy exam showed. Just as you *know* 16 different Parkland doctors were shown that BOH photo, and just as you *know* all 16 of them failed to recognized that photo as what they had seen in the emergency room. You *know* that photo is suspect, which is why rather than challenging its authenticity, you are forced to simply presume it, and hope no one will notice you are presuming it.
>

See. "Mr. Science" is an alterationist---just like beb. And of course it contradicts the *WRONG* memories of those Parkland *DOCTORS* ***not*** autopisists! And this too, is just like beb. A fundamental misunderstanding of what is considered the more *persuasive* and *reliable* evidence in any *real* court of law.

Remember, here is your choice:

1) Some doctors who spent a few minutes with the bloody body of the POTUS in a vain effort to sustain or revive some semblance of life, failed to be able to accurately observe those wounds and/or remember them.

or

2) Three trained Pathologists (and one a specialist in *Military Round* gunshot wounds) who spent several hours performing an autopsy on the cleaned up body, and then 17 of the next 18 FPP's that eventually reviewed the autopsy photos and X-rays (all of which were *thoroughly* vetted by the HSCA's experts in Photography and Anthropology), all got it wrong, or were all corrupt.

Your answer, will say more about you, than it does the evidence at hand.

>
> >
> > Let me acquaint you with the one logical fallacy and I am avoiding that makes however many other fallacies I supposedly commit irrelevant, and every erudite argument you think you make meaningless:
> >
> > Conflicting Conditions
> > contradictio in adjecto
> >
> > (also known as: a self-contradiction, self-refuting idea)
> >
> > Description: When the argument is self-contradictory and cannot possibly be true.
>
> An example of a conflicting condition would be believing the BOH photo, and the autopsy report, and the witnesses.
>

There is no contradiction that "Boris" can *prove* existed between the AR and the BOH photos, beyond the two I have mentioned and dealt with already. Neither of which overturns the bottom line conclusions of that AR. The only contradiction would be if I also believed the discrepant (and even discrepant with each other) witness accounts, which *I* don't.

> >
> > How so? You insist that something in the AR conflicts with the LN contention that the entry wound was in the BOH and the exit towards the front/side, but then state or imply (in various ways) that the AR as a whole and the evidence that exists to support it cannot be trusted.
>
> No, you're just wearily lying again. And inserting a strawman. I didn't say the AR report can't be trusted. I said the conclusion CONFLICTS with the findings of the examination (which *everyone* knows except, apparently, you). And that when given the choice, I would side with the findings of the examination, because those findings are based on SCIENCE, whereas the conclusions are based on OPINION.
>

LOL! Let these two ill reconcilable statements sink in folks:

"I didn't say the AR report can't be trusted."

"I said the conclusion [of that very report] CONFLICTS with the findings of the examination."

IOW, I trust the reported details fully, but I am going to disagree with the bottom line *meaning* of those details as summarized in the *main* conclusions when I feel like it! Why? Because *I" am laymen supremo; whereas they are but trained professionals in this very area!

> I can easily cite where I said that. Bet you can't cite for your lie, though.
>

Difficult to cite what never occurred.

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is an animated autopsy photo gif by John Mytton to help you understand though, how far back the frontal flap already extended at the start of the autopsy. See near the bottom:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.) Who the hell is John Mytton?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is that relevant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation: John Mytton has no known relevant field of expertise in these areas, but promulgates a bunch of stuff BT Barnum likes the sound of, so goes with it. I produce statements from 24 medical experts and witness; BT Barnum produces some guy named "John."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Translation. "Boris" cannot interact effectively with what the morphing of the pictures shows, so he attacks the source. ...The very thing he just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)
> > >
> > > The translation is I go with expert evidence, and you go with animation from a questionable source. A gif is not evidence. And "John" is not an expert. Nice try though.
> > >
> >
> > Cite a *recognized expert* in photographic interpretation or experience in post mortem pathology examinations that has reviewed any of the autopsy photos or X-rays and found clear evidence of fakery, or that the AR was fundamentally flawed and inccorect.
>
> David Mantik for a start...but wait, troll...what's this about "recognized experts" now? We're going to all watch you attack the source in a moment, rather than interact effectively with what his conclusions show...the very thing you just chastised me for doing. ...Very sweet. :-)
>

Go ahead. State Mantik's actual *recognized* *professional* expertise. Show how is trumps that of the *numerous* other experts I have mentioned already.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2.) I love his "side view" diagram. I particularly like how the parietal bone is labelled "back." Very scientific.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interact with the point *I* was making about what the gif of the autopsy photos clearly *shows* regarding the extent of the frontal flap when JFK was laid on his back and no effort was made to hold or place the loose skin over the gash.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean those "grainy" images? Why do you figure they conduct autopsy reports? Bud will tell you. In the meantime, yes, we're all very impressed with your anonymous "John's" animation. But I'll go with the witnesses and the report. Thanks anyway.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And now "Boris" resorts to an untruth, or at least a wildly wrong statement. The autopsy photos that Mytton morphed into a gif are far from "grainy" even if they are not available in HD and 3D color. He knows full well that it to the typical "blow ups" of assassination day pictures or over-reliance on some small detail of say the Zapruder film, and CT's constant reliance on the same that Bud was referring to.
> > >
> > > BT Barnum is once again forced to admit a LN talking point is cowardly and weak, though is incognizant of doing so.
> > >
> >
> > Where Lurkers? Do *you* see such an admission? I sure don't,
>
> That's because you're either an imbecile, or you're bad at keeping tabs at the excuses used by your idiot friends, which I like to recycle liberally as a means of mocking you.
>

Yet only mocks himself---repeatedly.

> >
> > > The problem with your little gifs is they're not evidence. And because you're so mired in your faith, you don't even seem to realize the BOH photo shows none of the damage of the other photo, and that's just presuming the legitimacy of the photos (you haven't proven they are legitimate, which you would have to do since you're citing them) as well as the legitimacy of your source.
> > >
> >
> > You haven't shown in what way they are illegitimate.
>
> Nor do I need to, and right now you are Shifting the Burden. They are supposed "evidence" that you cited, therefore the burden is yours to show their legitimacy. I don't need to defuse every silly smoke bomb you throw at me. For example, one way you could prove the authenticity of the BOH photo is to produce its chain of cus...oh, never mind.
>

I don't have a burden to defend the AR pictures, because it's *already* been met. Do I need to link the the relevant HSCA Panel conclusions? "Boris" and his pals keep saying the gif's cannot be trusted, but since it simply merges two *vetted* photos and rotates the image to illustrate the resulting stereoscopic effect (Which if Stupid understood, he would realize *further* vets these very images.), the burden is indeed their's to show how Mytton did violence to the photos---that they don't believe in anyway---by merging and putting them in motion.

Do you see the self contradiction Lurkers in accusing Mytton of alteration, when they *already* think the photos have been altered and are thus meaningless?

>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3.) Speaking of parietal, I like the way John Mytton didn't once mention "parietal" or "occipital". As if none of that is relevant at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not about Mytton.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't have brought him up then, should you?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Boris" thinks it better to link to an unsourced gif than to credit the source. ...Go figure.
> > >
> > > The source is some guy named "John." Got it. Very compelling citation. Better than, say, someone who was THERE who have the letters "MD" after their name.
> > >
> >
> > I never said John Mytton was a recognized expert.
>
> Nor do you acknowledge the witnesses who were.
>

Because they are not. Being MD, does not make you an autopsy expert---particularly when that was nowhere near the task you undertook.

> >
> > I *did* say the two photos are as legit
>
> No, as we've established above, you haven't shown this. Next.
>

Actually the HSCA did, as noted above.

>

> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4.) As one other poster in that forum put it:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Too bad the little diagram you found doesn't have a label for "upper right rear quadrant".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too bad you want to ignore the animated pics, that *clearly* show things you frontal and "everything was faked" CT's don't want to be true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your cute animation does not show the occipital region, and your animation gifs are not even consistent with each other. Look again, so I don't have to spoonfeed the obvious to you, like I do everything else.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does "Boris" know where the occipital region is?
> > >
> > > I know exactly where it is. The one animation does not show it. The other is an animation of the BOH photo, which shows NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER, which is precisely the point that you're apparently too stupid to understand.
> > >
> >
> > This imbecile has *never* comprehended what I have told him about that damage
>
> I do, I just don't care about your opinion.
>

Which explains whey he never learns anything logical or meaningful.

> >
> > and how (if HFB were indeed correct about it) it might not be evident
>
> "might"
>
> "could"
>
> "possible"
>

See above about unwarranted certainties.

> >
> > in the BOH photos since clearly the flap creating the great defect is being held probably (as Boswell many years later stated) by Boswell's hand,
>
> You mean the hand not present in the Z-film? Back to the original problem, I see. Remember this?
>

See Dope doesn't comprehend that *AS SHOWN IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS I LINKED TO* and merged/animated by Mytton, the flap toward the SIDE/FRONT of JFK's head was so enormous that when JFK was laid back (as did *not* occur anywhere in the Z film) it could have *blocked* clear visibility of what HFB were trying to show---namely the *BOH ENTRANCE WOUND*. And *that* is why Boswell needed to hold it shut.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/JBVCZKxbAwAJ
>
> Make some excuse for your friend.
>

That he is right, and Imbecile doesn't understand what he sees or reads? I don't think I need to excuse that.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe you could school me and identify where occiput is, and while you're at it the parietal, and where the absence of bone and scalp is in either?
>
> He doesn't. And can't.
>

Because it's already been addressed by me as Stupid knows. He just doesn't *like* what he's been told.

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's also too bad that there is no hole in your contrived morph movie in the spot where Clint Hill is pointing either. Doh!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's nothing contrived about it. It's simply a seemless blending of slightly offset images to achieve the well know 3D stereoscopic effect. ...You do know about that stuff, don't you "Boris"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cool, I've seen "seemless" blending of animation proving Donald Trump and Richard Nixon are the same person. Now what do we do? I know...I'll consult some experts. You keep on with the gifs, champ!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well go ahead "Mr. Science" find a source that exposes the evil Mytton's fakery of these pictures.
> > >
> > > Strawman. I'm saying they're not evidence, because they cannot be deemed as reliable.
>
> The troll's got nothing.
>

Just logic and reason. ...Just logic and reason.

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doh indeed, Homer. Now your punishment for getting out of line and attempting to argue with me....more wound witnesses:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Didn't. Read. A. Word.
> > >
> >
> > Oops. Boris has been snipping again. Let's put back my reply:
> >
> > "More like Clueless *couldn't* comprehend a word folks. :-) "
>
> And still hasn't read a word of it. And won't read a word of it. But continues to argue with the article he didn't read. Because that's what educated people do.

I know one thing they shouldn't do. Make self-contradictory arguments. A "Boris" specialty!

[BT George]

I've never used it here. But it's a good one. These clowns utter failure to come up with a *comprehensive* alternate scenario shows they don't have that concept on their side.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 11:37:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 04:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:02:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The consilience of the evidence is that Kennedy was struck twice from behind. Happy now?
> >>
> >> I'd be happier if you expounded on that empty claim
> >
> > Can`t be empty. The finding of experts.
>
>
> Still a coward, eh Puddy?

Ad homimen doesn`t change facts.

> >> by showing us what some of that evidence is.
> >
> > What good would it do you, how many autopsies have you performed?
>
>
> You don't believe the experts you refuse to cite.

Whatever that means.

[donald willis]

My problem is that page 86 of the WR refers to "the elastic recoil of the skull". Surely, that's a mistake, or at least a simplification.

But I have never taken the word "corresponding" to mean that the bone puncture matched the skin defect as to *exact* measure. Rather, I have always taken it to mean that it lined up with, and was *consistent* with being part of the same entry wound.
>
> Why? Simple. Why on earth would one expect skin and bone to react 100% the same down to the mm in such a case? Indeed, the expectation I would have is that the bone defect would, if anything, be slightly larger than the skin wound

In other words, bullet entry wounds are measured strictly by what's seen in the skin, not by (in say the skull) what's seen in the bone? I would think the latter would be a better standard, since skin is (somewhat) elastic, changeable. But I'm not an me....

Collateral question: Do you mean to say that the "bone defect" in the entry wound in the skull was NEVER MEASURED? Color me aghast, if so.... If it was, say, 6mm, then the Carcano Western was out.... But I guess it was NEVER MEASURED, hence your supposition, above....

dcw

[Ben Holmes]

I'm amused that you continue to run with this nonsense... I'd have
just called the troll an ignorant idiot, and moved on.

You seem to want to actually convince him of where bullet holes are
measured. It seems an exercise in futility to me.

But perhaps you have more time on your hands... :)

[BT George]

I see what you are referring too. Per my research that comment only makes sense for the scalp. See this "Background on Gunshot Wounds" example:

https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/gunshot-wounds/


Hence, I think this was a transcript typo. (I.e., it should have read "scalp" not skull".) The reason I think this is a valid explanation will be seen in the comments I highlight below, where I quote the section you refer to in full:


"Page 86

The President's Head Wounds

The detailed autopsy of President Kennedy performed on the night of November 22 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital led the three examining pathologists to conclude that the smaller hole in the rear of the President's skull was the point of entry and that the large opening on the right side of his head was the wound of exit.148 The smaller hole on the back of the President's head measured one-fourth of an inch by five-eighths of an inch (6 by 15 millimeters).149 The dimensions of that wound were consistent with having been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet fired from behind and above which struck at a tangent or an angle causing a 15-millimeter cut. The **cut** reflected a **larger dimension of entry than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters**, since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a fractional distance until it entered.150 The **dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull** (Insert the word "scalp" here and tell me the sentence doesn't make perfect sense with the research I linked to.) which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.151

Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who has had extensive experience with bullet wounds, illustrated the characteristics which led to his conclusions about the head wound by a chart prepared by him. This chart, based on Colonel Finck's studies of more than 400 cases, depicted the effect of a perforating missile wound on the human skull.152 When a bullet **enters the skull (cranial vault)** at one point and exits at another, it causes a beveling or cratering effect where the diameter of the hole is smaller on the impact side than on the exit side. Based on his observations of that beveling effect on the President's skull, Colonel Finck testified: "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side of his skull ... he was shot from above and behind."153

Comdr. James J. Humes, senior pathologist and director of laboratories at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, who acted as chief autopsy surgeon, concurred in Colonel Finck's analysis. He compared the beveling or coning effect to that caused by a BB shot which strikes a pane of glass, causing a round or oval defect on the side of the glass where the missile strikes and a belled-out or coned-out surface on the opposite side of the glass.154 Referring to the bullet hole on the back of President Kennedy's head, Commander Humes testified: "The wound on the inner table, however, was larger and had what in the field of wound ballistics is described as a shelving or coning effect."155 After studying the other hole in the President's skull, Commander Humes stated: "... we concluded that the large defect to the upper right side of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit."156 Those characteristics led Commander Humes and Comdr. J. Thornton Boswell, chief of pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital, who assisted in the autopsy, to conclude that the bullet..."

Note also in the above, that *no* mention is made o the dimensions of the actual *skull* defect, other than to point out that the inner aspect of of it, was larger than the outer side of it, creating the characteristic "beveling/coning" that typifies entrance wounds.

>
> But I have never taken the word "corresponding" to mean that the bone puncture matched the skin defect as to *exact* measure. Rather, I have always taken it to mean that it lined up with, and was *consistent* with being part of the same entry wound.
> >
> > Why? Simple. Why on earth would one expect skin and bone to react 100% the same down to the mm in such a case? Indeed, the expectation I would have is that the bone defect would, if anything, be slightly larger than the skin wound
>
> In other words, bullet entry wounds are measured strictly by what's seen in the skin, not by (in say the skull) what's seen in the bone? I would think the latter would be a better standard, since skin is (somewhat) elastic, changeable. But I'm not an me....
>
> Collateral question: Do you mean to say that the "bone defect" in the entry wound in the skull was NEVER MEASURED? Color me aghast, if so.... If it was, say, 6mm, then the Carcano Western was out.... But I guess it was NEVER MEASURED, hence your supposition, above....
>
> dcw
>

I have no idea whether is was specifically measured, but I can say that *I* have not found any language in the AR or elsewhere that spells that measurement out (unless it appears somewhere in the HSCA FPP's comments). Look, there was a *lot* of testimony taken for the Warren Report and supporting volumes. What's more likely, the autopsists really believed such a seemingly common sense absurdity; or that there was a transcription error, without which, the comments read like a classic statement from the forensic literature?

...As for Holmes pile on comment trying to shame you out of legitimate discourse/debate with me on this, I would point out that such an attitude is a first class ticket to the futile nonsense seen here every day where lots of words get exchanged without learning the slightest new thing. That very attitude is what has made this venue the "fine" source of learning and discourse it has all too typically become.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 9:29:26 AM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 1:22:51 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 10:01:27 AM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 11:43:35 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 4:12:39 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

> > > > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 1:11:27 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes CUT

> > > The stated 15 X 6 measurement was clearly referring directly to the defect in the skin.
> >
> > My problem is that page 86 of the WR refers to "the elastic recoil of the skull". Surely, that's a mistake, or at least a simplification.
> >
>
> I see what you are referring too. Per my research that comment only makes sense for the scalp. See this "Background on Gunshot Wounds" example:
>
> https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/gunshot-wounds/
>
>
> Hence, I think this was a transcript typo. (I.e., it should have read "scalp" not skull".) The reason I think this is a valid explanation will be seen in the comments I highlight below, where I quote the section you refer to in full:
>
>
> "Page 86
>
> The President's Head Wounds
>
> The detailed autopsy of President Kennedy performed on the night of November 22 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital led the three examining pathologists to conclude that the smaller hole in the rear of the President's skull was the point of entry and that the large opening on the right side of his head was the wound of exit.148 The smaller hole on the back of the President's head measured one-fourth of an inch by five-eighths of an inch (6 by 15 millimeters).149 The dimensions of that wound were consistent with having been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet fired from behind and above which struck at a tangent or an angle causing a 15-millimeter cut. The **cut** reflected a **larger dimension of entry than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters**, since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a fractional distance until it entered.150 The **dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull** (Insert the word "scalp" here and tell me the sentence doesn't make perfect sense with the research I linked to.) which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.151
>
> Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who has had extensive experience with bullet wounds, illustrated the characteristics which led to his conclusions about the head wound by a chart prepared by him. This chart, based on Colonel Finck's studies of more than 400 cases, depicted the effect of a perforating missile wound on the human skull.152 When a bullet **enters the skull (cranial vault)** at one point and exits at another, it causes a beveling or cratering effect where the diameter of the hole is smaller on the impact side than on the exit side. Based on his observations of that beveling effect on the President's skull, Colonel Finck testified: "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side of his skull ... he was shot from above and behind."153
>
> Comdr. James J. Humes, senior pathologist and director of laboratories at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, who acted as chief autopsy surgeon, concurred in Colonel Finck's analysis. He compared the beveling or coning effect to that caused by a BB shot which strikes a pane of glass, causing a round or oval defect on the side of the glass where the missile strikes and a belled-out or coned-out surface on the opposite side of the glass.154 Referring to the bullet hole on the back of President Kennedy's head, Commander Humes testified: "The wound on the inner table, however, was larger and had what in the field of wound ballistics is described as a shelving or coning effect."155 After studying the other hole in the President's skull, Commander Humes stated: "... we concluded that the large defect to the upper right side of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit."156 Those characteristics led Commander Humes and Comdr. J. Thornton Boswell, chief of pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital, who assisted in the autopsy, to conclude that the bullet..."
>
> Note also in the above, that *no* mention is made o the dimensions of the actual *skull* defect, other than to point out that the inner aspect of of it, was larger than the outer side of it, creating the characteristic "beveling/coning" that typifies entrance wounds.
>
>
> >
> > But I have never taken the word "corresponding" to mean that the bone puncture matched the skin defect as to *exact* measure. Rather, I have always taken it to mean that it lined up with, and was *consistent* with being part of the same entry wound.
> > >
> > > Why? Simple. Why on earth would one expect skin and bone to react 100% the same down to the mm in such a case? Indeed, the expectation I would have is that the bone defect would, if anything, be slightly larger than the skin wound
> >
> > In other words, bullet entry wounds are measured strictly by what's seen in the skin, not by (in say the skull) what's seen in the bone? I would think the latter would be a better standard, since skin is (somewhat) elastic, changeable. But I'm not an me....
> >
> > Collateral question: Do you mean to say that the "bone defect" in the entry wound in the skull was NEVER MEASURED? Color me aghast, if so.... If it was, say, 6mm, then the Carcano Western was out.... But I guess it was NEVER MEASURED, hence your supposition, above....
> >
> > dcw
> >
>
> I have no idea whether is was specifically measured, but I can say that *I* have not found any language in the AR or elsewhere that spells that measurement out (unless it appears somewhere in the HSCA FPP's comments). Look, there was a *lot* of testimony taken for the Warren Report and supporting volumes. What's more likely, the autopsists really believed such a seemingly common sense absurdity; or that there was a transcription error, without which, the comments read like a classic statement from the forensic literature?

Yes, it seems to be someone's error. Surprised it wasn't caught before the WR went to print, but LBJ was in a hurry.... I still can't quite wrap my head around (ironic expression used intentionally) the lack of measurement for the skull-bone wound. I guess that's SOP. Easier just to measure the skin....

>
> ...As for Holmes pile on comment trying to shame you out of legitimate discourse/debate with me on this, I would point out that such an attitude is a first class ticket to the futile nonsense seen here every day where lots of words get exchanged without learning the slightest new thing. That very attitude is what has made this venue the "fine" source of learning and discourse it has all too typically become.

I see a similar phenomenon going on at aaj, where LNers like bigdog are attacking fellow LN claviger for "deserting" them with his espousal of the Hickey "accident". I admit the latter is something neither fish nor fowl, neither conspiracy nor Oswald Alone. I guess I'm just conspiracy-minded (ever since national political columnists warned everyone not to see "JFK", the movie--until then, I passively accepted the WR)--I go along with claviger, you'll note, to some extent, but I still see a conspiracy....

dcw

[BT George]

In fairness, I am attacking him too. (Well not really him, but his Menninger/Donahue beliefs.) But in a way don't you think he kind of of deserves in that he goes so hard after CT's on a daily basis, but clearly is a CT on the subject of the Hickey shot?

[donald willis]

Like you and me and Ben, he diligently follows lines of evidence, wherever they take you and me and Ben and him. But, yes, there is something rich about his divergent LN drift, almost indistinguishable from CTism.... I think he's so intent on attacking CT's like me (except when I join in on the Hickey thing) because he so badly wants to maintain his LN status: Look, see! I'm still an LN! I still eschew conspiracy!

dcw

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 11:37:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 04:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:02:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The consilience of the evidence is that Kennedy was struck twice from behind. Happy now?
>> >>
>> >> I'd be happier if you expounded on that empty claim
>> >
>> > Can`t be empty. The finding of experts.
>>
>> Still a coward, eh Puddy?
>
> Ad homimen doesn`t change facts.

The truth is simple.

You make empty claims about the "consilience of the evidence."

You refuse to cite this evidence.

That's a very simple fact.

And charging you with cowardice is therefore WARRENTED.